| Viewing Single Post From: New short highlighting Lloyde's virtual admission | |
|---|---|
| Craig Ranke CIT | May 13 2009, 12:38 PM |
|
1. When he let it slip that his neighbor was "on the bridge" taking pictures of the car and the pole it was BEFORE the interview started and BEFORE he knew he was being recorded. I was not "interviewing" him yet so he hadn't started the lie about being on the north side yet either. Since I already KNEW he was on the south side I thought nothing of it when he said his neighbor was on the bridge taking pictures so I never even noticed that the slip was there until going over the recordings days later. 2. There is not a conceivable scenario as to why Lloyde would reference his neighbor way the hell up on 395 which, if he WAS on that bridge, would have him past the route 27 exit and already crossing the river on the 14th street bridge to DC. There is NO WAY he would have been able to get on route 27 from there on 9/11 after the attack that we know for a fact had been immediately blocked. Plus he would have had to exit the highway on the other side of the river and turn in around in downtown DC traffic during all the chaos in order to go the opposite direction, and cross the river again to get on the exit to route 27 from the other direction....which would be impossible anyway since it was blocked! Furthermore we know there is no way Lloyde could possibly have SEEN him up there anyway so there is no reason on earth that this is where Lloyde would remember him. Since Lloyde WAS on the route 27 bridge as was the cab and the pole which WAS in FACT where the neighbor DID take pictures it's quite obvious that this was the bridge Lloyde was talking about. Was the car a little bit south of the bridge? Yes. Was the neighbor a little bit south of the bridge when he took the images he gave us? Clearly. But as everyone can hear and see Lloyde saying over and over and over, he claims that he, his cab, the pole, and the entire scene was way NORTH of that and specifically says NOT on the bridge proving he lied.  That's why when he sees the images of the cab a little bit south of the bridge he sticks to his lie by saying he wasn't there and that he was under the north path. He doesn't say....oh yeah well see I was a little bit south of the bridge, not directly on it, which would have been a fair and honest response. But the fact that he used the bridge as reference for where the neighbor was taking pictures before he knew he was being recorded and then steadfastly denied he was anywhere near the bridge when the camera started is PROOF that he deliberately lied. Lloyde virtually admitted involvement, his wife works for the FBI and flat out agreed with me that the plane kept on going. The plane was on the north side proving it did not hit the poles. Lloyde's account is physically impossible. The physical damage to the poles themselves is extremely dubious. The notion that the David Icke book that Lloyde supposedly read and had with him on 9/11, but could not cite one detail from, is merely a "coincidence" strains credulity beyond imagination. All of that yet here you are working over-time to cast doubt and confuse people which has been your ONLY actions EVER within the context of your "9/11 truth" participation, solely focused on CIT. That is suspect and subversive behavior and it alone exposes you as dishonest. No honest person who claims they support the north side evidence would dedicate their entire online existence to arguing with CIT against a flyover and for the veracity/legitimacy of Lloyde England's account. Admins, PLEASE re-ban this guy. As he has shown himself to be nothing but a disruptor/obfuscator in the past. The last thing we need is yet another layer of disinfo clouding this critical and sensitive information that is now FINALLY getting a bit of the attention it deserves. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, May 13 2009, 12:47 PM.
|
 |
|
| New short highlighting Lloyde's virtual admission · Pentagon | |
6:44 AM Dec 3
