Interview w/cab driver Lloyd England in: "The First Known Accomplice?"

Craig Ranke CIT

Padawan Learner
In addition to the historical interviews we present in The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version we have released our interview with Lloyd England the infamous cab driver who claims his windshield was speared by light pole #1 after it was hit by a jet airliner on the way to the Pentagon.

239a.jpg


We interviewed Lloyd at his home with Dylan Avery last year.

IMG_9246.jpg


We didn't obtain the interviews with the citgo witnesses until a couple of months later so at the time we did not have proof that that plane flew on the north side of the gas station making it impossible to have hit light pole #1.


goodstuff.jpg



Bottom line it is impossible for the plane to have hit light pole one at all if it was anywhere near where all of the citgo witnesses place it.

In light of this evidence the debate about what happened at the Pentagon comes down to whether you choose to believe Lloyd or the citgo witnesses.

Take a look at our presentation with Lloyd's interview so you can determine the answer for yourself.

"The First Known Accomplice?"
 
Hi, I'd love to "take a look" but I can't. We have a satellite for internet and limited download bandwidth, so we aren't allowed to watch video thingies.
 
Ah. Unfortunate. I highly recommend you go to a friends house or something. This information is absolutely critical and Lloyd's interview will make your skin crawl.
 
Craig Ranke CIT said:
Don't be scurred!

What do you guys think of Lloyd's account?
It is false. He is lying and at times uncomfortable with some of the questions regarding practical matters of his story prompting non-recollection on his part.

Lloyd claims that the pole was lodged in the car and went through the passenger seat into the backseat, and then his wife shares photos of an intact passenger seat. Nevermind the fact that if the pole was sticking out the way he describes it it would act as a giant lever and crush the dash and hood and possible lift up the back of the car if it was really stuck in the seat.
Then there is the fact that these poles are just very heavy to begin with (see VDOT yard clip at http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic4.htm) and a mysterious stranger who doesn't speak helps him get it out.

It is quite interesting that Lloyd is in disbelief about the fact that there are no scratches on the hood. It makes me wonder if this reaction is his unconscious way of mocking the story he was told to tell. He does this also when talking about the plane hitting the Pentagon where he is in disbelief that the whole plane just disappeared into that small hole.

I come away with the impression that he is spinning a tale, knows it but will never change it.
I also wonder if maybe his wife (who works for the FBI) showed the pictures of the car on purpose and that it is her way of helping to show that the official story and that of her husband is bogus.

Patiently waiting for the researcher's version of the Pentacon.
 
Hi Craig:

Craig >> In addition to the historical interviews we present in The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version we have released our interview with Lloyd England the infamous cab driver who claims his windshield was speared by light pole #1 after it was hit by a jet airliner on the way to the Pentagon.
I am not buying any of this “Lloyd-bashing” Staged Light Pole Nonsense for one minute and neither should anyone here. Hopefully this Board does not end up with a hundred “Lloyd-bashing” Threads like we see over at the Loose Change Board ( _http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showforum=12 ) where these guys are no longer posting (being kind). Lloyd England is a 9/11 Pentagon ‘Survivor’ ( _http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=78448 ) and the victim of a series of freaky events that make him appear to be lying, when he is telling the 911Truth from his perspective with only good intentions towards everyone hearing his story. Please allow me to stand as Lloyd’s champion and explain exactly what happened to this 69-year old taxi driver of over 40 years, so you are not easily tricked by my debating adversaries bent on destroying this man’s good name and fine character.

Lloyd was driving south on Washington Avenue towards the Route 27 overpass/cloverleaf at 9:31 AM between 40 and 50 miles per hour, when suddenly he saw a big airplane flying ‘dangerously low’ coming from his right (south) up ahead. Little did he know that he was about to have an encounter with a Retrofitted Remote-controlled A-3 Skywarrior painted up to look like an American Airlines Jetliner:

AA_Painted_A3_Jet.jpg


These Jets are about 75 feet long and about 75 feet wide ‘before’ the retrofitting process ( ), which means up close they look very big flying just 20 feet off the ground. Lloyd did not realize the A-3 Remote Controlled Jet had released a Missile ( _http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/aim54.jpg ) after descending from 7000 feet in just 2.5 minutes on this tight circular flight path , so both the missile and this plane could strike the Pentagon simultaneously at 9:31:39 AM ‘and’ bring the E-Ring roof down in one single smooth attack. The DoD bad guys realized the missile had to be launched miles away from the Pentagon, so the A-3 Jet could fly ahead for the visual effect, so the missile could then achieve supersonic speed and catch up in the final moments of the attack. Voltaire.net describes the three phases of missile flight here (_http://www.voltairenet.org/article139203.html#article139203 = “A cruise missile of a recent . . .”). This A-3-launched missile was following the A-3 and about to turn on the afterburners and strike CL 11 in under one second from the far side of the Route 27 cloverleaf using the ‘South Of Citgo Flight Path.’


