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.

 

In defense of Lloyde England.

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
REVISED AND EDITED:

After watching all of the videos available from CIT, I have changed my position and I now believe Lloyde England's story is high specious and odd.

While I am reserved about any notion of his direct involvement in a conspiracy, much of his story remains a baffling mystery.

1) He CANNOT remember the correct area where his car came to rest, DESPITE numerous photographic evidence to the contrary.

2) His story that a massive light pole precariously landed in his car yet left no marks whatsoever on the hood seems nearly impossible.

To be edited further shortly...

[edit on 1-9-2009 by CUBD1]




posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Yes, I take great issue over this also. He claims to have recorded LLoyd without his knowledge but also claims that he had his permission. We got into a debate about weather it was legal or not, however there is no debate that this is both unethical and biased in all 50 states.

What really pisses me off however is that they put a lot of work into their piece, and people defame it constantly. I feel they should have left the conclusion to the viewer and left "coerced" testimony out of it. I get infuriated that people think I support a flyover theory because I don't support the official flight path.

The official flight path of the fdr does not match any flight path into the pentagon. This is blatantly obvious. CIT took time out of their lives to help prove this and for that all I can say to anyone trying to defame that if you didn't do as much work investigating as they did shame on you and your whole camp.

I don't think it will happen but I fell CIT should redo the piece concentrating on the flight path. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the flight path information was incorrect will be enough to get a new investigation, provided you prove it to the right person(s).



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Up to the point they go off on the England story, their video is really solid. The witnesses are really convincing, as they describe the 757 flying north over an area distinct from the "official" path. It seems plausible you had the 757 flying north, over the Pentagon, and another plane/missile actually hitting it.

Whatever the case, they discredit themselves with the England story. They should have left their conclusions far more ambiguous and let us reach our own conclusions. There isn't enough evidence to base a theory around it.



[edit on 1-9-2009 by CUBD1]

[edit on 1-9-2009 by CUBD1]



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CUBD1
There isn't enough evidence to base a theory around it.

I agree with you.

There isn't enough evidence to base a theory that Flight AA77 hit the light pole, which then hit Lloyde's taxi.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Saying the evidence is staged is completely different than saying it doesn't exist. Craig is saying its staged. So either you don't agree with CIT or you're sensationalizing.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Then how do you explain it?

Yes, it is odd the light pole ended up in his backseat, yet left no markings on the hood. You would assume once it smashed through the window it would have sloshed around and moved about, leaving at least scratches behind all over the hood.

But it didn't.

Yet, Lloyde seemed convincing to me.

The whole thing is bizarre... my biggest issue was how they misconstrued (I felt) some of Lloyde's statements.

He seems sincere. But he does seem cloudy on the events and how and where everything happened.

I also don't quite understand the urgency in REMOVING the light pole from the car. I don't understand why someone would stop and help him do that. Considering the chaos going on, it doesn't seem like the most likely thing you would stop for.

I don't understand the big scratch in the pavement left by the pole.

You have to assume the pole is travelling at some velocity and not simply toppling over.

When watching the video of the old car and where they found it intact, I felt like, "This is something that could happen once in 10,000 times. But it's possible the pole, curved as it is, landed perfectly, and managed to balance itself in such a way that it didn't leave hardly a scratch on the hood or the side of the car."

One thing I find hard to believe is Lloyde's claim that the ENTIRE 250lb pole was SUSPENDED outside the car -- not just that, the HEAVY end was suspended.

Maybe he's just really, really good at Jenga.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Then how do you explain it?


I don't even begin to try. I've never seen a plane hit a light pole. I've never seen a study on planes hitting light poles. I don't even know how much it weighs.

I concentrate on the flight path that came with the FDR not being anywhere near the light pole. Unfortunately it seems that we wont be getting a rebuttal from TPTB as to how their story does not match.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Some food for thought on what happens to vehicles that cross a planes flight path......

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Nope. I'm sorry. I appreciate the time you took out to intelligently defend Mr. Lloyd but I do believe he is simply cooperating. I do not think he is a bad person though. I agree that the independent investigation is not the most rock-solid, but I feel it was good enough to prove their point.

I will now present my argument and remember this is a friendly debate so I hope you don't get upset with my opinion.

1. You kick off your argument with "

Lloyde England is very sincere

" as if that were a fact. I believe he was doing his best to cover up the story he is supposed to cover up. This is just like your whole idea that CIT continuously took there words out of context. This seems so easy to say these days. While watching him fumble with the picture PROVING where his car was and him UNABLE to answer to it, I hardly think that was all taken "out of context", and therefore is good testimony to their argument.

