Lloyd The Taxicab Driver: The Mystery of the Undamaged Hood.

Moved taxi cab?



You didn't even bother to read the thread!

This is about the undamaged hood.

Please read the thread and check back with an honest report of your opinion on what is presented before I will address your questions about our documentary.

Thank you for participating.

By all means please continue.

what the hell are you talking about? you are all beating a dead donkey 911 was staged you would have to be a blind idiot not to see it.

NORAD standing down running exactly the same mock scenario as what was really going on WTF, the 2 towers falling at the speed of gravity WTF, no evidence of any human remains AT ALL at the pentagon WTF.

look don't waste your time arguing over semantics it doesn't matter how it was done just that it WAS done. 911 was a staged operation that was carried out with sloppy attention to detail.

The point im trying to make is that u know it was faked so who cares how it was done what we need to do is find out WHO did it, and its not as simple as "Oh the US government did it". there are Cabals withing cabals.

also well done to the guys doing their own investigation

loose change II wasn't exactly a super wow eye opener for me as i knew and suspected most of what i saw but it was very helpful in waking up a few sheep to the reality of the world we live in.

keep up the good work my thanks to you all

PS also David Icke book in the taxi cosmic coincidence if u believe in co incidences

[edit on 18-2-2007 by TiM3LoRd]

Right.

So are you now admitting that you guys were wrong about the moved taxi theory?

As to the undamaged hood, I can't see what difference it makes. What exactly are you saying hit the car instead?

While it is unlikely that a lightpole hit the windsheild and left the hood undamaged, it is not impossible.

We know that lightpoles were knocked down. We know that one of them hit his taxi.

How does any of that prove anything other than the fact that light poles fell over?

How much will the dvd cost?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Right.

So are you now admitting that you guys were wrong about the moved taxi theory?

As to the undamaged hood, I can't see what difference it makes. What exactly are you saying hit the car instead?

While it is unlikely that a lightpole hit the windsheild and left the hood undamaged, it is not impossible.

We know that lightpoles were knocked down. We know that one of them hit his taxi.

How does any of that prove anything other than the fact that light poles fell over?

How much will the dvd cost?

Can't say for sure.

It may have been moved.

But the poles were NOT knocked down by the plane.

We know THAT for sure now.

It would have been impossible because the plane flew on the north of the citgo station.

Why do you base your theories on testimony from people many years after the fact on something as specific as the plane's flight path, but completely discount the actual physical evidence of the light poles?

Why do you ignore the evidence that contradicts your theories?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why do you base your theories on testimony from people many years after the fact on something as specific as the plane's flight path, but completely discount the actual physical evidence of the light poles?

Why do you ignore the evidence that contradicts your theories?

We have not ignored anything LB.

Quite the contrary.

We believed Lloyd's account to be questionable so we went to his home and interviewed him on camera.

Sure enough the details he gave us are beyond dubious and in fact physically impossible.

So we took it further and sought out all of the witnesses that were in the best postion possible to see the plane just before it hit the light poles.

The witnesses that were on the citgo station property.

We worked tirelessly to obtain approval from the pentagon and the navy to film at this highly secured military exchange and we obtained ALL of their detailed testimony on camera on location for the entire world to see.

Lo and behold ALL of their accounts match and ALL of their accounts prove that the light poles COULD NOT have been hit by the plane confirming our initial suspicions about Lloyd's account.

So what is it that you are claiming we are ignoring?

Here is a recap of the info with links to critical data because this is crucial to exposing the 9/11 crime.

Ultimately the conclusion about Lloyd England's account of what happened is that it is a complete fabrication and now that we have the testimony from the citgo witnesses we know why.

Watch an interview with Lloyd conducted by LTW, CIT, and Russell Pickering outside of his house in front of his new cab here:

Lloyd interview

Here is an audio file of our pre-interview with Lloyd in his living room:

Listen to pre-interview here

One of the main purposes of our interview was to definitively establish what part of the pole Lloyd claims speared his windshield. We showed Lloyd multiple pictures of the scene and in all of them he claimed it was the 30 foot long main part of the pole shown here:



Prior to this; the debate was whether or not he claimed it was the small piece of the pole indicated here:



So now that Lloyd has cleared this up even Russell Pickering has admitted that his account is impossible. Russell wrote it off to bad memory while CIT believed it to be an extremely important clue into solving this world wide psychological crime of deception.

We know it's impossible because Lloyd claims that he stopped his car sideways on the road with the pole sticking out of his windshield over his hood. He illustrated that for us here:


But the pole was much longer than that as you can see in the images above.

We had a tour of the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) and physically examined the same style light poles.

