| 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! |
| "He was up on the bridge"; taking pictures of the cab on the bridge | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 25 2008, 01:30 PM (2,340 Views) | |
| Craig Ranke CIT | Nov 30 2008, 01:56 AM Post #26 |
|
pguillory, You are a jrefer are you not? You are an official story devotee who is not here to learn but here to try and debate the issue, correct? There is a place for "debate" in this forum and that is the "skeptics" section. Frankly we are the true skeptics here since your belief in the official story is rooted solidly in faith while we provide hard evidence proving their story false. Regardless....there is no debate regarding IF 9/11 was an inside job so honest truth seeking patriots who join this forum come here to discuss the evidence that proves a deception and discuss strategy how to overcome the incredible psychological power of media propaganda perpetuating the official lie. Unless you contribute to this cause in my opinion you are the enemy and you only are here to derail, disrupt, and discourage our efforts and we don't need that. |
 |
 
|
| jim76 | Nov 30 2008, 03:04 PM Post #27 |
|
Come on, Craig. Don't blow things out of proportions. This forum is not here to be a secret site for planning to overthrow the government. It's an online forums based around a popular internet film about 9/11. Some people come here to gain more knowledge about the event. Some enjoy debating the various theories that exist. And some visit to converse with some of the more entertaining and interesting members. I'm sure there are other reasons as well. I don't know if you really believe what you say, but if you are planning some sort of revolution, I wouldn't be discussing it openly over the internet if I were you... |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Nov 30 2008, 09:57 PM Post #28 |
|
jim76, Sorry but I beg to differ. Nobody ever said that we have to "overthrow the government" to expose the 9/11 deception. None of the LC movies suggest there is a possibility that the official story is true. The 9/11 truth movement as a whole does not suggest that possibility either. People who are skeptical but open and want to learn are one thing but naturally there are people like you who come here trying real hard to reduce it to a debate in a desperate attempt to diminish our cause, disrupt our investigation process or activist efforts, or in the very least cast doubt or confuse. In essence that reduces you to an antagonist and an apologist for war, who therefore should in my opinion not be trusted and limited to the skeptics forum if allowed here at all. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Nov 30 2008, 10:40 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Lin Kuei | Nov 30 2008, 11:05 PM Post #29 |
|
How did you interpret that from what Craig said? Those are extremely dangerous words to be putting into someone's mouth. jim76 you are skating on very thin ice right now. You are confined to the skeptic's section. |
|
|
|
| JackD | Dec 1 2008, 03:43 AM Post #30 |
|
I think what Craig said was pretty simple. Just overcoming the media propaganda is pretty much a full time job - -and in its own way is a peaceful revolution -- a revolution of the mind. Think about the Kennedy assassination -- something like 44% of the nation rejects the official account, but, does the media machine give 44% of their JFK coverage to air the evidence brought forth by those who reject the Oswald account? Nope. think about the 9/11 OCT -- only 16% of the nation BELIEVE THAT THE GOV'T IS BEING HONEST ABOUT EVENTS OF 9/11/01. the other 84% think gov't is lying to various degrees, and of those, some allege gov't complicity -- about 35% in last poll. so, do we have a media coverage that reflects those figures, roughly? That would mean 16% of the media time devoted to the 9/11 attacks should reflect the OCT, and the other part, the big chunk, devoted into breaking down why exactly and what exactly people reject in the OCT> The fact that the media time is pretty much 99% devoted to echoing the OCT, with 1% thrown in here and there to ridicule OCT skeptics as "conspiracy theorists" indicates a pretty f----d situation. I don't always agree with Craig, but, on this point, yeah. The power of the media in manipulating opinion, and marginializing dissent, is incredible. Back to Lloyd story: i owe an apology, i didnt read interview closely, and now i think that's kinda bizarre -- a guy that lloyd knows from 17th Street over in ?? Alexandria was "up on the bridge" taking pictures. Let's go talk to THAT guy... |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Dec 1 2008, 10:26 AM Post #31 |
|
You should watch the presentation again JackD. We DID talk to that guy! We even got it on video and included it in the presentation.  He agreed to get me the images while we went to go see the cab and when we returned about 5 hours later around 10 at night he got out of bed to give us this package:  Basically 2 of the virtually same low resolution image taken about a second apart. Regardless....the images prove what all of us, including Lloyde, already knew.....that he was "up on the bridge". |
|
|
|
| Bitterman | Dec 1 2008, 07:12 PM Post #32 |
|
