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

Originally posted by tezzajw
I guess for now, only Lloyde really knows what happened, right?

Apparently not. Craig seems to really know what happened, right? Isn't that what this whole thread is about? Craig *knowing* that Lloyd is a bald-faced liar and Aldo calling Lloyd a *deep cover operative* or whatever the term is he likes to use?

reply to post by pinch


Excuse me?

We said no such thing.

You are lying about what we said which is why you did not quote us.

I'm going to have to demand that you quote and source us or concede that you simply made it up.

Lloyde was called a liar from people on this forum:

SPreston:

In this new interview, poor Lloyde obviously understands that his original tale will not work, so he tries to move himself and his taxicab down the road and over to the now PROVEN decoy aircraft flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, even though all the photos and videos taken on 9-11-2001 trap him on the south side of the Hwy 27 overpass where no aircraft ever did fly and no aircraft ever did knock down the five light poles.

source

Aldo:

..........
That's what I was addressing, not what proves Lloyd is lying. We already know everything that proves he is lying or being dishonest.

source

And the term Also used was: "Asset" in regards to Mr. England.

reply to post by CameronFox


SPreston is not Aldo nor is he a member of CIT.

Furthermore you have not provided a quote where we specifically said that Lloyde is for sure an asset or a "deep cover operative".

pinch made that up and did not source it and neither have you.

The fact that the evidence proves Lloyde's story false has no bearing on the fact that pinch lied about what we said.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


i never said SPreston was CIT. Just showing that he called Lloyde a liar.

Here is the quote from Aldo in response to this question:

"This man is the farthest thing from a govt agent I have ever seen. "

Aldo's Response:

How about an asset? How just a broke old cab driver who is easily enticed by large sums of money? How about coerced? How about manipulated? Nice strawman, no one from CIT called him a "gov't agent". Get a grip.

source

Yes Aldo, a member of CIT called Lloyde a liar.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by CameronFox]

reply to post by CameronFox


The evidence proves Lloyde's story false which most certainly implicates him as a liar.

I never denied that.

However pinch lied by stating we called him a "deep cover operative" without quoting or sourcing us.

You have failed to prove him correct.

In fact you have done the opposite by showing how we specifically stated that we have NOT called him a "deep cover operative" OR a "government agent".

Thanks for proving pinch wrong and me right by quoting and sourcing us appropriately.

Nice strawman, no one from CIT called him a "gov't agent". Get a grip.

source

Thanks for clearing that up for everyone.

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

lloyde and his wife practically admitted a cover-up.

the wife acknowledged the flyover, when she said, "yeah, what you said", and lloyde said, "it was for them, not for you and me...., the people with the big money, ...i'm not one of them" in regards to the whole day's events. when pressed, lloyde started to sound like he was trying to skinny out of from between a rock and a hard place.
i feel sorry for him. he knows if he tells the truth, he will be killed. he also knows what CIT is all about, and yet he seems to WANT to talk to craig, and show CIT as much information as he can. i think he is looking for truth to find the back door exit.

his story obviously doesn't add up, and he outright denies photographic proof of where he and his car were.

for lloyde to be telling the truth, there would have to be TWO taxis, and TWO lookalike drivers. he says he wasn't on the bridge. so, i think EVERYONE can agree that's either, yes, a LIE, OR, there were TWO cabs and TWO drivers.

that level of complexity in the plot is clearly beyond probability, therefore, it is highly likely that lloyde is lying. yet, he wants to cover his arse from both ways. he is safe from the shadow assassins as long as he sticks to the light pole bit, and 'safe' from the north of citgo proof as long as he says his cab was not on the bridge. the contradiction in possible realities doesn't seem to bother him too much. ie. no poles were knocked over where he says he was, and where the poles were knocked over is where he was photographed only moments after the explosion.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I never said you called him a government agent.

BUT, you have to agree that you both think he works for the government some how. You both imply that he is "covering up the heinous crimes" of the United States Government. Yes?

Originally posted by CameronFox
I never said you called him a government agent.

Good. Thanks for clarifying that.

BUT, you have to agree that you both think he works for the government some how. You both imply that he is "covering up the heinous crimes" of the United States Government. Yes?

What's your point, Cameron?

Aren't people allowed to have opinions on a conspiracy discussion forum? Opinions expressed as opinions are valid. Making claims is a little different, that's when you need proof to be taken seriously.

They're allowed to think that Lloyde works for the government, if they want to. Stating it as fact is another matter.

How do you reconcile Lloyde's story when he denies the photographic evidence placing his taxi in a different location to where he says it was?

Originally posted by billybob
he is safe from the shadow assassins ........

Hi Billy,

This is where is gets a little silly in my opinion:

-Because of Lloyde's age, he can get the early bird special at many restaurants.

-Lloyde lives a pretty humble, modest life as a cab driver.

-His wife allegedly works for the FBI.

Let's look at the probability of him as a cover for the U.S. Government. If you are planning on orchestrating not only the mass murder of your own people...but a mass murder of your own people via a deception, would you trust an old cabbie to one of, if not THE most biggest secrets in the history of the United States?

Ok, for "poopies and giggles" let's say you do. Why keep him around? The man is now in his 70's I believe. HE can very easily have a "heart attack" or a "stroke." Why risk it?

reply to post by CameronFox


We have evidence proving his story false.

