Lloyde England and His Cab - The Eye of the Storm

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!

Pages:
1
…
10
11
12

Lloyde England and His Cab - The Eye of the Storm; Now released!
Topic Started: Oct 29 2008, 03:54 PM (4,858 Views)
Aldo Marquis CIT	Nov 21 2008, 05:41 PM Post #251
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	grit is done.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Marley	Nov 23 2008, 02:50 AM Post #252
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08	I was only able to download about 35 minutes of the video, but I was able to make a few comments. 5:30 Nothing suspicious about a silent stranger helping Lloyde. Lots of strange things that day. 6:35 Eight witnesses claiming north side does not constitute proof. Why not include the statements of those who did not agree with those who say the plane was to the north of the CITGO station? 8:30 Video accuses him of being a victim or willingly involved. They are calling for Lloyde to be brought in. Who has been contacted? 9:00 FOIA request filled with VDOT, to get them to document the exact location of the poles. Did VDOT have the information and refuse to release it or did they not have the info and were unable to? Can a copy of the request and answer be provided? 11:40 Says north flight path 13 times claimed by witnesses and that this proves Lloyde’s claims to be false. What about the claims of any other alleged flight path? Wouldn’t eye witness statements that place the plane south of the CITGO station prove Lloyde’s statements to be true? 12:15 “We are not directly accusing him, he could be a victim”. Calling him a victim is also an accusation, not very nice. I did not get the impression of Lloyde on the video that he is some sort of victim, he is just a cab driver making a living. They say the evidence implicates Lloyde. What about the other evidence that does not implicate him, the evidence this video ignores? Ranke says, “You said you were sure the entire pole was in the back seat.” Lloyde never claimed that at all. He claimed part of the pole was in the back seat. 15:30 Ranke claims he talked to dozens of people who say that plane. They all say they saw plane, but where did they see it? 16:30 Ranke says it is strange that Lloyde invited him into his home. Isn’t it possible that Lloyde is merely an honest and forthright person? 17:30 Isn’t it possible that Shirley Hughes was having a bit of fun at Ranke‘s expense when she refused to tell him why the car was not taken into evidence? J What kind of FBI employee is Hughes anyway? 18:50 Where is the video or audio that records his claim that he was on the north side? We only have Ranke claiming this on the video. 23:30 So what is wrong with Lloyde’s explanation of why the hood was not damaged? 25:30 It sounds as if Hughes is having a bit of fun at the interviewer’s expense. 26:20 There is lots of “It was here, no it was here” in the video, but where is here? It is not clearly shown. He does sound confused though. Is the guy running on all cylinders now? This segment sounds a bit like Michael Moore ambushing an Alzheimer’s afflicted Charlton Heston. 32:30 When Shirley Hughes said yes, maybe she meant “yo momma”. J It sounds as if she has a very low opinion of the interviewers and people in general who question their view of the 9/11 events. 35:20 Lloyde said, “When people do things and get away with it, you eventually it’s going to come to me. And when it comes to me it’s going to be so big I can’t do nothing about it. What did he mean by “you”? The government? Ranke? Someone else? Edited by Marley, Nov 23 2008, 02:50 AM.
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08


Bitterman	Nov 23 2008, 04:39 AM Post #253
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Marley, it is a simple situation. Every physical bit of evidence is false due to the plane flying NoC. Lloyde is part of that, and now he is saying something different. That's all that really matters here. Why change his story? Why now? Doesn't make any sense considering he was supposed to be in the flight path of the plane. You know, the only physical evidence proving a plane hit poles and then the Pentagon? That's BS though, so........has it gone click yet? Everything else you mentioned or had to comment on is not important at all. Have you seen the video's yet? They canvased Arlington looking for people and what they saw. They could ONLY find people describing a NORTH flight path, that's how this got started. You're missing some critical information that will result in you not asking questions like the ones above.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Lin Kuei	Nov 23 2008, 09:55 AM Post #254
Posts: 1,298 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	Wow this thread is only 24 days old and already has 3,200 views as of writing this post. And so it should too, people are obviously interested and the information is well researched.
Posts: 1,298 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


