Taxi driver comes close to admitting he was part of 9/11 cover story

December 27, 2010

By Craig McKee

If there is an Achilles heel to the official 9/11 cover story, it has to be Lloyde England.
The Washington D.C. taxi driver is an essential part of the official story that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. His car is supposed to have been hit by one of the light poles knocked over by the plane right before it hit the Pentagon. This story was supposed to offer rock solid confirmation of the Pentagon government account. Instead, it’s the weakest link.
Not only is England’s version of what happened to him that day not supported by the witnesses or the physical evidence (as we shall see), but in an unguarded moment in the film National Security Alert (by Citizen Investigation Team), England came very close to admitting he had been a part of the conspiracy.
England told CIT (he didn’t realize the camera was running, but he clearly understood he was talking “on the record.”) that there was a lot more to the 9/11 events than meets the eye:
“When people do things and get away with it, eventually it’s going to come to me. And when it comes to me, it’s going to be so big. So it had to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small, you see, to keep it from spreading.
“This is too big for me man. This is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening. I’m just a small man. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I’m not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff. Well, I not supposed to be involved with this, I don’t have nothing.
“People with money – this is their thing. This is for them.”
People with money? Does that sound like he’s describing Al-Qaeda? If this was a case of a hijacking that briefly touched on him (as the result of his cab being hit), he wouldn’t have said, “…it had to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small, you see, to keep it from spreading.” Is he talking about covering up the truth at the beginning before too many questions are asked? He certainly doesn’t sound like someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when a fundamentalist Muslim plot to attack America unfolded in front of him.
He goes on to say that what we’re led to believe happened by historical accounts isn’t necessarily true.
“History is ‘his story.’ It’s not the truth. It has nothing to do with the truth.”

England’s own drawing of the pole through the windshield of his cab.

England says he stopped his car after it was impaled by the pole. The pole was supposedly wedged all the way in his back seat and protruding from the front of the car. He says he flagged down a man in a van who pulled over and helped him pull the pole out of the windshield.
To date, not one witness claims to have seen the pole hit the cab or anyone pulling it out of the car. And the physical evidence just doesn’t support his story.
England was interviewed in National Security Alert, a remarkable bit of investigative journalism by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of CIT. The film features interviews with a number of witnesses who contradict the official flight path of Flight 77. And that flight path is critical to the official story because of the downed light poles.
What makes these witnesses particularly important (in addition to the fact that two of them are Pentagon cops) is where they were positioned when they say they saw the plane. All the witnesses in the film were situated to the west of the Pentagon – in the vicinity of the Citgo gas station or the Navy Annex building – and were in a position to see whether the plane passed to the north or to the south of both. Both cops were at the station when the plane passed them; a third witness worked at the station.
The cops and all the rest of the witnesses that CIT interviewed confirmed the plane had passed to the north of the station and to the north of, or directly over, the Navy Annex. Not only does this contradict the official version (which had the approach on the south side) but it also means that the light poles that were allegedly hit by the plane (there were five) could not have been.
The pole evidence had to have been staged.
That brings us back to Lloyde England. If the pole evidence is fake, then he must have been part of the deception. And if he’s shown to have lied, then the official story crumbles.
By the time of the National Security Alert interview, England already knew of the witnesses who contradict the flight path “evidence.” He seemed to try to overcome this by insisting that he had been right beside the Pentagon instead of to the south where the poles were downed. Despite dozens of attempts by Ranke to show him photographic proof of where his car was, he continued to insist he was somewhere else. If he were being honest would he not have shown even a shred of doubt in the face of clear proof?
Photographs, including the one at the top of this article, show that the windshield of the cab is smashed. They also show that there was no damage to the hood of the car. Was the pole lying on the hood, England was asked? “Ya, ya. But there’s no scratches on the hood.”
The piece of the pole we see lying on the ground is more than 20 feet long. And England confirms that it was the curved and thinner end that was in his back seat. The majority of the length of the pole protruded well beyond the front of the car (the heavy end). Somehow, the pole stayed impaled in the car without damaging the hood. Interior damage to the car also was not consistent with a huge pole becoming embedded in the back seat (no more than a tiny rip in the upholstery).
After the plane had just smashed into the Pentagon to his left and a light pole had come smashing through his windshield, England made an odd decision. He decided he needed to remove the pole immediately.
England flagged down a man driving a van. He claims he lifted the pole out of the car with the help of the stranger, who then drove off without a word. Apart from how unlikely this all sounds, the idea that this long, heavy pole would stick out of the front of the car without crashing down on the hood is simply unbelievable. England even agrees with this, pointing out the lack of hood damage even before interviewers could point it out.
He also makes a point that there didn’t seem to be enough of a hole in the Pentagon to accommodate a 757. Did he say this to muddy the waters, to make himself sound more like he had no hidden agenda?
England’s wife, Shirley Hughes England, adds to the mystery. She was working for the FBI in 2001 (although it’s not clear in which capacity), and in an interview with CIT, she states that she knows why the FBI didn’t take the cab in for a forensic examination, but she won’t say more. Later in the film, she says the car was taken in “for a day or two.”
Ranke recounts how he told Hughes how the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon but continued on. She said, “ya.” He said, “What?” She said, “Ya, what you said. I’m not going to say anymore.”
There is obviously a great deal more to the England story than just having a pole hit his cab. He seems uncomfortable with his role in the whole thing. If the government had any real interest in finding the truth, then an attempt would be made to either verify or disprove England’s account.
We’ll just have to add this to the list of critical areas that have been ignored by any and all investigations into 9/11.

