Originally posted by CameronFox


Hope that clears it up a little.

It certainly helps further clear up how you have a lack of regard for critical thinking principles and a propensity to dismiss evidence in favor of irrelevant analogies and faulty logic.

Thanks for that!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Obviously they can't kill everyone who was involved.

Who HAVE they killed? As I stated above, an elderly man having a heart attack would not even be looked at. Nor would an accident in his cab.

If he were in fact working for the government, I assure you he would have been taken care of by now.

Your "opinion" demonstrates how you have a lack of regard for critical thinking principles and a propensity to dismiss evidence in favor of faulty logic.

Faulty logic? I will remain civil and just ask you how "logical" it is to trust the slaughter of thousands of innocent people, the cover up, and the deception of this event to an elderly cab driver?

[edit on 24-11-2008 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by CameronFox

Who HAVE they killed? As I stated above, an elderly man having a heart attack would not even be looked at. Nor would an accident in his cab.

If he were in fact working for the government, I assure you he would have been taken care of by now.

You are spouting wild conspiracy theories with zero evidence.

Provide the evidence you have that makes you confident enough to "assure" us what the government would do under circumstances that you have no clue about or else admit you are making stuff up.

Faulty logic? I will remain civil and just ask you how "logical" it is to trust the slaughter of thousands of innocent people, the cover up, and the deception of this event to an elderly cab driver?

Huh?

This has nothing to do with the evidence and what we know about Lloyde.

You are making stuff up again.

You have no idea what his exact level of involvement was and neither do we.

That doesn't change the fact that his story has been proven false by scientifically verified evidence that you are completely dismissing on nothing but an argument from incredulity.

That is not logical and exposes your confirmation bias and desire to dismiss evidence in favor of faith.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You are spouting wild conspiracy theories with zero evidence.

Pot meet kettle.

You stated "they can't kill everyone who was involved". My response was "who have they killed?" Well? Who have they killed?

This is called common sense Mr. Ranke. Think about it:

Government plans massive attack on it's own soil-
Government plans one attack at the Pentagon-
Government plans on blowing up Pentagon-
Government decides that instead of just blowing up the pentagon, they will fly a decoy jet that is supposed to be a hijacked 757 over the pentagon .....but that the bombs will go off at the same time so no one will notice.

To top this all off, they hire, coerce, or manipulate, etc. an elderly cab driver to make up a story about a 200 pound light pole in his windshield. This too is a staged event. He is supposed to keep him mouth shut for the rest of his life.





[edit on 24-11-2008 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by newagent89
Cameronfox's analogy was just fine.

No it wasn't.

We're not discussing multiple witnesses in this thread. It's all about the recollections of a single witness, Lloyde, and his testimony.

Remember that Lloyde is the only person, on record, who has ever stated that there was a light pole hanging from his taxi's smashed windscreen. No one else can confirm this story.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
YOU are the one who implied they would kill him and disguise it as a natural death.

Yes, and your response was "they could not kill everyone involved." So I asked if you are aware of anyone that has been killed.

Simple yes or no question.

Nobody has said that they "trusted" him with anything at all.

You made this up as well.

No, you did. You are stating that his story is false. You and Aldo say the pole in his car was staged. That this didn't happen. Therefore, Mr. England is aware of some sort of a cover up by the government. He was trusted not to tell anyone what really happened.

I am dismissing your accusation of Lloyde being a liar due to common sense. Try using it some time.

Originally posted by CameronFox

Yes, and your response was "they could not kill everyone involved." So I asked if you are aware of anyone that has been killed.

Simple yes or no question.

It is an irrelevant yes or no question based on YOUR assertion.

I don't follow rabbit holes.

No, you did. You are stating that his story is false. You and Aldo say the pole in his car was staged. That this didn't happen. Therefore, Mr. England is aware of some sort of a cover up by the government. He was trusted not to tell anyone what really happened.

I am dismissing your accusation of Lloyde being a liar due to common sense. Try using it some time.

Wrong again.

We have always said how it's possible he could have been coerced or manipulated in which case it would mean that they didn't trust him.

The evidence proves Lloyde's story false.

Assumptions regarding his exact level of involvement are unnecessary and do nothing to refute the evidence proving his story false.

Where do they have unanimously the same story? That line is almost straight out of Pentacon. Three witnesses strongly seem to implicate a collision. If they are right (off topic) then how to explain a south side directed damage hole? What is easier to forget? Seeing a plane hit a building or remembering which direction it came from? (end off topic)

The faulty reasoning is like this: A person saw X and Y.X and Y could not have both happened—it is impossible.Therefore X happened and Y did not.


As for CameronFox: CameronFox's analogy goes to show why one man's story may not line up and understanding the psychology on why this is.

The first sentence in a magazine needs to be a grabber of attention. No, no one in this article was saying that each and every person saw a radically different event. It simply headlined that there were hundreds of different stories from different perspectives.

His analogy directly correlates to the concept of 9/11 witnesses being unclear on what they saw which has everything to do with the cabbie.

The title: For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing"

Tricks of memory are referenced.

"'Eyewitness memory is reconstructive', said Dr. Honts, who is not associated with the safety board. The biggest mistake you can make is to think about a memory like it's a videotape; there's not a permanent record there.

The problem, he said, is that witnesses instinctively try to match events with their past experiences: How many plane crashes have you witnessed in real life? Probably none. But in the movies? A lot. In the movies, there's always smoke and there's always fire.

As a result, the safety board generally doesn't place much value on eyewitness reports if data and voice recorders are available. For many investigators, the only infallible witness is a twisted piece of metal."

Originally posted by newagent89
As for CameronFox: CameronFox's analogy goes to show why one man's story may not line up and understanding the psychology on why this is.

Cameron's example was useless with respect to Lloyde.

Either Lloyde did have a light pole sticking out of his window, which no one else saw, or Lloyde didn't have a light pole sticking out of his window, so he's a liar.

The interview with Lloyde showed that he was prepared to deny verified pictures of his taxi's location. There is something fishy with Lloyde's story, so introducing off topic analogies that relate to OTHER plane crashes are useless.

We are getting off topic. I considered responding but lets stay with the cab driver. I obviously will not convince you that the analogy was fine when it comes to understanding how witness accounts (one witness's account) in this sort of situation work(s).