Marley	Nov 23 2008, 03:21 PM Post #255
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08	Bitterman Nov 23 2008, 04:39 AM Marley, it is a simple situation. Every physical bit of evidence is false due to the plane flying NoC. Either flight 77 hit the Pentagon or it did not. What about the people who claim they watched a large airliner hit? Are they lying too? What about the people who say they saw airliner parts at the scene? Are they lying? You really think large pieces of airliner cold have been planted in front of the Pentagon the morning of the attack?
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Nov 23 2008, 05:17 PM Post #256
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Marley Nov 23 2008, 02:50 AM I was only able to download about 35 minutes of the video, but I was able to make a few comments. Proving you are willing to pass judgement without even viewing the evidence in full. Definitely a strong indicator that you have a serious confirmation bias in favor what what you were told by the government. There is a version on megavideo and googlevideo. Both work fine. Watch the entire presentation to avoid looking silly like below. Quote: 5:30 Nothing suspicious about a silent stranger helping Lloyde. Lots of strange things that day. Says you. The point is that there is NOBODY who can back up Lloyde's proven false impossible story. This would only not be a concern for someone who is quite happy to accept what the government tells them based on nothing but pure faith. Quote: 6:35 Eight witnesses claiming north side does not constitute proof. Why not include the statements of those who did not agree with those who say the plane was to the north of the CITGO station? There are 13 and yes it does because there is NOBODY who does not agree and claims the plane was on the south side of the station. This is why you did not cite anyone. They do not exist. Quote: 8:30 Video accuses him of being a victim or willingly involved. They are calling for Lloyde to be brought in. Who has been contacted? Media and authorities have been contacted and they will continue to be. But your question is irrelevant to the evidence presented. Quote: 9:00 FOIA request filled with VDOT, to get them to document the exact location of the poles. Did VDOT have the information and refuse to release it or did they not have the info and were unable to? Can a copy of the request and answer be provided? They claimed they did not have the info and were therefore unable to provide it. I do not care if you don't believe me. Make your own request to verify or refute. Quote: 11:40 Says north flight path 13 times claimed by witnesses and that this proves Lloyde’s claims to be false. What about the claims of any other alleged flight path? Wouldn’t eye witness statements that place the plane south of the CITGO station prove Lloyde’s statements to be true? You already mentioned this. Why are you repeating yourself? They don't exist which is why you haven't cited any and why the north side accounts amount to proof. The witnesses are unanimous regarding the north side approach because this is where the plane flew proving Lloyde's story false. Quote: 12:15 “We are not directly accusing him, he could be a victim”. Calling him a victim is also an accusation, not very nice. I did not get the impression of Lloyde on the video that he is some sort of victim, he is just a cab driver making a living. They say the evidence implicates Lloyde. What about the other evidence that does not implicate him, the evidence this video ignores? What evidence? Stop making generalized statements without backing them up. Provide evidence or admit you are uneducated on the matter and are merely making things up because you don't want to believe Lloyde was involved. Quote: Ranke says, “You said you were sure the entire pole was in the back seat.” Lloyde never claimed that at all. He claimed part of the pole was in the back seat. I never said that. You are misquoting me. Stop that. Quote: 15:30 Ranke claims he talked to dozens of people who say that plane. They all say they saw plane, but where did they see it? North side of the gas station far from the poles. This is the point. Quote: 16:30 Ranke says it is strange that Lloyde invited him into his home. Isn’t it possible that Lloyde is merely an honest and forthright person? You can only have failed to understand the point if you are deceptive or slow. Maybe a bit of both. We already interviewed him. We put out a piece suggesting he was the "The First Known Accomplice?". He knew this. He invited me BACK into his home anyway. Yes I think it's strange and it does not matter if you do not. Quote: 17:30 Isn’t it possible that Shirley Hughes was having a bit of fun at Ranke‘s expense when she refused to tell him why the car