Did you get the impression that the neighbor was shocked that you were there? Did he look calm, cool and collected kind of thing or unprepared? |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Dec 1 2008, 09:38 PM Post #33 |
|
You know.......while he kept his cool, my feeling is that he was surprised and not sure how to react, so he opted to buy some time. It would have looked bad for him to outright deny providing the images but by postponing it until later he was able to prepare something while clearly making a concerted effort to give as little as possible. He had said there were "half a dozen images" but he only gave me 2 of virtually the exact same shot. And look how ridiculously small they are!   Obviously he was holding back. We'll never know for sure why but frankly I find this to be suspicious behavior. |
|
|
|
| JackD | Dec 1 2008, 10:36 PM Post #34 |
|
Craig & Co That photo of the light pole, busted cab windshield with Pentagon smoking in the background seems minor, but has enormous psychological value. It's the 'money shot' that powerfully reinforces the plane-flying-low-into-Pentagon meme -- This picture is worth more than 1000 words. Let's break it down -- if you simply showed a photo of the smoking Pentagon, my first thought would be "wierd. Wheres's the plane? are they sure a plane struck? kinda looks like a bomb went off." But the downed light pole? The cab? Once you add that to the shot, my brain immediately concludes "the hijacked plane was flying so low it clipped the light pole right into that poor guy's cab, OMG what a tragic day" At that point, even if the Pentagon site doesnt really look like a plane crash site, it doesnt matter/. I've already bought the story. Light pole downed = plane hit Pentagon. QED. the end. Even if i had a momentary doubt about the plane strike, looking at that cab makes me think i was probably wrong. I wonder if your shutterbug provided those snaps to any media organizations, or saw them take a similar shot. That shot is a pys-op in a bag. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Dec 1 2008, 10:49 PM Post #35 |
|
Agreed. As is the case with ANY photos of the cab and pole which is why this staged scene was so critical to the operation. But there aren't many images that we haven't seen and we definitely hadn't seen these before. The fact is....Lloyde knew he took the photos of the cab "up on the bridge" so this reveals that Lloyde was fully aware of his true location when the interview started. |
|
|
|
| Michal | Dec 5 2008, 06:12 AM Post #36 |
|
can anyone, not only on the photo provided, but on all photos with the light poles see damaged road barrier (by collapsing light pole)? I will never believe it just jumped over the road barrier and landed gently on the road and (partially) in the Lloyd's taxi.
Edited by Michal, Dec 5 2008, 06:13 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Dec 5 2008, 10:05 AM Post #37 |
|
There is no evidence that the road barrier on the bridge was at all damaged. |
|
|
|
| Michal | Dec 5 2008, 11:40 AM Post #38 |
|
just to make my self sure here (as I am sitting in Poland, Europe, something like 4k miles east of PENTAGON) - not even a scratch? |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Dec 5 2008, 12:18 PM Post #39 |
|
I am not aware of any closeup images of the guardrail where pole 1 would have been. But I am also not aware of any evidence that it was damaged. |
|
|
|
| tedscotland | Dec 5 2008, 12:28 PM Post #40 |
|
Craig, i have watched your movie and theres one thing that troubles me slightly. If Lloyd is lying and his wife is lying and knows what really happened, as you insinuate, why would he keep the cab? Why would he let you examine it? I would have thought if he was involved to the extent you imply he would have had the cab crushed, gotten rid of it. Instead he shows you it without hesitation. Not really the actions of a guilty man. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Dec 5 2008, 01:44 PM Post #41 |
|
tedscotland, The evidence proves that the plane did not hit the light poles because it was on the north side of the gas station. This means that Lloyde's story has been proven false regardless of how hard it is to believe or how many questions you have regarding "why" he did this or that. That being said, if you want to speculate "why", try to keep your mind in your hypothetical frame of reference considering he WAS involved with the operation and consider what his true role would have been if this scene had been staged. Obviously if they stage a scene it's because they WANT it to be seen. They WANTED plenty images with Lloyde and the cab and the pole on the road to sell the official flight path. They WANTED his everyman face, unassuming personality, simple demeanor, and harrowing story to be in the media. There would be no purpose in staging the scene otherwise. They did not want to hide him away. I like the characterization of Pentagon attack blogger StevenWarran who has a knack for poetic descriptions:
