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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Thanks Zed.

But you see as I told Valhall; Lloyd is the only one that had direct contact with the poles and he puts a human face and pictures of physical damage to the pole story.

Contrary to popular belief there are almost no eyewitnesses that claim to have actually SEEN the poles get knocked down.

Same with the actual plane impact.

Yes a lot of people saw a plane......but very few claim they saw it impact.

Naturally if the poles and other mechanical damage was staged a couple of planted witnesses would be used as well.




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Lloyd isn't the only witness to the plane hitting the pentagon. Among others, a Virginia State Trooper from their Arlington office was on a traffic stop during the attack. He was on the same side of the Pentagon and only a few hundred yards from the hit ... he was the very first responder to get on scene. I don't know what his official eye witness account is but it's probably buried in the 9/11 commission report somewhere.

It does seem strange that there is a lack of damage to the hood of the vehicle .. it looks (from a lay opinion), that it's almost like just the light fixture shot into his vehicle. His re-account of the incident many years later is bound to be far from perfect .. the man is in his 70's and anyone who faces any accident (not even in the context of 9/11) will give an account that will differ from a videotape of the event. Most people just are not that great at recalling events, not that they will admit it.

As far as previous comments regarding the driver and his choice of book-reading material. I can't agree that he doesn't fit the demographics of the book just because he is a cabbie ... I have no clue as to his socio-economic and educational background. He could be working as a cabbie while he's retired simply to get out of the house.




Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by ResinLA
What are you, Mr. Lonely heart? I didn't say anything about lightpoles in my post, I was talking about the thread topic "Undamaged Hood". Why dont you disprove that, or why there isnt a single picture of any parts from a wing had it clipped a lightpole on its way into the Pentagon. How did the plane manuever so perfectly after having clipped a lightpole, and not once touching the ground?


Thank you.

For some reason the point of the thread keeps getting ignored.

Lloyd's account is physically impossible therefore this "evidence" for a 757 is extremely suspect.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Thanks Zed.

But you see as I told Valhall; Lloyd is the only one that had direct contact with the poles and he puts a human face and pictures of physical damage to the pole story.

Contrary to popular belief there are almost no eyewitnesses that claim to have actually SEEN the poles get knocked down.

Same with the actual plane impact.

Yes a lot of people saw a plane......but very few claim they saw it impact.

Naturally if the poles and other mechanical damage was staged a couple of planted witnesses would be used as well.



Why "stage" the pole knockdowns?

It seems so preposterous to even consider it.

As far as I can deduce, the reason some people insist the poles were knocked down manually was to clear a path for the jet (which was ostensibly piloted by an inexperienced terrorist). Is that your point?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
There is no sign of explosives on any of the poles.


I suggest the original poles were taken down the night before and the pre-damaged poles were in nearby vehicles and planted just before or just after impact.


sounds reason-abled, jack. i was presuming (OOPS!) that some eyewitnesses saw poles falling as a plane past overhead.

what i wasn't presuming, was that the base looks cut with heat, not torn by shear.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I find a few things just downright wierd about this whole account..

1) The person that helped pull the pole from his car had time to stop his car, rush to loyds car pull out the pole and then see the pentagon hit? Right.. some slooooww flying plane then eh?


Lloyd doesn't make that claim himself. I write that one off to bad reporting.



2) A plane, going 500 mph flies so low it hits a light post on a highway, yet his 2 ton car is unmoved in anyway. The vacume from a plane going that fast that low should have rolled his car over, I have problems driving my car in a thunderstorm with strong winds let alone a 500 mph gust.



I don't believe this to be true either.



3) had a pole been struck by a plane going 500mph it would have been disinigrated (along with whateer part of the plane that struck the pole) if it did manage to survive, it would not be intact like the pictures suggest. Also, had the pole been hit and shot towards his car, I think the pole would have shot right through his car, it would have severly injured him and would have taken more then a little hole out of his windshield.


Yes this is the main point. Certianly the hood of his car would not remain unscratched.



