It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

page: 18
3
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Probably for the same reason that some friends of ours got a new Miata after theirs got flipped and had less than $5000 damage to it. Because the Insurance Company said so.


Big difference between a car rolling over and one with a damaged windshield


Also a lot of insurance companies automaticaly write cars off over a certain $ damage amount. The cost of replacing a windshield is a couple of hundred bucks, your friend ins company might right off over $4000 or something.




posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Probably for the same reason that some friends of ours got a new Miata after theirs got flipped and had less than $2000 damage to it. Because the Insurance Company said so.

[edit on 1/31/2006 by Zaphod58]


Ha! Guess what zaphod caught ya!!

Nice edit there from $5000 to $2000, try again budy I'm not a 3 yr old


If your 'friends' car was writen off for $2000 he needs to change ins companies, or more probably you are lying! You are now on ignore, my first.

[edit on 31/1/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Actually, I corrected myself, because I double checked and was wrong. It was TWO thousand, and VERY minor damage to the car. The windshield was gone, the hard top was on it and was slightly damaged, and the paint was marked up. But there was no damage to the frame, or major structural damage.

*shrug* You can believe me or not I don't particularly care. It happened, and almost killed his daughter. They made her put the hardtop on before she left, and she rolled it. If it wasn't for that, she would have died. If you don't believe me, it's your problem not mine.

I'm heartbroken to hear that. You have no idea how much that pains me. I'm terribly sorry that I'm not perfect enough to remember what at the time was a minor story in my life, absolutely perfectly, like some people apparently can.


[edit on 1/31/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Sure, whatever you say
It don't make an ounce of difference anyway, keep telling your stories



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   
ANOK, don't get personal. We all have little blips in our memories, lol, it's a fact of life.
And returning to the thread, I've read the whole thing and I think the question of whether the taxi was moved is a) not borne out by the evidence and b) is not relevant I'm afraid. You can't take such a minor point and turn it into a conspiracy. There are too many witnesses anyway that say that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

*Shakes head* No, it throws suspicion on the whole 'a plane cliped the lightpoles' and discredits all the eye witness reports from the overpass.

Oh, OK that makes sense. The fact that the Red Cross bought this guy a new taxi because his only appeared to have superficial damage makes all the eye witnesses into liars or stooges. Of course, why didn't I see that?



Have you been reading this thread or what?

Unfortunately I have, and it's a part of my life that I will never get back. I feel like suing ATS for the time I have lost.




We've gone over this already, I think you should know what the point is.

The point seems to be endless disinformation about moving taxis and broken windshields.



Why do those who buy the official story have to act like they don't understand, surely just because you don't agree it doesn't mean you don't understand


I don't understand how the new cab is any way relevent to the argument. Surely if something other than a plane had hit the pentagon there would be some seriously strong evidence to support it, and you wouldn't have to resort to inane trivia about new taxis to back up your case.

Also why do you say I "buy the official story". Actually I think much of what we are told about 911 stinks, and a cover up has taken place. However I have no doubt that terrorists flew a 757 into the pentagon making a bloody great hole in it.



How do you explain the guy needing a new cab, when there was obviously only damage to the windshield?

How exactly do you know there was no other damage to the taxi? How do you know it didn't have bent axle or other internal damage that made it un-roadworthy? Have you got x-ray eyes or some other special power that lets you diagnose the extent of damage to a car from a photo?


[edit on 31/1/06 by FatherLukeDuke]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Been reading this thread and it seems everyone is on about the windshield and the moved car. But, explain this from his statement...

the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion.

Ok...let me get this straight..he was driving along..the plane flew over at 500 MPH, hit the pole it came crashing down onto his car. Took a few seconds to stop the car. Then he got out, this guy came over to help him move the pole( which took about a minute im guessing). THen he heard the blast?!?!?! Righttttttttttt. Look how close the pentagon is to that car. By the time he got out of his car the plane going 500MPH would of hit the pentagon. Im not that good with distance and speed but to me that just looks like common sense.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I've never seen a bigger case of much ado about nothing.


does this taxi

a) prove it was a jet
b) prove it was a missile


I'd say neither, so all of this is about discrediting the poor taxi driver ?



