The precise words of Lloyde were "He was up on the bridge". Note that he doesn't say "He was up on the bridge with me" or even "I saw him up on the bridge". There is another possible interpretation of what he said that should be investigated.

It suggests, but does not quite prove that Lloyde knew his location. There is an assumption that Lloyde knew his neighbor was up on the bridge with Lloyde or that Lloyde knew his neighbor was up on the bridge because he saw him there.

Here is a different interpretation: somehow Lloyde learned that his neighbor was up on the bridge. Did the neighbor later tell Lloyde that he was up on the bridge? But Lloyde at least believed he himself was further north the whole time, which is consistent with his denial of his location shown in the photographs. In that case, Lloyde probably believed that his neighbor must have come down off the bridge over to where Lloyde was to take the pictures. Lloyde was in a daze during the whole process and didn't notice his location when the pictures were being taken.

Lloyde wasn't obviously posing for the pictures, though it is possible he was posing if he noticed the photographers. Did he even know at the time that his neighbor was there taking pictures. Maybe he didn't know until sometime after? (I forget what was said about that.)

A couple more questions of Lloyde and this neighbor would clarify what he meant by saying "He was up on the bridge", but you might have to admit that you were recording it, if he doesn't already know.

What is the background story on this neighbor anyway? He must have taken several more pictures. Why only keep one, the one that he released?

It doesn't make sense to me that "he was supposed to shift his location to the north side" because by doing so, he contradicted the photographic evidence and therefore discredited his whole testimony. If he was supposed to do that, then why go through the whole complicated staging operation at all. If he was supposed to discredit his testimony, is that better for the official lie than what he might have otherwise said? After all, if he agreed with the photos by admitting that he was where they showed he was, that would SUPPORT the official lie, but he steadfastly refused to do that.

At best, you could say it was designed to cause mass confusion. Although there has been mass confusion, I think something else was going on, which I will post in a couple minutes.

By the way, I do believe the 13 north of Citgo witnesses, and that no south side second craft was seen by credible witnesses, and that "the" plane did not sever the light poles, and that the light pole did not consequently impale Lloyde's car in the specific manner we were led to believe. I have in mind another story that makes sense of most of Lloyde's testimony, assuming that he is actually trying to tell as much truth as he can, and it agrees with all the other evidence we have.

care to share?

Here is a story about what Lloyde might have experienced that is consistent with most of what he tells us, and also consistent with the evidence (which I believe) of the 13 credible north-of-citgo witnesses, and the absense of evidence for a second craft on the southern route.


Lloyde was driving south on 27 and when he got to the 244 West exit, a person in the road signaled him to stop just. This point is about the same as the estimated crossing point of the plane that was seen flying by the north side of the Citgo station. (This point is a couple hundred feet north of the southern crossing point of a hypothetical plane that was not seen by credible witnesses along that route.)

Soon after he stopped his car, he saw the plane that was flying north of the Citgo station pass low in front of him, and while he was watching it, he didn't notice that a truck was backing up rapidly toward his car. A severed light pole was mounted on the truck with the top hanging out the back slightly curving down at just the right height to pass over the hood of his car. The top of the pole smashed through his windshield, dash, and into the backseat. The pole was quickly detached from the truck and it drove forward again. The weight of the pole hanging out the front of his car caused it to sag down, bending near the top.

Lloyde was in shock as he got out of his car. A van pulled up on his left (or was it blocking the view of this scene from oncoming traffic on the other side of 27?) and stopped, and the silent driver got out to "help". As they were to trying to remove the pole, Lloyde was drugged with something that knocked him out.

While he was out, he and his car and the pole (or maybe a separate pole) were moved to the southern crossing point, where the light poles where supposedly knocked down by a plane. He was laid on the ground in front of his car, under the pole, and then the van driver left. When Lloyde recovered his senses (the drug had a short-term effect, with some residual after-effects) he got himself out from under the pole thinking he had somehow fallen there. Still dazed, he thought he was still back at the original stopping point, and eventually walking away, he never figured it out.


That's it. Several particulars may need to be adjusted, whether it was drugs or hypnosis, whether it was a truck or a van, whether the pole was bent before the impaling or after, whether he blacked out before or after the extraction. I posted a different variation of this story in the P4T forum, under Alternative Theories.

