Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Pentagon _ Lloyde England & His Taxi Cab- The Eye Of The Storm

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Oct 29 2008, 05:09 PM

Get ready for an intense and surreal journey with Lloyde the cab driver while he is confronted by CIT with the north side evidence.

Watch and listen to his reaction with input from his FBI employee wife who he married after 9/11 but was seeing at the time.

See exclusive footage and images of the actual cab as it is today preserved on his 30 acres of property in the woods of Virginia.

Be prepared for an extremely engaging yet disturbing experience.

http://www.thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=ULKPORVG
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4770996865659781278



Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Oct 29 2008, 06:48 PM

Bump.

Posted by: lunk Oct 29 2008, 09:01 PM

Very good!

I liked the method of going from video to still picture.
This shows up well in google video and punctuates the evidence.
I wish you had asked for a better description of the pole that Lloyd said he pulled out of his cab,
and how did he do it, did he stand on the hood or what.

I would say that he was "playing stupid" when he was shown the pictures of his location and was looking for any reason to "get out of the kitchen".
...he does appear to enjoy being driven around.

imo, lunk

Posted by: Leslie Landry Oct 29 2008, 10:14 PM

Great Job...like always!

While watching this, the thought came to my mind that maybe to avoid the argument with Lloyd, would have maybe been to ask him to clarify again where on the map he was or bring you to his exact location on the highway before showing him the evidence that the plane could not have been what hit the light poles. i think if you would have done this first..then he would have been in agreement that he was at the location to where the photos/videos showed...inevidably giving him no leverage to change his story.

Either way..i do have to applaud Lloyd for being so patient, i know i would have kicked you out of my house after the first couple times you called me a liar LOL. But this man, no matter what...he stayed calm and polite regardless of what was thrown at him. Thats one hell of a Trooper.

His wife on the other hand...she is ITCHING to talk! shes having a very hard time keeping this tight inside of her...hence the little clues in her words...the little slips of the tongue...trying to be indirectly obvious that she knows something.

Edit:
going back to watch the first interview again..it just REALLY shocks me to see that minimal damage to even the glass of the windshield, with that pole being THAT bent!
Also, In the first interview, Lloyd cant even remember which way he was going..but yet in the second interview...he is CERTAIN of his location. doh1.gif

Posted by: SPreston Oct 29 2008, 10:36 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan)
Imagine that, several video and still photos positioning the pole, cab and Lloyd on the bridge, but
really not on the bridge.

Great video guys.

It seems to me that maybe somebody told Lloyd to move his position north up the road to where the CIT eyewitnesses all place it.

Consider that the official flight path is dead. What do they have left? Confusion. Exactly what a good military psyops campaign is supposed to produce. And National Security will protect them anyway.

So it doesn't matter what the photos show and where the official flight path was supposed to be and where the light poles are laying, just have Lloyd stick with his new location and have the pseudoskeptics castigate Craig and Aldo for making him look silly. Blame Craig and Aldo for accusing a nice old man of being part of a plot against us by our own government.

Then you have the FAA contradict all the other Federal agencies by releasing a flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, but it still hits the Pentagon, but up too high and in a big bank with the starboard wing near the ground. More confusion. It cannot possibly hit the 1st floor or the light poles or create the original damage path through the pentagon; but that's OK. Many people will just throw up their hands and accuse the Truthers of creating all the confusion.

Of course all of this actually helps the 9-11 Truthers working on the Pentagon scenario, and it will help convince 'critical thinker' type individuals. So the perps give up a little there. But how many Americans are 'critical thinkers'? From what I've seen, not very many. Most people cannot get past the soap operas and sporting events. Get into a discussion about Waco or Oklahoma City or Flight 800, and their eyes glaze over. So confusion gets the upper hand and even though the official story just got more idiotic, the average person will just throw up their hands and turn away. Its too much for them to handle.

They simply cannot comprehend that their government would try to feed them a BS story this ridiculous, so they will not deal with it. We got the same type of nonsense with accusing Iraq of having WMDs and participating in 9-11. Then an admission publicly that there were no WMDs and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Then turn around and say we could not trust Iraq with WMDs and we could not let them get away with 9-11. They did that day after day. So most people just threw up their hands and let them get away with it. Too much for them to handle. Where's my beer. Give me that TV clicker.

Confusion. Contradictions. Cognitive dissonance. Doublethink. Works every time.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.
Doublethink is the act of holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and fervently believing both.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Oct 30 2008, 01:46 AM

QUOTE (Leslie Landry @ Oct 30 2008, 03:14 AM) *
While watching this, the thought came to my mind that maybe to avoid the argument with Lloyd, would have maybe been to ask him to clarify again where on the map he was or bring you to his exact location on the highway before showing him the evidence that the plane could not have been what hit the light poles.



Aldo said the same thing when thinking back after first seeing the footage but this is actually exactly what I did.

Lloyde never gave me the chance to discuss the north side evidence.

Right before I started getting into it, as soon as I pointed out his location on the image by the bridge, he instantly contested it.

From then on the argument hand been flipped to be about his location rather than about where the plane really flew.

But we also must remember that when I got to the door he was already AWARE of the fact that we questioned his account due to lack of damage on the hood and we already know for a fact that Russell Pickering (and likely others) had contacted him about "The First Known Accomplice?".

Lloyde made it clear right away that he knew what we had been saying so it would be extremely naive to suggest for a second that he wasn't aware of the north side evidence long before I knocked on his door.

Posted by: Leslie Landry Oct 30 2008, 12:42 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 30 2008, 01:46 AM) *
Aldo said the same thing when thinking back after first seeing the footage but this is actually exactly what I did.

Lloyde never gave me the chance to discuss the north side evidence.

Right before I started getting into it, as soon as I pointed out his location on the image by the bridge, he instantly contested it.

From then on the argument hand been flipped to be about his location rather than about where the plane really flew.

But we also must remember that when I got to the door he was already AWARE of the fact that we questioned his account due to lack of damage on the hood and we already know for a fact that Russell Pickering (and likely others) had contacted him about "The First Known Accomplice?".

Lloyde made it clear right away that he knew what we had been saying so it would be extremely naive to suggest for a second that he wasn't aware of the north side evidence long before I knocked on his door.


Good point and that's true, i didn't think of that.

I went and watched the first interview again. In the beginning he states that he wasn't really even sure which way he was going nor where his exact location was. but at the end of the video when you tell him where he was, he says that he was not on the bridge.

Something i noticed in both interviews, was when he mentions that after his car got hit from the pole, he gets out, flags some speechless person down to help, he start working on getting this pole out, then he hears a "BOOM".

Now, we know for a fact, there was a second explosion. Lloyd mentions several times that it was so quiet...but what i am curious about is if he smelt, seen or felt smoke or fire..anything? People by the gas station said the heat was so intense that they felt it from way over there. Lloyd is a lot closer, tho he makes no mention of the heat, smell (which he would have noticed before the second "BOOM") Did he even look towards the pentagon before ever hearing a "BOOM". to notice if something happened there or not?

I'm just pretty curious about these things. Maybe you can Clarify if these things where mentioned or not.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Oct 30 2008, 01:01 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 30 2008, 01:01 AM) *
I wish you had asked for a better description of the pole that Lloyd said he pulled out of his cab,
and how did he do it, did he stand on the hood or what.


You should watch our first presentation with him.

http://thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm#FirstKnownAccomplice

Posted by: lunk Oct 30 2008, 05:48 PM

Thanks, that was well done.
Ok, if the event was staged,
how was the hole in the windshield
and interior damage, done to the cab?

I suspect that that light pole was used to do
the damage, but then why was it taken out of the cab?
Maybe, it didn't look possible, so it was removed and
more story added to Lloyds' script.

Lloyd said that the cab wouldn't start.
It obviously hasn't been repaired, I wonder...
If this is true, then the car was staged where it stood.
(and not pre sabotaged and driven to the location,
unless it was towed there, but towing that cab with
a smashed windshield might get noticed.)

Could humans have thrust that light pole through the windshield
breaking the front passengers seat and tearing the back seat?
Hmm, possible, but it would be better to use some sort of machine,
Possibly one of those machines for putting poles up.

I wonder if there are anythings that could be used for that,
in the pentagon pictures, taken at the time...

Posted by: Carl Bank Oct 31 2008, 04:24 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 30 2008, 11:48 PM) *
Thanks, that was well done.
Ok, if the event was staged,
how was the hole in the windshield
and interior damage, done to the cab?

I suspect that that light pole was used to do
the damage, but then why was it taken out of the cab?
Maybe, it didn't look possible, so it was removed and
more story added to Lloyds' script.

Lloyd said that the cab wouldn't start.
It obviously hasn't been repaired, I wonder...
If this is true, then the car was staged where it stood.
(and not pre sabotaged and driven to the location,
unless it was towed there, but towing that cab with
a smashed windshield might get noticed.)

Could humans have thrust that light pole through the windshield
breaking the front passengers seat and tearing the back seat?
Hmm, possible, but it would be better to use some sort of machine,
Possibly one of those machines for putting poles up.

I wonder if there are anythings that could be used for that,
in the pentagon pictures, taken at the time...


Lloyd seem to be honest in his obvious false statements. That is kind of difficult -
Eiter he is telling the truth about some light-polish-thing sticking out of his car
anf he pulled it out with some silent stranger without leaving even a scratch on even the
scooped-up edge of the hood next to the damaged dash board. Everyone who tries to wrap
ones brain around that will fail with that. No way to stick out something that long of the car,
but not even scartching the edge of the hood. No need to be dMole to see the physically
inpossibility. Either lloyd is intentionally lying or honest and confused.

btw: Very good and compelling idea of that still photo of that edge!

The key to this puzzle is, IMO, his wife. For me, she looks as the one with the deeper insight
to all the thins going on this day and she is most possibly influencing Lloyd with the things he has to say since then. Anyway: Extremely well done documentary, Craig and Aldo!

thumbsup.gif salute.gif handsdown.gif : Carl

Posted by: Omega892R09 Oct 31 2008, 01:46 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Oct 27 2008, 10:54 PM) *
Somethinh else tells me a 200 lb pole flopping around in a car that is skidding and sliding side ways would rotate and
slice the roof off.

Further, one would expect the pole to be rotating end over end at the time and if it had managed to spear the windscreen like they say it would be moving like a spinning prop and sliced its way out through the roof like a tin opener.

If the pole that size was sticking out of the windscreen it would have required a jump up onto the hood to get a hold on it.

Whatever way we look at it Lloyde's story sucks.

PS. White smoke from a damaged engine? I don't think so.

Posted by: dMole Oct 31 2008, 02:38 PM

Lloyde's cab appears to me to be a 1999-ish Lincoln Town Car TF. If so, we've got just under 18 feet long, and 4015 lb. curb weight.

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1998-to-2002-lincoln-town-car-6.htm
----
1998-2002 Lincoln Town Car Specs & Safety
Vehicle Dimensions
Specification 4-door sedan

Wheelbase, in. 117.7

Overall Length, in. 215.3


Overall Width, in. 78.2

Overall Height, in. 58.0

Curb Weight, lbs. 4015

Cargo Volume, cu. ft. 20.6

Standard Payload, lbs. --

Fuel Capacity, gals. 19.0

Seating Capacity 6

Front Head Room, in. 39.2

Max. Front Leg Room, in. 42.6

Rear Head Room, in. 37.5

Max. Rear Leg Room, in. 41.1
Specifications Key: NA = not available; "--" = measurement does not exist.
--------------
Powertrain Options and Availability
All Town Cars got the same basic powertrain: a 4.6-liter overhead-cam V8, coupled to a 4-speed automatic transmission. Instead of the usual 200 horsepower, however, the V8 in the Cartier edition made 220 horsepower, helped by dual exhausts. That engine also was included with the Signature Touring option. All models gained 25 horsepower and 10 pound-feet of torque in 2001.
Engines Size liters /
cu. in Horse- power Torque Transmission:
EPA city/hgwy Consumer Guide Observed

ohc V8 4.6 / 281 200-225 265-275 4-speed automatic: 17/25 4-speed automatic: 17.3

ohc V8 4.6 / 281 220-240 275-285 4-speed automatic: 17/25 4-speed automatic: 17.3
Specifications Key: NA = not available; "--" = measurement does not exist.