England’s windshield pierced, but not a scratch on the hood.


  1. My generation though AT&T was behind it all. There was a movie called “The President’s Analyst” that documented how we thought they were controlling everything.
    Now we come to find it’s actually the Capitol Cab Co. But of course! The perfect cover for a deep demon-op.
    Evil is going into a man’s home pretending to be “investigators” and then demonizing this senior citizen on the world wide web by calling him an accomplice and a demon. How asinine can you get? Lloyd was a hapless pawn and to go after him is something we would expect of a disinfo agent trying to discredit the Truth Movement by being a complete shit-heal.
    Craig Ranke and Aldo also viciously attacked Keith Wheelhouse and called him a liar and an accomplice on the world wide web after interviewing him in his home. They called Keith a liar by holding him to a very strict standard of memory while allowing their NoC witnesses a great deal of latitude. They have no honor and no shame.
    Now, thru their surrogates, they are saying that anyone who doesn’t buy their “Pig flew over the Pentagon” theory must be an agent. They are accusing 911Blogger of censorship and disinformation. This is just a lot of sour grapes. The Flyover theory is absurd on its face and it is abundantly clear who the “agents” are.

    1. Well, unlike 911Blogger, I’m happy to have your comments on my site even though I don’t agree with them. Too bad Blogger isn’t as interested in the free exchange of ideas. I was banned from there without even the courtesy of an explanation. You say it’s just sour grapes when they accuse the site of censorship? Wrong. Ask them why I was banned and then come back and tell me there’s no censorship there. If anyone is divisive it’s people like you, kdub, and snowcrash. Why can’t we work together to find the truth? Maybe you’re not really interested in finding it.
      But back to Lloyde. Your comments do not ring true to me. If you agree with the flyover theory, you’re an agent? Is that what you’re saying? Are you saying the Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? How does that make you a truther exactly? Your ridiculing of other people’s views is typical of what I ran into during my brief Blogger experience.
      First I made no comment about Capitol Cab, as you well know. You use ridicule instead of addressing actual facts. You don’t like the fact that they went into his home and then showed the absurdities of his story? If someone invites you in you’re supposed to be more sympathetic to them? And you admit Lloyde was a pawn? Doesn’t that comment support what Ranke and Marquis are saying? Seems like it to me.
      Frankly, the viciousness of the attacks against Ranke and Marquis make no sense to me. It seems to me that their research has turned up some incredible stuff. Even if you don’t like them personally, can’t you see any value in what they’ve done? If not, then I become more suspicious of your motives. And by the way, I’m nobody’s surrogate.

    1. It seems the comment was made to my blog a few hours before he added it to this stream. I find it fascinating to read outrage about how poor senior citizen Lloyde England was treated badly. I watched National Security Alert and Eye of the Storm and I found England not to be credible at all. I agree with Marquis that Lloyde’s comment about not believing a plane could fit into the Pentagon hole. I seemed very contrived. He says something that opposes the official story to seem more “independent.” He also made a point of mentioning the lack of damage to the hood of his car before Ranke had the chance. Phony and obvious.

    1. Great timing! I’ve been reading the CIT response most of the morning. In fact, I’ll probably do a blog post on this today or tomorrow. I’m also reading the original comment stream about the Chandler/Cole piece on 911Blogger. I can’t add any comments because I’m banned from the site. Some of the exchanges depend so much on mutual sucking up that it’s kind of nauseating. People praising Chandler and Cole for their poor essay… But I’ll get into this more when I post. Thanks for the heads up!

  2. I really find it difficult to fathom the kind of logic that says that a lightpole hit by a low flying aircraft that smashes through the windsheild of a car must hit the hood. Is there some extensive literature on this subject that I’ve missed that demonstrates that the hood of the car must be damaged? The driver said it didn’t hit the hood. He did a drawing that shows the pole was not resting on the hood. He said when he removed the pole it didn’t damage the hood. And this is quite apart from the fact that he still has the car and even invited these people to see it, examine it and photograph it. Big false-flag military black operation cover up.
    The logic in this seems to be, as it so many other aspects of these investigations,
    ‘The hood wasn’t damaged by the lightpole. I can’t figure it out.
    Conclusion: this incident never happened.’
    It could never be ‘I have failed to figure it out.’
    Given that they are not only not trying to figure it out , but are trying not to figure it out ,this is hardly surprising.

