Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye Of The Storm

Originally posted by CameronFox


Hope that clears it up a little.

It certainly helps further clear up how you have a lack of regard for critical thinking principles and a propensity to dismiss evidence in favor of irrelevant analogies and faulty logic.

Thanks for that!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Obviously they can't kill everyone who was involved.

Who HAVE they killed? As I stated above, an elderly man having a heart attack would not even be looked at. Nor would an accident in his cab.

If he were in fact working for the government, I assure you he would have been taken care of by now.

Your "opinion" demonstrates how you have a lack of regard for critical thinking principles and a propensity to dismiss evidence in favor of faulty logic.

Faulty logic? I will remain civil and just ask you how "logical" it is to trust the slaughter of thousands of innocent people, the cover up, and the deception of this event to an elderly cab driver?

[edit on 24-11-2008 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by CameronFox

Who HAVE they killed? As I stated above, an elderly man having a heart attack would not even be looked at. Nor would an accident in his cab.

If he were in fact working for the government, I assure you he would have been taken care of by now.

You are spouting wild conspiracy theories with zero evidence.

Provide the evidence you have that makes you confident enough to "assure" us what the government would do under circumstances that you have no clue about or else admit you are making stuff up.

Faulty logic? I will remain civil and just ask you how "logical" it is to trust the slaughter of thousands of innocent people, the cover up, and the deception of this event to an elderly cab driver?

Huh?

This has nothing to do with the evidence and what we know about Lloyde.

You are making stuff up again.

You have no idea what his exact level of involvement was and neither do we.

That doesn't change the fact that his story has been proven false by scientifically verified evidence that you are completely dismissing on nothing but an argument from incredulity.

That is not logical and exposes your confirmation bias and desire to dismiss evidence in favor of faith.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Cameronfox's analogy was just fine. He observed that both 9/11 and the airport crashes were chaotic events, involved an airplane, and involved many witnesses, et al. There are no scientific analysis that report on why the witnesses to the crash of 77 had many different stories that did not line up. There is a scientific analysis on why the witnesses to the airport crash had different stories that did not line up. Because A resembles B in 1,2,...,n (many) ways, it is probably true that A also shares the same psychological responses observed scientifically in B (Though that is not immediately clear). That is a good analogical argument. That is what is implied by what Cameronfox posted.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You are spouting wild conspiracy theories with zero evidence.

Pot meet kettle.

You stated "they can't kill everyone who was involved". My response was "who have they killed?" Well? Who have they killed?

This is called common sense Mr. Ranke. Think about it:

Government plans massive attack on it's own soil-
Government plans one attack at the Pentagon-
Government plans on blowing up Pentagon-
Government decides that instead of just blowing up the pentagon, they will fly a decoy jet that is supposed to be a hijacked 757 over the pentagon .....but that the bombs will go off at the same time so no one will notice.

To top this all off, they hire, coerce, or manipulate, etc. an elderly cab driver to make up a story about a 200 pound light pole in his windshield. This too is a staged event. He is supposed to keep him mouth shut for the rest of his life.





[edit on 24-11-2008 by CameronFox]

reply to post by newagent89


Incorrect.

The very first sentence in the article demonstrates the main reason his analogy is irrelevant but there are many others:

HUNDREDS of people watched the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 near Kennedy International Airport in New York on Nov. 12, and in the course of 93 seconds they apparently saw hundreds of different things.

The fact that witness testimony is fallible and that this is demonstrated by differing testimony regarding the same event has nothing to do with the fact that all of the independent confirmed witness accounts unanimously say the SAME thing in relation to the north side claim and perfectly corroborate each other in this regard.

His analogy really only serves to underscore why corroboration is so important and why it is accepted in every court in the land as the best scientific process used to validate witness accounts.


[edit on 24-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by newagent89
Cameronfox's analogy was just fine.

No it wasn't.

We're not discussing multiple witnesses in this thread. It's all about the recollections of a single witness, Lloyde, and his testimony.

Remember that Lloyde is the only person, on record, who has ever stated that there was a light pole hanging from his taxi's smashed windscreen. No one else can confirm this story.

reply to post by CameronFox


Unless you can prove to me how all operatives, assets, dupes or patsies were treated in all covert operations throughout history you have no authority or data on which to base such wild assumptions.

I provide independent verifiable evidence.

Your provide speculation, faulty logic, and pure unadulterated faith in what the government tells you.

That makes me the critical thinking skeptic and you the conspiracy theorist who prefers faith over evidence.

reply to post by tezzajw


Ahh good point.

Clearly it's a completely irrelevant analogy whether considering Lloyde OR the north side evidence.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


You stated this:

"They can't kill everyone who was involved"

Are you aware of anyone that was killed that was involved in 911?


Would you be happy if I change my "assure" word to "my opinion?"

Or lets put it this way:

COMMON SENSE will tell you that trusting an elderly cab driver with the cover up of the biggest mass murder on American soil is not a very good idea.

reply to post by tezzajw


Tezz,

I should have posted the more relevant part of that article:

.............Ted Lopatkiewicz, said it was done because it was ready. But, he added, ''I don't think I'm making any news by saying that eyewitness testimony at a plane crash and probably at many traumatic events is unreliable.''

Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

You stated this:

"They can't kill everyone who was involved"

Are you aware of anyone that was killed that was involved in 911?

YOU are the one who implied they would kill him and disguise it as a natural death.

That is YOUR unsupported conspiracy theory. Not mine.

Would you be happy if I change my "assure" word to "my opinion?"

