How many wintesses say they saw a plane hit light poles?, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 11:25 PM by trebor451

Originally posted by tezzajw
...there is nothing contradictory about a witness reporting that they saw a plane fly NOC and hitting the Pentagon.

You just ripped apart years and years of CIT work! Well done, ATS member "tezzajw"! You probably won't be welcomed back at the CIT board anymore, but at least you are maintaining the famous CIT Logic!

reply posted on 19-11-2009 @ 11:38 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by tezzajw
...there is nothing contradictory about a witness reporting that they saw a plane fly NOC and hitting the Pentagon.

You just ripped apart years and years of CIT work! Well done, ATS member "tezzajw"! You probably won't be welcomed back at the CIT board anymore, but at least you are maintaining the famous CIT Logic!

You've just ripped apart any notion that some government DoD 'civil servant' employees with veteran 25 year careers, have a shred of analytical ability.

It is not contradictory for a witness to report what they see.

It is contradictory for a witness to report something, then at a later point in time, to report something completely different.

Lloyde did this. Wanda did this. They are not reliable witnesses.

Keep trying, trebor. Remember your homework assignment... you have lots of quotes to find about me, to save your credibility.

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 07:16 AM by hooper

reply to post by Seventh

Good enough? Not by a long shot. Not even close. You really think you can take a non-steroscopic aerial and overlay value distances without radical distortions? Try again. Actaully don't. The entire idea is bunk. The plane hit the poles they reacted the way they reacted. You may like to slip in little euphenisms like "laid down gently" and "no damage" but you have no way of proving either condition.

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 11:22 AM by billybob

reply to post by Pilgrum

nope. do it for me. make a video. put up a skinny metal pole, and push it into the ground just enough so that it will stand up. now, hit it at the top with a baseball bat as hard as you can.
does the pole move away from your bat more slowly than you hit it?

nice try with the physics argument, but, wrong. the collisions are more elastic than inelastic, as evidenced by the lack of deformation of the poles. if the collsion were inelastic, the poles would be embedded in the wing, and both would be extremely deformed.

notice also that the first pole is not as tall as the sign that goes over the road. how did the plane knock down a pole without hitting something right beside it that is taller that was also in it's alleged path?

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 02:45 PM by hooper

reply to post by billybob

as evidenced by the lack of deformation of the poles.

Really? The poles weren't damged? Better talk to some of your fellow travelers, they insist that the "deformation" is, in fact, evidence of a conspiracy. Now you insist a lack of deformation is evidence of a conspiracy. Pretty convenient. Either way you go you end up in conspiracy land.

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 03:06 PM by Pilgrum

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by Pilgrum

nope. do it for me. make a video. put up a skinny metal pole, and push it into the ground just enough so that it will stand up. now, hit it at the top with a baseball bat as hard as you can.
does the pole move away from your bat more slowly than you hit it?

Let's make it an alloy baseball bat and swing it at over 800 ft/sec with 100 tonnes of mass firmly attached to it for a fair test which is a little difficult to set up for entertainment purposes unless we have the Mythbusters budget and resources at hand.

The pole will only bounce away like a skittle when the impact is insufficient to sever it. Exceed that point of total failure and it behaves quite differently in terms of how much momentum is transferred with increasing impact speed.

reply posted on 20-11-2009 @ 05:00 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
The plane hit the poles they reacted the way they reacted.

If you're claiming that a light pole reacted by hitting a taxi, is fact, then you need to prove.

So far, you have failed to do so, hooper.

reply posted on 21-11-2009 @ 06:21 AM by hooper

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
The plane hit the poles they reacted the way they reacted.

If you're claiming that a light pole reacted by hitting a taxi, is fact, then you need to prove.

So far, you have failed to do so, hooper.

Actually, more than sufficient proof has been offered. However, no "proof" can stand up to arbitrary hand waving and automatic dismissal. If your standards include proffering alternative fanatasies that must be "disproved" before all that remains is the original fact based narrative then a purposely impossible barrier to reason has been successfully achieved.

I will give you credit, you have erected an almost unsurmountable fortress about your delusions, they are well protected and secure from inconvenient intrusions of reality.

reply posted on 21-11-2009 @ 09:16 AM by scott3x

reply to post by hooper

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by tezzajw
If you're claiming that a light pole reacted by hitting a taxi, is fact, then you need to prove.

So far, you have failed to do so, hooper.

Actually, more than sufficient proof has been offered.

If so, I certainly haven't seen it. Can you show it to me?

reply posted on 21-11-2009 @ 12:14 PM by hooper

reply to post by scott3x

Really? You mean after all this time, almost a decade now, you have not heard the narrative from the cab driver? Not seen the photos of the damaged cab? Just a google search should do it.

Now, if you are talking about "proof" in terms of some metaphysical impossibility, like you won't believe it until you see actual video, from your own grandmother, of the plane hitting the pole and the pole hitting the taxi, well then you are out of luck. If the lack of this divine proof then gives you license to avoid the obvious, that is your own lot to suffer.

reply posted on 21-11-2009 @ 12:35 PM by billybob

reply to post by Pilgrum

for it to be a fair test, only scaling of forces is relevant. you don't need a full scale test to illustrate the principal. as long as the forces are in ratio. i figure a human swinging an aluminum bat and hitting a very skinny, say, 1/16th of an inch, metal tube or pole should do nicely for the experiment.

you compared it to the towers. you've seen the NIST animation of what the plane looks like on the other side of the hole? it is a shredded pile of flying debris.

either the plane is knocked off course by the poles and the poles move more slowly away (not likely due to the lightweight and "breakaway" bases), or, the poles go flying off at high velocity while the plane's trajectory is unaffected (likely).

reply posted on 21-11-2009 @ 05:11 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
Actually, more than sufficient proof has been offered.

