Much emphasis has been placed on the Lightpole situation vis-a-vis Lloyd England's cab.
can we see the pole inserted in windshield? (no) -- can we see men pulling pole off of windshield (no) -- etc etc

However, I would like to focus on a detail that has been given scant attention

Why was Lloyd & His Taxi left on Route 27?
Why no help?

Why, on the morning of a multi-plane terror attack, is there no rush to clear Route 27 of three major obstacles to emergency vehicles -- a POLE, a TAXI, and an ELDERLY CONFUSED CABBIE?

If they were not HELPING lloyd, what were the two men posted nearby to Lloyd's cab actually doing?

Preston has the photo collection -- or whoever has them in photobucket can insrt.
i dont know which photo was taken in what chron sequence, either.

Roll the tape


Photo #1 "Intro to Red-Tie Man"
A white man, reddish hair, with a red tie and longsleeved white shirt, is standing to LEFT of lloyd's cab. Lloyd is a black man with a long sleeve white or light blue shirt on, sometimes a ball cap, sometimes it is off.
there appear to be other cars around. instead of looking at the Pentagon, lloyd is looking back at photographer, hidden by foliage, and red-tie man is looking south.




Photo #2 "Jason Ingersoll approach shot"
Red--tie man is talking to a black man (NOT lloyd) --- this 2nd black man has a SHORTsleeved white shirt on and is taller & more sturdy looking- his . back to camera.
You can see lloyd to the far Right of his cab, looks like he's making a cell phone call.

Photo #3 "The White Saturn"
a guy in a blue shirt has shown up, and now he and red-tie man appear to be on the RIGHT side of lloyd's cab. this is the photo with the white Saturn, and the pole, and the scratch marks.

Photo #4 "elderly black man and his cab, closeup"
close up of front of Taxi, and lloyd directly behind it, with ball cap on.
Great "money shot" of damaged cab, black smoke, fire in background

photo #5 "its all over -- sad look back"
this is the pic of lloyd and his cab, and the pole, all alone, on Rt 27. he has jacket slung over shoulder.
All other cars appear to be moved.

lloyds cab effectively blocks the middle lane.
the light pole effectively blocks the far East lane (farthest from Pentagon)


Here's the question to ponder

on a day when the Pentagon was struck in what appeared to be a multiple-strike, open-ended, terrorist attack involving Planes *and possibly explosives* both at Pentagon & Arlington, you would need to clear all roads rapidly, get all bystanders away from the site, and do rapid emergency response.

why was lloyd and his cab left there blocking Rt 27>

if it were up to me, as either a professional, a gov't worker, or a private citizen, here's what i would have done

1) made sure that lloyd was not hurt, if so, call ambulance or carry to safety

2) get lloyd and his car and the pole out of the way of Fire, Police, US Army (ft Belvoir, Ft Myers) -- press, ambulance, helicopter landing area.

3) if lloyd's car not drivable (due to windshieild bashing, or "fuel shut off" (anyone remmebr that ?) -- THEN i would personally get in, try to clear damaged glass with my tire iron or other parts, drive it away from danger area.
-- back up -- call for emergency tow truck

in no way, would i allow an elderly black man to wander around Rt 27 looking sad & lost.

i would have NO WAY of knowing of further bombs or planes were incoming (NYC had a double, coordinated attack with bombs going off at base of towers!!)

the pole, the cab, and lloyd himself did nothing but obstruct traffic, hamper and hinder responders, and put others at risk.

Sure, the news video team did take a great shot of Lloyd's damaged cab & the light pole (see ThePentaCon.com) -- and there were other great still shots "the money shot" of lloyd, the cab, the smoking pentagon...

i guess you could say the newsmedia got lucky.

but why would any normal responder to Lloyd's incident simply stand by, move around the cab, and NOT be actively getting the situation under control?[SIZE=7]

SP: This seems to be the sequence
03876 No pole through windshield-Still no fire trucks


03877 No pole through windshield-Still no fire trucks
03878 Spectators

03879 No fire trucks at the Pentagon yet

Ingersoll photo #? This hi-rez photo seems to be missing in action.