was not taken into evidence? J What kind of FBI employee is Hughes anyway? Huh? You are completely fabricating an excuse to refuse to accept what she said. You are literally claiming you can read her mind as a means to suggest she believes the opposite of what she said. That is not a scientific approach to analyzing evidence. Your worthless fantasy has been noted. Quote: 18:50 Where is the video or audio that records his claim that he was on the north side? We only have Ranke claiming this on the video. If you remember you admitted to only watching 35 minutes of a 1 hour and 35 minute presentation. Go watch the hour and report back what you found out about this because you look rather silly right now. Quote: 23:30 So what is wrong with Lloyde’s explanation of why the hood was not damaged? The plane was on the north side proving no light poles were hit. Quote: 25:30 It sounds as if Hughes is having a bit of fun at the interviewer’s expense. You are literally claiming you can read her mind as a means to suggest she believes the opposite of what she said. That is not a scientific approach to analyzing evidence. Your worthless fantasy has been noted. Quote: 26:20 There is lots of “It was here, no it was here” in the video, but where is here? It is not clearly shown. He does sound confused though. Is the guy running on all cylinders now? This segment sounds a bit like Michael Moore ambushing an Alzheimer’s afflicted Charlton Heston. If you remember you admitted to only watching 35 minutes of a 1 hour and 35 minute presentation. Go watch the hour and report back what you found out about this because you look rather silly right now. Quote: 32:30 When Shirley Hughes said yes, maybe she meant “yo momma”. J It sounds as if she has a very low opinion of the interviewers and people in general who question their view of the 9/11 events. Are you for real? Shirley was opening up and being friendly at that moment. You have no idea what you are talking about and you are WRONG. Your accusatory speculative statements regarding what Llodye's wife thinks exposes your intentions to not look at this information rationally or honestly. Quote: 35:20 Lloyde said, “When people do things and get away with it, you eventually it’s going to come to me. And when it comes to me it’s going to be so big I can’t do nothing about it. What did he mean by “you”? The government? Ranke? Someone else? Go ask him yourself. This part makes his point loud and clear: "And when it comes to me it’s going to be so big I can’t do nothing about it."
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Nov 23 2008, 05:29 PM Post #257
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Marley Nov 23 2008, 03:21 PM Bitterman Nov 23 2008, 04:39 AM Marley, it is a simple situation. Every physical bit of evidence is false due to the plane flying NoC. Either flight 77 hit the Pentagon or it did not. What about the people who claim they watched a large airliner hit? Are they lying too? What about the people who say they saw airliner parts at the scene? Are they lying? It did not hit. Most simply saw the plane and heard the explosion in the distance because the topography and obstacles make it difficult to see the alleged impact point until you are right up on it. Most others in the immediate area were fooled into believing it hit in all the confusion of this few second event, others may have seen it fly away and are scared about what they saw or else were convinced it was a 2nd plane due to the elaborate 2nd plane cover story. But yes....others lied. That is the nature of covert military black operations. People lie and kill. Quote: You really think large pieces of airliner cold have been planted in front of the Pentagon the morning of the attack? Huh? There weren't any "large pieces" in front of the Pentagon. Only a very small amount of relatively small pieces. This is about the extent of the ones photographed outside: And yes I have no doubt it would be extremely easy for the perpetrators to plant them in their own secure backyard. Did you know Bush left from the heliport on 9/10 and was scheduled to arrive there at 12 noon on 9/11? Do you know that this gives them a perfect reason to "secure" the area no questions asked along with the renovation clean up that was going on that week where we know they were moving around trailers and packing things up? Furthermore everyone, even firefighters were hastily evacuated shortly after the attack for fear of another incoming plane. This gave them plenty of opportunity to plant those very few relatively tiny pieces that have never been positively identified tail # N644AA or any aircraft for that matter. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Nov 23 2008, 05:32 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