EDIT: Does anyone think they can get the VIN number off that cab?

EDIT2: Lincoln part is confirmed (thanks to Craig's excellent photos at post #1 of the related thread). License plate # H 81340 (I'm guessing either Maryland or DC tag, but I live very far from there).

The Physical Damage To The Cab, let's look at it in context
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15410

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Oct 31 2008, 04:23 PM

Pretend the pole is inside it as Lloyde claimed:




Then imaging the kinetic force from the plane and the cab headed TOWARDS each other!


It's plain old silly.

I go over this in detail in http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15410.

Posted by: dMole Oct 31 2008, 05:44 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Oct 31 2008, 03:18 PM) *
If anyone is interested I know of a great airline company that will mandrel bend poles in a split second! laughing1.gif
...
TIA

I'm going to "educated guess" you could just call someone like these guys TF:

http://home.nas.net/~exhaustman/semi.html

"Whether you're driving a '98 Freightliner, an '86 GM schoolbus, a '52 Caterpiller[sic], or a '28 Ford tractor, our experienced installers will get you back on the job quickly. They have the skill to professionally reproduce any muffler or exhaust component in our own on-site workshop. Custom mufflers, piping, and fittings are just another day at the office for these guys! "

So does TIA mean "Turbofan In Action" then? wink.gif

Also Craig, it looks like cheapchippy is fixin' to gather his/her troll troops together. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: JFK Oct 31 2008, 06:05 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 31 2008, 02:38 PM) *
EDIT: Does anyone think they can get the VIN number off that cab?


From the video in full screen mode - 1LNCH81F1LY809320

I can't do a legible screen grab, or I would. wink.gif

Edit - Time code in video - 50:06

Edit 2 - My bad, corrected time code.

Edit 3 - A cropped image from my camera taking a picture of my computer screen... rolleyes.gif
http://img259.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lloydevin2bz3.jpghttp://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php

Posted by: SPreston Oct 31 2008, 06:14 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT)
Pretend the pole is inside it as Lloyde claimed:




Here are the standard light pole dimensions:


Another thought. I figure the original pole is 37 feet long with about 4 feet broken off where the lower truss arm bolts on; about 33 feet long with a big bend. With about 6 feet of the bent end sticking through the windshield and between the front seats, and lodged in the back seat, that leaves about 5 feet over the hood and about 22 feet sticking out past the hood. Lloyde seemed to indicate that the pole was hanging out over the center of the hood. There seems to be less than 22 feet of room between the front of the taxi and the guardrail.



Is there room to pull that pole out of the windshield? To clear the windshield, they would need to back up another 6 feet; requiring 28 feet of room between the front of the car and the guardrail.



There are only three lanes there, the two regular lanes, and the exit lane which is slightly wider. Isn't a lane about 10 feet wide? The taxi is sitting almost crossways partially into the exit lane. Shouldn't the alleged pole have smashed into the guardrail and been forced over into Lloyd? What a fairy tale script the 9-11 perps have presented us with.



Posted by: dMole Oct 31 2008, 06:16 PM

Although I personally detest most newer Ford autos, the following website puts that 10th digit as a 1990 (I personally think the cab looks newer, but I avoid new Fords/Lincoln like the plague), or a 2001 model year if the 'L' could be a "1" [cough * fleet contract in 2001 * cough ]

http://www.lovefords.org/tech/vinc.htm

The Wiki seems to concur:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Vehicle_Identification_Numbers_(VIN_codes)/Ford/VIN_Codes

Also, why did Lloyde purchase that cab anyway (and why didn't he sell it on eBay already)? Hmmm....

EDIT: Just so I don't give the wrong impression here, I'd consider bodily amputation for a 1956 T-bird or a '71 or '72 Bronco [convertibles, of course]. wink.gif

Posted by: dMole Oct 31 2008, 06:24 PM

QUOTE (SPreston @ Oct 31 2008, 04:14 PM) *
Isn't a lane about 10 feet wide?

I remember 12 feet wide on our "high speed" interstates here out West, and the following states:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/571.500.htm

"S6.2.3. Lane width. The lane width is not less than 3.5 m (11.5 ft)."

I also remember thinking the lanes were awfully "cozy" when I was driving in NY ("back East"). Many of the NY drivers could use a good Monster Truckin' too. wink.gif

EDIT: I think the Autobahn was nearly identical to those 12 foot lanes that I'm "used to," but a LOT higher speed. German drivers are likely some of the best in the world IMHO, although a Russian race car driver/grad student that I once worked with with scared the hell out of me regularly.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 11 2008, 05:40 PM

bumped for relevance and importance

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 11 2008, 07:32 PM

pinned smile.gif

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 12 2008, 01:26 PM

Thanks Rob.

Has anyone contacted their local, state, or gov't representative regarding this interview with Lloyd and the north side of Citgo flight path that implicates him?

Posted by: painter Nov 13 2008, 04:00 AM

Wow. I'm kind of speechless after watching that. It is as if he's been lobotomized. He knows where he was all evidence to the contrary be damned and, like you say, he's sticking with it. If we give him the benefit of the doubt and do not presume he is just flat out lying -- I certainly couldn't do that in the face of overwhelming evidence -- then we're left with this "implanted memory" kind of scenario. Way out of my league.

But one thing we do know, as others have pointed out up thread, is that we are now in an era where the PTB are "OK" with uncertainty. In fact, they cultivate it. Obama won the election but, of course, we can't prove that because the majority of votes were cast on electronic machines with no physical proof. Nevertheless, we'll report it as a fact and the government will act accordingly. This is the way they do things now. It works because the absence of certainty, like faith based science and faith based government, decreases their accountability. No one can ever "prove" anything, only make assertions.

Great job, Craig! You've captured an amazing piece of history.

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 13 2008, 07:27 AM

impressive video....perhaps the effect would have a bit less pronounced if the truck still contained it's engine and transmission.


edit: TF's link is to the jet blast. painter, where is the video of llyode ?

Posted by: dMole Nov 13 2008, 01:58 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 13 2008, 04:27 AM) *
impressive video....perhaps the effect would have a bit less pronounced if the truck still contained it's engine and transmission.

edit: TF's link is to the jet blast. painter, where is the video of llyode ?

Hi GP,

Craig posted a download and a Google video link at post #1 above:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=15390&view=findpost&p=10757501

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 13 2008, 02:44 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 11 2008, 04:58 PM) *
Hi GP,

Craig posted a download and a Google video link at post #1 above:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=15390&view=findpost&p=10757501


thanks dM, i'll give it a view

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 13 2008, 05:53 PM

nice work CIT!

lloyde's doorjamb had a build date of 6/90 for his lincoln towncar. it looks correct and consistent w/ grill, headlights and wheels

i wish you guys had asked him where on the road exactly he first noticed the pole sticking through his windshield. not that it really matters, but it would have been data.

what are the odds of the pole puncturing windshield and dash, embedding partially in the rear seat, not scratching his hood, not contacting the roadway as he is attempting to stop, not altering it's position as he makes an evasive manouever? pretty slim i would imagine. so i take it, the lamp portion was also in the cab then and removed by lloyde?

i could understand being traumatized, but under the circumstances, i would think he would be very 'moment' oriented when the pole showed up. from the video, where he claimed to be and where the photos show him ending up appear to be hundreds of yards apart....

edit: his 'neighbor' w/ the one and only photo is fishy as hell

edit2: they changed the grill in '93 (so same grill for 90-92)

Posted by: SPreston Nov 13 2008, 09:48 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 13 2008, 04:53 PM) *
nice work CIT!

lloyde's doorjamb had a build date of 6/90 for his lincoln towncar. it looks correct and consistent w/ grill, headlights and wheels

i wish you guys had asked him where on the road exactly he first noticed the pole sticking through his windshield. not that it really matters, but it would have been data.

what are the odds of the pole puncturing windshield and dash, embedding partially in the rear seat, not scratching his hood, not contacting the roadway as he is attempting to stop, not altering it's position as he makes an evasive manouever? pretty slim i would imagine. so i take it, the lamp portion was also in the cab then and removed by lloyde?

The odds of that happening are zero, considering that the aircraft allegedly impacted the light pole with its right wing at 535 mph, and the taxi windshield was north (left) of the left wing on the same highway the pole was supposed to be standing next to. If the wing somehow hurled the light pole in the wrong direction, then it would have been with great force after a 535 mph impact, and the hurled 200+ pound pole impacting the 40 mph windshield coming towards it, would have created a lot more damage to the taxi and likely killed Lloyde.

No. Only the small end of the large main pole was alleged to have entered through the windshield. The truss arm is 6 feet long and the windshield hole much too small to allow the main pole/truss arm/lamp head assembly to enter in one piece. Look at these poles and parts from the VDOT yard. Notice that the truss arm is a two piece assembly which bolts to the main pole and holds the lamp head at the other end. Holes are drilled in two areas of the small end of the main pole to attach the truss arm to with bolts.

Standard dimensions for VDOT light poles in Pentagon area


The main pole has too perfect a radius bent into it; so that bend is most likely mechanical. The main pole is one eighth wall thickness extruded aluminum and is very difficult to bend without collapsing. The manufacturers of the pre-bent pole imagined that the drilled holes were the weakest place on the pole, so they created a break in the pole there and simulated separating the truss arm and lamp head from the pole at the simulated impact point with the wing. Then they placed the main pole, lamp head, broken glass, and half of the truss arm in line on the pavement in front of the taxi. The main pole was never through the windshield. That piece in the distance past the taxi is supposedly the upper piece of the main pole broken off above the truss arm connection.


Posted by: lunk Nov 13 2008, 10:15 PM

Where are the wires?

Lightpoles have heavy duty wires running through them, connected to the lamp at the top.

There seems to be a lack of wires in the pictures of the downed lightpoles.

Maybe they were vaporized on impact, too.

imo, lunk

Posted by: Omega892R09 Nov 14 2008, 08:16 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 12 2008, 12:15 AM) *
Where are the wires?

Lightpoles have heavy duty wires running through them, connected to the lamp at the top.

There seems to be a lack of wires in the pictures of the downed lightpoles.

Maybe they were vaporized on impact, too.

imo, lunk

Thumping good question lunk.

Doh! Why didn't I think of that?

Its like the 'Dog that didn't bark in the night'.

It is what is missing that clinches it. IMHO.

Posted by: painter Nov 14 2008, 12:07 PM

Here's another question: Why is it so important -- evident from Lloyd's testimony -- that he NOT have been where the pictures show him to be? I find this all really odd because he (apparently) wants us to believe that he was near the north path when the physical evidence (including photos) puts him along the south path. So, why? If he was coached or hypnotized or whatever, why the north path position?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Nov 14 2008, 12:41 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 14 2008, 04:07 PM) *
So, why? If he was coached or hypnotized or whatever, why the north path position?



He probably wasn't coached or hypnotized.

He has been simply winging it with the same story he was cut loose with on 9/11.

Obviously we know he was aware of our first 2006 presentation about him where we expose the anomalies in his story and make the point that it is proven false by the north side evidence.

To suggest he wasn't aware of the north side evidence when I knocked on his door this past June would be extremely naive.

So he knew to put himself where the plane was to neutralize the argument knowing he can always fall back on the confused old man card.

The fact that he simply stuck to the story even when so heavily confronted with proof only shows how the truth does not matter and how he will stick to his story no matter what.

That's exactly how guilty people typically react until they are convicted or a plea bargain is made behind closed doors.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 18 2008, 04:45 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 12 2008, 06:26 PM) *
Has anyone contacted their local, state, or gov't representative regarding this interview with Lloyd and the north side of Citgo flight path that implicates him?


