| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Lloyde England and His Cab - The Eye of the Storm; Now released! | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 29 2008, 03:54 PM (4,869 Views) | |
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 29 2008, 03:54 PM Post #1 |
|
Join CIT on this amazing yet disturbing journey with taxicab driver Lloyde England who claims his cab was speared by light pole #1 after it was hit by a large airplane headed for the Pentagon on 9/11. In this follow up presentation to our initial interview with Lloyde from 2006, "The First Known Accomplice?The First Known Accomplice?", Lloyde invited us back into his home so we could discuss with him the evidence we have since obtained proving the plane was on the north side of the gas station or nowhere near the light pole he claims speared the windshield of his cab.  In this June 2008 encounter Lloyde agreed to go on a road trip with us to visit the actual cab from 9/11 so we could forensically examine this physical evidence as it is today. Lloyde said it had been preserved under a tarp just as he received it back from Arlington County impound on 9/12/2001 besides natural deterioration. Get ready for a wild, intense, and surreal experience like you never could have imagined exposing deep levels of the absolutely heinous 9/11 world wide black operation of mass murder.  google video version |
 |
 
|
| SPreston | Oct 29 2008, 04:43 PM Post #2 |
Patriotic American
|
That was just great Craig and Aldo. I posted a reply over at JREF to TheLoneBedouin's thread. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 29 2008, 05:56 PM Post #3 |
|
Very nice Craig and Aldo... Cross Posted to my blog. 
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Oct 29 2008, 06:04 PM Post #4 |
|
Thanks JFK, that means a lot coming from you. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 29 2008, 06:10 PM Post #5 |
|
You are very welcome Aldo. Is there an unadulterated archive of the original pics of Lloyde and his cab on 911 anywhere ? All I have are copies of copies of copies.  I would like to study the file structures of them. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Oct 29 2008, 06:39 PM Post #6 |
|
I'll keep my opinions to myself, but just letting you know I watched it. |
|
|
|
| 22205 | Oct 29 2008, 06:59 PM Post #7 |
Arlingtonian
|
im sure there are others (ingersoll's pics in particular), but here are a couple that i know of: http://911digitalarchive.org/REPOSITORY/IMAGES/PHOTOS/1394.pjpeg http://911digitalarchive.org/REPOSITORY/IMAGES/PHOTOS/1398.pjpeg |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Oct 29 2008, 07:18 PM Post #8 |
|
Ugh we could have used those high res shots when making this movie and confronting Lloyd. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Oct 29 2008, 07:18 PM Post #9 |
|
Patriotic American
|
waterdancer says these are originals Jason Ingersoll link |
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 29 2008, 07:25 PM Post #10 |
|
Thank you 22205 and SPreston. Good thing I have lots of hard drive space. 
Edited by JFK, Oct 29 2008, 07:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
| UKperspective | Oct 29 2008, 07:29 PM Post #11 |
|
This was a very sober and interesting documentory. However I think that some of the earlier interpretations of Lloyde's comments were inaccurate. I got the impression that you didn't quite understand his good humour and manner of speaking and I noticed several mistakes in your subtitles early on which gave an incorrect impression. Later on when we come to the matter of his incorrect location, I became concerned that he himself was a recipient of hypnosis or recall error due to the amount of times he had relived those moments for others actually reprogramming his long term memory so profoundly that he could not quite reconcile the photos. Effects which I learn are sometimes quite natural results of people in situations like this. Anyhow, I didn't have the good fortune to spend all this time with him so I have to defer to your own interpretation of this meeting. It is especially difficult to form an impression of an individual from a documentory like this and no personal contact. Good Work. P.S. Sorry if that sounds critical, I stayed up very late watching this fascinated.. Edited by UKperspective, Oct 29 2008, 07:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Oct 29 2008, 08:24 PM Post #12 |
|
