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: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Somehow I had a feeling you might not like what I posted. I assure you I have no preconceived notions about any of this. I don't trust the gubment(I'm a vietnam vet) but I also don't particularly believe every conspiracy. The entire affair fascinates me and I read alot of threads here at ATS. I'm merely a bystander and thats what I thought you wanted. From your response to my post I get the impression that only someone who agrees with you would be unbiased. I stated what I read. And I tend to think logically. I didn't take a side.
The cabby told the reporter his account and the reporter wrote it down. That's what they do. Who, what, when, where, why, how.
It's quite clear to me what he said. The plane hit the pole. the pole hit the cab. He heard an explosion. He DID NOT say the plane caused the explosion. But he also DID NOT say it didn't cause the explosion.
He only stated what he heard. He didn't say he saw a plane hit the pentagon. He only heard an explosion.
Oh and btw I'd be the first person to jump on the GW did it bandwagon if only someone could provide me with some real proof like a white house memo or such and not a moved or not moved taxi.
I merely call em as I see em. And if you don't believe that then check my other posts. Most folk tend to avoid me cause of my honesty.

[edit on 1/19/06 by longhaircowboy]




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
this single little taxi driver is the only person that has ever said anything and who was ever there at the fake scene who wasn't part of the big hoax, and whose words we should hang on.

imbecilic


Hmmm have you read any of this thread? I think you have, so what does that tell me?

Did you miss the part about the "witnesses" being government workers, and not just gov workers but Neo-Con pro Bush agenda workers.
They were far from being just regular comuters IMO.
Something smells bad, but you must have a cold or something?

Read the Chomsky quote in my sig, relevant for this post I think.
And how about stopping the name calling, us regular members get in trouble for that you know.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
And Val, nothing hit those light poles, they were planted, so was the cab. Do you get it yet?
The whole thing was staged like a Hollyweird movie set. That's why this part of the story is so important, for those who think arguing over light poles is irelevant.

[edit on 19/1/2006 by ANOK]


Hey now wait a min. don't spoil it for me, you're reveiling the plot way too far into this thread...

Ok I guess I'll give you the plot since you already got part of it...


The MIB was involved too, they flashy thingy'd everyone into beliving that they saw a plane, when it was the grays...Yes that's it was the grays they shot a photon torpedo into the Pentagon, and the MIB covered it up with their flashy thingy...

J:...Ya'll didn't see a photon torpedo, ya'll seen a plane got it ?

Public:...We didn't see a photon torpedo, we saw a plane...



[/sarcasm : off]

Guy's keep it up...I'm getting a good belly laugh out of this thread
...

BTW what difference does it make if the cab was moved ( looks to me like it wasn't ) ?

What is the relevance ?

Did the cab fire a missel ?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Somehow I had a feeling you might not like what I posted. I assure you I have no preconceived notions about any of this. I don't trust the gubment(I'm a vietnam vet) but I also don't particularly believe every conspiracy. The entire affair fascinates me and I read alot of threads here at ATS. I'm merely a bystander and thats what I thought you wanted. From your response to my post I get the impression that only someone who agrees with you would be unbiased. I stated what I read. And I tend to think logically. I didn't take a side.
The cabby told the reporter his account and the reporter wrote it down. That's what they do. Who, what, when, why, how.
It's quite clear to me what he said. The plane hit the pole. the pole hit the cab. He heard an explosion. He DID NOT say the plane caused the explosion. But he also DID NOT say it didn't cause the explosion.
He only stated what he heard. He didn't say he saw a plane hit the pentagon. He only heard an explosion.
Oh and btw I'd be the first person to jump on the GW did it bandwagon if only someone could provide me with some real proof like a white house memo or such and not a moved or not moved taxi.
I merely call em as I see em. And if you don't believe that then check my other posts. Most folk tend to avoid me cause of my honesty.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Why is this "moderator", Valhall, allowed to post negative and antagonistic comments about members of the board?

This is about the 4th time I've seen her try to push someone's button.

Or is this what she does when she is frustrated and realizes she has been outwitted on a thread?



Well, it obviously isn't what I do when I'm outwitted, because that hasn't happened here yet.

