It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye Of The Storm

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezz

the point was that eyewitnesses for plane crashes are unreliable. that's all i was trying to say.

that's all.




posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

would you use and trust someone like lloyd england with the fact that you have just committed the largest slaughter, cover-up, and deception in american history?

thank you in advance for your candid response.


Your question is just as pointless as your irrelevant analogy about the plane crash.

Sorry but I am unable to predict who I would trust if I was an ultra wealthy and powerful sociopath who engineered a covert military black operation of mass murder that likely involved many dozens of operatives, assets, dupes, and patsies on many levels.

Nor can I speak as to what what Lloyde England is really "like" if we hypothetically suggest he was willingly involved with the operation.

For all we know is a long time asset who has earned the trust of the Washington intelligence agencies via years of dedicated service.

The point is YOU DON'T KNOW his level of involvement and your argument from incredulity is merely faulty logic that exposes your utter lack of regard for critical thinking principles and evidence in favor of faith based claims.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Your question is just as pointless as your irrelevant analogy about the plane crash.

Sorry but I am unable to predict who I would trust if I was an ultra wealthy and powerful sociopath who engineered a covert military black operation of mass murder that likely involved many dozens of operatives, assets, dupes, and patsies on many levels.

Nor can I speak as to what what Lloyde England is really "like" if we hypothetically suggest he was willingly involved with the operation.

For all we know is a long time asset who has earned the trust of the Washington intelligence agencies via years of dedicated service.

The point is YOU DON'T KNOW his level of involvement and your argument from incredulity is merely faulty logic that exposes your utter lack of regard for critical thinking principles and evidence in favor of faith based claims.



no craig, the point is you don't know. your entire theory is shot to H-E double hockey sticks after you take all the physical evidence and mr. england's story. they both refute your witnesses noc claim. you know ...the same ones that saw the plane hit the pentagon?

my analogy? all I was showing was a statement from a professional who was quoted as saying that eye witnesses in a plane crash are unreliable.



posted on Nov, 24 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Circular logic.

You sure are a big fan of logical fallacies!

NoC is not a theory. It is evidence. Scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence that has nothing to do with CIT.

We theorized no such thing.

It is what the witnesses unanimously report and it happens to prove a deception.

Sorry!

Ok at this point we have broken the argument down to the fundamentals and this exposes why my logic is sound and yours is not.

I am a skeptic who relies only on independent verifiable evidence and you base your argument on nothing but pure faith in what you were told.

I'm in the mood to delve into the psychology and difference between my critical thinking skeptical approach to this issue compared to your faith based belief so here it goes...


We start with an event and a question.

Event: The attacks of 9/11.
Question: Does the official explanation hold up to scrutiny and were elements of the U.S. government covertly involved in the execution of the event?

A true skeptic devoid of any confirmation bias would consider the evidence within context of the question.

If the official explanation does not hold up to scrutiny AT ALL, it implicates a very complex psychological black operation of deception with the suspect having control of all the resources of the U.S. military and a clear home court advantage with the ultimate power to sequester, cover-up, manipulate, and control the evidence.

So a true skeptic would keep this in mind when considering the question much like a homicide detective will approach his investigation differently depending on the nature of the murder or murders.

In light of these complex implications if ANY evidence can be found to raise questions in the official story, given the nature of the crime, we must approach the investigation with the full understanding that a significant cover-up and manipulation of evidence has been involved.

So with that in mind.....when considering the question....it is not logical or skeptical to automatically accept information that has been controlled by the suspect as a means to declare the suspect innocent.

That would be rather contradictory behavior for a critical thinker wouldn't you say?

Only independent verifiable evidence is acceptable.

So we refused to believe what we were told, we sought out independent verifiable evidence to confirm or refute what we were told, it unanimously refuted it and this has been scientifically verified 14 times over.

So....a true skeptic would accept this independent evidence that implicates a very complex deception while government loyalists with confirmation biases in favor of what they were told will continue to hold on to their faith based belief while dismissing all evidence that shows otherwise.

Is the evidence we present falsifiable?

Absolutely!

If 15 independent witnesses with equal to or greater vantage points of the witnesses we interviewed were all confirmed first hand specifically placing the plane on the south side of the gas station.....the evidence we present would be effectively refuted.

I think if you are honest with yourself you'll understand how that simply is not going to happen because we provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane flew on the north side.


[edit on 24-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Mod edit: Removed carriage returns making the post to big.

