Franklin Westerhouse

I don't agree with Joe B that you guys are "twits" and "irresponsible vigilantes." But I do agree very strongly with Joe B that shock trauma--as he calls it--is a plausible explanation for why Lloyde's account of where the pole hit his car conflicts with the testimony of photos taken on the bridge (certainly when considered in abstraction from the total situation--whatever that was). Of course, I also agree with Joe B that the event as Lloyde describes it--when considered in abstraction from the total situation (whatever that was)--is "worlds away from impossible." I personally regard it as plausible precisely because, as Joe B also notes, "unlikely events occur in almost every accident." And I have one further reason for preferring to describe the event Lloyde describes as "entirely plausible" rather than "unlikely": no matter how the pole landed, it would have landed in an unlikely way. To see this, consider a container with a trillion numbered marbles in it. Mix it up, and choose one at random. No matter which you pick, the odds of picking that very one were a trillion to one. Now toss Lloyde's light-pole in the air. The precise way it lands will depend on a near infinity of independently unlikely conditions: precise wind speed, wind direction, air pressure, car speed, windshield size, lightpole weight, lightpole shape, lightpole material, car position, car speed, car direction, windshield size, windshield strength, time Lloyde got on the freeway, traffic, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.... So of course it's unlikely; but that doesn't mean it can't also be entirely plausible.

I should also say that I don't find Joe B's response "emotional" or "irrational." He seems mostly calm and clear to me, though I wish he would have left out the name calling and other abuse.

Finally, I agree with the CIT that Joe B should watch the video they've produced that documents "unanimous independently corroborated witnesses who saw the plane on the north side" of the CITGO gas station instead of where the official report places it. For uncovering and publicizing that evidence, the CIT guys are far from "twits" or "irresponsible vigilantes." If 911 really was an inside job, then they're heroes instead (though they do abuse their conversation partners rather too much and too quickly).

Perhaps I should say one more thing. My own familiarity with the relevant evidence (and I admit to being less familiar with it than the CIT) makes me think that Joe B is right to complain that you guys have been far too quick to accuse Lloyde of being a liar and accomplice, and that you've also been irresponsible in exposing him to what will almost surely be further harassment.

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.