The 9:31:39 AM Decoy Flyover Plane taking the ‘black’ flight path is the same A-3 Jet taking the ‘blue’ North Of Citgo Flight Path just 4 minutes and 48 seconds later, because the bad guys had something go wrong during the original Jet/Missile Strike. They failed to realize that the accelerating missile would create an enormous ‘bow shockwave’ on this ‘green’ flight path that forced the missile between the large sign and Pole #1 on the ‘south’ side like this:

Pole1ForceSideDemo.jpg


While there is fifty feet between the large Route 27 signposts and Pole #1 atop the picture, the 45-degree Flight Path narrowed that dimension down to just 10 feet. Lloyd is coming from the north at about 50 miles per hour, when the missile overtook the Remote-controlled A-3 Jet and the missile bow shockwave uprooted Pole #1 to pop the thing straight up into the air and into the A-3 Jet starboard engine/wing flying just above these light poles on the way to striking CL 11. Look carefully at the trajectory angle to realize the A-3 Jet is flying the same northbound parallel flight path with the starboard wingtip very near the white line, so the engine struck only the upper arm section of the light pole already on its own flight path heading straight down the middle of Washington Avenue straight in Lloyd’s oncoming direction. The lens cap was knocked off the upper light pole assembly at initial impact to fall straight down and have the lens break in this very location. The manner in which the A-3 Jet engine struck the upper arm assembly caused the pole base to become a projectile like a javelin thrown by an Olympian with the heavier bottom section following the lighter upper section straight into Lloyd’s windshield. However, the ‘bend’ you see in the light pole was started by the ‘breaking off’ clipping action from the original impact, which caused the light pole to spin around towards Lloyd’s driver-side door without ever striking the hood at all.

A section of glass wrapped around the light pole ‘spear-end’ to spare the leather seats from the rough metal edges where most of the weight was caught by the steering column and the angle at which the pole slid around towards Lloyd’s driver-side door. This twisting action caused the light pole to ‘bend’ even more than from the original clipping impact from the A-3 starboard engine that was never touched by the missile or the Jet at any time during this very freaky series of events. The strangest part of the story is that Lloyd gathered himself to make the right-hand turn very quickly to avoid the detached upper arm assembly tumbling down the center of Washington Avenue, until he stopped the taxi and Pole #1 was carried right back to where the journey began. :0) The silent helper from the white van jumped over the concrete median dividers to give the old man a hand removing the light pole, when exactly 4 minutes and 48 seconds after the original attack the A-3 had circled around to strike CL 11 with both men looking ‘north’ in the opposite direction to become Lloyd’s “Big Boom” ( _http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=78448 ). That marked the time that Lloyd was almost killed by Pole #1 for the ‘second time’ in just five minutes, but why did the A-3 Jet strike the Pentagon 5 minutes after the original attack??

The A-3 Jet was supposed to hit the Pentagon just after the 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike, because the DoD needed the Flying A-3 BOMB to explode just after the Missile detonated inside the E-Ring wall. This ‘dual action’ attack would cause the E-Ring wall to move ‘outward’ towards the Pentagon lawn AND collapse, as all the columns from CL 9 to CL 17 ( _http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/compmix2.jpg ) were taken out simultaneously. The DoD intended target inside the Pentagon included the Navy Operations Center, The Defense Intelligence Agency ( _http://911research.com/sept11/victims/docs/pentagon_victims.jpg ) with all the ‘accountant-types’ ( _http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011216pentagonp4.asp ) responsible for tracking down the missing 2.3 Trillion dollars (_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU ). The DoD ‘outside’ target was CL 11 where the control joint ( _http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoFight2-5.jpg ) runs from the footing to the roof and a perfect strike would mean an instant E-Ring roof collapse. The A-3 Remote-control operator had problems when the missile blew by the A-3 Jet just before crossing the Route 27 Overpass right in front of Lloyd’s oncoming taxi, because the missile bow shockwave and turbulence caused his plane to shake violently and lose altitude. Pole #1 was bounced up into the air by the missile bow shockwave and the Remote-control operative tried to maneuver through the light pole field using a quick ‘right-turn’ action that lowered the starboard wing. This caused the A-3 Jet to clip Pole 2, 3, 4 and 5 in a single second when the starboard wing was lowered.

