Source – truthandshadows.com
– ‘…If England’s tale isn’t unlikely enough for you yet, there’s more. One of the oddest things to emerge from the second CIT interview (the one shown in Lloyde England and His Taxicab: The Eye of the Storm) is the claim by England that his cab came to a stop not where all the photographs show but hundreds of feet to the north. (Route 27 is a north/south highway, and England is claiming his car was hit by the pole as he was driving south past the Pentagon, rather than later, when he had reached the bridge”
Staging the scene: Lloyde England’s tall Pentagon tale (Part 1 of 2) – By Craig McKee
England brought Ranke and Marquis to see the damaged cab.
England says 9/11 was an inside job, but his claims about how his taxi was ‘damaged’ by a large pole don’t add up
his is the first of a two-part report on the story of Lloyde England, the taxi driver who alleges that a light pole hit his car after being knocked over by the plane that the official story says “hit” the Pentagon. In this part I look at what the evidence shows and what England has said. In the second part I will look at the troubling attempts by certain members of the Truth Movement to convince us that the England story is true and that it supports the official claim of a 757 impact with the Pentagon.
“Never have we accused Lloyde England of willingly being involved in this operation because we don’t know that, and we can’t prove it. He could, in fact, be a victim who was coerced on some level or manipulated on some level, which would in essence make him a victim who was forced to be involved in this event.” – Craig Ranke
“‘Accusing’ cab driver Lloyde England is a misnomer; England accuses himself through the massive internal and external contradictions in his testimony.” – Kevin Barrett
“Unless something happened that I’m not familiar with, something I don’t understand about physics, a plane couldn’t go in that hole.” – Lloyde England
Taxi driver Lloyde England says that early in his work day on September 11, 2001, he was told by two customers that the Twin Towers in New York City had been hit by planes, and he decided he should go home so he wouldn’t be in the middle of “what was happening.”1
But England’s decision put him right in the middle of what was about to happen at the Pentagon. As he describes it, he was driving south on Route 27 when he glimpsed a low-flying plane crossing the highway in front of him a split second before a large light pole came crashing through his windshield, barely missing him and embedding itself in the back seat.
England claims this is the pole that crashed through the windshield of his cab.
It’s quite a story. Like a scene from a Bruce Willis movie. And it’s perfect for creating superficial and unquestioning media interest. It gives the Pentagon story a human face, and a sympathetic one at that. But England’s account also appears to reinforce specific official claims. It appears to confirm the downing of five light poles by a 757, which in turn is supposed to corroborate both the official flight path of the plane alleged to be American Airlines Flight 77 and the plane’s minimum wingspan. But instead of confirming this “evidence,” England’s description of events contradicts it. What he describes is not only physically impossible but it is full of inconsistencies, contradictions, and irrational claims.
It is revealing that this impossible account is being supported by a small group within the 9/11 Truth Movement that relentlessly advocates for the government’s impact claim. (For more on this, watch for Part 2 of this report, in which I will address in more detail the false claims of Wayne Coste and David Chandler, who contend that England’s story is factual and reasonable and that it supports both the physical evidence and a 757 impact with the Pentagon.)
This is the damage to the passenger seat that is supposed to have been made by the pole. (Photo supplied by Shirley Hughes-England)
The only reason the impossibilities in England’s account are clear to us is because Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team traveled across the country to interview him twice, first in 2006 and again in 2008 (they were accompanied on the first trip by Dylan Avery and Russell Pickering). The first interview became a 20-minute video called The First Known Accomplice?, released in 2007. The 95-minute follow-up was called Lloyde England and His Taxicab: The Eye of the Storm, released in 2008.
