• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

CIT Presents Their Exhaustive Witness List - Yep, Still No Flyover Witness

bill smith said:
Given that there is no 757 in the Pentagon though, a flyover seems to be the most lkely explanation.
Click to expand...

You must be a newbie at this. You realize that there would be mountains of evidence of a flyover had one occurred, don't you?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Well, we all have to be aware of our own prejudices. Everyone has them. I spent a few hours last weekend looking into the investigations of CIT. Someone whose judgement i trust told me to look into it. The reason why i hadn't already looked into it was the way Craig and Aldo behaved on this very forum.

I watched "The eye of the storm", subtitled "Lloyd England and his taxi cab". My knowledge was that they had four witnesses, two of them pentagon police, for their "north side" flight path - the relevance of which i didn't get. Now, TAM, watch that video. They have thirteen very credible witnesses for the flight path.

From what i've read here, i thought they would accuse Lloyd England of being "in on it" because he insisted on the story of his cab being hit by a lightpole hit by the plane during the south-side flight path.

But that isn't the case. Lloyd England changed his story and now claims that he and his cab were at a place were the plane would have hit if CIT's north-side flight path would be correct. Despite all the photographic evidence of him and his cab.

Watch it, it's hilarious. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think, that they are attention whores, fringe of the fringe, and do not deserve my attention, and definitely not my time.

The MOUNTAIN of evidence that contradicts the alleged testimony of a dozen lead witnesses recollections 6-7 years after the incident. Sorry, I will take DNA evidence over that 100% of the time.

TAM:)
 
So this doesn't surprise you at all?

Childlike Empress said:
From what i've read here, i thought they would accuse Lloyd England of being "in on it" because he insisted on the story of his cab being hit by a lightpole hit by the plane during the south-side flight path.

But that isn't the case. Lloyd England changed his story and now claims that he and his cab were at a place were the plane would have hit if CIT's north-side flight path would be correct. Despite all the photographic evidence of him and his cab.
Click to expand...
 
So what? Lloyd is either messing with the two idiots or is simply mistaken.
 
Last edited:
The last hour of that 9x minutes video is essentially Craig Ranke trying to convince Llloyd England that he (England) was where the evidence shows him to be. On the south side of the CITGO. There is no way that England doesn't know that what Ranke shows him is the available evidence. He is certainly not mistaken.

Now, if he is messing with the guys. Why? The guys think they have obtained witness evidence for a flight path different than normal wisdom indicates, and England plays along? He doesn't tell them to f* off with their conspiracy theories but fuels them? Invites them to two trips, one to the cab and one to the pentagon? Why?
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
The last hour of that 9x minutes video is essentially Craig Ranke trying to convince Llloyd England that he (England) was where the evidence shows him to be. On the south side of the CITGO. There is no way that England doesn't know that what Ranke shows him is the available evidence. He is certainly not mistaken.
Click to expand...

He could certainly be mistaken. This was over seven years ago and Lloyd isn't getting any younger. I am not going to watch that video because Craig is a lying piece of crap and I can't stand listening to his voice. But it's also possible that if Craig was trying to convince him he was south of the citgo, that Lloyd was saying the opposite because he knows that Craig is a lying sack of crap.

Now, if he is messing with the guys. Why? The guys think they have obtained witness evidnce for a flight path different than normal wisdom indicates, and England plays along? He doesn't tell them to f* off with their conspiracy theories but fuels them? Invites them to two trips, one to the cab and one to the pentagon? Why?
Click to expand...

Simply to mess with a couple of idiots. I might do the same thing if I were in his position.

The FACT that he was on the south side of the citgo proves that he was either mistaken or messing with a couple of idiots.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
The last hour of that 9x minutes video is essentially Craig Ranke trying to convince Llloyd England that he (England) was where the evidence shows him to be. On the south side of the CITGO. There is no way that England doesn't know that what Ranke shows him is the available evidence. He is certainly not mistaken.

Now, if he is messing with the guys. Why? The guys think they have obtained witness evidence for a flight path different than normal wisdom indicates, and England plays along? He doesn't tell them to f* off with their conspiracy theories but fuels them? Invites them to two trips, one to the cab and one to the pentagon? Why?
Click to expand...

Maybe CIT paid Mr. England for his time, therefore he was obligated to give them something. Screwing with them would be a bonus.
 
AJM8125 said:
Maybe CIT paid Mr. England for his time, therefore he was obligated to give them something. Screwing with them would be a bonus.
Click to expand...


I assume they first had to pay the thirteen witnesses for telling lies about the flight path. After that, they payed England to corroborate the faked flight path described by those witnesses by claiming that he and his cab were never where the known photos showed him to be. ... PROFIT! Sounds like a helluva plan!
 
Childlike Empress said:
I assume they first had to pay the thirteen witnesses for telling lies about the flight path. After that, they payed England to corroborate the faked flight path described by those witnesses by claiming that he and his cab were never where the known photos showed him to be. ... PROFIT! Sounds like a helluva plan!
Click to expand...

There are no "thirteen witnesses" who lie about the flight path. I proved that. You have yet to comment on it. There is no "faked flight path". Only one flight path and that was south of citgo. I proved that. You have yet to comment on it. Why let these stupid memes infect your brain?
 
I have no idea if and where you've "proved" anything (link?), but please explain to me why England DENIES being south of citgo? Come up with an explanation that doesn't warrant a new investigation into 9/11, please.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
There are no "thirteen witnesses" who lie about the flight path. I proved that. You have yet to comment on it. There is no "faked flight path". Only one flight path and that was south of citgo. I proved that. You have yet to comment on it. Why let these stupid memes infect your brain?
Click to expand...

When the timeline is researched and checked we seem to find that the so called 'witnesses' that the TM sprout about all appeared rather late in the day. Some didnt crawl out for a number of years. Yet the official evidence and witnesses relied upon all came about PDQ after 911 and that has remained so ever since. No change in the official line. The truth can only be the truth. Lies and deceipt takes many different avenues and still meets a dead end.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I have no idea if and where you've "proved" anything (link?), but please explain to me why England DENIES being south of citgo? Come up with an explanation that doesn't warrant a new investigation into 9/11, please.
Click to expand...
You cannot be serious.

SoC flight path proven: post#55.
13 "north of citgo witnesses" proven to be a lie: post#53

As for Mr. England. How should I know? I'm not psychic. He's a 77 year old man. What does his testimony prove or disprove regarding the events of 9/11?
 
Childlike Empress said:
These witnesses were all on record before CIT approached them. CIT asked them to clarify their statements. I skimmed those videos, didn't have to watch it all because they are very convincing. No ambiguity at all. Two hours of first hand witness testimony
Click to expand...

And when considered in the context of all the evidence and all the eyewitnesses, those people are somehow wrong.

"convincing" has nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom