Viewing Single Post From: "He was up on the bridge"

Viewing Single Post From: "He was up on the bridge"
Craig Ranke CIT	Apr 24 2009, 09:16 PM
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	mik Apr 24 2009, 08:39 PM Having listened to Lloyd I cannot place much weight on anything he says. Lloyd seems completely unreliable. If his wife is employed by the FBI, she probably has a low level job, a gardener perhaps. Then again, perhaps she is an assasin or some high level agent, as is Lloyd, and the cab driving and dodering demeanor are just a cover. But I don't think so. A gardener for the FBI??? That is so insanely idiotic and racist at the same time it isn't even funny. We have never claimed that either she or Lloyde are assassins or high level agents in any way nor do they need to be. The fact that she is an employee of the FBI is merely suspicious and absurdly coincidental given her husband's significant role in this psychological deception, willing or not. It proves nothing about her involvement in the operation if any. Lloyde on the other hand most certainly HAS been proven involved by the evidence, again, willing or not. But we have NEVER claimed he is a high level operative or assassin and the notion that he is a simple street asset who has gained the trust of true operatives over decades of driving a cab around D.C. isn't the least bit far-fetched. Intelligence agencies utilize every-day working-class people as assets throughout the world all the time. mik The northside evidence being the witnesses I assume. They are credible, and suggest foul play regarding the light poles, but "proving" is your word not mine. It is quite possible that Lloyd's cab was hit by a light pole which was not struck by a plane. Something happened with those light poles and it involves Lloyd, but you don't know what, and neither do I, and face it, neither does Lloyd. This is why your logic makes no sense. You admit "foul play" regarding the light poles, you admit that Lloyde's story makes no sense and that you don't believe him, but you have chosen to ambiguously suggest some wild conspiracy theory that you can't even verbalize in order to proclaim his innocence and attack us for pointing out the obvious. You are even going so far as to suggest that Lloyde was "making fun" of us when he very seriously talked about being involved in an operation that was for "the people with all the money" while he wasn't aware he was being recorded. You are only succeeding in exposing your own intellectual dishonesty and a clear intent to attack us for revealing this information. mik Why do the witnesses (which I assume is the evidence) imply that the plane did not hit the building? I agree that it implies the plane did not hit the light poles. Oh goodness. Apparently you haven't bothered to view our presentations let alone the evidence in full. I am done with this conversation because it's clear you haven't a clue what you are talking about and it's an epic waste of my time. All scientists, pilots, engineers, physicists, intellectuals, and even hard-core CIT obsessed skeptics agree that it is impossible for a plane on the north side to cause ANY of the physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, or the directional damage to the building leading to the C-ring hole. Here is a thread on that very issue for you: NoC impact...; is it possible? Regardless that has nothing to do with Lloyde and none of what you have said follows any legitimate train of logical thought. You are coming off as much more "dodering", "confused", and "not very bright" than Lloyde! Especially for an elitist, racist, misogynist. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Apr 25 2009, 12:32 AM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08

"He was up on the bridge" · Pentagon