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: 21
3
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

As you can see from the satelite pics the stone wall ends shortly after the point where it is visible in the pictures.

The angle of the picture does not encompass the stone wall.

The pole is the same and the taxi is the same in all the pictures.

The pole was moved though.

From the hood of the car.



Actually, no.

The tree would be visible and there would still be more wall.

Go take another look.




posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I've looked hard at this thread and I'm just not seeing anything at all. Mention has been made of chalk lines that I can't see are there, there are some massive logical leaps of faith and it sounds like a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Sorry, but I remain deeply sceptical.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Ok I just spent an hour and a half of my life reading through this thread, so even though it's basically become a hatefest I'd still like to toss my two cents in.

I don't think the cab was moved based on the evidence. The only thing even close to supporting evidence is the "stone wall" behind the guardrail. The angle facing towards the wall is so extreme that it is in fact hidden behind the tree in the second picture (the one facing towards the pentagon).

As far as the lampost, no one mentioned how they are constructed. The engines of the plane could have easily hit only the TOP ARM with the light hanging on it. I would imagine the weakest part of the structure would be where that top arm attatches to the main pole. Any force on it would likely snap it off as well as apply SOME torque to the pole and base (in this case, enough to bend it slightly and rip it out of the ground).

Those two lumps in the one photo appear to be some sort of dead vegetation (as you can see in any of the closeups of the wall).

Those two separate pics of the pole can indeed be the same one. The bases can be identical. See the curve on the left hand side of the one pic? If you were to take a box, and make a pac-man type cut on one side of it, you would have a similar shape. Now staring down at that box from above (into it), you do not notice the curve (because it flows away from your vision ... you only see the 4 sides). That is the only difference I saw between the two bases. The difference in appearance in the poles themselves has already been explained.

And I agree that no one's testimony is TRULY trustworthy. However there are a few points that I find fishy (not necessarily supporting THIS theory, but more of as an aside).

Even in situations of extreme stress, most witnesses can relay the events leading up to that situation. For instance if you go to the store and then walk out and witness a hit and run murder, few people would be able to accurately name the make and model of the car, but most would remember they came out of the store before they witnessed it. What I read from alot of those testimonies was that there were traffic jams on the interstate at that time. Now maybe a Chicago traffic jam is different than a D.C. one, but you would think that in those pics there would be alot more cars back to back in the photos (and numerous fender benders from people gawking at a big jet flying low over their cars). Really other than the white gov't car, there is only the taxi on that side of the road. Why is this? Also, the mention of a lack of skid marks. Now if a pole crashing through the DRIVER'S side windshield doesn't make you slam on your brakes I don't know how you passed your driver's exam.

The only thing I can possibly think of is that there was NO traffic jam as people stated, and that the driver was going slow enough that braking didn't cause skid marks? Any other ideas?

Personally I think that it was indeed a commercial airliner that struck the Pentagon and I have my doubts as to who was in/where it originated from/who financed it, etc. But I thought that these two inconsistencies in the photos (which in all honesty, in this age of digital editing, is becoming more and more equivalent to eyewitness testimony with regards to worth as evidence) were worthy enough to merit a post.

And props to having a great site/forum to post ideas such as these in.


EDIT: grammar

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Fiverz]

[edit on 13-2-2006 by Fiverz]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
here's a branch that fell on a car. notice that the car is damaged. also, take into account that it is a small branch, and was not propelled into the car with the full force of a speeding jet.



if you do a google image search for -'car crushed' pole- , or -car pole-, or similiar search terms, you will get VIRTUALLY NO HITS. once again, bigoogle brother filters our reality for us. thanks, goo.

i had to look at tons of -car tree- pictures to find ONE simple image of a car damaged by something falling on it. i was thinking of going to a wrecking yard, and photograph actually dropping something on a wreck, just to RESTATE THE OBVIOUS. this pic does it, though.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
here's a branch that fell on a car. notice that the car is damaged. also, take into account that it is a small branch, and was not propelled into the car with the full force of a speeding jet.


