Amazing video of planted 911 ground zero "witness"

[Doodad]

"So who is running this show on behalf of the "not so trooful, troof party?"

To a large degree, the left is vulnerable to conspiracist thinking to the extent that it remains trapped in such faulty mainstream assumptions. This romanticized vision of US society is mirrored in mainstream conservative criticism of liberalism as well. As Himmelstein notes, "The core assumption" of post-WWII conservatism "is the belief that American society on all levels has an organic order--harmonious, beneficent, and self-regulating--disturbed only by misguided ideas and policies, especially those propagated by a liberal elite in the government, the media, and the universities."

From the article ;

Genuine conspiracies have seldom been as dangerous or as powerful as have movements of countersubversion. The exposer of conspiracies necessarily adopts a victimized, self-righteous tone which masks his own meaner interests as well as his share of responsibility for a given conflict. Accusations of conspiracy conceal or justify one's own provocative acts and thus contribute to individual or national self-deception. Still worse, they lead to overreactions, particularly to degrees of suppressive violence which normally would not be tolerated.

Now that's cute

Nero fiddled while Rome burned ( whilst reflecting on itself )springs to mind.

P.S.

"The official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is still a lie"

The guy really has a handle on a lot of things, as does our Jeff, He admits that there are and have always been real conspiracies. Only a fool would not admit that. He also realizes how these and faux conspiracies can serve others with a different agenda just as well as the true believers.
'
Me, I figured out back in the summer of '69 that EVERYBODY was lying to me. Everything since then has just been proof except when I encounter someone who also figured it out. I recognize them by their disdain for recruitment among a few other things.

[OnoI812]

You misunderstand my point Ono -
I don't believe the official version of 19 osama-backed saudis rocking the world with boxcutters, but the evidence behind the claims in this video is worthless.

It's worth lay in the juxtaposition against his other video which is why he had this to say: At this point the debate about what happened at the Pentagon boils down to whether you choose to believe the CITGO witnesses or Lloyd. CIT asks you to make up your own mind but suggests you watch Lloyd's first-hand testimony in this presentation after viewing the testimony from the CITGO witnesses presented in The PentaCon ...mea culpa, probably should have put up the old citgo witness link first.

the hood of the car wasn't scratched. he had an Icke book. did I miss something? explain to me how that provides evidence that illuminates what happened that day or who was responsible

Like he says It all boils down to whether you want to believe our time defying Icke afficianado, who rides in on his magic metalled chariot to become a prime witness for the official story. Or two cops who adamantly imply his story is an impossibility.

In my book he has every right to speculate and assume, after all, he did the legwork, he went about and got the interviews.

Now there is always the third option, don't believe
any of it and do your own interviews, I myself am anxiously awaiting Jeff's interviews of these witnesses, but until then I'm of the feeling the vid producer has every right to speculate about his own work whether it be for good or evil.

[Jeff]

It always strikes me as funny - and also as a red flag for dubious reasoning - how much weight can be accorded the recollection of a few selected eyewitnesses when they can be used to support one's beliefs, and how easily the memories of scores more can be dismissed and their integrity pissed upon when they don't.

From here:

Primarily, this film [the PentaCon] asks us to believe that a quick glimpse of Flight 77 by three people at the Citgo station across from the Pentagon and one person on Columbia Pike southwest of the station proves that the plane flew by on the north side of that station. The film asks us to believe that these perceptions and five-year-old memories are so accurate that perhaps two dozen eyewitnesses who say the plane flew over the Washington Boulevard bridge are either lying (because they are in on the conspiracy), or mistaken, or under the influence of "government mind control." The film further asks us to believe that this "north of the Citgo" flight path is so credible that it also proves that all the physical evidence of the "official" flight path -- including knocked down light poles, a clipped tree, damage to a generator, a fence, a trailer, and a low concrete wall near the Pentagon, the plane's heading indicated by the "black box" Flight Data Recorder, not to mention the massive damage to the Pentagon itself -- must have been faked right in front of dozens of witnesses by some mysterious means that the film does not even begin to explain except for vague references to "explosives." The film does not stop there, but also insists that the flight path asserted by the Citgo witnesses is so incredibly credible, so unbelievably believable, that we must conclude that the plane that they and everyone else saw must have actually flown over the Pentagon.