JackD	Nov 23 2008, 06:30 PM Post #258
Posts: 262 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08	said it before, will say it again: Nothing about Lloyd's story on day of 9/11/01 washes -- his cab windshield damage is not consistent with a single, high-impact blow from a cart-wheeling 247lb light pole -- which, if it struck lloyd's car at all, would be incredible odds that it would strike through windshield only, not touching roof, not touching hood, not impacting A-pillars on either side of windshield... .. and as lloyd swerves to a hard-braking stop, instead of flying out over the hood, or smashing from side to side wiithin the car -- the pole does not act with its proper Newtonian mechanics. Then, lloyd is left to stand next to cab for the better part of an hour, no one attending to his first aid (by his account he was almost killed by pole) -- no one moviing pole or cab out of way, to make room for emergency vehicles, police, evacuations etc .. it is as of LLoyd's cab, the pole, the Pentagon in background, are being held "secure" for a photo-opportunity.... and lloyd has "minders" on either side of him, men who are seen doing NOTHING to assist in disaster, merely hovering around Lloyd. It is possible lloyd believes his own story, i dont doubt it. BUt the fact his story changes over time is troubling -- and impeaches lloyd's credibility.
Posts: 262 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08


Bud316	Nov 23 2008, 10:47 PM Post #259
Posts: 8 Group: Members Member #933 Joined: 11/12/08	JackD Nov 23 2008, 06:30 PM Nothing about Lloyd's story on day of 9/11/01 washes -- his cab windshield damage is not consistent with a single, high-impact blow from a cart-wheeling 247lb light pole -- which, if it struck lloyd's car at all, would be incredible odds that it would strike through windshield only, not touching roof, not touching hood, not impacting A-pillars on either side of windshield... If the pole is bent and the short end goes in thru the windshield, then gets stuck in the back seat, i do think it would be quite possible, BUT, after watching the videos, Lloyde says the pole is straight over the hood to the ground.. Quote: Then, lloyd is left to stand next to cab for the better part of an hour, no one attending to his first aid (by his account he was almost killed by pole) -- no one moviing pole or cab out of way, to make room for emergency vehicles, police, evacuations etc Again, referencing the CIT videos, Lloyde admits that it was a scary situation, but he didn't have a scratch on him. Why would he need assistance? He did have very little glass splattered on him, but he wasn't injured.... you would have to figure because of the fire and explosions to the left of the taxi no one would be paying attention to Lloyde's little taxi-smashed windshield problem..all eyes probably focused on the Pentacon... Quote: .. it is as of LLoyd's cab, the pole, the Pentagon in background, are being held "secure" for a photo-opportunity.... and lloyd has "minders" on either side of him, men who are seen doing NOTHING to assist in disaster, merely hovering around Lloyd. Now dude I'm a truther too but this is really stretching it. I don't know what city you live in, but seeing a passenger airliner about 400ft off the ground heading toward the pentagon is quite a scene! These people were dumbfounded, there is a 20 ft hole in the Pentagon wall..Fire, smoke, small explosions, had to be one scary sight, unless your one that sees this type of stuff everyday. Bud316
Posts: 8 Group: Members Member #933 Joined: 11/12/08


Marley	Nov 24 2008, 05:12 AM Post #260
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08	Craig Ranke CIT Nov 23 2008, 05:17 PM Quote: 6:35 Eight witnesses claiming north side does not constitute proof. Why not include the statements of those who did not agree with those who say the plane was to the north of the CITGO station? There are 13 and yes it does because there is NOBODY who does not agree and claims the plane was on the south side of the station. This is why you did not cite anyone. They do not exist. Ranke, perhaps you should notice that I have not passed judgment yet; just posted a few comments. But I do notice that you do not pass up a chance to be rude. There were many more witnesses to flight 77 flying into the Pentagon than you will admit exist. Not all of them saw the actual impact due to the terrain, but I'm sure they would have noticed a fly over while they were watching a fireball. You claim that witnesses that contradict your story do not exist. The truth says different. Mike Walters witnessed a plane fly into Pentagon. http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU . How about Mike Moran? http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm . How about here? http://debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_witnesses Not all of the stories in these links describe a person actually seeing the plane hit the building, but do any or all of them support your theory? Why didn’t you include them in your video? Is there any evidence at all that contradicts your theory? Why is it if parts are found on the Pentagon lawn, then they had to be planted even though you have no evidence to support this claim? Why if body tissue found that belonged to the passengers it had to be faked or planted, again no evidence to support your claim. I will post more comments about the video when I am able to download it in its entirety.
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08


