How many wintesses say they saw a plane hit light poles?

reply to post by tezzajw


Sorry, it is not a claim. It is evidence. First hand knowledge. You may hand wave to your hearts content but that does not change the fact. Witness made a statement as to what he directly observed. The burden is on you disprove the testimony. I and he are not further obligated to offer any additional evidence. It would be logically inconsistent. I mean if you can summararily dismiss direct testimony then why would I even bother to offer anything else just to have that dismissed as well?

Offer something concrete that directly contradicts the testimony of the cab driver or simply admit that your fantasies are particularly fragile and do not stand up very well.

reply to post by hooper

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tezzajw

 

Sorry, it is not a claim. It is evidence. First hand knowledge. You may hand wave to your hearts content but that does not change the fact. Witness made a statement as to what he directly observed. The burden is on you disprove the testimony.

You taken a look at CIT's video, Lloyde England & His Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm
? I highly recommend it. Lloyd England contradicts himself; he claims to be in a place that he clearly wasn't, in order to meld in with the North of the Citgo gas station witnesses; he really doesn't seem to care all that much for the official story as long as he's out of the picture, but he says some very revealing things in that presentation, which I've catalogued here:

scott3x.tripod.com...

Originally posted by hooper
I and he are not further obligated to offer any additional evidence.

As you said, he was an alleged witness of this light pole allegedly hitting his car; so it is conceivable that at one point, he may be obligated to testify in court as to how this could be, given the many facts that contradict the plane being able to do so. He could, ofcourse, take the 5th amendment, that is, the right not to incriminate himself, but that in and of itself would look highly suspicious, if only because it seems that that can only be taken if he would, in fact, be incriminating himself. As far as I know, you weren't a witness, nor have you mentioned having had anything to do with 9/11, so I doubt you'll ever be obligated to do anything in a court of law. I hope, however, that you aren't only here to say that we can't yet prove our case, but also to state what you believe is true, and why.

reply to post by scott3x


Sorry, there is no "allege" about it. The testimony stands until disproven. He is not obligated to explain anything. You are obligated to present direct contradictory evidence. Not abstract but direct. Lacking that the testimony stands and is direct evidence that Flight 77 hit a pole and its route to the Pentagon.

reply to post by hooper


flight77.info...

reply to post by SirPatrickHenry


And? What am I supposed to do with this?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by scott3x

 

Sorry, there is no "allege" about it. The testimony stands until disproven.

LLoyd England hasn't given any testimony in a court of law; more importantly, however, testifying that a certain event is true isn't proof that it actually is. Furthermore, he's made some statements that are unsupported by the hard evidence, and he's also made atleast one statement that is clearly untrue. If you'd checked the linked dialogue of his, you would also have seen that he's made some rather suspicious statements as well. I definitely believe that he knows that some of the things that he's said regarding the light pole are untrue.

Originally posted by hooper
He is not obligated to explain anything.

You're right, he isn't. The question is, why? Why, after all this time, with it becoming increasingly clear that certain statements of his simply can't be true, has he not been subpoenaed? I believe it's because the people behind 9/11 are fairly powerful individuals. Did you see the video concerning Lloyd England that I recommended you see?

Originally posted by hooper
You are obligated to present direct contradictory evidence.

I've been trying to show it to you, but at present, I'm not sure if you've gone to any of the links I've provided. Have you?

[edit on 17-11-2009 by scott3x]

Thanks to SirPatrickHenry for the link to Flt.77Info.

flight77.info...

The following is a summary of the videos and their contents taken from that site. Taking this at face value, and looking carefully at it, is there a latent, hitherto unrecognized corroburation of CIT's claims that no airliner impacted the Pentagon on 9/11?

I believe so.

•She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
•Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
•Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
•The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
•No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.

According to the above list, most of the video tapes confiscated do not show the Pentagon crash site. That doesn't mean they aren't worth looking at, of course. Views from different angles could still show significant images of the airliner as it came in or as it flew away.

The part that caught my attention was the following:

•Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."

This is what one might expect if the tapes in question were all shot as a result of the incident, i.e., by people who turned on their cameras when they saw the explosion.However, if there are any security videos among these, it is also what one would expect, if the airliner did not impact the building.

In other words, no one in the truth movement expects ever to see a video showing the impact of an airliner at the Pentagon, and the FBI summary of the contents of those videos backs that assumption up. They don't have such a video.

The famous five frames we all saw really don't qualify. The video mavens may pose questions about missing frames, about aspects of the images that suggest CGI manipulation, but as far as the administration's case for the defense goes, the date stamp alone (Sept. 12, 2001)takes these images right off the table.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The part that caught my attention was the following:

•Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."

This is what one might expect if the tapes in question were all shot as a result of the incident, i.e., by people who turned on their cameras when they saw the explosion.However, if there are any security videos among these, it is also what one would expect, if the airliner did not impact the building.