3) Whether or not you listen to Ike, which I do not believe a word he says, it is rather ironic that he was reading that book when the planes hit on 9/11. I think that to be more coincidence, an amusing one at that. His account for the day I think is far to shady to be usefull, I mean imagine you where right there when the pentagon got hit, you would account for every second, this guy seems to remember very little, doesnt even know what hit his own car, and could not account for the plane debris.


Yes his account is beyond dubious.

His wife told us she is a retired clerk for the FBI.

Lloyd told us he is a member of the "blue knights" which is a motorcycle fraternity for law enforcement.

I believe Lloyd is either a patsy or an agent of some sort.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Thanks Zed.

But you see as I told Valhall; Lloyd is the only one that had direct contact with the poles and he puts a human face and pictures of physical damage to the pole story.

Contrary to popular belief there are almost no eyewitnesses that claim to have actually SEEN the poles get knocked down.

Same with the actual plane impact.

Yes a lot of people saw a plane......but very few claim they saw it impact.

Naturally if the poles and other mechanical damage was staged a couple of planted witnesses would be used as well.



Why "stage" the pole knockdowns?

It seems so preposterous to even consider it.

As far as I can deduce, the reason some people insist the poles were knocked down manually was to clear a path for the jet (which was ostensibly piloted by an inexperienced terrorist). Is that your point?


No.

I don't believe there was an actual impact from a jet. The poles were planted as evidence.

The physical damage was simulated.

We interviewed many eyewitnesses, some published and some random that we found in the neighborhood businesses and residences.

There is no question that a plane flew by low and fast in the area.

But the eyewitness accounts AS WELL AS the FDR data do not match up with the physical damage.

The flight path is way off.

The plane flew over the pentagon and the damage was faked with explosives/incendiariers.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by Lomillialor

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Thanks Zed.

But you see as I told Valhall; Lloyd is the only one that had direct contact with the poles and he puts a human face and pictures of physical damage to the pole story.

Contrary to popular belief there are almost no eyewitnesses that claim to have actually SEEN the poles get knocked down.

Same with the actual plane impact.

Yes a lot of people saw a plane......but very few claim they saw it impact.

Naturally if the poles and other mechanical damage was staged a couple of planted witnesses would be used as well.



Why "stage" the pole knockdowns?

It seems so preposterous to even consider it.

As far as I can deduce, the reason some people insist the poles were knocked down manually was to clear a path for the jet (which was ostensibly piloted by an inexperienced terrorist). Is that your point?


No.

I don't believe there was an actual impact from a jet. The poles were planted as evidence.

The physical damage was simulated.

We interviewed many eyewitnesses, some published and some random that we found in the neighborhood businesses and residences.

There is no question that a plane flew by low and fast in the area.

But the eyewitness accounts AS WELL AS the FDR data do not match up with the physical damage.

The flight path is way off.

The plane flew over the pentagon and the damage was faked with explosives/incendiariers.



But no one saw the plane fly away from the area?

And where did the passengers of that flight dissappear to?

And what about the witnesses who saw the jet strike the Pentagon (one Marine in particular comes to mind, and so does Lloyd's own comment that he saw the jet strike)?

What about the jet engines and landing gear and flight recorders found in the Pentagon?

What about the pictures of scrap metal at the impact site?

How did Lloyd's window get smashed if no poles actually fell at the time the jet flew over?

What about ATC witnesses who saw the radars and saw the phantom jet fly away from the Pentagon?

Too many incredible details that need to be answered before one can begin to seriously entertain your scenario.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper


Incorrect. There aren't even "hundreds" of witnesses of the plane in general! Only a handful mention the poles at all and I have yet to find one that claims they actually witnessed them being hit. Most simply saw the cab and the downed poles and simply deduced they were hit.


Oh yes there were.

urbanlegends.about.com...

Witnesses all around the city and as far away as the freeway saw it.


Anything on the ground could have been easily staged with bombs etc. Only something with the wing span of a 757 could have knocked down the poles if they weren't staged in advance.


Since there is no evidence of bombs around the pentagon, and it was broad daylight, Im going to say, this is even more physically impossible.




Yes that is from Russell Pickering's site who was on the trip with us. He wrote that before the trip. He was incorrect about the amount of witnesses to the poles. There are very few and they could have been plants or sensationalizing off what they deduced happened. I find it funny how you refuse to acknowledge the part of Lloyd's account that I am claiming is impossible. His undamaged hood. Even Russell agrees this would have been impossible.