Footage from both was also used in CIT’s best-known video, National Security Alert. It was during the second visit that England took Marquis and Ranke to his country property 90 minutes from his Arlington County, Virginia, home to see the taxi from 9/11, which had been there for several years, covered by a tarp (see top photo)Without this investigation by CIT, would the weaknesses of England’s story have passed unnoticed? Before this, we had only a few short TV interviews and England’s Survivors’ Fund account (the Fund provided him with financial support following his “ordeal”). We later had a phone interview done in 2010 by “researcher” Jeff Hill, who has made a point of interviewing witnesses already spoken to by CIT and trying to turn those witnesses against CIT through a series of manipulations and dishonest tactics.2
While it can’t really be relied on, England’s drawing does show the pole extending beyond the end of the car.
From these sources we learn that England says he was driving past the Pentagon at either 40 or 50 miles per hour when the pole hit his cab, forcing him to fight for control, with the approximately 30-foot-long pole sticking out across the hood.3
The pole, he explains, bent the front passenger seat back and “stopped” in the back seat, narrowly missing him. He says he brought the car to a stop in the middle of the highway, pointing west, towards the side of the road and away from the Pentagon.
Which pole was that?
Before I get into what can’t be true in England’s account, I have no choice but to address the utterly unfounded claim by Coste and Chandler that England did not identify the approximately 30-foot main part of the first light pole as having hit his cab and instead must have been talking about a much smaller piece at the top of pole 2 (which they estimate to be 11.5 feet long). I will go into this more in the follow-up to this article and will respond specifically to the chapter in Coste’s “video series” that addresses England. But I offer conclusive proof below that it was the long end of the pole England was talking about, not a much shorter piece.4
First, in an NBC interview shown in The First Known Accomplice?, England says: “When [the plane] hit the pole it knocked the light part off. Nothing came through the car but the pole itself.”5
In an audio pre-interview for the same CIT video, England is asked by Pickering, “So which piece did you take out of the window?”6
England: “The long piece. The part that was [unintelligible] off the, off the ground.”
Pickering: So it’s the long piece?
England: Yeah, the long piece. See it’s the long piece. See the end on it?
Ranke (to someone in the room): Show him the end.
England: Yeah, this was the piece that was in the ground.
Then, in their 2008 interview, Ranke asks about the length of the pole he is talking about:
Ranke: So, you’re saying, how long do you think the pole was? Approximately?
England: It was sticking out, way over…
Ranke: No, I mean the whole pole.
England: I’d say it was about 30, 40 foot long. … The base of it was in concrete.
Marquis: And to clarify, it was the long piece of the base of the pole.
England: Yes, the long piece that was sticking out across the hood.
In the interview with Hill, England volunteers the size of the pole that he says entered his cab:
England: “I think the pole was about 40 foot long.”
Does all this sound like he’s talking about an 11.5-foot arm on the top of the pole? Incredibly, Coste says this shorter section would appear “long” in comparison to England’s own height.7
Why couldn’t this pole have hit?
Now that we have confirmed that it was, in fact, the large part of pole 1 that England is alleging hit his cab, let’s look at how what he is describing can’t be true.
This graphic shows how the right wing would have hit pole 1 and knocked it to the right and across the road.
The plane is supposed to have crossed the north-south Route 27 diagonally, hitting pole 1 with the right wing (the cab would have been to the left of the plane). But given that the plane’s wings are not perpendicular to the fuselage but somewhat swept back, the pole should have been knocked forward, to the right, and across the road. Had it been knocked in the direction the official story claims, the plane’s fuselage would have been directly in the pole’s path. We’re supposed to believe the pole was sent flying to the left of the plane by the right wing, that it somehow passed over, under, or though the fuselage, and that it then impaled the cab. And we’re supposed to believe that the cab moved south as England struggled to gain control, ending up basically where the pole was originally standing in the first place. Interestingly, the other four poles just fell over and remained very close to their original locations. Only pole 1 is supposed to have traveled any distance, and yet it ends up right near where it started, just like the others.
Anomalous ‘damage’ to the cab
Then we have the “damage” to the taxi itself, which was not what would have been expected from the catastrophic impact of a more-than-200-pound light pole hit by a 90-ton plane flying at 530 miles per hour.