But the essence of this story is that Lloyde was at least partly telling the truth when he remembered being at that northern crossing point, where he saw the plane and experienced the staged impaling, and subsequently he ended up at the southern crossing point without his knowledge. Watch the videos again with this story in mind and see if it sounds consistent.

Note particularly what he doesn't say. He doesn't say that his car was moving at the time he saw the plane (at least I don't remember that). He says "the plane hit the light poles", but he doesn't say that he saw the plane hit the light poles, so he might have just been concluding that from the official story. He says "where the pole came from before that, I can't say", or something close to that (I'll be watching again to get the exact words). He doesn't say much about the extraction process because maybe he, in fact, does not remember it, or maybe he wasn't actually helping.

He does appear to be trying to say everything he can safely say, at least in my impression. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

I just posted: Lloyde England believes he was north of the bridge

I noticed your one message, broken sticks, suggesting there might have been hypnosis involved, which would be consistent with what I am suggesting. I came up with this idea of memory loss being involved while doing a more thorough review of "Eye of the Storm" and "First Accomplice?" in the P4T forum.

I just started reading the CIT forums, so I don't know all the context, except I see a lot of hyper-sensitivity and over-reaction to any critiques. I also experienced that in the P4T forum, and I am not looking forward to more misunderstandings. So I encourage people to ask questions before coming to conclusions.

His precise words were, "he took pictures of the pole, he took pictures of the car, he was up on the bridge."

And sure enough that IS where the picture he gave us proves that he was along with the pole, and the car, and of course Lloyde as shown in other images.


(full resolution as provided)

It proves that Lloyde was well aware this is where his neighbor took pictures of the pole and the car particularly since the neighbor gave us the picture to prove this IS what happened. Lloyde had no reason on earth to mention the bridge at all otherwise.

Lloyde admitted to us that he had seen the pictures and had them somewhere in his house. Plus he was there.

I appreciate that you've got your thinking cap on regarding all of this and that it has inspired you to join our forum...but please realize, we STRONGLY discourage any and all speculation here.

This is a research forum and we ask that you present evidence if you choose to participate. Please keep theory and debate in other forums.

He said he did not know the neighbor before 9/11. But frankly it's clear that the evidence proves Lloyde's entire story is a fabrication so it is not logical to automatically accept anything he has said at all as fully truthful.

No it would not because the evidence proves his entire story a fabrication so it is not logical to accept anything that he as said at all as truth.

I'm sure he is well aware that we have recorded him since we have sent him copies of our presentation and invited him to a conference we put on in Arlington last July.

As noted in Eye of the Storm we feel it is in the very least suspicious that he only provided us with 2 low resolution images taken about a second apart.



Of course it proves nothing but it is odd.

To distance himself from the staged scene and align himself with the honest witnesses.

Obviously there is plenty of motive for that.

But also to switch the discussion from the fact that we had proof the plane did not hit the poles and force us to argue his location instead.

Please do not.

We strongly discourage speculation and theory.

Thank you.

That is a very bad assumption that means you are basing your entire theory on a false premise.

The evidence proves that Lloyde's entire story is a fabrication as you just admitted.

Again -- I'm going to have to respectfully request that you do not post your personal theory regarding Lloyde.

Thank you.

We are only interested in research and evidence here.

Not your personal theory.

I ask that if you have no research or evidence that you limit your participation to either questions to us about our research and conclusions or to simply reading and learning from what we present.

Thank you.

That is the most absurd thing I have ever read on Lloyde.

He knows what he did. Why would you try and protect him?

Thanks for your reply.

I'll just reply to one bit right now. Regarding why Lloyde would claim he was at the northern crossing point, you claim:

I can understand why that agrees with your theory, but I think my theory is stronger for the following reasons.

I agree that the impaling was staged (it had to be staged for several reasons) but I am suggesting the staged impaling happened back at the northern crossing point where he believed he was, when he was watching the plane passing overhead. If so, he was not distancing himself from the staging by saying that, but unknowingly telling us where it happened. The other part of the staging was at the southern crossing point, of course, where the photos prove that he was (assuming the photos were not faked - is anyone questioning the validity of the photos yet).

Although Lloyde knew about the photos, he did not recognize where that was on the road and he assumed the location was where he thought he was. When asked about it, he said things like "that's not right" and "it's backwards". The photos weren't making sense to him.

Lloyde must have known that he was discrediting himself by claiming he was not where the photos clearly showed he was, and therefore he was also discrediting himself as a supporter of the official story. That's a pretty bad accomplice if that is what he was supposed to be. They didn't need him if they had the cab and the photos.

