911 Pentagon

Ruby Gray

Member
Therefore I work with what we do have.
No matter how poor the standard of video at the Pentagon, it is abundantly superior to the one solitary Gatecam frame purporting to show N644AA.

To be fair to Lloyde, the interviewers could have made it clear to him from the start, exactly where they believed he was, and which pole hit his cab, because Lloyde was not internet savvy. He worked 7 days a week, went to bed at 7 pm, and got up at 4 a.m. in his spare time he rode motorbikes it drove out to his property.

He genuinely did not know they believed he was on the bridge. When they showed him such a photo, he was perplexed.

He said,
"I never seen that before", and that the taxi was "facing the wrong way", because he had been facing the fireball when his car stopped, but the taxi on the bridge was facing almost 180 degrees AWAY from it.

Lloyde quite unequivocally stated that he was NOT on the bridge when it happened, that the lightpole was NOT what hit his cab, that it did not have an end on it, nor a lamp, that the base of the lightpole was still standing up in the ground outside, that his pole was bent, that the part inside was about 5 feet long, that the part outside was as long as the hood and that the pole fitted through that little 4 inch hole in the windshield.

Lloyde was a qualified auto mechanic. He knew the hood of a Lincoln car was not 25 feet long, but Pickering, Marquis, Ranke, McKee and Ruff are not so clever.

It seems to me, after thousands of hours of studying this and doing battle with all sides, that the ultimate common agenda is to stifle all new research and maintain the confusion level of 2007.
Obfuscation rules.

I believed Lloyde's story when I heard it, and figured the imagery of the day would prove him right or wrong.

I have never found anything in the photo or video record, nor in other witness testimony, that disproves Lloyde's story of being beside the cemetery when a pole hit his cab.

Nobody else ever took that approach, and I find this astonishing.

Yet they use the doctored Gatecam frames as their "proof" of the southside flightpath, which cannot have happened
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
No matter how poor the standard of video at the Pentagon, it is abundantly superior to the one solitary Gatecam frame purporting to show N644AA. ... Yet they use the doctored Gatecam frames as their "proof" of the southside flightpath, which cannot have happened
"They" have a lot more than the Gatecam, as evidence of the south flight path. They also have the light pole damage, and the pattern of destruction inside the Pentagon, both aligned perfectly with this flight path. And although it doesn't pertain directly to the flight path, "they" also have the claim that much of the 757 aircraft was found inside the Pentagon, including both engines, the flight data recorder, and DNA of the passengers.

To counter all that evidence, those of us who are still (at least) suspicious that perhaps there was no 757 impact, can point to the bizarre events of the day at the WTC. We agree with the Chandler contingent, who say that there is no reasonable explanation for the collapse of the three towers, aside from their destruction by explosives. So -- if the perpetrators of 911 could plant explosives in those buildings, why couldn't they do the same or worse at the Pentagon? When it comes to 9/11, my presumption is to treat any and all evidence with skepticism, and especially if it's produced by the suspected perpetrators, their employees and allies. It seems bizarre to me, when folks like Chandler insist on treating information that comes straight from the government, as if it deserves to be treated with the same respect as independent sources.

"No 757 impact at the Pentagon" supporters can point to substantial eyewitness support for the North of Citgo path. We have eyewitness April Gallup, who was on the scene inside the Pentagon, and is adamant that there was nothing inside the building to indicate a 757 had come to rest inside. And furthermore we point to the insufficient debris, insufficient damage to the Pentagon facade, the strange fake-looking appearance of the entire tableau, and circumstantial evidence relating to the renovation project contractors and logistical considerations, all lending credence to the "no 757" theory.

The controversy over Lloyde England and his taxicab, exists within the broader context of the controversy over the 757, its flight path, and its impact. The factions have been bitterly fighting this out for almost 20 years now, and have now become deeply entrenched in their respective positions. Each accuses the other of extreme bad faith, when (IMHO) there simply isn't enough evidence for either side to be claiming a decisive victory.

LLoyde England is an interesting element within this controversy, to be sure. But I doubt that very many people are going to pick sides, based on their assessment of Lloyde England and his testimony. On the contrary, people are going to look at the overall gestalt, taking many factors into account. Underlying cognitive biases also have a role to play: some are automatically highly suspect of any aspect of the government narrative, while others are predisposed to accept government-provided evidence.

