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.

 

The Taxi Cab Challenge

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Using your best animation skills; series of stepped drawings; or even a detailed summary please explain how pole #1 entered Lloyd's car and wedged itself in the back seat.

In your answer you must consider the following:

- length of the pole
- size of hole in windshield
- curve of the pole
- direction of traffic flow on highway
- direction of force from 'aircraft'
- the resting point of the taxi cab in relation to pole #1
- offical story data




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Ehhhhh.

What?




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Using your best animation skills; series of stepped drawings; or even a detailed summary please explain how pole #1 entered Lloyd's car and wedged itself in the back seat.

In your answer you must consider the following:

- length of the pole
- size of hole in windshield
- curve of the pole
- direction of traffic flow on highway
- direction of force from 'aircraft'
- the resting point of the taxi cab in relation to pole #1
- offical story data



Well, if you watch Craig's excellent video here in which Lloyd said "yeah, it was planned..."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Does make me wonder how they pulled that off if it really was planned. I mean what, they called Lloyd ahead of time and said "be here at this time, and we are going to have a light pole rip through your windshield, missing you by inches, and...??" I don't recall Lloyd offering up any details of HOW they pulled it off. But since we know about the NoC flight path, and that the plane could NOT have hit the poles, your guess is as good as anyone's...Unless someone can offer Lloyd more money than the FBI/CIA or whoever did to spill the beans.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


It's really not all that complicated.

4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side and were likely placed the night before.

In fact pole #1 may have been placed on the shoulder the night before too and then immediately after the explosion, during all the chaos, they blocked southbound traffic, perhaps either towed or drove the pre-fabricated damaged cab and staged the scene, and pulled the pole from the side of the road.

It would have taken all but 30 seconds all while the ultimate diversion was happening at the Pentagon across the street.

People would have no clue what was going on with any light poles or some damaged cab and even if anyone did see the scene getting staged they would probably just think they were moving it out of the way or something anyway.

But even if they DID think it was suspicious, clearly nothing would have happened if they called the authorities about it.

Sure it would be great if someone like that came forward now but to them, at the time, it would have likely been an inconsequential moment in one of the most traumatic days of their life and they likely would have completely forgotten about it.

Realize the downed light poles are not something that most of the general public is aware of at all and there was no attention on this information for many years after the event as the questions mounted.

We have a complete light pole planting hypothesis available here.

Sorry for the derail turbofan but I have a feeling you're not going to have too many takers on your challenge anyway!



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Hmm, I don't suppose you ever got the actual VIN number off that cab when you were up there, did you Craig? It would be very interesting to see where that cab came from, and if he did own that cab for some time before all this went down.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
It's been proven scientifically that first hand witnesses can have their memory of an event swayed very easily, especially if the event is traumatic. Especially when people trust the person that is swaying their opinion.

And for 90% of americans, the media is there trusted person. So they let their memory get skewed by planted information. Even if what they believe slightly contradicts the "official" version of events, they would subconsciously alter their story to reflect the official story so that they are not the outcast.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   


Larger photo

The hole in the windshield





Larger photo

and the pole which officially and allegedly made the hole




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Yes in fact I did.

We zoomed in on it with the video camera and you can see it during that segment of "Eye of the Storm.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Sorry for the derail turbofan but I have a feeling you're not going to have too many takers on your challenge anyway!


That's no surprise. I believe this is the only event that people blab about
but have never tried to explain. If anyone knows of a site, paper, or
recorded audio link that explains pole #1 entering the car, I'd love to
get my hands on it.

I made this quick and simple animation (2 part) that highlights some
phsycial impossibilities with Lloyd's account.

procision-auto.com...

Aside from the fact that
pole #1 would have moved more than 5 time the distance than any other
pole, the timing of the pole strike and resting point of the cab on the
highway does not jive.

Needless to say, 'we' know this...the GL's never really thought about it.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
turbofan, you're not going to get any replies in this thread that explain how the light pole was allegedly lodged in the taxi.