2.

so he tried to skew his location northward. Or, he just forgot where it was)


C'mon man is that really part of your argument, he was absolutely positive in his mind where the car was and was proven wrong about that, and also can anyone reading this not remember EXACTLY where they were on 9/11?!?!

3. I will give you the theory that the pole COULD HAVE not done any damage to the hood of the car because of the way the pole was bent only because anything is possible, but I find it HIGHLY unlikely. His window in the piture looks more like a man took a baseball bat to the window then a massive light pole.

4.

It's also possible the lighter top lamp portion flew through the window, and THAT is what Lloyde removed. While Lloyde maintained the LARGE portion hit his car, I leave open the possibility that in the confusion he mixed the two up.


What?!?!?! You think he was confused about mixing the top light portion of the pole rather then the actual pole?!!? No way. You sound like a lawyer though lol.



No need for "planted" poles. And why plant poles? Would that even be necessary for a cover story? Not really


Not as much necessary as effective because what is does for a cover story is to prove that it was a PLANE that knocked these things down. There is still confusion as to what hit the Pentagon as you know. Having a visual of downed poles would be very effective in convincing people (and remember a lot of people don't investigate things as do you and I) that a plane came over that point and took these things down for the official story.


AND FINALLY IN THE MAN'S OWN WORDS -

But they used you right?
HIS ANSWER - I'm in it.

Well they must've planned it then?
HIS ANSWER - It was planned. (All while having a smirk on his face.)

Now I wonder what he could have been talking about while with people who were investigating the events of 9/11...The official story has been kicked to the curb by the masses awhile ago this is just another facet that got the boot.

Good day sir.




[Mod Edit - fix BBCode]

[edit on 1/9/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

AND FINALLY IN THE MAN'S OWN WORDS -

But they used you right?
HIS ANSWER - I'm in it.

Well they must've planned it then?
HIS ANSWER - It was planned. (All while having a smirk on his face.)


It was planned and he was in it. That fits every single account of 911 that I have ever heard. Now lets find out what ACTUALLY happened.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by UneedTOhitTHIS

I believe he was doing his best to cover up the story he is supposed to cover up. This is just like your whole idea that CIT continuously took there words out of context. This seems so easy to say these days. While watching him fumble with the picture PROVING where his car was and him UNABLE to answer to it, I hardly think that was all taken "out of context", and therefore is good testimony to their argument.



His fumbling here would be the best evidence they have, I agree. He was unmovable in his claims, despite photographic evidence.


What?!?!?! You think he was confused about mixing the top light portion of the pole rather then the actual pole?!!? No way. You sound like a lawyer though lol.


Assuming he's "cooperating", I suppose it would follow that he would stick to this story, since that's what was originally reported on 9/11. He has to stay with it now.


Not as much necessary as effective because what is does for a cover story is to prove that it was a PLANE that knocked these things down. There is still confusion as to what hit the Pentagon as you know. Having a visual of downed poles would be very effective in convincing people (and remember a lot of people don't investigate things as do you and I) that a plane came over that point and took these things down for the official story.


I have to concede, it would be effective.



AND FINALLY IN THE MAN'S OWN WORDS -

But they used you right?
HIS ANSWER - I'm in it.

Well they must've planned it then?
HIS ANSWER - It was planned. (All while having a smirk on his face.)


I got the impression he was speaking in general about 9/11 -- they, the TERRORISTS, planned it, "I was in it", com'on.

It's not enough.

I don't know the answer. Was it an Air Warrior that hit the Pentagon, knocked down the poles, but a 757 that flew over? Did a 757 fly over, but a missile hit the Pentagon, and the light poles were "staged"? Or did a 757 hit it, knock down the light poles, yet managed to propel one of them through this cabbie's window in a fashion that seems highly strange? The same 757 that doesn't jibe with the FDR? The same 757 spotted coming from the north, not the south? The same 757 that seemed to vanish into the building, leaving behind little debris? The same 757 in which Ted Olsen held a news conference to talk about his now dead wife and the phone call they had -- but one we later found out never happened?

I don't have the answers and I don't know.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
This admission was taken out of context?


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.

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.

s1.zetaboards.com...



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Confession of what?

While you may view that as a confession of sorts it certainly wouldn't hold up in any court. As a matter of fact it wouldn't hold up in college either, nor high school. I'm sorry but it's "D" work at best.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CUBD1
Yes, it is odd the light pole ended up in his backseat,

There is no proof that this ever happened. None. There are no forensic reports that show this ever happened.

People who believe this are trusting that Lloyde is telling the truth about the event.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by CUBD1
 


Thanks for editing your OP.

For the record CUBD1 had sent us a very detailed email about how upset he was with us and our conclusions regarding Lloyde.

To his credit before we had a chance to respond he went to our site and watched the other presentations and sent us an email apologizing for the first email.