It doesnt change the facts that he posted. If he no longer agrees, he should change his site.

However, the facts stand. Acording to the people who made the light poles, they were not that heavy.

And there were other witnesses to the lightpoles.



"Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said. 'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'"


From here



What really happened


The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the the highways. at least 19



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Why "stage" the pole knockdowns?


to lend physical evidence to the IDEA that a plane went along that path, near ground level. is that not obvious?


Originally posted by Lomillialor
But no one saw the plane fly away from the area?

And where did the passengers of that flight dissappear to?


how can anyone see what happens on the other side of a huge building? there is an airport RIGHT THERE, and any low flying planes would be completely normal.
people die easily. however, i believe they were mostly complicit, and were flown to a remote top secret airbase and given new identities.


Originally posted by LomillialorAnd what about the witnesses who saw the jet strike the Pentagon (one Marine in particular comes to mind, and so does Lloyd's own comment that he saw the jet strike)?


lloyd also said he got out of his car, and with another guy, who witnesses lloyd's misfortune, and then stopped HIS car, and got out and walked over to lloyd's car, and then they together lifted the pole off first before turning to see the plane strike the pentagon. the time between the poles getting knocked over and the plane hitting the pentagon would be SECONDS. there is simply NO WAY IN HELL that they could have done all that between the time the pole allegedly fell on lloyd's car, and the time the alleged plane allegedly struck the pentagon.


Originally posted by LomillialorWhat about the jet engines and landing gear and flight recorders found in the Pentagon?


i haven't seen them, personally. easily could have been planted in the ensuing mayhem.


Originally posted by LomillialorWhat about the pictures of scrap metal at the impact site?


planted. not hard to do. mayhem.


Originally posted by LomillialorHow did Lloyd's window get smashed if no poles actually fell at the time the jet flew over?


a windshield is easy to smash like that. it doesn't take any knowledge of physics (although, if they were my agents, i would make sure they were well versed in physics, to avoid the obvious hole in the windshield of the official LInE). a tire iron or concrete block would suffice.


Originally posted by LomillialorWhat about ATC witnesses who saw the radars and saw the phantom jet fly away from the Pentagon?


don't know. doesn't seem like a very big hole in the dyke. how many people were manning those radar screens, and what was their political leaning and social status and credit rating? did they have families that could be threatened?


Originally posted by LomillialorToo many incredible details that need to be answered before one can begin to seriously entertain your scenario.


that's what i say about the official conspiracy theory.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,'



'injuring' an aged taxi driver, who then got out of his cab, lifted at least 60 lbs ( the ground takes half the weight, if one end is touching the ground, and the samaritan takes the other quarter. the 'lightweight' poles weighed 250lbs.) and then walks home. injured? interesting.

apparently, the plane's trajectory and flight path was unaltered by the clipping of light poles....that is, 250 pound aluminum cylinders that are bolted into concrete bases. (breakaway or not, the plain old mass gives these poles a lot of inertia).



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by Jack Tripper


Incorrect. There aren't even "hundreds" of witnesses of the plane in general! Only a handful mention the poles at all and I have yet to find one that claims they actually witnessed them being hit. Most simply saw the cab and the downed poles and simply deduced they were hit.


Oh yes there were.

urbanlegends.about.com...

Witnesses all around the city and as far away as the freeway saw it.


Yes many people saw a plane....I know this. But how many of those accounts actually saw the light poles hit or the plane impact the pentagon? Not many at all. Certainly a low enough number to have been planted.


Anything on the ground could have been easily staged with bombs etc. Only something with the wing span of a 757 could have knocked down the poles if they weren't staged in advance.





Since there is no evidence of bombs around the pentagon, and it was broad daylight, Im going to say, this is even more physically impossible.


What does broad daylight have to do with bombs going off? Obviously explosions from bombs or a plane impact would look the same to any random people in the area.



