I meant a white dot...oops

The interview before we went to see the cab was at Lloyde's house. The interview after when we had the laptop up was at my friends house. He has eclectic decorative tastes!
There is no white dot or plane in the neighbour's image. I see what looks like a helicopter though:
i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/eye%20of%20the%20storm/pentaw-cab2.jpg

WOW, you did a great job on this! It got especially interesting at about 82 mins. when you showed the damage to the light poles - looks like a clean cut from a welding torch or something. Where can I get a still of the plane's supposed trajectory as shown at 90:26? Please contact me if you can provide - would be very useful in my truth arsenal. I'm a member of WeAreChangeLA - you can contact me through there. You're in CA, right? If you are in So. Cal., we'd love to have you speak at a screening.

The hole left by the pole looks very odd - what's with the right angle? It looks too small in any case. And why is the windshield later shown to be completely missing? Did they not want that odd evidence left?

Does Lloyd sound like he was programmed?

Hi "Lips"!

Yes we are in so cal and would be happy to do a screening. I've talked with Bruno before so please help us organize and arrange it. Here is the image you are talking about depicting the final descent:
i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/VDOT_Pent_Alt_ab.jpg

But as noted, that is if we hypothetically LOWER the altitude to the VDOT antenna. It gets much worse if we use the official NTSB reported altitude of 699 feet above sea level:
i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/FDR_Pent_Alt1_ab.jpg

These are scale images grabbed from animations professionally prepared by Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

As far as Lloyde being "programmed" or brainwashed or whatever, no....we don't believe that. Because he deliberately changes his story and virtually admits involvement when he doesn't know he is being recorded. So anyway I couldn't find "Lips Malloy" on the WeAreChangeLA site so please email us: cit@thepentacon.com and we'll exchange phone numbers.

Peace!
Craig

Guys, I really respect and appreciate what you've done toward establishing the flight path. And since the testimony you've found is clearly in conflict with the flight path as inferred from the light poles and Lloyd's cab, I also respect the fact that you've followed up on that. His testimony about his location is obviously contradicted by the photo evidence. But I don't find anything in the least implausible about his claim that his car was speared by the pole. The lack of damage to the hood is a little surprising, but it's a long, long way from rendering his account about the pole physically impossible or anything close to that. I'll bet if you brought another aluminum pole of the same shape and size and weight out to his property and stuck it through the window, resting it on the dash and sticking the narrow end through the hole in the back seat, that a little light would dawn and you'd suddenly see that that part of his story is entirely plausible. And if you'd ever tried to smash in a windshield (as I have), you'd know that it (along with the dashboard and back seat) could keep the pole from swinging around as he skid to a stop. I don't find anything implausible in his testimony about the pole in the windshield. I hope you might find my comment helpful. One last time: respect to you both, and thanks for your hard work. Franklin

Go to his property and "stick" it through his window? While I highly doubt even that could possibly result in no damage to the hood (pole is 40 feet long and 247 lbs), that's not what he claimed happened.
Try hitting the pole with a 90 ton Boeing traveling 530 mph factored with the kinetic energy of the cab traveling 40 mph in the opposite direction! And then try coming to a sliding sideways stop on the road with at least 30 feet of the HEAVY end of the pole still sticking out of the windshield!

It's impossible and since we know the plane was nowhere near the light poles, as you concede, the implications are clear.

I really can't see why it's impossible, or even unlikely.

It's simple physics. He claims that over 75% of the HEAVY end of the pole was suspended over the hood. This is impossible due to the center of gravity being completely outside the cab. The only way this would be remotely possible is if the top completely impaled the back seat but we know this did not happen because we inspected the cab. Regardless, none of this matters since you agree the north side approach is valid. THIS is what proves Lloyde's account a complete fabrication. The plane can not cause any of the physical damage from the north side of the gas station. This is a fact. Please read this detailed article on our website:
citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html

