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.

 

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

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 


Honor
noun 1. honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.

Truth and justice are NOT commodities to be traded.
Either you believe in it or you do not.
There is no in between.


Craig steps over the lines from time to time, but his heart is in the right place.

His heart is not in the right place if he is not seeking the truth.

That is my position on 9/11. I seek the truth.


To me this post sounds like someone who is disregarding the truth to fulfill a personal problem you might have with the OP. If Craig is not seeking the truth then I am the pope...and his heart has to be in the right place to have dedicated so much effort. Therefore, I would ask...what have you physically done to bring these criminals to justice?




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Sure, you attempted with spliced together pictures, to prove the official flight path wrong by saying it would have taken down a transmission tower.

I didn't buy it, nor did some others.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Nope, I was NOT accusing Harley Man of being an operative. If you had read my posts in both topics, I clearly stated that there was no evidence that he was, and have not made such claims. I did state that I felt the stuff that he was telling to Rick leventhal simply sounded like he was repeating something he had heard or been told.

And I am not one of those who is convinced that Harley man is Rick Riggle. I've stated several times that if it does turn out to be Riggle, it still does not make him guilty of anything. I toyed with a few ideas there, but none that i really think are solid.

I do not accuse anyone of being an operative. That is not my thing. I don't see spooks in every corner, G-men with mind control machines on every street, and NSA agents watching me or such other nonsense.

Back on Topic.

As far as your claims, again, you are being deliberately evasive here. McGraw did not say it was lying "South of Citgo" because, like everyone else watching the plane fly into the pentagon, he was surprised by the thing and was obviously not concerned with the exact trajectory of the plane. What places the plane is their descriptions of the proximity to the plane, which would place the plane very close to them.

I am not the one throwing out lucid crystal clear testimony, I believe that is you. You are ignoring the testimony of others, taken right after the event, which is perhaps even more lucid and accurate because it is still fresh. Time tends to dull exact memories.

I am not saying your witnesses are wrong or deliberately lying. I am stating that, given the larger number of people that contradict what they saw, it is likely that your witnesses' memories simply are not very fresh and clear as they think.

The fact that the witnesses state it flew along Columbia pike road, near and slightly over the anex, but not passing it, still puts a southern flight path, as some witnesses have already stated they were further along the road.

And the witnesses who were on the road were the ones who saw most clearly where the plane was flying from, not the CITGO

I am not ignoring evidence, you are. If that is what you prefer to do, be my guest. I have already provided witnesses who state different, and you choose to ignore them or cast doubt on them. There are more, but because of the limits on post size, I simply provided a link.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want, it's a free country (last time I checked, it's been a whiole though). However, I prefer to stick with what has already been proven and found by credible investigation, and those that prefer information that can be verified from a multitude of sources will do so as well.

If you are trying to convince me of anything, you have failed. You will have to work on someone else, sorry to tell you.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimstad
 


Is today opposite day for you?

He says the plane would be on HIS RIGHT while he is looking towards the gas station:



Sean: It would be on my right and the gas station's left. If I'm looking out the window because I'm looking towards the gas station, it would be on my right hand side.


And then he when Aldo made sure to clarify Boger said it would on GAS STATION'S left when facing the Pentagon.

That is 100% north side of the gas station in both scenarios.

Why is this hard for you to understand?



[edit on 3-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


You are dismissing solid confirmed, corroborated evidence based on unconfirmed ambiguous hearsay.

As stated earlier most of the ANC witnesses are on record describing the plane on the north side to the Center for Military History only weeks after the event.

Yes it's still a free country and if that is how you choose to look at this information I have no inclination to convince you otherwise.




[edit on 3-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I gotta hand it to ya Craig, you certainly cause quite a commotion at times.

On topic for a second, the footage of Lloyde from the back seat is priceless!



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly


Sure, you attempted with spliced together pictures, to prove the official flight path wrong by saying it would have taken down a transmission tower.

I didn't buy it, nor did some others.



Whaaaaaat?

No I did not.

Please quote me.

You misinterpreted what I said.

What has been PROVEN with physics by pilots is that the G forces required for the plane on the official flight path to descend from the top of the VDOT antenna to light pole #1 is physically impossible.

Here is the thread.

Do you really disagree with this?