Just to play devil's advocate, that basically dismisses that picture as being an authentic representation of what happened to the cab, because the circumstances were much different (at different speeds, different material composition, etc). Also how do we know that the branch fell in the same manner as the pole on the cab? It appears to me in the photo you posted that it fell from above and glanced off the side, or was driven into the car from the side.

That the pole landed in a strange manner causing minimal body damage to the cab is really no suprise. Think about 2x4s in a tornado sticking into concrete walls due to their force. And there are plenty of orientations that the pole could have been in that would cause no body damage. Here are some googled pics of accidents where the hood/front end remained relatively unscathed:








I am still confused about the lack of traffic, however.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Fiverz]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
I am still confused about the lack of traffic, however.


as am i.

however, a little aside.

here's a physics experiment...

take a chopstick(lampost) and stick into a cake, or sponge, or cup of pudding, or NAIL it into something. doesn't matter. as long as you are strong enough to knock it over, either by breaking the stick with a karate chop, or by knocking it out of the pudding with a karate chop.

now, watch what happens to the stick, as your far superior mass and velocity translates it's momentum and kinetic energy to the stick. the stick flies away from your hand at a velocity VERY slightly slower than that of your hand. try the same experiment with a steel pole welded onto a steel plate to see what happens when the pole is stronger than the impact agent(don't try this at home, you may break your hand).

in other words, if a plane travels by at 500 miles an hour, and hits a pole, and the pole speeds away at ten miles and hour, then the plane is ALSO now going (approx.) ten miles an hour. the acceleration impressed onto the light pole is subtracted from the deccelration of the impacting object. since the plane did not visibly slow down, then we can be ASSURED that the pole was going nearly 400-500 miles an hour. and it weighed about 400-500 pounds. put that in your calculator and smoke it.
just TRY and knock something with your hand, and have that something move away from your hand SLOWER than your hand is moving.

as i must obviously restate the obvious, that little branch, which probably weighs thirty to ninety pounds(who CARES exactly how much, it's no thirty ft. cast aluminum light pole), was propelled solely by gravity and wind, but mostly gravity(as evidenced by the vertical line of damage on the door), and it EASILY wrinkled the THIN METAL typical of modern cars.

the light pole, however, is CLAIMED to have been knocked over by a plane going 400-500 miles an hour, and you could expect the car to be crushed like a tin can from a REAL impact of that sort.

remember too, that one of the main eyewitnesses of this event said, 'the PLANE clipped the taxi', and not, 'the plane clipped a LIGHTPOLE, which FLEW INTO A TAXI'. this testimony smells like BS.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Fiverz
I am still confused about the lack of traffic, however.


as am i.

however, a little aside.

here's a physics experiment...

take a chopstick(lampost) and stick into a cake, or sponge, or cup of pudding, or NAIL it into something. doesn't matter. as long as you are strong enough to knock it over, either by breaking the stick with a karate chop, or by knocking it out of the pudding with a karate chop.

now, watch what happens to the stick, as your far superior mass and velocity translates it's momentum and kinetic energy to the stick. the stick flies away from your hand at a velocity VERY slightly slower than that of your hand. try the same experiment with a steel pole welded onto a steel plate to see what happens when the pole is stronger than the impact agent(don't try this at home, you may break your hand).

in other words, if a plane travels by at 500 miles an hour, and hits a pole, and the pole speeds away at ten miles and hour, then the plane is ALSO now going (approx.) ten miles an hour. the acceleration impressed onto the light pole is subtracted from the deccelration of the impacting object. since the plane did not visibly slow down, then we can be ASSURED that the pole was going nearly 400-500 miles an hour. and it weighed about 400-500 pounds. put that in your calculator and smoke it.
just TRY and knock something with your hand, and have that something move away from your hand SLOWER than your hand is moving.

as i must obviously restate the obvious, that little branch, which probably weighs thirty to ninety pounds(who CARES exactly how much, it's no thirty ft. cast aluminum light pole), was propelled solely by gravity and wind, but mostly gravity(as evidenced by the vertical line of damage on the door), and it EASILY wrinkled the THIN METAL typical of modern cars.

the light pole, however, is CLAIMED to have been knocked over by a plane going 400-500 miles an hour, and you could expect the car to be crushed like a tin can from a REAL impact of that sort.

remember too, that one of the main eyewitnesses of this event said, 'the PLANE clipped the taxi', and not, 'the plane clipped a LIGHTPOLE, which FLEW INTO A TAXI'. this testimony smells like BS.