I agree that you guys have uncovered important evidence that calls the official trajectory of AA77 into question, which shows beyond a doubt that purveyors of the offical account have some explaining to do. But since there are conflicting lines of evidence that need to be weighed against each other, I think it's also clear that nothing is CERTAIN about its real trajectory. People are trying out various ways of putting these lines of evidence together. Possible hypotheses include these: 1) one plane traveled the trajectory you guys identified, and poles and cab were staged, 2) there were two planes or a plane and a missile with separate trajectories, one of which flew over, one of which knocked down poles and hit the pentagon, 3) the plane traveled the official route, and the folks you interviewed are plants designed to create confusion or make truthers look foolish or throw you off course, 4) Lloyde really was down by the Pentagon like he said, and his car got pierced by the lightpole there, and then the stagers moved him into place. I'm sure you're aware of even more hypotheses than those, and I'm positive we could dream more up together if we tried. It isn't possible to prove any hypothesis beyond a doubt--that's the nature of hypothetical reasoning--so the thing to do is see which fits all of the evidence best. You guys are persuaded of something like hypothesis 1. That sounds like an ok hypothesis to me, except that Lloyde's testimony conflicts with it. Since Lloyde's testimony is internally inconsistent, you guys are of course perfectly reasonable to question the import of it. But I think you're wrong to question it on grounds that his story about his cab being pierced by the pole is "impossible" and that seeing as much is a matter of "simple physics." His story seems perfectly plausible to me. The pole impaled the back seat; you showed that on film. Whether it "completely impaled" it or not seems irrelevant. Resting against the dashboard like it was, the pole became a lever with a dashboard as its fulcrum. So very little weight would have been needed to hold it in place, and it seems intuitively very plausible to me that the seat could have provided it; in fact, I have a hard time imagining how it couldn't. And as you said yourselves, the pole only weighs 247 pounds; two adults could easily remove such a pole without scratching a car hood. Again, deep, deep respect for your courage and initiative. If 911 was an inside job, you're both risking your lives out of love for the rest of us, and that makes you heroes. I offer these comments in hope that they'll be helpful to you, and might help "the truth" come to light.

Franklin

>>>offer these comments in hope that they'll be helpful to you, and might help "the truth" come to light.

Thanks and I appreciate your reasoned and civil tone and seemingly honest intent to help but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on multiple levels. It is not reasonable to dream up any wild hypothesis you can think of without evidence to back it up, and IN SPITE of plenty of evidence to the contrary. Have you watched National Security Alert? People saw the plane continue past the Pentagon. Everyone saw it on the north side.
There is no motive for them all to be part of a disinfo conspiracy and there is no evidence for this. Nobody saw anything on the south side so your missile/second plane "option" is also unsupported by evidence. Plus the physical damage to the poles would require a wing span as large as a 757. There simply is no independent evidence for a plane of this size (or anything for that matter) near the poles. And I'm sorry but you are not considering Lloyde's story in context of the true physics involved as described. The force of a 247lb pole being hurled on a car moving 40 mph is incredible and whatever force could possibly have caused the pole to go flying in the first place would be even more ridiculous. You admit that Lloyde's account is "internally inconsistent" and that there is no legitimate reason to doubt the north side evidence proving it false, yet you are unreasonably refusing to admit that Lloyde's "internally inconsistent" account that is completely irreconcilable with the rock solid north side flyover evidence is even questionable when that is obvious at first glance! Throw in the other ridiculously dubious details such as the Icke book, the FBI employee wife, plus his virtual confession of involvement, and your blanket dismissal of the notion that he is implicated starts to come off as disingenuous. You are using very vague and general rhetoric when praising us while simultaneously tossing around all the wild unsupported theories you possibly can which only serves to cast doubt. I don't see that as a logical approach to this information. While your tone is reasoned your logic is contradictory. We have never cited the implausibility of Lloyde's account alone as what implicates him. But it clearly IS implausible and beyond dubious right down to the story of the silent good Samaritan that he initially called his "friend" and later changed to a stranger who never said a word, but who strangely didn't bother to help him up when he allegedly fell down on his back with the pole on top of him. The fact that you are unable or unwilling to admit that Lloyde's account is questionable and even implausible is indicative to me that you are going through a bit of denial. But out of context of the north side flyover evidence directly implicating Lloyde as the first known accomplice to the 9/11 black operation, I am quite certain that neither you nor any engineer or physicist will be willing to take on modeling the scenario described by Lloyde in a scientific paper incorporating the equations and physics involved with the pole, the 40 mph cab, the sliding sideways stop with over 75% of the HEAVY end of the pole sticking out over the hood, plus the removal of the pole, all while remaining entirely consistent to the photographed and video recorded physical damage to the interior and exterior of the cab. Until you or someone does it's going to in the very least be classified as implausible to honest skeptics while, yes, I go so far as to believe it's impossible.

