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: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Never forget the security video is NOT independent verifiable evidence.

There is no reason to accept it as valid proof of anything and there are PLENTY of indicators that it has been manipulated.

FAQ: Doesn't the Pentagon security gate camera video that the government released show something hitting the building?




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

posted by CUBD1

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.



Actually the security parking lot still frames were 'leaked' in 2002 with the Defense Department and the FBI claiming no knowledge of them. Yes they were'leaked' with the date time stamps off by 32 hours.

In 2006 by FOIA lawsuit, both security videos, one from which the original security frames were taken, were released to Judicial Watch. Those videos did not have date/time stamps at the bottom.

Pseudoskeptics have made up the lie that Truthers added the date time stamps, but they were released as is. One could speculate that the 'leaker' was an insider who released the frames specifically to prevent further tampering and photoshopping of the videos.



source 1

Source 2

Perhaps something such as this series produced by an infamous government loyalist, was what was originally photoshopped out of the videos.



However at the Zacharias Moussaoui Showtrial, we somehow end up with two extra frames. (#5 impact and #6 impact zoomed and still with their date time stamps off by 32 hours) There is no explanation why #5 is cropped at the top nor how the government ended up with these two frames, when they claimed originally that they had no knowledge of the 'leaked' still frames. Maybe their lies caught up with them?

Official frames for trial

As anyone can easily see, the government photoshopped these 7 zoomed still frames for the Kangeroo Court Showtrial also, because the images are zoomed and the date time stamps are not.

Here are both videos released in 2006.







[edit on 9/2/09 by SPreston]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Gee willikers. I can't believe that the duhbunkers are not slithering in here in large numbers to duhbunk the Zacharias Moussaoui Kangeroo Court Showtrial government evidence. That government god you people worship apparently can get away with just about any lie and it is fine with you.

At the Zacharias Moussaoui Kangeroo Court Showtrial, we somehow ended up with two extra frames. (#5 impact and #6 impact zoomed and still with their date time stamps off by 32 hours) There is no explanation why #5 is cropped at the top nor how the government ended up with these two frames, when they claimed originally that they had no knowledge of the 'leaked' still frames. Maybe their lies caught up with them?

And somehow we ended up with 5 extra zoomed still frames, with the misdated by 32 hours time date stamps at the bottoms still intact. Amazing. They expected the trial jurors to believe that this was original valid evidence?

As anyone can easily see, the government photoshopped these 7 zoomed still frames for the Zacharias Moussaoui Kangeroo Court Showtrial also, because the images are zoomed and the date time stamps are not.

In other words, as far as we know, these zoomed images were not around back in 2002 when the other still frames were 'leaked', and the government 'created' these zoomed images especially for the Zacharias Moussaoui Kangeroo Court Showtrial.

Our wonderful government manufactures evidence to protect itself or to harm others when it needs to.




My gosh. Looks like we have a fire way up here on the north end of the building. How did that happen?






posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Gee willikers. I can't believe that the duhbunkers are not slithering in here in large numbers to duhbunk the Zacharias Moussaoui Kangeroo Court Showtrial government evidence.

Because this thread is entitled "in defense of Loyde England" and theres 2 open threads about what you just posted?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Lloyd is lying. That is blatantly obvious to any neutral and objective person with half a brain when his testimony is scrutinized and examined in context.

And maybe someone should start a thread discussing the possibility that the flyover and delivery aircraft may have been supersonic and therefore may have been too fast for most to have seen.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


If this is a confession and Lloyde is lying that means he WAS NOT in on it.

So I am not sure what you meant by your post, could you elaborate?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Orion7911
 


If this is a confession and Lloyde is lying that means he WAS NOT in on it.

So I am not sure what you meant by your post, could you elaborate?



I don't call what he said a classic "confession"... it was inferred BY HIM... my contention is that I agree with Craig that it was in essence a VIRTUAL confession.

Do I believe he was "in on it"? YES AND NO. He was an accidental witness and his "involvement" was unintentional for all intents and purposes.

My problem with Lloyde is that from the evidence I've seen, IMHO he CLEARLY KNOWS the OFFICIAL STORY is a LIE and KNOWS his story is FABRICATED to hide the truth that NO POLE struck his car etc etc.

So Lloyde is an unwilling tool that really believes he's doing what he was told to do and needs to do to protect himself or whatever the "deal" was he made with the CIA aka PERPS. Which means to a certain extent, some might say Lloyde has the blood of 911 on his hands because HE KNOWS his STORY IS A LIE and refuses to out-right admit it,,, most likely due to fear or a PAY OFF.

