Thank you to the "Citgo Investigation Team" for visiting the site and providing the public with some eyewitnesses' accounts. But, they had some fixed expectations regarding the results, especially the fly-over-scenario. They weren't ashamed to pressurize the witnesses to make their accounts fit to that. Thank you to "brokenstyx" for answering this.
The question I have is at last: What made this most precise hit of the allegedly Boeing 757 possible?
at the moment we know it was precise, but we don't know that it was impossible. this has yet to proven by anyone, and you'll find very few "truth" groups have videos of this being attempted in a simulator, or even videos of 757's in aerobatic shows like you see here. if it was so impossible there'd be more attempts at it in a simulator from people like Pilots for 911 Truth, so i don't suspect its that difficult with some training.
Yes, i do see your point. Jeff Hill has an interview with the construction manager for that reinforcement on his pumpitout forums in the audio section i think. Check it out. Over 100 people died there, but the casualties could have been much worse if it hit elsewhere.
Weather that ONE picture has an odd aspect ratio or not, Lloyd still even denied being surrounded by those FBI agents and very quickly said "No I don't" when asked if he remembers. You don't find that odd at all? He pretty much denied all the Jason Ingersoll pictures and kept reverting back to that ONE official government pentagon/cab photo that was used in the Missouri trial, which was clearly a carefully taken, effects later added, staged photo. Look @ the Ingersoll pics and compare.
Lloyd denies that CIT's distorted photos show reality. He's correct. Penny was almost spot on about the height of the plane - it fits with all witness testimony and all physical evidence. 500mph speeds being impossible is a theory that is unproven. g'day :)
Im sorry bro...this will be my last post because I do not want to clutter your vid with my twisted world view.
Do you hear yourself? Or in this case...read yourself?
If the plane is hitting the light poles, it stands to reason, if you are watching the plane, you also see it hit the light poles. My theory is to deep for you anyhoo...cant do it in 500 characters or less.Amazing witness huh....she was really tellin it like it is.
Who is Wilma Ramey? She is not listed in the 136 witnesses
The Narrator is so desperate by part 3 he actually changes what you just heard to fit his arguemnt.
Lloyd says ...he was AT the pentagon
Narrator says he was.." NEAR" the pent
Penny saw 1 light pole, even though she would of seen ALL the light poles go down. This doesnt jive with the debunker OV.....How did Penny miss the other 5 light poles get hit if she saw the whole thing?
Instead of ask that, he moves on to the impact.....nevermind those 5 other light poles....XD
It is the only explanation that fits all the evidence. Have you not explored the possibility that a plane hit the pentagon? Open your mind beauxq. Everyone saw a plane hit the pentagon. The pentagon is also surrounded by buildings that overlook it. Have you been to the pentagon?
All the witnesses saw what happened. Have you researched the pentagon attack much? What did you make of all the witnesses who unanimously agree that the plane hit the pentagon?
yes yes, very good. so what happened to all those witnesses anyway? the fact that everyone saw the plane hit the pentagon seems to have escaped your attention. and all the buildings overlooking the pentagon - isn't that a little risky for a flyover?
@ brokenstyx - why would the witness run outside after seeing the replay of an explosion on TV? That doesn't seem to me like something to get so excited about as to run outside... but an explosion in the building where he is, for that I can see him running outside.
If I understood the CIT video correctly, the cab was stopped by the only cobblestone backdrop in the area, as indicated by the pictures, yet the cab driver insisted it was not in that spot. Why would he say this in the face of evidence to the contrary. These or the sorts of things that should have been asked at the time in court under oath..what is wrong with that?
The video I watched he did not say that at all...he just insisted that he did not care what the pictures showed that is not where it happened. Maybe he was just confused.
His story has so many holes in it that I would love to see him on a stand in a court of law under oath. Maybe it would come out exactly as he says..and if so great..but the questions should be asked.
I was not there, nor when CIT was investigating so I have no first hand knowledge.
The very fact that you are implying that there are no questions that should be answered or at least asked pertaining to 911 makes me think that you do not want an investigation at all.
You did not say that...but you have implied that there are no questions as far as the events of that day.
If you do think that there should be an investigation into the events to answer the questions that have not been addressed then I am on your side.
Do you think that CIT are simply Gov shills sent out to confuse the story even more. Since they give their video away money is not the issue.
I prefer to think that if they are mistaken it is an honest attempt to get to the truth. If they are deliberate in their supposed misleading video then the question is why?
"when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. "
I heard that years before you were even born. And my assumptions are based on your almost maniacal attack on CIT.