Hm. Well guys, I've been treating you with respect, and I think you deserve it. But now you're being abusive. But never mind; I still appreciate your courage and initiative, and you've clearly provided valuable information. I'm certain you're both more familiar with all this stuff than I am, and perhaps you therefore know how the various pieces fit together best. But it still seems to me that you're stretching some things a bit. So far I've said that I find nothing implausible in Lloyde's account of the pole piercing his windshield. I don't mean to suggest that his whole story is believable--it clearly isn't--just that I find that particular part believable and don't think you've shown it unbelievable.

It seems to me that your primary reason for doubting ALL of Lloyde's story is that it doesn't fit with your reconstruction of the plane's trajectory. You have provided very good evidence in support of your trajectory, so I don't think you're unreasonable to doubt LLoyde on account of it. Your rejection of his story is further justified IF it really is impossible that his windshield was pierced as he claims, and I therefore also think you're right to consider whether his account is possible or not. But you haven't persuaded me that his story is impossible or even implausible, so you haven't given me that additional reason to reject his entire story. That's all I'm saying.

I did watch National Security Alert, and found it excellent. As I recall, however, you have just one witness who claims to have seen a plane on the other side of the Pentagon. It seems to me that there should be dozens of such witnesses if it really flew over, and I think discovering and interviewing them would constitute another excellent contribution. I think it would go a very long way toward making your case if you were to do that. But it would constitute a very large problem for your overall theory if you can't find more flyover witnesses.

I've re-read what I wrote in my previous post, and I can't find anything illogical or vague about it. Nor am I in denial. Nor am I praising you insincerely. I'm not conspiring with Lloyde to deceive you (haha); I just think you conclude that the windshield piercing is impossible too quickly. And now I also think you could chill out a bit. People are going to disagree with you; my disagreement doesn't make me stupid or ignorant or insincere or careless or whatever else.

Peace.

Franklin

>>>People are going to disagree with you; my disagreement doesn't make me stupid or ignorant or insincere or careless or whatever else.

I never accused you of any of those things.
But it is disingenuous to accept the north side approach evidence, to accept that Lloyde's story is "internally inconsistent", and to accept that his whole story is "clearly" not "believable", yet to argue that the notion of a 40 foot 247lb light pole being hurled through his windshield without damaging his hood to be entirely plausible!

Although of course you are entitled to it, you are most definitely in the minority with this "belief" amongst pretty much all logical individuals I have spoken with who have looked at this closely, and it does not follow a logical train of thought given the other evidence that you have claimed you accept.

I'm not being abusive, I am being civil, logical, and honest. Also, if you accept the north side evidence you MUST accept a flyover even with zero witnesses who attest to this. But we have one confirmed and we have Erik Dihle's official statement that there were more AND we have plenty of direct evidence for a very deliberate and fraudulent second plane cover story. To suggest that you require more flyover witnesses and that without them it constitutes "a very large problem" for our "overall theory" is also disingenuous. The fact that it "seems" to you there would be dozens of them is not proof this is the case and although it may be, finding them is an entirely different story. If they are aware of the implications they are afraid to talk, if they aren't aware of the implications they have convinced themselves it was a "another plane" and long written it off as insignificant. If the north side witnesses aren't enough for you, and the confirmation from Roosevelt Roberts, Erik Dihle, and Maria De La Cerda isn't enough for you, the question is, what WOULD be enough? How many flyover witnesses in addition to what we already have would it take to convince you Franklin and what is your basis for choosing that number? Do you really think it's logical to consider the 13 north side witnesses and Roosevelt Roberts account a mere fluke until your required flyover witness number is achieved? Is your contention that Roosevelt is lying or hallucinating? Bottom line we don't rely on the implausibility of Lloyde's account as proof of anything. Your contention that it is not the least bit questionable is a rare one and quite irrelevant given the entire body of evidence we provide, particularly given that it is NOT what we claim to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not hit the light poles or the building, and therefore that 9/11 was an internally engineered black operation of deception.