Now how about that super sonic flyover? Lol


[edit on 3-9-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


All I can think about while sitting here reading the thread is that all of this could be cleared up with the release of the relevant videos.

To think for even one milli second that the only video of that side of the building was the little tiny camera designed to take photos of faces and automobiles entering through that gate, is absolutely absurd.

Do you really believe that they didn't have every inch of the perimeter property video taped if they're going to video tape the little fish eye security gate camera?

Also, everyone knows, I personally myself not only watch them here in Columbus but also watched them there in VA, that is the hwy cameras. Let me tell you also that VA is vigilant with there video taping abilities of the highways. I can't believe that whatever happened with that light pole and Loyds cab wasn't recorded.

Why aren't the videos of the "wide shots" being released, IDK obviously, there's something on them that no everyone agrees does not ever need to be shown to the public. It took five years just to get a video that didn't even verify the AA jet.

BTW, CIT have you guys ever done a background check on Loyd? Does he have a criminal record? Did you guys offer him money for his interviews?

IDK, when I watch Loyd, I get the feeling he is attempting to give you what you want. Maybe even taking you and your "work" as a joke(maybe he's offended, maybe he has watched previous videos of himself and realizes you think he's in on it) and attempting to give you what you wanted.

I also don't understand why when you both had your cryptic exchange why you just didn't come out and say "what exactly are you saying, what do you mean exactly", it was your chance right there. Instead you left it open for interpretation of the viewer, like the previous poster stated one could have interpreted to have meant that the event happened and now hes involved b/c he was physically thrust into the situation when the LP thrust through his Lincoln.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Never forget the security video is NOT independent verifiable evidence.

There is no reason to accept it as valid proof of anything and there are PLENTY of indicators that it has been manipulated.

FAQ: Doesn't the Pentagon security gate camera video that the government released show something hitting the building?


A little on the lighter side---- Any one remember the flick D.C. Cab?
LOL!
On the heaver side --- thanks for bringing this info to the front.
My regards to Lloyd and prayers for his safety. We need no more Barry Jennings maligning and abuse of those who give of themselves for the protection of 233 years of American freedom.
Freedom from the clutches of the Bolshevistic back stabbers at work right here on ATS



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Yes I definitely have to lol at the supersonic theory also as there was no sonic boom.


My problem with Lloyde is that from the evidence I've seen, IMHO he CLEARLY KNOWS the OFFICIAL STORY is a LIE and KNOWS his story is FABRICATED to hide the truth that NO POLE struck his car etc etc.


Again, while this is what you take out of it, it wouldn't hold up in any court and is an inference you are making. You inference is also very poor as it is 100% certain a light pole struck his car. Weather it was staged or not was what CIT is debating.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Since there is a long weekend and the gov. shills are probably soaking there fingers in a piece of humble pie. I would like to thank all that have been working so hard bringing the unknown 911 information to light.
It's a hard fight when the cards are stacked against the facts in these tragedies. Alas I see a solid increase in those fighters.
Enjoy the weekend and watch your back.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Yes I definitely have to lol at the supersonic theory also as there was no sonic boom.


My problem with Lloyde is that from the evidence I've seen, IMHO he CLEARLY KNOWS the OFFICIAL STORY is a LIE and KNOWS his story is FABRICATED to hide the truth that NO POLE struck his car etc etc.


Again, while this is what you take out of it, it wouldn't hold up in any court and is an inference you are making. You inference is also very poor as it is 100% certain a light pole struck his car. Weather it was staged or not was what CIT is debating.


I never said it would hold up in court...i know its not enough... But it should raise questions and be enough to give cause for a new investigation. Lloyds story is SHADY and smells to high heaven.

And are you seriously telling me its 100% certain a light pole struck his car??

Really?


As to the Supersonic theory,,, yes its a theory however unlikely... i never said it was fact... however, what i'm saying is that there IS visual evidence (even though its not conclusive) to suggest such aircraft were at and flew by the WTC at moment of the explosions. So you can LOL and not consider that possibility (Which btw, i haven't seen anyone mention yet), but to say its impossible is closed minded especially considering how many unlikely things have come to light surrounding 911 as a whole.