Yet, you have offered none and showed me none. That's a contradiction, hooper.

If you had the proof, you would have shown me by now.

You have not proven that a light pole hit the taxi.

reply posted on 21-11-2009 @ 05:20 PM by hooper

reply to post by tezzajw

What exactly would you like to see, with the condition that it would be in the realm of possible. Nobody could go back in time and set up a video camera, etc.

You have choosen not to believe the word of the cab driver, or the photos of the damaged cab. You have created alternative fanatasies as to how and why that cab ended up on that road in that condition on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Please propose an alternative narrative to fully explain those circumstances or accept the fact that there is no other way to explains those set of facts.

reply posted on 21-11-2009 @ 05:46 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by hooper
What exactly would you like to see, with the condition that it would be in the realm of possible. Nobody could go back in time and set up a video camera, etc.

You claim that the light pole hit the taxi. I would like to see you prove it.

Originally posted by hooper
You have choosen not to believe the word of the cab driver, or the photos of the damaged cab.

It's not a matter of choice. Lloyde has shown that he contradicts himself and he is therefore a very unreliable witness.

The pictures show a damaged taxi on the road. So what? They do not show how the taxi was damaged.

Originally posted by hooper
You have created alternative fanatasies as to how and why that cab ended up on that road in that condition on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

I need to have the following quote on file, where I can copy and paste it instead of retyping it each time:

Your failure to quote me on your claim above will be your admission that you have fabricated a claim against me. You will now need to search my 4300+ posts and quote me where I have stated alternate fantasies about the taxi. You have some homework to do, just as jthomas and trebor also have their own homework to do, trying to quote me on things that I never typed.

Originally posted by hooper
Please propose an alternative narrative to fully explain those circumstances or accept the fact that there is no other way to explains those set of facts.

Your utter failure to read my posts is telling. I am not required to propose any alternate theory. I don't how the taxi was damaged. I was in charge of the investigation. I do not have all of the facts.

You are trying to avoid proving your claim that a light pole hit the taxi, by trying to put some kind of condition on me. It's a spin, dodge, avoid and deflect tactic that makes your argument look weak.

reply posted on 21-11-2009 @ 05:51 PM by JPhish

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by scott3x

Really? You mean after all this time, almost a decade now, you have not heard the narrative from the cab driver?

Is that a joke? He's obviously been deceived and or is not telling the truth. Most people after seeing CIT's interview go with the latter. He contradicts himself and his story goes against the laws of physics.

I too, really liked Lloyd a lot, but he is an unreliable witness.

Not seen the photos of the damaged cab?

A damaged cab proves nothing except that there is a damaged cab. A cab can be damaged many different ways.

Just a google search should do it.

google search criss angel and you'll see a guy walk on water too.

Now, if you are talking about "proof" in terms of some metaphysical impossibility, like you won't believe it until you see actual video, from your own grandmother, of the plane hitting the pole and the pole hitting the taxi, well then you are out of luck.

no, it's you who is out of luck, because you have absolutely no proof that a plane hit those light-poles and that one of them pierced a cab.

If the lack of this divine proof then gives you license to avoid the obvious, that is your own lot to suffer.

talking to yourself? All the evidence that CIT has found shows, not only did the plane not hit the light poles; but it is a physical impossibility based on the flight data recorder and the dozen eyewitnesses that saw the plane north of the citgo gas station.

[edit on 11/21/2009 by JPhish]

reply posted on 23-11-2009 @ 08:46 AM by trebor451

Originally posted by JPhish

I too, really liked Lloyd a lot, but he is an unreliable witness.

Great! We have another correlation of what constitutes an "unreliable" witness from the Truther side of the street.

Can we dispense now with the inane idea that a "witness" who says both the aircraft flew north of the service station and also hit the building is a "reliable witness"? Can we finally drop them from the discussion?

After all, if the criteria you use to discount Lloyd as a "reliable witness" is not applied in equal importance to Lagasse, Brooks, Boger, Turcois, Morin, etc, you could (say it ain't SO!) be setting yourselves up for accusations of bias and slanted "investigative" reporting.

So....how many "reliable" witnesses does CIT/PfT have now?

[edit on 23-11-2009 by trebor451]

reply posted on 23-11-2009 @ 09:30 AM by hooper

reply to post by JPhish

Again hand waving dismissal and avoidance. You unilaterally declare the "proof" unacceptable because you have unilaterally declared the witness as unreliable. That is very convenient.

You proffer no other explanation for the location and condition of the cab. You proffer no direct contradictory statements that would negate the driver's statement.

You are empty.

reply posted on 23-11-2009 @ 09:57 PM by beard

reply to post by tezzajw

Not 1 single person witnessed a flyover a missle. END OF DISCUSSION

reply posted on 23-11-2009 @ 10:18 PM by SirPatrickHenry

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by JPhish

I too, really liked Lloyd a lot, but he is an unreliable witness.

Great! We have another correlation of what constitutes an "unreliable" witness from the Truther side of the street.

Can we dispense now with the inane idea that a "witness" who says both the aircraft flew north of the service station and also hit the building is a "reliable witness"? Can we finally drop them from the discussion?

After all, if the criteria you use to discount Lloyd as a "reliable witness" is not applied in equal importance to Lagasse, Brooks, Boger, Turcois, Morin, etc, you could (say it ain't SO!) be setting yourselves up for accusations of bias and slanted "investigative" reporting.

So....how many "reliable" witnesses does CIT/PfT have now?

[edit on 23-11-2009 by trebor451]