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?
