Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual Confession of Involvement In the 9/11 Black Op

page: 1
43
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+24 more 
posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Given all the activity around this forum lately trying to find the identity of suspected planted WTC attack witness, Harley Guy, I have been inspired to release this piece highlighting the virtual confession of Pentagon attack cab driver Lloyde England.



Many readers may be aware that I have a long history with the cab driver having interviewed him first back in 2006 but also again in 2008 in order to confront him with the north side evidence proving his story false.

His reaction during the 2008 interview was curious to be sure and it was all recorded complete with our trip to his property in "the country" to get exclusive images and footage of the same cab preserved as it was seen damaged in all the images on 9/11.

Besides the fact that he shifted his story to match with the north side evidence proving his story false.....I kept audio recording for most of the experience and Lloyde was a lot more candid about his involvement when he didn't know he was being recorded.

He in essence admitted it was a "planned" event by the people with "all the money" and that he had to go along with it because it was "too big" for him to be able to do anything about it.

He admitted this with a smile on his face and a sort of wink and nudge while trying to distance himself from the planners by stressing how he is a "small man".

Here is the damning virtual confession as seen in the video. I call it a "virtual confession" because he basically admits involvement while maintaining innocence.

This was said while we were in the car on the way to go see his cab:




Lloyde England: This is too big for me man, this is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening, I'm a small man. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I'm not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff.

Craig Ranke: Well you said, well wait a minute, what do you mean?

Lloyde: Well I'm not supposed to be involved with this, I don't have nothing.

Craig: So is your point that these people who have all the money....

Lloyde: This is their thing.

Craig: This is their event?

Lloyde: This is for them.

Craig: Meaning that they're doing it for their own reasons.

Lloyde: That's right. I'm not supposed to be in it.

Craig: But they used you right?

Lloyde: I'm in it.

Craig: You're in it.

Lloyde (with a broad smile): We came across the highway together.

Craig: You and their event.

Lloyde: That's right.

Craig: But they must have planned that.

Lloyde: It was planned.



Note how he specifically describes himself as having a small lifestyle which is obviously what separates him from the planners.


And here he explained how he was powerless to stop the operation because it wasn't caught in the beginning:


One thing about it you got to understand something, when people do things and get away with it, you, eventually it's going to come to me, and when it comes to me it's going to be so big I can't do nothin about it.



We aren't trying to demonize Lloyde. We are simply reporting the evidence.

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 proud.

However, please never lose sight of the fact that it's the over-all body of witness evidence that ultimately proves Lloyde's scene staged, regardless of his true level of involvement.



















[edit on 30-4-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The only thing I'm seeing proof of here is that this Lloyd England guy is a couple cans short of a six pack. Which, when I first saw him interviewed and talked to a few years back, was about where he was then.

I don't see what the mental ramblings of some nutcase taxi driver have to do with anything?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
No responses to this post?

I fear the man will have an unfortunate accident or commit "suicide" soon.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I agree with Craig's interpretation of Lloyd England's explanations.

It baffles me why a person like Mr. England would be brought into a plot like this, unless it was an error to the opposite extreme of the one the perps made with Harley Man. (Going from the ham actor who overplayed Harley Man to the other extreme of an ordinary guy who is so much of a non-entity that he waffles and dissembles all over the place sidling all around the truth.)

I think that Mr. England was basically conned into doing what he did, by people who winked at him and asked him for a "favour", just the way that countless people may have winked at him in the past and asked him to take them to the nearest "house", if you get my drift.

I said in another thread that I didn't think the "A-team" planned 9/11. I think it was the work of second stringers among the black ops professionals and political dummies with huge egos.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I am actually impressed with this video. Sure the guy seems a bit off the rocker but that's exactly who they would have wanted. Someone with zero credibility if it came down to that. Although, it really did seem like he believed the car was hit by the pole in another place. Maybe the enormity of it makes him complacent about it? Thinking one small not so educated man cant change anything.

I only wish we could see more videos of him totally open and honest while knowing the camera is rolling.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


I don't see what the mental ramblings of some nutcase taxi driver have to do with anything?


Then you aren't paying attention to the evidence.

This is an absolutely make or break 100% CRITICAL element to the official story and none of it adds up.

The evidence proves the plane did not hit the light poles.

This means the damaged cab scene was staged and explains WHY Lloyde's story doesn't add up and WHY he acts so strange and contradictory and WHY he admitted his involvement in a "planned" operation by the people with "all the money" that was so big that he could "do nothin about it".

But he is not a nutcase.

I spent 6 or 7 hours with the man and I can tell you he is extremely sharp.

Pay attention to the video and you will be able to tell the parts when he switches to confused old man mode.

It's usually when he's aware he's being recorded and of course always when his story is proven false with photographs.

The rest of the time he is perfectly lucid and one sharp cookie.

Just like his admitted FBI employee wife.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
)

I think that Mr. England was basically conned into doing what he did, by people who winked at him and asked him for a "favour", just the way that countless people may have winked at him in the past and asked him to take them to the nearest "house", if you get my drift.



