The Citizen Investigation Team have interviewed 13 witnesses to the Pentagon attack on 9/11 who are adamant the plane approached from the north side of the Citgo gas station. Because this flight path is inconsistent with the damage path there are three implied conclusions to their alleged findings:
- The plane did not hit the building.
- The plane flew over the building.
- The light poles were planted and the scene with Lloyd England's taxi was staged.
9/11 researchers such as Arabesque, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley and jimd3100 have critiqued the first and second of their implied conclusions, as well as CIT's method, this post however will focus on the third conclusion.
At 9:37 AM on 9/11, Lloyd England was driving his taxi down Route 27, heading south. When Flight 77 flew over, it knocked down five light poles. The first one of these speared itself through Lloyd's windshield, almost killing him. The below diagram was drawn by Lloyd himself.
Lloyd claims an unnamed stranger helped him remove the pole without saying a word. His account is a critical pillar supporting the official story of what happened at the Pentagon. If his story is true, it proves the plane hit. If false, it proves the Pentagon must have been damaged some other way.
It is not surprising therefore that many 9/11 researchers are attracted to Lloyd's story. His account has been questioned for a number of reasons. Ignoring CIT's north of Citgo witnesses, perhaps the main reason is the apparent physical impossibility of a 40 foot light pole sticking out of a car, with the heaviest end on the outside, while causing no damage to the hood of the car.
To that I would like to say that I have never seen a light pole be knocked over by a 500mph plane into the windshield of a taxi going the opposite direction, so I have no idea what's going to happen, no one does. Do I think it's strange? Yes. But from studying things like plane crashes, building collapses and explosions, I've learnt that strange things can happen. And I've seen enough air cannon experiments in tornado documentaries and things to have a rough idea what will happen. If someone were to actually launched a metal pole into a car windscreen and document their findings I may take an interest. But simply saying "that doesn't look right so it must be staged" isn't very scientific.
After CIT "proved" that the plane approached from the north side, they deduced that Lloyd's scene must have been staged. Much like their flyover hypothesis, there is no direct evidence to support this, it is rather an implied conclusion based on questionable circumstantial evidence. However that didn't stop CIT from publicly accusing him as "the first known accomplice".
The biggest problem I have with this is the same problem I have with the flyover theory. I'm a pretty imaginative guy and I can come up with all kinds of imaginative theories for how they rigged the towers up and flew the planes into the buildings in a compartmentalized fashion, theories ranging from simultaneous video games that are actually controlling a real plane to explosive fireproofing! But even I have a hard time thinking of a way they could stage a phony road accident in broad daylight.
CIT argue that the other four light poles could have been planted during the night and hidden from view. But Lloyd's scene would have to have been staged either shortly before the impact or after. Considering the amount of traffic that was on Route 27 when the Pentagon was hit it is unlikely that it could have been staged in advance. The following picture was taken by Steve Riskus (who, by the way, saw the plane hit the building) less than 1 minute after the impact.
Note how many cars are on the road. Imagine you are one of these motorists. You're driving up Route 27, heading north. As you approach the bridge, you see a taxi on the other side of the road with a smashed light pole next to it. You would assume there's been some kind of road accident. Then the plane flies over and appears to crash into the Pentagon. You then go home or to work to watch TV and you see this taxi driver talking about how his cab was hit by a pole that was struck by the plane. You're gonna think to yourself "Wait a minute, I was there, the plane didn't do that, it was already there!"
No witness has come forward saying they saw the damaged cab before the plane hit. It is therefore unlikely that it was staged in advance. So CIT argue that it was probably staged AFTER the attack, when agents had control of the scene. This theory is perhaps even more absurd and is contradicted by the account of Don Fortunato, who arrived shortly after the attack. In his account he describes stopping next to the cab. But I guess CIT will argue that he's just another mass murdering operative.
Loyd's scene was staged. The idea that the officials would even attempt such a thing in broad daylight is about as absurd as the idea that they would attempt a flyover in broad daylight. Maybe at night on a quiet road, but not in the early morning on an open highway during rush hour.
On the 7th of July 2005, another suspected black-op was carried out on three trains and a bus. One of the survivors, Daniel Obachike, describes seeing police officers, agents and a bandaged actor at the scene within seconds of the blast. If his account is true then that is pretty damning evidence that the attack was a classic false flag operation. However that does not change the fact that the bus was blown up! They did not just cart in some pre-damaged bus and take pictures of it. That would be a crazy thing to do in broad daylight. The bus did explode, there were passengers on board, many were injured and 13 were killed.
On August 30th/31st 1997, Princess Diana was killed in a car crash. Many people now suspect the crash was not an accident. While there is debate as to what actually caused the car to crash, one thing is certain ... The car did crash! And she was inside it when it did! They did not just shoot her and then plant some wrecked car in the Alma tunnel and say she died in a car crash. Could they have done that. Possibly. It was late at night after all. But it would have been a waste of time, effort and an unnecessary risk to the entire operation. Why go through all the trouble of making it look like there was a car crash, when you could just crash a car?
The above picture is of the man Daniel Obachike claims to have seen in Tavistock Square on 7/7. This guy was probably an actor taking part in a simultaneous terror drill. He was not interviewed by the news and to this day no one knows his name. In black-ops, the operatives generally don't give out their names. Lloyd England gave out his name and he willingly let Craig and Aldo into his home and took them to see his cab, even after they accused him of being an accomplice. He does not fit the MO of an operative. He's just a regular guy who reads David Icke books and questions 9/11 as we all do. He's one of us! The guy is a patriot simply trying to help and CIT crucified him. It's the sort of thing I would expect from Glenn Beck. Publicly accusing ordinary citizens of being accomplices without evidence crosses a line and will no doubt come back to bite the truth movement in the ass later.
In Lloyd's recollection of the event, he puts himself in a different place to where he obviously was. CIT of course tries to twist this and claim it as proof he was an operative, but the only thing it really proves is that memories can be vague after several years - which is exactly what we are saying. If Lloyd honestly believes he was in a different place to where he was, how can we be sure CIT's 13 other witnesses aren't equally mistaken?
The CIT Deception - Mock Trailer!