911 Pentagon

At the end of this video, Aldo Marquis asks Lloyde,

"And you were on the bridge, right?"

Lloyde was clearly astonished to be asked such a question. He resoundingly denied this.

Yet when CIT returned to interview Lloyde again for the second video, they falsely accused him of having changed his story in response to having (so they supposed) heard about their interviews with witnesses who saw the plane on the north side o f the Citgo.

Yet this was totally the fault of Aldo and Craig for not having recognised what Lloyde had told them from the beginning in 2006. He never claimed to have been on the bridge. He only ever described being to the north of the explosion.

Lloyde has been victimised, misrepresented, dismissed, falsely accused and patronized as likeable but senile, from every side.

Seems that I am the only person apart from his wife Shirley, who stands up for him unreservedly.
I am proud to be the one to do this, and to have found real-time photo and video evidence exonerating Lloyde from every false accusation.

Lloyde England truly was the Eye of the Storm, because his story proves the lie of 9/11 at the Pentagon.

If Lloyde's story is true, then the government story is a monstrous fabrication,.

This supports the North of Citgo flightpath researched by CIT, and exposes the disingenuous campaign by Chandler, Coste, Sarns, etc to deflect all eyes from the Pentagon as a source of evidence for the false flag operation.
Lloyde did his best to explain to Craig Ranke and Christopher Taylor, where he was, but they just did not want to hear it.

Indeed. Chandler complains that CIT may have been trying to "lead the witness" in the case of their interview with Lagasse. But this is a far more egregious example of the interview technique Chandler is complaining about. Here, Ranke is doing his very best to convince Lloyde that his car halted on the bridge -- Ranke is showing Lloyde a photograph, and arguing with him about the location.

In this case, Ranke is definitely trying to lead Lloyde England to a predetermined conclusion, but Lloyde defiantly won't stand for it. He is absolutely confident in his memory.

I guess I'm allowing at least some possibility that CIT's bias was important.

Mulling this over, Chandler's case for discarding CIT's work is very weak. In all the cases we've looked at (Lagasse, Hemphill, England) the witness testimony appears to be very robust. In my preferred Bayesian framework, the possibility that Chandler is correct that all these testimonies have been flipped, might be a few percent?

If Lloyde's story is true, then the government story is a monstrous fabrication,.

As a logical syllogism, I don't see how anyone could disagree. But conversely, if the government story about a 757 hitting the Pentagon is true, then it follows that Lloyde must have been mistaken about his location.

And furthermore, the eyewitness evidence, taken as a whole, points very strongly towards a government fraud. Backers of the 757 story will point out that many of those same eyewitnesses who support the North of Citgo flight path, are also adamant that they saw the plane hit the building. But if our theory is correct, that's an expected result of the "magic show" aspect.

I just watched Chapter 12 [of the Chandler / Coste video presentation], on the distribution of aircraft debris at the Pentagon. I hadn't seen some of the images and video footage before. At least superficially, this seems pretty convincing. There are images showing various fuselage parts, wing parts, landing gear, and engines. Not that all this couldn't be faked.

But it's easy to see how even a perfectly reasonable person (not in any way a troll or spook) would look at this and think it must be real.

There are articles at Truth and Shadows that take a frontal assault on this problem.



McKee might go so far as to say I've done a disservice to "no 757" advocates, by claiming that eyewitness testimony is the best evidence for the "no 757" theory. These articles strenuously argue that the physical evidence is indeed an elaborate fraud.
Indeed! A quote from an excellent article by the aerospace guy which sums up the desperate chandlerite campaign :

"Many of us see evidence of a multi-threaded disinformation campaign waged for the purpose of muddying the waters about the Pentagon in order to create as much confusion as possible. (And many suspect the large-plane-impact hypothesis at the Pentagon is a part of this.) This is an old CIA tactic. For this reason, we should be hesitant to accept any information from any eyewitness.

"Disinformation campaigns, like the one at the Pentagon, have telltale characteristics. Most have at their core one or more absurdities; this is how you know it is a disinformation campaign. They try to use a trusted source, so the public will believe the false information. They use multiple sources and repetition to bombard the public from all directions. Sometimes they insert nuggets of truth to gain credibility. The people delivering the information seem to be too smart to believe what they are telling you. They will never renounce their story and will use the technique of ridicule against anyone who disagrees with them. Trying to argue with these people is a waste of time."
False arguments should not be used to support the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon theme.