[edit on 11/25/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Your claims ignore evidence.

Your claims ignore witnesses.

Your claims lack common sense.

Your claims make unfair accusations.

When will you interview first responders on video?

When will you supply the necessary math and physics to prove ONE path NoC?

When will interview some of the contractors from the Pentagon?

When will you realize that attempting a deception of a multi TON aircraft in broad daylight is simply ludicrous?



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Your off topic sweeping generalized completely unsupported statements about my "claims" are fallacious.

Quote me and back up your point with evidence (in the appropriate thread) or concede you have no argument.

Meanwhile this thread is about our latest encounter with Lloyde England the cab driver so I would appreciate it if you would stay on topic.


I'd like to focus on something Lloyde said just before I interviewed him in his living room. Go to 19:43 and review when Lloyde first told me about his neighbor who took pictures.

After being invited into Lloyde's home to conduct our follow-up interview, while I was setting up the camera, Lloyde first told me about his neighbor who took pictures of his cab and the pole on 9/11.

At this point our interview had not started and nothing was said about Lloyde's location or the north side evidence yet.

Lloyde let it slip that his neighbor was "up on the bridge" when he took pictures of the cab and the pole!

This is absolutely critical because it proves that he KNEW his location on the bridge minutes before our interview started where he would ultimately and steadfastly deny this very fact that we both forgot he just admitted.

Once the camera was on him and the interview started he must have remembered that he was supposed to shift his location to the north side.

If he really thought he was where he said he was during the interview he would never have referred to the photographer neighbor as being "on the bridge".

Frankly, this is proof enough that Lloyde wasn't simply confused as he continued to deny his location on the bridge DESPITE the photographic evidence I showed him AND that we later obtained from his neighbor further confirming what Lloyde actually already said when the encounter first began......




"He was up on the bridge."



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Lloyde let it slip .......


I will refrain from noting your evasion of my questions as they do in fact having minimal reference to Mr. England.

So let's talk about Mr. England. Actually, let's think about Mr. England and the alleged roll you claim that he has in alleged Pentagon black-ops.

You say you are a "critical thinker?" Think then.
Mr. England a long time cabbie that from what I have read and seen lives a pretty modest life. Far from what one would consider a luxurious lifestyle don't you think?

I watched your videos in regards to him. I have looked at many photographs of him. Then I think...

Could this man be trusted?

Can he be an asset?

Could he have been manipulated?

Could he have been coerced?

Look, I believe anything is possible. Within reason. What CIT claims is that Mr. England would be or could be one of the above (asset, manipulated..etc)

IF any of these were to be the case, he would NOT have agreed to let Craig set up shop in his home. The government per CIT has staged the most lethal and deceptive black op in the history of this country.

Why allow Mr. England to speak to whomever he wants to regarding this?

Why didn't the government tell him NOT to speak to anyone. It would be just as easy for Mr. England to simply close the door with a polite "thank you but no thank you."
He didn't. He let you come in and ask him questions. Questions that he was clearly confused about.

Why was he trusted? If this happened as you say it happened, then why allow him to talk.

I listened to a phone call you recorded with a photographer from the Pentagon. Dewitt Rosebourough I believe his name is. This man works for the military. He refused to talk to you about what exactly he saw while out in the south parking lot at the time of the impact.

Why did he not want to comment? Was he hiding something? He was there. If the flight path takes the plane over that parking lot, he would have seen it. No doubt.

Why was Lloyde, this veteran cab driver allowed to be able to talk? Why is he trusted not to say the wrong thing?








[edit on 26-11-2008 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Thanks for staying on topic for the most part.

No critical thinker would suggest they can judge someones character, true lifestyle, or financial situation based on how they look!

Your questions do not address the evidence.

They are based solely on speculation which again, would NOT be the response of a critical thinker.

However what's clear is that Lloyde was MEANT to be out front.

His face, his story, his cab.......ALL of it was meant to be used to help sell the official story.

He had talked to media on many occasions before and he was well known to anyone who has looked into to the Pentagon attack with any detail and his cab on the highway was a famous image even known to many who haven't looked into it.

In fact if you watch the 9/11 "tribute" at the republican national convention this year to nominate McCain you'll see his cab.

So if you consider his role in the operation to be that of a "simple" man that is hard not to believe who sells the low and level south side impact to the public via media, images, and his nice demeanor...yes it makes perfect sense that he would agree to be interviewed by us.