Ingersoll photo #? This hi-rez photo seems to be missing in action also. The agents are controlling the scene.


Ingersoll photo #? This hi-rez photo seems to be missing in action also.

The two agents seem to have spotted Jason Ingersoll running down the hill snapping photos.


Ingersoll photo #9? The Reagan National fire trucks have finally arrived 4 minutes after the official 757 impact time of 9:37
03880 Time is after 9:41 fire trucks have arrived at Pentagon

Good post Jack. This is the sequence as Jason Ingersoll presents it. But originally Craig and Aldo had more original Ingersoll and Metcalf hi-rez photos which are now missing from the public pool with no blank spaces in the Ingersoll sequence. So it appears the FBI or somebody decided to renumber the Ingersoll series. Perhaps Craig or Aldo still have these originals and perhaps more.
I think Craig and Aldo's original numbering of the photos (id est DSC_0416 - DSC_0417 etc) would be more accurate before they attracted so much attention from the Feds.

good sequence.

I think Aldo & Craig know the score better. The 'downside' of Craig & aldo's work is that CIT makes logical jumps that often the 'newbie' to the story does not understand or follow.

To support -- i offer a slower, more methodical path of thinking.

the goal is to promote & provoke thinking about How Lloyd's Cab was Damaged, and What Was Happening Around Lloyd & Cab during AM of 9/11/01.


The CIT premise is that Route 27 events were staged, or manipulated, particularly regarding Lloyd England's cab and damage.

This does not prove, nor disprove anything about a plane striking the Pentagon. It merely asks WTF was going on with Lloyd's cab, and supports the general idea that something is very, very fishy with both Lloyd's cab damage story, AND the Route 27 cars, men, and events in general (see Gary Bauer, Bobby Eberle, etc)


My take-home observation from the Ingersoll photo series is this --

Lloyd's cab appears. Damage not immediately visible. Later photos show windshield damage which is consistent with baseball-bat type impact. Neither LLoyd, nor his cab, nor the curved and broken light pole laying next to his cab is moved out of the way, even thought numerous able-bodied men are seen near and next to lloyd.

In fact, lloyd, his damaged cab, and the pole are allowed to stay until ?? 11am --when all other vehicles are moved & gone. Videocameras and photojournalists capture the axis of Lloyd-cab-smoking pentagon, and these images are widely transmitted in Newspapers and Television.

I really dont know what to make of it, its so bizarre.

I really want to believe Flight 77 hit the pentagon.

But hi rez photos that show the front and back of the famous lawn "AA" parts reveals there is no perforation damage nor rivets or any indication these were ever assembled or stripped. Im talking huge ass hi rez photos.

Lloyd's cab appears smashed by a baseball bat.

And I do believe the witnesses who say the plane was to the left of the citgo.

What does it all mean?

I have no idea. "RKOwens4" is making a name for himself on youtube, "proving" flight 77 is seen hitting the pentagon in the doubletree hotel.
Problem is, even when zoomed in nothing can be seen. Its the ultimate Rorshach test.

He's either preeching to the choir or spamming his own comments. You can't see anything in the Doubletree video.

I'm not saying anything about Lloyd's account itself however there is nothing strange about the car and pole being left there.

The OCT says the pole was hit by the plane and the cab was hit by the pole. So by that account both the pole and the cab are evidence and won't be moved until fully examined.

On a separate note Jack. Why are the questions in your OP so big?? Do you have members here that are that visually impaired??

Perhaps even beyond evidence status, and forgive me if this was already mentined, but Lloyd's cab wouldn't start. I think he and Russ hashed out that something was knocked loose under the hood and it had to be towed.

Now, does anyone have hard evidence of how long the cab was there before towed? And was this exceptionally long a wait? Any clue that it actually blocked response or something, or just a guess it might have? And if so, anty good reason to suspect this had anything to do with the plot?

And can anyone again post the Ingersoll photo that's supposed to show no pole in place yet by the cab? IPreston's back - was it one of those or another shot?

The weird part is that people would box his car in, tell him not to leave, and then leave themselves. Why is the road still deserted? Is it blocked off? Then, where are the authorities?

