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: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Heres the deal, we engineers can design against pretty much anything, the only problem is that the Pentagon didnt want 10-20 foot solid or layered concrete walls. Lined with steel and kevlar and carbon fiber. So either you build a fortress or you make a building appear to be a fortress, they went with the latter and it killed 200 people.

Train




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
they went with the latter and it killed 200 people.


Only 125 people were killed in the building, and you are getting off the topic.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Mister_Narc



You actually made the story seem even more impossible.

Now we've got the the light pole hitting the windshield at about the same time the "craft" hit the Pentagon.



Wait, I didn't make it "more impossible" and I didn't make the light pole hit the windshield or the plane hit the building...all I did was the math. So if you have a problem with mathematics, and the fact it doesn't assist you, feel free to dig up Descartes, Aristotle and Newton and give them a good talking to.

*snip*



Again, there was no "secondary explosion" as DESCRIBED IN HIS
ACCOUNT.

But good job. You conclusively proved there was some sort of
"secondary" explosion...LATER ON. However, you didn't prove conclusively that that< was *THE* explosion that made them look and drop the pole on Lloyde.

You only *suggest* it as a possibility. More importantly, you are now
telling us what Lloyde and the writer meant and were thinking when the
piece was written
. I've seen other people on this board be accused
of the same thing. I am trying to take it as written. The only way you
would have proved it conclusively, and obviously we wouldn't be having this
convo, is -if- it had said this...

“As he approached the Navy Annex, he saw a plane flying dangerously
low overhead. Simultaneously, 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.(Maybe inserted in between: He then heard and saw a huge explosion
out of his window as he tried to stop. As Lloyd, gathered himself, he
looked in his rearview and could see the Pentagon in flames. Minutes
later...) Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy
pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard *ANOTHER* big
boom *FROM* a *SECONDARY* explosion”. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he
struggled to get up from underneath,


Without those additional words and sentence I added. The whole account
is still suspect

The actual account goes...

As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned
to see an explosion


Again, they turned to *SEE* an explosion that come from a *big boom*.
Clearly referring to the plane.


The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from
underneath,wondering what had happened.


Why would "much smaller explosions" that were "heard" make them turn
and look and *SEE* an explosion that wasn't there that apparently makes
them drop it on Lloyd. Why would he be "wondering what had happened"? Think about it. He should have known what had happened when he got out of his car-but apparently the writer/he was trying to say the explosion that
they turned to *see* made them drop the pole. Is that unreasonable? The
description given in this piece is clearly referring to the plane
striking the Pentagon.

His whole account happens in chronological order and remember it's
about him, a light pole, flight 77 and the Pentagon, as described by Lloyd's
account via the writer of the piece. Chronological order-He see's the
plane "flying dangerously low overhead", "Simultaneously, the plane struck a
>light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s
taxi cab",(You want us to assume the writer just wants us to skip over the
part where he realizes THAT LOW FLYING plane hit the pentagon, hears and
feels *a big boom and see's an explosion* and it's on fire) "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".

Lloyde and the driver turned to see an explosion. It is apparent
whoever wrote the piece had no idea where Lloyde was located. I am perplexed as to why you choose to find out other explanations for "a big boom and then turn to *see* an explosion". Those words were used to summarily describe "Flight 77" hitting the Pentagon.


Other witnesses said the plane crash was followed by an
explosion about *15 minutes later* that could be *heard* miles away — apparently the sound of a large portion of the Pentagon collapsing.

www.americanmemorials.com...



Sure just the sound of it collapsing. It sounds like a charge that
went off to try and help bring it down, which again didn't happen until 30
minutes later. Notice it was only *HEARD* not seen. This explosion was not
*SEEN*. As described in Lloyd's account.

The accounts you provided were the same thing:

Shortly after the crash, witnesses reported secondary explosions
and plumes of smoke that could be seen miles away.


No explosion *seen* here. Only smoke plumes miles away.



"It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then
I heard a second explosion."


Well, I'm not sure how to take this one. This guy, and correct me if I
am wrong, seems to be describing one fluid incident. He saw the plane, it
went whooosh whoosh, then there was fire and smoke(The craft hitting the
wall and exploding), then he heard a second explosion(Probably 'Boom' and
1-3 seconds later-'BOOM!'). Or maybe not, maybe he is talking about the
one 15 minutes later. But again he *HEARD* it. Maybe this will shed some
light on what he meant...