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by _shadow_
Ok...let me get this straight..he was driving along..the plane flew over at 500 MPH, hit the pole it came crashing down onto his car. Took a few seconds to stop the car. Then he got out, this guy came over to help him move the pole( which took about a minute im guessing). THen he heard the blast?!?!?! Righttttttttttt. Look how close the pentagon is to that car. By the time he got out of his car the plane going 500MPH would of hit the pentagon. Im not that good with distance and speed but to me that just looks like common sense.


That was brought up at the beginning, it can easily be explained in two ways (maybe more?) - either 1) They are lying (and pretty incompetent) or 2) Like most people, especially in highly stressful situations with an element of shock, their memory is literally faulty and the journo writing the report simply put down what he was told.

I personally think if the whole article was water tight with none of the usual errors then it would be suspicious.
You can see this sort of discrepancy in lots of reports, only usually it is not in relation to something so serious.

If you ever get the oppurtunity, read multiple statements from different people involved in an accident or witness to a crime. It's remarkable how different they are, what's even better is if you can find older and revised versions of a statement from one person (that you know is telling the truth obviously) and see how even they differ.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Sorry syrinx but if you don't see the relivance of the taxi cab that's your problem. It's not discrediting a poor cab driver, it's discrediting a lieing government.

And Dear father luke how would the cab have a bent axle when it didn't even damage the cars body work? Must be made from some tough metal alloy or something?

Maybe the cars axle was made from the same stuff this supposed 757's engines were, and disintegrates from an impact


You say the story stinks but you believe terrorist did it with a 757, so what part of the story actualy stinks then?

Yes the story stinks, the whole story.

And DarkMind scuse me but you're not a mod and you have NO idea of my history with zaphod. Sry but he got personal first, I only give back what is dished out. Be sensible and polite, I'll do the same for you.

[edit on 31/1/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You say the story stinks but you believe terrorist did it with a 757, so what part of the story actualy stinks then?


Riddle me this....

Even those who trust the official story to a great extent, that believe the Mujahideen carried out the act as described and led by Osama, fail to question where the orders to them came from.

Those that sing drown out the voice....



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
And Dear father luke how would the cab have a bent axle when it didn't even damage the cars body work? Must be made from some tough metal alloy or something?


The cab looks old and shoddy... maybe the cab driver scammed a new cab in the whole affair?

We certainly haven't seen any other improper claims with small business owners attempting to capitalize on making claims for 9/11 loses, have we?



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You say the story stinks but you believe terrorist did it with a 757, so what part of the story actualy stinks then?

The part about who actually carried out the attack, who trained them, who financed them and who gave the orders. Of course none of these questions are as important as to whether a taxi was moved or not.


I believe that the idea that Bin Laden (sat in his mountain hideaway stroking a white cat on his lap) ordered these attacks is a fairytail. The extent to which Saudi Arabia was involved in the attacks has been quite clearly covered up. Probably because SA is meant to be one of the US's strongest allies, with especially close ties to the current administration, not to mention all the lovely oil they have. This, however, is all for another thread.

They may be covering for something that could bring the government down, or maybe not. Though Bush et al will sleeping soundly tonight while you lot endlessly debate the position of broken glass outside the pentagon.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
They may be covering for something that could bring the government down, or maybe not. Though Bush et al will sleeping soundly tonight while you lot endlessly debate the position of broken glass outside the pentagon.


What makes you any different? You're are here endlessly telling us we're stupid to argue broken glass and taxies while bush sleeps soundly right? What makes you better than the rest of us? Where is your opinion on this, other than we are stupid to argue taxies? What are you doing to bring this government to court? You always throw a lot of opinions on other ppl around this web site (see any chemtrail thread) but bring no actual content to the discusion.

