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.

 

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

page: 7
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

posted by SPreston

Since no forensic examination was done on any of the #1 light pole crime scene evidence, we can only guesstimate on the remaining lengths. The taxi and light pole pieces were left in the roadway blocking several lanes all day long. But there is no evidence that an official investigative team bothered to view the pieces.






In fact what we are debating on this page is exactly what should have happened 7 1/2 years ago with a forensic examination of the crime scene by legitimate criminal investigators. We should be able to post the exact dimensions of the remaining light pole pieces placed around the cab. We should know exactly how long that pole is above, and how it was bent into such a perfect curve. Close examination would have revealed if bending and forming tools were used on it. Of course that is exactly why no forensic investigation was ever performed.



We should have much better photos, showing the alleged contact area with the wing. Chemical tests should have been run on those light pole bases which appear to be cut with a torch.

Light pole #4


A formal interview with Lloyde England should have been publicized since he was allegedly a victim of the aircraft. Those men apparently guarding the taxi should have been identified and questioned. It should have been determined why the elderly Lloyde was not sent to a hospital for medical observation, and why he was made to stand out in the sun.

But there was no official investigation of the light poles nor Lloyde by the county or state or Feds. It became up to citizens to uphold their elemental constitutional rights and carry out the investigations themselves. And we will continue; all across the nation, and among our friends in other nations, until the self-destructing 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is dead dead dead.




posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Craig is stuck in this thread with an disinfo artist who absolutely refuses to consider any actual evidence.

There's only so many times that the same pictures, reasoning and logic can be posted...

Yet, some people still cling to their faith based belief that 'because Lloyde said it, it must be true'.

No one on this planet can verify Lloyde's story. No pictures, no video, no formal interviews and no investigations of Lloyde's account exist. The physical evidence does not support a light pole punching through the windscreen and staying fixed during a skidded stop from a speed of around 40mph.

The religious way in which some people cling to the 'truth of Lloyde', like he's a prophet, is kind of disturbing... Lloyde England probably doesn't realise it but he could start his own cult. Look at the devotion of his flock, who regularly appear on this forum to protect him.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
^ I'm still waiting for someone to explain 'how' this pole #1 entered the
car while considering the direction of traffic and the official flight path
of "AA77".

GL's will believe just about anything it seems, and when asked to explain
the mechanics behind the pole entering the back seat, we get zip.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
in all fairness, he didn't say he was on the bridge in the 'virtual confession', he said someone else was. in the picture, it looks to me like the cab was next to the highway just past the bridge.

on a personal level, god help you if you ever sneak recorded me, and its not admissible in any court of law.


We should have much better photos, showing the alleged contact area with the wing.

right, because they always release the photographs of ongoing forensic investigations onto the internet.

Oh wait, its an iron clad rule that they dont do that, as a matter of fact its a crime.

huh, go figure.

/sarcasm, you get the picture.

Use science.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by jprophet420]

[edit on 5-5-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
in all fairness, he didn't say he was on the bridge in the 'virtual confession', he said someone else was. in the picture, it looks to me like the cab was next to the highway just past the bridge.


He said his neighbor was up on the bridge taking pictures of the cab and the light pole minutes before the interview began in his living room and he would change that story. This proves he was well aware of his true location on the bridge and that he made a conscious effort to change all that once the camera started and I confronted him with the north side evidence.

This is hard proof that he deliberately lied and was NOT confused.

But that is not what we are referring to as his virtual confession.

That was his denial.

His virtual confession came after the first interview in his house while we were packing up for the road trip and while we were the car on the way to go see the cab.

That's when he pretty much admitted it was a conspiracy.






on a personal level, god help you if you ever sneak recorded me, and its not admissible in any court of law.


Nonsense.

Lloyde and his wife both knew me already because I had interviewed him in 2006 and put out a piece titled "The First Known Accomplice?" with our first interview. So he was well aware that we were independent reporters and what we had said about his impossible account in the past when he RE-INVITED me into his home and offered to go with us to his 30 acres of property in "the country" to go look at the cab.