Except that the pole actually WAS moved. It left a scratch mark on the ground when they moved it.

http://thepentacon.com/

the link above shows the position of the pole, the pole debris, and Lloyd's cab.

The pole apparently was moved far enough to scratch the road, yet the movers did not bother to move the pole to the shoulder, out of the way. Why go half-assed?

What is peculiar is that on a day in which emergency vehicles, ambulances, police, and potentially the military would need full command of all roadways, that three things were left in Route 27 which would hamper this response:

1. Lloyd's Cab
2. the pole
3. Lloyd himself!

What's interesting is that you acknowledge the pole, and then go on to state how it was all planted there. <_<

Please, tell me again how Mr. England was in on the whole scheme. :rolleyes:

That rascally Mr. England! :lol:

They moved the pole to get it off of Mr. England's car, not to get it off the road. The lightpole was a heavy son-of-a-gun, as Mr. Ranke can attest to.

Mr Raven

I do not know how the pole came to be lying next to Lloyd's cab. Since the pole was never photographed or videotaped as "stuck inside Lloyd's taxi", we only have lloyd's troubled recollection to vouch for that.

However, this much is obvious -- the light pole is photographed laying next to the cab, on the ground. it appears to have been dragged, enough to scratch the asphalt, in a circular pattern like a radius of a compass. The scratch means it was not fully lifted off the ground.

What leaves me 'scratching' my head, is this: Assuming the pole was stuck through lloyd's cab, why bother pulling it out>? The cab can't be started up, anyway, according to Lloyd, due to the "emergency fuel-shut-off" -- so it was a tow-job anyway.

So, you pull the pole OUT (which is not in danger of harming anyone, at this point) -- and then dump it on the ground. And then someone moves it, 10 feet or so, leaving the scratch. Yet none of these people move the pole FAR enough to get it out of the way of the road.

so the pole is left blocking a lane of traffic on Rt 27 south.
and lloyd's cab is blocking the middle lane.
and even if lloyd's cab could be started up, and driven to the shoulder (to clear the road) -- the pole is in the way.

Nothing about this makes any sense. The standing-around does not help clear the road, it does not help anyone get to a safe place, does not help lloyd, does not help secure his cab, nothing!!

I first thought "oh, they are treating this like a crime scene, and securing lloyd's cab & pole as evidence" -- but then -- you notice that on the Pentagon lawn, they are NOT treating the scene like crime scene, in fact, they are picking up every last bit of debris & putting it in bags, unphotographed as to location & type.

so the 'crime scene' explanation folds, too.

i do NOT know how Lloyd is "in on this scheme" -- whatsoever. Why would an elderly, kindly-looking, black cabbie be lying>?

I think all of America would ask the same question.
Lloyd just looks so "real-life" --

but then again, there is ZERO damage to the hood of his car, and odd baseball-bat bashing marks on windshield, and the light pole itself is curved which does not match the straight poles used on Rt 27.

Something is very wrong here. One or two little wierdnesses I would write off, but Lloyd's cab, and lloyd's story, and the reaction of the bystanders --

It is all wierd. too much unexplainable wierdness.

Yeah, but "that account" (OCT) just doesn't all add up that way -- if it was evidence that shouldn't be moved until examined, what's with pulling the pole out of the car and then (apparently) scratching the pavement with it? :unsure:

Here's one. . . that I've wondered about. . .
Pole not there; or is it?

How do you know anyone boxed his car in?

What's there to acknowledge about the pole? And what if it was planted there?

It was moved, even though it's evidence, huh? And even though it's so heavy, "they" moved it. . . in how many minutes? Well before the firetrucks arrived? . . . wow.

So what? That doesn't mean anything.

Baseball bat bashing marks? You are just making stuff up. The crushed windshield matches the curve of the pole.

The pole was bent when it was clipped. How else would you explain it?

That bend has no kink.

Except that it was heavy. . . and doesn't the official story say that it was flying through the air before hitting the car? It's not as if it was carefully placed there by hand. . . oh wait, maybe it was. . .? :huh:

Yeah, now how would you explain that? ;)

The assertion that the damage to lloyd's windshield "matches" the light pole is poorly backed up.

