Sunday, November 2, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 2 2008

In the time I’ve been doing this blog, I haven’t talked much about Pentagon attack witness Lloyd England and his damaged taxi. Citizen Investigation Team have made the counter-intuitive lack of damage to the hood one of their central proofs of “military deception” at the Pentagon, accused the likeable old guy of being "the first known Accomplice?," and indirectly anyway, a "demon." Maybe by accident, whatever... In fact, their overplaying of the issue, and the strong reactions of their multitude of critics, is one of the reasons I haven’t jumped into this crowded fray. It's too obvious, and I just have to be different.

The other reason is I thought they probably had a point, in that England’s own story seems problematic. He insists the long portion of the pole, as seen in front of his cab in numerous photos, is what pierced his windshield and remained sticking heavy-end out far over the hood without apparently touching it. Previously I had agreed with CIT that seemed unlikely, but sided with Pentagon attack researcher Russell Pickering, who had instead proposed a smaller piece of the pole actually doing the damage; Lloyd’s story was simply wrong, for whatever reason.

I did bother to put together the below attempt at judging the pole segment's true size - many have claimed this is 30 feet long or greater, but they seem to be misunderstanding the role of perspective here. My attempt is rough, but this should be close.

Recently I also noted their paranoia-laced warning that they had a new video coming of their ‘latest encounter’ with the old man who “is caught and is guilty” and “the primary one who would have explaining to do.” That video is now out, an hour and a half of them having stupid arguments in Lloyd’s home, with his wife helping string the lads along, on the road, and Craig explaining it all later with too few buttons done on his shirt. Lloyd seems a sharp enough old kook, and the video is fascinating in its own ways, but the finer points of this sprawling epic of absurdity would derail from the main point worthy of a new post – another case of CIT accidentally (??) getting too much evidence and helping us see what really happened, despite their best efforts.

They took Lloyd up on his previous offer to inspect his taxi themselves, and they drive out into the country where he had it stored in the woods, under tarps that weren't too tight. This in itself is fascinating, like an excursion to the Titanic, a historical relic sinking into the Virginia soil, a spider web draped over the steering column, visible through the even more caved-in windshield where the massive aluminum pole *allegedly* entered years ago and nearly skewered its mow-famous driver.

They again found the damage inconsistent with Lloyd's story, and again took to re-explaining the super-scientific obeservation that the heave end of a see-saw goes down. Since the heavy end, and most of the pole's length, was outside, it would not stick up in the air on its fulcrum. Craig tells us "Science proves that this is impossible," referring to the following picture, which he selected:

Apparently he failed to notice the trick here - the little hook holding the girl's end to the earth. This simple device renders the see-saw moot. Please keep this in mind, as it's a better example than he realized. We have a fulcrum - the marked indentation just to the right of center of the dashboard frame. This is on par with a light pole diameter, and the point of entry through the windshield. True, the hood's edge shows no sign of crushing, but given the angle of rest, the might may have met it more edge-wise, and the pile of windshield may also have initially helped hold it up. It would then have to be at a fairly steep downward angle for this to work, which would in turn fit with the rest of the pole sticking up, all above the hood.
"So the dash was the main alleged fulcrum," Craig summed up, " and the other would be the back seat." This is wrong - if there were two fulcrums, they would be this "alleged dent" and the front passenger seat left shoulder, as seen below, knocked well backwards. This was almost certainly in a lower position than shown here, under the weight of the pole as it stretched back to the back seat.

The clincher is the destination, the back seat. I'll write more later, but here is one of their pictures, including the tear they acknowledge but consider too tiny for a massive 5-inch diameter light pole:

The light end of the pole would have been held by the backrest part of the back seat - not the leather, but the actual seat assembly, with its wire frame and all. You can see where something warped it back (on impact) and upwards a couple of inches, leaving a wide gap between the top and bottom sections. This is beneath, and in addition to, the tear that may have been from entry or from when they pulled it out, or a bit of each. It seems unlikely the surface leather had in any part in anchoring the see-saw, but rather metal that was designed for, at the least, supporting the weight of American passengers (light pole segment app. weight - 200-220 lbs). The pole may have forced itself in there a foot or more deep as well, and found additional counter-force in some part of the car's chassis it pierced or was wedged under. They did not look under the car or inside the trunk for any such clues.

If anyone wanted to do some calculations on how impossible Lloyd's story is, here are the variables:
- Pole length overall – my take - app. 23 ft including 18” base
- expected weight, and distribution of that along the narrowing length - erg, math...
- degree of bend, and its length and location along the pole - see my graphic above for one estimate.
- Line from bash dent to seat gouge – lateral difference is negligible – it seems to have come in almost straight back
– Vertical line - Exact dimensions of Lincoln Town car interior would need to be known for either of these. I'd guess 5-8 feet of pole was on the inside side of the dashboard fulcrum.
- depth of penetration into the back seat - I'd wager at least several inches.
- lateral rotation of the bend on entry - vertical, sideways? I'd wager sharp end down, as it seems most others have.
- effective strength of the seat frame and/or any chassis elements holding the light end down against the heavier end's pull.

You could go about defining all these as best as possible and applying the known formulae, But I tend to agree with Craig that the simple analogy presented in that priceless photo is good enough, and renders any need for calculation moot.