He also wasn't offering you any support for the theory that the light pole impaling and extraction were impossible - he stuck with what he believed to be true. This is my weakest point, but I make it to point out that he didn't seem to care who thought he was telling the truth. He just wanted to tell what he believed happened.

He never changed his story regarding his location, as some have said, because he never said he was on the bridge at the southern crossing point. You may have believed he thought he was there, but I don't think there is evidence that he knew he was. I think the closest possibility is his mention of the photographer neighbor when he said, "He was up on the bridge" which is not a clear admission that he himself was up on the bridge, and I believe it deserves followup questions.

In fact, there is contrary evidence that he ever believed he was on the bridge.

In your first interview with him, before you had interviewed any of the other witnesses, at that time Lloyde denied being on the bridge several times, very clearly.

"The First Known Accomplice?" at 18:13

Question: When it hit you, you were in the middle of the bridge, right?
Lloyde: No, I wasn't on the bridge.
Question: Well it's an overpass.
Lloyde: No, I wasn't on the overpass. I was on flat ground.
Question: Yeah, well it's, it's on, but it's an overpass.
Lloyde: No.
Question: And there's two light poles on either side.
Lloyde: No light pole ...
Question: And is the tunnel below you?
Lloyde: No, light poles were poles like that pole but they were aluminum poles. ...
But it w-, it was solid ground.

Sounds fairly definitive to me that he believed he was not on the bridge. If you had asked where he thought he was, I expect he would have given the same story as he did later. Can't go back in time now, unfortunately. But the only solid ground that makes sense is back before the bridge, north of the bridge, at the northern crossing point.

So he was denying he was on the bridge not only after he learned from you about the other witnesses, but also before. Did he have any subversive reason at that time to deny that he was on the bridge? You probably thought he was just confused about his location, as I was also thinking the first time I watched it. But what if he wasn't confused about that?

What if he really was at the northern crossing point when the plane crossed 27? Suspend your disbelief, for a moment, in everything he said. I'm not saying we should believe everything he said, but for a moment, just this one thing. How could it make sense that he really was at the northern crossing point at the time of the plane crossing, and the staged impaling, and yet he was photographed at the southern crossing point a short time later? Is there any story that could make sense of that? That's what I asked myself, when I came up with one.

Nice rebuttal. Care to point out any reasons for your opinion?

Can you prove he knew what he did?

You'd have to prove he wasn't confused about his location, and I mean really prove it, not just a guess based on one ambiguous statement.

You'd have to prove the pole could not have been impaled in his car by any means physically possible (and I am not including a plane severing of the light pole in that list of possibilities).

You'd have to prove that his confusion and lack of details about how the pole was extracted was a deliberate deception rather than a lack of clear memory.

I think you would have a hard time proving any of that in court or in a lab. It is fine as an hypothesis for testing, and to focus on determining what questions to ask next to get more evidence, but we shouldn't treat something as fact if we don't really know it for sure.

What I saw in the videos, what he actually said, included some inconsistencies with what we know to be true elsewhere, but that doesn't mean he knew he was telling something untrue. I believe he was mostly a victim.

I try to protect anyone who is innocent, if they are. I try to point the blame where it really belongs, when that is clear. Innocent until proven guilty, right? I like to think so.

I don't know he is innocent, but I don't believe you really know he is guilty.

The north side approach evidence (that you believe) is what proves he is guilty.

When you have evidence that implicates someone it is not logical to create a wild scenario based on pure speculation as a means to proclaim his innocence.

We present evidence.

You have presented a wild fantasy.

We don't blame Lloyde for 9/11 but the evidence implicates him as being involved.

There is no way around this fact.

I know it's hard to accept and clearly he is not officially "guilty" until he is charged and tried but this is not about a wild conspiracy theory.

This is about evidence and you have not provided any whatsoever for your claims.

Please refrain from wild unsupported speculation in this forum or you will be asked to leave.

Thank you.

This deserves answering.

Quite simply....

Whether or not he knew what we knew or didn't know at the time -- he knew where the plane really flew. So YES he did have just as much of a "subversive" reason to distance himself from the staged scene and/or foster that confusion.

Blending the north with the south paths seems to be a meme within dubious witnesses like Lloyde and Mike Walter.