I think I may see the source of our disagreement. Throughout our exchange, I’ve been considering the bare idea that a car windshield could be pierced by an airborne light-pole, that the pole could come to rest against the dashboard with the fat end sticking out of the windshield and the skinny end sticking in the back seat, that it could happen despite the fact that the car was moving at, say, 40 mph, and that through it all the hood could be left unscratched. In other words, I’ve been abstracting the windshield-piercing-pole part of Lloyde’s claim from the total situation. In still other words, I’ve been momentarily putting aside all questions about the true trajectory of the plane, the geographic location of the car, the Icke book, and so on. This is a perfectly natural and perfectly proper way to reason, and you guys do it too (and should). The reason why we should reason in this way in this case is because the true trajectory of the plane (plus other aspects of the total situation) is disputed, and because you guys want to use Lloyde and his taxicab as evidence to adjudicate between various disputed theories. But you can’t use it as adjudicating evidence if you interpret it in light of one of the disputed theories (e.g., one of the disputed trajectories). If you do that, then you stack the deck against the other theories. But this is just what you’re doing—stacking the deck against alternatives—insofar as you argue that Lloyde’s story about the pole is impossible GIVEN THE REST OF THE STORY AS YOU’VE RECONSTRUCTED IT IN LIGHT OF A PARTICULAR THEORY.

Now, if you can show that Lloyde’s story about the pole—CONSIDERED IN ABSTRACTION FROM THE TOTAL SITUATION of the plane trajectory and all of that—really is IMPOSSIBLE, then you’ve done something very important, because in that case you’ve shown beyond all reasonable doubt that his testimony—and the physical evidence constituted by his car and the pole and the photos of them—cannot be used to support the official story. If Lloyde had claimed that a pole wrapped itself entirely around his car and tied itself off at the top in a little bow, or that after piercing the windshield it coiled itself neatly in the trunk without leaving a mark on the back seat, THEN you could properly judge that part of his story impossible—even abstracted from the total situation. You could then justifiably assign that part of his story zero weight in determining the true trajectory of the plane (or of anything else), and go on to treat it as independent evidence of staging. But he isn’t claiming anything nearly so ridiculous, and I continue to find the part of his story that has to do with the pole piercing his windshield—CONSIDERED IN ABSTRACTION FROM THE TOTAL SITUATION—entirely plausible. I therefore can’t assign it zero weight when it comes time to adjudicate between different theoretical options; nor can I regard it as independent evidence of staging.

Disingenuous, by the way, means “slightly dishonest and insincere,” according to the Collins Cobuild dictionary. I am being neither dishonest nor insincere—not even slightly. Nor am I being illogical.

Peace.

Franklin

Sorry Franklin I don't agree. It is not logical to take information out of context of the evidence in order to academically argue the scenario in "ABSTRACTION FROM THE TOTAL SITUATION" because clearly it is NOT in abstraction from the total situation. This is a crime investigation, not an academic debate. The other evidence including dubious and "internally inconsistent" details in Lloyde's account most certainly is 100% relevant and it's imperative that everything is considered in context. The evidence is real and really exists so you can't make it go away for the sake of discussion. We most certainly DO have all these firsthand interviews (and many previously published ones) who ALL unanimously support one large flying object most specifically on the north side of the gas station. This effectively rules out the notion of 2 flying objects just like it rules out the notion that the attack was by the Goodyear blimp. There is ZERO independent evidence for 2 flying objects.

However, EVEN STILL, your notion that Lloyde's story of his interaction with the pole isn't at all questionable and is "entirely plausible" is ridiculous! And yes, disingenuous. I know because I have discussed this with 100's of people and you are pretty much the only one EVER who has argued this notion. You'll find this out very quickly if you do a study on your own. Print out a full page full color shot of this image:
i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/Pentagon_Lamppost_L.jpg

And this one:
i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Lloyd/DSC_0421.jpg

Approach 10 people and describe the scenario you are proposing of an airplane traveling at least 500 mph hitting the pole into his cab traveling 40mph in the opposite direction complete with Lloyde's account of over 75% of the long heavy end (probably at least 90% of the weight) sticking out over the hood as he came to a stop. And of course the ludicrous story of this man of almost 70 years at the time instantly removing the pole with the silent stranger, falling on his back while doing so, all within a few minutes after nearly being killed and while the Pentagon was raging on fire behind him. Don't forget to mention that there is nobody who claims to have witnessed or who corroborates any of this including the pole being in the cab AT ALL.

Ask them if it's fair to call such a scenario "entirely plausible" or not remotely questionable at all.

