Originally posted by SPreston
Who financed your 19 rag tag religious fanatics? How come these guys have not been tracked down and punished? How come the FBI does not
even know who your 19 rag tag religious fanatics really are? They apparently had stolen identities.
How come you cannot name the financiers of 9-11? Because you are unwilling to name your bosses? Because the New World Order Elite are above
So your defense of your position is to accuse me of being yet another accomplice?
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
NOTE: I have edited this post to remove any possibly offensive words. The material on schizophrenia should in no way be construed as commentary on any
members of ATS. It is only provided to educate the public on a common and misunderstood illness, and to be considered as an extremely
reason for seemingly suspicious testimony by one single witness. My intent is not to offend or accuse but to educate. Since the
topic of this thread is “Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual Confession of Involvement In the 9/11 Black Op” I find it to be 100%
on topic. End Note.
Sorry for the long delay in replying but it takes time to review evidence.
Reading the interview? Yes, that’s quite possibly what he was talking about. And I have no doubt that he was, in fact bragging,. And what I propose
is probably gonna flip some switches, but I know what I’m talking about because my brother is one. The schizophrenic mind tends to write itself into
the story, whatever that story is. In it’s worst form it will literally convince itself that it invented the toaster. Or will convince itself that
it is the illegitimate son of Howard Hughes and there is this elaborate conspiracy keeping him from his fortune. I’m not making this up. This is
straight from the mind of a paranoid schizophrenic. A seemingly normal person (at least to those that don’t know him) but if he feels he has reason
to open up to you, is more than anxious to tell you his story. And that David Icke book fits perfectly into this scenario. Maybe he was talking about
arabs or maybe the illuminati. Neither one of us know. The more I think about it, the more I lean to the latter.
While his comments indicate that he is well aware of his involvement in this operation, we understand how it's possible that coercion or
threats could have been an element of why he was involved in the first place which would in essence make him a victim.
But I do have to add that it's clear by his demeanor and attitude that Lloyde is not afraid or ashamed of his involvement. In fact he comes off as
You described my brother rather well.
Schizophrenia — Comprehensive overview covers symptoms, causes, treatment and coping with this brain disorder.
Schizophrenia is a group of serious brain disorders in which reality is interpreted abnormally. Schizophrenia results in hallucinations, delusions,
and disordered thinking and behavior. People with schizophrenia withdraw from the people and activities in the world around them, retreating into an
inner world marked by psychosis.
Contrary to popular belief, schizophrenia isn't the same as a split personality or multiple personality. While the word "schizophrenia" does means
"split-mind," it refers to a disruption of the usual balance of emotions and thinking.
Schizophrenia is a chronic condition, requiring lifelong treatment. But thanks to new medications, schizophrenia symptoms can often be successfully
managed, allowing people with the condition to lead productive, enjoyable lives.
There are several types of schizophrenia, so signs and symptoms vary. In general, schizophrenia symptoms include:
Beliefs not based on reality (delusions), such as the belief that there's a conspiracy against you
Seeing or hearing things that don't exist (hallucinations), especially voices
Neglect of personal hygiene
Lack of emotions
Emotions inappropriate to the situation
A persistent feeling of being watched
Trouble functioning at school and work
Clumsy, uncoordinated movements
Schizophrenia ranges from mild to severe. Some people may be able to function well in daily life, while others need specialized, intensive care. In
some cases, schizophrenia symptoms seem to appear suddenly. Other times, schizophrenia symptoms seem to develop gradually over months, and they may
not be noticeable at first.
The bolded parts describe my brother and could quite easily describe Loyde. I’m not saying he is, I’m just saying based on what I’ve seen so
far, he quite possibly could be. This is the only witness I’ve seen so far where there is some evidence to support this.
I have only examined the 1st 2 full interviews (the maintenance guys) so far. I find that their stories do conflict. One says the plane flew over the
annex over the back right corner and he is fairly specific by referencing the hotel in the background, while the other one is very specific and puts
the plane over the front left corner of the annex and describes behavior that appears to put the plane in line to hit the monument. A difference of
about one width of the plane (as far as I can tell). One more width to the left and it puts the plane within striking distance of the 1st light pole.
The 1st guy didn’t touch on the subject of the light poles but the 2nd one did. And when he himself concluded that the plane must have hit the1st
pole he did not even bat an eye in spite of the fact that that directly contradicts the flight path he just described. I also find a couple of the
edits suspect when a witness gets cut off mid sentence or the camera stops short of a visible reference that seems to put the plane much closer to the
2nd light pole.
My point in this is that frightened eyewitnesses give unreliable testimony.
Any trained investigator would know this and would press them to clarify their statements and not ignore conflicts or cut a statement mid sentence.
The 1st 2 witnesses are convincing if you don’t actually examine what they say.
The 2nd plane: I don’t find the existence of an Air Force c-130 flying near the Pentagon at all peculiar. And while the flight path indicated on the
photo shows a single fly in, turn and fly out (at a location which seems to conflict with reports), the 2 witnesses both indicate that the plane was
actually orbiting with several minutes separation between when the 2 witnesses say the 2nd plane showed up.
And the 1st witness clearly indicates 2 different flight paths for the 2nd plane.
Now, is the flight path indicated on the photo the complete and accurate flight path or a general indication of where the plane was orbiting?
The indicated flight paths: First of all, people have a hard time relating relative positions of objects from an areal photo when they are used to
only seeing them from the ground. That is a fact. Even reading a map can be difficult where everything is in a clearly defined grid with no clutter
but when it’s a photo it totally changes perspective. In my job I quite often have to look at google earth to find relative positions of buildings
and it is quite easy to get turned around or be off by hundreds of feet. One of the flight paths is virtually impossible as it indicates an almost 90
degree turn at the edge of the annex. None of the other ones show this.
The interviewer: I take some issue with his tactics. I see several instances of him “leading” the witness (an objectionable act in a court of
law). Actually summarizing what a witness just said (with a touch of interpretation here and there) and handing it back to them for a yes or no
answer. This is a very big nono unless you are trying to steer testimony in a particular direction. I’d also like to see what was edited out of the
interview. There were way too many edits. Not something I would expect to see if it supported what the overall premise is. If you are going to rely on
testimony, it MUST be presented in it’s entirety.
And that’s just the first 2 witnesses and of course, Loyde.
I do “examine” evidence when it is presented to me. I don’t take anybody’s word for anything when it comes to 9/11.
I’ve spent several hours examining the testimony and analyzing the data. Not just viewing the presentation but actually examining it and I find
“more of the same”.
I’d like to come back to Loyde for a minute. I finally watched the 2006 and 2008 interviews. MY GOD PEOPLE. LEAVE HIM ALONE. He is a confused old
man. His “testimony” is really irrelevant as he just validates the physical evidence. Confusion? He had a light pole come through his windshield
and miss him by less than a couple feet. I’d expect him to be a little jostled. And all this speculation over the light pole? I find it to be the
typical over examination of minutia used to infer there is deception where none exists. Take a look at the hole in the windshield and its OBVIOUS it
was sticking out at an angle. It was pure luck that his hood is without a scratch. What do you think he did? Park his cab out there and bash a hole in
the windshield and just SAY the light pole went through it? Do you have any idea exactly how that sounds? PLEASE, EVERYBODY. Watch those 2 interviews
for yourself. Ignore what the interviewer is trying to steer him into, just pay attention to Loyde. And as far as his ‘admission’ goes, I find it
just as likely he was just jerkin your chain. Which I wholeheartedly believe you deserved.