There was a silvery flash, *an explosion*, and a dark, mushroom
shaped cloud rose over the building. I froze, gaping for *a second*
until the sound of the detonation, a sharp pop at that distance, shook
me out of it.


--James Robbins, a National Security Analyst and immature and rude
writer for the National Review. A conservative publication founded by
William F. Buckley (CIA and Skull and Bones)

www.nationalreview.com...


I'd give his 'second' a max of 5 seconds, from the description. Unless
he was gaping for 5-15 minutes until he was shook out of it, by a
'secondary explosion'.

Your other account referenced...

"A few minutes later a second, much smaller explosion got the
attention
of the police arriving on the scene"


A few minutes later(15 minutes later?), a "much smaller explosion" got
the attention of the police arriving. So it was smaller, this also doesn't
sound like the explosion(no pun intended) they supposedly "turned" to
look at and made them drop the pole on Lloyde. The one they turned to look
at was, again, describing Flight 77.


I hope this ends our debate on what the "big boom" and "an explosion"
were.
The cab was moved. And that is not questionable.

Mod Edit: Removed unnessasary quote. For more info on quoting, see here.

[edit on 19-1-2006 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Mister_Merc, I have explained this. Others have explained this. There are distortions in the apparent spatial relationships of the objects caused by the telephoto lens. This made the cab look a lot closer to the bridge abutment then it really was.

Obviously you have invested a lot into this theory and you will not give it up easily. Fine. I’m not going to waste any more time arguing this with you.

Please explain how you feel the cab was moved and what you feel the significance of this is.


[edit on 19-1-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Okay it's been a while, hi again guys


I don't see the taxi as moved to be honest.




Circled in red is 2 bushes/trees/shurbs whatever you want to call them. As you can see they are completely covering the wall on one side. In blue is an approximation of where the taxi lines up in relation to the railings.




Circled in red are the same bushes from the first picture and they are completely blocking the wall and that is why you cannot see it. The blue I put in is again lining the car up in relation to the railing/Gaurd thing.


But I think I have found out why you believe what you do. It's an easy error to make.




In the picture above it is important you realise the piece I have circles in green is NOT a part of the wall to the right. I'm guessing it's the top edges of a building in the background as you can kind of make out the tops of windows. Just take a good look at it and you should soon see it is not infact anything to do with the wall.

I hope this helps with your investigation.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Mister_Merc, I have explained this. Others have explained this.


It's clear.

He is uninterested in logical debate, and only interested in disrupting and deflecting 9/11 topics.


Merc/Narc/Mister... Can we please obtain your reason for feeling this cab is important?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Merc/Narc/Mister... Can we please obtain your reason for feeling this cab is important?




Any evidence officially presented that can be shown to be staged/fake is EXTREMELY indicting in a cover-up and therefore inside job.

It would be absurd to ignore it.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Any evidence officially presented that can be shown to be staged/fake is EXTREMELY indicting in a cover-up and therefore inside job.

It would be absurd to ignore it.


It's not clear that your "evidence" is conclusive of anything. And you have not connected any dots related to this hack and the attack on the Pentagon.

I fail to see how a moved cab, or not, has any indication of a larger plot.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Oh my lord, this is getting rediculous. All these pictures, YOU GUYS KEEP CIRLCING THE WRONG 2 TREES AND BUSHES!

Cant you tell anything by looking at different photos. People here keep circling stone walls, poles, cabs, hydrants, walls, bushes, that are all different and claiming they are the same. I am so blown away, BLOWN AWAY, at this action. It is very clear, 100% clear that the cab is sitting ion the same spot. Stop circling different stuff and claiming they are the same.

ATTENTION THREAD VIEWERS:

Please see this picture as most of you have not spent the time to click the links, look at this photo and then you will clearly see the 2 different sets of trees. PLEASE CLICK AND SEE TO END THIS NONSENSE.

www.cosmicpenguin.com...



[edit on 19-1-2006 by BigTrain]

[edit on 19-1-2006 by BigTrain]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi


In the picture above it is important you realise the piece I have circles in green is NOT a part of the wall to the right. I'm guessing it's the top edges of a building in the background as you can kind of make out the tops of windows. Just take a good look at it and you should soon see it is not infact anything to do with the wall.

I hope this helps with your investigation.


building??

where?

in the median? the stone wall is the gaurd rail of the overpass bridge. and the tops of the "windows" of the imaginary building are clearly part of the metal guard rail in front of it.

the 2nd stone wall is not a continuation of the more visible stone wall but is the stone wall from the other side of the overpass.

either way it clearly blocks the metal guardrail from in front of the taxi if you were to take a picture from that angle.




