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: 9
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Of course you're begging me Craig, you stand to make money from it. The $2500 dollar fine would more than be covered by the escalated sales on your website.

Speculative, off topic drivel.

From your previous few replies, it appears that you have nothing constructive to add to the thread, other than to accuse Craig of a crime that he didn't commit.

To me, you're probably close to corssing the line of what's acceptable for the T&Cs of this forum.

I find it amusing that none of the hardcore 9/11 debunkers want to leap to Lloyde's defence. They never do. They avoid these threads, not wanting them to be bumped to the top all of the time. Is Lloyde that difficult for the debunkers to defend?

Can anyone model how a light pole allegedly did what it did, without leaving any damage to the bonnet, despite allegedly crashing into the windscreen and falling onto the dashboard?




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Actually that interpretation is correct it just doesn't apply to my situation.


When I said "misinterpretation", I was referring to his original quote and link I first responded to above.



But you should seek the consent of one or all of the parties before recording any conversation that an ordinary person would deem private.


That is flatly wrong. That is NOT Virgina law. It is a misinterpretation of the law.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Of course theres law and theres case law. The state of Virginia recognizes case law. I posted the case law, you said I 'misinterpreted' the case law.


Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-61; Belmer v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 123 (Va. App. 2001)


You can say that I was incorrect, but that is the state of Virginia's ruling, not my spin.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

From your previous few replies, it appears that you have nothing constructive to add to the thread, other than to accuse Craig of a crime that he didn't commit.

I suppose you also assumed my 'interpretation' was incorrect.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Right.

He is conflating two different issues, one of which has no bearing to my situation.

The law first states that only one party consent is necessary for recording.

Then it elaborates by saying that ZERO party consent is necessary to record in a public setting but that if it can be deemed to be private, one party consent becomes necessary again.

It was private, I was part of the party, therefore my consent is all that was necessary.

Of course by inviting me in for the purpose of recording him it's 100% clear that he GAVE me consent anyway. Even though I didn't need it and it matters not if he was aware of exactly when I pressed start and stop on the recorder after he invited me in with (or even without but it was with) full consent to record him.





[edit on 6-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

I suppose you also assumed my 'interpretation' was incorrect.



Absolutely.

It has no bearing to my situation since I was a party to the private conversation.

Since I was a party to it, my consent is all that is required.



[edit on 6-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Who really cares about this 'law suit' that's never going to happen? It's just
another poor attempt to derail a discussion.

I'm interested in those people who believe Lloyd 'forgot' where he was
on 9/11, or was somehow fooled by the photo evidence proving he and
his cab were on the bridge.

If everything was fine and dandy on 9/11, why would Lloyd insist he was
further up the road and deny the pictures?

I'm amazed more people haven't jumped the GL ship yet. How foolish
can you be to swallow this official story and continue to make excuses
for Mr. England and the magic light pole.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jprophet420

I suppose you also assumed my 'interpretation' was incorrect.



Absolutely.

It has no bearing to my situation since I was a party to the private conversation.

Since I was a party to it, my consent is all that is required.


[edit on 6-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]


Right, but as i pointed out, it wasnt my interpretation, it was case law. So you can assume its wrong all you want but the state of Virginia says its right.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
..it was case law...


This is what Belmer v. Commonwealth had to say:




In the interview room, the detective read appellant his Miranda rights. The mother's boyfriend, who identified himself as appellant's stepfather, indicated appellant would make no statements until he consulted with an attorney. Detective Gandy "felt it would be best if [appellant] consulted a lawyer before anything was said." The detective then left the interview room and went to the "monitoring room," which contained equipment that allowed him to overhear conversations in the interview room. The detective testified he allowed appellant, his mother and the mother's boyfriend to remain in the interview room because the detective had "some paperwork to complete" and he wanted to see if they would talk to each other.

Detective Gandy then electronically overheard a "whispered" conversation between appellant and his mother's boyfriend. The detective testified he overheard appellant say that "their other son may be involved also." Appellant whispered that "he didn't know how the police found out." He said, "Demetrius must have told them." Detective Gandy indicated it appeared appellant was trying to "hide" the conversation.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress the statements "overheard" by Detective Gandy.