I would ask you not to defer to anybodies judgement except your own. I was going to reserve my comments, but I really don't care at this point. I'm absolutely convinced now that Lloyde is sincere and telling the truth as to the events that took place from his point of view. He may not have seen the plane impact the Pentagon, but he saw it fly over and then explosion, assuming it hit the Pentagon. Lloyde is a very gentle, very kind and very patient man. I would not have had that kind of patience. But because of his patience and hearing his full side of the story, I'm truly convinced he is innocent of any wrong-doing and needs to be left alone. This video was making me angry and more angry at your insistence that he or someone else had to have planted the poles or do the damage to his car. Of course he keeps repeating the same thing over and over. Did you ever think that probably that's what really happened? The way he described the pole impacting his car and then removing it is consistent with the damage to his car. This happened 7 years ago and he's old. He is just mistaken as to where he was, especially with it being at night. Further, the light pole bases being broken jagged or smooth is relative to speed. Faster speed would cause smoother breaks and slower speed would cause jagged and uneven breaks. I have not seen much of CIT's work, so that gives me an objective point of view. However, what I have seen has been pretty decent up until you accuse this innocent old man of lying or having a hand in 9/11. This is ridiculous, obsurd and baseless. You have no hard evidence, you have no proof of anything. You have some witnesses that say the plane flew north instead of south. That does not prove or disprove Lloyde's story. To say as much is disinfo. To say a plane couldn't cause a smooth cut on the light pole base is disinfo because, again, speed is relative and would have caused a smoother cut. You guys are going down the same path as the tv fakery/no-plane peddlers and you may want to change course. But, I'm afraid that after this video, it's probably too late. *NOTE* Even though I know you will, it's pointless to respond to this because I won't be replying to anyone in this thread. I stated my opinion and am moving on from this aspect of CIT's "research". |
|
|
|
| Halifax | Oct 29 2008, 09:36 PM Post #13 |
|
Great job CIT. Lloyd appears to be an unwilling participant in 9/11, possibly a mind control victim. They picked the right candidate with his gentile honest demeanor. His wife knows something, possibly the true story behind the Pentagon, that a flyover did indeed take place. When Lloyd talks about HIStory and how he is just a little guy, you almost had him there. I think he was inferring that he is an unwilling participant in the big event and the official story is HIStory. Just MHO. BoneZ, you missed a few points. If Lloyd swears up and down he was in a place he actually wasn't, something is up. You don't walk away from it, but instead dig deeper. Regarding the poles, you forget about the black soot along the unusually straight cut. My only concern is that Lloyd's life is in danger because of this video. If the heat is turned up, something may happen to him like Barry Jennings. That's the only reason I would say not to push it. 9/11 has so many loose ends it's not even funny. But the bigger the lie, the easier the sell. Although anyone with a critical eye can clearly see that the 9/11 official story is a complete fabrication, many people do not have the capacity to accept the truth no matter what. CIT, your investigation proves a cover up and gross deception. But your are deducing a flyover which is reasonable however. Any rational person must agree with you. I think you proved NoC beyond a reasonable doubt. Too much corroboration. So that means the plane MUST have flown over simple as that. You guys must realize that you are playing with fire. Your investigating is real and genuine. That means you will receive the harshest criticism. They are afraid of you. The closer you get to the truth, the more dangerous things will become. Be careful and continue to do the right thing. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Oct 29 2008, 09:57 PM Post #14 |
|
Patriotic American
|
No matter what your faith tells you and how much you trust Lloyde, his story is just not possible; whether he moves his taxicab to the north or keeps it there at the bridge. From the flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, it is totally IMPOSSIBLE for that aircraft to knock down those light poles. No light poles were knocked down on the north flight path. There are a lot of other reasons why Lloyde's tale is IMPOSSIBLE, but they are not even necessary to detail. Consistent with the damage to his car only means somebody did a good job staging it. It did not happen. Lloyde cannot possibly be telling the truth.
I would just bet you haven't.
