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: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
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.


Proves nothing. Conflicting reports. Fallibility of eyewitnesses.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
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.


Proves nothing. < .1% of the plane. Where is the rest of the plane?

Not to mentuion, your source is rense.com.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
I also posted photos of landing gear.


One of HOW MANY RIMS?


Originally posted by Lomillialor
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.


I saw aliens... Do you believe me?


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


Now, now... let us not sink into anger.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor

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.




Untrue.

Post the link again.

Yes there are some.

But 87? No way.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor
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.


Proves nothing. Conflicting reports. Fallibility of eyewitnesses.

87 eyewitnmess testimonies, including many who swore they saw a jet HIT the Pentagon, and you are convinced they all made mistakes? Yet, the one or two who said they saw a missile or a second jet, and you're all over with that?


Originally posted by Lomillialor
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.


Proves nothing. < .1% of the plane. Where is the rest of the plane?

Not to mentuion, your source is rense.com.

My source is also that aerospace link, which you saw and here now fail to mention. Some of those eyewitness reports have quotes where people saw cockpit panels, seats, people, and many other things. Although I have no idea why there aren't MORE photos of the interior of the Pentagon, I could easily speculate that the photos weren't released because they had dead people in them. The engine photo shows that the thing was almost completely destroyed by both high heat and impact forces. This implies or suggest that most of the other aircraft parts that struck or entered the Pentagon were similarly destroyed or consumed by fire if flammable, etc... I read an eyewitness statement somewhere today that said he saw a largely intact engine being removed from the Pentagon during cleanup phase.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
I also posted photos of landing gear.


One of HOW MANY RIMS?

How many landing gears does a missile have? I've seen several photos of landing gears, but don't know if they are from the same landing gear/wheel/etc. In any case, now you are saying one photo isn't enough, you want me to go find a photo for EACH wheel hub? Yeah, right.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
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.


I saw aliens... Do you believe me?

Maybe. I saw a UFO once. ha ha Seriously, here you are simply dismissing inconvenient testimony. This statement of yours is proff you subscribe only to dogma regarding the Pentagon attack.


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


Now, now... let us not sink into anger.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]


I do agree there is a dearth of photo and other evidence. But that is typical gvmt secrecy in almost any circumstance. You would have a hard time finding detailed and thorough photos for MOST US aircraft impact zones. It could also be because there were human remains in most of the photos. It could also be exactly as you all suggest (major conspiracy), but IMHO there is sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by Lomillialor

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.




Untrue.

Post the link again.

Yes there are some.

But 87? No way.


www.ratical.org...

Many (not all) of those eyewtnesses said they saw it hit the pentagon.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
I do agree there is a dearth of photo and other evidence. But that is typical gvmt secrecy in almost any circumstance. You would have a hard time finding detailed and thorough photos for MOST US aircraft impact zones. It could also be because there were human remains in most of the photos. It could also be exactly as you all suggest (major conspiracy), but IMHO there is sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise.


Look sweetie, if all you are bringing to the table is "eyewitness, eyewitness, eyewitness" and the same 6 photos we have been "given" by the governemt, you are not going to convince many "CTers".

All I ask is for a RELEASE OF THE EVIDENCE... instead of arguing with me, justifying the governments disgusting actions, why not agree that the time has come to RELEASE the photos and videos the NIST and FBI are illegally witholding from the American People?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
www.ratical.org...

Many (not all) of those eyewtnesses said they saw it hit the pentagon.




Oh ok.

So now it's down from 87 to "many".

I already said that I know there are some.

People often deduce, sensationalize to make their accounts more important, and of course there would be planted witnesses as well.

That = what could be construed as "many".



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
You see Lomillialor.....I know for a fact that there was a plane there.

But I have talked to eyewitnesses that contradict the official flight path.

The plane did not hit the pentagon.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by Lomillialor
www.ratical.org...

Many (not all) of those eyewtnesses said they saw it hit the pentagon.




Oh ok.

So now it's down from 87 to "many".

I already said that I know there are some.

People often deduce, sensationalize to make their accounts more important, and of course there would be planted witnesses as well.

That = what could be construed as "many".


This is a typical Bush tactic. Try to destroy credibility with dishonest debating tactics. I haven't been here long on this forum, but if this is the kind of tactics I can expect, then I won't be here long. Though of course that is probably your intention anyway. Most ideologues like you seek to destroy alternative views in whatever manner they can. Rather than look at the evidence provided, you simply try to destroy. You are no different than the gvmt people trying to hide the full facts of 911.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Are you joking?

My response was perfectly reasonable and factual.

Eyewitnesses are notorious for sensationalizing and if 9/11 was an inside job it would be utterly disingenous to suggest that they didn't plant any witnesses.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Ok every one, please breath in deeply through the nose a n d exhale out mouth easy and slow, then repeat.

Admin and all staff are reviewing this, and all related material. Patience and respect for each other is as always expected. No stomping or hogtieing, on your own time, but not here or now.

Present yourselves clearly and with a obvious intention of collaboration, either for one side or the other. Keep it simple and one step at a time. No point in getting ahead of ones self, speeding over the limit is only going to get you a couple seconds, it is not worth it this aint nascar. Not to mention, the tickets are not worth it also.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled posting.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Admin and all staff are reviewing this, and all related material.