I think that first pic I posted is enough proof (I edited the URL to make it show). A minivan is slightly heavier than a pole and it managed to get up the Modena and into the windshield without severely damaging the surrounding hood and body. At the very least it proves that strange things can happen in accidents and what you see is not necessarily what you'd expect.

As far as the pole is concerned, I already offered an explanation in an earlier post. If the engine of the plane just clipped the ARM at the top of the pole (and not the pole itself), it could have been sheared off at a much lower velocity (or not at all depending on how weakly it was connected to the main pole). To use your analogy, you would have to use some sort of adhesive that is weaker than the cake itself and stick on a piece of toothpick perpendicular to the first stick (i.e., pole) at the top. Whack that with your hand and you will find that the arm (second toothpick) will easily break off and the pole (original toothpick) will be moved, possibly torn out of the cake (but at a much lower velocity ... a majority of the energy transfered from the impact was used in breaking the bond between the arm and the pole).

A pretty weak analogy, but it works nonetheless.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Fiverz]

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Fiverz]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   
It's all fine and well if the post only damaged the windshield, as it shows in the pic.

So why did the cabie need a new car, and how did he get the Red Cross to pay for it?

Either one or the other, or both, stories are lies.

IF the cab only had a broken windshield the whole car would not need replacing, AND the Red Cross sure as hell wouldn't pay for it.
In fact I find it hard to believe they would replace it even if it was damaged beyond repair. Did they replace all the other cars damaged by the 9-11 attacks?

IF the cab story is true and only the windshield was damaged, then why lie about the Red Cross replacing the whole car?

The story doesn't make sense to me. Some part of it is not true.

So why the lies if there is nothing to cover up?



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
hey, this is kind of fun. we're actually arguing amongst ourselves, instead of with pro naysayers.

well, i'm sticking to my guns. i don't think that damage is possible from the description of the accident.
in order to not even scratch the hood of the cab, the pole would have to be solely supported by what was left of the windshield. the hood would have to be damaged, because the pole was reported to have been on it. a broken windshield cannot support half of a 400-500 lb. pole.
you are right about the top piece of the pole being able to act as a 'mediator' of velocity, however, 80 tons er whatever, of 500 mile an hour airplane would surely knock the whole assembly off at full blast. when you push slowly on things, they will bend, but when you hit them very quickly, they sheer. the bolts at the bottom seem to have sheered, yet the top is bent. this matches the two piece taped together pole on a cake, where there was some bending of the pole before being sheered, however, it is STILL a huge pole, and even if you gently placed it on the car, i'll bet that there would still be at least a stracth and dent on the hood. modern sheet metal used for hoods and quarter panels is REALLY thin.
the red cross angle doesn't change this.

and, BTW, it's a GREAT point about him not needing a new car. he only needed a frickin' windsheild. it looks like a lie from any angle to me.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
when you push slowly on things, they will bend, but when you hit them very quickly, they sheer. the bolts at the bottom seem to have sheered, yet the top is bent. this matches the two piece taped together pole on a cake, where there was some bending of the pole before being sheered,


Take a paperclip and straigten it. Then hold the bottom in one hand and hit it with the other hand, or a ruler, or a hammer, or a stick, or a....

Did you shear it or bend it? Go ahead and try this with various metals and poles. Try baseball bats and more. I bet they will bend.

Ever seen a car hit a stop sign?
They bend, so I'll pass on the guess-science. That's all I'm saying.


I still think the hood should have more damage, but I wasn't there. The light part with the wires could have smashed the window with the actual "pole" hitting only the ground. Without being there...it's all speculation.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Ever seen a car hit a stop sign?
They bend, so I'll pass on the guess-science. That's all I'm saying.