Thus using a perversion of Lloyde England's testimony has done great harm to progress on finding the truth.

Also Massimo Mazzucco made an error in claiming that the two Gatecams were exactly synchronised except for a single frame.
Comparison of all the frames, which run for almost 3 and almost 4 minutes respectively, shows that there was a substantial difference between their exposures.

I have no doubt that both footages were doctored during the years they were in the viselike grip of the FBI. How hard could it have been to insert a tiny blur into one frame of each video?
The fact remains that nobody saw the plane flying on this trajectory, including the witnesses who were on top of the bridge; and absolutely nobody reported seeing the dense smoke cloud trailing the phantom plane, which cast no shadow on the grass, although the fireball did.

Yet McKee and Ruff used this false claim as one of their proofs in their debate against Coste.

"Faked government video: In September 11: The New Pearl Harbor we see video frames from two Pentagon cameras that were synchronized using a “multiplexer” system. About 100 frames were common to both sets and matched each other perfectly as confirmed by comparing the shape of the smoke cloud. http://luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167 All except one. Just one of these 100 frames does not match, and that is “frame 23,” the very one that allegedly shows a 757 crossing the Pentagon lawn. There is no doubt that frame 23 was doctored either in one set of frames or both."
False arguments should not be used to support the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon theme.

I support that standard, that false arguments should never be used for any purpose. But there's a big gray area of arguments that might be true, or might not.

For example, the above-linked article by aerospace engineer John O'Malley says: "When you look at an aircraft crash site you will usually see the engines and the tail section. ... If a 757 really did fly into the Pentagon, the pictures would show the remnants of two large engines with corresponding holes in the building and evidence of damage from the large tail section."

I suspect that the Chandler-Coste group would reply that the airplane at the Pentagon was flying far faster than any typical crash, because the pilots were intentionally going as fast as they possibly could, with engines blasting. So that's why the tail section didn't survive. If you look closely at the photos of the Pentagon facade, you can definitely see some damage where the tail should have impacted. Or conversely, they might argue that the tail folded itself up somehow, and disappeared into the building through the hole in which the fuselage entered. As to the engines, Chandler and Coste say they did get into the building, where they were photographed.

My reply: if indeed the tail struck the building and was shredded, the damage to the facade looks very minimal for such a cataclysmic event. And if the engines passed through the facade, again you can't see any holes that appear large enough. There are alleged photos of the engines, but no context is shown and those photos could be from anywhere.

Furthermore, many pilots have stated that the plane couldn't possibly have gotten so close to the ground at high speed, because of ground effect. I've just watched the Chandler-Coste video on ground effect (Chapter 15) and in my opinion they've completely missed the point regarding those pilots' argument.

Chandler and Coste correctly state that ground effect increases lift, reduces drag and increases speed. But it's precisely the increased lift that might make it impossible to get close to the ground. Every beginning pilot experiences ground effect on their first attempt at landing the plane. As you approach the runway, the plane starts to feel buoyant. In order to continue descending through ground effect, the usual procedure is to lift the nose of the plane (and/or lower the flaps on the wing) and bleed off airspeed through increased drag while holding the plane inches above the runway. Eventually the plane loses enough speed that it stalls and drops the last few inches out of the sky, for a perfect landing.

When I was taking flying lessons, I don't recall ever experimenting with just holding the nose down and blazing into the runway at top speed! It would've felt nuts! I can still hear my flight instructor yelling at me for far less dangerous actions. But much more experienced pilots than I am, say it simply can't be done. As you try to get closer to the ground, the lift keeps increasing and you can't overcome it by holding the yoke forward.

So in my opinion John O'Malley's observation is correct. If there really was a 757, there should be a big tail section outside, two big holes in the Pentagon where the engines went in, and serious damage where they scratched up the lawn. And the engines should have been found more or less intact inside the building, and they should be on display in a museum now.