My point here, is that Ruby's analysis of Lloyde England is not especially helpful to either of these two entrenched, debating factions. They have both been able to incorporate the taxicab scenario into their overall narratives.

The "No 757" contingent have painted a picture of England as a liar and accomplice of the perpetrators. They say it's obviously ridiculous that Light Pole 1 struck the taxi and embedded itself in the back seat without scratching the hood. And Lloyde's protestations that his cab was struck at the cemetery, only serves to reinforce their view that Lloyde has no credibility. Perhaps he was still actively working to "muddy the waters" as late as 2008, probably coached by his FBI-agent handler/wife.

Whether or not this narrative about Lloyde is accurate, it serves the "no 757" faction well in debates with the Chandler "propaganda team".

For Chandler's side, the photos of the taxi on the bridge with its windshield blown out, and with various light pole pieces sitting right next to the cab, are as close to "smoking gun" evidence as anyone could ask for. The pesky questions about the pristine hood, have been answered by identifying a shorter piece of pole as the real culprit for the damage to the cab. It hardly even matters what England had to say about this tableau. The gist of his testimony (the cab struck by a pole as the aircraft flew over) is obviously supportive of the Official 757 story, and England's statements about his location can be explained away as a minor cognitive error.

Considering the entrenched viewpoints on both sides of the issue, is it really surprising that it's hard for a new theory to gain traction?

I believed Lloyde's story when I heard it...
Ruby, would it be fair to say that your approach to Lloyde's story is as if you were his defense attorney? It's as if he were on trial, accused by CIT and McKee of being a liar and an accomplice to the perpetrators of 9/11, and you're trying to produce evidence to acquit him. And if this were a real trial, under rules of English common law, he's innocent until proven guilty. To get him acquitted, all you need to do is show a reasonable doubt. It's a low standard of evidence.

Whereas perhaps McKee's point of view is more like a prosecuting attorney, and he's trying to convict Rumsfeld and the Pentagon brass as the conspiratorial masterminds of 9/11. And it's got to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The way I see it: if you're in the role of Lloyde's defense attorney, you've done a pretty good job. You've established a possible alibi for him: he wasn't even on the bridge when the aircraft allegedly flew over. He says he was at the cemetery, about 800 feet away. Other eyewitnesses support this.

You've also come up with an exculpatory narrative to explain the highly incriminating photographs showing Lloyde and his taxi on the overpass. As you say, maybe he and his taxi were moved during the 10 or 15 minutes between the alleged aircraft impact, and the first pictures on the bridge. Or for all we know, maybe it wasn't even him, maybe there was a double on the scene. Could there be two identical taxis with substantially identical damage? It's not beyond the government's ability, to create a scam like that.

On the other hand: if you're trying to convict Rumsfeld as the criminal mastermind of the day, what you've done has created a cloud of doubt. And if you imagine Chandler as Rumsfeld's defense attorney, he's exploiting the confusion to try to get his client off.

To wit:

Lloyde quite unequivocally stated that he was NOT on the bridge when it happened
I agree with this. If there's one thing that's clear about what Lloyde said, this would be it. But what about the possibility that he was simply confused? It's no sin to make a minor 800-foot error about one's location.

that the lightpole was NOT what hit his cab,
This isn't so clear to me. Was he saying that the lightpole didn't hit the cab, or that it didn't happen at the bridge? I've reviewed this segment carefully and I think it's confusing.

that it did not have an end on it, nor a lamp,
Agreed.

that the base of the lightpole was still standing up in the ground outside,
I'm not completely sure if Lloyde was talking about the same pole that struck his cab, or if he was referring to some other pole that was still standing.

that the part inside was about 5 feet long, that the part outside was as long as the hood and that the pole fitted through that little 4 inch hole in the windshield.
I thought Lloyde's hand gestures were confusing. He seemed to be indicating the length of the pole, but it was never crystal clear to me.

I have never found anything in the photo or video record, nor in other witness testimony, that disproves Lloyde's story of being beside the cemetery when a pole hit his cab.
Yes, I agree there's nothing to DISPROVE Lloyde's story. But that's a long way from demonstrating conclusive proof that Lloyde was drugged or knocked senseless, loaded into a van, and moved 800 feet north, without his ever noticing. Or that his cab was loaded onto the orange trailer and moved by the tow-truck. Or that his taxi was struck by a fake light pole that was fired from a cannon in a hovering helicopter.

