"He was up on the bridge"

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
2
3

"He was up on the bridge"; taking pictures of the cab on the bridge
Topic Started: Nov 25 2008, 01:30 PM (2,341 Views)
Craig Ranke CIT	Apr 24 2009, 04:24 PM Post #51
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	mik Apr 24 2009, 01:01 PM There does seem to be foul play regarding the light poles, but you seem out on a limb with this Lloyd England stuff. Tell that to these guys: Plus I think you must have missed the part in the presentation where Lloyde in essence admitted involvement (with a smile on his face) in a "planned" operation that was for the "people with all the money" and that it was "so big" that he could "do nothing about it". So to get this straight.....despite the fact that all the witnesses place the plane far from the light poles, and despite the fact that Lloyde in essence admitted his involvement, and despite the fact that his FBI employee wife agreed that the plane kept on going.......you refuse to accept this until someone simulates a 90 ton jet slamming a 40 foot 200lb light pole through the windshield of a car traveling 40mph in the opposite direction to see what the damage would really look like? Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Apr 24 2009, 04:25 PM.
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Apr 24 2009, 04:31 PM Post #52
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Oh just to let you guys know....a high quality version of "Eye of The Storm" is now available for viewing and embedding on vimeo: http://www.vimeo.com/4067633
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


mik	Apr 24 2009, 05:23 PM Post #53
Posts: 33 Group: Skeptics Member #1,134 Joined: 04/24/09	I said that there seem to be foul play regarding the light poles, because of those witnesses, not despite them. Lloyd England comes across as an extremely unreliable witness, and not too bright either. He seems confused, not dishonest. His wife apparently works for the FBI, and maybe she does, but what is her position at the FBI? I can't imagine the wife of Lloyd England being of any significance at the FBI. Working in their canteen maybe. Craig Ranke CIT you refuse to accept this until someone simulates a 90 ton jet slamming a 40 foot 200lb light pole through the windshield of a car traveling 40mph in the opposite direction to see what the damage would really look like The lack of damage to the hood seems central to your thesis. and you seem convinced that it must be damaged. I don't see why the hood has to be damaged. And frankly, even though Lloyd claims that the large part of the pole was responsible for the damage, I don't think he can be relied on here, Lloyd seems convinced the incident occured some distance from where his cab was, I can't take anything he says too seriously, he just seems too unreliable. Lloyd, bless him, appears to be a dodering old man, and you appear to be seeing what you want to see. Edited by mik, Apr 24 2009, 05:23 PM.
Posts: 33 Group: Skeptics Member #1,134 Joined: 04/24/09


mik	Apr 24 2009, 05:38 PM Post #54
Posts: 33 Group: Skeptics Member #1,134 Joined: 04/24/09	As a final point, I'll give you my conspiracy theory. In order to make a name for yourself in the truther community, you have picked on this old man who invited you into his home. You've called him a liar, and accused him of being involved in covering up the crimes of 911. Shame on you.
Posts: 33 Group: Skeptics Member #1,134 Joined: 04/24/09


Craig Ranke CIT	Apr 24 2009, 05:56 PM Post #55
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	The lack of damage to the hood of his car is not only not central to our "thesis", it is completely irrelevant to it. We provide enough evidence that equals proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not hit the poles or the building. The fact that Lloyde's account is physically impossible is secondary to this. Plus your opinion of Lloyde's mental state is worthless as is your unwarranted personal attack on our motives for obtaining and releasing this evidence. I find it rather amusing how you continue to ignore the fact that Lloyde in essence admitted involvement (with a smile on his face) in a "planned" operation that was for the "people with all the money" and that it was "so big" that he could "do nothing about it". In 3 posts you have exposed yourself as an antagonistic pseudo-skeptic who will ignore all evidence that counters the official conspiracy theory regardless of how blatant, obvious, and supported this evidence is. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Apr 24 2009, 06:01 PM.
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Apr 24 2009, 06:04 PM Post #56
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	mik Apr 24 2009, 05:23 PM His wife apparently works for the FBI, and maybe she does, but what is her position at the FBI? I can't imagine the wife of Lloyd England being of any significance at the FBI. Working in their canteen maybe. This is hilarious and extremely racist. Or else sexist. Lloyde and his wife both admitted to me that she works for the FBI. He said it on camera in both interviews. When I asked him in person what she does for them he said, "we don't talk about it". Do you really think that would be the case if she worked in the "canteen"? Too funny.
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