Anyone?

WTF

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Nov 19 2008, 07:30 PM

Why do we even bother?

Posted by: Leslie Landry Nov 19 2008, 11:18 PM

QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Oct 31 2008, 03:24 AM) *
The key to this puzzle is, IMO, his wife. For me, she looks as the one with the deeper insight
to all the thins going on this day and she is most possibly influencing Lloyd with the things he has to say since then.



I think by now its obvious that Lloyds wife knows something. Im not saying she played a part in what happened on this day but its obvious that she heard people talking...shes read what went on and sees the inconsistancies herself...but she also knows shes not aloud to talk about it. The thing that im having trouble with in your suggestion is that if Lloyds wife played a roll in Lloyds cover up...then i would highly doubt she wouldnt have tried to give hints as what she really knew about that day and basically telling Craig and Aldo that they were on the right track (not in so many words of course).

just my opinion.

Posted by: lunk Nov 19 2008, 11:53 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Nov 19 2008, 03:30 PM) *
Why do we even bother?


Because, there is nothing of greater importants, right now.

Best to tell everyone on their cell-phone or ipod, that there is a jumbo
about to land on the runway they're mindlessly strolling along on,
some will come to their senses.

Nobody else will.

At least I know that I am doing what I can.

I think that there is enough evidence to explain, exactly, what happened,
in contrast to the official story,
instead of punching more holes in the official holey fable.

imo, lunk

Posted by: madtruth Dec 23 2008, 08:34 PM

First time poster. I have bought the Pilots for truth's dvd's and the CIT dvd's..the two I mention below.

I just received the dvd yesterday and watched the whole thing.
I have to say I really am impressed by this documentary.You guys did a great job.

One question. Did you guys pick up on this?

In the first film ,'The First Known Accomplice', Lloyd says that the person who helped him remove the pole from his car was a friend of his. But in this film, 'The Eye of the Storm'. Lloyd says it is a stranger whom didn't say one word the whole time.

Just curious if this was talked about. More proof, Lloyd is lying.

Marc

p.s.- Turbofan, while doing a search on more flight77 related topics,I found a thread on a the govt loyalist site (Randi) forum and read from 2006 to the time they threw you off their forum. What a bunch of hard headed folks over there.
I want to commend you on your great posts and for not giving into them.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 23 2008, 11:15 PM

QUOTE (madtruth @ Dec 24 2008, 01:34 AM) *
In the first film ,'The First Known Accomplice', Lloyd says that the person who helped him remove the pole from his car was a friend of his. But in this film, 'The Eye of the Storm'. Lloyd says it is a stranger whom didn't say one word the whole time.

Just curious if this was talked about. More proof, Lloyd is lying.


Very perceptive Marc!

You picked up on a slip of the tongue of Lloyde's from when we were casually talking in his living room before the official Loose Change on-camera interview was shot outside in front of his cab.

Yes we knew of this back then in 2006. That moment in his living room with Russell Pickering, Dylan Avery, Aldo, and me was a very intense, surreal moment of truth that I am quite certain changed all of our lives.

To put it all in context, it was virtually our first interview with ANY witness in person and we didn't have any of the north side evidence yet. We had all been intensely debating the Lloyde issue for weeks on the first loose change forum and then there we were in Lloyde's living room having a candid conversation with him while he confidently pointed out the pole in images on the computer to all of us proving that he was most definitely referring to the long part of the pole that allegedly speared his windshield.

We would only minutes later be shown Lloyde's private images of the cab that would reveal the David Icke book that we instantly recognized and asked him about.

But you're quite correct, while Lloyde casually pointed out the long pole in the images he referred to the guy who allegedly helped him remove it as a "friend".

Once he got in front of Dylan's expensive ass camera Lloyde was extra careful to state how he did not know this supposed good Samaritan and that the guy "never said a word" which would be the story Lloyde would stick to moving forward.

I didn't want to make an issue over it at the time when I put "The First Known Accomplice" together because it could easily be written off as a slip of the tongue or whatever, and frankly I was still learning video editing and ALL KINDS of things limited me as they still do. I don't want to be a damn video editor!

But I also knew how just the notion that the supposed stranger was allegedly completely "silent" was suspicious enough and I knew guys like you would recognize the "friend" contradiction without me pointing it out anyway.

Welcome to the forum.

Posted by: madtruth Dec 24 2008, 06:56 AM

Thanks for the welcome Turbo and Craig.

Yeah, good 'ole Lloyd and his slip of the tongue..I mean slips.whistle.gif
It's amazingly surreal to watch and listen to Lloyd , especially in your latest film. It's like a movie script that plays out in real time (except there is no script, no actors) . He melts under the spotlight but never gives in despite being caught with his pants down consistently. And all the while, his FBI wife is spilling info and at the same time warning Lloyd here and there.Fantastic investigative work.
All I can say once again ---- GREAT JOB! I've seen many 9/11 films, but this one had me more intrigued and on the edge of my seat than other films. Probably because of the simplicity and rawness of it. Watching a witness lie over and over even when he knows Columbo Ranke has got him and allowing us viewers to watch the truth unfold , especially in light of all the other witness accounts uncovered by you and the CIT'ers and the F77 FDR info and animation work of Rob and company -- tying it all together and seeing an undeniable clear and indisputable picture. More stuff to show my firefighters and friends,etc -- stuff that the nay sayers cannot roll their eyes to. Matter of fact, I've gone to having 1 or 2 fellow firefighters at my 200 strong fire dept believing in the truth about 9/11 (starting about 11 months ago) to appx. 40. And that's not counting the ones whom I've not talked to or the ones who are too afraid to admit it.I am guessing more like 60. Considering Erik Lawyer of firefightersfor911truth.org told me on the phone that 10 out of the 1,000 in his dept were on board. Although, he told me he hadn't had face to face talks with alot of them --- among a much bigger fire dept. than mine obviously.

I have plans to purchase a professional cam and go to the Hollywood apts that Atta and the Israeli's lived next to eachother in -- being that the apt's are right down the street from me (well, about 3 or 4 miles). I live in Hollywood,Florida. It is where Shuckum's is (about 12 miles or so), the infamous Wings beer restaurant where the hijackers ate and drank -- also in East Hollywood. Also, in the the city where I work -- the hijackers had rented cars,and done other things in Pompano Beach and nearby Boca Raton,Ft.Lauderdale,and Deerfield.I would like to do it just to interview witnesses and here what they have to say.


I look foward to catching up on other posts and joining in on future posts, especially after the Holidays.

Marc



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 23 2008, 10:15 PM) *
Very perceptive Marc!

You picked up on a slip of the tongue of Lloyde's from when we were casually talking in his living room before the official Loose Change on-camera interview was shot outside in front of his cab.

Yes we knew of this back then in 2006. That moment in his living room with Russell Pickering, Dylan Avery, Aldo, and me was a very intense, surreal moment of truth that I am quite certain changed all of our lives.

To put it all in context, it was virtually our first interview with ANY witness in person and we didn't have any of the north side evidence yet. We had all been intensely debating the Lloyde issue for weeks on the first loose change forum and then there we were in Lloyde's living room having a candid conversation with him while he confidently pointed out the pole in images on the computer to all of us proving that he was most definitely referring to the long part of the pole that allegedly speared his windshield.

We would only minutes later be shown Lloyde's private images of the cab that would reveal the David Icke book that we instantly recognized and asked him about.

But you're quite correct, while Lloyde casually pointed out the long pole in the images he referred to the guy who allegedly helped him remove it as a "friend".

Once he got in front of Dylan's expensive ass camera Lloyde was extra careful to state how he did not know this supposed good Samaritan and that the guy "never said a word" which would be the story Lloyde would stick to moving forward.

I didn't want to make an issue over it at the time when I put "The First Known Accomplice" together because it could easily be written off as a slip of the tongue or whatever, and frankly I was still learning video editing and ALL KINDS of things limited me as they still do. I don't want to be a damn video editor!

But I also knew how just the notion that the supposed stranger was allegedly completely "silent" was suspicious enough and I knew guys like you would recognize the "friend" contradiction without me pointing it out anyway.

Welcome to the forum.

Posted by: madtruth Dec 24 2008, 08:26 AM

I am sorry for changing the subject for a second. But just recently I watched Craig's/CIT's latest film for the first time.
We all know by now Lloyd is lying or was told to lie.

These questions we know about, but look at my last two ....

1)As I noted in another thread: In the first film ,'The First Known Accomplice', Lloyd says that the person who helped him remove the pole from his car was a friend of his. But in the latest film, 'The Eye of the Storm', Lloyd says it is a stranger whom didn't say one word the whole time.

2) How can a pole that long and heavy penetrate the windshield and do no damage to the hood

3)How can a pole that long and heavy not do more damage to the seat

4)How can Lloyd make a drawing that shows the pole going all the way to the backseat when there is no indication that it went that far?

5)How can Lloyd and his friend,err, silent stranger pull a long and heavy pole out of the car without scratching the hood by dragging it across it as they pulled it out?

6)According to the photo , the pole is lying parallel to the front of the car. With the weight and length of the pole --- the photo should of shown (if Lloyd was telling the truth) the pole lying as it was pulled out --- in line with the car and with one end of it resting up on the guard rail.

7)And finally, I apologize if this was answered. How do you guy's (and gal or gals) figure the pole got into Lloyd's car? And how do you think it was done? Or was the damage to the windshield done by something else? Someone (a stager) smashing it with a large hammer? Was Lloyd paid off well? With his FBI wife being the aider and abetter? Did Lloyd accept his interviews with you Craig because he didn't want his 15 minutes of fame to end?

I edited to mention this.I just realized that this should of been posted in the Lloyd England & His Taxi Cab thread.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15390&st=0

[edit: Post moved by d from:
What Brought Down The Light Poles?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=13034&st=80]

Posted by: dMole Dec 24 2008, 10:32 AM

Hello and welcome Marc!

I hope you don't mind me moving your post over here for you (this is the thread you meant/linked right?) I've been known to battle a Western brushfire or two in my day, and many friends and a few family have been/are firemen. That job is a little like bull riding or motocross if you ask me. wink.gif Good to have you here!

welcome.gif cheers.gif

Posted by: SPreston Dec 24 2008, 11:32 AM

QUOTE (dMole)
Hello and welcome Marc!

I hope you don't mind me moving your post over here for you (this is the thread you meant/linked right?)


Then I will move my reply to Marc over here from the other thread too d.

QUOTE (madtruth)
6)According to the photo , the pole is lying parallel to the front of the car. With the weight and length of the pole --- the photo should of shown (if Lloyd was telling the truth) the pole lying as it was pulled out --- in line with the car and with one end of it resting up on the guard rail.




Since 100+ pounds each is a sizeable weight for an elderly person to be carrying around, yes common sense would expect that the two men would set the pole down when it cleared the front bumper. Unfortunately, that would have left the heavy base end of the pole sticking out in midair past the bridge wall.



I don't think I would have left the pole sitting there on the wall like that with so much weight hanging over the edge. I would fear for the safety of any person below. So perhaps I would have placed the pole lengthwise on the road, somewhat like it ended up. However, since the lamphead and broken glass and half-piece of truss arm would already be sitting on the road, would the stranger and Lloyde take time to carry the pole past the pieces and make them look nice and neat? I would have set the pole down right on top of those other pieces just to get rid of the heavy thing.





http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200027-1.jpg

Now would they have carried that heavy pole south and then east across the road, behind the taxi, and set it down in the only lane which was open to traffic? Of course not. Then according to the evidence, they or somebody dragged it back to its final resting place, with the heavy base end producing a discernable scratch in the pavement across two lanes of the road.



http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/1.jpg

Why all that extra work with the heavy pole? Obviously the heavy pole was only moved once after the Pentagon explosion, and that was from the HOV lane wall behind the taxi across the road to the official resting place, leaving the scratch across the pavement. It was never through the windshield. Lloyde and his imaginary friend never even touched the light pole. Lloyde probably has no idea how heavy it was.



