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.

 

Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye Of The Storm

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Actually this thread is about Lloyde.

Refute it in the original thread for The PentaCon here.

Or else of course in the more recent North Side Flyover thread here.



[edit on 17-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
They all saw it on the north side cogburn.

All of them.





Refute that.


I respectfully request that you limit your discussion in this thread to information from your most recent presentation Lloyde England & His Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm.

I think that is what you said.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn

I wish you the best of luck and should you ever produce anything other than unfounded contrivance based on eye witness testimony only that is corroborated on the surface of the account and unsupported by fact... I'll be the first to congratulate you.


Wow.

Pure dismissal of scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence proving a deception.

At least you leave this discussion with your disregard for evidence and clear intent to reduce this important issue to debate and semantics exposed.

Good day pseudo-skeptic.

Use your bully tactics and condescending spin where it will be more effective because your game is up when dealing with the definitive evidence we present.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


I'm a step ahead of you pinchy old pal!

See my post just before yours.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Ok... I can't resist... one last shot.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by cogburn
Ex #3- I don't understand how VDOT refused to provide the information if you filed a FOIA request with the state. Did you just call them up and expect admission of a cover-up or was receiving an answer that could be interpreted as a cover-up sufficient? If you did file a FOIA request it wasn't mentioned in your video and one wonders why you would choose to make unfounded allegations as opposed to just saying "we're waiting to hear back from our FOIA request".


We most certainly did file FOIA requests and had a direct dialog with more than one individual who was trying to fulfill the requests.

I stated this in the presentation just as I stated how they failed to provide the information we were seeking which was merely documentation as to the exact location of the downed poles.

Not whether or not there was a cover up.


We aren't stupid and we would not ask such a thing.

They claimed they went through all of their records and that no records were kept regarding the replacement of the downed light poles in question and that they can not speak as to their exact location.

It seems as though you may have finally watched the presentation (perhaps earlier today?) but clearly did not pay very much attention to it before deciding to level further unjustified criticism.

Please provide scans of your FOIA application and the serialized response denoting why your request was denied. This site is riddled with them and anyone who has claimed to done a FOIA and asked for the documentation has done so. Now it's your turn. Please do so within 24 hours to support your claims.

Produce a fact you claim you should have.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by cogburn
 


I leveled the first challenge.

Attempt to refute the north side evidence in the proper thread.

I think this would be the most relevant and appropriate thread for that.

If you at least make a valiant attempt I promise to provide the FOIA documentation.

You don't even have to succeed!

How could any self respecting critical thinker refuse such a deal?

Good luck pseudo-skeptic!

(pssst....word of advice - view all of the evidence we are discussing first. Parts 1 and 2 of the North Side Flyover can be seen here)



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I think I'm going to ask for a mod to make a ruling on this one.

This is your theory and your hypothesis that are being challenged.

I have asked for a piece of evidence that you should have if you were being truthful in your previous statements.

Your credibility is now on the line, not mine.

You may not ask something of me in order for the privilege of viewing information that supports your claims and if you were truly an honest 9/11 investigator you should have no problems releasing immediately.

EDIT: It relates directly to the legitimacy of your claims that Lloyde is lying and it belongs right here, in this thread.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by cogburn
 


A mod ruling?


Show me where ATS rules require me to publish documentation for claims.

This is a DISCUSSION forum.

I do not care if you don't believe me about the FOIA.

If you are unwilling to discuss the relevant evidence I am unwilling to cede to your demands.

I'll most likely publish it one of these days anyway but I refuse to do it on the demands of a pseudo-skeptic who fails to even bother addressing the evidence we present.

But I have no problem doing it if you are willing to discuss the evidence in detail civilly and honestly.

Think you can handle that?

The ball is in your court.





[edit on 17-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
If you cannot provide a properly dated FOIA request and denial you are a liar.

ATS may not be used to perpetrate hoaxes.

This is absolutely something I would like a mod ruling on because if you are a liar you should not be allowed to use these forums as soapbox for your beliefs.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
.

EDIT: It relates directly to the legitimacy of your claims that Lloyde is lying and it belongs right here, in this thread.



1. I have not made claims as to Lloyde's intent and have simply provided evidence proving his story false.

2. The FOIA request in question has absolutely NOTHING to do with Lloyde and his claims.

It is limited to what the VDOT fails to report about the location of the downed poles.

What world of logic do you live in because it certainly isn't earth!

That being said I don't have a problem with ultimately posting the FOIA information in this thread.