None of the government loyalist debunkers that I have seen, have enough mathematical skill to consider the inertial moments of the light pole or possible spin rates of the light pole, to form some different equations. It's quite difficult to model the light pole's possible motions when striking the taxi. It probably involves second order differential equations, with relation to the angular velocity of the light pole's spin around it's centre of motion. Something that goes way above my head to construct, although I might understand some well written equations.

I checked out a website earlier today that used second order differential equations to model the motion of a felled tree - quite complex stuff. The model worked until the point where the tree trunk snapped from the hinged base. Government loyalist, keyboard debunkers do not possess this level of mathematical skill.

I don't see how the light pole-taxi collision can occur in this current reality. Assuming that the light pole had no spin, then it would have punctured the windscreen with a downward velocity as a dropped object. The taxi's back seat and dashboard would not have been strong enough to stop the vertical momentum of the light pole. The 20+ feet of light pole hanging over the bonnet could not have stopped instantly, without twisting over and falling onto the bonnet.

If the light pole was spinning when it allegedly hit the windscreen, then the back seat and dash would have had to arrest the angular momentum of the light pole, stopping its spin, all without the light pole flipping up into the windscreen frame or down on to the bonnet.

Hey, government loyalists, prove me wrong! Please, go ahead! Post some detailed mathematical equations that will simulate the light pole striking the taxi so that NO damage is caused to the windscreen frame or the bonnet. Show me how the force of the light pole striking the taxi wasn't enough to deviate the taxi from a controlled skid. Show me how the overhanging 20+ feet of light pole would not have enough momentum to dislodge the tiny piece of pole allegedly held in place by a rear seat and dashboard fulcrum, while the taxi skidded sideways from 20 metres per second. The light pole would have swayed sideways along the dashboard, probably knocking Lloyde's arms from the steering wheel.

I'm suprised that if the short end of the light pole was wedged by the seat and dashboard, that the longer end wouldn't have fell on to the bonnet, turned to strike the road and skewer the motion of the taxi! The taxi should have driven in to the light pole, possibly driving the light pole through the boot or roof...

Until any government loyalist can prove, using detailed mathematics, that the light pole struck the taxi, according to 'Lloyde the truth telling prophet' then it DID NOT HAPPEN.

Then, after you've done that, explain why the smashed light assembly was next to the taxi, if it skidded to a stop... shouldn't all of that smashed glass be further down the road behind the taxi at the point of impact?

[edit on 7-5-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
One thing that keeps jumping out at me is the two pictures of the pole, do the bends look different ? I noticed this on one of Craigs threads first and now on this one. Maybe it is just the angle, but they do not look the same to me. Probably nothing. Just wanted to say.

edit to add: also the housing around the top two mounting bolts. The bottom pic shows the housing to be bent a lot more than the top? The bolt in the top pic is almost in the corner and the bottom pic it is down a few inches.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by timewalker]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

None of the government loyalist debunkers that I have seen, have enough mathematical skill to consider the inertial moments of the light pole or possible spin rates of the light pole, to form some different equations. It's quite difficult to model the light pole's possible motions when striking the taxi.


I'd be happy with a simple account of what they think happened, while
considering the points in my list.

One of the biggest problems to contend with is where the car stopped
in relation to pole #1's base point. The time and distance required to
brake the car in relation to the aircraft striking the pole does not make
any sense.

Futhermore, the direction of traffic is nearly perpendicular to the direction
of flight. Factor in the belly of the aircraft and the swept angle of the wing
and we have one heck of an issue getting that pole into the back seat.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
turbofan, you're not going to get any replies in this thread that explain how the light pole was allegedly lodged in the taxi.

Until any government loyalist can prove, using detailed mathematics, that the light pole struck the taxi, according to 'Lloyde the truth telling prophet' then it DID NOT HAPPEN.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by tezzajw]


perhaps we can call up Dr. Sunder over at NIST and ask him to construct a model and explanation of this physical impossibility incident


I'd pay admission price to watch that folly.