And Grim you might be right, I doubt it, but should we stop this discussion just because you say he might have scamed a new car?
The red cross is pretty tight about throwing money around, I doubt they would have just given the guy a new cab so easily. I think we're being lied to.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I think we're being lied to.


Yes you are. And most of the lies are coming from the "9/11 Truth Movement".
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Merc/Narc/Perp/Lyet and their buddge Joe Quinn are disinformation agents for an organized effort to discredit serious research into 9/11 conspiracy issues.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You always throw a lot of opinions on other ppl around this web site (see any chemtrail thread) but bring no actual content to the discusion.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.....

This whole thread is pretty much content free, so I'm not adding or taking anything away.

This is a discussion board and I am under no obligation to add content, though I have done on many of the more sensible threads. I can add to the discussion by critiquing evidence (such as it is) or by using a counter-argument.

I would be intrigued as to what content I could add to a discussion of a non-existant phenomena, such as chemtrails or moving taxis that haven't actually moved......



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
18 pages, 356 replies and nearly 8000 views.
This beautiful example of disinfomation at it's finest has been brought to you courtesy of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Nice job, who needs spooks when you have material of this quality coming from the home team..



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord


Where else are we witnessing the technique of creating polarizing debates as a means of manipulation?



yes. everywhere. i think it's the next page in the disinfo playbook. 'they' know that when too many people 'know', the next thing to do is discredit them all by making them seem like they play for the other team.
all these added layers to the truth onion can be easily peeled(i recommend burning a candle between you and the onion to keep yourself from crying), when we see someone working TOO HARD to discredit 'crazies', which is the label disinfoists give to anyone with critical thinking skills, and the time and will to study the patterns behind the patterns.
the TRUTH is, that there are always AT LEAST two sides to the story.
if each side of the story is represented by a double agent(someone pretending to be sympathetic, but in fact a spy), then there are now AT LEAST FOUR sides to the story, but more like sixteen sides.
with each fact and new observer comes a near infinity of possible sceanarios based on what each player brings to the truth table.
the clear way to defeat this is to decide what we ALL AGREE on.
and to IGNORE when the 'other side' talks about stuff we DON'T AGREE with.
we all agree, for example, that there is a white arc scraped into the pavement. i have pointed it out several times, and none of 'the usual suspects', lol, have disagreed with me.
it is there, and nobody even cares, or knows why i'm talking about it.
or, if they have figured it out, they don't want to try and refute the logic trail that leads from it.
so. i have an open question to both sides. does that arc fit the story?

this is all semantical mental masturfishbaition. because, it doesn't seem to matter HOW many times the lie is PROVEN to be a lie, it will be continually sucked into the quicksand of the infoverloadasphere.

so, let's have fun with it. everyone's going to die, one way or another, someday,anyway. why be so serious?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
The arc is consistant with the pole being dragged or pushed, but even in the account it says they moved it. One would also imagine people at the scene would instinctively try and push it out of the path of the traffic.
The fact there is an arc suggests that when it was moved there was not enough man power to lift the object, which there would have had to have been to plant it.
Maybe you would like to tell us in what way this arc is proof of some conspiracy?

Oh just wondering, if these light poles were planted - then what happened to the ones we assume would still be standing in the repective places these ones were supposed to come from?



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Strange that every other light pole I've ever seen anywhere are straight, except for the arm that holds the light. That's the only curved part I've EVER seen on any lightpole anywhere. Even in other countries.




i40.photobucket.com...


i40.photobucket.com...

i40.photobucket.com...


Lyte Trizzle and I got some other pics of other completely curved light poles, when were coming back from Utah and seeing Professor Steven Jones speak. Their curves weren't as exaggerated as this one. But it was one solid piece. Curved.

But yes they do exist.

Is it possible they used a pole like then fabricated the damage at the end?

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8/2/2006 by Mirthful Me]




top topics



 
3
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join