Lloyde had been challenged by nobody. Even we didn't challenge him during the first interview.

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!

Naturally he may have figured we would challenge him when I showed up at his doorstep 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".


As far as Dewitt goes....I am not inclined to speculate why he refused to discuss his experience on 9/11 but I think that should be pretty obvious concerning the account of Roosevelt Roberts Jr. and all the north side witnesses.

In contrast with Lloyde....Dewitt was virtually unknown and in fact is not included in any of the known lists of previously published witnesses.



[edit on 26-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Thanks for staying on topic for the most part.


You're welcome


No critical thinker would suggest they can judge someones character, true lifestyle, or financial situation based on how they look!


You can get a pretty good idea... not ONLY by their looks. I think more of his living situation. He has a pretty modest home and from what I gather he has a "vacation" home?

He is also a cab driver. A very honest, hard working job with long hours and not very high paying. I would say he is living withing his means.

So, what I try to do is look at him objectively with the information that is available. Mr. England is an elderly, humble man.


Your questions do not address the evidence.


But they do. My questions are extremely valid Craig. Thinking critically should lead one to realize that this man is not capable of withholding earth shattering evidence as you claim he has. Think; if he is a cover for the government... you just outed him. Therefor you proved my point. So you have to ask... WHY would the government allow him to talk to anyone... NOW.



However what's clear is that Lloyde was MEANT to be out front.


His face, his story, his cab.......ALL of it was meant to be used to help sell the official story...............a famous image even known to many who haven't looked into it.



Nothing had to be "sold," planet earth was glued to what ever accessible media was available to them for days. Yes his cab is pretty famous, as is the picture of the chaplain firefighter being carried dead out of ground zero, as is many other things that stick out in our memories for that day.




........yes it makes perfect sense that he would agree to be interviewed by us.


But per you, he screwed up, further implicating the US Government. Again, think please..... really... the government staged an unprecedented, lethal, deceptive cover up. Craig, they would be on to you. They would be on to Lloyde. They would have visited him. Demanding him to stop talking to any media. Craig, you're a pretty bright guy. You're the US government.... would you allow Lloyde to speak freely now?


Lloyde had been challenged by nobody. Even we didn't challenge him during the first interview.


True... but you did on your second one. An interview that if this "inside job" were to go off without a glitch...should not have happened.





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".


I'll bet he doesn't care.... at all. Unless of course he starts getting peppered with harassing phone calls and visits from other truthers.



As far as Dewitt goes....I am not inclined to speculate why he refused to discuss his experience on 9/11 but I think that should be pretty obvious concerning the account of Roosevelt Roberts Jr. and all the north side witnesses.


So you think he is covering something up. Because all of your witnesses are NoC. IT would be pretty damning to your Flyover theory if he stated that he did not see a plane fly over the south lot.

Do you see where I am going with all this? Lloyde the cabbie shoots the government in the foot by allowing him to bump his gum's... Workers from the Pentagon have to shut up.


In contrast with Lloyde....Dewitt was virtually unknown and in fact is not included in any of the known lists of previously published witnesses.


Dewitt's name has been credited in many photographs since as early as October 1st 2001, his interview where he stated his location was I believe September of 2002. So, he has been around as a "published" witness for over 6 years.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

You can get a pretty good idea... not ONLY by their looks. I think more of his living situation. He has a pretty modest home and from what I gather he has a "vacation" home?

He is also a cab driver. A very honest, hard working job with long hours and not very high paying. I would say he is living withing his means.

So, what I try to do is look at him objectively with the information that is available. Mr. England is an elderly, humble man.



and his kids? does he have any? haven't you seen the godfather? "no man is an island". perhaps his kids have all the loot/threat. we don't know how little or how much money lloyde and his family have.
there are other ways to compromise people other than bribery. threats can work equally well. perhaps they threatened his wife, if he has no children.
like you said, his job has long hours and doesn't pay well. perfect candidate for an 'offer'.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Hi Billy,

Then why would he talk at all? Knowing that it would risk his families lives, money, etc.

You have to keep in mind...the amount of people you are involving with this deception now too. Lloyd was chosen... his kids get hush money or threatened?.... you see...it goes on and on.