Or, as an alternative, that there were two identical taxis and two guys on the scene that both looked like Lloyde England.

You have found some very fuzzy videos that indicate maybe those things were going on. But are they clear enough to get a criminal conviction against Rumsfeld? I doubt it.

Isn't it odd that all these shenanigans took place, and yet no eyewitnesses noticed, not even Lloyde England? What about Sarns' point that all this allegedly happened with almost supernatural speed?

It seems to me, after thousands of hours of studying this and doing battle with all sides, that the ultimate common agenda is to stifle all new research and maintain the confusion level of 2007.
This is the aspect I'm most interested in explaining, and if possible overcoming. Don't you see that reasonable people can disagree about these questions? Why do we have to be always attacking each others' motives and making dark insinuations about evil agendas? Why do these conflicts loom so large, when they're really quite minor in a broader context?
 
Last edited:

Ruby Gray

Member
What I'm saying is, as far as photo and video evidence goes, the official story produces just a single full-length image of a minuscule alleged plane that casts no shadow on the lawn (although that little white car does), as against the many videos and photos telling a different story.

Yet there are many sources of video potentially showing the plane and whatever else happened, which are denied to us, or even claimed not to exist.

Yes, I do see my role somewhat as a defense attorney. Every accused person is entitled to a defense lawyer, but Lloyde was tried and condemned in a kangaroo court. There has been a handful of people over the years who have chafed at the raw deal he has received, and who have made half-hearted attempts to support him. But none of them has ever done this on his own terms, using his own testimony, and searching for independent proof of those details.

I really would like to talk to many other witnesses, while most of them are still with us. I have tried to contact some of the names on my long list, but the novelty wore off for them long ago. Perhaps with the 20th anniversary looming, some may be persuaded to share.

I believe that quite a few people must have seen what was going on, but they either thought nothing of it (Capitol Cabs and black towtrucks were ubiquitous in Arlington), or nobody ever asked them about it, or their testimony was suppressed.

The testimony about the helicopter/s was certainly suppressed. There were numerous first-person references to the presence of military helicopters that morning, but all mention of them was speedily squashed. The recent release of the 9 Navy Ceremonial Guards testimony was exciting, with one of them having stated in an official interview soon after 9/11, that military helicopters flew over the cemetery immediately after the explosion, and she thought they were being bombed.

As for Lloyde being influenced by his FBI agent girlfriend Shirley, what do we think she may have coached him in? Polishing floors? Cleaning handbasins? Replacing toilet rolls? Now that almost 6 months have passed since Lloyde's death, I think I should call Shirley and have a long and thorough discussion with her. Her feminine intuition about how Lloyde's cab came to be photographed on the bridge, and how the police officer ran Lloyde off from his taxi, and various other details, warrant further research.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
What I'm saying is, as far as photo and video evidence goes, the official story produces just a single full-length image of a minuscule alleged plane that casts no shadow on the lawn (although that little white car does), as against the many videos and photos telling a different story.
That's absolutely right. And as long as so much evidence is missing, where's the need to jump to conclusions? Maybe at this point, the main focus of the "911 Truth Movement" should be to keep calling attention to the holes in the "official story", and encourage people to be more open-minded and more skeptical of mass media narratives.

Back in ~2003, Rick and I spent some time debating with "Webfairy" and various other folks who were convinced that there were no planes at the WTC, either. They said that people were seeing holograms, and that real planes couldn't possible penetrate the exterior steel posts of the buildings. Rick and I didn't see any problem with the appearance of the videos of the WTC aircraft impacts, and we couldn't imagine how to create holographic airplanes.

This debate was still going strong at LetsRollForums, right?

It still seems unlikely to me. But I'm no longer going to spend time arguing about this on Internet forums. The MSM is going to make fun of all 911 conspiracy theories, and if they can't have a laugh at the no-planers' expense, they'll just find some other target.

Meanwhile, if Webfairy can convince some people to become 9/11 Truthers, more power to her.

I really would like to talk to many other witnesses, while most of them are still with us.
Good for you!

As for Lloyde being influenced by his FBI agent girlfriend Shirley, what do we think she may have coached him in? Polishing floors?
You don't think the "cleaning lady" schtick was just a cover story?

They certainly didn't find two of these at the Pentagon, neither inside nor out.
Here's the photo. I searched the web in hopes of finding a higher resolution version, but this is the best I could do.