That is after you make an effort to refute the north side evidence in the other thread indicated.

I expect proof of it being false or a concession that it is legitimate.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
If you cannot provide a properly dated FOIA request and denial you are a liar.

ATS may not be used to perpetrate hoaxes.

This is absolutely something I would like a mod ruling on because if you are a liar you should not be allowed to use these forums as soapbox for your beliefs.



Perhaps you aren't paying attention.

I said I can and I WILL provide it.

I simply refuse to do it on your demands but have agreed to if you can demonstrate intellectual honesty and address the relevant evidence direct in the appropriate thread.

Why does that scare you so much?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Post it now and we can avoid all future ugliness.

I'll reserve any mea culpas for once I am able to contact the VA FOIA commission and validate the serial number of the response.

Once we see the documents and they are validated we'll discuss if you made your request properly or not.

We can take that to a whole new thread, too.

This is your can of worms. There was no need to claim a FOIA except to save face. Now you need to produce it.

EDIT: I'm gonna hang back for a while and wait for a mod response. If that's a day or so... so be it.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by cogburn
 


You look yella fella.

People here know I don't bluff when it comes to evidence.

Obviously I have set myself up to look REALLY BAD if I never produce the documentation.

That is why you are so scared and why you will refuse to discuss the evidence at all cost.

You know you are caught.

You know you will look bad either way and so will save as much face as possible by refusing to attempt to refute what you already know in your heart to be valid info.

"FOIA commission"


That's the funniest thing I ever heard.

Most govt entities quickly respond to any and all FOIA requests so they never make it to a "commission".

FOIA requests are often denied and/or answered with excuses or declarations of ignorance or lack of documentation.

I assure you the VDOT was very responsive and didn't leave me with much of a claim to file against them.

They simply denied having the information I requested.

Now be man and address the north side evidence that clearly has your panties in a bunch direct.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Actually it doesn't.

Feel free to view my profile and read *all* my previous posts regarding the pentagon. It's only been since 11-14-08.

I don't deny the north side approach.

Whatever reasons I started in this thread, my motivation now is to simply expose you as a liar or help you further your investigation.

If ATS allows you to make a claim and not support it with docs then I, and probably a lot of others quietly watching this thread, will be sorely disappointed.

GFL isn't allow to spout here anymore and the time may very well come when you aren't allowed to either.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by cogburn]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by cogburn
 


I have no idea who GFL is but if you are saying you are not denying the north side approach then we are at an awkward point of silliness in this discussion where you seem extremely confused.

NoC proves Lloyde's story false.

If you don't believe so please present the evidence to back up your hypothesis that counts for a north side flyover with an explanation for Lloyde's cab and the poles.





Or simply concede that you've been acting really weird and that I am right.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
Post it now and we can avoid all future ugliness.

I'll reserve any mea culpas for once I am able to contact the VA FOIA commission and validate the serial number of the response.

Once we see the documents and they are validated we'll discuss if you made your request properly or not.

We can take that to a whole new thread, too.

This is your can of worms. There was no need to claim a FOIA except to save face. Now you need to produce it.

EDIT: I'm gonna hang back for a while and wait for a mod response. If that's a day or so... so be it.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]



Though i'm on the CT side and believe, no, I kNOW 9/11 was an inside job, I've always put myself on the SKEPTIC point of view first and many times DEVILS ADVOCATE, but imo criag et al have put my doubts to rest and offered more than enough evidence for any true honest critical thinker to see there's far more evidence to prove the conspiracy than the other way around... and even if only a portion of that evidence was useful and/or credible/logical etc, it gives craig far more credibility and credence to whatever you argue isn't proven yet in the way you're asserting it should be...

However I do feel that craigs challenge to you to refute certain areas first, is reasonable. I understand what you're asking as to the foia request, but having been in craigs shoes before, I can appreciate his reasons over yours and believe his promise to produce them after your answers, is honorable.

now I am also willing to say that compared to some others here like throatyogurt, I do believe that based on your questions etc, you don't appear to have an obvious agenda that they seem to, and have a much better debating ability... but it does seem as though there are alot of discussions and facts presented you need to get up to speed on.

whatsmore I do understand what you're trying to do here as well as what you mean by being a devils advocate... every CT needs that... it only helps strengthen CT's arguments and challenges them to fine tune certain areas that might be too weak... So i am all for devils advocates and skeptics as long as its within reason. And so far for the most part, I'm still on Craigs side with things based upon all the evidence and arguments they've put forth. Though a skeptic and someone who would be the first to punch holes into the conpiracy theorists evidence and hypothesis if i thought it wasn't sound, had too many illogical or un-substantiated claims, I'm more than comfortable with Craig et als evidence, arguments etc so in this case, i support the premise of his challenge or what he's asking from you instead of the other way around.

best quote in this thread is from craig: "... this does not change the fact that we have evidence proving the plane was nowhere near the poles."