And yet, in more than 100 published accounts, not a single witness -- including the ones interviewed by the so-called Citizens Investigation Team! -- say they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. This is the one detail that all accounts agree on: the plane hit the Pentagon. And once again, the film does not offer any credible explanation for how witnesses on all sides of the building failed to notice the alleged fly-over; it was just some grand "illusion" whereby the plane disappeared into the fireball which somehow convinced everyone that it hit the building. This one detail, all by itself, debunks the tale told by the Citizens Investigation Team: If the plane hit the Pentagon, the path of damage into the building implies that the plane could not have come from north of the Citgo station, so one of those assertions must be false. If the plane did not hit the Pentagon, then it must have flown over, and we are asked to believe that the plotters planned a hoax that vitally depended on nobody noticing (and possibly photographing!) this fly-over. On the other hand, the damage inside the building does point directly back to the path established by ALL the other physical evidence outside the building, and the path described by the majority of the witnesses.

Whether or not you believe the plane was Flight 77 piloted by Hani Hanjour, it's almost incomprehensible that anyone could realistically believe that the testimony of this small number of witnesses could overturn not only the testimony of a vastly greater number of witnesses but also the huge amount of physical evidence that a plane flew into the side of the Pentagon. But that is the story that the Citizens Investigation Team will literally try to sell -- for $20 per DVD.

[Doodad]

http://www.swans.com/library/art11/mdolin10.html

A little clue to the puzzle from a relatively modern perspective. I like to consider it a tidbit for the neo-conservative beserker idea Jeff has. Can you spot the play?

[jingofever]

he had an Icke book. did I miss something? explain to me how that provides evidence that illuminates what happened that day or who was responsible

"Icke afficianados" are eminently untrustworthy. He is clearly lying or insane. Probably not even a cab driver.

I do not believe the book was syncronicity. I'm going with an in your face calling card from the Mossad.

Does the Mossad have a history of planting Icke books? Or did you already think Mossad was involved and latch onto a minor oddity to reinforce your belief? It's not like finding a joker is it?

Anyway, here is my theory about the book. Whatshisname cabbie is being honest when he says, "I read a little bit of everything."

[OnoI812]

It always strikes me as funny - and also as a red flag for dubious reasoning - how much weight can be accorded the recollection of a few selected eyewitnesses when they can be used to support one's beliefs, and how easily the memories of scores more can be dismissed and their integrity pissed upon when they don't.

Hmm a few select eyewitness? Just how many witnesses might there have been in position at the Citgo station? 4, 8, 20? did he only interview 50% of them? Maybe someone should interview all the other Citgo witnesses (if there are any?) could be a scoop there...

Maybe you can ask Lagasse and Brooks why they are pissing on the all the good people when you do your interview with them...maybe I missed it, but didn't see any interviews at your linked site.

[11:11]

I'm going with an in your face calling card from the Mossad

Wow, really? Didn't see that coming...

It's a lot more logical than syncronicity, lol. Afterall, the agents themsleves (the "dancing Israelis") said they were in Manhatten to "film the event". I presume they were operating in D.C. that day, as well. Either that, or the lizards left it.

Global multicorporate Lizards or Mossad ?

Wow, thats not even a close call !

Unless you understand that the latter are working for the former, and always have been and always will be.

Along with the CIA and MI6 of course.

This particular Icke presentation being found on the seat of a cabbie, who's cab is damaged by an upturned pole, and not blown a million miles backwards by the jet engines has seriously freaked me out.

Perhaps Im not quite as fucking mad as I thought I was.

And BTW, if this whole affair is an infamous COINTEL doublebluff, then its beyond fucking clever.