    1. I love it when people defend the most ridiculous point in the whole official story: that the plane hit a light pole, which went through the windshield of Lloyde England’s cab. “The guy said he didn’t do it” is good enough for you? I’m glad you’re not a homicide detective. Asking for literature on whether a light pole through a windshield would damage the car hood shows a lack of sincerity on your part. This is the same train of thought exhibited by Mr. Albury. A friend of yours, perhaps?
      I believe this story is questionable enough that it should be part of a new investigation. Do you believe it should not be part of that investigation? Or that we should not have a new investigation?

  3. Mr. McKee,
    On my instant netflix account, it registers categories of films developed by its computer that might interest me, based on my viewing history. The top category reads “Dark, Fight-The-System Movies.” When I saw it, I at first felt trivialized and then alarmed by the profiling. Are you, and others like you, not afraid of the fingerprints you leave behind in your search for the 9/11 truth? I was uncomfortable leaving my email address to post and this is not my real name. I am uncomfortable speaking about these things in the confines of my own apartment, where the walls are thin. Sometimes, my friends and I get so riled up over the state of human affairs, I tell them to quiet down so the neighbors do not think we are terrorists. I am at least half-serious when I say that. I somehow feel the anxiety I am experiencing is relevant to this discussion. If Lloyde England is indeed a pawn in a conspiracy, then so too am I, and you. The conspiracy you are exploring, if real, is much larger than just 9/11, indeed, it may have influenced history for ages. Could it be perhaps, that the men who serve these interests are entrenched with so much power and influence over policy and public opinion that they need not take so much care in filling every crack in their story. The public has bought it, move on, its over. Its history now. Osama bin Laden is buried at sea, didn’t you hear? We finally found him after 11 years of war, and inflation, and then immediately threw him into the ocean. Are not the greatest profiteers of a capitalist system those owners who best deceive the consumer public? With the technological tracking available today, do they not have the power to overt, dissuade, displace, patronize and mislead even the slightest acts of subversion? I admire the spirit of this website but it fails to bring me hope.

    1. JackRabbitt,
      I am sure I’m on a list somewhere. I’m never going to let that stop me from saying what I believe. I’ve probably compromised my journalistic prospects (the ones that pay, that is), because many of my journalistic colleagues over the years seem to want to play things nice and safe. Frankly that pisses me off more than anything. How can you be gutless and be a journalist?
      My approach has been to be as open as possible. I use my real name, I say which city I live in, I state my views about 9/11 without hesitation. If I can’t do that then what’s the point. That’s my take, anyway.

  4. I too have found the eye witness accounts fascinating for a completely different flight path than officially reported. Plus how can one trust anything that is officially reported by the very agency probably trying to cover it up.
    I am curious though why and how the light poles would have been staged to try and prove a south side approach. What would be the goal of doing that? And how do we explain all he witnesses that saw a south side approach? It’s so frustrating that for every key piece of evidence there seems to be anti-evidence, haha.
    But, even if there wasn’t a single smoking gun in 9/11, when you look at all the things that just don’t “add up” it starts to become impossible that it actually happened the way it was said to have happened. Stuff just doesn’t add up. 8 think that everyone can see that on some level but they are in denial.

    1. No witness does describe a south side approach, unless you include the clearly fraudulent story from cab driver Lloyde England. And I think the poles were staged to “prove” that the flying object’s width matched the width of a commercial airliner, i.e. the wingspan. This was to offset any speculations about a small commuter plane, global hawk or missile, which were the earliest, and certainly incorrect, theories of what happened. As Amanda Sedell said in Ken Doc’s Den of Disinformation, defending the 757 crash scenario and refuting the missile theory, “I don’t know of too many missiles that do loopty-loops and ping-pong off light poles before hitting their target.”

      1. It was indeed a plane,
        I am pretty sure I figured it out, and according to information most cannot see. But nobody wants to hear it, or they are unwilling to accommodate what is necessary to do so. Thus your truth movement is finished, and your progeny will likely experience complete perpetual slavery.
        Good luck.

          1. You’ll waste your time arguing an incomplete truth to an audience who doesn’t want to hear it while the culprits enjoy the spoils and masses of barbaric idiots demand serfdom for all.
            Good luck.

  5. Craig I’m with you 100% on the fly-over and England story you’ve told. However, I would have approached the England interviews completely differently. I would not have been in any way combative in tone or action with England.
    As soon as he sensed this combative tone his posture and story began to change.
    I would have asked him carefully worded, probing questions about why he wanted to remove the light pole from his car? How exactly it was removed (much more detail than what he had told you). I also would have asked him if the pole was moved after they placed it on the ground?
    Finally have you done the trajectory analysis to determine that it was physically impossible for the pole to have hit his car?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *