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.

 

Lloyd The Taxicab Driver: The Mystery of the Undamaged Hood.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   

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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'


I have to agree... the timeline seems a bit off if this is true.

Is it possible that Lloyds accounts of the day may just be jumbled a bit. The mind wanders a bit when you get older, the mind wanders a bit when you get older


I don't think his story is 100% accurate, but I don't see how it plays into a CT.




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I do not believe a 757 can hit a light pole and survive.



What do you mean by "survive"??

Do you mean that you believe that all the mass of a hurtling jet airliner in the final segment of its controlled trajectory will somehow be altered or diverted in a way that could not, first, reach the nearby pentagon, and second, do any damage to the Pentagon?

Do you mean that after the jet hit the pole it would inevitably crash short of the Pentagon? Also, does it matter whether the jet actually crashed (i.e the jet technically had no control ability in the final yards) into the pentagon as opposed to strike it in a state where all controls of the jet were still intact.

In essence, given the extremely short distance between the poles and the pentagon strike area, does it matter what happened to the plane when it clipped the poles?

Also, isn't it possible the jet simply glanced the tops of one or more poles and had enough force to knock them down without severly disabling the jet?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Also, isn't it possible the jet simply glanced the tops of one or more poles and had enough force to knock them down without severly disabling the jet?


There is prescedent for jumbo jets colliding with light poles... flight 255, a DC-9 out of Detroit hit a light pole and sheared off 18 feet of the wing...

Did filght 77 have "super special strong wings" and the Detroit flight did not?

How many were down by the Pentagon?

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Also, isn't it possible the jet simply glanced the tops of one or more poles and had enough force to knock them down without severly disabling the jet?


There is prescedent for jumbo jets colliding with light poles... flight 255, a DC-9 out of Detroit hit a light pole and sheared off 18 feet of the wing...

Did filght 77 have "super special strong wings" and the Detroit flight did not?

How many were down by the Pentagon?

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]


Sure, but did THIS jet necessarrily hit the poles with a wing? Couldn't it have just barely grazed the pole(s) with it's underbelly? Or maybe that other plane that lost it's wing hit the poles too low, and this jet on the other hand hit them higher up at the tip of the poles and/or maybe with a jet engine.

Precedents do not require that all similar events happen the exact same way.

And if, as you imply, the poles were NOT knocked down by the jet, why did the poles come down? What attack scenario makes it logical that the poles came down manually or otherwise?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Sure, but did THIS jet necessarrily hit the poles with a wing? Couldn't it have just barely grazed the pole(s) with it's underbelly?


LOOK at the poles, they are reipped out of the ground and cut at the tops.... harly what I would consider "grazed".

Flight 255 hit the top of a SINGLE pole... we know this because it then went on to hit the roof of a single story building with what was left of the wing.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
And if, as you imply, the poles were NOT knocked down by the jet, why did the poles come down? What attack scenario makes it logical that the poles came down manually or otherwise?


The answer is I DO NOT KNOW... All I do is look for problems, incosistencies, 'magic', coincedences and fabrications in any part of the "official" stories. The truth will NOT be found until enough momentum is gained for a NEW investigation... so to that end, the only logical thing to do is point out every possible problem with all of the official stories.

I do not claim to know what the heck happened t the pentagon, but I do know that the governemt is:

Supressing evidence
Telling lies to the 9/11 Comission (also liars)
Selling us a story that makes little sense to an avionics expert.
Trying to say it is some coincidence that the accountants that were investigating the loss of 2.3 TRILLION dollars (announced by Rummy on 9/10) were killed in the crash.

I suggest you do some searching here and see what the only man to hold EVERY FAA flight cert, has 19,000 flight hours on 100 airframes has to say about flying that plane into the Pentagon... his name is John Lear.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I've been following the various threads that contend a 757 did not hit the pentagon, and have one simple question for the tin foil hat wearers...

Why airplanes AND controlled demolitions for part of the "inside job" and a just a missle for another part?

Oh, wait...I suppose they could have used controlled demolitions to topple the light poles at the pentagon.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor
And if, as you imply, the poles were NOT knocked down by the jet, why did the poles come down? What attack scenario makes it logical that the poles came down manually or otherwise?