Yeah, I'm with ya. The boots on the ground were working for the lizards. BTW, I use lizard metaphorically, because it's so out there. That these psyopaths may be something other than human, I'll entertain. Reptilians, I dunno! I've never read Icke (a book). Heard him interwiewed and read a couple of articles, but that's all. He sure has the NWO dead on.

Goddamn, I watched that Youtube interview with Lloyd. Man, there is something WAY wrong. His story is 100% implausable, yet I beleive he's telling the truth as he knows it. When he speaks of the white van occupant who helps him remove the (190 lb) light pole, never says a word to Lloyd, and drives off - while the Pentagram is attacked! WTF? This has the feel of mind control. The white van occupant is probably the one who smashed out Lloyd's windshield.

This begs the question: Would Lloyd have to have been previously programmed, or was a quick NLP job, like Darren Brown has shown quite possible?

I am so damn mad. It gets worse with each day. The media is so deep into this it's unreal.

[11:11]

he had an Icke book. did I miss something? explain to me how that provides evidence that illuminates what happened that day or who was responsible

"Icke afficianados" are eminently untrustworthy. He is clearly lying or insane. Probably not even a cab driver.

I do not believe the book was syncronicity. I'm going with an in your face calling card from the Mossad.

Does the Mossad have a history of planting Icke books? Or did you already think Mossad was involved and latch onto a minor oddity to reinforce your belief? It's not like finding a joker is it?

Anyway, here is my theory about the book. Whatshisname cabbie is being honest when he says, "I read a little bit of everything."

My comment about the book as a calling card is my OPINION, or wild guess, m'kay? The involvement of Israel is not in dispute. It's a FACT.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

No wonder I stick with Newton's law of physics at the WTC as simple solid proof.

"The buildings can't come down that fast without being blown up.
Conservation of Momentum."

[11:11]

Yes, contrary to the gatekeepers, controlled demolition matters. It's also the easiest part of the crime to prove.

[OnoI812]

Anyway, here is my theory about the book. Whatshisname cabbie is being honest when he says, "I read a little bit of everything."

Now, now, no one is accusing Lloyd of being illiterate,
I'm sure that what amounts to "Herpetology and the art of Lincoln windshield repair" occupying his rear seat, was being put to good use.


Where things start getting all hinky for me is when there is no logical explanation of how one of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoypAJ2KD-8
can go through the windshield of a MOVING towncar and not muss the paintwork or rearrange his face.

Then there's this tidbit I just found where Russell Pickering, In between cursing like a sailor and wondering why the square peg doesn't fit into the round hole, lets loose something about our cabbie friend I hadn't known: @ 1:21 "Or wearing a Law enforcement belt buckle and his wife works for the FBI" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0qHkPQb3vk

Hmmm...

No, I have to agree with you. he is being 100% honest when he says he reads a little bit of everything...

[jingofever]

"Or wearing a Law enforcement belt buckle and his wife works for the FBI"

Yes, that puts him pretty high up on the food chain, doesn't it?

The idea seems to be that no way did a light pole smash through his wind shield. What about all of the other cars who were in traffic around him? Did they see Lloyd or the man in the white van smash it instead? Or maybe they have "law enforcement belt buckles" too? Or a wife who works for the FBI? Or a cousin who works for the IRS? Any minor tidbit that we can pretend discredits them will work.

[Doodad]

The involvement of Israel is not in dispute. It's a FACT.

Protocols of the Elders of 911.

[Jeff]

FWIW, here is a lengthy, critical review of "The PentaCon."

The film tries to make the case that four eyewitness statements are enough evidence to counter all other physical evidence (and implicitly, all other contradictory eyewitness statements).One of the main defects of the PentaCon is that it only considers four eyewitness statements—ignoring a very large body of eyewitness statements and previous research into the testimony.

Why is this significant? “Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING.”