But is either side demonstrably wrong here? To really know how a 757 behaves when you fly it a few feet off the ground at top speed, somebody would have to try it. The risk of destroying the plane would be huge, so this is a high budget experiment. Same problem with the "expected" amount of damage to the face of the Pentagon from the tail section, and the "expected" appearance of the engine punch-through holes.

Also Massimo Mazzucco made an error in claiming that the two Gatecams were exactly synchronised except for a single frame.
Comparison of all the frames, which run for almost 3 and almost 4 minutes respectively, shows that there was a substantial difference between their exposures.

I watched that section of the Mazzucco video and I don't see the error. I agreed with Mazzucco, that there was a section of overlapping frames showing identical smoke cloud shapes, indicating that the cameras were synchronized during those frames. If the exposures were different between the cameras, it doesn't change the fact that they were synchronized. And Mazzucco's conclusion seemed unavoidably correct to me, that frame 23 had been edited in one or both images.

The first set of security video images (five frames from the first camera) were released on March 7, 2002. Rick and I looked at them and were flabbergasted, because the video shows a white spiral exhaust trail. This is characteristic of a missile, not a commercial jet. Also, the blast appears to be caused by shaped charges, not a kerosene fire. So it seemed to us that the Pentagon, by releasing this video, was confirming the view that the Pentagon damage was caused by a missile and/or explosives, and not by any 757.

This is the first I've heard, of the release of the 2nd security camera video. It only deepens the impression that some sort of image manipulation is involved.

"Many of us see evidence of a multi-threaded disinformation campaign waged for the purpose of muddying the waters about the Pentagon in order to create as much confusion as possible.

But the Chandler-Coste group says the same thing about us!

And isn't it possible we're the ones who have been deceived by a sophisticated disinformation campaign? What if multiple eyewitnesses were placed ahead of time, saying that they didn't see any airplane, but instead they saw a small missile? What if the Pentagon cleverly released five frames of a security video, doctored to show that same missile? What if CIT was sent by the CIA to coach all their interviewees about the need to tell lies about the North-of-Citgo flight path, so that they would be sufficiently emphatic on-camera? What if the CIA cleverly placed fake-looking debris like the fuselage remnant in the famous Mark Faram photo? What if they kept most of the security camera videos secret to confuse conspiracy theorists?

It's a hall of mirrors out there. There's a lot to be said for James Corbett's position. Which is, that he doesn't know what hit the Pentagon. No matter how hard his fans badger him to take a position.
Last edited:
Jerry, thanks for your personal recollections of experiencing ground effect! Perhaps you should share them with David Chandler.

As for that piece of apparently pristine, unsinged AA fuselage that was photographed on the lawn. Faram arrived there about 15 minutes after the explosion. This has led people to suggest that the small section of crumpled fuselage, conveniently identified with a letter from an American Airlines logo, was either dropped from the C-130 plane, or deposited on the lawn by the team of FBI photographed later with pieces of metal in their hands.

I believe there is no doubt that this piece of shiny aluminium was ejected during the explosion, and is probably the white object arcing through the air in that direction from the Gatecam video

That does not prove it was ever associated with airframe N644AA of course.

I have been unable to post images here from my Google photo collection, only from my Flickr account.
But the frames at 00:27 and 00:28 show a sizeable light coloured piece of debris, after the explosion at 00:24.
Perhaps you should share them with David Chandler.

Problem is, I can't really claim to know anything for sure. I was never crazy enough to point the nose down into ground effect at full speed, so I'm only guessing about what would happen. And besides, I never flew anything bigger than a Cessna 172.

I'm reasonably well satisfied that Chandler is presenting his research & opinions in good faith. I believe the reason he works so hard on this, is because of a genuine concern that his work on the WTC towers and Building 7 will be tarred by association with Pentagon "no 757" theories.