Viewing the potential scene showing the #1 and #2 light poles on each end of the overpass and the road down below. The exit lane is missing from this image.



[edit: Post moved by SPreston from:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=13034&st=80&start=80

Posted by: madtruth Dec 24 2008, 12:13 PM

Dmole, thanks for moving the post over here! That's great that you , your friends and family are in the firefighting field.I can't imagine doing any other job. I am a Paramedic firefighter,so we do fires,car wrecks,and any medical call imaginable. 17 years now with the same department!
Thanks for the welcome and the beer, I am now on my third mug! tongue.gif

Spreston, thanks for posting a reply and for posting the photos and your thoughts. I wasn't sure of the layout of the road and if their was traffic directly below or if there was some hill or land extended just over the rail. I figure when 2 people, especially one being elderly, are pulling such a heavy pole out of a car -- they would just drop it straight out. But knowing the true layout and the safety hazard of the traffic below, they did a smart thing. But, yeah..moving it beyond the other debris is unusual. But there is no way they could of done that without scratching the hood.

Again,I am happy to be a part of this group!

Marc

Posted by: SPreston Dec 24 2008, 04:03 PM

Welcome to our search for truth Marc.

This family member of two brave NYC firefighters who freely risked and gave their lives for others, one of whom gave his life on 9-11, has a very interesting website in his search for truth. You might like to take a look.

http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html




Posted by: madtruth Dec 24 2008, 04:56 PM

Thanks for sending me this info. SPreston. Heartbreaking to see Joseph lost another family member last year. What a great site he set up there. It goes into important facts and requests experts input, all the while honoring the memory of his family members he so tragically lost. I just looked over the site and bookmarked it -- will send the link ahead to all my firefighters,friends,family and so forth -- to get as many people involved.

Marc

www.firefightersfor911truth.org

http://www.wearechangefl.org/?page_id=2

Posted by: peaches May 20 2009, 09:54 PM

See these cent reinterviews with 9/11 Pentagon police and employees for flight path direction of 93 and 9/11 Pentagon taxi driver whose FBI wife claims" Plane flew OVER Pentagon".

http://vimeo.com/4067633





QUOTE (nostradamus @ May 21 2009, 10:13 AM) *
Has anyone tried doing a scientific analysis of the early moments of the Pentagon Explosion from the
Pentagon Security video ?

Some points I have noticed

The smooth profile of the explosion suggests a high explosive was employed.
The near perfect symmetry of the explosion also suggestive of a high explosive.
Not to mention the smell of cordite verified by at least three witnesses.
The brightness of the explosion also suggestive of a high explosive.
Typically aircraft explosions produce dark black smoke whereas missile and high explosives produce
a grey smoke indicating higher temperatures were present.

check out this post which has some pictures comparing air plane crashes, pentagon explosion and
a missile explosion....
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4319

Posted by: scott75 Jul 26 2009, 07:31 PM

Over at Unexplained Mysteries, a poster by the name of mrbusdriver quoted an excerpt from a link I posted to a thread of Craig Ranke's at abovetopsecret.com called http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread309850/pg1:

But as a summary the possibly pre-damaged cab could have been towed or driven to it's spot where they partially blocked traffic and placed it. Minutes later feds rolled up and surrounded the area and completely blocked traffic.


http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=157724&view=findpost&p=3004569:
...and nobody noticed this? When specifically was this placed (while blocking traffic)? And do you "know" or simply "suspect" that those guys are really "feds"? (Though, in DC, practically everyone is a "Fed" in some sense of the term...). Witnesses? Surely many people would have noticed this being set up. Still seems incredible, and very, very risky.


I must admit I'd like some suggestions as to how to respond to mrbusdriver...

Posted by: scott75 Aug 2 2009, 05:13 AM

Just in case anyone was left wondering what happened to this, http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/single/6793624.html and http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/single/6794328.html responded over at abovetopsecret.com.

Posted by: CJEAN Aug 2 2009, 12:15 PM

Hi, awaked persons.
[ If this WAS said/asked before, PLEASE, DELete this message ! Message would be useless. ]

I did not read all the 3 or 4 pages stuff, but don't you find the "name" **suspect** ?
Lloyde England ???

One of the BIGest insurance cie in the world ?, and the country where it is situated ???
Lloyd's of London homepage. http://www.lloyds.com/ B-))))

Blue skies.

Posted by: scott75 Aug 2 2009, 12:27 PM

QUOTE (CJEAN @ Aug 2 2009, 12:15 PM) *
Hi, awaked persons.
[ If this WAS said/asked before, PLEASE, DELete this message ! Message would be useless. ]

I did not read all the 3 or 4 pages stuff, but don't you find the "name" **suspect** ?
Lloyde England ???

One of the BIGest insurance cie in the world ?, and the country where it is situated ???
Lloyd's of London homepage. http://www.lloyds.com/ cool.gif)))

Blue skies.


Not sure if it was asked or if Lloyd's credentials were thoroughly investigated. The members of CIT who interviewed him may have more on this.

Posted by: paranoia Aug 3 2009, 04:42 AM

im not sure what you mean by investigating his "credentials", for i dont think he was going to present them to us, but there is some extensive research on whats publicly available about mr. 911 cabbie, here in this thread:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=417&st=45

nothing thats been uncovered so far however, leads back to England (UK), or lloyd's of london...

smile.gif

Posted by: scott75 Aug 3 2009, 07:55 AM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Aug 3 2009, 04:42 AM) *
im not sure what you mean by investigating his "credentials", for i dont think he was going to present them to us, but there is some extensive research on whats publicly available about mr. 911 cabbie, here in this thread:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=417&st=45

nothing thats been uncovered so far however, leads back to England (UK), or lloyd's of london...

smile.gif


I got a 'problem loading page' when i tried to go to that link; I think you might have copied and pasted that link from somewhere else, because it's clearly missing a piece (I doubt the original had a ... in it). What works when copying a link from another post here or elsewhere is you right click, copy link location and then paste it in the post you want it to be in.

Posted by: rob balsamo Aug 3 2009, 10:08 AM

QUOTE (scott75 @ Aug 3 2009, 07:55 AM) *
I got a 'problem loading page' when i tried to go to that link; I think you might have copied and pasted that link from somewhere else, because it's clearly missing a piece (I doubt the original had a ... in it). What works when copying a link from another post here or elsewhere is you right click, copy link location and then paste it in the post you want it to be in.


Works for me...

Posted by: scott75 Aug 3 2009, 11:41 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 3 2009, 10:08 AM) *
Works for me...


Works for me too now. Maybe i copied the link instead of the link location.

Posted by: Obwon Jun 9 2011, 09:15 AM

QUOTE (Leslie Landry @ Oct 29 2008, 09:14 PM) *
Great Job...like always!

While watching this, the thought came to my mind that maybe to avoid the argument with Lloyd, would have maybe been to ask him to clarify again where on the map he was or bring you to his exact location on the highway before showing him the evidence that the plane could not have been what hit the light poles. i think if you would have done this first..then he would have been in agreement that he was at the location to where the photos/videos showed...inevidably giving him no leverage to change his story.


I agree... Let the evidence do the work on the witness.

QUOTE
Either way..i do have to applaud Lloyd for being so patient, i know i would have kicked you out of my house after the first couple times you called me a liar LOL. But this man, no matter what...he stayed calm and polite regardless of what was thrown at him. Thats one hell of a Trooper.


That's what I find so disquieting about taking a view that he's lying. It seems more like
he's as curious in figuring out what happened as the investigators are. If so, that
would suggest that even he doesn't believe his own story, but how can that be?
If he's confused, and doesn't find any answers forthcoming, or even suggestions
to look further into, his best bet, for his own sanity, is to stick to the story he
knows.

I know, that if I had been driving down a road, and never got to the point, that
people were showing me pictures of me standing at. I wouldn't know what to think,
but I sure as hell wouldn't broach the story that maybe I'd been subjected to some
sort of mind control, since, I believe that would make me sound like a nutcase.
Instead, I'd wait for someone else to break the subject, if they didn't, I'd just
stick to what I knew; that I had never driven that far.

But, since his talk about "conspiracy theory lessons" hit me as something that
seemed very strange indeed, I began the "what if-ing" that needs to be engaged
to find a plausible explanation for the conflicts that emerge. I can't imagine a
situation, where an easily disproved liar, would want to engage a prolonged
examination of what he knew would be indefensible lies. A man who did not
know he was lying, or who did not intend to lie, but discovered he had done
exactly that, would be curious to know how that could be.

So, in that light I've found and present this for your further reading:

Mind Control Information Center
http://www.wanttoknow.info/mindcontrolinformation

This page provides links to a variety of sources of reliable, verifiable information dealing with mind control. Our most basic material is listed first, followed by other resources which delve deeper for those interested in more. We recommend reading through this entire page before exploring the links provided.


Many of the "reliable sources" are newspaper articles from papers like the New York Times,
for example.


QUOTE
His wife on the other hand...she is ITCHING to talk! shes having a very hard time keeping this tight inside of her...hence the little clues in her words...the little slips of the tongue...trying to be indirectly obvious that she knows something.


Yes, that's curious as well.

QUOTE
Edit:
going back to watch the first interview again..it just REALLY shocks me to see that minimal damage to even the glass of the windshield, with that pole being THAT bent!
Also, In the first interview, Lloyd cant even remember which way he was going..but yet in the second interview...he is CERTAIN of his location. doh1.gif


Yeah, he's certain he never got that far down the road. But interestingly, to me
at least, he appears to point to an ideal place, where the car windshield could
be easily damaged, out of the public view. That done, he'd wait there for the
signal to drive down the road. The hypnotist at the site of the downed light pole,
would then instruct him to forget everything that happened back up the road,
and then "inform" him that he'd been driving and his car was struck by the lamp pole
which a stranger then helped him get out of the windshield.

He'd then present the perfect conundrum to waste the time of any investigator
who happened along. That is, unless they find a way to examine this possibility.
Who knows?

Obwon

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Jun 9 2011, 10:35 AM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Jun 9 2011, 02:15 PM) *
Yeah, he's certain he never got that far down the road.


Only when the camera is on.

Minutes before that, while he didn't know he was being audio recorded, he let it slip that he knew his neighbor took pictures of his cab and the light pole from "up on the bridge".

This proves that he was well aware of his true location and merely changed his story for the camera, i.e. that he lied.

Of course you can argue that mind-control kicked in the moment the camera turned on but we don't feel that is a very logical conclusion given the evidence.

Here is a post I made on our forum to address the "Lloyde under hypnosis or mind-control" theory:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=440&st=0#entry2076867
QUOTE
The body of independent verifiable evidence proves that Lloyde England was involved with the 9/11 operation.

The only question at this point concerning this is his exact level of involvement.

The reality is that we will likely never know the answer to this question so to discuss it is merely academic, but since it seems to be an issue that keeps coming up let this thread serve as a place for people to express their emotions about it.

Let me remind people that we have always left open the possibility that Lloyde was "manipulated" or "coerced" in all of our presentations.

That being said, we most certainly lean towards believing that Lloyde is 100% aware of what he did on 9/11 and that he was part of the plan and willingly involved from the start.


Here's why.....

CIT considers ourselves official story skeptics, not 9/11 theorists. We are true critical thinkers who saw how the evidence in support of the official story was questionable and decided to investigate it on our own from a skeptical point of view.

We rely primarily on independent verifiable evidence that we have personally obtained and deliberately avoid theorizing as much as possible.

We know for a fact that the CIA has worked to develop advanced exotic techniques to manipulate the human mind as has been revealed most famously via declassified documents regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA.

But were such techniques used on Lloyde England?

Maybe.

Again we'll never know for sure.