Marley	Nov 24 2008, 05:21 AM Post #261
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08	Craig Ranke CIT Nov 23 2008, 05:29 PM Quote: You really think large pieces of airliner cold have been planted in front of the Pentagon the morning of the attack? Huh? There weren't any "large pieces" in front of the Pentagon. Only a very small amount of relatively small pieces. This is about the extent of the ones photographed outside: And yes I have no doubt it would be extremely easy for the perpetrators to plant them in their own secure backyard. This gave them plenty of opportunity to plant those very few relatively tiny pieces that have never been positively identified tail # N644AA or any aircraft for that matter. Any piece that is readily visible like the ones in the photographs can be called big. They do not need to be too big for a person to carry to be called big. You are trying to minimize the evidence of the crash. If you had ANY evidence that pieces were planted, then you would present it, but you have to fall back to unsupported speculation. When you accuse people of lying, then the burden of proof is on you. I'm sure you would understand if someone accused you of lying or of any other crime. Or do you think it is acceptable behavior to make accusations without any evidence? So out of all the debris found, was any of it not consistent with an American Airlines aircraft crashing?
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08


Marley	Nov 24 2008, 05:33 AM Post #262
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08	JackD Nov 23 2008, 06:30 PM Nothing about Lloyd's story on day of 9/11/01 washes -- his cab windshield damage is not consistent with a single, high-impact blow from a cart-wheeling 247lb light pole -- which, if it struck lloyd's car at all, would be incredible odds that it would strike through windshield only, not touching roof, not touching hood, not impacting A-pillars on either side of windshield... .. and as lloyd swerves to a hard-braking stop, instead of flying out over the hood, or smashing from side to side wiithin the car -- the pole does not act with its proper Newtonian mechanics. Can you show us what would be consistent with the impact? You are telling us what it would not be, tell us what it would be. So you calculated how the pole would act according to Newtonian mechanics? Lets see your calculations please. Actually I'm joking, of course you made no such calculations. You are just posturing and think it somehow elevates you in the eyes of those who are willing to believe that the best way to support a theory is to decide what the conclusion is, then pick only that evidence that supports it. This method only works when presented to a group of people who only get together to pat each other on the back.
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Nov 24 2008, 06:24 AM Post #263
Posts: 1,980 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Marley Nov 24 2008, 05:33 AM So you calculated how the pole would act according to Newtonian mechanics? Lets see your calculations please. Actually I'm joking, of course you made no such calculations. has you or anyone else on this planet done the 'calculations' to prove lloydes story is not only possible but indeed accurate? actually i'm joking, of course you nor anyone else on this planet has made no such calculations.
Posts: 1,980 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Michal	Nov 24 2008, 07:31 AM Post #264
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08	Folkes, I have taken a closer look ant your document and work you have done, and these are my observations: (Please remember though, I am a project manager working in the construction industry since years and at the beginning of my career I was working directly onsite with sincere, but uneducated people. Please also remember I am not a psychologist and I think we could use some of the expertise of this kind of professional) - Old, poor, uneducated people quite often say that big things happening on this world should always belong to big people. Poor and uneducated do not care about it and they always want to stay away from this all, and they do not even want to understand that. All they want is easy peaceful life. I think we should not see anything suspicious in this sentence said by Lloyd. - Indeed the damages in his cab look suspicious. This needs to be investigated further. - I think Lloyd looks hypnotized and his memories were implanted, but again this needs to be investigated. I keep remembering Automotive News Reporter being convinced under the hypnosis that he is not able to drive the car. After he woke up, he really could not start it, despite the fact he is driving since years. He behaved just the same like Lloyd did – kept repeating unbelievable thoughts, making no sense at all. Again – this needs to be investigated by expert and I am not one of them. This is just my thought about it. - Lloyd England is very important link to the very people of this event. He can be helpful in this investigation if adequately approached. Anyway - GOOD WORK GUYS ! Edited by Michal, Nov 24 2008, 07:39 AM.
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08