This should not be a surprise when considering blatant clues like the Icke book and FBI employee wife who agreed with me that the plane did not hit and continued on. Coincidence? Just normal victims? Come on man.

The evidence implicates Lloyde so making up stories of hypnosis and drugs as a means to proclaim his innocence is not a logical reaction to this information.

By "he knew where the plane really flew" do you mean he knew it flew past the northern crossing point, near the 244 West exit? (It looked to me like he was pointing on the map to the area just before the 244 W exit, but that was in the second interview.) So if he knew that, and he told you that, then he was just telling the truth about that, right?

I don't understand how he was effectively distancing himself from the scene in which the pole is on the ground in front of his smashed car. He admitted that he was there, but he just believed that "there" was somewhere else than what the photos show. He is not denying that he was at the scene, just where the scene took place.

I'm not sure he ever knew where the plane was SUPPOSED to have flown, at the southern crossing point. He seemed to deny that too. I think he said "That's not where it happened", though it is not clear what he mean by "it", the plane crossing and impaling or the aftermath, but he believed it was all the same location. It seems hard to imagine that all this time he didn't know what the official story was about the location.

Mike Walter is a whole 'nother class of fabricator, looking very polished and professional, saying stuff like he saw the wings of the plane fold back as it entered the building. Now THAT is physically impossible, especially since he could not have seen it through the trees in any case. I'm not sure how anything he said blends the north and south paths. My recollection is that he was strictly a southy, but I'll watch it again.

Lloyde didn't want to lie about seeing the plane hit, but he didn't want to say he saw it fly over either. Instead, there was just this weird silence after the (staged) impaling. I can believe he was in shock at that moment and focused on this light pole sticking through his window.

He may have seen the flyover, and he may have lied by omission about that. Maybe he told his wife - how would she have known otherwise, and why would she ever EVER reveal that to you if she knew in advance? They obviously do know something more that they are not telling, but we don't know how much more.

My story has his car stopped at that time, by the way, which is inconsistent with what he said about wrestling with the car and stopping at an angle after the impaling. I don't have a way of fitting that in to an innocent victim scenario. I guess the stagers could have predicted the timing of when the plane would pass over 27, but how could they guarantee that they had a victim ready to go at that time, and how would they impale the pole through the windshield accurately enough to look half-way believable if the car were moving? It entered at the wrong angle, by the way, assuming it had been knocked over by the plane, which I most certainly am not. It would have had a huge momentum in the direction of the plane, not 30 degrees to the left in line with the road.

Anything he lied about (meaning that he knew he was not telling the truth) doesn't help his case. But I am not proclaiming his innocence in any of this. I have suggested a story that is more consistent with what he said, not completely consistent. I don't know that this story is true, and I would like to find more evidence that substantiates it. But it seems more believable than the story that just about everything he said was a lie.

I am curious what he told the FBI also. Is that report available by freedom of information act or other legalistic proceedings?

By the way, I would not be surprised if Lloyde is at risk of being suicided, sad to say. I don't know what we can do to stop that.

Publicising CIT's work should hopefully help.

This demonstrates how you are tailoring your "theory" based on nothing but your pre-determined beliefs about how an asset/liar SHOULD behave and/or look like.

As if because Lloyde is black and a cabbie and such a "simple man" that it's somehow more difficult for him to be involved than anyone else.

Frankly I see that as a either a bit racist or classcist and certainly not a very logical reaction to this evidence.

Both Lloyde and Walter were heavily used as propaganda to sell the official story and both willingly took part in numerous media interviews.

Walter's deliberate and blatant blending/switching of the north and south paths is outlined for you in this thread.

If Lloyde was a dupe he would not be so eager, willing, and happy to participate in interviews. He would be scared for his life.

Furthermore Lloyde most certainly DOES describe driving down the road at about 40 mph when he allegedly saw the plane in the corner of his eye and then the pole allegedly speared his windshield while he had to "wrastle" with the car and "locked them up" bringing it to a sideways stop on the road.

So even your theory requires him to have happily repeated this detailed fabrication without a worry or concern in the world.

Why do you think you are magically able to pick and choose when he is lying or not?

Lloyde does not behave as a dupe. Here he is smiling while being interviewed for TV and talks again about "wrastling" the car to a stop:

[doHTML]
<div><object width="480" height="365"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x1julr&related=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x1julr&related=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="365" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1julr_lloyd-england-on-nbc_news">Lloyd England on NBC</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/Ashoka_lc">Ashoka_lc</a>. - <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/us/channel/news">Watch the latest news videos.</a></i></div>
[/doHTML]

There is nothing logical in suggesting that you have the ability to tell that he is a dupe while Mike Walter is not. Especially since we know for a fact that England's wife works for the FBI!