I still think the hood should have more damage, but I wasn't there. The light part with the wires could have smashed the window with the actual "pole" hitting only the ground. Without being there...it's all speculation.


i cannot hit something with the force of an 80 ton jet going 400-500 miles an hour.
what i posted is not 'guess science', it is a law of motion. if one thing accelerates on being struck, the other thing must deccelrate by the same amount. the plane never slowed down, and wasn't thrown off trajectory, so the pole must have moved away from the base at the speed of the plane.
when a car hits a stop sign, one of two things can happen. the pole can bend, with the car stopping part way through the 'stroke', or if the car is going fast enough, the pole will sheer at the base. i have seen both these things happen to roadsigns.

no. it's not completely speculative. there are pictures and testimony. the top part can be seen in the distance in the pictures, so it wasn't that part. if that part was still attached. then these guys not only moved a pole, but also broke off the arm and carried it to the other side of the road some tweny or thirty ft. away.

i will bring up once again, that it is clear from the wide sweeping arc sraped into the pavement that leads up to the base of the pole evidences that that end of the pole was dragged across the pavement. the two men allegedly moved the pole off the car, which would mean that the base of the pole would be the pivot, and would not have a wide sweeping arc leading up to it.

why do YOU think he 'needed' a new car? doesn't this story STINK of UNTRUTH!?



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
the pole can bend, with the car stopping part way through the 'stroke', or if the car is going fast enough, the pole will sheer at the base.


Well, I thought you said "when you push slowly on things, they will bend, but when you hit them very quickly, they sheer." I just wanted to get out there that even things hit quickly CAN bend. Of course now you say that too...so I probably misunderstood your post.


why do YOU think he 'needed' a new car? doesn't this story STINK of UNTRUTH!?


Hmmm...there are a few other possibilities. Do you know the cab company rules regarding damaged cabs? Do you know the full insurance report or the extent of the damage? Could there have been significant damage to the dash, steering wheel, or even damage that can't be seen to the crappy photo resolution? (Just off the top of my head and there are other avenues that could be followed as well. The one "it MUST be a conspiracy" is pretty far down the list, but it IS interesting that some people jump right to that as the only plausable answer.)

I have been hit before. You could barely tell from looking, even up close. The photos looked ok and never gave a HINT of the damage to the frame or the drive train. Funny how that works really.

So, no...I don't see a big conspiracy here. It's like a bunch of guys watching a football game on tv and saying how a player should have done this or should have done that from watching it. Unless your playing in the game...you have no idea. His legs might hurt. He might have bruises. He might be tired. The ball might have been tipped funny, etc, etc. It not usually "the coach told him not to catch it" as the first and only plausable reason.

It's comical really, but hey...go for it.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
hey, this is kind of fun. we're actually arguing amongst ourselves, instead of with pro naysayers.

well, i'm sticking to my guns. i don't think that damage is possible from the description of the accident.
in order to not even scratch the hood of the cab, the pole would have to be solely supported by what was left of the windshield. the hood would have to be damaged, because the pole was reported to have been on it. a broken windshield cannot support half of a 400-500 lb. pole.
you are right about the top piece of the pole being able to act as a 'mediator' of velocity, however, 80 tons er whatever, of 500 mile an hour airplane would surely knock the whole assembly off at full blast. when you push slowly on things, they will bend, but when you hit them very quickly, they sheer. the bolts at the bottom seem to have sheered, yet the top is bent. this matches the two piece taped together pole on a cake, where there was some bending of the pole before being sheered, however, it is STILL a huge pole, and even if you gently placed it on the car, i'll bet that there would still be at least a stracth and dent on the hood. modern sheet metal used for hoods and quarter panels is REALLY thin.
the red cross angle doesn't change this.

and, BTW, it's a GREAT point about him not needing a new car. he only needed a frickin' windsheild. it looks like a lie from any angle to me.


I'm stickin' to mine as well for reasons already explained. I think those 3 pics (the one doesn't like to show up for some reason and I don't want to directly link) show that there are ways for very heavy objects to cause accidents with minimal other body damage.