The irony is, I'm not so sure that the 911 WTC demolition theories really have any more mainstream credibility than Pentagon conspiracy theories. Both are more or less equally objects of ridicule as far as any "normie" is concerned. And from the purely scientific / engineering perspective, I don't see that demolition at the WTC is the "slam dunk" winning argument that Chandler thinks it is. It's certainly not as simple as just demonstrating near-free-fall collapse velocity. There's more about this at




And I don't want to put a lot of energy into debating with the "911 Truth" contingent that's focused on "WTC Demolition Truth", because I basically agree that the towers must have been destroyed with explosives. But it wouldn't surprise me to eventually see a sect of the "911 Truth Movement" that's dedicated to proving "scientifically" that the towers collapsed because of aircraft impact damage, fire, and gravity. And that the'll want to drive all the demolition advocates (like Chandler) out of the "Movement" and concentrate on just proving Saudi complicity.
Of course Hani hanjour never flew anything bigger than a Cessna either!

Chandler seems to have vanished, and Sarns has told me he needs a few days off. Falkner has been asked by Sarns to stop commenting while he is talking to me as he thinks it is taking my concentration off his questions. It's nice to have some respite from the fray.
It's nice to have some respite from the fray.

Are they really giving you a break? That thread has been going for two weeks and it's got 306 total replies! All in those miserable little Facebook comment boxes. And Simon Falkner is back.

I see they're raising some of the same objections as I did, that the clips from the hand-held videos don't really have enough resolution to conclusively identify the vehicles. Also they're questioning whether there was enough time for all the events that allegedly transpired, including loading the taxi onto the trailer and then moving it and unloading it.

In the discussion at McKee's Truth and Shadows site, the same issues came up, but I'm not sure anyone but me even looked at your video evidence. McKee finally got fed up and blocked you, when you made the claim that Lloyde denied that pole #1 hit the cab. McKee said that Lloyde was talking about the location, not the pole. It seems to me that McKee was in the wrong. I haven't re-watched the video in question, but I think it's likely there was some ambiguity. There's no such ambiguity in Lloyde's sketches, which clearly show a much shorter pole than pole #1.
Yes, Lloyde was very specific about the length of the pole in his cab.
It is true that in answer to Craig Ranke's question about the length of a whole pole, Lloyde stated that they must be about 30 or 40 feet, which could be confirmed by measuring one.
Lloyde had been about to answer Craig's original question, re the length of the pole in his cab, when Craig typically interrupted him and said,
"No, the pole, the WHOLE POLE."

A reasonable person can see the difference, but the two Craigs cannot. They both insist that this proves Lloyde was confirming that the lunker lightpole #1 was the culprit.

McKee goes so far as to claim that Lloyde's sketch of the pole inside the cab "obviously shows the pole extended further than the front of the hood" and claims this as proof that Lloyde meant it continued for another 25 feet beyond the bumper.

To torture Lloyde's verbal description of the length of the pole, his scale drawing, his two very explicit physical demonstrations in the two CIT videos, plus his adamant denial that lightpole # 1 was inside his cab -
- "That's what THEY say. THAT'S NOT TRUE" -
demonstrates more than misunderstanding and obstinacy, I feel.
This suggests an agenda.
Hello Ruby,

... more than misunderstanding and obstinacy, I feel.
This suggests an agenda.

As a student of human nature, I feel it's hard to overestimate the effects of misunderstanding and obstinacy... especially when there's an agenda involved!

And, McKee has explicitly declared that he has an agenda. See his article "Why I choose to stand up to the most persistent threat to 9/11 Truth. Namely, his agenda is that he is determined to defend the "no 757" narrative against what is, in his view, "a persistent and single-minded disinformation campaign that has been going on for more than a dozen years", being pushed by individuals who may be "thinly disguised official story supporters and therefore not truthers at all." He says the most prominent and suspicious members of this "propaganda team" are David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Frank Legge (now deceased), Ken Jenkins, John Wyndham, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Warren Stutt, Chris Sarns, Wayne Coste, Dwain Deets, and Kevin Ryan. The group is accused of working together, publishing together, and applying "relentless pressure" against other "Truthers" who continue to deny that a 757 struck the Pentagon.

Furthermore, McKee lauds CIT's work as a major contribution to the quest for truth about the Pentagon. And he complains about what he sees as illegitimate criticism against CIT by the "propaganda team":

These people seemed to be reading from a script as they launched deceptive and unfair attacks. They moaned about CIT being so “mean” to an elderly cab driver (Lloyde England) when all that CIT founders Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke did was ask England direct questions and point out when his answers contradicted his past statements or other evidence. The impossibility of the England story was obvious to me right away. In fact, it’s a huge smoking gun (I plan to address England in an article very soon). I couldn’t figure out how other truthers could hear about it and get angry not at the story itself but at the suggestion that it isn’t entirely true.