Both are highly implicated by the evidence, happily participate in official story propaganda, and both make contradictory statements that blatantly and ridiculously attempt to blend their story with the north and south paths.

I might take offense at your tone, but I am trying to remain civil. Please believe me that I am not trying to subvert or detract from the great work you have done. I am trying to help clean up any possible misunderstandings, to remove all doubt and any wiggle room for the debunkers. Any exaggerations beyond the evidence given will serve to reduce the effectiveness of your message, and for some people any doubt at all is enough to ignore you entirely. That is an irresponsible reaction, but it happens.

"nothing but"?? Why say that? I provided evidence from your own videos that contradict your belief that he changed his story. It appears from that evidence that he always believed he was north of the bridge at all times, not on the bridge. His strong repeated assertion that he was not on the bridge, despite the contradictory evidence, is what got me wondering how it could be that he is telling the truth about that.

"pre-determined beliefs"?? How would you know what my pre-determined beliefs are? Why say that if you don't know? But in fact, there is a body of research into how people subtly reveal with their body language whether or not they believe what they are saying. I don't know much about that research, and so I am not using it.

But I do have my intuition about whether a person sounds believable, and you have yours. Lloyde's manner of speaking just strikes me as not trying to hide anything, most of the time, as if he is trying to say as much as he safely can. The times when he said there was silence, and he couldn't remember the plane impacting, and that he couldn't say where the pole came from before impaling his car, and when he described the silent helper - that sounds like he either could not remember, or was trying to avoid saying anything about what might have happened. Better to say nothing at all than to say something that could be proven wrong, or that proves he was implicated.

I would see it as racist as well. Fortunately, no such thoughts entered my mind. I did say Mike Walter is a whole 'nother class of fabricator, which has nothing to do with his income level but his manner of speaking.

I probably haven't seen all the propaganda pieces with Lloyde.

Thanks for that. I will have more to say about Mike Walter another time.

Hmm, do I detect a pre-determined belief about how he should react?

How much did he know at that time? Did he know that he was a dupe? I'm suggesting (but I don't know!) he did not know that. How do you know how eager, willing or happy he was to participate? I'd like to see that evidence.

Yes, I agree, and I don't have a story that includes the driving and the stopping elements, as I said.

Yes, but did I ever say that everything he said was true? On the other hand, I am leaving open the possibility of another story about how the impaling was staged where he was moving and had to wrastle the car to stop.

I don't. Nor should you assume that any lying at all means everything he said must be a fabrication, if that is what you are doing. That would be an exaggeration that doesn't help your case. I hope that is not what you are doing. At best, it is safe to say that we can't trust that he is telling the truth about anything, and I agree. But that is quite different from declaring that everything he said was a fabrication, which I don't believe you know.

Not behaving as a dupe would suggest that he doesn't believe he is a dupe. I'm not sure how a dupe should behave in any case. Are you?

He smiles a bit while saying "I had to wrastle with the car, to stop it", but the editing of the video doesn't show the immediate context before that, and I can imagine a question that would have prompted that response. I wouldn't say he was happy about being interviewed or having to wrastle with the car, but more like expressing relief and amazement that he survived this incredible incident. I hope you have something more to support the eager, willing, happy case.

His wife working for the FBI is indeed suspicious. Though, if we are to believe her story that the FBI people looking for the cab driver didn't know he was her husband, then her FBI employment was incidental. However, since we know 9/11 was an inside job, there could have been pressure on Lloyde and his wife not to say anything more that they might know or suspect, so she could keep her job. That would be something they don't want to reveal. Obviously they know more, and I would like to find out what they know.

I'm not claiming any special ability to tell whether someone is lying - please don't just believe me, and don't assume I am trying to get you to just believe me, but decide for yourself as rationally as you can. I am merely encouraging a little more open-mindedness about what the evidence necessarily shows. If you don't know something for sure, it doesn't help your case to say that you do. In fact, it weakens it.

I am all for making the strongest case we can that shows 9/11 was an inside job, and to find the real perps and serve justice, and clean up the corruption that allows elements of the government to carry out such acts.