Michal	Nov 24 2008, 07:35 AM Post #265
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08	Marley Nov 23 2008, 03:21 PM Bitterman Nov 23 2008, 04:39 AM Marley, it is a simple situation. Every physical bit of evidence is false due to the plane flying NoC. Either flight 77 hit the Pentagon or it did not. What about the people who claim they watched a large airliner hit? Are they lying too? What about the people who say they saw airliner parts at the scene? Are they lying? You really think large pieces of airliner cold have been planted in front of the Pentagon the morning of the attack? there you go: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/286756/1/#new take a look at my post over there ... I hope this will be of your satisfaction.
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Nov 24 2008, 10:17 AM Post #266
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Michal, Lloyde's story is proven false without any additional investigation because we provide evidence proving the plane was nowhere near the light poles as unanimously corroborated by 13 independent verifiable witnesses in the area. Coming to ANY conclusions at all regarding his innocence or guilt based on his financial status (that you know nothing about) is not logical. It is an emotional reaction on your part in an effort to explain away this important evidence. The fact is that Lloyde has his home in Arlington, a $50,000 truck, and 30 acres of property in "the country". Calling him "poor" is simply not an accurate characterization. Thanks for the props though.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Michal	Nov 24 2008, 04:26 PM Post #267
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08	Craig Ranke CIT Nov 24 2008, 10:17 AM Michal, Lloyde's story is proven false without any additional investigation because we provide evidence proving the plane was nowhere near the light poles as unanimously corroborated by 13 independent verifiable witnesses in the area. Coming to ANY conclusions at all regarding his innocence or guilt based on his financial status (that you know nothing about) is not logical. It is an emotional reaction on your part in an effort to explain away this important evidence. The fact is that Lloyde has his home in Arlington, a $50,000 truck, and 30 acres of property in "the country". Calling him "poor" is simply not an accurate characterization. Thanks for the props though. Craig, Craig, 100% agreed. I watched your previous document regarding the real path of the plane at the Pentagon, so I am aware of the fact, that Lloyd is terribly missing something here ... no doubt about it - light posts here, airplane path there and him (poor or rich) - cab driver being everywhere and nowhere at the same time (confirming the photos and his false location at the same time) I was not aware of his financial status he seemed to be very modest though ... my mistake anyway ... All I tried to say, is that simple people like to simplify different things ... and sometimes it goes too far ... so interpreting his words about big people and big things might be one step too far ... it does not change general presumption that he is involved or that he got somehow involved in a cover up story. Once again Craig, I am full of respect to a very good work you are doing here. Edited by Michal, Nov 24 2008, 04:28 PM.
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08


SPreston	Nov 24 2008, 05:27 PM Post #268
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Marley Nov 24 2008, 05:12 AM Craig Ranke CIT Nov 23 2008, 05:17 PM Quote: 6:35 Eight witnesses claiming north side does not constitute proof. Why not include the statements of those who did not agree with those who say the plane was to the north of the CITGO station? There are 13 and yes it does because there is NOBODY who does not agree and claims the plane was on the south side of the station. This is why you did not cite anyone. They do not exist. Ranke, perhaps you should notice that I have not passed judgment yet; just posted a few comments. But I do notice that you do not pass up a chance to be rude. There were many more witnesses to flight 77 flying into the Pentagon than you will admit exist. Not all of them saw the actual impact due to the terrain, but I'm sure they would have noticed a fly over while they were watching a fireball. You claim that witnesses that contradict your story do not exist. The truth says different. Mike Walters witnessed a plane fly into Pentagon. http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU . How about Mike Moran? http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm . How about here? http://debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_witnesses Not all of the stories in these links describe a person actually seeing the plane hit the building, but do any or all of them support your theory? Why didn’t you include them in your video? Is there any evidence at all that contradicts your theory? Why is it if parts are found on the Pentagon lawn, then they had to be planted even though you have no evidence to support this claim? Why if body tissue found that belonged to the passengers it had to be faked or planted, again no evidence to support your claim. I will post more comments about the video when I am able to download it in its entirety. Media person Mike Walter changed his story again and again. So did media person Jamie Macintyre. Were they lying at first or later? What is this FBI agent doing with these apparent pieces of evidence? Why is he carrying them away from that other piece of evidence near the hanger wall? Do you see any evidence tags on those pieces he is carrying? Do you notice that none of the people there are paying him the least bit of attention? (click photo for original) Sitting right out in front of the helipad and in front of this FBI agent is this infamous piece of never ever riveted unscorched apparent evidence, also without an evidence tag. Did this FBI agent already carry that piece out there and set it on the lawn? Where do you think he got these pieces of evidence; out of the van sitting there? Or did those very light flimsy aluminum pieces blow way over there against the wind from the alleged aircraft impacting the wall several hundred feet away? Well golly gee it finally got an evidence ribbon for the official Pentagon book. From the Department of Defense Pentagon 9-11 book with a yellow evidence ribbon (click photo)