Good. Be gone. We don't really want you here anyway. You are incapable of open-minded criticism. Edited by SPreston, Oct 29 2008, 10:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 12:06 AM Post #15 |
|
BoneZ, Have you viewed the scientifically validated and forensic evidence presented in The North Side Flyover and 9/11: Attack On the Pentagon as you said you would? If not, please realize you are rushing to judgment without even bothering to view the evidence. The plane was on the north side BoneZ. This doesn't change no matter how much you choose to trust Lloyde's personality. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 12:09 AM Post #16 |
|
Thank you thank you thank you for this clearly genuine, open, honest, and caring post. It seriously means a lot. It made me feel like people really do care and affected me emotionally. Peace and blessings to you Halifax. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 12:12 AM Post #17 |
|
Thanks for attempting to be balanced in your response but I respectfully request that you provide examples of the "several mistakes" in our subtitles and describe how it is relevant to the evidence or else retract this statement by admitting it was hasty and uncalled for. Thanks again. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Oct 30 2008, 01:03 AM Post #18 |
|
heres a challenge and take the picture of lloyds windshield to 10 people and ask them if the damage was caused by someone throwing a cinder block into it or an airplane going 500mph sending a 250+ pound lightpole impaling through the windshield. 
|
|
|
|
| UKperspective | Oct 30 2008, 04:18 AM Post #19 |
|
Of course I will do this for you. Either tonight or at the weekend. My interest in this is accuracy and truth. I think your documentory is excellent, and if I can help in any way I will. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Oct 30 2008, 11:41 AM Post #20 |
|
Bonez, Explain how the poles were downed and how Lloyd is telling the truth using this image. Remember, the plane flew north of the Citgo. 
|
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Oct 30 2008, 12:39 PM Post #21 |
|
I will attempt to clarify the confusion, though i doubt it will help! I believe Lloyd is telling the truth. I also think he's mistaken about his location. It is perfectly normal in a traumatic situation for eye witnesses to recall being nearer to the event than they were. I believe that's why Lloyd remembers being closer to the pentagon than he was and why the north of citgo witnesses recall the plane being nearer to them than it was. I will give you an example, my father is a painter/decorator. He was telling me a story the other day about being up a ladder painting when some military jets flew overhead, he was complaining about how terrifying it was hearing their roaring engines when he was perched so high up, he claimed they flew 50ft above him. I wasn't there and so wasn't in a position to challenge him but i suspect they weren't that low. It's a perfectly normal human reaction to misjudge distances in even a minor traumatic situation. I'm sure you can all think of an example, like being a passenger in a near traffic accident, where the driver is retelling the story afterwards and says they 'missed me by a whisker' and you are thinking to yourself 'i saw it and it wasn't anywhere near that close' but you understand that in their shook up state as the driver they are going to remember it that way, its a perfectly normal human reaction. In regards to an event like the pentagon attack it is to be expected that the eye witnesses will remember being closer to both the plane and the pentagon. It's quite understandable. There is no need to question the honesty of people like Lloyd England or the north of citgo witnesses, they are displaying typical human emotions in misjudging the perspectives of the event. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Oct 30 2008, 01:49 PM Post #22 |
|
Patriotic American
|
Really? Then please explain how the aircraft knocked those light poles down then. The aircraft has been PROVEN to have flown Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. The FAA has confirmed that flight path. There was only one aircraft and the poles were laying on the ground. Therefore Lloyde had to have lied about the pole flying through his windshield. It doesn't matter if he is confused about his exact location or not; either location will not work. The light poles were staged. Lloyde is not confused at all. He was not confused about his location in the first interview. Now Lloyde knows that the official flight path is bogus, so he needs to move the taxi. Lloyde just has not thought through the difficulties with moving the taxi north up the road. You do see that CIT, with their strong eyewitnesses proving the north flight path, has effectively destroyed the official Flight 77 flight path don't you? Soon something new will have to be manufactured by the 9-11 perps, to keep the American sheeple floundering around in confusion. |
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Oct 30 2008, 01:51 PM Post #23 |
|
Ok, I've seen the presentation; it's intriguing. But what part of his story has he changed? Has Lloyd ever stated where he was in the past that's different from what he said in the video?
How do you know Lloyd is not merely mistaken about where he was? |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 02:00 PM Post #24 |
|
stinkey, Do you believe the plane flew NoC or do you believe it hit the building? Intellectually honest people understand that you MUST choose one because the claims are mutually exclusive. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM Post #25 |
|
Bernie big shorts, You forgot the part about Lloyde's story being physically impossible and the damage to his cab irreconcilable with alternative scenarios. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
11:22 AM Dec 5