If that's true he shows no signs of remorse.

He was grinning ear to ear when talking about how he's "in it" and how "it was planned" by the "people with all the money".

Obviously he wasn't talking about 19 rag tag religious fanatics.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by deadline527

I only wish we could see more videos of him totally open and honest while knowing the camera is rolling.


Haha.

Yeah I'd like to see one of those magic cameras on Bush & Cheney too!

Have you seen The North Side Flyover parts 1 and 2 yet?

If not please take the time to view this scientifically validated evidence that proves Lloyde's entire story a complete fabrication.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by ipsedixit
)

I think that Mr. England was basically conned into doing what he did, by people who winked at him and asked him for a "favour", just the way that countless people may have winked at him in the past and asked him to take them to the nearest "house", if you get my drift.



If that's true he shows no signs of remorse.

He was grinning ear to ear when talking about how he's "in it" and how "it was planned" by the "people with all the money".

Obviously he wasn't talking about 19 rag tag religious fanatics.


Actually, it would be their bosses. The guys who financially backed them. The guys with all the money



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad

Actually, it would be their bosses. The guys who financially backed them. The guys with all the money


Is that what you really think Lloyde was talking about?

Why would that make him grin ear to ear?

It's no secret that he had a David Icke book in his car on 9/11.



Coincidence?

Or how about his FBI employee wife who agreed with me that the plane kept on going?

Are they both just hard-core conspiracy theorists?

Imagine the odds.







[edit on 1-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Something is fishy about the Lloyde England story. I don't know exactly what Lloyde did, or why he did it, but there's something not right.

I can't believe that some people refuse to look into this further and dismiss it so easily. Getting a little too close to the truth, huh?

Craig, if you ever interview or meet Lloyde again, then ask him to sign up here at ATS!!! He could have his own conspiracy master forum, I'm sure!!!



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Good vid,Criag England's story is interesting he's an obvious plant on par with Harely Guy he's there to muddy the waters and misdirect any real investigations Im glad you caught him trying to change his story so many times it shows just how big this op was.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Critical to the OS? I think not. You have evidence of eyewitnesses scattered about, you have the generator, you have other accounts of the light poles being clipped.

You might wish to trash eyewitness accounts, however, I do not.

Eric Bart's Eyewitness Compilation

And yes, I am aware of the fact that some witness reports seem to indicate the absence of a plane. But these are fewer than the witnesses who say they saw a plane. And many of those accounts are either due to vantage point/viewing angle or perceptions and metaphors. Saying it hit like a missile does not mean there was a missile, only the general imagery/experience was similar.

It is not whether or not a commercial jet hit the Pentagon that i question. I simply do not believe Hanni Hanjour or any other flunkie wanna be pilot was flying it, given the execution of tight maneuvers For that matter, I question whether or not there was even a human controlling it.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


It's clear you have not viewed the independent evidence we present and have no clue what this is really about.

I suggest you at least view the evidence before you continue to use such a confident tone about something you have not bothered to even view.

Unconfirmed, out of context media quotes recompiled in online witness lists are not evidence, they are hearsay. Do you really have that much faith in the media to report accurately and thoroughly? Only confirmed first-hand witness accounts are considered valid evidence. That is the case in when considering basic critical thinking principles as well as in a court of law.

We don't "trash" the witnesses and we have proven that there WAS a plane, but that it could not have hit the light poles or the building.

We believe the witnesses because we asked them in person what they saw, and WHERE they saw it, and it proves the plane did not cause any of the physical damage.

We have spoken with dozens of witnesses in person, most on video on location, and we brought back the video for you to view for free so please do before continuing to pass judgment.

The plane absolutely had to be on the south side of the gas station for the official story to be true.

ALL of the witnesses unanimously and independently prove the plane was on the north side and therefore could not have hit the light poles or the building proving Lloyde's scene staged.

It's all laid out and presented in this thread

So for you to accept Lloyde's account you are the one who is forced to "trash" all of the other unanimous confirmed first-hand witnesses who prove the plane did not hit the light poles.







Do you really think that Lloyde's story is so believable that you are willing to "trash" all of these guys? You have to choose between Lloyde and all the other first-hand witness accounts. You can not accept both because their accounts are irreconcilable. This is the entire point and why I went back to confront Lloyde with this evidence in 2008 and why he shifted his position on the highway to be where they all place the plane. We already have PROOF that Lloyde's scene was staged regardless of how he reacted to the evidence.





[edit on 1-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



First of all, I do not accept Lloyd's account. Watching the guy, I clearly think he is borderline nuts, maybe even crossing the border. I am aware you might think he seems sharp as a tack. I have been around enough nutcases to know that they switch between seeming lucid and plain bonkers.

And yes, I have looked at your own investigations, your own eyewitness interviews, ect. That doesn't change anything. The mainstream media also has reports of people saying similar things. However, before I accept anything, I need to be able to independently verify it. The difference with collected media reports is that I can verify them away from their sources, and vice versa.

