Lloyde England: A scripted conspiracy theory

A scriptwriter will often work backwards from the conclusion of a scene to build a realistic version of events based on available facts or fiction contained within the script. If I were scripting a screenplay, which dealt with the taxi cab driver Lloyde England's version of events concerning the attack on the Pentagon, I would deal firstly with the absolute documented facts based on his own admissions, photographs, statements and the physical evidence at hand. The rest would be pure speculation. Here's a 'treatment' of one possible fictional scenario -- the game is to punch holes in my scenario:

Treatment:

Lloyde England, taxi driver, pulls his taxi cab into his driveway one evening. He enters his house, makes a cup of coffee and turns on the television.
His wife, Shirley England, enters. She announces to Lloyde that her boss at the FBI, where she works, has invited Lloyde to participate in a citizen's awareness class (Lloyde actually did attend some similar kind of class). She then excitedly tells Lloyde that he will be paid to attend the seminars, and that he was chosen because he is a taxi driver in a sensitive area, often in close proximity to the Pentagon, and that he could be in a position to report suspicious events or even passengers. Lloyde agrees to attend the class.
At the class Lloyde is assessed for his vulnerability to cooperate with authorities in a special mission. Lloyde is then offered substantial reimbursement, together with employment advancement opportunities for his wife Shirley at the FBI. He is further advised that his taxi cab is needed for a couple of days to be prepared for a some kind of mock exercise, but he is assured that he will be very generously reimbursed for any damage to the taxi, and in fact also be provided with a new cab. He agrees.
Lloyd is then segregated from the rest of the class and attends further seminars where, although he is not told of the actual exercise, he is fed a script on a 'need to know' basis. He is totally confused, but because it's only an exercise and the rewards are lucrative, he participates.
Lloyde surrenders his cab to the FBI, and on the morning of September 11, 2001 he is picked up by a driver who declines to speak to him but takes him to a final briefing point. He is told exactly what to say and although quite bewildered and now a little scared he listens as he is warned of the dire consequences of deviating from the now much rehearsed script.
Lloyd is then driven by a driver in a white van, who remains completely silent, past a roadblock and down the road to where he sees his cab is skewed across the road. The windshield is smashed and a damaged light pole lies beside his cab. Lloyde is then left to wait for the parade of authorities and photographers who will attend the site, and Lloyde has no alternative other than to offer the account that he has been coached to give.

reply to post by Fahrenheit451


Couple of important points....

If that were the case Lloyde wouldn't have shown so much glee in the attention he would get from numerous mainstream media outlets as well as us.

I spent many hours with this man and one thing for sure he never expressed fear or remorse.

In fact he was very proud of his involvement on 9/11 as you can see the big ear to ear grin on his face when we are in the car on the way to go see the cab and he says that this was an event for the "people with all the money" and that he is "in it".

Also....

The Pentagon attack was almost an hour after the 1st plane hit the WTC and over 30 minutes after the 2nd plane hit confirming the nation was under attack.

So at the time of the Pentagon incident everyone was well aware that the nation was under attack, for real. No exercise.

Furthermore....

He was not married to Shirley on 9/11 and she did not even live with him at the time.

They were seeing each other at the time but he didn't marry her until after 9/11.

He told me that he misses his late first wife (the mother of all his children) and when I asked him what Shirley does for the FBI he said "we don't talk about it".

He told me that he married her because he had no reason to say no because she "doesn't drink or smoke".

For the benefit of readers here who may not be aware of our incredible encounter with this critical central figure in the Pentagon attack please view this full-length feature presentation:

Google Video Link

Thanks Craig,
Seems I'll have to modify the script a little. Whilst we're on the witnesses, I did want to know why you didn't ask Stephen McGraw whose funeral he was en route to attend on September 11? I later read that it was one of the fallen US soldiers, so I'm assuming that you knew this at the time of the interview.
My point is that having arranged both Catholic funerals for my late parents, I know that it is the relatives that invite the priest to officiate at the funeral. Given that this funeral was for a member of the military, was Stephen McGraw appointed by the military to attend and what did the relatives of the deceased have to say about this, considering his particular sect?
Sorry if I'm a little off the 'Lloyde England' topic here, but in the general category of witnesses, I have consistently read that Stephen McGraw and all the USA Today witnesses were virtually stalled in bumper to bumper traffic. I'm a retired editor and journalist, and know full well that this would have been a prime opportunity for those USA Today journalists to interview any one of the motorists who had reportedly alighted from their cars after the attack. So are there any interviews of the multitudes of drivers from the stationary vehicles who must have also witnessed the event? And importantly are there any interviews of these witnesses that were conducted by those particular USA Today reporters? And what are we to make of that video from the Pentagon Hotel, which clearly shows traffic speeding along in both directions -- not stalled at all --- as the Pentagon is impacted?

Cheers

reply to post by Fahrenheit451


To be honest we interviewed McGraw very early in our investigation before we had any of the north side evidence.

We now regret not interrogating him about the alleged funeral and whether or not he ever went.

We know for a fact that funerals continued at ANC throughout the morning and afternoon so the notion that he simply abandoned his responsibility to some veteran's family to fraternize with the first responders and loiter around the attack scene etc is unconscionable.


Frankly I doubt there was any funeral.

As far as the USA Today Parade goes I also doubt that any of them were really on that highway.

Mike Walter is the only one who has proof he was there at all and he was probably in south parking lot waiting for the event to go down before he ran over to the scene to play "witness" for the news cameras.