The hole in the windshield doesn’t line up with the damage to the front and back seats. (Photo supplied by Shirley Hughes-England)
It is clear that the windshield was significantly damaged by something. But the hood is not scratched or dented in any way (England even points this out to CIT in a video interview, as if to pre-empt his interviewers when he is acknowledging that the pole was “lying on the hood”). The bent and jagged end of the main part of the pole is supposed to have crashed through the windshield, doing major damage to the dashboard on the passenger side, bending the front passenger seat back (without tearing it at all), and making a tiny hole low on the upright part of the rear seat.
So much of this is simply impossible.
The idea that this is the damage created by a light pole as it impaled the back seat is absurd. (CIT photo)
The most extreme element of this claim is the almost complete absence of damage to the back seat. How could the tapered end of this 30-foot pole be hurled through the windshield at great speed and make a hole in the rear seat that you couldn’t fit a tennis ball through? The diameter of the end of the pole is obviously significantly greater than the diameter of the hole. And how could the pole, with jagged metal on its end, bend the front seat back without tearing its upholstery?
The splayed metal clearly didn’t embed itself in the back seat.
Then there is the dashboard. With the 1990 model of the Lincoln Town Car (this is the cab he drove), the dashboard appears to be somewhat higher than the lip of the hood where it meets the windshield. And in photos of the actual damaged cab you can see that the dashboard has been crushed by something so that it is now lower than the lip of the hood. But the hood is undamaged. Not even a small dent in the lip. How could a pole smash the dashboard until it’s lower than the hood without damaging the hood itself? Again, impossible.
Then we have the fact that the damage does not line up. The pole is supposed to have gone through at about the center of the windshield, hit the front passenger seat (which appears to have received an impact to its top right corner as you’re looking at it through the windshield), and then made a sudden, downward turn to create a tiny hole low in the upright part of the back seat.
This scenario certainly conjures up images of the “magic bullet” theory from the JFK assassination. Now we have a “magic pole” theory. Even more absurd is that anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement would try to convince us that this all happened just as England said it did.
And, given that we can see clearly that no pole penetrated the back seat (the tiny hole not being large enough to accommodate the end of the pole even if it did line up), then we have to ask the question, what kept the pole from touching the hood if it wasn’t embedded in some part of the car? And how could the car swerve around as England tried to gain control without the pole touching and damaging the hood?
Another oddity arises from England’s “Survivors’ Fund” account:
England in his cab the day after 9/11. (Photo supplied by Shirley Hughes-England)
“As he approached the Navy Annex he saw a plane flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s [sic] taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another driver stopped and helped move the pole off of Lloyd’s [sic] car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd [sic] and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened….”
This account is not only in the third person, as opposed to being in Lloyde’s own words, but it actually contradicts what he has said on other occasions. First, we know the pole did not come “crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s [sic] taxi cab….” We know this because there was not a scratch on the hood or the roof. Consequently, we know that England and the silent stranger never lifted the pole “off the car.” (England actually repeats this claim that the pole fell “onto” the car in the Hill interview.)
In the first CIT interview, England volunteers that he witnessed a large explosion at the Pentagon that sent “rocks” flying onto the highway. (This explosion could not have been a plane impact because what he says he saw would have occurred minutes after the “event.”)
Ranke: Was the explosion after you stopped the cab?
Ranke: After you got out?
England: It had to be.
He is asked again about seeing or hearing an explosion in the same interview, and then he seems less sure:
“I think I did. You know, it’s been quite a while ago. I think I did because rocks flew out, and the rocks flew out over the cars and the people that were across the street from it.”
In the Hill interview, England seems even less sure about having witnessed any explosion. And no more does he associate falling down with an explosion.
“There might have been an explosion. If it was an explosion it wasn’t anything on the outside, it was all contained in the area where the hole was.”