I am aware of the theory you are proposing. You believe the plane flew over the pentagon and landed elsewhere (Regan INTL or Andrews?). However, I do not share your belief that the evidence you have uncovered supports that view. There is nothing for me to cross reference and check.

I am sorry, but Mr. England has never been a very impressive witness, regardless of what his wife does. Do you know what her position at the FBI is? He could be a plant of a different sort, true, to muddy the waters of investigation.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

posted by Craig Ranke CIT

If that's true he shows no signs of remorse.

He was grinning ear to ear when talking about how he's "in it" and how "it was planned" by the "people with all the money".

Obviously he wasn't talking about 19 rag tag religious fanatics.



posted by Grimstad

Actually, it would be their bosses. The guys who financially backed them. The guys with all the money



Oh really? The guys with all the money? What guys with all the money?

Does Zacarias Moussaoui have all the money? He seems like a poverty stricken illiterate to most people. Usama bin Laden said he didn't do it and the FBI seems to believe him. How about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; another poverty stricken illiterate?

Do you mean the guys who benefitted from 9-11?

Cui bono? Who gains? The profiteers of 9-11?

Could it be the guys who needed a New Pearl Harbor Event?



Could it be the guys with all the put options?

Could it be the guys at Halliburton or Chevron?



Could it be the guys at Carlyle Group or Bechtel?

Could it be the guys in the Bush Crime Family?

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 recrimination?

Could it be the guys who hired these guys to guard Lloyde and the taxi and the broken light pole and the broken lamphead; here in the spot on the bridge where Lloyde England LIED and said he was not at?






[edit on 5/1/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   

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 recrimination?




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 plausible 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 proud.


You described my brother rather well.


Schizophrenia — Comprehensive overview covers symptoms, causes, treatment and coping with this brain disorder.
Definition
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.

Symptoms
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
Incoherent speech
Neglect of personal hygiene
Lack of emotions
Emotions inappropriate to the situation
Angry outbursts
Catatonic behavior
A persistent feeling of being watched
Trouble functioning at school and work
Social isolation
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.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
It looks like there is a light pole still standing in that picture behind the cab. How could that be possible if supposedly (OCT) it's between where Lloyd's light pole got hit and the Pentagon?

Is there a detailed map showing every light pole in the area including all the light poles that got knocked down?

What's the estimated speed the plane was supposedly flying at when it hit the poles. If it was going 400 mph I would imagine those poles would be moving very fast, perhaps tumbling end over end a few times?

Lloyd seems like a simple guy, a little confused, but he seems like he's got all his marbles.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
Is there a detailed map showing every light pole in the area including all the light poles that got knocked down?

Yes, there is.

Use the ATS Search feature and type in search terms such as 'light poles pentagon' and you'll find there's already a few threads on the topic. Buried inside those threads are detailed maps of which light poles were allegedly struck, along with where they were allegedly found.

I'd do the work for you, but it's far more rewarding to find it yourself. Kind of like giving a man a fish, or teaching him to fish for himself...

It's all there, I've read it. If you're really stuck, then click on Craig's or SPreston's profile - one of them has probably started a thread on the light poles.

You'll find it.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

posted by harrytuttle

Is there a detailed map showing every light pole in the area including all the light poles that got knocked down?

What's the estimated speed the plane was supposedly flying at when it hit the poles. If it was going 400 mph I would imagine those poles would be moving very fast, perhaps tumbling end over end a few times?

Lloyd seems like a simple guy, a little confused, but he seems like he's got all his marbles.




Overhead of numbered positions of original light pole locations in immediate area of Pentagon west side



larger view

Where the alleged downed light poles approximately ended up - red dots are bases



The official speed of Flight 77 was 535 mph (784 feet per second) and officially, after hitting the light poles, the aircraft engines were inches off the lawn as shown in the official parking lot security videos.

The light poles in question officially defied all known physics laws and did not rebound in a manner reflecting being struck by a 535 mph golf club or baseball bat. Several apparently just laid down gently next to their bases and several flew in directions completely different than the easterly trajectory of the wings which officially and allegedly struck them.

Light pole #1 allegedly in pieces officially flew north past the starboard engine, past the fuselage, past the port engine, and several hundred feet up Hwy 27 like a javelin into the taxi windshield which was allegedly driving south at 45 mph and at an angle to the alleged eastbound aircraft. All the #1light pole pieces including the broken glass, conveniently ended up laying neatly around the taxi, as shown in the top official photo.

Not one photo and not one eyewitness (besides Lloyde England) reported the light pole sticking out through the windshield, including the Federal agents guarding the taxi. There was no sign of injury or even a bandaid on the face of Lloyde, even though he allegedly sat inches away from an alleged projectile piercing his windshield with great force.

However the 13+ eyewitnesses placing the aircraft Over the Naval Annex renders striking the five light poles totally impossible. An aircraft even moving much slower could not possibly make the sharp banks necessary in less than 5 seconds time.

The FAA agrees with their recently released Flight 77 flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo.

FAA flight path


1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive






top topics



 
43
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join