I dunno about the car ... maybe the pole went through the windshield more than we can see and broke off the steering wheel or something? I don't really know. That does bring up another point though ...

I'm suprised that guy is alive. Look where the pole hit the windshield ... right on the driver's side.

As far as needing a new cab maybe it was a fluff story for the Red Cross to make it look like they are doing something. Or maybe the car was truly undriveable or something ... I don't really know, but hardly see that as a smoking gun for a conspiracy.

However, I'm still utterly confused about lack of skid marks and/or evidence of "heavy traffic". Does anyone have any ideas about those? They are the only things left that are bugging me ...

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Fiverz]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Even a damaged dash or broken stering wheel would not require a new car. Also if the dash and stering wheel were damaged then why weren't the cars occupents injured, especialy the driver.

Is it normal Red Cross procedure to replace damaged vehicles from events such as this?

If it is, like I already asked, did they replace ALL the cars damaged during the 9-11 attacks? What about cabs damaged during hurricane Katrina for example? I don't think the RC has those kind of funds, so why would they pay to replace this particular cab?

If it's not normal procedure for the RC to replace, then why did they replace this one cab? And if the Red Cross didn't replace the cab then why the lie? To make the story seem more credible?

I believe this IS relevant to the conspirecy, if they are lying about this event then logicaly they are lying about the rest of the 9-11 story.
It may not be the smoking gun, but it should make you stop and wonder.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Well, I thought you said "when you push slowly on things, they will bend, but when you hit them very quickly, they sheer." I just wanted to get out there that even things hit quickly CAN bend. Of course now you say that too...so I probably misunderstood your post.


well, the lord knows i like to communicate well, so, let's go over it again.
using a car and a stop sign, the car hits the sign at 150 miles an hour, and the pole will sheer at the base, with little or no bending. if however, the pole is made of element 133, and is unbendable and unbreakable, the car will be shorn in half. if the pole is made of very flexible rubber, it will just whip the ground at 150 miles an hour(average-ish, it's an arc on a pivot, so the base goes zero miles an hour, and the very tip goes faster than 150 miles an hour).

if the strength of the pole is sufficient to arrest the movement of the car, then the pole will be bent, and the metal of the car will be bent. the pole and the car share the same enrgy sink, in other words, in both terms of malleability and velocity.



why do YOU think he 'needed' a new car? doesn't this story STINK of UNTRUTH!?


Hmmm...there are a few other possibilities. Do you know the cab company rules regarding damaged cabs? Do you know the full insurance report or the extent of the damage? Could there have been significant damage to the dash, steering wheel, or even damage that can't be seen to the crappy photo resolution? (Just off the top of my head and there are other avenues that could be followed as well. The one "it MUST be a conspiracy" is pretty far down the list, but it IS interesting that some people jump right to that as the only plausable answer.)


well, in light of the fact that there is a conspiracy pretty much makes this whole taxi issue a drop in the conspiracy bucket.

the difference? the 'predictions' of the conspiracy theory more consistently match the reality of 'mounting evidence', whereas, your approach to observing reality requires many little boxes with no cross-correlation.

in case you've forgotten, the whole point of this is the idea that the accident is a staged event, which would then beg the question, 'what did the real event look like', and so this is not so much about JUST an anomolous car accident, as it is about MANY anomolous interconnected events which evidence a large conspiracy.

here's something 'new'...rummy puts his foot it in it, again

RUMMY: "Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them I reply, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself."



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
in case you've forgotten, the whole point of this is the idea that the accident is a staged event, which would then beg the question, 'what did the real event look like', and so this is not so much about JUST an anomolous car accident, as it is about MANY anomolous interconnected events which evidence a large conspiracy.


And I'm all for it...really.

I just want to see:
- how all the few hundred "witnesses" were coached.
- why nobody have blown the whistle
- how the "missle was launched in secret without a city seeing
- what happened to the real plane
- how the poles were "sheared" and bent with special effects
- what stunt company the cabbie worked for
- how the cab was "placed" at the scene (for those that say it was done that way)
- how the emergency crews were convinced to lie
- why the other two crashes were planes, but not this one event
- or even...proof that the cab actually moved or was not damaged

As I said, I could show you pics of damaged cars. Do you have some way to know all the detailed damage from a photo? You could certainly make money with that ability.