Or lets put it this way:

COMMON SENSE will tell you that trusting an elderly cab driver with the cover up of the biggest mass murder on American soil is not a very good idea.

Nobody has said that they "trusted" him with anything at all.

You made this up as well.

Furthermore your absurd speculation regarding the notion that Lloyde's age has anything to do with whether or not they would "trust" him when he is only few years older than Dick Cheney and is about the same age as John McCain is beyond baseless.

You are reaching for any excuse to dismiss hard evidence proving a deception due to your pure unadulterated faith in what you are told by the government.

I strongly suggest you brush up on your critical thinking skills because you are not coming off very rational, logical, or skeptical imo.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
YOU are the one who implied they would kill him and disguise it as a natural death.

Yes, and your response was "they could not kill everyone involved." So I asked if you are aware of anyone that has been killed.

Simple yes or no question.

Nobody has said that they "trusted" him with anything at all.

You made this up as well.

No, you did. You are stating that his story is false. You and Aldo say the pole in his car was staged. That this didn't happen. Therefore, Mr. England is aware of some sort of a cover up by the government. He was trusted not to tell anyone what really happened.

I am dismissing your accusation of Lloyde being a liar due to common sense. Try using it some time.

Originally posted by CameronFox

Yes, and your response was "they could not kill everyone involved." So I asked if you are aware of anyone that has been killed.

Simple yes or no question.

It is an irrelevant yes or no question based on YOUR assertion.

I don't follow rabbit holes.

No, you did. You are stating that his story is false. You and Aldo say the pole in his car was staged. That this didn't happen. Therefore, Mr. England is aware of some sort of a cover up by the government. He was trusted not to tell anyone what really happened.

I am dismissing your accusation of Lloyde being a liar due to common sense. Try using it some time.

Wrong again.

We have always said how it's possible he could have been coerced or manipulated in which case it would mean that they didn't trust him.

The evidence proves Lloyde's story false.

Assumptions regarding his exact level of involvement are unnecessary and do nothing to refute the evidence proving his story false.

Where do they have unanimously the same story? That line is almost straight out of Pentacon. Three witnesses strongly seem to implicate a collision. If they are right (off topic) then how to explain a south side directed damage hole? What is easier to forget? Seeing a plane hit a building or remembering which direction it came from? (end off topic)

The faulty reasoning is like this: A person saw X and Y.X and Y could not have both happened—it is impossible.Therefore X happened and Y did not.


As for CameronFox: CameronFox's analogy goes to show why one man's story may not line up and understanding the psychology on why this is.

The first sentence in a magazine needs to be a grabber of attention. No, no one in this article was saying that each and every person saw a radically different event. It simply headlined that there were hundreds of different stories from different perspectives.

His analogy directly correlates to the concept of 9/11 witnesses being unclear on what they saw which has everything to do with the cabbie.

The title: For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing"

Tricks of memory are referenced.

"'Eyewitness memory is reconstructive', said Dr. Honts, who is not associated with the safety board. The biggest mistake you can make is to think about a memory like it's a videotape; there's not a permanent record there.

The problem, he said, is that witnesses instinctively try to match events with their past experiences: How many plane crashes have you witnessed in real life? Probably none. But in the movies? A lot. In the movies, there's always smoke and there's always fire.

As a result, the safety board generally doesn't place much value on eyewitness reports if data and voice recorders are available. For many investigators, the only infallible witness is a twisted piece of metal."

reply to post by newagent89



All the witnesses unanimously report that the plane was on the north side.

The extremely simple and general detail is unanimously corroborated by all independently confirmed accounts and proves a military deception.


Another obvious problem with the analogy is the context.

In the example provided they are referencing a regular plane crash that is not suspected as being involved in a deliberate military black operation of deception.

Since the north side approach has been unanimously corroborated, and this simple claim alone most certainly does prove a military deception....there is simply no comparison between the events.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


craig,

the physical evidence proves your NoC witnesses wrong.

lloyd's story supports the physical evidence and refute that of the NoC witnesses.

i was not trying to get you into a rabbits hole sir, I was simply asking for you to follow up your quote regarding not killing everyone involved.

let me ask you craig...if you don't mind a hypothetical question:

would you use and trust someone like lloyd england with the fact that you have just committed the largest slaughter, cover-up, and deception in american history?

thank you in advance for your candid response.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by newagent89

 

All the witnesses unanimously report that the plane was on the north side.

All of the eyewitnesses reported it crashed into the Pentagon.

The extremely simple and general detail is unanimously corroborated by all independently confirmed accounts and proves a military deception.

Not by any evidence so far presented.

Since the north side approach has been unanimously corroborated, and this simple claim alone most certainly does prove a military deception....there is simply no comparison between the events.

Eyewitnesses who saw AA77 hit the Pentagon proves a "military deception" just how?

Originally posted by newagent89
As for CameronFox: CameronFox's analogy goes to show why one man's story may not line up and understanding the psychology on why this is.

Cameron's example was useless with respect to Lloyde.

Either Lloyde did have a light pole sticking out of his window, which no one else saw, or Lloyde didn't have a light pole sticking out of his window, so he's a liar.

The interview with Lloyde showed that he was prepared to deny verified pictures of his taxi's location. There is something fishy with Lloyde's story, so introducing off topic analogies that relate to OTHER plane crashes are useless.

We are getting off topic. I considered responding but lets stay with the cab driver. I obviously will not convince you that the analogy was fine when it comes to understanding how witness accounts (one witness's account) in this sort of situation work(s).