[edit on 7-5-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


There is a flaw in your animation. Lloyde claims he was driving south at 40 mph. He claims the pole smashed through his windshield, then he hit his brakes, and then his taxi skidded sideways to a stop with the pole sticking out over the hood.

Lloyde England drawing


A speed of 40 mph would equal 58.6 feet per second. It would likely be several seconds before an elderly man reacted, and a few more seconds before the taxi skidded to a stop. Maybe 200+ feet from alleged pole impact to alleged full stop back near the #1 pole base.

Therefore the #1 light pole which was allegedly struck by the right wing outboard section, needed to fly somehow past the right engine, the fuselage, and the left engine to hit the windshield up the road.

Also the #2 pole which was allegedly struck by the left wing outboard section, went backwards down the hill.






[edit on 5/7/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Well, it's not so much a 'flaw' as it would be the required angle and position
of the car to allow the pole to enter.

Notice the unnatural movement of the pole as it magically suspends itself
horizontally and 'slides' through the windshield.


RE: pole #2

I've always wondered how the pole could manage a bend of that magnitude
(from the wing) and end up behind the basepoint. Someone got lazy
with their staging.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
As a general believer of the official story (it does have holes though, which is why I'm here there and everywhere
) I think it's completely pointless to debate about whether or not a pole struck the Taxi Driver's cab.

What we SHOULD be focusing on is what the guy SAW.

What we SHOULD be focusing on is if flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.

Trying to "mathematically calculate how the pole did this or that" is voluntary or involuntarily distracting us from more important issues.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
What we SHOULD be focusing on is what the guy SAW.

So you're trusting the integrity of the official story based on what Lloyde England saw? Remember that not a single person on this planet has been able to verify his story.



What we SHOULD be focusing on is if flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.

If the alleged Flight 77 did not hit the light poles, then someone is going to be in a whole lot of trouble for telling a whole lot of lies about an alleged flight path that isn't really true.



Trying to "mathematically calculate how the pole did this or that" is voluntary or involuntarily distracting us from more important issues.

There is nothing more important than showing where the official story is flawed. You may think otherwise, but lots of other people know better.

If Lloyde's cult followers can not demonstrate how a light pole can enter the taxi, then they're really really in trouble. No light pole in taxi means big problems for the official story.

Get it?



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
What we SHOULD be focusing on is what the guy SAW.

What we SHOULD be focusing on is if flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.

Trying to "mathematically calculate how the pole did this or that" is voluntary or involuntarily distracting us from more important issues.


News flash. Mr. Lloyd England has been discredited beyond all doubt.

The guy doesn't even believe he was on the bridge near pole #1 where
all the photos put him.

Why don't you concentrate on those 'holes' instead of believing the official
BS?

Furthermore, Lloyd did not see the aircraft. I'm really not sure what
you think "this guy SAW"?



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrRandomGuy
As a general believer of the official story (it does have holes though, which is why I'm here there and everywhere
) I think it's completely pointless to debate about whether or not a pole struck the Taxi Driver's cab.

What we SHOULD be focusing on is what the guy SAW.

What we SHOULD be focusing on is if flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.

Trying to "mathematically calculate how the pole did this or that" is voluntary or involuntarily distracting us from more important issues.


MrRandomGuy, I am afraid, your vague double-speak post will only succeed in taking attention from the physical evidence at the core of this thread.

You can either be a believer or a non-believer of the official explanation of 911 events. You cannot be both.

Here is my suggestion,

Please create a thread, listing all the holes which you see in the official story. We will be very interested in analyzing that. But your 50% official & 50% unofficial theory is sure recipe of thread derailing.

Especially not knowing exactly what 50% holes you are talking about. This the way politicians speak when they don't want to commit to any side.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Bump for an answer? Nobody wants to take a shot at an explanation?

I'm not even looking for mathematics at this point. Just spell it out for me.

Please remember to consider the criteria outlined in the first post when posting your answer.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join