But I will apologize for the fact that it is extremely hard on me to try to discuss this very important event with a person who wants to minimize the human loss, bastardize the historical record, and whose efforts tend to deflect from real research into an event that begs for serious research efforts. The exasperation sometimes gets to me - and I say things a little rough.

Like imbecilic - I'm sorry - I shouldn't have said that. I feel that way, but I shouldn't have said it. So I apologize for just blurting that out. I should have kept it to myself.

Will you please address the following eye-witness accounts and whether you have done any research to dismiss every single one of these?

www.oilempire.us...



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
The cabby told the reporter his account and the reporter wrote it down. That's what they do. Who, what, when, why, how.
It's quite clear to me what he said. The plane hit the pole. the pole hit the cab. He heard an explosion. He DID NOT say the plane caused the explosion. But he also DID NOT say it didn't cause the explosion.
He only stated what he heard. He didn't say he saw a plane hit the pentagon. He only heard an explosion.



It's not that I didn't like what you said I just don't agree.

A) It wasn't a "reporter", it was whoever writes the stories for the survivor project fund.

B) He didn't "hear" an explosion. He and the other driver heard a big boom and then turned to see an explosion...

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



Look at the pics and the pentagon in the background. Tell me, that a light pole hits your car, you try to stop. You stop. Another driver helps you move the pole off your car. Are you going to do all this as if you don't know a plane just hit the Pentagon a few hundred feet away from you. Moving it, you then hear a big boom and turn to see an explosion. The explosion is what caused you to look away and inadvertantly drop the pole on yourself. Are you going to still be 'wondering what had happened"?


As far as your other comment about needing more evidence, more than a taxi. There is more. But you are unfortunately coming into the tail end of a theory. This is almost 'advanced' research. I could give you tons more. But not here in the context of this thread. It is just not possible. And remember, this thread was created by an Admin from a post in the Catherder thread, go there and see if you can't find some more fishy stuff. Start at page 127.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   
The reason the pole looks damaged in one photo is foreshortening.

Allow me to illustrate with a magic trick.


Look this box is just as mysterious, one second the top is fine.

The next it's top is nearly destroyed through the magic of foreshortening.







posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

But I will apologize for the fact that it is extremely hard on me to try to discuss this very important event with a person who wants to minimize the human loss, bastardize the historical record, and whose efforts tend to deflect from real research into an event that begs for serious research efforts.



First of all, you don't know me. You don't know what I feel or how I feel.

Where did I minimize human loss? Or bastardize the historical record? Deflect from real research. I hate to break it to you, but this is as real as it gets. You want "real research" go to team8plus.org. Those are real 9/11 researchers.

You don't know the pain I feel because of what happened that day. How dare you?!?!?

You don't know that I eat, breathe and live this stuff. In hopes of getting real answers for those who lost their life even if I am wrong. AND I WANT TO BE WRONG!

I wake up nearly everyday thinking about those people, this world, my daughter, my fellow human beings. I cried when I thought of those firemen lugging all that heavy gear up all those flights of stairs, not knowing what was going to happen to them all to save some average joe or josephine like me or you. Those children who now have no mother or father because this. Those children, nationally and internationally, who subsequently lost a mother or father because of the BS event.

Don't you dare insult my efforts or motivation. You know nothing about either.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The reason the pole looks damaged in one photo is foreshortening.

Allow me to illustrate with a magic trick.


Look this box is just as mysterious, one second the top is fine.

The next it's top is nearly destroyed through the magic of foreshortening.




Are those the same boxes? They don't look like it.

And look at the shadow cast from the part above. The top piece is broken off. Knock off all this foreshortening nonsense.

Can't you see the cab was moved. It was proved through the light pole's globe a few posts ago.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I've asked a number of questions of you in this thread and you have yet to answer a single one of them.