Here are the dimensions:


And here is a video of me doing a squat lift to pick up the heavier base end of the pole which is what Lloyd claimed was sticking out over the hood of his car:

Light pole physical examination video


Lloyd's story makes no sense because of the weight and length of the pole and the fact that the hood of his car doesn't even have a single scratch on it:






So we had established the physical impossibility of Lloyd's account BEFORE we obtained the testimony of the citgo station witnesses. If the plane was anywhere near where ALL the witnesses at the citgo station place it we know it is impossible for the plane to have hit the light poles but PARTICULARLY pole one which is the one that allegedly speared Lloyd's windshield.



So everyone is FORCED to make a decision of who to believe.

The quadruple corroborated testimony of the witnesses in The PentaCon........or Lloyd and his extremely dubious and beyond implausible account.

Their accounts can not simultaneously be true.

Does it make sense to write off all their accounts as bad memory and therefore insignificant?

This information is CRITICAL to proving 9/11 was an inside job.

It is irresponsible for any 9/11 truth researcher to wave this information off as inconsequential.

Lagasse said something about the plane maybe hitting a couple poles as a possibility on it's flight path. Maybe it did, and they moved the taxi up further while everyone's attention was not on the cab?

Just a thought^^^^

Maybe the plane was off course, and tried to get as close to the"Official" lightpoles as possible.

And another thought ^^^

BM,

All downed poles are accounted for.

There were 5 of them:



This image shows you both flight paths, the wingspan of a 757 (124 feet) and all of the poles that were downed and not downed.



Lagasse was simply wrong about the poles because he never bothered to research the physical damage.

say, look at the bottom of pole five.
there is rust along the edge of the crimp. weird for a pole that was just knocked over.

There had to be 2 aircraft at the scene, one way or another, there HAD to be 2 aircraft. The people on the south of the station (this includes traffic on the road) had to have seen an aircraft come in from the lightpoles side, and at the same time, all of Jack's witnesses were right about seeing the airliner jet on the North side (flying over the Pentagon is something I have yet to ACTUALLY see, I'm not doubting you Jack until proven wrong).

I'm thinking something like this:

North Side: AA77

South Side: Global Hawk, or awkward aircraft of some sort

Result: Intersection of the two at Pentagon, AA77 gets burned to hell because of it's aluminum and the strength of the Pentagon wall, therefore, not many plane parts. The Global Hawk(or another aircraft) causes the hole in the 3 rings because of AA77 weakening the structure to some extent. To me, this would seem like some secret service assisting the HiJackers at precise timing.

Nothing is impossible!

EDIT: Unless, there is a defense system around the Pentagon involving missles and it was too late to shoot down the aircraft and puntured those holes.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by BigMoser]

Sorry BM but this is simply wrong and makes no sense.

Nobody saw a global hawk, or a missile, or A3 skywarrior or anything of the sort.

All of the witnesses on the highway right next to the pentagon (route 27) report a twin engine passenger jet.

But NONE of them specifically describe the plane as being on the south side of the citgo.

However some of them like Mike Walter and Penny Elgas describe a "bank" which is only consistent with the flight path that we present and NOT the official story.

Think of how much more risky it would be to have 2 planes.

Plus what's the point?

The jet that our witnesses saw was NOT an AA jet.

Most witnesses report it white.

There is no reason to have 2 planes with neither of them looking like an American Airliner.

Originally posted by billybob
say, look at the bottom of pole five.
there is rust along the edge of the crimp. weird for a pole that was just knocked over.

Yes great point.

Definitely signs of prefabricated damage.

Here are some close up pics........

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
When I say uneducated I simply mean that he is a simple cab driver and obviously not part of the typical David Icke demographic.

This guy invited you into his home, participated in your interviews and videos, and all you can do is call him a liar behind his back and arrogantly insult his intelligence and age?

What a twit.

I was stating a valid observation within the context of the investigation at hand.

It was not in the least bit an insult and you calling it one is a clear attempt to avoid the point.

YOU are the one throwing around hollow insults. Feel free to comment on the data but your insults are against the rules of this forum and will not be tolerated.

Poor Lloyd got screwed, I wonder if he knows?

That's all one can say.

I shall leave your thread in peace.

Obviously I do not belong to your intellectual 'demographic'.

Just as I suspected.

Not a single comment on the data yet he could not curb the desire to leave with yet another irrelevant jab.

How predictable.

Good work Jack, being a relatively new lurker I just wanted to pad you on the back for this piece of investigative work. Quite mind boggling when you follow the inevitable train of thought/reason - If the theories holds true.
I´m not one to bunk/debunk anything, but something definitely smells fishy.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

So you're saying that one of these men got a hold of the evidence at the crime scene? Maybe they had to move it out of traffic and size it down for the trucks to carry out, but were not shown in any pictures taken of them cut apart.

Educate me Jack! There's my thought, and now I await your response (as before, lol)