mik	Apr 24 2009, 06:10 PM Post #57
Posts: 33 Group: Skeptics Member #1,134 Joined: 04/24/09	What I find strange Craig, is that you hang on every word Mr & Mrs England say, it is as if you think they are credible. Mrs England and her FBI career that she doesn't talk about, perhaps she is making fun of you...
Posts: 33 Group: Skeptics Member #1,134 Joined: 04/24/09


noeffects	Apr 24 2009, 06:14 PM Post #58
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	Quote: Lloyd England comes across as an extremely unreliable witness, and not too bright either. He seems confused, not dishonest. thanks for your opinion... Quote: His wife apparently works for the FBI, and maybe she does, but what is her position at the FBI? irrelevant...but go ahead and find that out... Quote: Lloyd seems convinced the incident occured some distance from where his cab was look at the aftermath photos... if Lloyd E. says he was further down the road...well...then he wouldn't be involved with the pole...photo evidence says otherwise... Quote: As a final point, I'll give you my conspiracy theory. In order to make a name for yourself in the truther community, you have picked on this old man who invited you into his home. You've called him a liar, and accused him of being involved in covering up the crimes of 911. That is not a CIT conspiracy...I've followed CIT's work before they interviewed Lloyd...you know...NOC. Quote: Shame on you. lame...
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Apr 24 2009, 06:17 PM Post #59
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	mik Apr 24 2009, 06:10 PM What I find strange Craig, is that you hang on every word Mr & Mrs England say, it is as if you think they are credible. Mrs England and her FBI career that she doesn't talk about, perhaps she is making fun of you... Lloyde is the one who said that HE does not talk about it with HER. Get it? I don't hang on to anything they have said as credible because clearly it is not. I think he knows full well what she does for them. He is not telling the truth all the way around the board and the evidence proves it. You have agreed that his account is impossible and that there is no way the long piece of the pole caused the damage.....this puts you in a very difficult position because now that we have physically examined the cab and provided images of the interior damage, it's clear that there is no way a small piece of the pole could have caused it. More details on that here: The physical damage to the cab, let's look at it in context But again....I find it rather amusing how you continue to ignore the fact that Lloyde in essence admitted involvement (with a smile on his face) in a "planned" operation that was for the "people with all the money" and that it was "so big" that he could "do nothing about it". Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Apr 24 2009, 06:19 PM.
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Apr 24 2009, 06:21 PM Post #60
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	So are you sexist or racist or both? Or do you have a better excuse for suggesting that Lloyde's wife couldn't possibly have a "significant" job with the FBI and probably works in the "canteen"?
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


mik	Apr 24 2009, 06:39 PM Post #61
Posts: 33 Group: Skeptics Member #1,134 Joined: 04/24/09	The only thing that Lloyd is clearly wrong about is the location, clearly he is in error. I would not say he was being dishonest, I think he is confused, or just mistaken. I don't think it is clear which piece of the pole damaged Lloyd's car, and as I find Lloyd so unreliable I cannot accept his assurance. I do not understand why it is impossible fot the long piece to have done the damage, and I think it is quite possible that it was the small piece. Craig Ranke CIT But again....I find it rather amusing how you continue to ignore the fact that Lloyde in essence admitted involvement (with a smile on his face) in a "planned" operation that was for the "people with all the money" and that it was "so big" that he could "do nothing about it". Perhaps Lloyd is telling you what he thinks you want to hear, perhaps he is making fun of you, perhaps these thoughts are derived from his interest in David Icke. Surely you don't consider this to be a confession from an insider. Craig Ranke CIT So are you sexist or racist or both? Or do you have a better excuse for suggesting that Lloyde's wife couldn't possibly have a "significant" job with the FBI and probably works in the "canteen"? I don't think Lloyd England who is working class and a career cab driver, is likely to have a wife with a significant role at the FBI. Even if she did, and was involved in the 911 cover up, I think it unlikely she would involve her not very bright husband.
Posts: 33 Group: Skeptics Member #1,134 Joined: 04/24/09