The answer is I DO NOT KNOW... All I do is look for problems, incosistencies, 'magic', coincedences and fabrications in any part of the "official" stories. The truth will NOT be found until enough momentum is gained for a NEW investigation... so to that end, the only logical thing to do is point out every possible problem with all of the official stories.

I do not claim to know what the heck happened t the pentagon, but I do know that the governemt is:

Supressing evidence
Telling lies to the 9/11 Comission (also liars)
Selling us a story that makes little sense to an avionics expert.
Trying to say it is some coincidence that the accountants that were investigating the loss of 2.3 TRILLION dollars (announced by Rummy on 9/10) were killed in the crash.

I suggest you do some searching here and see what the only man to hold EVERY FAA flight cert, has 19,000 flight hours on 100 airframes has to say about flying that plane into the Pentagon... his name is John Lear.



Occam's razor (and evidence) suggests one thing: That a jetliner struck the Pentagon on the morning of 911 and knocked down one or more poles on its final trajectory.

But I agree that the gvmt has acted suspiciously and that there are one or more strange coincidences on various issues regrading 911. I do in fact believe the gvmt may have known about the impending attacks and decided not to prevent them. I do in fact believe it is possible Bush's close relationship with the Bin Laden family is too coincidental and that this requires a close examination of his communications with that family on or before 911. I also believe the gvmt may have planted evidence at various target locations in order to implicate certain people, including Moussoui.

Whre I mainly differ though, is that I pretty much think all attacks occurred pretty much as officially described and that the towers came down unexpectedly as a result of damage by jets, and so on.

BTW, most avionics experts and engineers and pilots agree with the official accounts of al the attacks.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Occam's razor (and evidence) suggests one thing: That a jetliner struck the Pentagon on the morning of 911 and knocked down one or more poles on its final trajectory.


Do not try to invoke the Razor... this is a VERY complex issue and that is not what the Razor is for anyway... search this site, we have gone over and over this.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
But I agree that the gvmt has acted suspiciously and that there are one or more strange coincidences on various issues regrading 911. I do in fact believe the gvmt may have known about the impending attacks and decided not to prevent them. I do in fact believe it is possible Bush's close relationship with the Bin Laden family is too coincidental and that this requires a close examination of his communications with that family on or before 911. I also believe the gvmt may have planted evidence at various target locations in order to implicate certain people, including Moussoui.


Good, you have listed about .1% of all the coincidences, lies, fabrications, weird circumstances, benefits, etc. etc. etc. circilng the governments conspiracy theory. I am glad you are objective.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
BTW, most avionics experts and engineers and pilots agree with the official accounts of al the attacks.


Again, PLEASE, if you want to maintain credibility, do not post things like this with NO SOURCE. Find me a commercial jetliner pilot who thinks he couls have flown in the exact manner the Pentagon flight was flown in. We have an eminent expert in the field on this board who will GLADLY debate them on the topic. A lot of SEs came out on 9/11 and claimed the jet fuel melted steel... get my point?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Sure, but did THIS jet necessarrily hit the poles with a wing? Couldn't it have just barely grazed the pole(s) with it's underbelly?


LOOK at the poles, they are reipped out of the ground and cut at the tops.... harly what I would consider "grazed".

Flight 255 hit the top of a SINGLE pole... we know this because it then went on to hit the roof of a single story building with what was left of the wing.


There must be an infinite number of ways a jet can strike a pole--in terms of how hard it hits or glances it, or the angle, or at the speed of the collision, or the part of the plane that strikes it.

No doubt a large number of these possibilities can cause a pole to be uprooted and damaged just as the 911 pictures show without requiring any major piece of the plane to be sheered off.

You argument seems to be that there is now way a jey could knock down a pole and damage it that much without sheering a wing or crashing.

Well, first of all, perhaps the jet in fact crashed after hitting the poles. Maybe had it not hit the poles it would have crashed short of the Pentagon (or elsewere)!

Or maybe it survived the collissions with the poles because the jet's speed and mass is so much greater than the poles, and maybe just the slightest glance would cause these poles to whiplash and uproot themselves just as happened.

I don't think there is anything suspicious I've read about here or elsewhere regarding the light poles and the circumstances of the Pentagon crash. Everything seems entirely consistent with a jet striking light poles on its final plunge to the target. And to assume anything different (e.g. poles removed manualy) is in fact the more incredible of the two scenarios to believe.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
You argument seems to be that there is now way a jey could knock down a pole and damage it that much without sheering a wing or crashing.


