The Taxi Cab Challenge

No takers? Why not?

Is it THAT hard to explain (or model) how a roughly 200 pound, 30 foot long section of metal pole can drop into a taxi window, have all of its momentum instantly arrested by the dashboard and back seat, without leaving a scratch on the bonnet or denting the windscreen frame?

If it's that hard to explain, then why believe it happened? Oh that's right, we should believe it because Lloyde said it happened and the government agreed!

(Hint, there's a place for stories like these - look in the section marked 'fiction')

What? No government loyalists have eagerly come forward to take the Taxi Cab Challenge; chomping at the bit to rub the troofer faces in the mud of truth?

Why all the sudden weak-knee cowardice? Have they cut your paychecks? Have you all suddenly realized that the rapidly self-destructing 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is non-salvageable? No guts? Too lazy?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a96c181d0acc.jpg[/atsimg]

While we are on the subject; here is a crop of an early taxi photo. US Marine photographer Jason Ingersoll came running down the hill from the Naval Annex, which the aircraft had just flown over, immediately after the explosion snapping photos on the run. This shot is within mere minutes and 1st responder firetrucks are not yet on the scene.

Original Ingersol photo 03876

Alas no sign of a heavy 30+ foot long curved light pole sticking out of the windshield nor any sign of a person who has helped poor old Lloyde England remove it and place it on the pavement to the right. Could the elderly Lloyde have removed the heavy 200+ pound light pole from the windshield and set it on the road surface, in the few minutes between the Naval Annex flyover and Jason Ingersoll snapping this photo? Not bloody likely. Don't forget that somebody also dragged the heavy pole across the road, leaving the scratch on the pavement. That took some time also.

A geoff metcalf photo
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5e151507e888.jpg[/atsimg]

There must have never ever been a heavy 30+ foot long light pole though the windshield in the first place. The entire taxi fairy tale must have been a lie and staged by those Federal agents. Correct?

Next shot in series 03877

Some photos are mysteriously missing; perhaps confiscated by the good old reliable FBI?

Federal agents are onscene to guard the taxi and Lloyde - still no firetrucks - Mike Walters in the yellow/black shirt - Ingersoll 03879

Finally the fire trucks arrive only 5 minutes or so after the aircraft flight Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high over the light poles and overhead highway sign in its path and the initial explosion at the Pentagon wall.

The 1st responder firetrucks arrive to put out the fires uninvited and unwanted - Ingersol 03880

So when are you faithful believers in the Official Conspiracy Theory going to explain the mechanics and the physics of the wing hurling the 200+ pound 30+ foot long light pole into the taxi windshield and back seat?

Oh ye of little faith come forth and do battle.

One of the missing Ingersol photos
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/95a27a112554.jpg[/atsimg]

And another
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/777fdf9f0e4a.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 5/15/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by tezzajw
No takers? Why not?

Its more fun to sit back and watch the PffffT crew make fools of themselves than to try and talk sense or logic about this issue. TF would just be obnoxious, SPreston would just post more of his images, the "gentleman" from down under would just be condescending while speaking nonsense - in other words, the usual responses from the usual suspects.

If I *were* to respond with anything, though, I'd ask what I asked in a different thread - prove to me that it *couldn't* happen - and you can't. As improbable or as impossible as the moonbats claim this is, I've been in and around aviation for well over 25 years and I've heard stranger things.

Originally posted by trebor451
Its more fun to sit back and watch the PffffT crew make fools of themselves than to try and talk sense or logic about this issue. TF would just be obnoxious, SPreston would just post more of his images, the "gentleman" from down under would just be condescending while speaking nonsense - in other words, the usual responses from the usual suspects.

Off topic and potentially insulting. Meh, at least you got the condescending part right.

If I *were* to respond with anything, though, I'd ask what I asked in a different thread - prove to me that it *couldn't* happen

I don't need to. Your question is bunk and a complete logical avoidance of the issue.

Null hypothesis: A series of events happened at the Pentagon that caused a light pole to be found on the road, next to a smashed taxi.

Your alternate hypothesis: Flight AA77 knocked the light pole down, puncturing the taxi, blah blah blah...

YOU have the burden of proof to show that your alternate hypothesis is correct. It's all YOUR'S to prove.

I accept the null hypothesis until such time that I see an alternative hypothesis proven.