Craig Ranke CIT	Apr 24 2009, 07:52 PM Post #62
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	mik Apr 24 2009, 06:39 PM The only thing that Lloyd is clearly wrong about is the location, clearly he is in error. I would not say he was being dishonest, I think he is confused, or just mistaken. Now you are completely contradicting yourself but the entire point of this thread is to highlight the FACT that Lloyde admitted that his neighbor took pictures of the cab and the pole from "up on the bridge". Because of this we know that he was not "in error". Especially since he made that statement without knowing he was being audio recorded only minutes before the cameras started rolling and he would claim the complete opposite. mik I don't think it is clear which piece of the pole damaged Lloyd's car, and as I find Lloyd so unreliable I cannot accept his assurance. I do not understand why it is impossible fot the long piece to have done the damage, and I think it is quite possible that it was the small piece. Neither piece did as you know since you already ADMITTED you accept the north side evidence proving "foul play" regarding the light poles. You are contradicting yourself with every sentence you type which exposes either an inability to follow a logical train of thought or else that you are deliberately and dishonestly shifting your position because you have ulterior motives for joining this forum for the purpose of engaging me in this discussion in the first place. mik Perhaps Lloyd is telling you what he thinks you want to hear, perhaps he is making fun of you, perhaps these thoughts are derived from his interest in David Icke. Surely you don't consider this to be a confession from an insider. Ok got it. You are conspiracy theorizing a way to suggest he did not mean the words that he said in spite of the fact that you have admitted you accept evidence proving the plane did not hit the light poles and the building. That is beyond illogical. I don't think you are this confused. It's becoming more and more clear that you have ulterior motives for joining this forum. mik I don't think Lloyd England who is working class and a career cab driver, is likely to have a wife with a significant role at the FBI. Even if she did, and was involved in the 911 cover up, I think it unlikely she would involve her not very bright husband. Ahh so you are classist too! A misogynistic, racist, elitist, conspiracy theorist. Just brilliant. Please keep posting....it's actually quite amazing peaking into the mind of someone bold enough to make such a revealingly contradictory and nonsensical argument against this definitive evidence. More likely of course, you'll further expose your dishonest intentions for joining this forum and you won't be here much longer.
Posts: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


mik	Apr 24 2009, 08:39 PM Post #63
Posts: 33 Group: Skeptics Member #1,134 Joined: 04/24/09	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. Craig Ranke CIT Neither piece did as you know since you already ADMITTED you accept the north side evidence proving "foul play" regarding the light poles. 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. Craig Ranke CIT the fact that you have admitted you accept evidence proving the plane did not hit the light poles and the building. 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.
Posts: 33 Group: Skeptics Member #1,134 Joined: 04/24/09


Craig Ranke CIT	Apr 24 2009, 09:16 PM Post #64
Posts: 1,454 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: 1,454 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


noeffects	Apr 24 2009, 09:33 PM Post #65
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	Mik England ...? I presume
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


mik	Apr 25 2009, 09:59 AM Post #66
Posts: 33 Group: Skeptics Member #1,134 Joined: 04/24/09	Craig Ranke The fact that she is an employee of the FBI is merely suspicious and absurdly coincidental given her husband's significant role. Llyods cab is hit by a light pole, and his wife told you that she works for the FBI, what's the absurd coincidence? Craig Ranke It proves nothing about her involvement in the operation if any Agreed. Craig Ranke Lloyde on the other hand most certainly HAS been proven involved by the evidence, again, willing or not I don't know what you mean by "proven", but that he and his cab were involved in an incident involving the light poles seems clear, or "proven" if you like. Craig Ranke 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. If you say so, but I don't think too many would agree with that. Craig Ranke Intelligence agencies utilize every-day working-class people as assets throughout the world all the time. If you say so, but it sounds like you're just making stuff up. Craig Ranke 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. I don't admit foul play, but I agree it is implied by the northside witnesses. I admit that Lloyds story is ambiguous, inconsistent, confused, and he appears to be a thoroughly unreliable witness. Nothing obvious can be infered from that. I attack you for your treatment of this man, I think you should be ashamed. The epic waste of your time is persuing this old man. Maybe next time you could throw him in a river and see if he floats.
Posts: 33 Group: Skeptics Member #1,134 Joined: 04/24/09