But this question seems to be a rather moot point and ends up serving as an excuse to not take action.

If Lloyde is under mind-control it's less likely he will be useful in a full blown investigation via grand jury etc.

To simply assume that he is definitely or most likely under mind-control is illogical.

When evidence implicates someone the last thing a competent investigator will do is assume innocence based on hypnosis or insanity or whatever.

The investigator must assume that a suspect may be knowingly and willingly involved unless there is hard evidence ruling this notion out.

Now the question regarding Lloyde's behavior typically comes up. People question why he would talk to us at all if he was a willing operative.

Togny phrased the question perfectly in the other thread:
QUOTE (Torgny)

But I question all: Is Lloyde acting like a person who would knowingly try to cover his role up? I know if I were a part of a cover-up, I would have never spoken to you documentarians.


Lloyde's role was not to cover anything up. Lloyde was meant to be seen, heard, and photographed as the star of a very critical staged scene in the official narrative.

But it didn't stop there.

He was also used as a significant part of the subsequent propaganda with his non-threatening voice and face being out front in the media to help sell the official line.

So yes, in my opinion he is behaving exactly like we should expect for someone in that role.

Catgrlz also asked a similar question in a very poignant manner:

QUOTE (catgrlz)
Why would he preserve, and go so far as to show you, the vehicle whose damage in no way supports his story line?

Why meet with you guys again so extensively, knowing that you would be tearing apart his claims on video. He would have done better by the official story line to either not meet with you at all or to keep it short.

It doesn't add up nicely & cleanly does it?


To which I replied:

My feeling is that Lloyde is proud of his place in "his story" and would like it to be played up as much as possible and that the perpetrators WANTED this from the start.

They likely told him to talk to media and be a face of the event and may have informed him that he would be considered a hero of sorts by virtually everyone.

He may even be disappointed that he hasn't gotten MORE attention and is happy to get it from anyone.

They were likely counting on his likability, the difficult to believe notion of his involvement or the staging of the poles, and the overall robust strength in the propaganda that has quite successfully manipulated masses into steadfastly supporting the "war on terror" even WHILE they oppose the war in Iraq.

The small physical details didn't really matter because they knew there would be no real "investigation".

Lloyde is used to people eating his story up and with the strength of the dark powers behind him he probably has no fear or worries whatsoever about any powerless citizen investigator otherwise known to the rest of the world as conspiracy theorists!

Nobody has ever challenged him to his face. We didn't the first time.

Naturally he may have figured we would on the second time but clearly he decided on the spot to try and "iron this out" with us.

I bet he regrets it now and didn't really understand the level of knowledge, facts, and determination that he was up against when he first uttered the words "you can come in".

Bottom line, it doesn't matter either way because it's clear that Lloyde is not to be blamed for the 9/11 attack and it would have happened with or without his involvement.

But automatically absolving him of involvement simply because he seems like a nice old man and acts confused at times isn't a logical approach to this evidence.


Posted by: Obwon Jun 22 2011, 09:53 AM

Okay, let me be clear, I don't expect Craig to get involved with this "mind control" speculation, it's not presented for him to do that. Nor is it a practical or even necessary
item in the investigation. However, "we" readers, seeking answers with our resources,
have the liberty of doing the "armchair analysis" and it goes without saying that many
times it does bear fruit. So we work with the "loose ends" to see where they lead.
Maybe we can come to some acceptable conclusions or maybe we can't. Or maybe
someone else is inspired to pick up a piece here and use it on another part of the story.
We have our "investigators" and we have our "speculators" and that is as it should be.
As long as the speculators stick with the facts provided by the investigators,
they add, rather than subtract from the effort.

Craig has done a pretty well bang up job for his part, on some pretty complex
material. So kudos again to Craig and Crew. thumbsup.gif


CIT said: "They likely told him to talk to media and be a face of the event and may have informed him that he would be considered a hero of sorts by virtually everyone."

But no! "They" don't operate that way at all! At that stage of the operation, the
actual way things will "play out" can't be known. So, everything must be treated
as "sensitive", meaning that "co operators" can not be allowed to know anything
critical, else they have to be "made unavailable". This we know from the widely
held suspicion that people involved in other areas, where critical kinds of knowledge
could not be contained or denied, either have "fatal accidents" or commit "suicide",
exactly as we'd expect when considering the knowledge they most likely would
have had.

We can also make an educated guess, that "insiders" would have to be compensated
in some self incriminating way that ensures their complete and utter silence. Or,
if that's not possible, or if the "price" of silence is such that it cannot be assured,
then that person has to be "made unavailable", by various irrevocable means.

So the fact that Lloyd is not "made unavailable" suggests that he knows nothing
of any real "value" as far as "climbing back up the tree". How this comes about,
is where the speculation about mind control, which is real, comes forward as a
very possible answer.

-------------------------------AN ASIDE-------------------------------
Tautology:

For example take the just finished Wiener case. Let's just build a quick
and dirty hypothetical to demonstrate how artifacts could convene his
conduct. Let's say he'd discovered (which mind control subjects sometimes
do,) that he has been a victim of such.

His votes on foreign policy, may not have been what he had envisioned
himself doing, but; by the time he discovered he'd been doing antithetical
things, he's done so many he can't then claim mind control as the source.
He can't resign office, he'd be ordered to withdraw it. The only thing he
can do is destroy himself and so that's what he does.
Otherwise he'd continue to be used.
-------------------------------END ASIDE-------------------------------

Meaning for Lloyd would be that there's no way out of his "box".
For sure he's lying and knows something, that much Craig has
locked down! What the reason behind all this prevarication is,
is curious, since he obviously knows nothing of importance about
those "above him", nor would it be productive to speculate that he
arranged this all by himself, or even with the help of a friend.

The matter of name changes for both him and his wife and the
timing thereof is curious as well. He appears to have amassed
quite some holdings for a cabbie, but money alone does not
ensure secrecy. The answer could be as simple as his ties to
his wife. But that would mean he knows more than he would have
to know, if no form of mind control were employed. But then,
there would be the possibility of him somehow being "broken down",
(accidental death of his wife for example) which would lead us back
to him being made "unavailable". So it's a conundrum that has
interesting possibilities, for MC to explain his conduct.

I don't believe that the lamp pole was ever through the windshield.
Try suspending a 200 lbs lamp pole above the ground and driving
a car into it at 45mph, then examine the damage. I believe that
the order of damage, would be significantly larger in this case,
even though this pole would be standing still, not moving at
some additional velocity, both downwards and horizontally.
Not to mention the abrupt change of direction the cab should
have made upon being hit. Does anyone know if there were
skid marks on the road? I didn't see any. If he hit the breaks,
a common reaction to the windshield breaking suddenly, I'd
expect to see skid marks, even at only 45 mph. The position
of the car seems to say that it "fishtailed" to its final position.
I can't imagine it being driven to that position, with the lamp
pole not moving about.

Braking, I would think, should have dislodged it from the
back seat, and pushed it forward so that it would cantilever
to the ground outside and make significant drag marks. If so,
then any residual motion, would have pushed it through
the roof. So it seems that the damage to the cab was done
elsewhere, then, as some one said before, the car was either
driven or towed into position. Then, with everyone's attention
distracted by the Pentagon explosion, the pole was quickly
placed and glass and debris were strewn about. It could have
been kept in the grass behind the guard rail. One strong man
could then have picked it up and placed it.

It's an incredible wonder that the officials first on the scene, did
not add an official narrative about the cab to the official story,
contemporary with it's discovery. I mean, judging by the speed
at which they grabbed all those videos, you'd expect they'd have
been right on top of this as well.

Obwon





Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Jun 22 2011, 10:47 AM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Jun 22 2011, 02:53 PM) *
But no! "They" don't operate that way at all! At that stage of the operation, the
actual way things will "play out" can't be known. So, everything must be treated
as "sensitive", meaning that "co operators" can not be allowed to know anything
critical, else they have to be "made unavailable". This we know from the widely
held suspicion that people involved in other areas, where critical kinds of knowledge
could not be contained or denied, either have "fatal accidents" or commit "suicide",
exactly as we'd expect when considering the knowledge they most likely would
have had.

We can also make an educated guess, that "insiders" would have to be compensated
in some self incriminating way that ensures their complete and utter silence. Or,
if that's not possible, or if the "price" of silence is such that it cannot be assured,
then that person has to be "made unavailable", by various irrevocable means.

So the fact that Lloyd is not "made unavailable" suggests that he knows nothing
of any real "value" as far as "climbing back up the tree". How this comes about,
is where the speculation about mind control, which is real, comes forward as a
very possible answer.



It doesn't seem feasible to me that they would trust someone under mind control to play such a visible and significant role.

He let it slip that he is well aware his neighbor was "up on the bridge" taking pictures of his cab and pole which demonstrates he is truly cognizant of what really happened.

He would have to therefore know how his cab got damaged and the scene was staged.



QUOTE
I don't believe that the lamp pole was ever through the windshield.
Try suspending a 200 lbs lamp pole above the ground and driving
a car into it at 45mph, then examine the damage. I believe that
the order of damage, would be significantly larger in this case,
even though this pole would be standing still, not moving at
some additional velocity, both downwards and horizontally.
Not to mention the abrupt change of direction the cab should
have made upon being hit. Does anyone know if there were
skid marks on the road? I didn't see any. If he hit the breaks,
a common reaction to the windshield breaking suddenly, I'd
expect to see skid marks, even at only 45 mph. The position
of the car seems to say that it "fishtailed" to its final position.
I can't imagine it being driven to that position, with the lamp
pole not moving about.

Braking, I would think, should have dislodged it from the
back seat, and pushed it forward so that it would cantilever
to the ground outside and make significant drag marks. If so,
then any residual motion, would have pushed it through
the roof. So it seems that the damage to the cab was done
elsewhere, then, as some one said before, the car was either
driven or towed into position.


Yes agreed. These are all dubious details about his account that point to staging but it's the witnesses to the
north of the gas station approach who http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html that this scene was staged.

QUOTE
Then, with everyone's attention
distracted by the Pentagon explosion, the pole was quickly
placed and glass and debris were strewn about. It could have
been kept in the grass behind the guard rail. One strong man
could then have picked it up and placed it.


Ah but wait a minute I thought you said that "They" don't operate that way at all!

According to your logic the "one strong man" would have to be under mind control too. In fact EVERYONE involved
in executing the operation would have to be under mind control.

It's more comfortable when we can simply say that "They" are the perpetrators and keep everything up in the air. But the information we have provided should be enough to make people realize that it's time to http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/strategy.html because we already have hard proof that the official impact narrative is false. It's a lot more fun to be an "armchair analyst" then to actually do something.

I understand how it's difficult to believe that a seemingly low level asset with a face and a nice demeanor like Lloyde could be willingly involved nor does it really matter one way or the other since obviously he is not responsible for a global psychological crime on the magnitude of 9/11.

But your speculation is not helpful in our efforts to expose the crime.

It obfuscates the facts and contributes to the reason why people are more prone to do NOTHING but sit back and theorize anonymously while leaving the hard work to others.

The perpetrators don't theorize. The media doesn't theorize. They state the lie as FACT over and over to reinforce it into the public's mind and we aren't going to counter a multi-trillion dollar media/propaganda arm with an "armchair analysis".

I suggest that you stick to the facts otherwise I feel you are working AGAINST our efforts by casting doubt and confusing people with constant tales of speculation which only create the impression that we don't have proof and that we should be dismissed as a bunch of "conspiracy theorists".


QUOTE
It's an incredible wonder that the officials first on the scene, did
not add an official narrative about the cab to the official story,
contemporary with it's discovery. I mean, judging by the speed
at which they grabbed all those videos, you'd expect they'd have
been right on top of this as well.


What are you talking about? They used photos and images of the cab and light pole in their propaganda and let Lloyde tell the story to the media numerous times. He most certainly WAS included in the "official narrative" via the media, the Moussaui trial, and other things.