My argument is that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY given some cited historical facts I have located.

I am open to anyone that can provide me factual evidence of a jumbo jet wing hitting ANYTHING, especially a light pole, and the wing not suffering major damage. Then, if that is established, I would like a reference to one that did SEVERE damage to MANY objects or poles without the wing shearing or immediate nose dive.

The center of gravity of the plane is right between the wings... if you hit the poles with the leading edge AND the wings do not shear, what effect sould this have on the attitude of the plane?

How doe the SOFT Al skin of the wing survive 100% intact and not leave pieces all over the roadway?

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Occam's razor (and evidence) suggests one thing: That a jetliner struck the Pentagon on the morning of 911 and knocked down one or more poles on its final trajectory.


Do not try to invoke the Razor... this is a VERY complex issue and that is not what the Razor is for anyway... search this site, we have gone over and over this.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
But I agree that the gvmt has acted suspiciously and that there are one or more strange coincidences on various issues regrading 911. I do in fact believe the gvmt may have known about the impending attacks and decided not to prevent them. I do in fact believe it is possible Bush's close relationship with the Bin Laden family is too coincidental and that this requires a close examination of his communications with that family on or before 911. I also believe the gvmt may have planted evidence at various target locations in order to implicate certain people, including Moussoui.


Good, you have listed about .1% of all the coincidences, lies, fabrications, weird circumstances, benefits, etc. etc. etc. circilng the governments conspiracy theory. I am glad you are objective.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
BTW, most avionics experts and engineers and pilots agree with the official accounts of al the attacks.


Again, PLEASE, if you want to maintain credibility, do not post things like this with NO SOURCE. Find me a commercial jetliner pilot who thinks he couls have flown in the exact manner the Pentagon flight was flown in. We have an eminent expert in the field on this board who will GLADLY debate them on the topic. A lot of SEs came out on 9/11 and claimed the jet fuel melted steel... get my point?


If you want a source for something someone says, I suggest maybe just ask them to provide it instead of implying/assuming beforehand they have no credibility. To immediately challenge someone's credibility instead of simply asking for a source is a rather abrupt debating tactic.

While I have seen sources for everything I say or believe here on this forum, it does not mean I have ready access to them. I shall look for one on this issue later when I have a chance. However, I think it is reasonable to at least agree for the moment that there are indeed people of all types and occupations who agree with the official 911 story as well as the alternative theories. Simply claiming that there are X experts on your side of an issues is not always meaningful. Don't get me wrong! I do believe in alternative thinking and minority viewpoints, but it has to be backed up with hard facts or logic or something. What matters is not the number of people believeing in something, but the quality of their thinking behind such beliefs. I hope we can agree on that! So the quesltion here is, which experts (i.e. yours or mine) are more believeable? And in my own personal experiences, I tend to go with the majority of the experts on 911 (though again, I can not at this time prove to you that the majority of experts agree with the offical accounts of 911).



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Again, PLEASE, if you want to maintain credibility, do not post things like this with NO SOURCE.


If you want a source for something someone says, I suggest maybe just ask them to provide it instead of implying/assuming beforehand they have no credibility. To immediately challenge someone's credibility instead of simply asking for a source is a rather abrupt debating tactic.


Read what I wrote... I give you the benefit of the doubt...


Originally posted by Lomillialor
So the quesltion here is, which experts (i.e. yours or mine) are more believeable? And in my own personal experiences, I tend to go with the majority of the experts on 911 (though again, I can not at this time prove to you that the majority of experts agree with the offical accounts of 911).


Again, I ask you... what "experts" are you referring to? I will address their credibility individually if you woulo like.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Can you agree the wing may not have hit the poles?

Can you agree that in the entire history of aviation that planes must have indeed struck and knocked down things (like tree tops, light poles, etc) without requiring the plane to crash or lose major components? Just because you have a source for one crash where a wing did sheer off does not preclude all other possibilities.

Can you agree that we really don't know whether any aluminum (or other) parts were NOT FOUND near the poles, or that such metal parts may have continued on thie own impetus closer to the Pentagon?

Can you prove metal parts were not found anywhere?