That's getting real aggravating. And your personal offense at my opinion of your theory doesn't really mean much. Your theory isn't you. If you don't know that, you need to realize it. It creates more openmindedness.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Look I understand all that. I've read this thread from the beginning and I've also read the entire catherder thread as well as been to all the 9/11 web sites. I was only offering what I read in the cabbies account. I see where I made a mistake in what he said. He heard a boom and then saw an explosion. Again no plane. He didn't see a plane hit the pentagon. He didn't say that. He heard a boom and saw an explosion. My bad for not citing the whole thing. I paraphrased and said he heard an explosion. It's semantics. Boom, explosion. Some people might use either term.
Still he didn't say he saw a plane hit the pentagon. He saw a plane hit a light pole that hit his cab, then heard a boom and then saw an exlosion.
Which means quite literaly to me that if you want to use him as a witness to a plane hitting the pentagon you might want to reconsider.
But I also don't think his account amounts to a conspiracy. Seems he'd be a bad witness for either the prosecution or the defense. It's a rather vague testimony in the overall criminality of the current admin.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Looks like the polls were accounted for and designed to pop out if struck, since the alternative would be a very hard target for the wings to have to get through. Light polls are designed to stand straight in strong winds, they aren't made to pop out if hit by something - that equals hard targets in the flight path.

Very simple really. The GPS is set up, the plan is to send the plane along a path so it hits a pre-determined target, ie. this paticular area of the Pentagon where the accounting was (Rumfeld Sept 10th, 2001 - "Pentagon can't account for 2.3 Trillion in spending").

There's obstacles in the way in the form of street lamps that would otherwise trip the plane up or destroy it's wings, spoiling the clean entry they have planned for and probably spreading it all over the Pentagon lawn and further across the building, so they rigged the base of the poles to break out easily to reduce the force and keep the plane on it's path.

Could be as simple as cutting the base the night before at certain points so they would bend or come loose in the direction of the planes entry, reducing the stopping force they otherwise would possess.

Of course thou, that means pre-planning and we all know there was none of that, it was a shock that no one was expecting!



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
[Are those the same boxes? They don't look like it.



Yes there is only one box. The fact that you couldn't tell just illustrates my point.


Here is the box.




It is a box from the inside of a video game, I'm sure most of us have seen one before.




I took all the pictures of the box myself, so yeah I'm pretty sure it's the same undamaged box in all the pictures.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind


I took all the pictures of the box myself, so yeah I'm pretty sure it's the same undamaged box in all the pictures.



Hey man Is that some Jack in the background ?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

I took all the pictures of the box myself, so yeah I'm pretty sure it's the same undamaged box in all the pictures.



irrelevant.

your box may be the same but the posts are different.

the shadow on the base proves it.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

Originally posted by LeftBehind

I took all the pictures of the box myself, so yeah I'm pretty sure it's the same undamaged box in all the pictures.



irrelevant.

your box may be the same but the posts are different.

the shadow on the base proves it.


Irrelevant ? irrelevant ?

What's so irrelevant with Jack and a box ? ( pun intended )...

Folks...this thread is a non issue, get over it, get on with your lives...

There is nothing relavent in this cab and the Pentagon, other than some fantasy....

The cab didn't move...




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind


Yes there is only one box. The fact that you couldn't tell just illustrates my point.





No. It illustrates you don't have a very good camera. I was referring to the colors. One looks dark red, the other green.

If you had a box lid that had some pieces missing from it. Then you would have my attention. But for now, it's...



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Ah the Jedi has spoken! This thread can now be closed, we have the definitive answer.

If the Jedi says the cab wasn't moved, then it wasn't moved


After all you are the all knowing expert, right? You're the one who is going to explain this whole "official" story to us, so that all of the "holes" in it are closed up tight, right?

So I'm waiting...But I won't hold my breath.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master


Folks...this thread is a non issue, get over it, get on with your lives...

There is nothing relavent in this cab and the Pentagon, other than some fantasy....

The cab didn't move...




Then I guess you'll be on your way...



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Ah the Jedi has spoken! This thread can now be closed, we have the definitive answer.

If the Jedi says the cab wasn't moved, then it wasn't moved


After all you are the all knowing expert, right? You're the one who is going to explain this whole "official" story to us, so that all of the "holes" in it are closed up tight, right?

So I'm waiting...But I won't hold my breath.


That's right...it wasn't moved and this thread is a non issue in the investigation of 9/11, and the Pentagon...get over it... and move on...

All knowing expert...no...just using logic...yes...this is a non issue, unless you fantisise that the cab fired a missel...

Then you're going to have to involve the MIB in this
...

Get over it folks this is a non issue....



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join