What, indeed, would a light pole smashing into a cab windshield, while cab was moving 40+mph, and pole was kinetically launched by aircraft impact, look like?

And once you've got your model of light pole speared through the cab windshield, how does the 200lb + pole manage to NOT make a single mark on the hood?

Finally, how does what should be a SINGLE PUNCTURE IMPACT of pole vs winshield create MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT focus (foci?) of damage to windshield, ESPECIALLY the upper left quadrant on passenger side.

THat does not make sense, even if you "buy" lloyd's account.

then, the pole itself, -- a curved model, with top snapped off. The plane impact would not both bend, and snap, the top -- one or the other.

The snapped top which is pinched is indicative of catastrophic shearing or buckling. The "bend" appears much smoother -- no kinks, no ripples, no shearing.
The force required to "bend" the pole would be theoretically much greater than the 'breakaway base' could sustain, particularly given the leverage from above.

I conclude that the damage to the pole did not occur due to plane strike, and the damage to lloyd's cab did not occur to pole-strike.

Lloyd's story is full of holes, whether or not lloyd himself 'believes' it is another matter.
----------------------

I have no way of knowing or asserting how the curved and broken pole (PentaPole) came to be lying next to lloyd's cab. nor how lloyd's windshield was damaged.
only LLoyd -- or video evidence -- or other credible witnesses (hard to find on Rt 27!)
can shed light on that.

The assertion that the pole was planted is hard to find evidence for. That is obvious enough. I would be amazed if someone could pull off all that (plant a light pole, fake lloyd's cab damage, get rid of potential witnesses) -- in broad daylight.

But as hard as that is to swallow, i cannot sustain the OCT on the pole damage, nor cab damage. It's a fraud/

[there was in fact a "inbound plane threat" at 1010am approx, which cleared all roads of personnel (turns out a false alarm)]

The OCT fanatical believers are in deep deep deep denial. :D

Blocking two lanes and all FED cars moved out of sight and the roof hasn't been blown yet.
Does it look staged? Simple magicians' tricks? Military PSYOPS?
Psychological Operations (PSYOP, PSYOPS) are techniques used by military and police forces to influence a target audience's emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and behavior.



Never ever been riveted on an aircraft frame?
Does it look planted? Or was the entire Pentagon scenario staged to fool the easily conned?

United States PSYOP units and soldiers of all branches of the military and the Secret Service and the FBI are also prohibited by law from conducting terrorist attacks against the people of the United States. But the law did not stop them did it?

It doesn't make sense to YOU. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You are saying that Lloyd was lying, so I would say that it is NOT a seperate matter.

How could Lloyd shed any light on things for you if you think he's lying to begin with? For that matter, every time information is presented to the contrary of the CIT groupies theories, they just ignore it, deny it, and outright lie about it.

You don't think the pole could have been planted, but Lloyd and all the other witnesses to the events and all of the physical damage is a fraud? So you don't believe anything happened? You can't have it both ways.

There was also a bent/curved fence pole by the generator. Both poles are made of aluminum. Aluminum is a fairly malleable metal which means that it can bend and curve given the proper physical force.

correction

I do believe the pole could have been planted. But having zero knowledge about how covert, overt, drill-goes-live events are conducted, i can't construct a mechanism by which the light pole could be planted.

However it got there, I am NOT CONVINCED it happened according to OCT>

Lloyd lying? I am not accusing lloyd of lying. I think Lloyd probably believes his own recollection of the event. I have memories in my own head that I know do not correspond to 'how something happened' -- like a car accident i was in -- but i know that i have altered my own memory to make myself into the victim of the accidnet 'it wasnt my fault'
It's entirely possible lloyd is mistaken due to shall we say 'faulty memory' -- i think lloyd sounds like a decent guy and i'd hate to accuse him of selling out like that.