Yes that is from Russell Pickering's site who was on the trip with us. He wrote that before the trip. He was incorrect about the amount of witnesses to the poles. There are very few and they could have been plants or sensationalizing off what they deduced happened. I find it funny how you refuse to acknowledge the part of Lloyd's account that I am claiming is impossible. His undamaged hood. Even Russell agrees this would have been impossible.


It doesnt change the facts that he posted. If he no longer agrees, he should change his site.


He still supports the 757 hypothesis. But that doesn't change the fact that he was wrong in this quote you cited.




However, the facts stand. Acording to the people who made the light poles, they were not that heavy.


Not that heavy? "People" who made them? Didn't you read my original post? We TALKED TO the VDOT who are the "people who made them" and they let us inspect the same style pole. I personally lifted the base end of one. They are 250 lbs and 40 feet long. Obviously too heavy and long to not damage the hood of the car.





And there were other witnesses to the lightpoles.



"Father Stephen McGraw..............


From here



Boy am I glad you posted his account! We also interviewed Father McGraw in person on our trip. He told us flat out that he DID NOT see the poles hit but merely deduced that they were hit because he saw them on the ground and the damaged cab. He did say that he saw the plane hit the pentagon though. But his story is questionable for other reasons. You can read an assesment of our interview with him here:
Father McGraw interview




What really happened


The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the the highways. at least 19




Funny that they don't list the 19 accounts of people allegedly seeing the lightpoles get hit. Seems like a low number out of "hundreds" of witnesses. Naturally plenty of them ALSO deduced that they were hit by the plane just like Father McGraw. And of course some of them may be plants. (also like father McGraw!
)



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Originally posted by Lomillialor



But no one saw the plane fly away from the area?


What makes you think they didn't? The pentagon is right next to reagan national airport and planes are flying in and out of there all day long. Plus there is the account of the C-130 that flew by within a minute after the attack. If anyone called to report a fly-over plane it would simply be blown off as that.



And where did the passengers of that flight dissappear to?


How am I supposed to know? Most likely executed like the 2,000 + people at the towers.



And what about the witnesses who saw the jet strike the Pentagon (one Marine in particular comes to mind, and so does Lloyd's own comment that he saw the jet strike)?


Lloyd specifically says that he did NOT see the plane strike. There are very few eyewitnesses that claim they did. Some may be sensationalizing or exaggerating for attention and others may be plants.



What about the jet engines and landing gear and flight recorders found in the Pentagon?


No engines were found. The cockpit voice recorder was not recovered but the Flight Data Recorder was and could have easily been planted. Very very few plane parts and debris were found at all but most was INSIDE the pentagon. Obviously that would be quite easy to plant.



What about the pictures of scrap metal at the impact site?


There was barely any and what little there was remained mysteriously UNCHARRED!



How did Lloyd's window get smashed if no poles actually fell at the time the jet flew over?


Are you not getting anything that I am claiming? THEY STAGED IT!



What about ATC witnesses who saw the radars and saw the phantom jet fly away from the Pentagon?


Obviously they had no clue what was going on since the alleged 757 wasn't intercepted!



Too many incredible details that need to be answered before one can begin to seriously entertain your scenario.


You have already begun.

Yes 9/11 was an incredible event with LOTS of incredible details.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor

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????


Let's see the link



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Oh contrar! YOU ARE WRONG!

They did find jet engines at the Pentagon. Here's a pic of an engine....

www.rense.com...

And if you read other posts here, you will find there were dozens if not 100s of witnesses to the plane impacting the Pentagon.

The easiest way to simulate an attack on the Pentagon--is duh--to attack he Pentagon with a real jet airliner full of people using a real terrorist pilot.

All Bush (if Bush instigated the attack) had to do was make a phone call to the Bin Laden family (close friends and business partners) and ask them to arrange for it to happen. Simple as that! No witnesses! No tell-tale blood on any American's hands! No complicated planning and phone records to worry about!

Instead, you have Bush calling numerous people across the country arranging to have a jet airliner simulate an impact, then fly it somewhere out of ATC and USAF eyes, and have the passengers murdered and disposed of, and have someone else use explosives to topple the light poles so that it would appear the jet knocked them down, and have teams of loyal FBI agents confiscating radar tapes and threatening ATC and USAF personell to keep quiet about the reality that they saw the jet fly over the Pentagon instead of hitting it, and so on.