This is a high-bypass turbofan engine. I wouldn't expect the big fan and nacelle at the front, to survive a high speed impact. The core of the engine is much smaller, and more heavily constructed to endure very hot temperatures and high pressures.

The cores were allegedly found intact. I say "allegedly" because the photos could easily have been fakes.
 
Last edited:

Ruby Gray

Member
Yes, the photos could have been fakes, but that might be hard to organise.
Easier I think, to store sundry bits of recognisable wreckage from plane graveyards within the fabric of the intended explosion area, as it was being constructed over the years, before the tenants were moved back in. Hey presto, explosion happens, and the stage props are revealed from their hiding places, a smattering of planeish pieces amongst a building's worth of construction debris.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Ruby, have you looked into the idea that the earliest photos of the alleged crash site showed little or no recognizable aircraft debris, which suddenly and mysteriously appeared in later photos? The said debris having been dropped from the helicopter or helicopters swarming the site, or perhaps carried into place by gentlemen wearing suits?

This would be in addition to wreckage stored inside the building, and moved into place immediately following the initial explosion. Your suggestion is that a pair of engine cores were brought in from other crash sites, photographed & observed by the renovation staff, and then sent to the scrapyard or landfill? If so, such a diabolical subterfuge is not so easy to convincingly unmask. Sigh...

Out on the lawn, it might be a different story. If the debris made its appearance over time, it would be a smoking gun of sorts. I believe Rick Stanley may have been trying to tell me he was seeing this, and I was too thick to understand what he was saying. Recently I was looking through Jim Fetzer's website, and I noticed a similar claim, but without any supporting backup.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Jerry, is there a reason you know of, why I cannot share my own Google images here? I've tried several methods with no joy, although links from my Flickr account or elsewhere are no problem.

Though I haven't been here for a little while, I continue to research and uncover new evidence which I am still posting on the 9/11 Truth Movement group.
I have had a new post censored there, even though there was nothing overtly controversial in it.
Chandler seems to have piked out of his own discussion on Sgt Lagasse's allegedly dyslexic testimony about where he saw the plane flying, and has deputised several others to "deal with" me.
Currently Chris Sarns is bombarding me with his objections, but for weeks we have both been unable to tag anyone in that thread which has over 600 posts his, very hard to negotiate through the sideshoots. We have not been receiving notifications. When I told Chris Sarns I was unable to find his posts to respond to them and was opting out, magically the notifications were turned back on. There is some serious subterfuge behind all this.
Related I think, to the permanent backing of LetsRollForums, where my Lloyde England thread had over 250,000 views, but zero rebuttals.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Hi Jerry, re your lawn debris query.
I was reading one of CIT's forum threads last night, which covered this somewhat. Quite an interesting collection of information. I think that today's researchers are spinning their wheels on various narrow lines of inquiry, while ignoring significant discussion from many years ago.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/cit/another-look-at-the-generator-trailer-damage-t6.html

CIT thought that quite a lot of that paltry amount of debris was probably stored in the generator trailer, then exploded out in sync with whatever else happened. I find that pretty convincing.

Jim Fetzer infamously claimed that Lt Col Steve O'Brien "must have" dropped the debris from the C-130 when he flew down to locate the source of the explosion after trying to follow the 757. He said in a video interview, "Well where else could it have come from?"

I can think of numerous reasons why that did not happen.