I do know there was extensive metal scraps near the Pentagon. I've seen the pictures. (sorry don't have them now) There's a famous one showing white/blue painted aircraft aluminum. Some of these parts could have been from when the jet glanced off the poles.

When you toss a coke can out a car window going 70MPH, does it stop where it first hits the road or does it bounce along for some number of yards? If a part falls off a speeding jet after striking a pole, how many yards might it bounce?

Also, you did not address my point that the poles indeed may have caused the jet to lose control in its final yards of flight and that it technically crashed into the Pentagon instead of being guided 100%. In this scenario, the plane is indeed affected in a disastrous way as you are arguing a light pole would do. So, what's the problem?

I also again ask, what is the point in manually removing light poles prior to a planned jet strike on a building? Why no witnesses? Why were the poles so damaged if they were removed manually? Why not simply ask the pilot to fly over the poles?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Again, PLEASE, if you want to maintain credibility, do not post things like this with NO SOURCE.


If you want a source for something someone says, I suggest maybe just ask them to provide it instead of implying/assuming beforehand they have no credibility. To immediately challenge someone's credibility instead of simply asking for a source is a rather abrupt debating tactic.


Read what I wrote... I give you the benefit of the doubt...


Originally posted by Lomillialor
So the quesltion here is, which experts (i.e. yours or mine) are more believeable? And in my own personal experiences, I tend to go with the majority of the experts on 911 (though again, I can not at this time prove to you that the majority of experts agree with the offical accounts of 911).


Again, I ask you... what "experts" are you referring to? I will address their credibility individually if you woulo like.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]


As I said, I''ll look for some links later when I have time. Are you suggesting there are no experts who believe the official accounts? I know I've watched scores of programs with pilots/engineers/etc who have basically confirmed the official accounts.

I even recall a story where one of the flight instructors of the terrorists said they were not incompetent as commonly described by conspiracy theorists. He in fact said his students were capable to flying the jets in the way that occurred on 911.

I'll try to find this story too.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
I even recall a story where one of the flight instructors of the terrorists said they were not incompetent as commonly described by conspiracy theorists. He in fact said his students were capable to flying the jets in the way that occurred on 911.


Translation - 'Don't choose my flight school, to learn to fly in, because my students are so inept at graduation that they can't hit the broadside of a barn.'

What did you think he is going to say?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
As I said, I''ll look for some links later when I have time. Are you suggesting there are no experts who believe the official accounts?


No, but I am suggesting that if "they" are the basis of your argument that you can at least name... ohh... say... ONE?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Lomillialor
I even recall a story where one of the flight instructors of the terrorists said they were not incompetent as commonly described by conspiracy theorists. He in fact said his students were capable to flying the jets in the way that occurred on 911.


Translation - 'Don't choose my flight school, to learn to fly in, because my students are so inept at graduation that they can't hit the broadside of a barn.'

What did you think he is going to say?


So you automatically discount his opinion (even before I have a chance to find a link to it). Sounds like you have a pre-conceived agenda to me.

No matter which links I provide, you wil simply come up with some reason why those opinions should be discarded????



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor
As I said, I''ll look for some links later when I have time. Are you suggesting there are no experts who believe the official accounts?


No, but I am suggesting that if "they" are the basis of your argument that you can at least name... ohh... say... ONE?



Just got back from lunch. I'll start my search now. BTW, Bush routinely finds "experts" to back up his science theories, like Global warming, for example.

Does it really prove anything for you or me to say we have a source to an "expert"?

No, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether they are truly an expert and whether their science is sound and whether their opinions are affected by some emotional issue regarding the issue.

I asked earlier, Can we agree that there are experts and pilots and engineers on both sides of the issue who disagree? And yet, you want me to spend precious time trying to find a link for something that common sense dictates must be true (namely, that there are experts who disagree with your experts).

In other words, we are wasting time by trying to prove who has the most and best experts. Nevertheless, I am searching....



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Great job Tripper.
The people who are disagreeing in this thread are either close minded or they are paid disinfo spreaders. How can you not see something is fishy with 9/11 and continue to support the governments story?
This almost makes me as mad as the paid actor/wives from yesterdays national broadcast, with fake tears and all, not to mention the wrong pronunciation of their own supposed husbands names.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join