If you question my motives regarding 9/11, you might want to check out my other 9/11 work:

9/11 Physics Truth wiki
9/11 Physics Truth blog

Your entire theory is an exaggeration beyond the evidence based on nothing but pure speculation. That is an irresponsible reaction which is why it is so strongly discouraged in this forum.

I never said that he "changed" his story. That is not my belief.

But my point is that you have not provided any evidence for YOUR theory. None whatsoever. So your belief that he is an innocent dupe is based on nothing but fantasy or your pre-determined belief.

He was not on the bridge. He was south of it.

You have no evidence that this is not what he meant in 2006.



But either way it's a non-issue. We aren't saying that he "changed" his story. We are saying that the north side evidence is proof that his entire story is a fabrication and that his deliberate efforts to move himself away from the staged scene as well as flip the discussion on us away from the fact that the plane was not near him is indicative of this.

He was not "on" the bridge he was south of it. But you are admitting here that you are doing nothing but "wondering" without providing any evidence to back up your assertions that include the real-time implementation of exotic mind-control methods.

Because you have admitted this already with your actions which contradict your own statement. You said, "I try to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise."

Yet it has been proven that the plane did not hit poles proving Lloyde's story false.

This is really what your statement means in context of this information; If I choose to believe somebody I will give them the benefit of the doubt even in the face of definitive evidence proving their story false. In fact I will think as hard as I can to come up with a theory wherein they could be innocent even if it entails exotic mind-control techniques.

Your belief or how Lloyde "strikes" you is not evidence.

We strongly discourage speculation and theorizing in this forum.

If you do not have evidence or research to present we ask that you limit your participation to reading or asking questions.

Then what is your point?

Lloyde's story, if true, proves a plane impact.

We know it is false and the scene was staged therefore the evidence implicates him as being involved in the operation infinitely MORE than Mike Walter.

The fact that you so easily accept that Mike Walter was involved but are willing to make up a wild theory based on drugs and/or hypnosis to account for Lloyde's innocence speaks volumes.

You have no basis for this contradictory logic. Clearly your standard of proof against Lloyde is not equivalent to your standard of proof against Mike Walter.

If the reason isn't race or class than what it is it?

Obviously it's not evidence because you have none.

Ok but please refrain from speculation and theory as that is strongly discouraged in this forum.

Thanks.

No. It's common sense as to how ANYONE would react if they were unwillingly used as a part of a black operation of deception.

What he knew "at the time" is not the issue. I'm talking about him being scared to do interviews AFTER THE FACT. Clearly he was aware that something "big" happened and that he was "in it" and that it was done by the people with all the "money".

If he was in his little delusional world of permanent hypnosis where he simply believed his story he would not have had the presence of mind to make those comments.

Intellectually that means you must abandon your theory because Lloyde's statements prove it false.

Please don't do it here.

We strongly discourage speculation and you have provided no evidence whatsoever.

There is no way around the fact that Lloyde is implicated even more so than Mike Walter and you have already demonstrated a clear lopsided and illogical standard of proof between these individuals.

I am assuming nothing.

The north side evidence PROVES his entire story a fabrication.

Speculating about hypnosis and drugs + some real-time damage to the cab scenario with no evidence is BEYOND exaggeration that would most certainly do irreparable damage to our cause.

This is why we are asking you to please keep your speculation private and out of this forum.

If he was an unwilling participant in the event he would be scared for his life. There is no question. We know that he is aware that the event was not history but "His Story" and that it was a planned event by the people with all the money because he ADMITTED IT.

This destroys the notion that he is simply in a delusional world of permanent hypnosis where he believes his story regarding the plane, the light pole, and the cab.

My evidence is my personal experience with him in both 2006 and 2008. He was more than willing, eager, and happy to share his experience both times. He was thrilled to talk about hit. He show not a bit of fear or remorse. He is clearly not afraid for his life.

If it's so obvious that they "know more" than you are contradicting yourself by suggesting he is being honest and telling he truly believes.

He is implicated as involved by the evidence more than any other person on earth.

You really have no basis to suggest that ANYONE else (Mike Walter) has been shown to be involved if you are not willing to accpept that Lloyde is implicated.

If you were consistent you would come up with an exotic excuse to exonerate everyone you feel could potentially be implicated.

But you have not provided any evidence.

You are putting forth wild speculation based on nothing but your feelings for Lloyde personally.

That is not a logical approach to this information.