That shows a lot of integrity. People emotionally react often but it takes a lot of courage to admit your mistake and apologize.

No doubt he viewed our full-length presentation on Lloyde, The Eye of the Storm.

Realize folks no matter what your feelings are about Lloyde personally the evidence PROVING his story false = the north side witnesses.




There is no way around it.

The plane did not hit the poles.



Yes we know his story is beyond physically implausible and fishy on many levels but the cold hard proof boils down to the north side approach.

A plane on the north side is FURTHEST from pole #1 and can not have hit any of the poles.

Remember that nobody claims they saw the plane hit the poles as thoroughly demonstrated here.

Nobody claims they saw the pole inside the cab.

Nobody claims they saw him remove the pole from the cab.

And nobody claims they saw the cab spinning out sideways with a 40 foot pole sticking out over the hood.

I know he comes off as a nice guy and it's real hard to believe he could have been involved on any level but the cab is his. The evidence proves that the light pole did not cause that damage.

Period.










[edit on 2-9-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Also for the record:

We have taken A LOT of flack over the past few years for our position on Lloyde but since the release of National Security Alert in June of this year, CUBD1 was the FIRST negative email about Lloyde.

It's already been viewed over 100,000 times and we have had several dozens of emails too.

People are getting it this time and they are conveying nothing but widespread praise.

So thank you to CUBD1 for working hard to stay as skeptical as possible, but also making sure to view ALL the information while keeping an open mind.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Is it possible a missile could have downed the light poles? If not by direct impact then wind turbulence. I know most street lamps are designed to break away on impact.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Is it possible a missile could have downed the light poles? If not by direct impact then wind turbulence. I know most street lamps are designed to break away on impact.


No.

The damage to the poles rules this out because they were clipped or pinched at the top.

FAQ: Since the plane did not hit the light poles do you think that they were somehow knocked down in real-time as the plane passed by? Maybe with explosives, or by the vortex of the plane or a missile or something?



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
It is one of the most baffling, confusing cases I've ever seen or encountered.

I cannot make sense of it.

The 13 CIT witnesses are clear: the 757 came in from the north, on a flight path in total contradiction to the official story. Period. How can you deny it? Every one of them is so specifically clear.

The guy in the dock who walked out and saw a plane flying off. To me, what he says is very clear: he heard an explosion, and looked up and saw an AIRLINER banking away. He says it was LOW, not way up in the air as the C-130 was. This ONLY makes sense if the 757 flew up and over the Pentagon, as CIT proposes.

You also have the fact the 757 is described as going much SLOWER than 460 knots, and the fact it "revved" its engines before "impact" -- this would indicate to me it revved up to fly OVER the Pentagon.

The security tape showing the blast -- so it doesn't show the 757 fly over the Pentagon? First, to me the trajectory could have easily been out of view and more or less directly ABOVE the surveillance camera. That would seem congruent to me. I would not expect to see the 757 -- maybe only a shadow.

If we are to accept that this is a super-secret black op, surely they could have edited out any evidence of another plane in those few security frames released to the public.

As for the "hundreds of witnesses who saw the 757" in that southern flight path blast through the poles... where are they? Who are they? Debunkers seem to say this all the time, but I don't know of "hundreds of witnesses". It seems it's been a hassle enough just finding a few dozen that have a coherent account of what happened. A lot describe a 757, but they don't give detailed information on WHERE it was seen -- and as CIT has shown, it's location, even different by a hundred yards, makes a world of difference.

I've heard witnesses, but not many that I recall clearly stated they saw the plane come in and clip the poles.

You've got this 757 meandering through the city and everyone sees it -- and just before impact an Air Warrior swoops in and crashes. It sure explains a lot -- the small explosion, the small hole, the lack of debris.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by CUBD1

I've heard witnesses, but not many that I recall clearly stated they saw the plane come in and clip the poles.


In fact NONE say this. The ones who are cited merely mention the poles and all of the ones we have spoken with have admitted straight up that they only saw them on the ground AFTER the fact.

Detailed study on all of these witnesses here.



You've got this 757 meandering through the city and everyone sees it -- and just before impact an Air Warrior swoops in and crashes. It sure explains a lot -- the small explosion, the small hole, the lack of debris.


Nobody saw 2 planes or 2 flying objects.

Nobody saw a missile and nobody specifically reports a plane south of the gas station.

There is ZERO independent evidence for anything hitting the Pentagon at all and as you know plenty that the plane did not hit so the most logical conclusion is that the damage was covertly caused from within by pre-planted explosives. Just like the WTC.

Here is an article I put out explaining why we think the missile/small plane theories have kept us of course from the real smoking gun for so long:

There Was No Missile At the Pentagon - But the Plane Did Not Hit



[edit on 2-9-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join