Your flawed logic is trying to avoid the fact that you can not prove your alternate hypothesis true. You can not show by any means that the light pole allegedly did what it did to the taxi.

As improbable or as impossible as the moonbats claim this is, I've been in and around aviation for well over 25 years and I've heard stranger things.

Your anecdotal experience is off topic and irrelevant to you being able to prove your alternate hypothesis that Flight AA77 hit the light pole, blah blah blah...

Try and keep up with the logic, trebor.

posted by tezzajw

No takers? Why not?

posted by trebor451

Its more fun to sit back and watch the PffffT crew make fools of themselves than to try and talk sense or logic about this issue. TF would just be obnoxious, SPreston would just post more of his images, the "gentleman" from down under would just be condescending while speaking nonsense - in other words, the usual responses from the usual suspects.

If I *were* to respond with anything, though, I'd ask what I asked in a different thread - prove to me that it *couldn't* happen - and you can't. As improbable or as impossible as the moonbats claim this is, I've been in and around aviation for well over 25 years and I've heard stranger things.

In other words, you cannot do this. It is impossible. You are admitting defeat.

With the actual aircraft now proven Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high over the light poles and overhead highway sign in its path, and with the US FAA now authenticating the north flight path, the Taxi Cab Challenge is a waste of time, self-defeating, and an exercise in futility. Correct trebor451? Your compadres have all abandoned you and left you on your own beating your head on this Taxi Cab Challenge wall. You cannot stand to lose and you refuse to look the fool, again.

Does that about sum up your impossible situation?

OP

The Taxi Cab Challenge

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

What is wrong with my images? Are you trying to hurt my feelings? I think they are great, fitted well to the ATS screen format, and interesting; filled with factual 9-11 related evidence and colorful, livening up the normally drab ATS threads. I even source a lot of them for you; providing the original higher resolution images so your search for justice for the innocent victims of the 9-11 perps can be more rewarding. Did I see a thank you anywhere? (pinch?) (beachnut?)

Originally posted by tezzajw
Your anecdotal experience is off topic and irrelevant to you being able to prove your alternate hypothesis that Flight AA77 hit the light pole, blah blah blah...

Of course it is. Your only defense against this light-pole event occurring is your "faith based" denial since there is no way possible you can prove that it would be physically impossible for an aircraft to a) hit the light poles, b) have the light poles fly into and impale a car on the road and c) do it so that the majority of the hood does not appear to be scratched.

I don't have to "prove" it because it happened. You can run around all you want, fingers plugged in your ears humming "Waltzing Matilda" till the 'Roos come home, but it isn't going to change anything. You and the others can create your own alternate universe if you want, but don't be surprised when people look at you funny when you think you are King of the World in the real world.

My own, as you call it, "anecdotal" experiences fit very nicely in there. I *have* seen and read accounts of incredible things happening - things that appear would be "improbable or impossible" had I not seen them with my own eyes or read about them. Reading about this light-pole account is very plausible to me because I have seen the elephant.

Try and keep up with the logic, trebor.

I'm keeping up quite well, thank you very much. How's that status quo treating you?

Originally posted by trebor451

Its more fun to sit back and watch the PffffT crew make fools of themselves than to try and talk sense or logic about this issue. TF would just be obnoxious, SPreston would just post more of his images, the "gentleman" from down under would just be condescending while speaking nonsense - in other words, the usual responses from the usual suspects.

I can classify the whole humanity in two VERY DISTINCT groups at this point,

Group A:
The people who think, there is nothing unusual about the physics, geometry & mechanics of Lloyde's taxi/Light pole/Airplane. And the matter requires no further investigation.

Group B:
The people who think, there is indeed something unusual about the physics, geometry & mechanics of Lloyde's taxi/Light pole/Airplane. And the matter warrants further investigation.

Please vote, which set you want to belong to.

And yes, this voting will reveal some artists too who will try to obfuscate the issue with verbal artistery & have sic. fun. But for the sake of this we will ignore those guys/girls and keep things binary (Group A, Group B).

reply to post by trebor451


I'll play your game 'trebor'.

Let's see, some simple facts:

- The aircraft was flying at an angle in relation to traffic flow ~ 60 degrees.

- The pole will fall in the direction of the force knocking it over.

- Lloyd did not see AA77

- The car skidded for 40 feet with a light pole ALREADY through the glass
according to Lloyd.