All i can say is that Lloyd is the SOLE SOURCE of the allegation that there was ever a pole through his windshield, or that it was ever removed by a "helpful silent stranger in a white van, who left"

so unless lloyd is a trustworthy, not-compromised, historically credible source (he's not) -- i think the physical evidence and deductions trump his 'memory'

The pole & damage strike me as a fraud. The witnesses who saw a plane can be debated back & forth. As to a plane striking the pentagon, little has been produced to confirm that. as to the plane being AA77, there have been to date ZERO matched parts produced.

Fair enough. At least you acknowledge that much.

It's illogical to think that Lloyd had "faulty memory" of a lightpole going through his windshield and nearly killing him, and then also have "faulty memory" of lifting the lightpole off of the windshield.

You are forgetting about the corroborating physical evidence and trying to place Lloyd's testimony as the only evidence which indicates that a lightpole struck Lloyd's car. Father McGraw also attested to the lightpole.

You are selectively picking only evidences which help support your theory while disregarding the mountain of evidence which renders your theory moot.

Ask to see the videos. Ask for a report disclosing the wreckage recovered and something to identify the plane as AA77. That is reasonable.

Easily disprovable theories that incorporate many innocent eye-witnesses to a tragic event as somehow wrong or lying is unreasonable.

What is "easily disprovable" about my sequential deductive reasoning of Lloyd's situation?

The "many eyewitnesses" at the Pentagon scene include a diverse group stretching from Donald Rumsfeld to Frank Probst to Bobby Eberle to Robert Curcios to Lloyd to McGraw to Lagasse & Brooks.

Which eyewitnesses are 100% correct? which remember selectively? which are mixing in 10% lies with 90% truth? which are creating outright fabrications?

I don't know.

As far as I know about Lloyd, his memory and is story is 100% consistent with what he recalls from the event. That would mean he is not intentionally being deceptive. it also doesnt mean we should hang our hats on his testimony.

(should we trust Mr Bauer and Mr Eberle and Mr Rumsfeld at their word? after all they are alll well-known important people....)

back to the evidence -- since no one else, not even Father McGraw, can testify to Lloyd's pole & cab mix-up, all we have is lloyd's testimony.

sure, lloyd's story could be entirely 100% true.

But here's what doesnt work about that story -- a big Occam's razor to get over...

1. the pole is dodgy (curved when i should be straight)
2. the pole base is dodgy (base is sheared cleanly)
3. the windshield damage is dodgy (why so many independent blows to glass?)
4. the taxi hood is UNDAMAGED (how does a 250lb pole not scratch the hood?)
5. the response by men in ties & shirts near lloyd's cab is dodgy (why leave him there? who are they protecting? why not help clear the roads? help w. emerg response? wtf?)
6. lloyd's cab, lloyd himself, and the pole are left blocking the road during a terror emergency (dodgy)

I am not "selectively picking out" anything here. Them's are the issues listed above.

Tons of people saw a plane. many of them swear it crashed into building. that's cool. Many did not see it crash.

And many who did not WITNESS the crash assume the plane crash was the cause of the fireball and explosion --- really, how could you NOT assume that plane crashed into building -- on a day when we saw repeated images 100s of times of plane-into-building crash & fireball at WTC? --

Sounds like a poorly written 3rd rate mystery novel, doesn't it? B)

Victims of a massive military brainwashing PSYOPS? Liars? False witnesses?
Planted witnesses with staged evidence? Members of a Bush Regime disinformation campaign?



Bobby Eberle
President and CEO, GOPUSA

Sponsor of Jeff Gannon
Official White House Military Stud and Press Mascot and Play Toy


Gary Bauer and fellow NeoCON conspirators
Liar? Planted witness? 9-11 planner and co-CONspirator?


Is this who planned 9-11 and ordered the US Military to carry it out?
Or did they have a Zionist faction within the US Military with control of a
E4-B National Airborne Operations Center carry it out?

Are you seriously accusing Lloyd and Father McGraw as being plants? You still have about a hundred or so witnesses left to falsely accuse of lying or being plants, including Turcious, Lagasse, and Brooks (they saw the plane hit the Pentagon too).

Yep.

Liar.

I would not wish to be associated with you in any way. You have no proof to make such claims.

What did I lie about? Turcious, Lagasse, and Brooks (all CIT witnesses) saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

I am no liar, but I know that you are dishonest.