To make these staged "tangible proofs" known enough to at least hover subconsciously within the American psyche, Lloyde was told to go forth and talk to the media as much as he pleases. They weren't about to release an official report that forensically analyzed the plane hitting the poles, exactly what poles were hit and where, and the physics involved with the cab coming to a sliding stop on the road with the pole sticking out of the hood as reported by Lloyde...    Oh no! None of that. In fact the light poles would be virtually ignored by the officials and not even collected until almost 3 weeks after the attack. They instead relied on the media to deliver Lloyde's story, focusing on the human interest element, with nice old Lloyde emotionally relaying is alleged near death experience to do the work for them. The science of the situation was ignored as a shocked and grieving public soaked in all the emotional stories of heartache, loss, and near death experiences on 9/11 for years to come. Obviously this worked REAL GOOD as even many in the movement happily drank that kool-aid and in essence decided to accept the official narrative at the Pentagon, mostly due to the light poles and the cab, as it became clear that all the talk about missiles was ridiculous. Enter CIT. We relentlessly interviewed as many witnesses as we could find and ALL of them in the most critical area unanimously place the plane on the north side! Got that?  But Lloyde wasn't meant to hide away and be quiet. That would have defeated the entire purpose of the staged scene. He talked to many mainstream media outlets before talking to us and they even officially used the image of his cab (undamaged hood and all) and pole in the Moussaui trial. Lloyde was used to people swallowing his story hook line and sinker. It was apparent to all of us in our first interview in 2006 that Lloyde relished the attention. I bet he is sad that he hasn't gotten MORE attention and in fact his wife flat out told us that she was hoping he could sell the cab for "$100,000" or something as a piece of world history! I speculate that whoever put him up to this told him that he would be made a hero of sorts and that he would probably get lots of "fringe benefits" if you know what I mean. Do you really think Lloyde would have been worried about me or any citizen investigator if he was fully aware of the powerful dark forces behind him who have his back? No way! He doesn't have a reason in the world to clam up about his experience...ESPECIALLY after all these years knowing how easily the story had been sold to the masses. So if you want to speculate WHY he acted like he did you need to look at the situation in context and realize that no matter what...the evidence proves his story false. There is no way around it. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Dec 5 2008, 02:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Dec 5 2008, 02:18 PM Post #42 |
|
I'll be the guest on Radio Free Oklahoma W/Chris Emery today talking about this stuff. Friday at 4:30 PM pacific time. Broadcast live on 107.1 FM - OKC; 93.5 rFM - Durant, OK; 90.1 FM Austin and several dozen other low power FM Stations throughout the U.S. and Canada. Or listen online: http://www.ruleoflawradio.com |
|
|
|
| Michal | Dec 6 2008, 04:12 AM Post #43 |
|
well !!! congratulations, this is a very good broadcast time. I wonder what is the (size) of the audience ... Is there any chance you can get on TV with this ... I mean with the pan-american range? Edited by Michal, Dec 6 2008, 04:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Dec 6 2008, 04:32 PM Post #44 |
|
Haha. It sure deserves to be on TV but fat chance of that. Chris Emery has a good sized audience though and the show went well. Download the archive here: http://mp3.ruleoflawradio.com/RFOK/64k/RFOK_2008-12-05_64k.mp3 My interview starts right at 45:00 in. |
|
|
|
| Michal | Dec 6 2008, 05:44 PM Post #45 |
|
got it, thanks 
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Feb 20 2009, 04:43 PM Post #46 |
|
How come hardly anyone has a problem with Lloyd England lying? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Feb 20 2009, 08:56 PM Post #47 |
|
Just a stupid question, but from watching that Lloyde interview I would say he has a slower reaction time than most people I know... That said, when he finally slammed on the brake after the pole had allegedly entered his cab, why did the pole not exit his cab all by itself ? 
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Feb 20 2009, 09:08 PM Post #48 |
|
Agreed but it should be added that he is a bit more quick witted when he doesn't think he is being recorded.
I think this is one of the most overlooked points when considering how physically impossible his story is on its face. The pole would have gone flying. |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Feb 21 2009, 01:22 AM Post #49 |
|
you guys are delving into mind control...good for you...thank you so much CIT for taking him on that drive...so crazy he was challenging you...LMAO and really superb bad lying by Lloyd England to cover his "at times" mind controlled reality...he was/is perfectly old and too conveniently unremembering for the TPTB to use perfectly... (IMO his wife is his yippy CIA domynatryx.).. |
|
|
|
| mik | Apr 24 2009, 01:01 PM Post #50 |
|
Craig, I suggest proving, or at least making some attempt to demonstrate, that the hood of Lloyd's cab must be damaged in this event. If that cannot be done, then it is hard to take this seriously. There does seem to be foul play regarding the light poles, but you seem out on a limb with this Lloyd England stuff. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
7:46 AM Nov 24