[edit on 19-1-2006 by Mister_Narc]

[edit on 19-1-2006 by Mister_Narc]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
whether or not the car was moved (i still believe it was) "lloyds" account of what happened is impossible.

plus how could a 45 foot light post hit the car without denting/scratching the hood, roof of the car, or even the windshield frame??

try to conceive of a possible way for that to take place.

NOT A SINGLE SCRATCH/DENT ON THE HOOD OR THE ROOF FROM THE VERY HEAVY, 45 FT TALL LAMPOST!!!


Click for enlarged image



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   


Note the damage to the hood and paint by the bottom corner of the windshield.



How the post could have struck the windshield



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narcplus how could a 45 foot light post hit the car without denting/scratching the hood, roof of the car, or even the windshield frame??


wasn't it just the curved top portion of the light that broke loose and hit the car? you know, the one sitting in the road. how could just that piece break off and land only on the windshield? rather easily I would think.

more important in my mind, and what would be a more proper question is, with a plane crashing so close behind you, why would you take the time to remove the light from your windshield? wouldn't you be staring at the unfolding horror?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
seems like pretty insignificant damage for a 45 foot light post to have landed on top of if after being hit by a 757 going 400 mph if you ask me.

remember......lloyd said he AND somebody else actually got out of the car and lifted it off before the plane even hit the pentagon!

[edit on 19-1-2006 by Mister_Narc]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by Mister_Narcplus how could a 45 foot light post hit the car without denting/scratching the hood, roof of the car, or even the windshield frame??


wasn't it just the curved top portion of the light that broke loose and hit the car? you know, the one sitting in the road. how could just that piece break off and land only on the windshield? rather easily I would think.

more important in my mind, and what would be a more proper question is, with a plane crashing so close behind you, why would you take the time to remove the light from your windshield? wouldn't you be staring at the unfolding horror?


it's not just the curved top of the post.

it's the entire thing.

you can see the base of it.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Will you please stop reading this guy's mind? Will you please stop inserting your own will and desires into his account?

Watch this...

“As he approached the Navy Annex, he saw a plane flying dangerously
low overhead. Simultaneously, 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 *LLOYD, THINKING THAT THE 757 WAS THE REPTILIAN BUSH GOVERNMENT CONSIDERED JUST STAYING IN THE CAR AND MARRYING THE LIGHTPOLE*. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy
pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard *THE ONLY* big boom and explosion *THAT HAPPENED WHEN THE PENTAGON GOT HIT BY A MISSILE AND IT WAS CAUSED BY A MISSILE HITTING THE PENTAGON THAT WAS SHOT BY THE BUSH GOVERNMENT, AND THEY KNOW THIS WHEN THEY LOOK, BECAUSE THIS HERE EXPLOSION, YOU SEE, HAPPENED AT A TIME THAT COULD ONLY HAVE AN EXPLOSION MADE BY A MISSILE, AND THE TWO GUYS WITH THE LIGHTPOLE FIGURED - GEE! THAT MISSILE THAT JUST HIT THE PENTAGON AND CAUSED THE ONLY BIG BOOM AND EXPLOSION MUST HAVE ALSO MADE THAT 757, THAT JUST WHIZZED OVER OUR HEADS AT 400+ MPH AND KNOCK THIS POLE WE'VE GOT IN OUR HANDS DOWN, JUST DISINTEGRATE IN MID-AIR AND VAPORIZE OVER INTO THE CASSIOPEIAN CONSTELLATION OR SOMETHING! AND THAT FREAKED THEM OUT SO BAD THEY DROPPED THE LIGHTPOLE, AND...”. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he
struggled to get up from underneath, *AND AFTER HE DID THEY THOUGHT - HEY! TO MAKE SURE NOBODY KNOWS THIS LIGHTPOLE GOT KNOCKED OVER BY A MISSILE THAT HIT THE PENTAGON AND MADE THE ONLY BIG BOOM AND EXPLOSION AND VAPORIZED THAT 757, LET'S MOVE THE TAXI!*


Without those additional words and sentence I added. The whole account
is still suspect

The actual account goes...

As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned
to see an explosion




Watch this. I come back from lunch and as I pass your cubicle I say to you and your cubby-hole buddy Burt...

I just stopped down to the Gas and Go and I got me a burrito and a Barq's!

Thirty minutes later Burt comes in your cubby and says

Valhall tried the new Dill Pickle Chips at the Slap and Grab!

and in what appears to be your reasoning process you say

No she didn't! Because this is what she said...