  1. The C-130 was not armed. O'Brien was interviewed and asked about this and denied that his plane had the capability to do this.
  2. There were people on site immediately after the fireball, yet nobody mentioned seeing debris failing out of the sky some time after the explosion.
  3. Although the official RADES data has the C-130 arriving at the Pentagon exactly 1 minute after the 757 and explosion, two amateur videos prove that there was actually 3 1/2 minutes elapsed between them.
  4. The first video taken on the northern lawn shows debris present before that time.
  5. The Anthony Tribby video, shot from a car driving east past the Pentagon on the I-395, shows the C-130 flying above the Pentagon for about 20 seconds, but there is no evidence of any debris being dropped from it.
  6. Bruce Looney took 3 photos of the C-130 from Fort McNair (though I have only been able to find one since so much has been lost to broken links over the years), and these do not show debris being dropped from the air.
  7. Dropping anything from 2,000 feet or whatever height the C-130 was at, would have a very poor likelihood of accuracy.
  8. Photographs of men in suits on the lawn, carrying pieces of fuselage, include at least one man who was a member of Rumsfeld's Security Detail, who was videoed helping to carry a burned victim just about 6 minutes after the explosion, whereas the debris carrying exercise was obviously much later, as the sun had risen considerably over the Pentagon and the shadows were shorter. This was during the FBI line search, when the lawn had to be systematically cleared of anything they could find, because the surface needed to be covered in gravel to support the heavy emergency vehicles, trucks, cranes etc. Also the lawn became tent city with support systems covering the entire area for weeks.
  9. There are numerous very early photographs and video showing the debris there from the beginning, although this can be hard to see when in deep shadow near the wall.
I believe the presence of at least one Marines Superstallion helicopter concurrently with the jet, explains away all the difficulties. So many witnesses referred to this helicopter, which has a cavernous interior well capable of containing all the debris seen on the lawn.
Some witnesses believed that a helicopter had crashed on the helipad, or blown up in the air, or collided with the plane.
Others said the plane's left wing hit the helipad, that the plane cartwheeled or bounced or skipped up. But the helipad area was often mentioned, and that is where most of the debris was seen, at least behind the helipad proper, on the blacktop between it and the wall.

I will post the links to some photos here which you may be able to sort out for me. The formatting goes haywire for me on this tablet when I post here. The screen keeps jumping away.
These 2 photos are taken from on top of the cemetery, looking across the road. They are timestamped. But the camera was not adjusted to Daylight Saving Time, so add 1 hour. They may also be a couple of minutes fast. However they do show the full complement of debris on the lawn at ~ 9:46 and 9:51 a.m.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/MncKWwPtq5nm5SUY8

https://photos.app.goo.gl/yW8raMQwckEP9q577
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Hello again Jerry, you were recently commenting I think on the timeline I have been working on for the first half hour at the Pentagon, which Chris Sarns is so doggedly trying to dismantle in our Facebook discussion.

I tried to tag you there in my latest post with some new evidence i just found today supporting my timeline, but it's another bust. Is it possible for administrators to selectively block tagging in their threads? This has been happening often there, and there are so many hundreds of posts that it's almost impossible to find anything again.
So here is a link to that discussion.

https://m.facebook.com/comment/replies/?ctoken=10157943842556782_10158026519361782&ft_ent_identifier=10157943842556782&gfid=AQCdjoec6EEcKOvk0bo&notif_t=group_comment_mention&notif_id=1623264590275534&ref=m_notif
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hello Ruby,

Sorry I've been distracted from this thread, and didn't reply earlier. The Facebook link doesn't work for some reason, but I found the thread you're talking about. Also, the tagging didn't work because somehow the system didn't recognize that the text 'Jerry Russell' is a reference to the user 'Jerry Russell'. You can tell whether or not the link is made by looking at the typeface -- see how Mark T Schark's name is in boldface, but mine isn't? It's a complete mystery to me as to why this happens, or how to fix it if it does.

I see that you and Sarns are debating the comings and goings of the various fire trucks, but I don't understand the significance of your disagreements.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Hello again Jerry, thanks for bothering to seek out the elusive and rambling thread.
It seems to me that I was handed off to Chris Sarns by Chandler who does not like being bothered with debate on his stated opinions. I had previously tried to interest Sarns in a discussion of new evidence, but he remained stoic for years. Now there is no stopping him. It is as though he is driven to prove me wrong.
Chandler started that thread as a monologue on how Sgt William Lagasse did not know his left hand from his right, starboard from port, west from east, a cemetery to his north from a Quikmart to his south, in the attempt to justify his belief that Lagasse is really a Southside flightpath witness. I was one who strongly objected to this, with evidence from other sources corroborating Lagasse's testimony.
Chandler dropped out of sight long ago, leaving the dogged Sarns, and occasionally Simon Falkner to "deal with me".

It has since become an unwieldy mess to negotiate, but has served to focus my attention more on the chronology of the first half hour at the Pentagon on 9/11. In fact, Sarns has done me a favour in spurring me on to study all the imagery from many angles, by so many photographers, videographers and news services. Although he imagines that he has found fatal flaws in my work, this concerted effort has uncovered yet more evidence to solidify the narrative of Lloyde England and his taxi cab.

Having studied this now for several years, almost full time, I can see the action from every vantage point concurrently in my head, but this is very hard to explain to others, especially if they have been "got at" by CIT's false narrative.