The only thing that is obvious to me is that you are as biased one way as the CIT is the other... I suspect that reality is somewhere in between...and if you really think that the Gov. is telling the truth about any of this 100 percent...lol...good luck with that.
I mean there is so much misinformation about this event that it is almost impossible to know what the truth is beyond the fact that there is a truth that the powers that be do not want to come out.
The Gov. could put all of this to rest by simply having a investigation that at least rivals the investigation of Clinton when he "didnt have sex".
I think this is alot more important, and the fact is much of what the gov says does not make sense.
As far as clear liars go, the same has been said for over 50 years about various JFK assassination investigators...but in 1979 the house select committee on assassinations determined that there were at least four shots fired, and more than one gunman...and literally a coup took place that changed the course of our country...yet it is never reported...and you think the powers that be are suddenly being honest..yeah right...keep drinking that koolaid
You are defending the Gov Story by attacking someone that is challenging the version of the events that the Gov is purporting as absolutely true.
While the people that are asking questions may not be completely correct, to call them liars as if they are making all of this up is believing the Gov story as if they are being honest...and the gov is filled with compulsive liars...give me a break
I am quite sure that they are being honest in their efforts, regardless if they are wrong with the facts, but Im not even sure of that.
Just as people could be wrong about what they perceived that day, it could go either way.
And even if they saw exactly what they said they saw does not mean that there was not a rogue gov. element involved...in fact there are agencies in the gov that excel in perception. To them the end justifies the means..I would not be so sure of my self if I were you.
As for me...I would be relieved if it were proven that CIT is completely wrong.
Instead of condemning them, maybe you should contact them and get the facts from the horses mouth, show them where you think they are wrong and come to a conclusion of who is correct.
IF that is true it is unfortunate. Do you think that CIT is just wrong, or everyone that questions the official story?
To me there are a couple of looming questions that are beyond coincidence, one is how, with lots of warning planes were attacking, did a large jet liner do maneuvers over the pentagon with out one fighter waiting for it.
And how did the terrorists pick the one day that our military was running drills of hijacked planes hitting buildings...that is beyond coincidence. Period.
Just a question though...in some of the archives there is a bit with his wife and she starts talking about the FBI and stuff like that away from the camera. What do you think that was about?
Yeah right after getting slammed down by a huge plane travelling 500+ mph the pole missed the hood completely LMAO. Not even a scratch. By the way pilots for truth have posted an analysis which shows your flight path to be impossible. Sorry you don't like to hear it but your ideas are not backed up by the evidence. Anyway you are set in your ways and will remain anti CIT even if they are proven correct later. It isn't about facts for you it is obviously personal.
How did that hood remain unscratched eh? Just a miracle I guess. Oh and you didn't show England's interview he gave to CIT while in the car travelling the same route he travelled on 9/11 where he denied he was on the bridge. Now why is that? Highly suspicious that you did not address that or the miracle pristine hood.
the pole is not straight. it didn't slide up the hood. it went through the windscreen, and came to rest on the dashboard. there is a hole where it entered, and damage indicating its resting place on the dash.
but you should try and work these things out for yourself. its much fairer on the innocent bystanders.
Thank you to the "Citgo Investigation Team" for visiting the site and providing the public with some eyewitnesses' accounts. But, they had some fixed expectations regarding the results, especially the fly-over-scenario. They weren't ashamed to pressurize the witnesses to make their accounts fit to that. Thank you to "brokenstyx" for answering this.
The question I have is at last: What made this most precise hit of the allegedly Boeing 757 possible?
kurka05ify 3 days ago
@kurka05ify
hi kurk, thanks for watching.
at the moment we know it was precise, but we don't know that it was impossible. this has yet to proven by anyone, and you'll find very few "truth" groups have videos of this being attempted in a simulator, or even videos of 757's in aerobatic shows like you see here. if it was so impossible there'd be more attempts at it in a simulator from people like Pilots for 911 Truth, so i don't suspect its that difficult with some training.
brokenstyx 3 days ago
@brokenstyx
Hi, thanks for reply.
I doubt the coincidence of hitting the just reinforced section of the pentagon, not the possibility that a Boeing 757 can fly in an acrobatic manner.
kurka05ify 3 days ago
@kurka05ify
Yes, i do see your point. Jeff Hill has an interview with the construction manager for that reinforcement on his pumpitout forums in the audio section i think. Check it out. Over 100 people died there, but the casualties could have been much worse if it hit elsewhere.
brokenstyx 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brokenstyx
Since I couldn't find the mentioned interview, I'll provide the sources I rely to:
"What really happened: The Pentagon Renovations Completed on 09/11/2001"
preview (dot) tinyurl (dot) com/8yhgu8c
"9-11 Research: Pentagon Renovation"
preview (dot) tinyurl (dot) com/3zm23l5
Thanks for the keywords.
kurka05ify 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Weather that ONE picture has an odd aspect ratio or not, Lloyd still even denied being surrounded by those FBI agents and very quickly said "No I don't" when asked if he remembers. You don't find that odd at all? He pretty much denied all the Jason Ingersoll pictures and kept reverting back to that ONE official government pentagon/cab photo that was used in the Missouri trial, which was clearly a carefully taken, effects later added, staged photo. Look @ the Ingersoll pics and compare.