We have said time and time again that we don't know his exact level of involvement and that it's even possible that he was coerced or manipulated which would in essence make him a victim.

pinch lied about our claims without quoting or sourcing us and you helped prove this to be the case.

Thank you for that.

reply to post by tezzajw


Hi Tezz,

Please see my reasons above.

I have nothing against anyone's opinion. I may disagree with it, and therefore offer mine in response.

You would have to say that it is obvious that I don't agree with CIT's flyover.

In regards to Mr. England and his story; he is not very young. He was trying to recall events from over 7 years prior. Yes, a very traumatic event that people don't just forget.

Mr. England sounded very confused while Craig was showing him maps. He had a hard time locating places on the map.

I just see it as a massive leap to believe the US Government would attempt not on only a massive attack and cover up...but a deception. Too many things would go wrong. (and as Craig has pointed out, did go wrong)

just my 2 cents

Originally posted by CameronFox

Let's look at the probability of him as a cover for the U.S. Government. If you are planning on orchestrating not only the mass murder of your own people...but a mass murder of your own people via a deception, would you trust an old cabbie to one of, if not THE most biggest secrets in the history of the United States?

Ok, for "poopies and giggles" let's say you do. Why keep him around? The man is now in his 70's I believe. HE can very easily have a "heart attack" or a "stroke." Why risk it?

Why are you asking billy or any of us to speculate regarding what the perpetrators would do?

Dismissing evidence in favor of speculation is not very logical and shows your blatant disregard for critical thinking principles.

The evidence proves Lloyde's story false.

That is the fact that you can not refute and no amount speculation or argument from incredulity changes the evidence that implicates Lloyde.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

We have evidence proving his story false.

We have said time and time again that we don't know his exact level of involvement and that it's even possible that he was coerced or manipulated which would in essence make him a victim.

Coerced, manipulated, etc...no matter...you are claiming that he is not being truthful. I don't have a problem with you or Also calling him a liar. Just wanted to clear things up a bit.

I am okay with that. You have a right to your opinion. I will once again state how insane it would be for the US Government to entrust an elderly cab driver with the biggest secret in history of this country.

pinch lied about our claims without quoting or sourcing us and you helped prove this to be the case.

He was inaccurate with the words he used, but he did place them inside asterisks.

Thank you for that.

Hey, no problem.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Craig,

We can look at the entire NoC witnesses, RADES, etc etc. We are talking about Lloyde. Yes, it all ties into your theory, but I thought we would stay on topic with Mr. England.

I don't want to sound like a parrot, but there is no way in hell that such a massive event like the mass murder of thousands of Americans would be allowed to be shared with a man like Lloyde England.

Sorry Craig, I can't buy it. You do hard work and you do what you think is right.



[edit on 24-11-2008 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by CameronFox


Mr. England sounded very confused while Craig was showing him maps. He had a hard time locating places on the map.

I just see it as a massive leap to believe the US Government would attempt not on only a massive attack and cover up...but a deception. Too many things would go wrong. (and as Craig has pointed out, did go wrong)

No such "leap" was made as the evidence proving Lloyde's story false has nothing whatsoever to do with his recollection of the event.

It is based on the evidence proving the plane was nowhere near the light poles.

You have provided nothing to refute this evidence and therefore have only demonstrated your lack of regard for critical thinking principles with a propensity to dismiss evidence based on faulty logic....in this case an argument from incredulity.



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

Originally posted by CameronFox
He was trying to recall events from over 7 years prior. Yes, a very traumatic event that people don't just forget.

If people don't forget the event, then how could Lloyde incorrectly recall the events?

Your two sentences, combined, don't make sense. If people don't 'just forget', then you can't claim that Lloyde struggled to remember the details!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
No such "leap" was made as the evidence proving Lloyde's story false has nothing whatsoever to do with his recollection of the event.

The "leap" is assuming the government would trust this man after committing such an elaborate earth shattering event.

You have provided nothing to .......

Please note where I stated my "opinion."

Originally posted by CameronFox


The "leap" is assuming the government would trust this man after committing such an elaborate earth shattering event.

That's not a leap at all.

Obviously they can't kill everyone who was involved.

Please note where I stated my "opinion."

Yes I understand that.

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.

reply to post by tezzajw


Sorry Tezz.... I am a little rushed today, trying to goof off at work and get stuff done.

Please read this article...sort of what I meant:

in part:

June 23, 2002

Ideas & Trends; For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing
By MATTHEW L. WALD

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.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, which announced this month that it had gathered 349 eyewitness accounts through interviews or written statements, 52 percent said they saw a fire while the plane was in the air. The largest number (22 percent) said the fire was in the fuselage, but a majority cited other locations, including the left engine, the right engine, the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified engine or wing.

Nearly one of five witnesses said they saw the plane make a right turn; an equal number said it was a left turn. Nearly 60 percent said they saw something fall off the plane; of these, 13 percent said it was a wing. (In fact, it was the vertical portion of the tail.)

The investigators say there is no evidence in the wreckage or on the flight recorders of an in-flight fire or explosion. A plane breaking up in flight, as this one did, might in its last moments produce flashes of fire from engines ripping loose, but the idea that the plane caught fire is a trick of memory, they say.

None of this is surprising, said Dr. Charles R. Honts, a professor of psychology at Boise State University and the editor of the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology. 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.

source

Hope that clears it up a little.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by CameronFox]