In other words, no one in the truth movement expects ever to see a video showing the impact of an airliner at the Pentagon, and the FBI summary of the contents of those videos backs that assumption up. They don't have such a video.

Wait a second; CIT and PFT do believe that a plane approached the pentagon, only that it didn't actually crash into it but instead kept on going, perhaps making a landing at Reagan International. They also believe that the flight path it took to get to the pentagon was different from the official story one; there were video cameras at the pentagon itself; they look like fish eyes, which means they would have been able to see any plane approaching it. This is why I don't believe the FBI's summary for a moment. It was this same federal agency that took something like 5 minutes to confiscate all the tapes that by rights -should- have recorded the plane approaching the building. The same agency that allegedly found the DNA of most of the alleged flight 77 passengers, in contradictory places, one of which was the rather infamous "fireball" hole (according to the official story, apparently the fire burnt clear through a wall, but left the DNA intact).

Your point about the only alleged video of the event is quite good; and that thing moving quickly? It may actually have been some sort of land vehicle, which is how it manages to be so "low and level" and not mess up the infamous pentalawn. I remember seeing a video where the object in question moves backwards later on. Perhaps the video was in fact taken on September 12, in an attempt to distract from the apparent fact that all the other pentagon videos were kept under wraps. Unfortunately, I don't have a link to this video; just so much information out there.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, it is not a claim. It is evidence. First hand knowledge.

You should be sorry, so I can understand why you are apologising.

Lloyde's testimony has been shredded by his interviews with CIT. Lloyde contradicts himself a few times and disputes other fixed photographic evidence.

He is an unreliable witness.

Originally posted by hooper
Witness made a statement as to what he directly observed.

Witness subsequently self destructed and destroyed his statement in follow-up interviews. Unreliable.

Originally posted by hooper
The burden is on you disprove the testimony. I and he are not further obligated to offer any additional evidence.

CIT showed that Lloyde is unreliable. Without further evidence to support your claim that a light pole hit the taxi, you've failed to prove it happened.

Casual readers, watch as hooper's claim that a light pole hit the taxi is based solely on the testimony of Lloyde England. hooper has not tried to offer anything else to support his story, except for Lloyde.

We've all seen how Lloyde's testimony was torn to bits in his CIT interviews... perhaps hooper doesn't yet realise this?

reply to post by scott3x


Just as information - those "fish eyes" are omnidirectional lenses, they are simply camera covers. They protect the camera. The camera is a traditional CCTV, maybe be remotely controlled, however, this does not mean it is "all seeing".

reply to post by tezzajw


More arbritrary hand waving.

"I don't like that witness so I am declaring him officially UNRELIABLE"!

Then you wonder why no one wants to offer you any information.

Originally posted by hooper
"I don't like that witness so I am declaring him officially UNRELIABLE"!

Complete bunk, hooper. No wonder you fail to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, you can't even quote me correctly.

I like Lloyde. I think he's a character. He has humour, he's got a charm to him that reminds me of a what a loving grandfather should be.

However, when he contradicted himself multiple times to CIT, his credibility went down the toilet.

Originally posted by hooper
Then you wonder why no one wants to offer you any information.

If you had other information, you would be offering it. You haven't, so you don't.

It appears that your entire case for the light pole hitting the taxi relies upon Lloyde... unfortunately for you.

You need to do better to prove the event, rather than relying upon a discredited witness. It's up to you, hooper. Prove it or not - your choice? Until then, the casual readers and I can watch you wave your hands and avoid it.

lol...CIT...


Nice job bumping such an old, rather meaningless thread. Just to point out the dilemma facing the OP here and his silly claims, I will refer back to this post.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You just asked for evidence, I provided it, and you dismissed it.

Erik Dihle is a firsthand witness account to what people IMMEDIATELY first reported after the explosion.

That is direct evidence.

Funny how when they want to twist the story to fit their "flyover theory" (lol) that they will use hearsay (Dihle did NOT witness a flyover) as direct evidence, which as anyone who knows the actual definition of the word can see right through their charade. But, when it comes to something that doesn't fit their "theory" (light poles) they claim that since no one saw it that it didn't happen.

Hypocrites.

reply to post by tezzajw


Based on my observations, no, I do not need to "do better than that", however, apparently you do. I am not engaged with the whole world trying to convince them they are all wrong, you are. So if you want to dismiss Lloyd's experience and statements then you have to present something concrete that directly contradicts what he says.

Or you can keep waving it away and hope no one notices your empty hand.

Originally posted by hooper
Based on my observations, no, I do not need to "do better than that", however, apparently you do.

Are you stating that the light pole hitting the taxi is a fact, or merely your opinion? If it's your opinion, then that's fine.

Originally posted by hooper
I am not engaged with the whole world trying to convince them they are all wrong, you are.

I am not engaging with the whole world. Your pointless inflation to bolster your argument is noted. The casual readers of this ATS thread are not 'the whole world'.