Cap420 3 weeks ago
@Cap420
Everyone who was there (are you following this?)
saw the plane (still wiith me?)
hit the pentagon!
brokenstyx 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Cap420 3 weeks ago
@tpgphotog
Lloyd denies that CIT's distorted photos show reality. He's correct. Penny was almost spot on about the height of the plane - it fits with all witness testimony and all physical evidence. 500mph speeds being impossible is a theory that is unproven. g'day :)
x
brokenstyx 6 months ago
Im sorry bro...this will be my last post because I do not want to clutter your vid with my twisted world view.
Do you hear yourself? Or in this case...read yourself?
If the plane is hitting the light poles, it stands to reason, if you are watching the plane, you also see it hit the light poles. My theory is to deep for you anyhoo...cant do it in 500 characters or less.Amazing witness huh....she was really tellin it like it is.
Who is Wilma Ramey? She is not listed in the 136 witnesses
FreedumbFighter28 1 year ago
@FreedumbFighter28
wanda ramey? she is documented having seen the plane hit the lightpoles.
ur last post? :( lol
ur theory is too deep for me... sure thing (also lol)
take care, mr secret stupid theory x
brokenstyx 1 year ago
The Narrator is so desperate by part 3 he actually changes what you just heard to fit his arguemnt.
Lloyd says ...he was AT the pentagon
Narrator says he was.." NEAR" the pent
Penny saw 1 light pole, even though she would of seen ALL the light poles go down. This doesnt jive with the debunker OV.....How did Penny miss the other 5 light poles get hit if she saw the whole thing?
Instead of ask that, he moves on to the impact.....nevermind those 5 other light poles....XD
FreedumbFighter28 1 year ago
@FreedumbFighter28
lol maybe penny was watching, erm, the plane?! nice try. everyone saw the plane hit the pentagon. do pay attention x
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@brokenstyx <--Classic.....maybe she was watching the plane... that was supposed to be hitting light poles.
So how can you see the plane, but not THE PLANE HITTING LIGHT POLES...hahaha
I am beside myself with laughter....good attempt bro...Ill give ya that, but it feels desperate.
I mean, 6 witnesses down....94 more that agree with the south approach.XD
FreedumbFighter28 1 year ago
@FreedumbFighter28
every single witness saw the plane hti the pentagon. how many is that?
do you think they planted the lightpoles but the plane hit the building? because that is incredibly stupid.
if i was watching a plane come out of nowhere and almost hit me, i'd be watching the plane. its obvious. well, to some of us :)
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@brokenstyx Oh, did you ask him if he knew it was a replay?
beauxq 1 year ago
@beauxq
It is the only explanation that fits all the evidence. Have you not explored the possibility that a plane hit the pentagon? Open your mind beauxq. Everyone saw a plane hit the pentagon. The pentagon is also surrounded by buildings that overlook it. Have you been to the pentagon?
All the witnesses saw what happened. Have you researched the pentagon attack much? What did you make of all the witnesses who unanimously agree that the plane hit the pentagon?
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@brokenstyx Whether he knew something or not, has no bearing on what happened, so it can't fit all the evidence.
beauxq 1 year ago
@beauxq
lol way to make sense.
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@brokenstyx As if your comment makes sense...
beauxq 1 year ago
@beauxq
yes yes, very good. so what happened to all those witnesses anyway? the fact that everyone saw the plane hit the pentagon seems to have escaped your attention. and all the buildings overlooking the pentagon - isn't that a little risky for a flyover?
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@brokenstyx I never said the plane didn't hit the pentagon.
beauxq 1 year ago
@beauxq
Do you think the felled lightpoles were planted?
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@brokenstyx I think you don't know what this witness was talking about, because you don't know whether he knew the explosion on the TV was a replay.
beauxq 1 year ago
@beauxq
I do know, from a process called deduction.