So you dismiss the possibility based solely on there supposedly not being a sonic boom? or at least not that was reported? Like does the boom HAVE TO occur in that area? Can it not have occurred at a different point if it was supersonic long before it swooped in?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Come on Craig,, I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions I asked earlier here. If you don't want to publicly state the answers go ahead and U2U me. It would really help me to understand a little bit more concerning this Loyd situation.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


I'm not aware of a criminal record for Lloyde although we did discover that both him AND his wife legally changed their names a few days before 9/11.
more info here

Realize that they were NOT married at the time and told me that they did not get married until a year or two after the event.

I'm not sure what the implications of this are but it sure is suspicious.

No we did not offer him money for the intereviews.

Lloyde never told us what we "wanted" to hear so I have no idea why you would theorize about such a scenario.

He maintained the proven lie about his light pole until the very end and he told the same story to all media since day one.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
Like does the boom HAVE TO occur in that area? Can it not have occurred at a different point if it was supersonic long before it swooped in?


Like, yeah. A "sonic boom" is not a static event - it doesn't just happen once when an aircraft goes supersonic. If an aircraft was traveling at the speed of sound as it passed the tower, regardless where it became supersonic, the compressed pressure waves, formed into a shock wave, would cause the "sonic boom" to be heard by any and all along the flight path.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
And maybe someone should start a thread discussing the possibility that the flyover and delivery aircraft may have been supersonic and therefore may have been too fast for most to have seen.


Please do! We're a Big Tent crowd around here! The more inane theories, the better!

Do you have *any* idea what a sonic boom would sound like at 50 feet? Any clue?

Don't let Craig or his buddy hear about that idea. Their one "flyover" witness, as goofy and impossible and improbable as his account is (50 to less than 100 feet over lane 1 of South Parking? flying southwest? at 9:12 or 9:11 in the morning?), would be out of the picture - and where would that leave Craig and Aldo?



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Orion7911
And maybe someone should start a thread discussing the possibility that the flyover and delivery aircraft may have been supersonic and therefore may have been too fast for most to have seen.


Please do! We're a Big Tent crowd around here! The more inane theories, the better!

Do you have *any* idea what a sonic boom would sound like at 50 feet? Any clue?

Don't let Craig or his buddy hear about that idea. Their one "flyover" witness, as goofy and impossible and improbable as his account is (50 to less than 100 feet over lane 1 of South Parking? flying southwest? at 9:12 or 9:11 in the morning?), would be out of the picture - and where would that leave Craig and Aldo?


Uh, Since when would such military aircraft have to be super sonic? It could have still been going just under or sub sonic and still be going fast enough to have been noticed. To say this theory is impossible, is moronic and naive. So Orion may be on to a possible plausible theory and is probably more what I think he was attempting to devise.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I've been researching the Lloyde issue for the last 2 months and I have uncovered an interesting fact: Lloyde's claim that his cab was hit North of the bridge (not South of the Bridge as the Gov't claims) is actually corroborated by a large number of witnesses that either saw the cab NoC, the downed lightpoles, saw the NoC plane hit poles, or in the case of Penny Elgas ended up with a piece of the plane in her car that came off when it hit the lightpoles (she was North of the bridge).

Those witnesses are:
1. Lagasse
2. Brooks
3. Hemphill
4. Fortunato
5. Elgas
6. Mcgraw
7. Aman
8. Probst
9. Morin

That's a pretty impressive list of witness corroboration if you ask me. The evidence that the cab incident actually occured North of the Bridge is more or less proven in my opinion.

The only question is how are there pictures of Lloyde South of the bridge? Hypnotism? Coercion? Altered photographs?

Alot of people scorn the altered photograph idea, but it is interesting if you look at the pictures of Lloyde he is never talking to anyone...he's always by himself...does that make sense? Add in the fact that the photos of Lloyde on the scene came from a military photographer and the photomanipulation hypothesis becomes even more conceivable.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



I'm not sure what the implications of this are but it sure is suspicious.


I am just curious - why is this suspicious?

For the record, there are more than a sufficient number of witnesses to attest to Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001, not to mention the mountain of other corroborating physical evidence.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



I'm not sure what the implications of this are but it sure is suspicious.


I am just curious - why is this suspicious?

For the record, there are more than a sufficient number of witnesses to attest to Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001, not to mention the mountain of other corroborating physical evidence.


There's also eyewitness accounts of helicopters and explosives. From military officials and members of the media even. Yet again I refer you (everyone, not hooper specifically) to the news archives at the top of the page. Why only some of the investigation was made public will never sit well with me, or anyone with a scientific mind.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join