Hell they have pictures of his cab and pole on display inside the Pentagon! In fact John McCain used pictures of his cab as propaganda during the 2008 Republican convention. So yes Lloyde's scene was a MAJOR part of the official narrative.

That's the entire point.

Posted by: Obwon Jun 22 2011, 12:21 PM

Craig, you said: "Clearly you are confused.
Lloyde most certainly WAS "made available" and put out there as a face and voice for the event."

-----------------

I never said he wasn't put out there etc., what I asked was not
why the media didn't document etc., but why the FBI and other
officials who swarmed so efficiently to grab the videos so quickly,
did not have an official narrative of the cab/pole event that they
presented themselves, instead they left it to the media.

In any event, best you leave this mind control subject to us armchair
theorists/speculators. Get on with your evidence collecting work.
This subject should not be wasting your time, tempting though
it may be for you to interject. Mind control, hypnotic suggestion
etc., will be difficult in the extreme to actually collect hard evidence
of, because by it's very nature it remains hidden within the mind of
the victim. There's no guarantee that even professional examination
can expose it in some cases. So, dealing with such a matter is
largely one of attempting to resolve conflicts with speculative theories.
It's very ugly work and it's not straight forward at all. Worse yet
it can be discovered to be unproductive in the end.

But we do know it exists, therefore we look for it when the
opportunities present. It is not an area where you should be
involved at all. I merely note for those who follow such fare,
instances where it might be employed to some effect. After all
they've been at it so long, so expert at identifying people who
would be susceptible, it's hardly beyond the limits of reason to
theorize that they may already have accumulated an army of
puppets to use as needs arise. In any event these things
will have to be teased out of the mix, there's no blunt assault
possible. But, since we know it could be here, there, anywhere,
we have to collect and examine these instances.

Unlike the detective work you're doing to great effect, there's no
set way to pursue "Manchurian Candidates". Don't let us waste
your time (I don't mean that in any derisive way), I just don't
like seeing you so distracted.

Warm Regards.
Obwon

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Jun 22 2011, 12:44 PM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Jun 22 2011, 05:21 PM) *
I never said he wasn't put out there etc., what I asked was not
why the media didn't document etc., but why the FBI and other
officials who swarmed so efficiently to grab the videos so quickly,
did not have an official narrative of the cab/pole event that they
presented themselves, instead they left it to the media.


Yeah I saw that I misread your post so I edited my response.


QUOTE
Unlike the detective work you're doing to great effect, there's no
set way to pursue "Manchurian Candidates". Don't let us waste
your time (I don't mean that in any derisive way), I just don't
like seeing you so distracted.

Warm Regards.
Obwon


Well thanks and I guess that's my point.

The problem is that we don't have a multi-trillion dollar propaganda arm.

The only way for us to disseminate the important information we have uncovered is online in forums like this.

This very thread is "stickied" here to bring attention to our findings and hopefully inspire people to take action on it.

So because the internet and forums like this are all that we really have we can't help but feel compelled to try and keep it on focus, on message, and to not let the discussion get sidetracked into things that you have just admitted are a distraction.

Posted by: Obwon Jun 23 2011, 11:01 AM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jun 22 2011, 11:44 AM) *
Yeah I saw that I misread your post so I edited my response.




Well thanks and I guess that's my point.

The problem is that we don't have a multi-trillion dollar propaganda arm.

The only way for us to disseminate the important information we have uncovered is online in forums like this.

This very thread is "stickied" here to bring attention to our findings and hopefully inspire people to take action on it.

So because the internet and forums like this are all that we really have we can't help but feel compelled to try and keep it on focus, on message, and to not let the discussion get sidetracked into things that you have just admitted are a distraction.


QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jun 22 2011, 11:44 AM) *
Yeah I saw that I misread your post so I edited my response.

Well thanks and I guess that's my point.

The problem is that we don't have a multi-trillion dollar propaganda arm.

The only way for us to disseminate the important information we have uncovered is online in forums like this.

This very thread is "stickied" here to bring attention to our findings and hopefully inspire people to take action on it.

So because the internet and forums like this are all that we really have we can't help but feel compelled to try and keep it on focus, on message, and to not let the discussion get sidetracked into things that you have just admitted are a distraction.


Yes, it is a "distraction" of sorts, but it can be a very valuable one, when there is an
on point context for it. So, what I probably mean is "distraction for some". Where the
"some" are people doing other valuable work.

Here, let me try to explain.

I've been on the "net" since before "Air Mosaic", that net browser was still just a gleam
in the eye of the code boys. The talk then was that "some day we might break the 14,400
baud barrier" ( yes I still get a laugh remembering that).

Of all the subjects you could find on the net, even back then, "mind control" was not
only not covered very well, it wasn't discussed because it was either too frightening, or
just plainly taboo. If you got into it, you were a "kook" and later a member of the
"tin foil cap" fellowship. But those days are coming to a quick end, just like the command line interface did.

Now here you have this Lloyd fellow, working against himself, in a failing effort to
retain some shred of credibility. He can't do it! Why? He has no ability to point
to anyone as responsible for his plight, yet he's "incriminated", as part of a story so
big, how could it be that even if he were to admit the poles were planted, it would
have little to no impact on anything else in the story? How does that come about?
Mind control has the possibility of providing an answer to this conundrum. So, it
should be so noted and in no uncertain way. So that others who have similar
inexplicable problems, who suspect such operations come out and discuss them.

Why? Because we need more information about something that might very well have
been going on for quite a number of decades. It's been almost 100 years since
hypnotism has been employed for entertainment purposes, yet we hear little to
nothing about it. We know that it is powerful, we know it exists, and even though
we don't hear about it, we can know for certain that it has been studied and improved.
What we don't know is how these new and improved techniques have been employed
over the many decades.

But, one way it could have been employed, is to deploy hypnotists, who over the
years find and collect optimal candidates who can then be used -- How? Imagine
an army of susceptible people, already hypnotized and ready to receive post hynotic
commands. Like perhaps "Harley Guy" or the Naudets etc. Operators inserted into
the story line at various points, to claim they saw planes etc.

Is that far fetched? Well, have you noted how the official narrative of 9-11 changed?
Time after time the story line changed, but at each turn there quickly appears a new
crop of "eyewitnesses" willing to swear to the new scheme of things. It's certainly
enough to give one pause to suspect that something very strange is going on.
So that is what I'm point out.

It's a "distraction" to those who have "better" work to do, like you, who are
out there collecting first hand information. But it's something for others, who
are doing little more than reading and assessing, to consider. We won't know
it's real value until something breaks, but, by broaching the subject now, at
least we'll have a frame to fit the little pieces into when some real tidbit of
knowledge comes along.

But, never the less, we know that MC is real and we know that it could very well
have been very useful in an operation like 9-11, to cover trails, create confusion/false
leads and the like. Even to create "witnesses" out of thin air. We just don't know
where it's been used and/or how. But speculation leads to "testable theory" and
that leads to discovery, there is no other route.

I'm hoping that you will see the importance of this, and I'm hoping just as well that
you'll leave it aside and get on with your work.

Also, let me remind every reader of the dangers of this branch of investigation.
As I said it's very "ugly", if you keep records you're going to have quite a collection.
In that collection answers are going to either emerge or seem to. If they are real answers,
well. Consider that this is too valuable an area for the public to have knowledge about.
It cannot be allowed. The secret was once kept by the stigmas that attached to such
thoughts and that is fading. But until it does become commonplace knowledge, attempts
will be made to save it from disclosure.

How powerful is it? Well, imagine that you could rob a bank, and have the teller
press the alarm, but when the police come, they arrest the teller not you. That's
the kind of power we're talking about. It is the single greatest threat to a free society,
so thank our lucky stars that not everyone is amenable to it. But the general public
has to quickly come up to speed on such issues as it presents, before they break
those few barrier down. The search for absolute power is so tantalizing that it is
hard to envision a world where such efforts will not exist.

Well, I've said quite enough for now.

Warmest Regards
Obwon





Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 23 2011, 03:25 PM

QUOTE
But, one way it could have been employed, is to deploy hypnotists, who over the
years find and collect optimal candidates who can then be used -- How? Imagine
an army of susceptible people, already hypnotized and ready to receive post hynotic
commands. Like perhaps "Harley Guy" or the Naudets etc. Operators inserted into
the story line at various points, to claim they saw planes etc.


I went to college between 72-77. Very often on Weds between 12 - 2 the school would bring in some form of free entertainment. We even had Geraldo & Imus back when they were cool.

One Weds they brought in a hypnotist. The auditorium was packed and most people got a turn to participate in one of his stunts. Toward the end he invited anyone who wanted to quit smoking to come up to the stage. A lot of people went up myself included. First he tried to hypnotize the whole group. Then anyone who couldn't get hypnotized had to leave the stage before he proceeded. The hypnotized people were convinced that cigarettes now tasted like rotten lemons and that they would no longer want to smoke. The effect lasted on my bf, who was hypnotized for about 2 weeks.

Now imagine that this guy/group probably went around to 100's of colleges and were probably looking for the most susceptible. What an easy way to find recruits.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 23 2011, 05:12 PM

QUOTE (Obwon)
That's what I find so disquieting about taking a view that he's lying. It seems more like
he's as curious in figuring out what happened as the investigators are. If so, that
would suggest that even he doesn't believe his own story, but how can that be?
If he's confused, and doesn't find any answers forthcoming, or even suggestions
to look further into, his best bet, for his own sanity, is to stick to the story he
knows.


Thing is, he has changed his story and continues to change it depending on who is asking the questions.

When interviewed by MSM in 2005/6, he went along with the OCT to the letter, pointing to the lightpoles on the bridge:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1julr_lloyd-england-on-nbc_news

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/2276/lloydpointing.png
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/5774/lloydpointing1.png

GE reference for perspective:

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2189/lloydinterviewpovsmall.jpg

Then the NOC testimony came to light and he was independently interviewed:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5090691830986329305#

He denied being on the bridge. That he was on "solid ground"

Then in "The Eye of the Storm":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC3LRdjocmc

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/1378/lloydheliport.png

Pointing to where he claims he was:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/7645/lloydpointingpov.jpg

Then he was called by Jeff "Shure" Hill and he stuck to the same story. That he was NOC but started casting aspertions on the intentions of Craig (due to some leading by Hill because he knew this was going to backfire).

QUOTE
England: You know what? I know where the cab was and I know where they wanted it to be, but I can prove where the car was.
There's a permanent picture of the fire and the Pentagon...my cab is the only cab in the world involved in 9/11...and I now where the car was. And they are trying to put the car somewhere else, for what reason, I don't know because they weren't there.

Hill : So they were trying to use some sort of distorted picture..(rolleyes.gif)

England: The pictures were made to be in one place when I was somewhere else....my car is not there at the bridge at Columbia Pike. They got it wrong, and I don't know why they have it wrong.


QUOTE
Hill: when I saw them question you about the picture, that's where I got the impression that they weren't being honest and had an agenda or something


CIT were 100% upfront and actually pressing Lloyd to admit that his cab was on the bridge!
Here are the images he was shown:

http://img827.imageshack.us/i/lloydpictures.png

He wasn't "hypnotized". He has had to adapt at every turn.

IMHO, Lloyd was involved in a situation that snowballed and which the perps took full advantage of. It could have been something as innocent as a "Walter Mitty" scenario in which he gained financially and where the perps blackmailed him or simply let him dig his own grave (as long as it never reached MSM - which they know it never will). Human nature and taking full advantage of a situation (blackmail and coercion) seem more at play here to me. 2 cents.

Either way, the guy is consciously lying. And he's calm and comfortable doing it. That bugs the shit out of me more than anything.


Posted by: zoeken Jun 24 2011, 01:34 AM

CIT...