Clipping off these poles caused the A-3 to lose even more altitude and the operator was afraid the Jet would crash into the ground exposing the entire inside job operation, so he lifted the nose and did everything to bring the A-3 over the E-Ring wall. DoD Plan A had been transformed into a desperate attempt to circle the A-3 around for a second attack by flying below radar for exactly 4 minutes and 48 seconds, until the operator used the North of Citgo Flight Path to strike CL 11 and create Lloyd’s “Big Boom.” This is the attack run seen by many witnesses ( _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD0qpbwHCYI , _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=schV0rKCRwA ), but what appeared to Lloyd as a “Big Plane” up close was described as a ‘small commuter plane’ from a distance. In ‘both cases’ Lloyd had his back turned to the action and cannot tell you to this day what really hit the Pentagon. However, people accusing Lloyd England of being an inside job accomplice bad guy need to stop demonizing an innocent 9/11 Pentagon ‘Survivor’ over your own inability to accurately determine ‘the 911Truth’ from ‘all’ the combined evidence. The knee-jerk reaction is to jump to the conclusion that Lloyd is a LIAR and the pole evidence was planted, when in truth there is an explanation that solves all the seeming contradictions where every Pentagon witness is telling ‘the 911Truth’ from his particular perspective. Our job as 911Truth Investigators is to gather all the evidence and to solve this case apart from demonizing the very Pentagon Survivors we should be working to support and defend from ridiculous claims that they are inside job murderers, just because our current theories do not match the evidence.

I hope more people will join me in defending Lloyd England and all the Pentagon witnesses from brutal attacks against their names and credibility in our concerted efforts to discover, present and defend the 911Truth.

Terral
 
Lloyd's "champion"? Protecting "all" the Pentagon witnesses from "brutal" attacks?

Is this guy kidding?

Terral has never spoken with Lloyd or any of the witnesses.

He is not a legitimate researcher or investigator.

He is an anonymous forum hound who appeared out of nowhere a couple months ago with a clear mission to cast doubt, neutralize, sow confusion, and directly attack the research of CIT.

He has been relentless and non-stop in this mission by following me to each and every forum. Typically he uses even harsher rhetoric than he has so far here with constant immature ad hominem attacks, name calling, complete with teenage style illustrations that he makes with our names, text bubbles, and the 3 monkeys covering up their ears, eyes, and mouths.

When he first appeared he spoke of no A-3 sky warrior or drone of any sort or of a decoy flyover plane.

I sent him an email to discuss the evidence over the phone and he called me a couple days later to see if he would tone down the attacks.

I told him details about our on site investigation and he simply called me "passionate", hung up the phone, had a small email dialog with me where he conceded that I may be right...........and then went right back to the forums with stepped up and more aggressive personal attacks while INCORPORATING the notion of a decoy flyover into his convoluted hypothesis.

It seems he has realized that it is not effective to join a forum as a brand new member and be such an antagonist so he has clearly made a conscious effort to leave out the teenager style names and images so far but a cursory look at the Loose Change forum will show you his typical method of attack.

When he addresses our research he refuses to address the data directly and insists on simply pushing his own extremely complex and convoluted "theories" based on no evidence or real investigation mixed with hard rhetoric and an authoritative tone.

He has chosen to assume all mainstream media accounts as valid and question none.

We do not "demonize" or "brutally attack" ANY of the witnesses OR anyone in the movement.

We simply report the evidence whether or not it is controversial or hard to accept.

Terral is playing on people's emotions to make it look like we are the irrational aggressors when nothing could be farther from the truth. We have presented plenty more genuine witnesses as opposed to ones we believe are plants.

Terral relentlessly defends the account of opus dei influenced priest Stephen McGraw and anyone who has been exposed in serious contradictions based off the evidence.

So I have a question for you Terral.........

We understand if you have refused to entertain the notion that Lloyd's scene was staged but what witnesses DO you believe are suspect?

Please lay them out and explain why because surely there would have to have been SOME witnesses that were involved with an operation this complex, no?

Please do tell.
 
domivr said:
Craig Ranke CIT said:
Don't be scurred!

What do you guys think of Lloyd's account?
It is false. He is lying and at times uncomfortable with some of the questions regarding practical matters of his story prompting non-recollection on his part.
My impression is that Lloyd is telling the truth as far as he understands it. I also get the impression that Lloyd is either the victim of some form of mind programming or he experienced some kind of high strangeness as part of his experiences at the Pentagon.

I commend the CIT guys for their efforts in attempting to get some real data, but I would caution about making definitive statements about certain aspects of the events of that day, Lloyd England being one. At the end of the interview with Lloyd, the CIT guys sum with the text: "the implications are clear". I don't think anyone has yet begun to understand the deeper implications of the disturbing and sometimes impossibly contradictory evidence around the 9/11 event.