The silent stranger
England says he was very lucky to avoid death when the pole plunged through his cab. Given England’s close call, his next decision was an odd one. Rather than waiting for police to arrive at the scene, he flagged down a motorist and asked him to help him remove the massive pole from the car. Keep in mind that England was reported to be in his late 60s at the time.
Why would he even want to remove the pole? He says it was because he wanted to drive the car home, but that seems very questionable since the windshield would have been almost impossible to see out of. Did he think he could just drive away without any authorities getting involved?
England’s description of the behavior of the man who stopped also raises red flags. He says the man helped him remove the more-than-200-pound pole while he “never spoke a word” and was “so quiet.” On several occasions, England also describes the scene as being “so quiet,” which sounds to me like an embellishment intended to add some color to the story (I encourage readers to listen to the interviews and make their own judgments). In the 2006 audio pre-interview by CIT, England also described the silent man as “a friend of mine” but in later interviews as a stranger.
England tells Pickering how he stood in front of the car to remove the pole.
As England explains in the first CIT interview, both men reached the pole from in front of the car and therefore had to pull the pole towards them. The pole would have been several feet above the hood by the time it could be reached from in front of the car. This would have made prying the heavy pole out of the back seat and out of the windshield extremely difficult if not impossible. How would they have had the strength to go about it this way? Surely they would have gained much more leverage by standing beside the car. How could they have removed the pole from the front without any part of it hitting the hood, which didn’t have so much as a scratch on it? It’s simply an absurd notion that these two men could have removed such a heavy pole from the car in this or any other way.
England says that after the pole was out, he fell back to the ground as the bent end “swung down.” But the bent end could have done that only once the pole was completely free of the front of the car, since the bent end would have been the last part out of the car. Then, instead of helping England get out from under the pole, the silent Samaritan gets back in his van and drives away. Does this seem remotely plausible?
“We pulled the pole out and the pole was bent,” England said in 2006. “And the bent part took me down to the ground. I fell on my back but I held the pole up, and I laid the pole down. And he got in his van and went on down the road.”
The pole was later photographed lying in the middle of the road, parallel to the lanes of traffic, which means that the two men had to pull it out very near the edge of the highway then turn it and carry it a short distance before setting it down in the center lane, to the left of the car. But why move it from the side of the road to the middle? Why not just set it down on the side of the road, where they already were?
There is a visible scratch in the road surface that appears to have been made by the pole being dragged into place.
My contention, of course, is that England never moved any pole because there was never a pole in his car. I think the pole was positioned in the middle of the road because that would make a better photo-op. In fact, one of the photos with this article shows a scratch that appears to have been made by the pole being dragged onto the road surface from the far side, opposite to where it had originally stood.
Some might say that no one saw the pole being dragged, but more significant is that not a single witness says they saw England’s cab hit by a pole. No one says they saw a cab swerving with a pole sticking out of the windshield. And no one says they saw two men struggling to remove a pole.
England said in 2006 that he was first told by the FBI to wait by his car but later was told by Arlington County police to leave the area.
“They told everybody to leave because there was going to be another plane coming. I said I wanted to stay with the car. So I wouldn’t move. So he actually pushed me down.”
For some reason, police showed no interest in interviewing England about what happened. Since he could not start his car, England says he started walking home, which brings us to this not-very-plausible story, included in England’s Survivors’ Fund account:
England shows his half of the dollar bill.
“Lloyd [sic] still keeps a torn dollar bill signed by a stranger and dated September 11, 2001. It marks a day he has struggled to survive for two years. As he made his way on foot up Route 395 he met a man who had been working at the Pentagon. Walking side by side they found a dollar bill lying in the road. They picked it up, tore it in half, each signed one half and traded with each other. Parting ways each took half of a torn dollar with a stranger’s name on it. Lloyde still keeps this tangible reminder of his experience on 9/11.”
Where was Lloyde?