You have no basis for any of your claims whatsoever.

That's good man.

I don't doubt your motives and you are being civil.

I understand it's hard to accept that someone like Lloyde could be involved. He is a likable fellow.

But the evidence is what it is and we can't deny the implications just because they are uncomfortable.

I don't mind you sticking around but please heed my request to avoid speculation and theory.

Fair enough?

You have some great evidence. It is not convenient for me to go out and get more evidence myself, but it is possible to reexamine what you have provided from different perspectives. I would communicate with Lloyde by email and phone if that is possible and ask questions myself, the questions I was encouraging you to ask, to clarify several points.

I don't understand how your speculations and theories are judged to be valid or worthy of special consideration and everyone else's speculations and theories are not. It's your forum so you have that right, but it doesn't seem like a good idea if you are trying to be open and honest. I understand how debunkers will operate to obfuscate and subvert every thing possible, but I am not trying to do that, even though it appears that that is how you see my effort.

I see you misunderstanding what I am saying at every turn. I would have to fight and struggle just to get you to pay attention to what I really am saying. I am done for now. I leave it to your conscience to decide whether you are being a responsible investigator. I was encouraged by the title of your video "The First Known Accomplice?" since you seem to be open to alternatives, but now I am not so sure.

And I will leave it to others in the forum to step forward and make their own judgements about what I have said. But also be aware that if you chase away or suppress anyone who has differing views from you, you will end up surrounded by just those folks who will tend to not question what you come up with. That sounds risky. Again, you have that right, but be careful what you do with it. Time will tell.

If you misunderstand, sorry to say that in my opinion-that is on you.
If you can;
*watch Lloyd's testimony about where he was and how it changes to fit the evidence he is presented with,
*look at the evidence of the staged south path that includes Lloyd's wildly impossible story,
*look at the voluminous eye-witness testimony that supports the north of Citgo approach,
*take the time to read how CIT has repeatedly broken it down especially for you,
and still fail to understand, then you need to study some more.

I don't think that you are doing anyone any great favor by "remaining civil". You are a guest on a research site that requests that people bring evidence to the table to discuss or at least avoid non-evidenced based speculation, yet you bring only wild conjecture.

You claim that you do not intend to subvert or detract, yet in my opinion that is precisely what you are doing by adamantly putting forth wild speculations instead of staying in the real world of logic and evidence. CIT ties their theory tightly to the evidence and eyewitness testimony, while your "theory" has no anchor and is really absurd. According to your "theory", Lloyd somehow didn't realize that a van with a lightpole on it backed up and deposited the pole into his car????!! :lol: That is pure fantasy that is in no way evidence based.


Please don't assume that your misunderstandings are common. I've found that people tend to have a critical enough eye to see what Lloyd is doing.

So you expect Lloyde to confirm that he was drugged or hypnotized?

What you are failing to understand is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to provide evidence for your theory.

This is why such conjecture is so heavily discouraged around here.

The evidence is what it is. No matter what Lloyde says it will not change the fact that the evidence proves the plane was on the north side and that his scene was therefore staged.

We are not presenting speculation or theory. At least very little of it. But the fact that the north side approach evidence implicates Lloyde is not speculation.

It is fact.

Dreaming up exotic ways that he could be unwitting or unwilling and therefore innocent is not any of our responsibilities and only detracts from the job at hand which is seeking justice. The more theories the more uncertain everything seems when the fact is that the evidence for a military deception is 100% certain. If you want to help you will stop theorizing and start helping us reach justice by participating in Operation Accountability.

Debunkers would laugh openly at your hypnosis/drugging theory. If we actually asserted such a thing we'd never hear the end of it.

As I said, I don't think you have nefarious motives. Just the wrong impression as to our approach and the purpose of this forum and an overactive imagination.

I've understood you perfectly.

It just is not a logical reaction to this information.

It is wild speculation and conjecture based on no evidence whatsoever.

As you have admitted, we already have proof.

The north side approach is proof.

Therefore there is no need to continue theorizing.

It's time for action.

We have had this position ever since we initially announced the formation of CIT in 2006 after obtaining the Citgo station witness interviews.

The information we presented in The PentaCon alone is 100% proof the plane did not hit.

This is why we discourage speculation and encourage action.

We're happy to answer questions and discuss the information in general but we draw the line when it comes to baseless speculation as you have offered.

I'm sorry if this offends you but it is simply the approach we take.