I could take photos on the street of my car and a stick from various bad angles. I could even draw nice red lines here and there. I bet money that you could not tell if the stick actually moved or not.


I could actually show many interconnected events regarding the internet too, but it doesn't prove the goverenment or aliens run the world wide web.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Russell Pickering:


The aircraft struck 5 metal lamp poles on the way into the Pentagon. My best guess from relative comparisons in the area is that these were 25 foot poles with a 6 foot mast arm. The VDOT poles had what are referred to as the "T" style base. The "T" style base 25 foot pole with a 6 foot mast arm weighs 293 pounds (30'-357 lbs., 35'-398 lbs., 40'-492 lbs.). The industry standard shaft is high-strength steel with a minimum yield strength of 50,000 PSI; ultimate tensile strength of 70,000 PSI. The following link is worth looking at to see the illustrations and specs. Light Pole Manufacturer.




DESCRIPTION: The following two photos show the damage birds did to an AA Boeing 767. The top one is the right wing leading edge and the bottom one is near the root of the left wing (note the displacement of the panel). A bird is a 1-2 pound free-flying object, not a metal 25 foot, 293 pound lamp post attached to the ground.









posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
I just want to see:




- how all the few hundred "witnesses" were coached.


Who said they were coached? They could have been in on it. Some could have not seen anything and were coached. Some people may not even be real people but just accounts fabricated by psy-ops.



- why nobody have blown the whistle


Well recently there was supposedly a Paul Flowers who said they were forced to sign a document saying they saw a 757. Then there was April Gallop. I believe Barbara Honneger had Paul Gonzales, I could be mistaken on that. Some are just in fear. National Security because of Peak Oil is a great reason to keep your mouth shut.



- how the "missle was launched in secret without a city seeing



How about if it was launched from the "generator truck"? Look at the direction it is pointing. That would be pretty smart, with a flyover of the decoy jet. Or maybe it wasn't a missile . And something else entirely.


- what happened to the real plane



According to the BTS, tt didn't fly on 9/11 and whatever did fly on 9/11 in it's place kept on flying accoridng to team8plus.org. Unless there is something that the FAA can produce to explain the anomaly.



- how the poles were "sheared" and bent with special effects


They used pre-bent poles, did a metal fab job on the ends maybe?



- what stunt company the cabbie worked for



Capitol Stunt Works.



- how the cab was "placed" at the scene (for those that say it was done that way)



Again, it's still a line of research. But the traffic jams were faked. People on highway were plants. Highways were closed far enough so the real bystanders couldn't see what happened.



- how the emergency crews were convinced to lie


The only ones who would lie, would be the Pentagon heliport firefighters. And maybe they didn't. Allan Wallace described it was a "white jet with orange and blue trim" and he had to dive to see it impact. Like the N644AW (America West) jet we know flew over/by/near the Pentagon at exactly 9:38...it is white, with orange-reddish and blue trim, and a blue belly. Maybe the highway plants pulled on from the parking lot at the exact perfect time coordinated by a traffic officer plant.




- why the other two crashes were planes, but not this one event



I already explained this a million times. Accuracy. Precision. Low casualty. Minimal damage. Deflection of blame.


- or even...proof that the cab actually moved or was not damaged


I already gave that to you. Many times. 293 lb poles hit by 128 ton 757's going 350 mph, tend do a little bit more than what's shown on that windshield.

Next.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Next.


Have you noticed that every single one of your answers was speculation and completely unsupported by any evidence? You say "next" like you have somehow got it all wrapped up and sorted, which is quite funny.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Have you noticed that every single one of your answers was speculation and completely unsupported by any evidence? You say "next" like you have somehow got it all wrapped up and sorted, which is quite funny.


Oh yeah, I noticed that.

That's what the maybe's were for.

Did you also notice. That I have also provided quite a bit of information to support a good portion of what I've said?

Next.







 
3
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join