If England’s tale isn’t unlikely enough for you yet, there’s more. One of the oddest things to emerge from the second CIT interview (the one shown in Lloyde England and His Taxicab: The Eye of the Storm) is the claim by England that his cab came to a stop not where all the photographs show but hundreds of feet to the north. (Route 27 is a north/south highway, and England is claiming his car was hit by the pole as he was driving south past the Pentagon, rather than later, when he had reached the bridge.) In fact, all the photographs we have, which come from different sources, show England’s cab stopped on or just a few feet south of the “bridge,” or overpass, that allows Columbia Pike to go under Route 27.
In England’s living room, Ranke showed him numerous photos of where his cab was when it came to a stop. But no matter what he was shown, England was adamant that he had been hundreds of feet farther north, near the alleged impact point. As Ranke notes in the video, England was aware by this time of the north of Citgo witnesses, who put the approaching plane on a path north of the official one that was irreconcilable with the “damage.”
Was he confused when he said he was so much farther north? Or was he being untruthful? Here’s a clue: Prior to going on camera in the 2008 interview, there is off-camera audio of England mentioning that someone he knows took pictures of his cab when it was stopped on the highway.
“He was up on the bridge,” England said.
And yet, he later insisted on camera that his car was nowhere near the bridge. Two incompatible stories: one told off camera and a different one on. (It’s hard to completely chalk this up to England coming to understand the implications of his location, since it is clear in The First Known Accomplice?, made two years earlier, that he claimed not to be on the bridge. He said at the time that he was “on solid ground.” CIT didn’t pursue this point in that first video, perhaps because its significance wasn’t yet clear. It is possible England just meant that when the pole impact happened he was still north of the bridge, but he certainly does not make this clear.)
The Shirley situation
One of the most peculiar aspects of Lloyde’s and Shirley’s story concerns where she worked in 2001. In both the 2006 and 2008 interviews, Lloyde says she worked for the FBI.
“The FBI interviewed me because my wife works for the FBI,” he said in 2006. “They assume I had been killed by looking at the car on the inside. They were not in a big hurry; that wasn’t that they weren’t looking for me, but they didn’t really see a need to try and find me because looking at the car they figured I hadn’t survived it.”
Shirley explains this also in the encounter with CIT in 2008: “The FBI thought he had been killed but I told them he was alive, and that’s when they came over here and talked to him. They said somebody told them that they took him away – he was dead.”
Lloyde even said in that same 2008 discussion that he can’t talk about what Shirley does for the FBI.
Ranke: So, how long has she worked for the FBI?
Lloyde: Oh, she’s worked for the FBI for a long time.
Ranke: What’s her position?
Lloyde: She don’t talk about it, I don’t talk about it.
Shirley was also mysterious about this when asked about what she did there.
Shirley: “No, I don’t talk.”
Ranke: What have they told you about what happened on 9/11?
Shirley: “No, they don’t talk to me about that. I don’t talk to them and they don’t, they don’t talk about stuff like that.”
Ranke: “You know, there’s questions about what happened.”
Shirley: “You know, I go to work and do my job and that’s it.”
But in 2010, the story changed. Lloyde suddenly had no problem talking about what Shirley did. He told Hill that she worked as a cleaner in the FBI building.
Hill: Isn’t your wife an FBI agent?
Lloyde: Uh no, my wife is a cleaner. She works at the FBI building. She is a cleaner. So I say she works at the FBI building, you could assume what you want to.
Why would both Lloyde and Shirley be mysterious about not being able to talk about her job if she was simply a cleaner? Why would the FBI think Lloyde was dead when there was no body and no damage to the driver’s seat? How would the FBI know that his wife was a cleaner in their building and yet not have any idea where they could find him?
This aspect of the story gets closer attention in a short video posted on YouTube by CIT in 2010 (I assume they posted this once they realized that England had told Hill something different than what he had said to them).
At one point in the CIT conversations with Lloyde and Shirley, she says she knows why the FBI didn’t take the taxi in as evidence but that she can’t talk about the reason. How would she know that? And what could the reason be that she would not be willing to talk about? And, why would the FBI not want to at least see the cab?