-Cam



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


well, it IS going on and on, isn't it? his silence now would seem an admission of guilt. the 'government' knows that, too, and that why they MUST allow him to speak.
any suspicious death or silence would be a martyrdom, and any good ruler knows that is worse than the truth, because the truth can always be danced around and disguised blatantly in front of the eyes and ears of the masses.
i assume they consider lloyde to be 'under the radar' and unimportant at this point. much like hijackers that are still alive or like the completely fabricated story of jessica lynch(complete with television movie). the truth doesn't have as much impact as the original lie. especially when 'they' control the airwaves, and hence, the mass mind.

thank god for viral truth!

edit to add, there are GOOD PEOPLE in the secret services and the military/government, or we'd already all be microchipped and under curfew and 100% surviellance. the 'shadow rulers' have to work through deceit within the system set up by men of good conscience.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
You say you are a "critical thinker?" Think then.
Mr. England a long time cabbie that from what I have read and seen lives a pretty modest life. Far from what one would consider a luxurious lifestyle don't you think?

A critical thinker would not make this assumption. Luxury, to many people, is relative.

Clearly, you're not thinking critically, CameronFox. You're assuming and speculating.


Originally posted by CameronFox
You can get a pretty good idea... not ONLY by their looks. I think more of his living situation. He has a pretty modest home and from what I gather he has a "vacation" home? He is also a cab driver. A very honest, hard working job with long hours and not very high paying. I would say he is living withing his means.

More baseless speculation about Lloyde's lifestyle, CameronFox?

'a pretty good idea' is hardly a sound method to employ and is certainly not indicative of critical thinking.


Originally posted by CameronFox
Thinking critically should lead one to realize that this man is not capable of withholding earth shattering evidence as you claim he has.

How the hell do you know this? You are speculating, based on your own assumptions about the little you know of Lloyde, from a couple of video interviews.

Please, CameronFox, drop the words 'critical thinking' from your replies and just admit that they are your speculations and opinions.

You have absolutely NO IDEA what Lloyde might or might not do, say or think, or how he might or might not live 'within his means' as a taxi driver.

A critical thinker would assume NOTHING about Lloyde and then perhaps start to investigate his claims, without any bias. In this recent interview, Lloyde gave contradictory evidence about his taxi's location. A critical thinker will ponder this and perhaps try to question the significance of Lloyde's deception. It is a deception, as he contradicted himself by stating that his friend was 'on the bridge' taking some pictures.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I will respond to Billy and Tezz:

Please tell me why government allowed Lloyde to talk?

From what Craig was talking about, Lloyde was a plant... he was supposed to be there on 911. A photo op if you must. He was plastered all over the press on 911 and a picture of his cab shown at the RNC this past fall.

He did his part. Why risk him fudging it up? All Lloyde had to say to Craig was:

"Although I appreciate your wanting to spend time talking with me, I would rather not have anymore discussions about 911."

There is nothing suspicious about it. There are countless people that were survivors or witnesses of 911 that do not want to talk about it anymore.

Allow me to parrot this one more time:

If the government was involved in this massive, lethal, black op, deception, there is no way in hell that they would allow Lloyde to further discuss the events that he witnessed.

This is not speculation, again this is common sense.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


i don't have to know the answer to that question to know that lloyde's story is impossible. i've known lloyde's story was impossible since the moment i saw the cab. the 'government'(ie. the real terrorists who are working WITHIN the government) can't be everywhere at once. i'm sure they'd love to silence both lloyde and craig, but for whatever reason their hands are tied or their too busy covering their arses in other arenas.
it simply doesn't matter WHY he's allowed to talk, or WHY he's willing to talk. the fact is, that what he is saying is an obvious backpedaling lie. have you WATCHED? he points at a picture of himself and his cab right underneath the overhead road sign on the bridge and says, "that's not where i was".
the lie is so blatant it defies ANY attempt at spin. it's a lie. lloyde, that otherwisely affable fellow, is lying through his teeth about where his cab was hit by light poles, and indeed, his whole story is an obvious lie. he is a plant, and knowing WHY he is doing what he's doing is not necessary to know that.
the plane did not knock over the poles. the rust around the tears on some poles, and the ZERO damage to the lawn are enough to prove that.
the cab was not hit by a pole. the lack of damage to the hood proves that.

it's interesting that you have never acknowledged that lloyde is lying, even though it's so obvious a little KID could see it. my goodness, he points at a bunch of pictures of himself and his cab standing in front of the burning pentagon, and says, 'that's not where i was, ....that's not where i was'. you don't call that a lie?