Originally posted by hooper
So if you want to dismiss Lloyd's experience and statements then you have to present something concrete that directly contradicts what he says.

Lloyde's interviews with CIT dismissed his evidence. He contradicted himself and ruined his own credibility. All by himself.

The weakness in your argument is noted, when you can only offer a discredited witness as your sole form of proof.

Your handwaving and avoidance has been noted. If you can't prove that it happened, then you're better off stating that it is just your opinion and move on from there.

reply to post by hooper

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by scott3x

 

Just as information - those "fish eyes" are omnidirectional lenses, they are simply camera covers. They protect the camera. The camera is a traditional CCTV, maybe be remotely controlled, however, this does not mean it is "all seeing".

They don't need to see everything; there were multiple cameras and I seriously doubt that together they didn't see everything. But why do we even need to speculate on this stuff? Why hasn't the pentagon released them long ago? Funny how there's no mention of these cameras, don't you think? I wouldn't even be aware of them if it weren't for SPreston, who pointed them out in this forum a while back. The same goes for all those confiscated videos as well. The FBI can, ofcourse, deny that any of them show anything of interest, but don't you find it curious that they haven't released them to the public so that we can determine this for ourselves? Perhaps the people behind the coverup just don't have enough people to fake videos; they clearly did a pretty hack job concerning the 'parking lot' pentagon video; couldn't even get the date right, but you're apparently unconcerned by this blatant error.

It's not even the only 9/11 video that has the date wrong- I believe there was another of certain hijackers with the date wrong as well.

In summation, The FBI can claim that fire resistant DNA was at various places at once, that 9/11 fireballs make holes in walls just like those nifty army wall breaking kits, etc, etc. People like Lloyd England can claim that he was in a place where the light poles weren't, and the officials at the scene can remain anonymous, up until enough people get tired of this elaborate deception and start seeing 9/11 for what it was; another false flag operation to get the U.S. into yet more wars and stifle citizen freedoms with bills such as the Patriot act.

reply to post by tezzajw

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
I am not engaged with the whole world trying to convince them they are all wrong, you are.

I am not engaging with the whole world. Your pointless inflation to bolster your argument is noted. The casual readers of this ATS thread are not 'the whole world'.

Another point is that the "whole world" doesn't agree with the official story concerning 9/11. There are many who question some if not all aspects of 9/11 and as the years go by, I believe that more and more people have begun to question it. The main problem, I believe, is that most people simply don't have the time to be looking into all the details. A secondary issue is that many people would rather believe palatable lies then unpalatable truths.

To paraphrase something I saw on T.V. recently, "The truth is kind of like the sun. You can shut the curtains for a while, but eventually you're going to have to let it in."

Sometimes, it can take a very long time indeed; Hoover's deception regarding Pearl Harbor and the falsified "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to get the U.S. fully into Vietnam are 2 good examples of past administrations getting the U.S. into wars that it initially didn't want to get into. Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" is simply one that didn't last as long, but they always seem to be coming up with new ways to fool the public.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tezzajw

 

More arbritrary hand waving.

"I don't like that witness so I am declaring him officially UNRELIABLE"!

Then you wonder why no one wants to offer you any information.

I'd laugh at this if it weren't for the fact 3000 American men and women died on this day.


You do realize that this quote

"I don't like that witness so I am declaring him officially UNRELIABLE"!

Is the same bull that the 9/11 commission and many other followers of the story do today.



but I got another quote for you

"Its better to be believed a fool, then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt"

btw the Flight77 info.

You could try reading it, Wouldn't that be a noble concept.

[edit on 17-11-2009 by SirPatrickHenry]

reply to post by SirPatrickHenry


Please note that there is significant difference between declaring a given witness as unrealible and declaring the information as not reliable.

In the first instance you are dismissing everything that the witness states as false. In the second instance you may be saying that most of the what the witness states may be reliable, however, the witness may have been pressured into making statements as facts which may be beyond the witnesses ability to properly acertain.

Consider someone witnessing a crime and attesting to the perpretrator having a beard, and under the further examination the witness may state that the beard color was dark. If pressed even further the witness may make the value judgement that the beard was brown. And so on and so on until the point where the witness is stating the number of hairs in the beard in the same factual manner that he stated that the person had a beard. In this case the witness may be generally reliable, however, the information, after a point is suspect.

I think the main reason we haven't seen a video of AA77 impacting the Pentagon is that CGI technology just isn't there yet.

If you go to any big budget Hollywood film where CGI stuff is an important, or even an incidental part of the images presented, you will notice that the CGI portions of the images are quite detectable to the eye and that is when the best people in the business are executing the effects.

When you look at the famous "five frames" released by the government, the contrast in quality from the best Hollywood stuff is actually comical, embarassingly laughable.

If the perps manage to hold off the truthers for long enough, we will see the "impact" videos, but only when CGI has reached such a level of technical perfection as to be undetectable. My two cents worth.


[edit on 18-11-2009 by ipsedixit]