Ranke: What we’re most concerned about is why the government didn’t look into that [the cab].
England: Not a bit.
Ranke: Not a bit. What’s up with that?
Shirley: I know why they didn’t, but I’m not going to say.
Ranke: What do you mean? Why?
Shirley: I’m not going to say.
Ranke: Oh, come on.
She even appears to agree with Ranke when he says that he thinks the plane flew over the Pentagon.
Ranke: Well, we found out it didn’t hit the Pentagon and just kept going.
Ranke: Yeah what?
Shirley: Yeah. (laughing)
Ranke: Yeah what
Shirley: What you said. (still laughing)
Ranke: What did I say?
Shirley: I better go fix dinner.
Then there is the question of why England never drove his cab again. He tells Hill that he was able to start the car again after flipping a switch in the trunk. As far as we know, the damage was restricted to the windshield, the dashboard, and the front passenger seat (the hole in the back seat would hardly be noticed by anyone). Why not have repairs done and continue driving the cab? England talks about his struggle to survive financially after 9/11, although he did receive money from the Red Cross and the Survivors’ Fund. But he never repaired the car nor did he sell it. Instead, he acquired another Lincoln Town Car, this time a 1995 model. He keeps both (storing the damaged cab at his country property) and tells Hill that he’d like to sell “one of them.” This is odd since only one of the cars could still be driven.
So much of England’s story sounds like just that — a story. No matter how many times he repeats it, he includes the same embellishments and almost identical wording: the scene was “so quiet” … the stranger who helped with the pole “never said a word” … “My wife says, ‘I see him every day’” … “If anybody had been sitting in the front seat the pole would have gone right through them.” But when he is confronted with contradictions in his story, England just says he doesn’t remember or he doubles down, as he did with his adamant claim that his cab was actually hundreds of feet north of the bridge when it was hit.
The story he tells doesn’t match the other evidence we have, including the testimonies of numerous witnesses interviewed by CIT who put the approaching plane over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo gas station, far from the light poles. It is also contradicted by the anomalous “damage” to the taxi and the impossibility of the pole being knocked to the left by the plane’s right wing and somehow getting past the fuselage to hit the cab.
We have numerous statements by England that he does not believe the official story of what happened at the Pentagon. He even goes so far as to say that 9/11 was “an inside job,” that the hole in the Pentagon wasn’t big enough to fit a large plane, and that Flight 93 was shot down over Shanksville.8
And we have these cryptic comments that England said to CIT in 2008 when he thought he wasn’t being recorded:
“One thing about it you gotta understand. When people do things and get away with it, eventually it’s going to come to me. And when it comes to me, it’s going to be so big I can’t do nothing about it. So it had to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small, you see, to keep it from spreading.”
It all sounds like he knows a lot more about this operation than he is willing to admit. But he also makes it clear to Hill that, while he thinks 9/11 was an inside job, he just happened to stumble into the middle of the event. He adds:
“No, I wasn’t supposed to be involved in this. This is too big for me man, this is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening, I’m a small man. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I’m not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff.”9
Regardless of whether you think England was a willing participant in the 9/11 black operation or not, it is simply impossible to see his account as being truthful and accurate. In fact, I would say that the impossibilities in his account do a great deal to expose the lie that was the 9/11 official story. They also expose how the Pentagon event was crafted to fool the world into thinking that a 757 hit five light poles and then the side of the Pentagon itself.
The impossibility of the story is a huge tool for the 9/11 Truth Movement, if its members are smart enough to recognize this and use it.
How could pole #1 be knocked to the left (north) of the plane by the right wing?
How could the pole have gotten past the fuselage, which would have been in the way as the plane crossed the highway?
How could a car that had just been hit by a 30-foot pole swerve around on the road as the driver struggled to regain control without even a scratch being made to the hood?
If the damaged dashboard shown in CIT photos was lower than the edge of the hood, how could the pole rest on the dashboard but not damage the hood?