Avenger	Nov 24 2008, 06:33 PM Post #269
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Bud316 If the pole is bent and the short end goes in thru the windshield, then gets stuck in the back seat, i do think it would be quite possible, BUT, after watching the videos, Lloyde says the pole is straight over the hood to the ground.. Can you elaborate on that? I don't remember him saying straight over the hood to the ground. This is not that same old tired JREF argument is it? That stuff about the base of the pole resting on the ground? Bud316 Again, referencing the CIT videos, Lloyde admits that it was a scary situation, but he didn't have a scratch on him. Why would he need assistance? He did have very little glass splattered on him, but he wasn't injured.... you would have to figure because of the fire and explosions to the left of the taxi no one would be paying attention to Lloyde's little taxi-smashed windshield problem..all eyes probably focused on the Pentacon... Maybe bystanders would not be paying attention, but, as Jack tried to point out to you, police and EMS are not bystanders. The cab and debris were clearly blocking the road. Bud316 Now dude I'm a truther too but this is really stretching it. I don't know what city you live in, but seeing a passenger airliner about 400ft off the ground heading toward the pentagon is quite a scene! These people were dumbfounded, there is a 20 ft hole in the Pentagon wall..Fire, smoke, small explosions, had to be one scary sight, unless your one that sees this type of stuff everyday. The problem is that the people seen hovering around Lloyd didn't seem at all interested in the fact that the Pentagon was on fire, with a hole and smoke billowing out. Marley You claim that witnesses that contradict your story do not exist. It's not actually their story, but the witnesses' story. How many witnesses say the plane flew south of the CITGO? You mentioned that Mike Walters' account contradicts "their" story, but which Walters account are you referring to? Did you know that according to him, the plane banked to the right before hitting the Pentagon?
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


Bud316	Nov 24 2008, 10:22 PM Post #270
Posts: 8 Group: Members Member #933 Joined: 11/12/08	Avenger Nov 24 2008, 06:33 PM Bud316 If the pole is bent and the short end goes in thru the windshield, then gets stuck in the back seat, i do think it would be quite possible, BUT, after watching the videos, Lloyde says the pole is straight over the hood to the ground.. Avenger Can you elaborate on that? I don't remember him saying straight over the hood to the ground. This is not that same old tired JREF argument is it? That stuff about the base of the pole resting on the ground? Sure will.. In the video i seen where Chris from CIT goes to Lloydes house ( this would be his 2nd trip, where Lloyde takes Chris to the actuall taxi, off property ) I thought Lloyde had said the pole came straight over the hood of the car, but didn't touch it. He also stated him and a pass-byer removed the pole from the windshield and set it on the ground. Bud316
Posts: 8 Group: Members Member #933 Joined: 11/12/08


Bud316	Nov 24 2008, 10:39 PM Post #271
Posts: 8 Group: Members Member #933 Joined: 11/12/08	Michal Nov 24 2008, 07:31 AM - Old, poor, uneducated people quite often say that big things happening on this world should always belong to big people. Poor and uneducated do not care about it and they always want to stay away from this all, and they do not even want to understand that. All they want is easy peaceful life. I think we should not see anything suspicious in this sentence said by Lloyd Dude, where on Gods green, are you getting this info from? I have never heard of that before. It's called being contempt. You reach an age where not so much bothers you any more, your not as quick to react as someone who is 25. Being old, poor, black, uneducated has no bearing what so ever in this situation. Lots of people own property, does not mean their rich, and I don't ever remember hearing he owned 30 arces as i did in this thread. I'll bet the house he lives in is an old 2-3br with 1 bathroom... is that considered luxury? See, I do believe when Craig flashed that picture of where the cab actually was, Lloyde actually had a total recall for approx 1.56777 seconds .. It stunned him, it confused him, he actually had to THINK where the hell he was..But we shouldn't take his confusion for a confession, it just doesn't work with me. Quote: - I think Lloyd looks hypnotized and his memories were implanted, but again this needs to be investigated. I keep remembering Automotive News Reporter being convinced under the hypnosis that he is not able to drive the car. After he woke up, he really could not start it, despite the fact he is driving since years. He behaved just the same like Lloyd did – kept repeating unbelievable thoughts, making no sense at all. Again – this needs to be investigated by expert and I am not one of them. This is just my thought about it. What the?? Where did you hear that! Of all the things involved with this, what makes you come to the conclusion that he was hypnotized? Again, Lloyde is confused and is being confronted on it, live on camera, and to be honest, I do not think Lloyde actually knows where he was. The pentacon exploding has got to be a tramatic situation and Lloyde is definitely confused with all that is going on that nightmare of a morning.. Just my opinion Bud316
Posts: 8 Group: Members Member #933 Joined: 11/12/08