Had the WTC jets not been video taped, you all would be claiming no jets hit the WTC.

Actual forensic evidence proves a jet struck the Pentagon. Witnesses have testified to it. And common sense dictates that the your alternative scenarios are significantly more difficult to carry out than simply hijacking a jet and flying it into the Pentagon.

Remarkable!

If (a big if) Bush instigated 911, he did it with a simple phone call to the Bin Laden family instead of risking all and having other Ameircans to the dirty deed in a way that only simulates an attack with a jetliner. Period! End of story!



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Lomillialor

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????


Let's see the link


Here are two.....

www.foxnews.com...

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Flight-school instructors recounted Zacarias Moussaoui's training for a pilot's license Thursday as the government sought to build its case that he was a credible terrorist threat, not the hopeless malcontent portrayed by his lawyers

abcnews.go.com...

ALEXANDRIA, Va. Mar 9, 2006 (AP)— Zacarias Moussaoui was a credible if below-average student at flight school, his main instructor testified Thursday as part of the government's effort to show the al-Qaida devotee was a more serious terrorist threat than portrayed by his defense.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor

Oh contrar! YOU ARE WRONG!

They did find jet engines at the Pentagon. Here's a pic of an engine....

www.rense.com...



Seriously? Rense.com is your source of FACT now? JEEBUS man. LEt me find you some other FACTS of Rense.com...

"50 men engineered 9/11"
www.rense.com...

"The Bush Regime Operates Totally outside the Law"
www.rense.com...

"Bush Lies!"
noquarter.typepad.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor

Oh contrar! YOU ARE WRONG!

They did find jet engines at the Pentagon. Here's a pic of an engine....

www.rense.com...



Seriously? Rense.com is your source of FACT now? JEEBUS man. LEt me find you some other FACTS of Rense.com...

"50 men engineered 9/11"
www.rense.com...

"The Bush Regime Operates Totally outside the Law"
www.rense.com...

"Bush Lies!"
noquarter.typepad.com...



It's the same photo no matter which site you link to. But hey, I'm willing to admit I may incorrectly rely on a false piece of internet info every once in a while. Are you willing to admit the "facts" you get from conspiracy sites may be false?

Here's another link with more jet engine part photos....

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Of course, no matter which site I link to or which photo I find, you'll automaticaly find a reason why they should be ignored or why i should go waste time googling for something you can google yourself.

Hey, and don't forget the photos in tnat other link I provided in the other thread (where the 87 eyewitness names aree listed).....

Here are a few tips on finding relevant photos using google....

google using words like "Pentagon jet engine parts photo"

...or "pentagon landing gear photos"

...or similar....



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
It's the same photo no matter which site you link to. But hey, I'm willing to admit I may incorrectly rely on a false piece of internet info every once in a while. Are you willing to admit the "facts" you get from conspiracy sites may be false?


Find an instance of me using a "conspiracy site" as a source...

I have seen the singl itty bitty piece of an engine and the single itty bitty piece of landing gear... you are presenting NOTHING new. The "parts" you point out represent about .001% of the entire plane. SO... INSTEAD of showing me the SAME six pictures... tell me...

Where is the REST of the plane?

Wings? Wing Spar? Counterweights? Fuselage? Seats? Luggage? Cargo? People? Tail Section? Te rest of the landing gear? The other engine and the rest of what you are falsely claiming is an "engine"? Cockpit devices? Voice Recorder?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor

Oh contrar! YOU ARE WRONG!

They did find jet engines at the Pentagon. Here's a pic of an engine....

www.rense.com...


Dude. That is NOT an engine. It is part of a destroyed trailer. This has been debunked.




And if you read other posts here, you will find there were dozens if not 100s of witnesses to the plane impacting the Pentagon.


Dozens that saw a plane.....yes.......but that saw the impact? Nope.



The easiest way to simulate an attack on the Pentagon--is duh--to attack he Pentagon with a real jet airliner full of people using a real terrorist pilot.