...

We begin our analysis with the definition of "oral communication" under Code § 19.2-61. Code § 19.2-61 states, "'Oral communication' means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectations but does not include any electronic communication . . . ." "Thus, an oral communication is not protected by Chapter 6 unless (1) the speaker exhibits the expectation that his conversation will not be intercepted, and (2) the circumstances justify the expectation of noninterception."

...

For these reasons, we hold that the trial court did not err when it denied the motion to suppress [the

*.pdf link.



The Bremmer case has nothing to do with the scenario in this thread.


It's clear you don't understand what you are quoting.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by loam]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


Right, but as i pointed out, it wasnt my interpretation, it was case law. So you can assume its wrong all you want but the state of Virginia says its right.


No because your "interpretation" is of case law that is irrelevant to my situation.

I agree that recording a private conversation with zero party consent is illegal.

But what is 100% clear to intellectually honest individuals is that it is perfectly legal to record a private conversation to which you are a party and the only one who is consenting.

However, Lloyde gave me full consent when he invited me into his home to record him. Whether or not he was aware of when I pressed start and stop on the recorder is completely irrelevant after his consent particularly since his consent was unnecessary to begin with since I was part of the conversation.

Now if I was recording a private conversation between him and his wife and he didn't know I was there, that would have been illegal.



[edit on 6-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Now if I was recording a private conversation between him and his wife and he didn't know I was there, that would have been illegal.

Unless you are a [fascist IMHO] US Government or LE agency.

Wiretapping, FISA, and the NSA
www.securityfocus.com...

Senate endorses retroactive FISA immunity for warrantless wiretapping
news.cnet.com...

Now could we get back on-topic to Lloyde and his various statements (in the context of Pentagon events specifically)?

[edit on 7-5-2009 by rhunter]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Actually people who are interested in this subject, particularly the physical evidence side of it, may want to check out my live presentation on this 10 minute youtube piece:




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Thus, an oral communication is not protected by Chapter 6 unless (1) the speaker exhibits the expectation that his conversation will not be intercepted, and (2) the circumstances justify the expectation of noninterception."


Right. that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. G ****** G


[edit on 7-5-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Wow, that whole debate you guys had was awsome, i loved it, it was amazing. oh I also love getting raped by the way.

and towards the topic at large. you are never going to prove anything other than this crack head cab driver is confused. hooray for you, congradulations, .... now you can waste another five years of your life discovering why the grass was blown a certain way, ..... ooorrrr move on. I suspect there are sales to be had from this type of investigation, books, dvd's, who knows. and if thats the reason your so involved in conspiracy theory, ... then that would be the only thing that makes sense to me at this point.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Hi Craig. I just posted this on the "Taxi Cab Challenge" thread, and wanted to get your thoughts.




One thing that keeps jumping out at me is the two pictures of the pole, do the bends look different ? I noticed this on one of Craigs threads first and now on this one. Maybe it is just the angle, but they do not look the same to me. Probably nothing. Just wanted to say.

edit to add: also the housing around the top two mounting bolts. The bottom pic shows the housing to be bent a lot more than the top? The bolt in the top pic is almost in the corner and the bottom pic it is down a few inches.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Forgive me if this has been asked before, but what is the deal with that perfect curve in the light pole that supposedly hit Lloyde's car? If something impacted against it at extreme velocity, wouldn't it just bend over with a crimp below the impact point? Wouldn't one part have bent over the wing, whilst the lower part bent away from the plane, like some kind of odd question mark? It looks like someone bent it in a machine shop. The first thought that entered my head was; "That reminds me of the guys on American Chopper, bending the handlebars of a bike." That's uncanny, and I would imagine, highly improbable...

Chrono



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   


Forgive me if this has been asked before, but what is the deal with that perfect curve in the light pole that supposedly hit Lloyde's car? If something impacted against it at extreme velocity, wouldn't it just bend over with a crimp below the impact point? Wouldn't one part have bent over the wing...