Please give it a try and let me know how it goes.

You can hold on to a completely unsupported 2 plane/missile theory all you want but you are required to embrace Lloyde's beyond implausible story to do so. That is not a logical reaction to this information. Yes I do find it to be disingenuous. Perhaps subconsciously. IF you were being completely honest with yourself you would at least agree that it is implausible but state that you believe it happened anyway.

More abuse.

Somewhere in all this 911-truth stuff I've reviewed, I remember encountering two testimonies of two planes at the Pentagon. And among all the one-plane witnesses, most say they saw a big AA jet, but several say they saw a small unmarked commuter plane. So I've encountered two lines of evidence that suggest two different flying objects.

The folks at Pilots for 911 Truth have a video out in which they suggest the plane-and-missile theory. So there are others out there who "disingenuously" and "dishonestly" and "illogically" entertain "ridiculous" two-plane theories. They probably do so because they're aware of the two lines of evidence mentioned above, and perhaps because they think the overall situation as they understand it demands it.

Sorting these things out is harder than you two citizens think.

Franklin

I have not abused you. I am being civil, logical, and honest. You simply don't like what I have to say but that is not "abuse".

You are not providing evidence or sources for your claims. I work with the founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth on a daily basis and I can assure you they have NEVER supported any theory at all. At best you will find a casual reference to a missile from years ago but never have they advocated, endorsed, or argued for the notion.

The small amount of unconfirmed second hand media reports (hearsay) from witnesses who describe the plane as "small" are questionable and/or dubious for several reasons as outlined here:
cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=12608.msg91239#msg91239


But absolutely NOBODY claims they saw 2 flying objects.

I don't know why you prefer this to remain a vague and ambiguous conspiracy theory but you don't need to go there. We have proof of a deception and it has nothing to do with the blatant implausibility of Lloyde England's account.

As I just said, I remember finding video evidence of two witnesses saying they saw two planes. You'll have to dig it up yourself. I found it somewhere on youtube.

As for the Pilots for 911 Truth, you're right that they haven't fully endorsed any particular theory about what happened at the Pentagon. But they present an animation to illustrate the plane-and-missile theory, and it's the only theory they give so much attention to. One can infer from this that it was their preferred theory at the time they made the video.

As for the rest of the above, I don't think you two (or is it just the one of you--the talker?) understand what I've been trying to say. That's perfectly understandable, since it's clear that neither of you have a lot of experience sorting through hotly contested theories (you're both too young, for one thing); but that's no excuse for abusing your conversation partners--especially not when they treat you with as much respect and patience as I have. I suggest you read carefully through my and your posts again. You show few signs of really trying to understand my points, you fail to understand them, and then you overtly call me illogical, insincere, and dishonest and implicitly call me stupid and/or irresponsible by asserting that I insist on entertaining "ridiculous" and "impossible" and otherwise wholly discredited theories (theories that prominent members of the 911 truth movement also entertain). If that isn't abuse and disrespect, I don't know what is; it certainly isn't "civil." I haven't said or even implied that I believe Lloyde's account or the official story about the flight path; I've been pretty careful to avoid making commitments throughout our discussion (apart from being very clear that I find much of your contribution highly valuable). The truth is that I don't know what to believe yet beyond being certain that you two have shown beyond a doubt that there is something very, very wrong with the official account and that the purveyors of it have some explaining to do. All I've been trying to say in the above posts is that you aren't reasoning well when it comes to evaluating some small fraction of the evidence you've presented--Lloyde's testimony about the spearing in particular. Whether his tale is plausible when all of the available data are taken into consideration or not, I don't know; what I do know is that I find his story plausible taken in abstraction from the rest, and I also know it's important to note that when it comes time to sort through the various theories. I explained why that's important above, but you two missed it.

Good luck in your future work on this. I'll be following it closely. I still think you guys are heroes, despite all your disrespect.

I have been respectful and haven't abused you one bit. There is zero independent verifiable evidence for 2 flying flying objects in the airspace at the time of the attack. This is a fact. This is why you can't find it. Furthermore your purpose of engaging me was clearly to convince me that Lloyde's story is not implausible. Besides being irrelevant to the evidence we cite proving 9/11 was an inside job, this notion is plain old silly. Have you shown anyone the images? Give it a try. Do that and then quote where you feel I have "disrespected" you and ask the same people if it could fairly be characterized as "abuse". I think you'll be surprised. Thanks for your support and if you are willing to do anything to help us, please make an effort to not spread unsupported conspiracy theories about 2-planes or missiles because that has been more damaging to the effort to expose this deception than any other disinfo out there.