How could a pole of any length smash through the windshield and go through to the back seat without causing significant damage to the seat?
How could the pole have bent the front seat towards the back without tearing its upholstery?
Why would Lloyde even try to pull the extremely long and heavy pole out of the car in the first place?
Why would he and the stranger remove the pole by standing in front of the cab, which would offer them much less leverage?
Why did Lloyde refer to the man who helped as a “friend of mine” and later as a stranger?
Why did he refer to the stranger as being “so quiet” and also describe the scene as soon as he got his car stopped as being “so quiet”?
Why would Lloyde and the stranger pull the pole out and then swing it around in a completely different direction and then carry it over to in the middle of the road rather than leaving it on the side?
Why didn’t the stranger help Lloyde when he fell under the pole?
Why didn’t the stranger say anything to Lloyde?
Why was there a clear scratch across the road that appeared to have been made by the pole being dragged into place?
Why would anyone claim it was a short piece of pole #2 that hit the cab when there is not one shred of evidence to support this?
Why did Lloyde say in his Survivors’ Fund account that it was an explosion that made him fall under the pole but later just say he fell because the bent end “swung down”?
Why would he later stop mentioning an explosion at all?
Why would he describe an explosion that sent rocks flying over the highway but later say “if” there was an explosion it was confined to the hole in the building?
How could all of this have happened without any part of it being seen by even one person?
Why would the FBI assume Lloyde was dead after seeing the damage to the interior of the car even though the driver’s seat was undamaged and there was no body in the car?
Why did Lloyde say his wife worked for the FBI and that he couldn’t talk about what she did there and later say she worked as a cleaner in the FBI building?
If Shirley was simply a cleaner, how would the FBI know her husband was the cab driver whose car was hit by a pole just the day before?
Why would the FBI have no idea where to find Lloyde?
Why would the FBI think Lloyde was dead?
Why would Shirley say she knew why the FBI didn’t take the taxi in for examination but that she could not say why?
Why did Lloyde claim he was nowhere near the bridge on camera but admit off camera that the neighbor taking close-up photos of the cab and pole was “on the bridge”?
Why would Lloyde say the pole fell “onto” his car and that the stranger helped him lift it “off”?
Why would Lloyde keep the car under a tarp and then, a decade later, say he’d like to sell one of his two cabs?
Why do “truthers” who push a large-plane impact at the Pentagon ignore the many problems with Lloyde’s story and instead claim that CIT treated him unfairly?
Given CIT’s game-changing investigation, why are they so viciously attacked by those who seem happier talking about what they agree with in the official story?
England/Hill interview in 2010.
For more on Hill, whose over-the-top manipulative tactics are enthusiastically endorsed by Pentagon-impact advocate David Chandler, read my article, “Why David Chandler’s renewed attack on CIT reveals the failings of his own Pentagon ‘methodology.’” Some may also remember Hill for having made a drunken 1 a.m. phone call to berate a WTC survivor.
On a drawing England made showing the pole protruding from his cab he wrote: “40 mph, 40 feet skidded,” and to Hill he said he was going about 50 mph. Also, while I estimate the length of the pole England claims to have removed from his car at about 30 feet, other estimates put it at less. An employee of the Virginia Department of Transport told CIT that when it was all in one piece, the pole was 40 feet high and weighed 247 pounds.
The first pole would have been hit by the plane’s right wing. Pole 2, which Chandler and Coste claim actually hit England’s cab, would have been hit by the left wing.
NBC interview: starts five minutes into The First Known Accomplice?
Same video, starting at 5:48.
The drawing by England is used to claim it was a short piece because the pole he drew didn’t appear very long. But at the same time, it did extend beyond the front of the car, which the top piece would not. Basically, though, the childish drawing really can’t be relied on to tell us anything.
He is explicit about saying 9/11 was an inside job in the Hill interview. It is in this interview that he also mentions his idea that Flight 93 was shot down.
CIT interview in 2008.