As I can tell the only thing you disagree with is something I did not claim.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

You’re doing it again. It’s right there in front of you. You quoted it and you still ignore it.
“The gas stations left” How is that in any way the north approach. No ambiguity what so ever in that statement. The majority of the event took place to his right. Look at the layout. You had to turn him around to get him to say the plane was where you wanted it to be.
Why would you not want the witness to describe the event EXACTLY as he had witnessed it?
That was a BLATANT attempt to confuse the witness and it was successful. Although it’s not exactly clear when you got him to say it one last time whether he was still considering the position from the tower or the gas station, because YOU TOOK A SIMPLE SITUATION AND MADE IT CONFUSING. He had the best view of the whole approach and you chose to remove him from that, to confuse the issue. That’s YOUR FAULT. You took the best possible witness and used him to promote your own agenda. YOU SCREWED IT UP.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Clearly in the 2nd external link the horizon land masses don't line up casting doubt on any conclusions based on the red line of your "flight path".

Does that make sense?

As far G-forces are concerned, do all pilots agree with this? I know quite a few pilots.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly


Clearly in the 2nd external link the horizon land masses don't line up casting doubt on any conclusions based on the red line of your "flight path".

Does that make sense?

As far G-forces are concerned, do all pilots agree with this? I know quite a few pilots.



No it makes no sense at all because the official flight path is not based on that image.

It is based on the NTSB reported lat and long coordinates lined up with the physical damage starting with light pole 1.

That image was only meant to demonstrate how there is significant decline in the topography which is clearly a fact.

The G Force claim is backed up with physics and hard math and I have never heard a single pilot refute or deny it.

What you said you disagreed with, I never claimed.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimstad
 


For the billionth time here is the statement;



Sean: It would be on my right and the gas station's left. If I'm looking out the window because I'm looking towards the gas station, it would be on my right hand side.


His right is north.

The gas station's left is north.

He doesn't say it was on the left side of the gas station, he says "the gas station's left" which is north.

He is being quite clear that he is clarifying from which side from both directions in the first statement but just to make 100% absolute certain sure of that Aldo clarified....



Aldo: So if you were at the gas station at the back of store with your back to the store facing the Pentagon, it would have been to the left of the gas station.

Sean: Right, right.


The reason it's so important to clarify like that is so people like you can't lie and spin the information like you are so furiously and desperately trying to dedicate your weekend to doing.





[edit on 3-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


The G Force claim is backed up with physics and hard math and I have never heard a single pilot refute or deny it.


You just told a big fat stinking lie Ranke! You know it, it is not a mistake it is an intentional lie.

The "hockey stick" pull up is a joke. It was simply developed by Cap'n King Air at pffft to cover for his simple math screw-up in the first place.

The formula used allows any G one might want depending upon where the pull up begins. Cap'n King Air simply calculated it to fit his delusion. It is in no way realistic. Besides that, he has no idea where the aircraft is along that path at any point in time anyway.

You will stoop to any level, some not even imaginable to support your delusion to include lying and you've just proven it......



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Grimstad
 


For the billionth time here is the statement;



Sean: It would be on my right and the gas station's left. If I'm looking out the window because I'm looking towards the gas station, it would be on my right hand side.


His right is north.

The gas station's left is north.

He doesn't say it was on the left side of the gas station, he says "the gas station's left" which is north.

He is being quite clear that he is clarifying from which side from both directions in the first statement but just to make 100% absolute certain sure of that Aldo clarified....



Aldo: So if you were at the gas station at the back of store with your back to the store facing the Pentagon, it would have been to the left of the gas station.

Sean: Right, right.


The reason it's so important to clarify like that is so people like you can't lie and spin the information like you are so furiously and desperately trying to dedicate your weekend to doing.
[edit on 3-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]


Paraphrasing Sean’s very first statements concerning the position of the plane.
If you doubt the veracity, check the video or transcript.

8:13 Practically in front of the annex. I think that street is 227 (27)

8:25 Hit the information sign on the highway

Both of these would place the plane on the SOUTH side of the annex
There are a couple info signs on 27 directly adjacent to the South side of the annex.
If you are standing in front of the store facing it the left of the station would in fact be to the south. However if taking it from the perspective of the station itself “the stations left” as you claim, the perspective would actually be from the station looking out which would put the plane SOUTH of the station. The station faces the annex. Which would put it right in line with his initial statement that it hit a sign on 27. From his vantage point there is absolutely no way it could have been to the north of the station AND hit a sign on 227.

You are still wrong.