You are a twit. But worse than that, you are an irresponsible vigilante.

Have you ever actually *been* in an accident? I have been in quite a few, and I can tell you the same thing that anyone with a knowledge of such events can tell you - that one's perceptions can end up being very much at odds with reality. That is why, for example, witnesses to the same crime will say the getaway car was black, or red, or cream - because shocking events tend to distort one's perceptions.

Lloyd's recollections appear to be somewhat at odds with the reality, in that he remembers the pole hitting his car prior to getting onto the bridge. The *obvious* conclusion is that the shock of a pole coming through his window and almost killing him wiped out his memory of the last few seconds of driving before he got onto the bridge - a very common experience for trauma victims. An alternative, or perhaps parallel, explanation is that the pole hit his car before he arrived at the bridge, but the car did not come to a halt until it arrived there.

Shock trauma is the most likely explanation for Lloyd's remembrance being at odds with the photos, but instead of considering this option, you jump to the conclusion that Lloyd must be lying and therefore part of your grand "conspiracy". That you would harass a simple and humble citizen like this, denounce him as a liar, and call for further harassment, demonstrates not only your own almost total inability to form a logical conclusion from the available evidence, but also a disturbingly vigilantist mindset.

As for your claim that it is "impossible" that the pole would not have damaged the bonnet - that again only demonstrates to what extent you are forming opinions based on predigested conclusions. That pole had a pronounced bend in it, and it clearly entered the car at a downward angle or it wouldn't have caught the dashboard, which means it may in fact have been nowhere near the bonnet when it lodged there. It may have been an unlikely event, but unlikely is worlds away from "impossible", and in my experience unlikely events occur in almost every accident.

Furthermore, your argument that "no-one saw the pole hit the car" is just plain ludicrous. Your alternative explanation is that secret agents magically spirited the car and the pole there, again without anyone seeing them. Mind explaining how they could have done that?

Really, you're such a twit you don't even deserve a response, but I felt compelled to post something here because of your defaming of an ordinary citizen like Mr England.

Sorry Joe B but your irrational and emotional response does not refute the unanimous independently corroborated witnesses who saw the plane on the north side proving Lloyde's story false.

I'm talking about solid proof that you clearly have not viewed. Watch this presentation in full:
vimeo.com/4777716

And we can continue the discussion there.

But look Franklin, even this guy was willing to admit that Lloyde's story about the pole and the hood was "unlikely"!

Poor Lloyd! I feel sorry for the guy. He is obviously lying.

The CIT asked to see documentation of my claim (made above) that there is conflicting testimony about what kind(s) of aircraft was/were involved in the attack on the Pentagon. Some of that evidence can be found in this four-part series on youtube: youtube.com/watch?v=XdxzqqZ3e2s. (Some of this is CIT material.) Three witnesses in this series say the plane was small: two specify that it looked like a 15-20 seater, and two call it a commuter plane. Several witnesses also claim to have seen the actual impact. I haven't yet re-located the footage I saw in which two witnesses claimed to see two planes (but I haven't time to look right now either). I'll post links to that material here when/if I find it again.

Amazing.

It's painful watching Lloyd review the images from Sept 11th. He knows what's going on and alludes to it countless times when he's unaware that the tape is rolling.

The National Security Alert film and Jason's photo showing the white scrape line on the road are 1000% documented proof of deception on 9-11.

It hurts my heart to know they did it, but they did. This needs to be common knowledge backed by the irrefutable evidence that CIT has gathered artfully.

Thanks Craig and Aldo.

As far as the pole.

30-40 foot pole. With 5 feet of it "in the car", leaving the remaining heavier side sticking out, up into the air as he slides to a stop!?

If anyone finds that even remotely possible, I feel sorry for them, and the mind it must take to bend logic so severely.

The car damage DOES speak for itself. Combined with Lloyd's non-convincing story it's obvious the pole was placed on the road, just as the other poles were simply dropped into place.

FYI: An Earth Intelligence Network related blog post about the CIT videos has been added here - phibetaiota.net/?p=10701