Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual Confession of Involvement In the 9/11 Black Op

page: 13
43
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


I'm not pimping it. I am trying to get feedback from non-"debunkers." The JREFers have made some claims I just don't buy.




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sine.nomine
reply to post by Alvert
 


I think you made some major errors in your power point presentation. On page 17 of your presentation, you state that "the bridge and Columbia Pike would have to be beneath the cab, when in reality we know the bridge is to the left of the cab." But the photo suggests that the cab is on the bridge, not above it. The photo is taken toward the end of the bridge, the rest of the bridge being off the right edge of the photo.

That's just it...how can the bridge be to the right of the cab when the cab is to the right of the bridge?



You also state "we know the bridge is between poles A and pole B." However, slide 10 of your presentation shows that poles A and B are along the bridge on the same side.

Yes, the bridge runs between poles A and B.



On page 20 of your presentation you assert that the Columbia Pike would have to run into the impact zone, but the map on Slide 10 shows that Columbia Pike runs into the parking lot shown in Slide 20, running under the bridge right where it should be.

Exactly. Columbia Pike runs into south parking...not the impact zone. The slide on page 10 the impact zone is where south parking should be.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimstad
 

Is it legally possible for someone with schizophrenia to be a cab driver?

sorry for the 1 liner



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Great work OP!

This is by far one of the best posts ive seen on ATS. I wish I could give you more flags.
This certainly raises a few questions. Its to bad you couldnt push more info out of him!



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alvert
That's just it...how can the bridge be to the right of the cab when the cab is to the right of the bridge?

It's not.


Originally posted by AlvertYes, the bridge runs between poles A and B.

Not according to the page of your presentation that I cited.


Originally posted by Alvert
Exactly. Columbia Pike runs into south parking...not the impact zone. The slide on page 10 the impact zone is where south parking should be.

Well, look at the photo. See the parking lot off on the right side? You know... where the bridge is? The impact zone would be to the left of the parking lot, not the right side. The bridge is not to the left; that wouldn't make sense with the rest of the photos and maps in the same presentation. Do you understand why you've been confused now?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sine.nomine

Originally posted by Alvert
That's just it...how can the bridge be to the right of the cab when the cab is to the right of the bridge?

It's not.

What's not? The bridge isn't to the right of the cab?




Originally posted by AlvertYes, the bridge runs between poles A and B.

Not according to the page of your presentation that I cited.


Um...I'm not sure you understand that I was saying the pictures are different than reality. If the pictures and reality are different which one do you think is right?


Originally posted by Alvert
Exactly. Columbia Pike runs into south parking...not the impact zone. The slide on page 10 the impact zone is where south parking should be.

Well, look at the photo. See the parking lot off on the right side? You know... where the bridge is? The impact zone would be to the left of the parking lot, not the right side. The bridge is not to the left; that wouldn't make sense with the rest of the photos and maps in the same presentation. Do you understand why you've been confused now?

Seems to me you are saying the pictures contradict reality, and that the pictures are mutually exclusive. The bridge is to the left - that's an undisputed fact.

Here is a link to the presentation in question:
slothrop-blogjammin.blogspot.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Alvert
 


I'm sorry, but your counter points have no substance behind them. I'm not gonna argue in circles. As six sigma stated, there are over a dozen pages of replies pointing out the mistakes in your presentation. Whether you won't or can't understand them is irrelevant.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sine.nomine
reply to post by Alvert
 


I'm sorry, but your counter points have no substance behind them. I'm not gonna argue in circles. As six sigma stated, there are over a dozen pages of replies pointing out the mistakes in your presentation. Whether you won't or can't understand them is irrelevant.


That's cool. The only people that the think the number of pages on JREF is a gauge of anything are debunkers. I was kinda of looking for the opinion of Truthers (even if they disagree with me), because its not like debunkers would ever accept that I have proven photo manipulation at the Pentagon. That being said I think they raised some valid points, but other claims I don'y buy at all - just sounds like debunker denial to me.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Great work OP!

This is by far one of the best posts ive seen on ATS. I wish I could give you more flags.
This certainly raises a few questions. Its to bad you couldnt push more info out of him!


Its terrible that you think what the OP did was great work. It is unethical as hell. If the tables were turned the so called truthers would be screaming foul play.

I cant express in words my disapproval of such garbage.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


If the tables were turned?
Im sorry but were not the ones hiding information on the single most important event of the last 70 years or so.
I'll stand by what i said!



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Hey i just seen this video the other day. I happened upon it by pure luck.

If you made this video (i have not read this post just found it in the ATS search to see if it had been posted) then

I must say you did one hell of a job and if you ask me this IS the smoking gun. Can we get the interviews with a FOIA request? The interviews taking weeks after. That would show they all said the same thing from day 1.





new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join