Basically, I don't think we can get to the bottom of it by relying on linear deductive reasoning.

Joe
 
Except that we are not relying on linear deductive reasoning.

We are relying on proof via hard evidence.

1. Lloyd's account is physically impossible.
2. The plane has been proven to be too far from the poles to have hit them by multiple independently corroborated accounts.
3. There is not a single eyewitness who reports seeing the pole entering the cab or being removed from the cab by Lloyd to support Lloyd's story.
4. The physical damage to the poles indicates pre-fabrication.


There is nothing linear or deductive about this reasoning.

It's perfectly alright to assume or suggest that Lloyd is an innocent victim of brainwashing if it makes the ugly truth easier to accept.

Contrary to what Terral says we are not out to demonize Lloyd nor do we hold him responsible for the crimes of 9/11.

But due to the evidence.....the implications most certainly are clear.

The light poles were clearly not a random occurrence or direct result of the violent event.
 
Perhaps I was being a little too cryptic. I agree that it is unlikely that the light poles were knocked over by a plane. I do not think that the idea that Lloyd is an innocent victim of brainwashing makes the ugly truth easier to accept, I think it suggests that the truth is significantly more complex, frightening and ugly than it would be if we assume that he is simply lying. From the interview it seems to me that Lloyd had a very strange and troubling experience on the road in front of the Pentagon that day, an experience that he himself honestly cannot explain properly.

What I am saying is that the forces that were involved in the planning and perpetration of the 9/11 attacks have access to technology that few if any 9/11 investigators take into consideration when attempting to piece together the details of what happened that day.

Joe
 
On the contrary, Craig, the process you describe 1-4 is a perfect example of linear deductive reasoning. That's not a criticism, linear deductive reasoning is precisely what's needed to solve crimes.

What Joe meant, if I understand him correctly, is linear deductive reasoning ALONE isn't enough when dealing with something of this magnitude.

Craig Ranke CIT said:
Except that we are not relying on linear deductive reasoning.

We are relying on proof via hard evidence.

1. Lloyd's account is physically impossible.
2. The plane has been proven to be too far from the poles to have hit them by multiple independently corroborated accounts.
3. There is not a single eyewitness who reports seeing the pole entering the cab or being removed from the cab by Lloyd to support Lloyd's story.
4. The physical damage to the poles indicates pre-fabrication.


There is nothing linear or deductive about this reasoning.
 
DonaldJHunt said:
On the contrary, Craig, the process you describe 1-4 is a perfect example of linear deductive reasoning. That's not a criticism, linear deductive reasoning is precisely what's needed to solve crimes.

What Joe meant, if I understand him correctly, is linear deductive reasoning ALONE isn't enough when dealing with something of this magnitude.
Prezactly

Joe
 
Joe said:
What I am saying is that the forces that were involved in the planning and perpetration of the 9/11 attacks have access to technology that few if any 9/11 investigators take into consideration when attempting to piece together the details of what happened that day.

Joe
I agree and I agree that Lloyd being brainwashed makes it more complex.

It's just that this is a typical reaction that we get from individuals who are reluctant to accept the fact that a seemingly nice old man like Lloyd could be willingly involved with an operation so heinous yet are unable to reconcile the evidence.

It's easy to accuse "the government" but when a real face of an every day person is put to this crime people tend to shut down.

Terral knows this and he sees this as a vulnerable point in the information that we present so he seizes on that, exaggerates our claims about the evidence surrounding Lloyd as "accusations" in an attempt to paint CIT as the bad guys or a reckless "hit squad".

It's a brilliant attempt to manipulate and no doubt it works with some. Clearly it didn't with you and Laura and for that I commend you.

Although I agree that the suspects in question clearly have access to unknown technology......there is enough evidence to prove a military deception without going there.

We can never prove unknown technology.

And it is not our responsibility to prove every detail of how the operation was carried out.

CIT is focused on uncovering fatal contradictions that prove a deception and in fact we've already done this and have even more solid evidence to release from our trip last week as well.
 
DonaldJHunt said:
There is nothing linear or deductive about this reasoning.
Well......I see it as deductive reasoning but not linear since we have more than one line of evidence proving a deception with the light poles.

And perhaps that may be the case when considering this operation as a whole but we can never figure out exactly how the entire operation was carried out.

That is impossible.

We can only uncover fatal contradictions in their story proving a deception and that is what we have done with the north side claim, the light poles, Lloyd's account, and the entire flight path in general as compared to the 2006 NTSB data and the recently released RADES data.

The more information they release the easier it is to definitively catch them in lies.
 
Back
Top Bottom