I'm curious what your response/opinion regarding that.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
If you cannot provide a properly dated FOIA request and denial you are a liar.

ATS may not be used to perpetrate hoaxes.

This is absolutely something I would like a mod ruling on because if you are a liar you should not be allowed to use these forums as soapbox for your beliefs.



If CIT provided the dated FOIA request as requested, will you, cogburn, then admit
to be a person who got absolutely no ability to distinguish between what is true or
false? No clue as to what is right or wrong? No concept as to what is good or bad?
And that this, in fact, is the true reason you couldn't pick "the truth" spoken in the first
instance!
And will you admit to the fact that it's actually you yourself then, who is trying to use
ATS to 'perpetrate hoaxes'?

Here's an old saying:
Liar thinks that every other is a liar.

Does this saying apply to yourself, taking into account your baseless suspicion re. CIT
above?


Re. your signature:

"I should teach the world that science is driven by truth, and is accountable to reality.
- Tracey Brown
There are but three things required to prove or disprove most conspiracies on ATS: math, science, and logic."


Science of course IS NOT driven by 'truth'. If it were, science would have looked in the
opposite direction long ago!
Science would not have participated in the production of sophisticated weaponry or
WMD or destruction of that which has been built up.
Science would not have participated in horrible experiments on humans or animals.
Science would have participated in making The Earth a better place, which, obviously
they are not!
Each day, science removes itself further and further away from "reality". Sad but true.

Cheers

[edit on 18-11-2008 by djeminy]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   
That will do, thank you. The back and forth bickering stops NOW. I would like to remind the participants of the thread of our 9/11 forum policy:
Any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.

Consider this a final warning. Any further 9/11 trolling in this thread will result in immediate action.


If the participants can't convince each other of a point, then they'll have to agree to disagree or ignore each other.

On a side-note - the staff is NOT here to play judge and jury over "evidence" provided to make an argument. We're here to make sure that the Terms & Conditions Of Use are followed. If there's a clear indication that false information has been posted - feel free to alert the staff on that post.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
If ATS allows you to make a claim and not support it with docs then I, and probably a lot of others quietly watching this thread, will be sorely disappointed.

cogburn, you're probably new to ATS. No worries, stick around it's a great place. I agreed with a couple of your initial posts and gave you stars for them.

You'll find that every third or fourth thread on many forums have claims made by people and they're never supported - read some of the UFO threads and see what I mean... ATS is a discussion forum, not a courtroom for evidence. We have discussion moderators, not judges. That's my personal experience from browsing this site for 1.75 years. Some people present amazing research and evidence, others offer nothing but anecdotes.

Craig has done the leg-work to form the basis for his claims and has done a great job presenting them to us on video. Even some of his detractors grudgingly admitted that he had the balls to gather the evidence and that they wouldn't have been as motivated to do the same. Given that Craig has done the research, with a proven track record, I doubt that he would be caught short on a false claim about a FOI document regarding light poles. Whether or not he has the FOI document, he's not under any obligation to post it - it's our choice to believe it or not.

In regards to this topic, Craig has interviewed Lloyde, for which we can be grateful. It shows a different side to Lloyde's claims and those of his wife. I find it incredible that Lloyde so blatantly refused to accept the original pictures that showed his taxi where it was on that day. I asked you what you thought, and your response was that they were playing a joke on the CIT team - fair enough. I don't agree with that, as they didn't look like they were joking to me. I guess for now, only Lloyde really knows what happened, right?

I'm not trying to circumvent Gemwolf's warning, there's no attacks here, just some advice from a member with more login hours on ATS than you have. If you're not sure what's permitted on ATS, then send a U2U to one of the moderators, they're all here to help.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


What's clearly odd about this cogburn character is that he admits to not believing Lloyde's story, admits to accepting a north side approach, but for some reason insists on frantically supporting the lunatic notion that the plane still hit the building despite the scientific fact that the physical evidence proves this impossible!



Isn't that hilarious!

People amaze me.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join