All Bush (if Bush instigated the attack) had to do was make a phone call to the Bin Laden family (close friends and business partners) and ask them to arrange for it to happen. Simple as that! No witnesses! No tell-tale blood on any American's hands! No complicated planning and phone records to worry about!


You are making stuff up. You have no idea what you are talking about.



Instead, you have Bush calling numerous people across the country arranging to have a jet airliner simulate an impact, then fly it somewhere out of ATC and USAF eyes, and have the passengers murdered and disposed of, and have someone else use explosives to topple the light poles so that it would appear the jet knocked them down, and have teams of loyal FBI agents confiscating radar tapes and threatening ATC and USAF personell to keep quiet about the reality that they saw the jet fly over the Pentagon instead of hitting it, and so on.


Whatever dude. You are not only making stuff up but you are mischaracterizing my claims. This doesn't even deserve a response.



Had the WTC jets not been video taped, you all would be claiming no jets hit the WTC.


I have never met you. Why do you think it is ok to make stuff up about what I would think about a hypothetical situation?



Actual forensic evidence proves a jet struck the Pentagon. Witnesses have testified to it. And common sense dictates that the your alternative scenarios are significantly more difficult to carry out than simply hijacking a jet and flying it into the Pentagon.


There is plenty of evidence to the contrary and that is my point.



If (a big if) Bush instigated 911, he did it with a simple phone call to the Bin Laden family instead of risking all and having other Ameircans to the dirty deed in a way that only simulates an attack with a jetliner. Period! End of story!


Stop wasting my time.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by Lomillialor

Oh contrar! YOU ARE WRONG!

They did find jet engines at the Pentagon. Here's a pic of an engine....

www.rense.com...


Dude. That is NOT an engine. It is part of a destroyed trailer. This has been debunked.




And if you read other posts here, you will find there were dozens if not 100s of witnesses to the plane impacting the Pentagon.


Dozens that saw a plane.....yes.......but that saw the impact? Nope.



The easiest way to simulate an attack on the Pentagon--is duh--to attack he Pentagon with a real jet airliner full of people using a real terrorist pilot.

All Bush (if Bush instigated the attack) had to do was make a phone call to the Bin Laden family (close friends and business partners) and ask them to arrange for it to happen. Simple as that! No witnesses! No tell-tale blood on any American's hands! No complicated planning and phone records to worry about!


You are making stuff up. You have no idea what you are talking about.



Instead, you have Bush calling numerous people across the country arranging to have a jet airliner simulate an impact, then fly it somewhere out of ATC and USAF eyes, and have the passengers murdered and disposed of, and have someone else use explosives to topple the light poles so that it would appear the jet knocked them down, and have teams of loyal FBI agents confiscating radar tapes and threatening ATC and USAF personell to keep quiet about the reality that they saw the jet fly over the Pentagon instead of hitting it, and so on.


Whatever dude. You are not only making stuff up but you are mischaracterizing my claims. This doesn't even deserve a response.



Had the WTC jets not been video taped, you all would be claiming no jets hit the WTC.


I have never met you. Why do you think it is ok to make stuff up about what I would think about a hypothetical situation?



Actual forensic evidence proves a jet struck the Pentagon. Witnesses have testified to it. And common sense dictates that the your alternative scenarios are significantly more difficult to carry out than simply hijacking a jet and flying it into the Pentagon.


There is plenty of evidence to the contrary and that is my point.



If (a big if) Bush instigated 911, he did it with a simple phone call to the Bin Laden family instead of risking all and having other Ameircans to the dirty deed in a way that only simulates an attack with a jetliner. Period! End of story!


Stop wasting my time.


I posted a link earlier on this thread (or maybe the other one) that has the names and comments from like 87 eyewitnesses who said they saw the jet HIT the Pentagon.

I also posted a link that showed detailed photos of engine remnants at the pentagon and showed photos of detailed engineering drawings and photos of the same engines kinds of that were intact and which clearly proved they were engine parts from the proper type as installed on a 757.

I also posted photos of landing gear.

Some of those same eyewitnesses who were in the Pentagon near the impact site also testified they saw cockpit panels, airplane seats, and other parts.

BTW, if you read my profile, you will find I am not a dude. You can't even get that right.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join