EDIT: And please continue with the veiled personal attacks. it makes my day.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Grimstad]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad


Both of these would place the plane on the SOUTH side of the annex
There are a couple info signs on 27 directly adjacent to the South side of the annex.


There is a highway sign to the north.

The one that Robert Turcios said it "pulled up" to go over.

None of this was discussed in relation to north or south of the citgo.



If you are standing in front of the store facing it the left of the station would in fact be to the south. However if taking it from the perspective of the station itself “the stations left” as you claim, the perspective would actually be from the station looking out which would put the plane SOUTH of the station. The station faces the annex. Which would put it right in line with his initial statement that it hit a sign on 27. From his vantage point there is absolutely no way it could have been to the north of the station AND hit a sign on 227.

You are still wrong.


Haha!

Just look at this convoluted desperate attempt to spin!

Hilarious.

He specifically says to HIS RIGHT and the gas station's left.

That is north.

That means he would be contradicting himself if when he said "gas station's left" he meant south.

But he didn't contradict himself. He meant north both times.

How do we know this?

We asked him to clarify by re-phrasing it with "facing the Pentagon" in order to leave NO DOUBT.



Aldo: So if you were at the gas station at the back of store with your back to the store facing the Pentagon, it would have been to the left of the gas station.

Sean: Right, right.


This is how we know for a FACT that by saying it was on the "gas station's left" he meant north.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Your spin and denial is spiraling out of control.




[edit on 3-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Nice to see you pop in again with the usual immature personal attacks , but you are off topic and of course wrong again Reheat.




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


But that still doesn’t mesh with the plane being “practically in front of the annex” and anywhere near 27. For that to be accomplished the plane (from Sean’s point of view) would have had to move from the left side of the Citgo to the right side of the station. (Check the angles) He did not say that. He said it was on one side of the station. You say north, I say south. But never did he indicate that it actually traversed the Citgo. All the trajectories but one indicate a long banking turn.

“8:13 Practically in front of the annex. I think that street is 227 (27)”
There is no way that a long banking turn can come from being adjacent to the annex and 27, not traverse the citgo, and hit the sign you indicated.


As for the “convoluted part”.
You are the one that made it complicated by doing that little flip.
Why would you not want the witness to describe the event EXACTLY as he had witnessed it?



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimstad
 


Wrong again.

In order to be "practically" in front of the navy annex it had to have flown over the Navy Annex which is the north side approach.

Of course the word "practically" makes this particular claim less definitive but he later clarifies concerning the Navy Annex that it was "more to the right also". "Also" meaning, how he also said it was to his right of the gas station, or north.

Both the north and south paths cross route 27 so I can't fathom why you are bringing that up at all.

The fact is that Boger specifically and definitively has the plane banking RIGHT north of the citgo just like the ANC guys and of course all the citgo witnesses.

The plane does not bank OR tilt "right" at all on the official flight path.

This right bank is critical and is also further hard proof that Boger is describing a north side approach.







[edit on 3-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
i]Craig Ranke CIT

You are not important enough nor significant enough for me to waste my time arguing with you.



My oh my oh my. The desperation of these 'government loyalists' is totally out of control as the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY train wrecks into its own quicksand quagmire. Why they even brought in spinmeister Reheat out of retirement for maximum effort.

The selective quoting of Mr Grimstad is hilarious as he has Sean Boger contradicting himself, dishonestly pretending that there are not 13+ other proven and reinterviewed eyewitnesses placing the actual decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. Spin spin spin spin spin.

The FAA itself also places the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. Such desperation and dishonesty from the spinmasters; where will it end? Have you people no shame? Those were innocent Americans who were murdered on 9-11.

FAA flight path ONA and NOC


1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Even if you put the plane over the annex (which is not what he said) that puts it closer to 244 and southgate rd more than any other roads. There is a big gap between the annex and 27. He did NOT relate 27 to the crossover point. He related it to the STARTING point. There is no way to put 27 and the annex together as a starting point and reconcile it with your theory. It is your own shoddy interviewing technique that created the confusion over north and south.of the Citgo. Something required to fit your puzzle. Your highly questionable style does nothing to bolster the other eyewitnesses. Sean was the single best witness available and you chose to play games with him.
Why would you not want the witness to describe the event EXACTLY as he had witnessed it?

There is a lot you can’t fathom. Like exactly how important the extensive damage to the inside of Lloyds car is. And you totally dismiss it, because it doesn’t fit YOUR story.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join