Sorry if I have overlooked it, but, did you get a chance to interview the neighbor that took the pictures from the bridge?

just wondering, and thanks if you can point me in the right direction thumbsup.gif


and thank you for your hard work

Posted by: Obwon Jun 24 2011, 10:18 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 23 2011, 04:12 PM) *
Thing is, he has changed his story and continues to change it depending on who is asking the questions.

<snips>

Either way, the guy is consciously lying. And he's calm and comfortable doing it. That bugs the shit out of me more than anything.


No... no... I get that... Obviously he is lying! That much the story amply demonstrates.

What is bugging me is that his lies aren't even fashioned to be sanely credible, and yet
for all we get out of it, it still leads nowhere. So, to me that seems like he's in
some sort of "containment box". He doesn't have a memory of where he got his
orders from, doesn't know who gave them, or even what they were. Thus, he can't
even fashion a passably credible lie, because he lacks so much useful memory.

Okay so that's my posit. Something that would happen if mc had been applied.
Obviously, he would be told to forget what orders he was being given.
Forget who was giving these orders, and even to not remember what the orders
were consciously, and yet he'd still be able to carry them out by what would appear
to him only as a compulsion to act a certain way or do certain things.

Obviously he would not be available if he could, if he wished, point a finger at someone
higher up. He's only "out there" because he cannot! If that's the case, then unless
some way is found to probe for the info, all we have in Lloyd is a vexing circular
conundrum.

His being "comfortable" with giving these blatant lies, even in the face of the evidence,
seems to say that he has no other choice. Or, he could drive himself crazy trying
to account for the missing info he knows he should have, but more likely such
a person will simply go into denial. It's much better to be a baldfaced liar, than
it is to be crazy or admit to oneself that they've been mentally manipulated.
Obviously he has no reason to believe that anyone will consider a story about
mind control, not even conspiracy theorists, so if and when it is used, it becomes
it's own "cover up". That's what makes it the ideal application for an operation
where you need so many people, but need to keep them all in the dark.

I mean, even though we're all familiar in some way, with hypnosis and post hypnotic
suggestion, perhaps have even seen some demonstration of it. Yet, we, and I,
still have a hard time believing that it might have been employed here. They say
L. Ron Hubbard used hypnosis frequently even on mass audiences. We don't know
what the state of the art is, but I just have a sneaking suspicion that it would have
been of the utmost practical use here.

Of course, I'll be the first to admit it will be hard to find. But at least I'm searching.
Perhaps someone who knows more will come to our aid.

Obwon




Posted by: Obwon Jun 24 2011, 10:37 AM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 23 2011, 02:25 PM) *
I went to college between 72-77. Very often on Weds between 12 - 2 the school would bring in some form of free entertainment. We even had Geraldo & Imus back when they were cool.

One Weds they brought in a hypnotist. The auditorium was packed and most people got a turn to participate in one of his stunts. Toward the end he invited anyone who wanted to quit smoking to come up to the stage. A lot of people went up myself included. First he tried to hypnotize the whole group. Then anyone who couldn't get hypnotized had to leave the stage before he proceeded. The hypnotized people were convinced that cigarettes now tasted like rotten lemons and that they would no longer want to smoke. The effect lasted on my bf, who was hypnotized for about 2 weeks.

Now imagine that this guy/group probably went around to 100's of colleges and were probably looking for the most susceptible. What an easy way to find recruits.


Yes, hypnotists were part of many parties, demonstrations, shows and performances, both
public and private for many a year. So, we know for a fact that it can be done, what
we don't know is what the state of the art is. Obviously a method with so many
useful applications, is sure to have drawn the interest of spy agencies world wide, and
most certainly the CIA, with it's massive budget at it's disposal, has doubtlessly conducted
much research into it.

You say your best friends experience lasted 2 weeks? Obviously that's without his
condition being "refreshed". I've read that such "refreshment" could come in
a form so simple as encountering a phrase or picture in the course of the day.
And yes again, there are plenty of ways that stats on masses of susceptible
people could be added to a database, ready to be used when needed.
9-11 perps, if behind that kind of "firewall" would certainly have a reason
to feel comfortable that they could get away with it.

Try putting your self in their shoes, with this kind of expertise at your disposal and
a plan to effectively deploy it at critical junctures. Knowing that you'll have
people lunging forward as unshakable eye witnesses as needed, would certainly
add to the confusion needed to trip up any investigation, if not scuttle it outright
altogether.

One thing is for sure, we're certainly finding enough places in the official story, to
stumble around in confusion over.

Obwon

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Jun 24 2011, 03:38 PM

QUOTE (zoeken @ Jun 24 2011, 06:34 AM) *
CIT...

Sorry if I have overlooked it, but, did you get a chance to interview the neighbor that took the pictures from the bridge?

just wondering, and thanks if you can point me in the right direction thumbsup.gif


and thank you for your hard work


Yes we talked to the neighbor and obtained a couple of images that he says he took corroborating all other images showing the cab and the pole just south of the bridge.

That is covered in the presentation:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-eyeofthestorm.html






Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Jun 28 2012, 09:19 PM

Bump for Lloyde England. Because guilt is timeless.

Posted by: paranoia Jun 29 2012, 12:11 AM

ironic that you bring him up, cuz by complete happenstance i ran into him at the local supermarket
yesterday, and he was looking very frail compared to the last time i saw him there (which was a few
months ago). this time he was hunched and using his cart to help him stand, and he walked gingerly,
and was very slow and labored when putting groceries into his cart. seems like he is getting up there
in age, and probably wont be around too much longer. so while guilt maybe timeless,
his life - and his chance to confess the truth before he goes - is running out.






Posted by: SeniorTrend Sep 16 2012, 05:33 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 29 2008, 01:09 PM) *
Get ready for an intense and surreal journey with Lloyde the cab driver while he is confronted by CIT with the north side evidence.

Watch and listen to his reaction with input from his FBI employee wife who he married after 9/11 but was seeing at the time.

See exclusive footage and images of the actual cab as it is today preserved on his 30 acres of property in the woods of Virginia.

Be prepared for an extremely engaging yet disturbing experience.

http://www.thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=ULKPORVG
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4770996865659781278





As much as I try to stay hard boiled on this - to remain data-centric, it still breaks my heart. Watching Lloyd squirm was like getting a root canal without Novocain. To think that people, let alone those that we supposedly elected could be this evil is - I don't know, heart crushing? Soul destroying? And listen to Lloyd's wife.... I think she is terribly conflicted - she admits to a flyover and not a strike. I will continue to do what I can to help try and wake people up, and use my expertise in avionics, post-event telemetry analysis, and RF when such skills can help. My terrible fear is that if the kitchen gets too hot for the perps, they will create yet another false flag op to divert from this. A lie to cover a lie. I salute and congratulate CIT, and Architects and Engineers (who have scored a huge coup with Colorado PBS). When the time is right, the anomalies associated with flight physics and avionics can be used to further the push for the investigation that must come before our country can heal. I believe that one of the purposes (the psyop part) of this false flag was to cause extreme cognitive dissonance in the public - to cause psychic trauma. Those of us who have not succumbed to this psycho-trauma must push on.

Posted by: SeniorTrend Sep 17 2012, 11:35 AM

I'm not a gun person. but in the video, I think that Lloyde had a Kalishnikov casually resting in the corner of his living room. Does anyone else think that is a tad strange? - if it is indeed an AK47? Can someone take a look and see if that is what I think I saw? My living room has flowers, etc, not semi-automatic weapons. Maybe its Shirley's. Like I said, guns are not my thing - thanks

Posted by: paranoia Oct 29 2013, 08:42 PM

with Halloween just around the bend i figured i might as well share this - i was watching The Exorcist the other night, and toward the end of the movie, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lankester_Merrin arrives for the final exorcism, and he is dropped off by a Capitol Cab!


the iconic original poster for the movie (also used for vhs/dvd covers) is of Merrin immediately after getting out of the cab:




Posted by: realitycheck77 Mar 17 2014, 03:57 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jun 28 2012, 11:11 PM) *
ironic that you bring him up, cuz by complete happenstance i ran into him at the local supermarket
yesterday, and he was looking very frail compared to the last time i saw him there (which was a few
months ago). this time he was hunched and using his cart to help him stand, and he walked gingerly,
and was very slow and labored when putting groceries into his cart. seems like he is getting up there
in age, and probably wont be around too much longer. so while guilt maybe timeless,
his life - and his chance to confess the truth before he goes - is running out.




I think Lloyde England should confess to driving past the Pentagon when a plane flew over hitting a lightpole that crashed into his cab. Is there no justice in the world? What does someone have to do these days to be sent to jail?

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 17 2014, 06:01 PM

QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Mar 17 2014, 08:57 PM) *
I think Lloyde England should confess to driving past the Pentagon when a plane flew over hitting a lightpole that crashed into his cab. Is there no justice in the world? What does someone have to do these days to be sent to jail?


Not like you to troll Realitycheck77. Run away, yes, but troll?

Why did you decide to make a cheap shot here when there's another thread that's crying out for a response from people like yourself?

Start here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18356&view=findpost&p=10811356

Posted by: NP1Mike Mar 17 2014, 08:16 PM

QUOTE (SeniorTrend @ Sep 16 2012, 04:33 PM) *
... And listen to Lloyd's wife.... I think she is terribly conflicted - she admits to a flyover and not a strike.


Sorry, it seems I missed that. Where can I find her saying this?

I watched Craig's entire video of his Lloyd interview and must say that he deserves credit for taking the time and effort to put the whole thing together.

However, I believe he blew it with his interview and don't think he or anyone else will have another chance to get it right.

Craig started the interview off well enough, in a calm and probing manner.
But when he started meeting resistance from Lloyd and not getting the answers he expected to get, he became rather aggressive in his questioning and tone.

This was easy to see and hear and Lloyd started becoming extremely defensive from this point on.

Had Craig come to the interview with another member of CIT who was more gentle in their approach and let them ask most/all of the questions I believe the outcome could have been quite different to what we saw.

I also think Craig didn't do his homework well enough to trap Lloyd, in the event of his answers not going the way he thought they would.
He should have thought through every possible answer Lloyd could make and what his response would be.

There was a memorable segment in the video when Lloyd's answers (saying he wasn't on the bridge)
completely exasperated Craig and he just kept asking the same questions over and over again, getting more and more worked up.

It's a shame that such an opportunity (interviewing Lloyd) was not taken full advantage of.










Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 17 2014, 10:10 PM

@3 mins in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-KCiwwxtnU

Her and Lloyde are slippery customers.

How else would you have gone about it Mike?

Craig showed the multiple images of his cab to Lloyde and he repeatedly denied them. He even went so far as to claim to another "interviewer" (shill) that CIT had faked these same images!

Even when they went for a drive along Route 27 Lloyde placed himself further north beyond the heliport.

Lloyde had no problem placing himself on the bridge in a 2005 NBC interview, even pointing at the lightpoles on it then we've had the years of bullcrap and lies from him ever since the NOC testimony came out. That in itself is evidence enough that Lloyde is unreliable and a liar.

The only way to break this guy is to see his reaction if an MSM (whore) reporter called to his door and asked him to repeat his story.

I'd like to see the detractors' (Realitycheck77) response and treatment of him if he were a witness to the NOC flightpath! (Which has been attempted and rejected)

Posted by: paranoia Mar 19 2014, 04:53 AM

QUOTE (realitycheck77)
I think Lloyde England should confess to driving past the Pentagon when a plane flew over hitting a lightpole that crashed into his cab. Is there no justice in the world? What does someone have to do these days to be sent to jail?

even within the context of your sarcasm, im not sure what you mean by being "sent to jail". what i was suggesting wasnt punishment, mine is a concern about urgency. because of his age, time is running out. as the elderly lloyde grows closer to his final days, i have this hope that some part of him will be compelled to set the record straight and tell the truth, at least on his literal deathbed. im not holding my breath though...

but as far as the light poles go, they and their bases alone are physical proof enough that they were not broken from contact with a 757 going 500+ mph. how for instance, did pole #2, which was on the same side of the highway as lloyde's cab, fall backwards less than a yard from its base? how did the frangible bases break uniformly at their strongest point (at the connection points underneath) instead of ripping apart asymetrically along their weak points of their designed-to-break walls? how did the long part of the poles end up pinched and folded over - like this below - if a plane really cut through them?