- The taxi cab stopped BEFORE the base of light pole #1

Let's summarize to keep it simple for the GL's:

- Aircraft at an angle to traffic flow

- Pole falls at an angle to traffic flow

- Lloyd did not see AA77

- Cab skidded for 40 feet

- Lloyd's car stopped before the base of pole #1

Impossible

Originally posted by trebor451
Of course it is. Your only defense against this light-pole event occurring is your "faith based" denial since there is no way possible you can prove that it would be physically impossible for an aircraft to a) hit the light poles, b) have the light poles fly into and impale a car on the road and c) do it so that the majority of the hood does not appear to be scratched.

I wish that GoodOlDave would make his way over here. I just spent a few minutes typing a reply to his logic flaws about the light poles in another thread. It would be much easier to tutor the two of you in the same thread, instead of different threads. You're both killing logic in the same manner.

I don't need to prove that it's physically impossible for a plane to hit a light pole, trebor. YOU made the claim that the plane hit the light pole, knocking it into a taxi, etc... YOU need to prove that claim.

I don't have to "prove" it because it happened.

So this is what your argument has been reduced to? A faith based belief that something happened.

Another quote for me to store for future reference.

The neutral reader to this thread will note that instead of trying to prove his alternate hypothesis, trebor has simply decided to believe it instead.

You can run around all you want, fingers plugged in your ears humming "Waltzing Matilda" till the 'Roos come home, but it isn't going to change anything. You and the others can create your own alternate universe if you want, but don't be surprised when people look at you funny when you think you are King of the World in the real world.

Off topic drivel that doesn't help you prove your alternate hypothesis.

Reading about this light-pole account is very plausible to me because I have seen the elephant.

If it's so plausible, then you would be able to prove it, right?

trebor, join forces with GoodOlDave and together the two of you can begin to try and nut out a proof for your shared claim!

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't need to prove that it's physically impossible for a plane to hit a light pole, trebor. YOU made the claim that the plane hit the light pole, knocking it into a taxi, etc... YOU need to prove that claim.

Why do I need to "prove" this occurred? What part of the latin phrase "status quo" do you not understand? It is a noun, meaning "The existing condition or state of affairs."

The existing condition or state of affairs, or the "status quo", is that the aircraft hit the light poles and one of the poles impaled the vehicle. I don't need to prove anything. It has already been proven by happening.

You, on the other hand, along with the rest of your team, need to prove that a) it either did not happen or b) that it could not have happened. The onus is on you and your CIT/PffT buddies. So far, we have obnoxious posts and random image after image after image of whatever is on SPreston's hard drive. You bring "faith based" denials, unable to prove that this could not happen with any facts or figures - nothing more than a "I said it didn't happen" defence. Hardly a robust debate technique.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by trebor451]

Originally posted by trebor451
The existing condition or state of affairs, or the "status quo", is that the aircraft hit the light poles and one of the poles impaled the vehicle. I don't need to prove anything. It has already been proven by happening.

Completely, utterly wrong, trebor. Such an attack on logic is shameful. The light pole has never been proven to be knocked down by a plane and into the taxi.

The status quo, or null hypothesis is that a light pole was found on the road next to a damaged taxi. How it got there is the subject of many different conjectures.

If you wish to believe that a jet hit the light pole, that's fine. If you expect other people to join you in their belief, then you'll need to prove it to them.

You, on the other hand, along with the rest of your team, need to prove that a) it either did not happen or b) that it could not have happened.

No, trebor, I don't need to prove anything. I'm not the one making the ridiculous claim that a jet hit a light pole, knocking it through a taxi window, without leaving a scratch on the bonnet.

I'm not making claims. The null hypothesis stands.

The very fact that you can't understand this logic, clearly demonstrates how out of your depth you are, in this discussion.

You bring "faith based" denials, unable to prove that this could not happen with any facts or figures - nothing more than a "I said it didn't happen" defence. Hardly a robust debate technique.

The ONLY faith based claim in this thread is your's. You're basing your claim that the light pole was knocked over by a jet, on faith. You have faith that you're being told the truth.

Intelligent, neutral readers of this thread will note that that light pole has never been proven to have been inside the taxi on 9/11.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw
I'm not the one making the ridiculous claim that a jet hit a light pole, knocking it through a taxi window, without leaving a scratch on the bonnet.

By calling someone else's claim "ridiculous" you are implying that you believe in something else. So spit it out instead of playing games, let's hear what you think happened for once.