There is nothing unscrupulous about it yet it revealed serious contradictions in his story, intent, and over all demeanor.

It's common practice for reporters to record everything they do and there is absolutely NOTHING illegal about 1 party consent recording of conversations but Lloyde invited me into his home and got in the car with me for a 90 mile road trip knowing that I was a reporter so I had every right to record the entire experience.

Given the incredible life or death implications of this proven false account and the definitive north side evidence I know for a fact that I did the right thing.

We say right in our mission statement that we are dedicated to "guerrilla investigative reporting efforts" and clearly that approach is the only thing that will garner results when talking about a deception on this level.



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



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
you can say anything you want about it bro, you cannot use evidence recorded on audio without a warrant in a court of law without the prior knowledge of the recordee.


Some 41 other states nationwide have their own wiretapping/electronic surveillance statutes. These statutes follow either a "one party consent" or "two/all party consent" rule. The former creates an exception to the foregoing general prohibition if one of the parties to the intercepted communication is aware of, and has consented to the interception.


Source


Under Maryland law, the interception of communications is lawful if all parties to the communication consent to the interception.


you openly admit that he did not have knowledge of being recorded at certain parts of the video.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Awww BS. Craig had already been openly recording Lloyde and his wife earlier, so he already had consent. Craig's friend in the back seat continued recording Lloyde in their car, so Lloyde was just not aware that the recorder was still going at the time. There was precedence for legal consent which any judge would uphold.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
on a personal level, god help you if you ever sneak recorded me, and its not admissible in any court of law.

Irrelevant and off topic. Unless you were a witness to 9/11, I doubt that Craig would want to interview you.


Originally posted by jprophet420
you can say anything you want about it bro, you cannot use evidence recorded on audio without a warrant in a court of law without the prior knowledge of the recordee.

you openly admit that he did not have knowledge of being recorded at certain parts of the video.

Irrelevant and off topic. The purpose of this thread is about what Lloyde said, not the manner in which it was recorded.

So what if it can't be used in a law court? It can be used to prompt discussion on an internet forum, which you're currently trying to derail, by the looks of it.

The only comment that you made about Lloyde being on the bridge was set straight by Craig. It appeared that you were mistaken.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


1. We were in Virginia not Maryland.



An individual can record or disclose wire, oral, or electronic communications to which he is a party, or if one party to the communication consents. Otherwise, it is a felony. Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-62.
source


2. As SPreston said....I was invited into his home for the purpose of recording him!

That means I had consent.

Whether or not he was consciously aware at all times that I was recording is entirely irrelevant to the fact that he gave me full consent to do so.

Oh and the fact that it is perfectly legal even if he HADN'T given me consent makes you look rather silly for your desperate attempt to assassinate my character with an irrelevant and completely fallacious claim.

No derail attempts or erroneous personal attacks on the messenger can change the fact that the evidence proves the plane flew on the north side, didn't hit the light poles, and that Lloyde and his FBI employee wife basically admitted that 9/11 was an inside job.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
his FBI employee wife basically admitted that 9/11 was an inside job.

Craig, for the sake of curiosity, do you know what kind of work she does for the FBI? Is there some way to find out what she does?

It might be worthwhile, or not. If there's a rock worth kicking over to see what's under it, then you never know what it might link to?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

posted by jprophet420


posted by SPreston

In fact what we are debating on this page is exactly what should have happened 7 1/2 years ago with a forensic examination of the crime scene by legitimate criminal investigators. We should be able to post the exact dimensions of the remaining light pole pieces placed around the cab. We should know exactly how long that pole is above, and how it was bent into such a perfect curve. Close examination would have revealed if bending and forming tools were used on it.
Of course that is exactly why no forensic investigation was ever performed.

We should have much better photos, showing the alleged contact area with the wing. Chemical tests should have been run on those light pole bases which appear to be cut with a torch.


right, because they always release the photographs of ongoing forensic investigations onto the internet.

Oh wait, its an iron clad rule that they dont do that, as a matter of fact its a crime.