A key element of McKee and CIT's case against the 757 impact, is the idea that the light pole damage was faked. The argument is that according to the official story, Light Pole 1 (about 40 feet long) was struck by the plane and flew directly into Lloyde's cab, where it came to rest until Lloyde and a passer-by removed it and sat it down on the road. This is obviously ridiculous.

The "propaganda team" attempts to salvage Lloyde's story by claiming it was never Pole 1 in the plane, but rather it was a smaller piece of a pole. If that's the case, then the damage to Lloyde's taxi is credible. The only problem remaining is Lloyde's confusion about his location, which must have been on the overpass bridge.

So to get to my point: McKee sees you as a threat to his "agenda", Ruby, because you're contradicting his (and CIT's) narrative that Lloyde is an obvious liar. According to McKee, Lloyde insisted that the 40-foot-long Pole 1 was the object that struck his cab. In his writeup "Staging the scene: Lloyde England's tall Pentagon tale, Part 1 of 2", McKee gives a couple of sources indicating that Lloyde was crystal clear about this. To quote:

First, in an NBC interview shown in The First Known Accomplice?, England says: “When [the plane] hit the pole it knocked the light part off. Nothing came through the car but the pole itself.”5
In an audio pre-interview for the same CIT video, England is asked by Pickering, “So which piece did you take out of the window?”6
England: “The long piece. The part that was [unintelligible] off the, off the ground.”
Pickering: So it’s the long piece?
England: Yeah, the long piece. See it’s the long piece. See the end on it?
Ranke (to someone in the room): Show him the end.
England: Yeah, this was the piece that was in the ground.
Then, in their 2008 interview, Ranke asks about the length of the pole he is talking about:
Ranke: So, you’re saying, how long do you think the pole was? Approximately?
England: It was sticking out, way over…
Ranke: No, I mean the whole pole.
England: I’d say it was about 30, 40 foot long. … The base of it was in concrete.
Marquis: And to clarify, it was the long piece of the base of the pole.
England: Yes, the long piece that was sticking out across the hood.
... (Footnotes)...
5. NBC interview: starts five minutes into The First Known Accomplice?
6. Same video, starting at 5:48.
That sounds pretty definitive, doesn't it? You have to work pretty hard, to parse that as saying that only a small piece of the entire pole was in the car.

From McKee's point of view, Ruby, you are the one who is being stubborn and obstinate. Your version of the story gives key support to the "propaganda team" by claiming that England's cab might actually have been hit by a short piece of a light pole.

But the fact is, you and McKee both have some evidence to support your views. As we mentioned above, Lloyde's drawing is possibly the clearest indication of his perception of the length of the pole in his car.
Yep, I'm obstinate as a terrier! Especially when I have something worth being obstinate about!

In Australia, we barely heard about the Pentagon or Shanksville. I know this is incomprehensible to Americans, but they were non-events to us.
I only started looking at the WTC a few years ago.

From there, YouTube linked me to CIT videos about the Pentagon and I became very interested. I could see the empirical logic in what they showed about the Northside flightpath.

If people saw the plane fly over HERE, then it could not possibly have been over THERE nor done THAT.

I watched their videos several times. I became a confirmed CIT fan.

But I could see where they had made huge mistakes with Lloyde's story. They just did not "get it".

What Lloyde was saying made perfect sense to me. Before that time I had been travelling to the USA where most of my friends were black. No other way to put it, but they are different from me. Their thought processes and verbal expression are different. But I got to understand them very well indeed.

So when Lloyde said something, it came across to me as meaning something entirely different from how Aldo and Craig interpreted it.

You have met Mark T. Schark on Facebook. He grew up within 30 minutes of Lloyde's house and many of his friends were like Lloyde. He also "gets" Lloyde. He says Californians simply would not understand him so well. Mark only began studying 9/11 less than a year ago and responded to my posts on International Skeptics last year. He said at first he thought I was crazy, but he kept looking into it, and changed his mind, because my research is consistent, thorough and keeps turning up new evidence that supports the things Lloyde really did say.