The CITGO witnesses have demonstrated faulty memory about verifiable events:

Sgt. William Lagasse saw the plane before he heard it.He describes it as “American Airlines,” “bright silver,” “blue and red stripes… on the fuselage,” “shiny,” and “saw both engines.” He remarks that American Airlines “is one of the only non-painted airliners, so it’s pretty distinctive.” He claims to have “enough experience in aviation and aircraft that I could identify stuff pretty easily.”Many of Legasse’s observations have been recorded previously.[245] Like his partner, Lagasse claims that the plane “flew into the building,” and “when the plane hit, it kind of disappeared.” However, he claims that the plane flew north of the Navy Annex (contradicting the testimony of Paik and many others—but later says “in that direction”),[246] and north of the CITGO gas station: “100% sure—I’d bet my life on it.”He claims that people on highway 27 would have difficulty seeing the plane heading South because of the trees[247] and that “people on [interstate-395] had a great view.”[248] He remarks that “American Airlines is the only polished aluminum airline… blue and red strip and the big “AA” on the back [i.e. tail].” This statement is true, and many witnesses remarked that it was silver and described it as American Airlines.[249]

The interviewer then explains that “the official story says that the plane came on the south side and hit the light poles here [pointing].” Legasse responds:

“No Chance.There’s no chance. If… as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here [where Lagasse claims the plane flew] that was knocked down, and there was [another] here, that was knocked down—not any over here…none of these light poles over here were knocked down… I’ve never seen anything that was on the south side of that gas station—ever.”

Absolutely false! Lagasse is wrong.

Lagasse continues, “I don’t have eyes in the back of my head.”

This assumes he was facing in the direction he remembered.This is a possibility as Lagasse misremembers where he was standing at the gas station.He claims with confidence:

“This is where the taxi cab was.Right here.Not over there. Nothing happened over here!”

Wrong again.So much for “100%—I’d bet my life on it” certainty (which the filmmakers exploit with slow motion replay for manipulative effect). Lagasse is 100% wrong about the taxi cab and the light pole location.

This shows that Laggase’s entire testimony about the flight path is in doubt.If he cannot determine where the real lamp poles and the taxi cab were, we have strong reasons to doubt his testimony about the flight path.If he does not know where these objects were located how could he remember which direction the plane flew?Especially noteworthy is the fact that he claims that the flight path was approximately where he thought the light poles and taxi cab were—is it reasonable to think that the plane flew where the real lamp poles were—not where he thought they were?This example vividly illustrates why testimony years after the event is less reliable.Although some details are clearly remembered, others are not.Even the interviewer admits, “everyone knows people’s memories—it’s hard to recollect things sometimes.”[250]

It is even possible to be “100%” sure of one’s memory and still be wrong, as this clearly demonstrates; Lagasse appeared to be just as confident of the location of the light pole damage and taxi cab as he was that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station.He even doubts the “official story” of the light pole damage and taxi cab location when this is explained to him!

“What official story?The only official story would have been the Arlington County Police Report done after the event.There’s no official story other than that… I’ve never seen anything that said it was on the south side of that gas station.Ever [looks upwards in bewilderment].These were the light poles.This is where the taxi cab was [pointing to the same incorrect location].Nothing [emphasizing] happened over here.I can’t be any clearer about it.”

100% false!We know that Lagasse is definitely wrong about the location of the light pole damage and taxi cab.We know that he thought the plane flew in the location where he believed these objects were.The PentaCon ignores the possibility that he saw the plane where the light poles and taxi cab were actually located.

[11:11]

It is important to see anti-elite conspiracism and scapegoating as not merely destructive of a progressive analysis but also as specific techniques used by fascist political movements to provide a radical-sounding left cover for a rightist attack on the status quo.


Oh, hahaha! You've gotta be freaking kidding me. My, they are working over time, and employing some really bad writers! Lol Who writes this stuff? Anti-elite conspiracism? Yes, protect that status quo! Amazing piece of desperate tripe, there, Doodad. Thank you for posting it. I can just see all of the poor little psuedo intellects trying to adjust their thinking after reading that. Thank GOD most people have the common sense to not get sucked into that kind of mind control. That's why the "status quo" is resorting to tasers.