Some Lloyd questions i have

Lloyd was a cab driver.

Did you guys happen to ever ask him if he was on his way to pick up a fare(passenger)or had just dropped one off. If he was out by the Pentagon i am going to assume he should have been doing one or the other??Or was it his day off? If so why would he have been driving a big car like that when not on the "clock"

Was the back seat of his cab clean enough to where it would appear that a passenger had in fact recently sat back there??I know the "pole" supposedly inpacted the windshield, but that should deter being able to tell if he back seat was clean and ready to recieve passengers, some or a lot of whom i would suppose are rather well to do people, him operating in that area and all?? And would expect a clean cab, getting in with suits on, etc.

Some pictures i saw seem to make me think they whole cab seemed trashed, not something i would expect to see from one that is routinely picking up passengers.

Did it have or was it required to have a meter, and if it did any idea if it was functioning??

If he did have a fare, or was on the way to pick one up, any idea who he had dropped off, or was in route to pick up??

I hope none of these are stupid questions

there is this quote:

the original source - the Survivor's Fund story - is no longer there:
http://www.survivorsfundproject.org/SFPFin...ients/lloyd.asp (dead link)


when you search it in quotes:
http://tinyurl.com/l5et8g


the 2 results you get both link back to the survivorsfundproject dot org site, which is currently defunct:
http://www.survivorsfundproject.org/



but there is the archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.su...ients/lloyd.asp







the 2003 page from the survivor fund reads like this:
http://tinyurl.com/mg83eu (html)
http://tinyurl.com/nlq2wl (full version - pdf)




no mention of rosslyn.

Hi roundhead

Could I ask where your question leads? I mean if Lloyd happened to not be on duty at the time does that make his account more suspicious in your mind? Because that would seem rather presumptuous.

I have a few questions as well: -

Why do CIT feel it is acceptable to carry out a smear campaign against Lloyd England, a man who welcomed them into his home and spent considerable time telling his story, with no reasonable grounds to do so? Could it be that Lloyd's experience is simply so fatal to the CIT theory that they will do anything to tarnish an innocent man's name? Do CIT really believe that the upset they have caused to this man who came close to death on 9/11 and his wife is justified?

Wow!

I mean just WOW!

BS alert.

If the plane clipped the light pole it must have been 1 or 2 seconds later that the explosion came.

Who wrote this crap?

No one should find journalistic licence leading to a sensationalist report to be unexpected and it is certainly not suspicious.

You ignore the fact that CIT had already been calling Lloyde out as being an accomplice on some level BEFORE their follow-up visit, yet he still elected to speak with them for hours and did not seem to feel that he was the victim of a "smear campaign".

CIT has presented conclusive evidence that the plane DID NOT hit the light pole that Lloyde claims speared his windshield and in fact did not fly anywhere near it.

It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt as any objective and honest observer can see. It's your doubts that are not reasonable.

The details of Lloyde's blatantly dubious and physically impossible account is another nail in the coffin of the official story.

CIT would not "tarnish an innocent man's name". What they will do is call someone out as complicit when the evidence conclusively proves it to be the case. The evidence does implicate Lloyde, which is the reason that they have called him out, and is also the reason why he made the candid comments that he did when he did not realize he was being recorded.

Lloyde did not come close to death on 9/11, Q24.

As you know, according to eyewitnesses in a variety of excellent vantage points, including eyewitnesses in the BEST POSSIBLE position (at the Citgo), the plane was nowhere near the light pole that he claims speared his windshield without touching the hood.





This is why there is not a scratch to his hood, and why there is a big scratch in the road leading up to the base of the pole, indicating that someone had dragged it into place for the photo op. This is why he first says his "friend" helped him remove the pole then later changes it to a silent stranger. This is why he admits that he was up on the bridge and then changes his story and tries to say he wasn't on the bridge. This, again, is why he makes the candid comment that he does.

You also claim that they caused Lloyde and his wife "upset" with no proof. The fact is they already knew that CIT had been calling Lloyde out and still elected to speak with them for hours.

What you are doing is nothing but blatant trolling. I have been an admin here for over half a year and I have never banned or even suspended a single person, but you are now the first. It is clear that your entire purpose here is to troll, i.e. make disingenuous accusations about CIT while ignoring and/or lying about the evidence.

No one should find journalistic licence leading to a sensationalist report to be unexpected and it is certainly not suspicious.

wow theres so much irony in your statement that i almost vomited.

who is the source behind what you believe in regards to the pentagon? please list any/all.

i'm interested in seeing if it might be people with "journalistic licence leading to a sensationalist report"......

Bottom left picture.

The model plane was a great idea.

You can almost see his mental processes.

The plane was coming straight at him.

No doubt.

Or he is lying.

I don't think he's lying.

Why do you find it acceptable to carry out a smear campaign against (according to the official story) 9/11 hero Daniel Lewin, who tried to fight off the hijackers?

You are VERY hypocritical.

Let's keep all posts in this thread on topic from here on out.

A previous poster on this thread asked what my intent was.

My intent(i fully believe Lloyd is a liar)is to see what else stinks about his story that i might have not been aware of.

Simple as that.


The fact he claims a pole speared his cab, when i have zero doubts the plane never flew that path, makes it crystal clear he is lying about the incident.
The pole incident is pure propaganda, nothing more.

As i have said on this forum before, it was such a prefect connect the dots " Black Op" that the masses would swallow, it was in fact regurgitated right before McCain came on stage at the Republican Convention as one of the big "tells" of that day.( A video ran on a big screen, and during it Lloyd was shown on the road with the pole)

Its extrodinarely(sp) inportant to the perps to not have Lloyds account torn to shreds.

Anybody who attacks the fact he isnt being truthfull, better go back and rethink just how much they really want to get to the bottom of 9/11. Because anybody who thinks Lloyds cab truly got speared is on a different wavelenght than i am.

I hope the above clears up where i stand on the cabbie issue clearly

There is no debate at all.CIT has proved without a doubt, that Lloyd is lying and has been caught over and over in these lies.The physical evidence proves undoubtably that nothing struck those poles because nothing flew anywhere near where the poles were or where Lloyd was. If anyone,like any and all other trolls, feel that the staging and planting of evidence is a preposterous notion in one's own mind -- they should read the complete Operation Northwoods document and see that almost 40 years before, the gov't and military had incredibly twisted and very creative plans for staging and planting evidence. And again,that was four decades ago! Yes,plane wreckage (minimal at best) were planted.Yes,light poles were staged and planted.
On 9/11, these were easy and laughable things that the govt perps did compared to what they had planned in 1962.
Remember, it started off with some folks like the "Loose Change" guys, who's film questioned the hole size,etc but put forth a CT of possibly a missile,but that only (unwittingly) fueled these theories.
So for years, or a few years, we wondered what the extension to those suspicions were.How could we or someone go further?
Well,with what CIT did, they should get a Hero's Medal of Honor instead of disinfo shill trolls and detractors go treading embarrassing waters -- because they only succeed in drowning themselves. CIT, with countless hours,traveling,spending of their own money --- shattered the official story to splinters!