Well, Lloyd's story I know is impossible. You know it, too. Yet, you defend him.

THOUGHT they saw it hit the building. Do you believe them when they say it flew in from north of the Citgo?

Here is a perfect example of your dishonesty. You called me a liar, but then cannot say what I lied about. Instead you put your own words in (THOUGHT) and then apply that only to the version of their testimony that doesn't line up with your flyover theory.

It's quite pathetic.

And no, Lloyd's story is not impossible, and I've explained it to you many, many, many times, and you always act as though it has never been explained. This is another example of your dishonesty.

And to answer your question about whether I believe them, yes I believe the witnesses were trying to describe what they witnessed, but perhaps they are mistaken. Lagasse tried to move an entire bridge to make his north flightpath work. Brooks waved his hand in the direction that had the plane flying through the monument behind him, which is impossible, and wasn't Turcious running back towards the station on the video?

It is easy to understand how they might not get the exact flightpath correct when it was a plane flying directly above them at 500mph, 2 were under the Citgo canopy, Brooks was in his car, this is a highly traumatic event, and they were trying to describe this traumatic event 5 years after the fact. Not to mention the fact that Ranke did not conduct a proper interview. Lagasse was not even sure where he was at the Citgo that day, and I could mention him being blown back into his car as he once stated.

But I think one detail they would not get wrong, and that is their description of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Nobody needs to accuse Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios of being plants.

You've explained his story by changing his story?

Don't see how they could have been mistaken. Lagasse said he saw the plane over Arlington National Cemetary. How can he mistakenly think he saw the plane over Arlington?

No, he was trying to make the official story work from north of the Citgo. But, it doesn't. If it flew north, it flew over.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Was he?

I don't expect them to get it exactly right, but, Lagasse did place the plane over Arlington National Cemetery. He's not the only one who placed it over Arlington.

The man kept saying it was north of the Citgo. Craig asked him how sure he was. He said 100%.

Like you said, it was 5 years ago, so you can't expect him to get everything right. And at least Lagasse did later admit that he was not actually blown back. He didn't have to admit that.

Not from north of the Citgo.

Yeah, you've changed his story, like I said before.

Oh, I've read it. That's how I know you've changed his story.

Read my response to Mr. Ranke here very carefully...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...post&p=11911605

I have posted that many times, and the CIT groupies still act as though they've never read it (Avenger for example).

Lloyd's account is not impossible (as Avenger still claims), and is in fact quite plausible.

<<<<And no Avenger, I did not change Lloyd's story, you dishonest CIT groupie troll.>>>>

Father McGraw stated that he saw the taxi and the lightpole. He may not have seen the plane actually hit the lightpole, but it's easy to deduce what happened when you hear a loud noise, see a plane, and then look over to see a taxi with a lightpole stuck in the windshield.

EDIT: Notice that Avenger can't state what I changed about his story. He just makes dishonest claims over and over and over. Avenger is a dishonest CIT groupie troll.

You're frustrated. You're moving your posts again.

Light pole "out here".


Light pole down there.


Lloyd drew the pole in the air. You have it on the ground.

Perhaps Lloyd couldn't see the part of the pole that curved downward, or perhaps the pole was indeed in the air. I did not create that image and you know that.

Either way, I did not change Lloyd's story, you dishonest CIT groupie troll.

EDIT: Avenger loves to bury my posts with endless dishonest tripe about nothing. Watch and learn the dishonest tactics that the dishonest CIT groupie trolls have to resort to.

Well, they asked him where the base of the pole was and he answered them. People love to make this man out to be so incredibly senile.

Well, I know that you've posted it a number of times. You're the one who provided the link, by the way.

Take a look at these pictures and take notice of how the glass is
matted down and provides the curvature and position to show that the lightpole in its final resting place was not
touching the hood...





Notice the passenger seat in the below picture pushed down and towards the driver's side...