Lloyde was the first person CIT ever interviewed. But they already had a long history of debating his story on the internet. Their minds were already made up before they met him, due to the high profile story and the glossy photos, and the sheer impossibility of that 30 foot lightpole spearing the cab.

But Lloyde never said THAT pole hit the cab.
In fact, he flatly denied it.

You may recall I tried to make this point in Truth and Shadows two years ago, but it was very difficult to get the idea across as Craig McKee kept censoring my posts, far more than you knew, and Adam Ruff savagely attacked me.

Effectively, they treated me just the same way they accuse the Chandlerites of treating them.

Back then, you did back me up to McKee when I posted better transcriptions of what Lloyde said, than McKee did. I spent much time listening carefully, slowing down the videos so I caught all the words. McKee missed out so much in his versions of Lloyde's statements, and therein lies his error.

Here is Lloyde denying that the 30 foot lightpole hit the cab. The physical characteristics do not fit.

Here, Craig Ranke shows Lloyde one of the photos of his cab next to the lightpole and tells him that this is the one which hit his cab, but Lloyde adamantly denies that.

Craig got really mad at Lloyde and accused him of changing his story, but that is not so.

Lloyde always told the same story, from his point of view. He knew where he was, he knew what happened; and to him, the 12 foot pole in his cab was long, but he did not realise that to everybody else, it was the 30 foot long pole that was so unbelievable.

But here, he denies Craig's statement.

In 2006, Russell Pickering, Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke first went to Arlington and interviewed Lloyde.

Eventually, thus would become CIT's first video on Lloyde, "THE FIRST KNOWN ACCOMPLICE".

Incredulously, Russell asks Lloyde about the position of the lightpole in the cab windshield, making expansive arm gestures to estimate its size.

Lloyde explains that No, it wasn't up there like that. It was about waist height and it came out to the front of the hood.

But they did not listen to Lloyde.

Later, Craig Ranke and Christopher Taylor went to interview Lloyde again, for the second video "THE EYE OF THE STORM".

CIT accused Lloyde of "changing his story" after having heard about their conclusions in the first north of Citgo witness videos.

But that is wrong.
Lloyde was perfectly consistent.

Again he physically demonstrated that the pole extended to the front of the hood, at about waist height, and was only about 4 inches in diameter, as it fitted through that small hole at the base of the windshield.

Craig Ranke was privileged to be given the opportunity to visit the 9/11 cab, and to get all this information first-hand.

But he still refused to accept what Lloyde told him.

Back then, you did back me up to McKee when I posted better transcriptions of what Lloyde said, than McKee did.

Yes, I was trying to back you up, in that discussion on McKee's site. And I agree that your transcriptions are better than McKee's.

And I still think your narrative about Lloyde's taxicab is the best new idea in 911 Pentagon research since CIT's work ~2007. You've come up with a lot of evidence in favor, and I don't think anyone else has successfully debunked it.

But that's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm objecting to, is the insinuation that because Chandler or McKee haven't come around to agreeing with your scenario yet, it proves that they are disinformation operatives.

Everybody does this. Chandler thinks that Fetzer and McKee are promoting a ridiculous fraud, and with no other objective than to discredit the entire 911 truth movement. McKee thinks that Chandler and his friends are a "propaganda team" trying to divide and conquer the movement. You say that McKee has "an agenda", and I don't think you mean that his agenda is just truth-telling.

But I don't agree that anyone is being dishonest, or disingenuous, much less getting their paychecks from Mossad. I still say that the real problem is that the evidence is not as clearcut as everyone seems to think it is.

For example: McKee thinks that England was crystal clear in saying that his taxi was hit by a 30 foot pole. You (along with the Chandler group) are just as convinced that he indicated the piece of the pole that hit his taxi was much shorter, maybe 12 feet.

And I say that Lloyde England was just not very good at expressing himself. He never did make a clear, unambiguous and unmistakable statement about the length of the pole in his cab. He always managed to find some way to leave a trail of confusion in his wake. If he had been able to speak more clearly, these arguments wouldn't happen.