Originally posted by Fahrenheit451
And what are we to make of that video from the Pentagon Hotel, which clearly shows traffic speeding along in both directions -- not stalled at all --- as the Pentagon is impacted?

To address this...

The doubletree hotel video has no view of route 27 or the alleged impact side (west) of the Pentagon.

The only visible traffic from that video is on 395 on the south side of the Pentagon.

I have doubted the stalled traffic claim in the past as well but at this point I am convinced that traffic northbound on route 27 was indeed stalled at the time of the attack but smooth sailing southbound.

Now whether or not this was somehow deliberately induced we'll never know.

We have an interview with a "soccer mom" that you can see a clip from at the end of our "eye of the storm" presentation and she did confirm to us that traffic northbound was moving very slow.

She was on her cell phone and didn't see any plane at all and thought the Pentagon had been "bombed".

She was right underneath the north side flight path so likely she simply missed the plane while she was on her phone as many would. This is a testament as to how fast the event went down and how confusing it would have been for most.

She made an illegal u-turn on the highway just past the median and traffic going southbound was already blocked in front of the bridge where Lloyde's cab was so she got off the Columbia Pike exit right there and went home.

She had no clue that a plane was involved at all until she got home and turned on the tv and even then she had trouble believing it.





[edit on 13-2-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Mike Walter is the only one who has proof he was there at all and he was probably in south parking lot waiting for the event to go down before he ran over to the scene to play "witness" for the news cameras.

HAHAHAHA

This sums up CIT in one paragraph.

Nice job Craig.

Hey Cameron,
I'm in Australia, and my interest in 9/11 is that considering you now have a new government in the US there may be a renewed push from some parties to clarify certain anomalies connected with the attack. Personally I think the topic is too hot for any government to handle, but I still think you'll see the coals raked over once again.
I don't think you can dismiss all CIT's investigations by summing up one paragraph in a forum.
I'm actually stunned that Craig got to interview all those witnesses, because it would have been very easy for them to fob him off since he has no mainstream backing. So far I haven't seen all the interviews, but just to get these people on camera is fascinating for me. And to see Joel Sucherman of USA Today sitting there wringing his hands nervously at the start of the interview is something I'll never forget. Just what was this media professional so worried about? Even a novice customs inspector at an airport would have spotted this guy's body language and singled him out for a full search.
And I would certainly like to get an alternative opinion on why Lloyde England astonishingly now disputes that he and his taxi were in a completely different location to where the much publicised photographs originally placed him. I say go for it, get everyone you can on camera to shed some light on the entirety of the 9/11 incidents.

Footnote: We're not too familiar with the term "truthers" down here but it does seem to apply to anyone in the US who disputes an official government explanation.
Just a little over 3 weeks after 9/11 the Australian, Howard government invented a story that sea-faring asylum seeking refugees threw their own children overboard to gain sympathy and subsequent entry to Australia. Australians fearing the desperate tactics of asylum seekers rallied to the strict government policy on asylum seekers and re-elected the government in a landslide election. The entire event was proven to be a total fabrication in an investigation by the Australian Senate. Please Google "Children Overboad" Wikipedia.
Not content, the same government tried similar tactics in July 2007 with the upcoming December election in mind: They arrested and imprisoned Dr Mohamed Haneef, held him in solidarity confinement without charge or the right to a lawyer under the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act, which came about as a direct result of the US 9/11 attacks and the so called 'war on terror'; they subsequently deported him to India on terrorist related activities.
This particular fabrication failed to convince the Australian electorate, and in the wake of the event the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, lost the election and in fact lost his own seat. Dr Haneef was cleared of all charges on August 8 2008 by the Australian Federal Police and is currently considering a lawsuit. Please Google Doctor Mohamed Haneef.
And that's the truth.

Cheers

Originally posted by Fahrenheit451

Just a little over 3 weeks after 9/11 the Australian, Howard government invented a story that sea-faring asylum seeking refugees threw their own children overboard to gain sympathy and subsequent entry to Australia. Australians fearing the desperate tactics of asylum seekers rallied to the strict government policy on asylum seekers and re-elected the government in a landslide election. The entire event was proven to be a total fabrication in an investigation by the Australian Senate. Please Google "Children Overboad" Wikipedia.
Not content, the same government tried similar tactics in July 2007 with the upcoming December election in mind: They arrested and imprisoned Dr Mohamed Haneef, held him in solidarity confinement without charge or the right to a lawyer under the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act, which came about as a direct result of the US 9/11 attacks and the so called 'war on terror'; they subsequently deported him to India on terrorist related activities.
This particular fabrication failed to convince the Australian electorate, and in the wake of the event the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, lost the election and in fact lost his own seat. Dr Haneef was cleared of all charges on August 8 2008 by the Australian Federal Police and is currently considering a lawsuit. Please Google Doctor Mohamed Haneef.
And that's the truth.

Cheers

Wow.

Please Google "Children Overboard" Wikipedia.

ETA: What's amazing is how much this story is a PERFECT parallel to the "babies thrown from incubators" hoax that was used to justify the mass murderous war crime that was the first gulf war from Bush 1 and the sanctions that would continue under Clinton.

People don't like it when you mess with babies.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

posted by Craig Ranke CIT

ETA: What's amazing is how much this story is a PERFECT parallel to the "babies thrown from incubators" hoax that was used to justify the mass murderous war crime that was the first gulf war from Bush 1 and the sanctions that would continue under Clinton.

People don't like it when you mess with babies.

Yet the bloodthirsty US War Machine can murder all the innocent babies it wants to, and hordes of government loyalists will stand up and shout for joy and support the atrocities with lies and distortions and deny deny deny.