This sort of deformation you describe would be expected by a high speed strike.

My thought is 'they' planted a pole that wasn't even from the area with
something like this:

www.ingaleps.com.au...



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Hi Craig,

I knew exactly how the defenders of official 911 explanation will totally ignore your research & evidance and go after the manner & legality of your investigation. I mean, they are more interested in discrediting you for your recording of Lloyed, but they want to turn the blind eye to people who carried out the crime of the century.

But is clear that, they only want to waste your time & energy by sucking you in meaningless debates, so that you cannot do any more original & indepennt investigation & research. Craig, I am surprised you dont realize that.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chronogoblin
reply to post by SPreston
 


Forgive me if this has been asked before, but what is the deal with that perfect curve in the light pole that supposedly hit Lloyde's car? If something impacted against it at extreme velocity, wouldn't it just bend over with a crimp below the impact point? Wouldn't one part have bent over the wing, whilst the lower part bent away from the plane, like some kind of odd question mark? It looks like someone bent it in a machine shop. The first thought that entered my head was; "That reminds me of the guys on American Chopper, bending the handlebars of a bike." That's uncanny, and I would imagine, highly improbable...

Chrono


I personally believe that they brought in a pole which was prepared ahead of time. Maybe they did all of the light poles ahead of time. It looks like they sheared it at a weak point where the truss arm bolt holes are drilled, and then formed the pole carefully in a mechanical bending press. It is difficult to bend 1/8 inch wall thickness extruded aluminum without crimping it. I cannot imagine how a 535 mph airplane wing whacking it could possibly bend it so nice without crimping it.



Also try to imagine how that pole with that big bend in it, could possibly pass through that small hole in the windshield and between the seats, while hurling through the air like a javelin. It would have to be flying like a javelin, because if was rotating like a baton, it would have ripped the taxi roof off.



Lloyde apparently could see the staging lie was collapsing, which is why he slyly tried to change the script.



[edit on 5/7/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Hi Craig,

When I said "you should not use your 13 witnesses", what I meant was this.

SUPPOSE, the plane's path was indeed same as official path,
SUPPOSE, the poles indeed got knocked down by the plane,
SUPPOSE, all your witnesses are lying,
Give the government all the benefits of doubt.

So far we are going exactly along with official description of events of 911,
We have not done ANY of our own investigation.

NOW, pull up the photo of Lloyed's cab from OFFICIAL report (not the pictures
that Craig took, 100% official photo from the official report, with stamp/date
and all).

Now ask the question,

"How was this cab damaged?"

Now, see the official explanation of the damage,

Does that make sense?

"Can an electric pole break the wind shield of a moving taxi, pierce all the
way to the back seat, deform the back seat, but leave the cushion intact. Got
removed from the taxi by two guys, and still leave the hood of the taxi
unscathed, and in fact leave a very small hole on the windshield itself."


What is the official answer to this simple question?

Is "silence" the answer?

But, again, let me repeat that, in asking this question,

I have totally gone with official version of events, flight path etc.

I have not done any of my own investigation/interviews.

In fact, I never even left my home. All I did was used only official report &
evidance.

The official report is logically self contradictory, any person, anywhere in
the world, can read the official version of pentagon events (and nothing else) and can see that, he/she doesnt have to leave his/her home.

But Craig, if you bring in your 13 witnesses, people who are not interested in
truth, will attack those witnesses & even you, and take the attention away
from internal contradiction in the official version of events itself.

What I am saying is, keep these two evidances separate.

1: You have very credible witnesses which contradict official flight path.

2: EVEN IF we completely accept the official flight path, and accept that it
was indeed damaged by falling pole, we run into even bigger problems.

Keep these two lines of argument separate, and you will have easier time
conveying your point across.

Focusing on number 2 above, the most charitable thing that can be said is, we
dont have all answers. We should investigate this anamoly further and go to
bottom of it. Only the perpetrators of the crime will have problem with that.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join