Now, imagine this in action. The pole is hit by the plane and spins with the base in the air, top of the pole striking
the taxicab somewhat head-on, pole is still spinning, top of the pole moving downward, base going upward.
The top of the pole meets resistance hitting the windshield and the top of the front seat and momentum slowed by
the weight of the base pulled downward by gravity and striking the top of the seat, car is moving forward pushing
the top of the pole and now the base is spinning downward and towards the drivers side of the car. This causes the
seat displacement, Lloyd is braking, causing top of the pole to move slighlty away from the passenger seat, car is
swirving, pole is still spinning until the base of the pole hits the roadway and the pole is lying in its final resting
place as illustrated in the photos above.

To help verify my theory, look at the hole in the windshield where you can see that the pole appears to have moved
around before stopping at its final resting spot as indicated by the nicely pressed outline of the pole curviture.
Remember most of the weight is in the base of the lightpole. Thus, this not only helps support Lloyd's account
but is also very plausible. That's just an example of what could've happened.

The main proof here is in the windshield glass that was matted down to match the imprint and curvature of the
pole which is above the hood of the car.

To get a visual of what I was describing above, here is what I found in an old JREF thread. (I am not a JREFer.)
It is strickingly similar to my above description.

Lloyd's drawing look similar to any of those images?



Here is an above illustration...



Reverse one of the 2 images, and viola! It's a friggin match. Granted, Lloyd is not a professional artist and the
pole in his drawing is not perfect, but I think people get the idea.

Now let's look at the possibility of "staging" fake lightpoles

OK, So you have established a possibility that the 2 poles close to the bridge could have possibly been cut,
though it is still highly unlikely to cut poles next to a freeway without being noticed. Let's have an aerial view of
all 5 of the light poles, shall we?



Do you see the one closest to the Pentagon towards the area of the explosion? Everyone is looking towards
that area, and nobody notices someone cutting down a lightpole?

Let me ask you this. Did nobody notice these 40 feet high and 247 pound lightpoles being moved around?
What did the damage to Lloyd's car if it wasn't a lightpole? What bent the lightpoles if not the airplane hitting them?

You guys keep saying the physical evidence is impossible to support the events that a 757 crashed into the
Pentagon, and I have provided possibilities to refute that.

What you fail to do is look at the impossibility of any other alternative you have left over. How could ALL
of the evidence been so maticulously faked, and what caused this...



See the bent fence poles outlining a 757 engine and the generator being knocked back?

By the way, notice the nice curve in the aluminum pole which at one point was a warning sign?
Lightpoles are made of aluminum also which explains how the airplane bent the lightpoles.

You're spamming, again. And those two pictures DO NOT MATCH. You can claim they do all you want. People can see that they don't. Why do you say it a friggin match when one has the base in the air and the other picture has it on the ground?

All interesting points.

ChimunkStew's cartoon drawings are good.

But there are two issues --
1, the light pole somehow was courteous enough not to scratch, dent, or mar the hood.

2. there was no compelling reason to even pull it out of the cab -- lloyd's engine was nonfunctional, so he coudl not drive away.
even if they wanted to help lloyd drive off, they dumped the pole right in his way, blocking his exit. so that seems oddd

3. after going to the trouble of EXTRACTING the pole from the cab (moreover, lloyd's own drawing does not match any of those producd by CHipmunk) -- lloyd, and 2 or 3 more men, simply pace, mill, and stand around his cab, not trying to fire it up, check the engine, remove the windshield glass, nor move the cab or pole off the road.

the OP of the thread involved asking "WHY THE ODD REACTION TO LLOYD's CAB PREDICAMENT?"

Chipmunk Stew, and Raven, independently came up with same original explanation that i had for the Lloyd pole issue. you can see the LCFC trailer for a video explnation.
but whereas the hypothetical how-it-could-have happened is a useful exercise, the physical video evidence prevails, which reveals a number men, lloyd included, doing absolutely nothing useful or practical given the circumstances.

again, ONLY LLOYD testifies to the pole-into-cab and helpful silent stranger. Father McGraw was not an eyewitness to the specfic pole-spears-cab incident.

back to OP - why no help? why the milling around? either the men shoudl be helping lloyd, or helping elsewhere. blocking the road with 3 different vehicles during a massive and as-of-yet ongoing air attack near the Pentagon makes zero sense.