Lin Kuei	Apr 25 2009, 02:05 PM Post #67
Posts: 1,293 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	mik Apr 25 2009, 09:59 AM Maybe next time you could throw him in a river and see if he floats. You are not here for rational debate, are you? You're now confined to the skeptic's section.
Posts: 1,293 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


JackD	Jun 4 2009, 03:49 AM Post #68
Posts: 260 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08	Craig Ranke CIT Nov 25 2008, 01:30 PM A very important clue as to whether or not Lloyde is deliberately lying was spelled out in the presentation yet has been ignored in the subsequent discussion so far. After being invited into Lloyde's home to conduct our follow-up interview, while I was setting up the camera, Lloyde first told me about his neighbor who took pictures of his cab and the pole on 9/11. At this point our interview had not started and nothing was said about Lloyde's location or the north side evidence yet. Lloyde let it slip that his neighbor was "up on the bridge" when he took pictures of the cab and the pole! This is absolutely critical because it proves that he KNEW his location on the bridge minutes before our interview started where he would ultimately and steadfastly deny this very fact that he just admitted. Once the camera was on him and the interview started he must have remembered that he was supposed to shift his location to the north side. Frankly, this is proof enough that Lloyde wasn't simply confused as he continued to deny his location on the bridge DESPITE the photographic evidence I showed him AND that we later obtained from his neighbor further confirming what Lloyde actually already said when the encounter first began...... "He was up on the bridge." Yes, upon re-review, it strikes me that if the OFFICIAL STORY ABOUT PENTAGON IMPACT IS TRUE, then why is it being embellished with Lloyd and his neighbor, taking pictures of his damaged car, which then substantiates their yarn about a light pole? you dont need to stage witnesses or camera people at a TRUE TERROR EVENT. Ditto the Route 395 "gannett" witnesses. They are like "Harley Guy" in NYC -- again, why the need to "sell" the story to the public if the whole damn OCT was true? that does not compute!
Posts: 260 Group: Members Member #253 Joined: 01/31/08


tedscotland	Aug 27 2009, 01:20 PM Post #69
Posts: 47 Group: Members Member #851 Joined: 09/15/08	Craig Ranke CIT Apr 24 2009, 04:24 PM mik Apr 24 2009, 01:01 PM There does seem to be foul play regarding the light poles, but you seem out on a limb with this Lloyd England stuff. Tell that to these guys: Plus I think you must have missed the part in the presentation where Lloyde in essence admitted involvement (with a smile on his face) in a "planned" operation that was for the "people with all the money" and that it was "so big" that he could "do nothing about it". So to get this straight.....despite the fact that all the witnesses place the plane far from the light poles, and despite the fact that Lloyde in essence admitted his involvement, and despite the fact that his FBI employee wife agreed that the plane kept on going.......you refuse to accept this until someone simulates a 90 ton jet slamming a 40 foot 200lb light pole through the windshield of a car traveling 40mph in the opposite direction to see what the damage would really look like? Craig, i have just watched this video again. When Lloyd states the line "when it comes back to me its gonna be so big i cant do nothing about it" he is clearly referring to stories circulating about him being injured by the pole etc. In fact as his wife is explaining that the fbi thought he was dead and he was only injured the researcher not on camera says "lot of stories" referring to the many untrue stories about Lloyd. All these stories are what he is referring to when he says THAT line. That quote has appeared on lots of discussion forums as some sort of admission when if you listen to the whole conversation it is clear to what he is referring to.
Posts: 47 Group: Members Member #851 Joined: 09/15/08


noeffects	Aug 27 2009, 05:50 PM Post #70
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	tedscotland...what is your interpretation of Lloyd E's comment about "this event was for the people with all the money" ?
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


tedscotland	Aug 27 2009, 06:07 PM Post #71
Posts: 47 Group: Members Member #851 Joined: 09/15/08	honestly i have no idea. Having watched it again he doesnt come across as deceitfull. On several occasions his wife tries to stick up for him saying that they had the car for two days but he disagrees telling craig he got the car back the next day. He probably reads up on the various theories regarding 9/11 so maybe thats what hes refering to. Only he would be able to tell you what he meant. I just find it incredible that he would give that interview if he had something to hide. Saying that his story is hard to believe.
Posts: 47 Group: Members Member #851 Joined: 09/15/08


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


« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3