Your strawman arguments are crashing and burning. As you should know darn well; 9-11 Truthers have been filing FOIA lawsuits against many parties for the past 7 and 1/2 years to legally force release to the American public, and then releasing it to the public. You seem to delight in the fact that the American people have been continuously lied to and had important evidence confiscated and censored from them. Are you one of those pushing for scrapping the US Constitution? Is it just a piece of paper?

Of course IF a forensic investigation had been initiated upon the taxi and light poles and Lloyde England and the Federal agent guard dogs; many parties would have filed FOIA to force release of the forensic information to the public. And then we would have posted it ourselves to the internet for free use of all interested parties. That is not how OUR corrupt Federal government normally operates is it?

In those instances, the release of the criminal investigation evidence would be quite legal wouldn't it? And don't try to BS us again, that the evidence in Virginia would fall under Maryland rules of procedure.

Are you one of those who believes that America is actually owned by the super-rich multi-billionaire International Corporate New World Order Elite and not by the American people? Do you think these super-rich Ruling Elite have the right to do as they please with their super-sized plantation and the hundreds of millions of peasants working on it?

Just One of the many pieces of censored evidence obtained by FOIA


[edit on 5/6/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Criag, Preston, Teejawz & others,

Congratulations for your excellent work. This is one of the finest piece of investigative journalism I have seen.

But I have been noticing that some people are trying to derail your findings by casting doubts over Lloyed's mental capacity, his age, legality of your interview, independent verification of Lloyed's account etc.

Let's be very clear here. What Craig has brought to table has nothing to do with Lloyed's personality. IT IS THE PHYSICS OF THE SITUATION.

Even if thousand people testify under oath that,

1: A heavy electric pole fell on a moving taxi,
2: Break the windshield,
3: Go all the way to the back seat,
4: Then an old man(Lloyed) and another guy remove the pole from the taxis
windshield.

AND,

5: There is no damage to the hood,
6: There is no injury to the driver.
7: Back seat cushion does not tear. Even thought the seat frame looks deformed.


Then I would question the testimony of all those thousands of people.

Some people are trying to take your attention away from the "hood of the taxi" to the "age/personality of the driver".

People can lie, but PHYSICS DOES NOT.

PHYSICS IS ON CRAIG'S SIDE.

Keep your focus on the pristine hood of the taxi, not on the aging face of Lloyed.

We are not interested in Lloyed's personality, we are interested in understanding the physics.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jprophet420
 


1. We were in Virginia not Maryland.



An individual can record or disclose wire, oral, or electronic communications to which he is a party, or if one party to the communication consents. Otherwise, it is a felony. Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-62.
source


2. As SPreston said....I was invited into his home for the purpose of recording him!

That means I had consent.



That means you not only had legal consent from several different positions; but you also had ethical consent to continue to video-record Lloyde in your car with you and your voice present in the recording also.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


When I asked her she said, "how do you know that I work for the FBI?" and I said, "your husband told us", and of course she refused to answer.

When I asked him what she does for them later he said, "we don't talk about it".

Keep in mind that they were NOT married or living together on 9/11. They got married a year or two later. Lloyde's wife of 40 years and the mother of all his children had passed and he specifically told me that he misses her.

Now as far as finding out what she did....I think that is pretty much impossible.

Feel free to call the FBI and ask them!

Her name is Shirley Hughes.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Oh I know.

The same guys making an issue over this are no doubt the same ones that said Lloyde would sue us back in 2006 and even tried getting him free legal services to do so.

Obviously he would have sued us by now and he would NOT have invited me into his home in 2008.

As you heard Lloyde tell Shirley in "Eye of the Storm" when she was protesting us going to see the cab, "They're trying to iron something out."

That about sums it up.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I also respectfully request all the supporters of the official 911 theory to not to avoid/ignore this thread.

I noticed a very passionate defense 911 official theory from some of the members here. But now total silence from the same members.

But again, please refrain from references to,

- Lloyed's age, personality etc.
- Legality, ethicity of Craig's interview/recording.


Please keep in mind that,

- People's memory of event's may not be accurate.
- People can lie & do other bad things,
- People can be bought by those in power/have money.