"I just stopped down to the Gas and Go and I got me a burrito and a Barq's!"

...you stop reading her mind!


And Burt says...

But she must have because the empty Dill Pickle Chip sack is sitting on her keyboard!

You say...

LIAR! You have no idea when the government planted that Dill Pickle Chip sack! If you look at her family picture she CLEARLY WENT TO SEARS! (Because you really hate Sears and you are committed to your obsession they are the root of all evil and by gawd - everything bad or confusing MUST be SEARS' fault!)

Burt, exasperated with dealing with a really weird mindset, comes and gets me, drags me to your office, and low and behold - I had stopped by the Slap and Grab and got a bag of the new Dill Pickle Chips! And you still don't know if I went to Sears!

Which just blows your mind because you can't seem to grasp the simple concept that if it isn't said - IT STILL CAN OCCUR! So then you start arguing with me and finally accuse the government of mind-control and brainwashing IMPLEMENTED BY SEARS...

and we never speak again because I consider there's something very strange in this here cubby-hole.


Originally posted by Mister_Narc


Again, they turned to *SEE* an explosion that come from a *big boom*.
Clearly referring to the plane.


I don't see anywhere in the guy's account where he referred to the plane after he heard the big boom and the explosion. He just mentions a big boom. How can it be clearly referring to anything other than a boom and an explosion?

No - you don't get it both ways.

[edit on 1-19-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Any evidence officially presented that can be shown to be staged/fake is EXTREMELY indicting in a cover-up and therefore inside job.


Well, the only "evidence" I have seen from you is that there was a cab and the cabbie's story is questionable.

I concede that some people don't make good witnesses, I concede some people embellish stories, I concede that some fool themseves to believing things, heck...the guy could just be mental. It still doesn't prove that the cab, his story, or the entire event is a cover-up.

It's not even CLOSE to being "extremely indicating."

Now here is another story:



Fortunato, Don
"Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think."
"Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think. . . . There were a lot of people with severe burns, severe contusions, severe lacerations, in shock and emotional distress . . ."
"Washington's Heroes - On the ground at the Pentagon on Sept. 11," Newsweek, 9/28/01


Pieces of the lamp post. So story B negates story A and we're back at so what? Why is the cab important? Moved, unmoved, all smashed, a bit smashed...it only proves that there was a cab and it might have moved and was sort of smashed.

It IS funny how we KNOW that the media distorts things and mis-quotes all the time. If people follow up, they will print a retraction. In this case though the benefit is give to the media that they were perfect and the cabbie's story is dissected word for word when the guy thought he would probably die.


It's like chicken little. It was an acorn, but to him the sky was falling. It certainly doesn't mean the deer cutting down the tree was a conspiracy and all the forest critters were coerced into saying it was a lumberjack as a cover-up.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
it's not just the curved top of the post.

it's the entire thing.

you can see the base of it.


what you are calling the base looks like one of the connection pieces to the base. look at the untouched lights in the background of the other pictures. it looks like they have 2 connection pieces. creating a "v" into the curved portion. most states have uniform lighting on their highways so the one that hit the car should be the same as the ones in the background. they are missing that "v" connection.

I'm sorry but that is just a piece of the light.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Will you please stop reading this guy's mind? Will you please stop inserting your own will and desires into his account?



Ok, tell ya what. try this experiment.

Go up to somebody unbiased about 9/11. Just someone who listens to the official version. Show them that part of the paragraph, but no picture. And then see what they think happened, based on what they read in just that passage.

See if they think the plane exploded and caused them to drop the pole on Lloyde.

Or see if they draw the conclusion that they dropped it because of a secondary explosion, that happened well after the plane had crashed.

I think we both know what people would say. Because it is what the writer was trying to imply.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
what you are calling the base looks like one of the connection pieces to the base. look at the untouched lights in the background of the other pictures. it looks like they have 2 connection pieces. creating a "v" into the curved portion. most states have uniform lighting on their highways so the one that hit the car should be the same as the ones in the background. they are missing that "v" connection.

I'm sorry but that is just a piece of the light.


You can see the top arm of the pole behind the car in this shot.



Also note that the bend in the base of the pole is not as dramatic in this shot, because this picture was taken from a different viewpoint and does not suffer from the severe foreshortening effect from the camera lens that this one does:



Compare the diameter of the base of the pole with the pavement striping.

If the stripes are about 4 inches wide, how big is the pole?

Here is a typical spec sheet for this type of light pole.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join