Sarns is desperate to discredit my timelines for the two amateur videos which show Lloyde England and his taxi before they appeared on top of the bridge in the Jason Ingersoll photo series.

If he could do this, to him it would prove Lloyde England to have been on the bridge when AA77 flew across it, knocked down some Iightpoles, one of which speared the cab, before flying diagonally into the ground floor of the Pentagon.

According to Craig McKee I think, and also Adam Syed who seems to be the only original CIT supporter still active since those days, Sarns was once a CIT fan who turned against them with a vengeance, and then was instrumental in influencing others to attack CIT. Sarns has been quite irrational in his campaign against McKee which has lasted for years, and this aspect sometimes shines through in my discussion with him, although he is generally more civilised than the average CIT knocker, at least to me.

Anyway, I have been challenged to tie down times for various details, and crystallise the evidence for Lloyde England having been the victim of a cynical plot by the Pentagon perpetrators. I am happy that i have achieved this, with far more corroboration than I previously had, although Sarns cannot bear to concede a point. He is forever nitpicking some trivial point or other, perhaps merely as a ploy to deflect attention from weightier considerations.

With just 3 months to go now until the 20th anniversary, there is still much to be done to pull all the evidence into a coherent form that can withstand the onslaught of all who, for whichever reason, believe that Lloyde England was either a lying accomplice, or a confused old man whose story proves the official flightpath.

I am encouraged in this battle by yourself, who recognised my work initially and defended me against McKee; by Mark T Schark who randomly encountered my work on a forum, initially thought I was nuts, then carefully considered what I was saying and turned 180 degrees; and by the wisdom of Lloyde's confidante, his wife Shirley, who so simply said,

"WELL YOU KNOW WHAT? THEY COULD HAVE MOVED YOUR CAB!!"

Indeed they did, which proves that the entire 9/11 show was premeditated and orchestrated by traitors from within, a proposition too painful for many to bear.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Wow it's rapidly coming up to the 20th anniversary of 9/11!
Still little has changed, tragically.
And now the virus fearmongering threatens to eclipse any public demonstrations that may have had some effect on this. Hardly a coincidence.

Here is some news I just received today. LetsRollForums has been offline for many months now, with no reason given and no idea of when if ever it would return.
Here Phil Jayhan, the owner of the forum, explains what happened, and gives some hope that the forum will be restored on a new server.

Here is the link to the new look Lets Roll Forums.
After reading the story of its demise, I don't know how Phil Jayhan is going to reinstate the entirety of the site on a different platform. Seems like lots of it would be missing. And for most of it, that would be a very good thing.
Anyway, happy to see the reason for its absence, and hope that it will soon be restored.


https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://letsrollforums.com/?fbclid=IwAR09OEcCQj8IoxTrZtXUjdiTIai3EG7pPjCfp9q7F_s6J_ThCHWmZFI5w74&h=AT37LHKVYhqk91tpbppl-UDbgvHh73Iy_VBM75i6H3umL86Cdvf20CU1t1HK_Fu29sK7GIsCs7wkNLK-m5anasHWiAZ6W59qhvt6wvCYRVdPBnFjW4hkyD-bA6975mPHk9xL3w
 

Ruby Gray

Member
More news is that I have been working with someone with the skills to make the videos about Lloyde England's story, which I alas do not possess. We are discussing a series of episodes which will tell Lloyde's story his own way, supported by whatever imagery has been released from the Pentagon site.
So far, I have done my best to explain what really happened to Lloyde England and his taxi cab in written presentations illustrated by still images and video screenshots, which is limited in its power to convince the greater majority who have not spent the thousands of hours studying this subject, that I have. Soon we hope to be able to make his story make more sense, with moving pictures!
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
After reading the story of its demise, I don't know how Phil Jayhan is going to reinstate the entirety of the site on a different platform.
Yes, it looks like the content is going to be gone for good. Jayhan knew he wanted to make a backup, but couldn't figure out how to do it.

And then, poof!!, it was gone!

So much about the WWW is ephemeral. A paper book can sit on a shelf for a hundred years or more. It can suffer from neglect, and yet can carry forbidden knowledge through a dark age. Information on the Internet needs constant maintenance and attention, or else it disappears. Even if it gets copied many times over, each copy needs a continuous flow of energy.

I looked at archive.org. They have a lot of archived pages, but the organization seems to be lost. I can't figure out how to access anything directly from the copy of the homepage.

I bet the CIA has a good copy.
 
Top