But,

- PHYSICS DOES NOT LIE,
- Laws of physics cannot be bent by those having power & money.

Will supporters & defender's of official 911 theory please answer this simple question,

"Can known laws of physics explain the pristine condition of the hood, absence of injury on Lloyed, undamaged back seat cushion"

Yes/No?

Has it happened in history before 911?

If there is nothing unusual in this incident, can this be re-created, reproduced?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by tezzajw
 


When I asked her she said, "how do you know that I work for the FBI?" and I said, "your husband told us", and of course she refused to answer.

When I asked him what she does for them later he said, "we don't talk about it".

Keep in mind that they were NOT married or living together on 9/11. They got married a year or two later. Lloyde's wife of 40 years and the mother of all his children had passed and he specifically told me that he misses her.

Now as far as finding out what she did....I think that is pretty much impossible.

Feel free to call the FBI and ask them!

Her name is Shirley Hughes.
Could you find out if she was ever married before? If so what was her married or maiden name? Any children of her own? I suppose you have already done this but I am so intrigued.






posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sueloujo

Could you find out if she was ever married before? If so what was her married or maiden name? Any children of her own? I suppose you have already done this but I am so intrigued.



It's a common name so it makes it hard to find out more info.

But frankly, she is not implicated by the evidence, her husband is.

She could very well be in the dark about his true level of involvement and believe his story EVEN WHILE knowing the official version is false.

He may have told her half truths.

Point is that we need to focus on hard EVIDENCE and things we can prove.

We aren't doing this for intrigue...we are doing it for peace and justice.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by neil_86

- PHYSICS DOES NOT LIE,
- Laws of physics cannot be bent by those having power & money.

Will supporters & defender's of official 911 theory please answer this simple question,

"Can known laws of physics explain the pristine condition of the hood, absence of injury on Lloyed, undamaged back seat cushion"

Yes/No?

Has it happened in history before 911?

If there is nothing unusual in this incident, can this be re-created, reproduced?




They know darn well it couldn't be reproduced and that the facts are not on their side when discussing this. My previous post breaking down the physical evidence and physics of this event completely kills that part of the discussion.

Notice how Grimstad said he was coming back to make a "nice long reply" about the physical evidence as soon as he got home from work on Monday.

Clearly he thought better of it after reading my heavily researched breakdown of the facts in this regard.

But while I feel the physical damage most certainly is irreconcilable with Lloyde's story (and the official story), the psuedo-skeptics always have the "freak occurrence" excuse to fall back on so never lose site of the fact that the real 100% absolute proof of staging of the light poles and cab is in the scientifically validated north side approach evidence.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Craig, I think you are better off with just "the lack of damage on the hood".

I am not saying your north side approach witnesses are wrong, but the point is when HARD PHYSICS is on your side, in the form of pristine hood, why bring human witnesses into picture.

People who are not interested in truth, who are interested in hiding the truth, can always dispute human witnesses, and can make you run round and round like mad, and waste all your time and energy, which can better be spent in doing more original research & investigation.

But they don't have any explanation for "the pristine condition of the hood".

Lloyed can be made to look like an angel, by spin artists.
All your witnesses can be made to look like devils incarnate.

But nobody on earth can cause the windsheild and back seat damage by an electric pole, and leave the hood unscathed.

Get rid of all human factors. Focus on hard physics of the situation.

Human factors can be disputed, interpreted in various ways.

Hard physics is not open to interpretations, IT DEMANDS AN EXPLANATION.


Even a person completely unfamiliar with the geography of crime area (like me for instance) can easily understand that the lack of damage on the hood is totally irreconcilable with official 911 explanation.

I had a hard time making sense out north side approach evidence, having never been in that area and not knowing any of the people whose testimony you were referring to. But I understood the "pristine hood" evidence in no time.

Now I have a very clear choice,

Either

I can accept the official explanation of 911 crime.

Or,

I can accept the physics.

I cannot accept both. I don't have that choice.

And, in making this choice I don't have to depend upon any human testimonies or witnesses.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join