Michal	Nov 25 2008, 09:14 AM Post #272
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08	No way. I am not going to believe Lloyd does not know where he was at the time. Selective memory is a factor characterizing people who do not want or can not tell the truth – we all know that. My best guess is that he was hypnotized. I am not sure of that and I am not trained to ascertain this … yet having said that I do not think he will tell us something more about this …
Posts: 53 Group: Members Member #320 Joined: 02/16/08


Avenger	Nov 25 2008, 06:15 PM Post #273
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Sure will.. In the video i seen where Chris from CIT goes to Lloydes house ( this would be his 2nd trip, where Lloyde takes Chris to the actuall taxi, off property ) I thought Lloyde had said the pole came straight over the hood of the car, but didn't touch it. He also stated him and a pass-byer removed the pole from the windshield and set it on the ground. How does the pole come straight over the hood if the pole is bent? Quote: See, I do believe when Craig flashed that picture of where the cab actually was, Lloyde actually had a total recall for approx 1.56777 seconds .. Had a total recall, yet still insisted he was north of his actual location, huh? That doesn't make any sense. Quote: It stunned him, it confused him, he actually had to THINK where the hell he was..But we shouldn't take his confusion for a confession, it just doesn't work with me. What would be so stunning and confusing about a picture of himself and his own cab? It's not as if he hadn't seen any pictures like that before. He did mention that his neighbor took similar pictures of himself so I don't see why he would be stunned and confused. It's not as if Lloyd has the I.Q. of a raccoon. Stunned and confused people don't act so insistent. Especially after being shown photographic evidence that can not be disputed. If his memory is so terrible, then why is he so insistent he was hundreds of feet from that bridge, when photographic evidence says different?
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


Marley	Nov 25 2008, 06:31 PM Post #274
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08	Domenick DiMaggio Nov 24 2008, 06:24 AM has you or anyone else on this planet done the 'calculations' to prove lloydes story is not only possible but indeed accurate? actually i'm joking, of course you nor anyone else on this planet has made no such calculations. Well, we know an airliner hit the Pentagon. American Airlines is missing one of their planes, people are missing family members, parts of the airliner that crashed were found at the Pentagon as well as body parts shown to be those on the flight. No one has shown us any body parts or debris from the crash that did not belong there. Add this all up and there is no reason to doubt that Lloyde's cab was hit by a pole knocked down by flight 77. The possible mistaken observations of a few people who thought the aircraft's route was slightly different than it actually was is no good reason to doubt that flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. So what calculations do I need to make anyway? I have not claimed that Lloyde’s original story is anything but what he claims it to be. A curved metal pole hit his is windshield and damaged the interior of his cab. If you take a look at how it is shaped, it does not have to touch the hood. With one end in the car and one end on the ground, the curved portion might not have touched the hood, but the front quarter panels instead. I feel that the sole reason the videos make out Lloyde to be a liar is that the producers started with a conclusion and picked the evidence to support their it. Dismissing all other evidence that supports any other conclusion is another tactic used.
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08


Marley	Nov 25 2008, 06:39 PM Post #275
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08	Michal Nov 24 2008, 07:35 AM take a look at my post over there ... I hope this will be of your satisfaction. Of course not. The links inside of the link you posted do not work. The blurry pic used as evidence is just like Moon hoaxers who purposely use fuzzy photos to enhance their credibility when lying about Apollo not landing on the moon.
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
10
11
12