I have dedicated video on roosevelt roberts' testimony, check it out :)
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@brokenstyx I think you explain your deduction.
beauxq 1 year ago
@ brokenstyx - why would the witness run outside after seeing the replay of an explosion on TV? That doesn't seem to me like something to get so excited about as to run outside... but an explosion in the building where he is, for that I can see him running outside.
beauxq 1 year ago
@beauxq
he gives the reason himself "i thought we were being invaded". he didn't know it was a replay.
brokenstyx 1 year ago
Comment removed
niverent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CIT is 100% garbage.
citwatch . blogspot . com
bumblebee8banana 1 year ago
Penny said that the plane banked LEFT???? Looking at the flight path, surely it would have banked RIGHT if it was trying to hit the Pentagon????
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@CokeSupply
she describes a right and a left tilt of the plane
brokenstyx 1 year ago
@brokenstyx
Ah I must have missed that part :s
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@CokeSupply
no worries - its just after 5mins in this video, and the full interview is at pumpitout's forum, in the 911 Research / 911 Phone Calls section
brokenstyx 1 year ago
CIT's response to this video was posted here (just remove the spaces):
tinyurl . com / y96y6qx
StandUpForLiberty 2 years ago 7
If I understood the CIT video correctly, the cab was stopped by the only cobblestone backdrop in the area, as indicated by the pictures, yet the cab driver insisted it was not in that spot. Why would he say this in the face of evidence to the contrary. These or the sorts of things that should have been asked at the time in court under oath..what is wrong with that?
archerace7 2 years ago
lloyde points out the misleading-perspective photo that he is arguing about. this is the "evidence" you speak of.
he is arguing about the place where he got hit, not the place the cab finished.
he remembers being near the pentagon, and points out that CIT's photo makes it look like he is not near the pentagon.
plus, if CIT implicated ME in a mass-murder, I would definitely consider messing with them the next time i saw them.
but he is not the only person who saw the pentagon near the lightpoles
brokenstyx 2 years ago
The video I watched he did not say that at all...he just insisted that he did not care what the pictures showed that is not where it happened. Maybe he was just confused.
His story has so many holes in it that I would love to see him on a stand in a court of law under oath. Maybe it would come out exactly as he says..and if so great..but the questions should be asked.
I was not there, nor when CIT was investigating so I have no first hand knowledge.
archerace7 2 years ago
"he just insisted that he did not care what the pictures showed that is not where it happened"
i thought he said "picture", in relation to CIT's misleading photo with a misleading focal length.
he actually says that two of the pictures of his car line-up. this is in my video, and in CIT's video.
he then says that this one specific picture doesn't line up with "nothing".
this is in my video, and in CIT's video.
brokenstyx 2 years ago
"These or the sorts of things that should have been asked at the time in court under oath..what is wrong with that? "
where did i say anything was wrong with that?
please quote where i said that.
brokenstyx 2 years ago
The very fact that you are implying that there are no questions that should be answered or at least asked pertaining to 911 makes me think that you do not want an investigation at all.
You did not say that...but you have implied that there are no questions as far as the events of that day.
If you do think that there should be an investigation into the events to answer the questions that have not been addressed then I am on your side.
archerace7 2 years ago
"you are implying that there are no questions that should be answered"
nowhere have i implied this.
"you have implied that there are no questions as far as the events of that day."
no i haven't. anywhere. lol.
"If you do think that there should be an investigation into the events to answer the questions that have not been addressed then I am on your side."
ask me what i think of something. i will tell you.
when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
brokenstyx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you think that CIT are simply Gov shills sent out to confuse the story even more. Since they give their video away money is not the issue.
I prefer to think that if they are mistaken it is an honest attempt to get to the truth. If they are deliberate in their supposed misleading video then the question is why?
"when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. "
I heard that years before you were even born. And my assumptions are based on your almost maniacal attack on CIT.
archerace7 2 years ago
The only thing that is obvious to me is that you are as biased one way as the CIT is the other... I suspect that reality is somewhere in between...and if you really think that the Gov. is telling the truth about any of this 100 percent...lol...good luck with that.
archerace7 2 years ago
"and if you really think that the Gov. is telling the truth about any of this 100 percent"
do you mean any of it?
or 100% of it?
oh, and CIT are clear liars. they're quite good at it too!
brokenstyx 2 years ago
I mean there is so much misinformation about this event that it is almost impossible to know what the truth is beyond the fact that there is a truth that the powers that be do not want to come out.
The Gov. could put all of this to rest by simply having a investigation that at least rivals the investigation of Clinton when he "didnt have sex".