(looks like someone did a sloppy rushed job on this pole = fail)

but physical analysis of the poles isnt even necessary anymore. the fact that the poles did not fall from impact with a plane is solidified by the testimony of over a dozen eyewitnesses who saw the plane fly north of them, AND north of lloyde's cab as pictured in the photos taken on 9/11.




but how about this for a "reality check", isnt it odd that ON 9/11, not one actual live interview of mr.england took place? at least a couple reporters parroted the rumor that "a cab" was hit by a pole supposedly hit by the plane, and multiple reporters were within yards of that pole, that cab and its driver, yet NOT one of them interviewed him live on the air, nor ever shared (with the public) a direct quote from him. surely he was sought out, getting an interview with someone so directly affected by the plane would have been a sensational scoop! yet no interview of lloyde ever aired. so either they did interview him but found him unconvincing or otherwise not worthy for public broadcast, or access to lloyde was restricted. neither possibility bodes well for legitimacy of the fantastic tale that is lloyde's story, and added to the eyewitness testimony that places the plane elsewhere, an intellectually honest person would have cause for outright rejection of lloyde's claims.


feel free to believe what you want, but i know the plane did not hit the pentagon, for a fact. and its not some hard to find secret, the truth is actually there in the witness accounts. no not just the confirmed accounts as obtained by researchers, but the truth is hiding in plane sight even in the many accounts published back in 2001. i urge you rc77 to find as many of them as you can, then make a list of their claims and see what specific assertions end up being corroborated by multiple witnesses. the cit confirmed accounts do hold the key to unlocking the mystery, in that the location of the plane's approach - over the navy annex buildings and north of the citgo gas station - is clarified and established. armed with that, read what the rest of the accounts describe and see if you can figure out what the plane actually did, and where it flew.

hint:

-at least a dozen saw it north of the citgo, in a heavy right bank (too many to name)

-at least a handful then saw it go from that steep right bank, into a left bank - somewhere over the highway, lawn area,
and the construction trailers (at least walter, marra, probst, bell, sepulveda)

-fooled by the right to left bank, at least a handful thought they saw it crash short of the pentagon (timmerman, mcgraw, others - names not handy
at the moment, will dig them up later)

-at least 1 person saw the plane banking over light poles of lane 1 of south parking (r o b e r t s)

-at least 1 person saw an AA jet flying away from the scene, less than a minute after the explosions (p a r s o n s)

but guess what rc77? none of them, not one witness corroborates the 5 frames or the necessary low level flight required for the plane to fit in the official path's flight envelope. i challenge you to find one, just one person who describes a low, level, parallel to the ground (by less than a yard!) flight.


Posted by: kawika Mar 19 2014, 04:02 PM

https://onedrive.live.com/#cid=E097D925456F1330&id=E097D925456F1330!154&v=3



Pentagon police officer William LaGasse said he'd bet his life on the NOC path.

There is no way anyone could make an error this big. He is corroborated by Chadwick Brooks who drew the same thing independently.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 19 2014, 05:11 PM

Witness contradictions to necessary directional damage path:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008856

There's also the issue of an alleged "wobble" (and possible left bank/left wing down) around the Annex area - Carter ("it swerved"), Hemphill ("jink as if to avoid something" and "left wing down"), Ryan ("right wing down, left wing down"), Middleton ("it wobbled"), Elgas ("tilted to the left" and banked "towards the heliport").

There's also the unconfirmed reports by Marra ("rolled left then rolled right"), Deb Anlauf ("swerve[d] around the hotel" - Sheraton).

1. There are no left banks recorded on any version of the alleged FDR data in the final seconds
2. The animation shows no "wobbles" or left bank.
3. The physical damage to the lightpoles demand level flight. Even a 5 bank at the required 20ft agl on Route 27 (and where Stutt's "data" shows 0 bank) would miss at least two of the poles.

Even the alleged 20ft agl on Route 27 is contradicted by Elgas ("50ft" and "height of my house") and Owens ("75ft").

3, 2, 1 - "witness testimony is unreliab....blah"

Posted by: NP1Mike Mar 22 2014, 09:37 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 17 2014, 09:10 PM) *
Her and Lloyde are slippery customers.

How else would you have gone about it Mike?

Craig showed the multiple images of his cab to Lloyde and he repeatedly denied them. He even went so far as to claim to another "interviewer" (shill) that CIT had faked these same images!

Even when they went for a drive along Route 27 Lloyde placed himself further north beyond the heliport.


I would have approached the Lloyd meeting in a completely different manner.

I would have prepared for it as if I were preparing for a legal court case.

Under no circumstances, no matter what Lloyd's responses would be to my questions, would I allow myself to get emotional.

We know from NOC witness testimonies and evidence that the plane could not have struck the Pentagon. We also have photo evidence from 9/11 placing Mr. England and his taxi on a SOC bridge with a light pole lying in the middle of the street next to his vehicle.

So we know that the taxi accident had to have been staged.

The first line of questioning would simply be to establish the following: where Lloyd was exactly when his cab was struck by the pole, what he heard/saw before his cab was struck?
What happened at the moment the pole struck his cab? Glass shards or any debris impacting Lloyd?
What he did immediately after his car stopped?

How long it took before the man stopped to help him.
We know the man did not say a word to Lloyd. I would ask Lloyd what he said to the man?
Did Lloyd ask him to do anything?
We know that the man and Lloyd pulled the light pole out from the car.
How did the man know he should help Lloyd with this?
What was Lloyd doing when the man stopped to help him?

Where exactly was Lloyd standing in relation to the car when they removed the pole?
Where exactly was the other man standing in relation to the car when they were removing the pole?

There was damage to the interior of the car and the windshield, but not the vehicle's body.
What precautions, if any, were taken to avoid scratching the car?

Did you own the cab you were driving on 9/11?
Seeing as there was relatively little damage to the car (windshield and seats) why didn't you repair the damage to your cab? What vehicle did you use after the accident for work?
Did you buy that other vehicle?

Where did the two of them place the pole? In front of the car? To the side of the car? Lloyd says he fell over when they were carrying the pole. How heavy did the pole appear to be? Did you put the pole down as soon as it cleared the car, or did both of you walk with the pole some distance before putting it down? If you did, why did you do this, seeing as the pole was so heavy?

What did Lloyd do after the man drove away? Did he try to drive his car away, now that the pole was no longer an obstruction?
If not, what was the reason that he removed the pole from his car?
What was the urgency to remove it?

How long did it take before FBI agents came along after he had removed the pole?

Exactly what did they tell him when they arrived?
What did you say to the agents while they were standing with you?
What were they waiting for?
Did they touch/move any evidence? His car, the pole, glass etc.?
Did they take photos of his vehicle and of the scene?
There are photos of his cab, the pole, the agents etc. Did Lloyd see who took the photos?
How long did they keep Lloyd there?
When they finally allowed him to leave, how did he get home?
When did he get his car back?

Why did the FBI believe he was dead, when federal agents were standing right next to him right after the accident?

Did you suffer any injuries at all?

We know later in the interview, Lloyd changed his story about where he was when the pole hit his car.
I would have prepared for that with the following line of questioning.
You are stating that your car was NOC when the pole hit it. Are there any photos that you are aware of, showing you in that location?

Are you aware that no light poles were downed anywhere near where you claim to have been hit?

The five light poles that were downed by the plane were hundreds of yards away from where you say you were hit. In other words, none of the five downed light poles could have hit your car if you were located where you say you were.

Each of the five downed light poles landed several yards away from where they were standing.

Can you give any explanation at all as to why the pole that you removed from your vehicle broke off from a base that was hundreds of yards away, and was not even travelling in your direction after being hit by the plane?

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 23 2014, 10:53 AM

Honestly Mike, most of those approaches (I appreciate where you're coming from btw) have been tried from 2006 onwards. Here's a list of various threads on the subject at the CIT forum.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showforum=15

As for getting "emotional" I was exasperated just watching the interview. I can't even imagine how tense Lloyd's living room was after hours of repeated questioning and the same blatant lies being told.

When Lloyd is under pressure, he claims that he can't remember - example: he was asked for details on the "silent friend" and the details of how the pole was supposedly removed - "I don't remember"

QUOTE
ENGLAND: And uh, a car was comin'-- well I guess [he?] called it more or less a van. And uh, I asked the guy would he help me get the pole out. So, he stopped; he never said a word. I said, "Man it's mighty quiet, it's not makin'-- it's so quiet. And uh, he n-- he never said a word. He helped me get the pole out. The pole happened to be bent when it c-- when- when- w- we pulled the pole out, and the pole was bent. Th-- and- and the bent part took me down the ground. I fell d- down on my back. But I held the pole up. And uh, laid the pole down. And uh he got in his van and- and went on down the road.

[...]

(Later in the interview, while standing in front of Lloyde's cab...)

ENGLAND: ...The dashboard held it up.

PICKERING: It was smashed against the d-- boards. It had to be-- was- was it resting on the hood? Or was it above it?

ENGLAND:I can't say, I don't know. But it-- it was-- it was out here.

PICKERING: Okay. So the base was out here.

ENGLAND :Right.

PICKERING: Okay. So the base is out here.

ENGLAND: Right.

PICKERING: So then the man pulls up in the white van-like vehicle.

ENGLAND: Right.

PICKERING: Okay. So he doesn't speak a word...

ENGLAN: He doesn't say a thing.

PICKERING: But you ask him if he can help you.

ENGLAND: R- Right.

PICKERING: So did-- so did-- which side of the vehicle did he come around

ENGLAND: Well we- we came acround the car. Lookin at the pole.

PICKERING: So I'm gonna move over here. So now I'm the guy helping you. Where did you go? How did you guys pull the pole out?

ENGLAND: (stares at the car for a second or two)

PICKERING: So it's coming out this way. Which side was he on, which side were you on?

ENGLAND: I don't remember.

PICKERING: You don't remember?

ENGLAND: I don't remember. But I know we pul-- we pul-- we took the pole out.

PICKERING: Okay.

ENGLAND :And- and- and the bent part went to the bottom.

PICKERING: Oh so it flipped.

ENGLAND :Yeah.

PICKERING: The bent part, okay.

ENGLAND :Yeah. And it took me down.

PICKERING: So you tumbled backwards this way.

ENGLAND: I f-- yeah I fell-- I fell back-...

SOMEONE OFF CAMERA: (unintelligible)

ENGLAND: Yeah I fell back-- I fell back with the pole in my hand.

PICKERING: Okay. And then once the pole is taken out-- so-- so he must have brought his end out this way? And you were pushed over this way?

ENGLAND: Could have. I d-- I don't quite remember. Because...

PICKERING: Okay. When you fell down, did he come over and help you up? Out from under the pole?

ENGLAND: Not that I can recall.

PICKERING: Okay.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1277&view=findpost&p=2410566



He claims that the pole fell on him after an explosion (the Daryl Donley fireball image captured @6-7 minutes after the event).

He claims that he was there until the 10:15 evacuation of the area and that a cop pushed him to the ground.

He was asked why the FBI thought he was "dead" and he simply says that his wife heard this.

He was asked how the car ended up on the bridge (which he again denied) and his wife claimed that "they" must have moved it, to which he quickly interjected and said "no, they didn't"

He first claimed that he saw the aircraft, then denied it.

He is on video pointing to the bridge in an on the scene interview in 2005, now he denies it.


The only way, as I said before, to unravel this is to frogmarch an MSM reporter to his door, shove a camera in his face and tell him to repeat his story for the "public". Or for somebody to freak him out with one of these in their hands


Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)