Oh yeah?

So does that mean the ATS "staff" has now decided to take on the 9/11 case?


Honestly......I don't get your post at all.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
You know what's great about this thread?

Not ONE person has been willing to suggest that Lloyd's account of the approximately 30 foot severed pole over 200 lbs crashing through his windshield without damaging his hood is possible!


I wish people would understand the gravity of this.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You know what's great about this thread?

Not ONE person has been willing to suggest that Lloyd's account of the approximately 30 foot severed pole over 200 lbs crashing through his windshield without damaging his hood is possible!


I wish people would understand the gravity of this.


I'm not trying to facetious, but I don't understans why a projectile that went through Lloyd's window would have to also hit his hood. Is it bigger than I'm imagining?

As to everything else, I really don't think a jet hit the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by trudginup

I'm not trying to facetious, but I don't understans why a projectile that went through Lloyd's window would have to also hit his hood. Is it bigger than I'm imagining?


It must be.

We're talking about 30 feet and over 200 lbs.




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by trudginup

I'm not trying to facetious, but I don't understans why a projectile that went through Lloyd's window would have to also hit his hood. Is it bigger than I'm imagining?


It must be.

We're talking about 30 feet and over 200 lbs.



Holy crap...My original question now sounds dumb. Umm...I'm gonna have to agree with you Jack, this whole story is unbelievable.

The fact that he would not have time to do everthing he said he did in his testimony...Plus the fact, it would be physically impossible for the hood not to of been smashed...Plus the fact, there were no skid marks on the road...makes this man's whole story implausible.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I dont suppose you know what the other book was anyone?? I think that I have already seen it before somewhere in a 911 truth video George W. bush was holding it and I believe it was a Zionist related book if anyone could help shed some light on this I would be very much grateful



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Lloyd's account is physically impossible yet this is the MOST CRITICAL eyewitness in regards to the physical damage from the 757. (Jack Tripper).


Well I think we can agree that Lloyd's account is impossible in a number of regards and it is certainly significant in that it recounts the closest encounter with the light poles which wre hit by the plane. However, it is certainly not the only account which specificaly refers to the plane hitting the poles and others have already been quoted here. I think the logic of some of the argument in this thread is sorely confused though, Jack Tripper has already said...



Lloyd is old, frail, and a bit senile


...so I am a little confused why a number of people seem happy to treat his story, the "impossible" story of a "senile" witness, seriously and draw the potential conclusion that the damage was staged and is, therefore, evidence of Government complicity whilst cheerfully dismissing the eye witness testimony of others as sensationalist.

Surely the logical conclusion is that it is Lloyd's story that is sensationalist and that others present a far more rational account of what happened. Presumably, if some dark forces were determined to plant a witness to the events they would have chosen someone a little more credible?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

Lloyd's account is physically impossible yet this is the MOST CRITICAL eyewitness in regards to the physical damage from the 757. (Jack Tripper).


Well I think we can agree that Lloyd's account is impossible in a number of regards and it is certainly significant in that it recounts the closest encounter with the light poles which wre hit by the plane. However, it is certainly not the only account which specificaly refers to the plane hitting the poles and others have already been quoted here. I think the logic of some of the argument in this thread is sorely confused though, Jack Tripper has already said...


The only other one that has been posted is Father McGraw and there are other SERIOUS questions about his account. Plus we interviewed him in person as well and he admitted to us that he merely deduced that the poles were hit because he saw the damaged cab with the pole next to it. Go back in the thread to find the link to the post about the interview if you wish. There are few enough eyewitnesses to the poles being hit that others may have deduced it or simply be planted witnesses.




Lloyd is old, frail, and a bit senile


...so I am a little confused why a number of people seem happy to treat his story, the "impossible" story of a "senile" witness, seriously and draw the potential conclusion that the damage was staged and is, therefore, evidence of Government complicity whilst cheerfully dismissing the eye witness testimony of others as sensationalist.

Surely the logical conclusion is that it is Lloyd's story that is sensationalist and that others present a far more rational account of what happened. Presumably, if some dark forces were determined to plant a witness to the events they would have chosen someone a little more credible?


Good point but Lloyd's account is the same as it was since day one so this is not a question of the story morphing. He isn't so senile that he wouldn't have known what through his windshield on the day of the event.

He is a prime candidate for a patsy.

Either he was convinced by nefarious sources to lie or else alternative methods were used to convince him he was telling the truth.

Look up MK-Ultra if you think that mind control is not a tool used by the shadow government.


Whatever the explanation his crucial account is impossible.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I posted this thread after our first trip to Arlington with Dylan Avery and Russell Pickering.

I didn't obtain the smoking gun north of the citgo testimony until my return trip alone 3 months later.

Sure enough our initial suspicions about Lloyd's account have been proven beyond our wildest imaginations.

The incredible relevance of the information presented in this thread today is devastating.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
No, this thread is still absolutely irrelevant and you have failed to prove in any way, your impossible moved taxi theory.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can't believe they gave you guys a forum.

How many more months till your great revelation on the pentacon.

And how much will you be charging for the DVD.



[edit on 15-2-2007 by LeftBehind]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join