I think this is alot more important, and the fact is much of what the gov says does not make sense.
archerace7 2 years ago
As far as clear liars go, the same has been said for over 50 years about various JFK assassination investigators...but in 1979 the house select committee on assassinations determined that there were at least four shots fired, and more than one gunman...and literally a coup took place that changed the course of our country...yet it is never reported...and you think the powers that be are suddenly being honest..yeah right...keep drinking that koolaid
archerace7 2 years ago
@archerace7
"and you think the powers that be are suddenly being honest"
where did i say that? lol
brokenstyx 2 years ago
You are defending the Gov Story by attacking someone that is challenging the version of the events that the Gov is purporting as absolutely true.
While the people that are asking questions may not be completely correct, to call them liars as if they are making all of this up is believing the Gov story as if they are being honest...and the gov is filled with compulsive liars...give me a break
archerace7 2 years ago
"You are defending the Gov Story"
i'm defending the story of the witnesses.
and yes, CIT are liars. if they would like to take legal action against me, i welcome it. we can settle all this in court :)
brokenstyx 2 years ago
I am quite sure that they are being honest in their efforts, regardless if they are wrong with the facts, but Im not even sure of that.
Just as people could be wrong about what they perceived that day, it could go either way.
And even if they saw exactly what they said they saw does not mean that there was not a rogue gov. element involved...in fact there are agencies in the gov that excel in perception. To them the end justifies the means..I would not be so sure of my self if I were you.
archerace7 2 years ago
As for me...I would be relieved if it were proven that CIT is completely wrong.
Instead of condemning them, maybe you should contact them and get the facts from the horses mouth, show them where you think they are wrong and come to a conclusion of who is correct.
Unless you have an agenda of your own.
archerace7 2 years ago
CIT do not allow this sort of questioning.
i have attempted this.
i approached them with the utmost respect, but it is still forbidden.
brokenstyx 2 years ago
IF that is true it is unfortunate. Do you think that CIT is just wrong, or everyone that questions the official story?
To me there are a couple of looming questions that are beyond coincidence, one is how, with lots of warning planes were attacking, did a large jet liner do maneuvers over the pentagon with out one fighter waiting for it.
And how did the terrorists pick the one day that our military was running drills of hijacked planes hitting buildings...that is beyond coincidence. Period.
archerace7 2 years ago
"Do you think that CIT is just wrong"
i think they are deliberately misleading, not just wrong.
"or everyone that questions the official story?"
i would not be a 911 researcher if i thought that.
this is a very simple piece of logic.
i question the official story, so it should be very obvious that i do not think questioning the official story is wrong.
brokenstyx 2 years ago
working now - very good.
Just a question though...in some of the archives there is a bit with his wife and she starts talking about the FBI and stuff like that away from the camera. What do you think that was about?
jeodreamer 2 years ago 2
yeah, that's during their second interview i think, after CIT had published a video alluding to Lloyde being involved in mass murder.
so they are probably winding CIT up (playing them for chumps).
brokenstyx 2 years ago
Yeah right after getting slammed down by a huge plane travelling 500+ mph the pole missed the hood completely LMAO. Not even a scratch. By the way pilots for truth have posted an analysis which shows your flight path to be impossible. Sorry you don't like to hear it but your ideas are not backed up by the evidence. Anyway you are set in your ways and will remain anti CIT even if they are proven correct later. It isn't about facts for you it is obviously personal.
Truthstorm911 2 years ago 4
the pole speared the windshield. the hole is there for all to see.
it then fell down on to the dash. that damage is there for all to see.
it was then removed. i guess Lloyde chose not to scratch up his own car when he took the pole out.
i wonder why he did that? LOL
brokenstyx 2 years ago
and the terrible PfT article tries to debunk a picture i drew in ten seconds some weeks ago.
they take this as the best possible case for a plane hitting the pentagon!
lol idiots.
rob balsamo's 2D maths is irrelevant. he's not very smart. well, he has business-smarts. he can play truthers like you, no problem.
they "peer-review" their own article! lol
and the conflict of interest is obvious.
brokenstyx 2 years ago
the vid stops working at 1:58...aah! will try again tomoz though and watch part 4 now...
jeodreamer 2 years ago
How did that hood remain unscratched eh? Just a miracle I guess. Oh and you didn't show England's interview he gave to CIT while in the car travelling the same route he travelled on 9/11 where he denied he was on the bridge. Now why is that? Highly suspicious that you did not address that or the miracle pristine hood.
Truthstorm911 2 years ago
the pole is not straight. it didn't slide up the hood. it went through the windscreen, and came to rest on the dashboard. there is a hole where it entered, and damage indicating its resting place on the dash.
but you should try and work these things out for yourself. its much fairer on the innocent bystanders.
brokenstyx 2 years ago
thanks for storming my channel with so much "truth" though - i feel invigorated.
LOL
brokenstyx 2 years ago
The cab locations?
I'll check it out.
YougeneDebs 2 years ago