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob





Hi Billy,

You are sort of confirming my point that I am trying to make here. (I am starting to sound like a broken record here)

The government; per CIT, you, and others, have either hired or manipulated this cab driver to go along with a government created story.

This unprecedented, lethal, conspiracy of epic proportions is allowed to be known by a cab driver? He is trusted to speak freely about this? He was allowed to be interviewed by a not very well known but rather loud "independent journalist?"

The government, if orchestrating the deaths of thousands of innocent lives, does in fact have to be everywhere to maintain the cover up. They don't allow one of their biggest assets to speak like he has.

Again, this is 100% common sense.

Do I think Lloyde is lying? I think he is clearly confused.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


You aren't getting it.

You have NO IDEA about Lloyde's life other than what he told you in our interviews with him.

If he had gained the trust of the intelligence community (who his wife works for!) while being used as an asset in various operations throughout his life he sure as heck wouldn't tell you!


In fact you have no clue if he really works as a cab driver at all let alone how much money he has.

The 9/11 operation HAD to involve many dozens of people in many different compartmentalized levels.

You can refuse to believe it all you want but the evidence proves a deception and therefore that many dozens of living, breathing, seemingly regular people who currently walk the earth are in full knowledge of it.

Do you really think you would be able to tell who they are by how they look??

The notion that "the government" can't keep a secret is ludicrous. Illegal covert activity is happening behind the scenes ALL the time.

MANY people have been indoctrinated into the deep world of intelligence where an absolute complex and extremely ingrained culture of secrecy IS maintained at all times.

Real spooks exist. Not just in conspiracy theories. Not just in Tom Clancy novels.

They follow orders even when it means killing people because that's how they roll.

They utilize assets, connections, patsies, whatever it takes to get the job done and they have plenty of resources available to do so throughout the world.

Maybe Lloyde was a tested resource or maybe it's even deeper than that. The point is that YOU CAN'T KNOW simply by looking at him and thinking you can judge his character.

So to simply dismiss the overwhelming evidence PROVING his story false by writing off the 13 NoC witnesses as simultaneously hallucinating or drastically mistaken in the exact same way, while going against all logic and reason to accept Lloyde's physically impossible and utterly ridiculous account that is corroborated by nobody, merely because he seems honest to you...well sorry man but that seriously stretches the realm of reason.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

You aren't getting it.


No Craig, you aren't.


You have NO IDEA about Lloyde's life other than what he told you in our interviews with him.


Nor do you.


If he had gained the trust of the intelligence community (who his wife works for!) while being used as an asset in various operations throughout his life he sure as heck wouldn't tell you!


Key word is "if".

Did you happen to ask his wife what her job was with the FBI?


In fact you have no clue if he really works as a cab driver at all let alone how much money he has.


Hmmm... You being a ruthless investigator haven't looked into his career as a cab driver? Did you interview his boss at the dispatch?

Fact is you have ZERO evidence that he is nothing BUT a cab driver.


The 9/11 operation HAD to involve many dozens of people in many different compartmentalized levels.


And not a soul has spoken a word. (besides Lloyde lying to you right?)


You can refuse to believe it all you want but the evidence proves a deception and therefore that many dozens of living, breathing, seemingly regular people who currently walk the earth are in full knowledge of it.


Well, when I see the proof, I will hop on the bandwagon with ya !


Do you really think you would be able to tell who they are by how they look??


Nope


The notion that "the government" can't keep a secret is ludicrous. Illegal covert activity is happening behind the scenes ALL the time.


Didn't say that either. But there is a HUGE difference between a black op and the magnitude of what happened on 911.

The rest of you post appears nothing but a rant bordering on paranoia. Nobody is disregarding the existence of black ops and other secret military entities. The complexity of what it would have taken to orchestrate 911 the way you think it happened is not at all probable.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Now you're completely shifting the discussion.

YOU were the one who hypothetically suggested that if 9/11 was an inside job and Lloyde was involved that he would not have been allowed to speak with me or would be killed or whatever.

I used logic to demonstrate how you have absolutely no clue what would happen in the scenario so you have no valid point.

The fact is the evidence proves Lloyde's story false and you can not refute it but refuse to accept it based on noting but pure faith in what the government told you.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
For anyone who might be interested I'll be discussing the details of this presentation tomorrow, Friday the 5th, on Radio Free Oklahoma W/Chris Emery, Friday at 4:30 Pacific time.

Listen live and call in!

www.ruleoflawradio.com



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join