I'm willing to bet that it will be rather interesting to see when the same burden of proof you expect from everyone is applied to your beliefs.

No more excuses.

Originally posted by Soloist
By calling someone else's claim "ridiculous" you are implying that you believe in something else.

No, not at all. If you read the thread, I've stated that I willingly accept the null hypothesis that a light pole was found next to a smashed taxi.

The yet-to-be-proven alternate hypothesis, that a jet plane did it, is ridiculous because it hasn't been proven.

So spit it out instead of playing games, let's hear what you think happened for once.

I don't know what happened, Soloist. I'm not going to speculate when I don't have proof to support my claims.

I'm willing to bet that it will be rather interesting to see when the same burden of proof you expect from everyone is applied to your beliefs.

Off topic. Considering that I haven't made a claim about how the light pole was found on the road next to the taxi, your statement above is worthless.

No more excuses.

Huh? Your post contributed nothing to the premise of the thread. You didn't try to prove the alternate hypothesis true. All you did was try to bait me for some reason and state that I'm running out of excuses? Why?

Pointless.

The null hypothesis is that some series of events lead to a light pole being found on a road next to a smashed taxi. That's it.

I've read at least three different alternate hypotheses about what could have happened but I have not seen any of them proven.

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't know what happened, Soloist. I'm not going to speculate when I don't have proof to support my claims.

So you don't believe in anything, yet argue with solely with those who don't believe in these ridiculous conspiracy theories...

Sorry, not buying that, it's obvious you are in some sort of agreement with their camp, so you must believe in something along those lines. But, you're right about one thing, you don't have any proof.

Originally posted by Soloist
So you don't believe in anything, yet argue with solely with those who don't believe in these ridiculous conspiracy theories...

How wrong you are. I believe in the truth - whatever it is or turns out to be.

The whole official story has to be bought as an entire package. None of it can be false or contradictory, if it is to be consumed in its entirety.

Therefore, any aspect of the official story that can't support itself is subject to intense scrutiny. As long as part of the story is a lie, then the whole story is stained.

I argue with official story believers to see how well they can prove it. In this thread, you have shown that you can't prove how the light pole was knocked by a plane, into Lloyde's taxi, with all of the momentum arrested by a dashboard and back seat, so that no scratch was left on the bonnet.

Sorry, not buying that, it's obvious you are in some sort of agreement with their camp, so you must believe in something along those lines.

Be careful with what you assume, Soloist. Making false accusations about me could be in breach of the terms and conditions of this website.

Your off topic pokes at my intentions are another distraction and a handwaving attempt to avoid the fact that you can't explain how Lloyde's taxi was allegedly speared by the light pole.

But, you're right about one thing, you don't have any proof.

Exactly. That's why I accept the null hypothesis that a light pole was found on the ground, next to the taxi.

If I had proof for an alternate hypothesis, then I would claim it and publicise it.

Clearly, no official government supporter has been able to show how the light pole hit the taxi.

It makes you wonder who the blind believers really are.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Therefore, any aspect of the official story that can't support itself is subject to intense scrutiny. As long as part of the story is a lie, then the whole story is stained.

I can agree with you on some of that, scrutiny is good and healthy, especially when it comes to the Government. Blind government hating conspiracies with no proof should be under just the same amount of scrutiny, surely you agree with that?

I don't agree with you that if part of the story is a lie, the whole thing is. For example, what if Flight 93 was shot down to protect further casualties? Does that automatically make everything else a lie? I don't believe it does.

Be careful with what you assume, Soloist. Making false accusations about me could be in breach of the terms and conditions of this website.

As can be trolling. However, you have said :

I argue with official story believers to see how well they can prove it.

I do not see you posting the same burden of proof on the CT'ers, so you can see how my conclusion is quite logical.

Originally posted by Soloist
I don't agree with you that if part of the story is a lie, the whole thing is. For example, what if Flight 93 was shot down to protect further casualties? Does that automatically make everything else a lie? I don't believe it does.

I didn't state that if part of the story is a lie, then the whole story is. I stated that if part of the story is a lie, then the whole story is stained.

I choose my words carefully, Soloist.

The majority of the official story may be true, however, there may be parts that are completely untrue.

Anyway, there's lots of threads devoted to shooting down Flight 93. I suggest that you take your opinion there.

As can be trolling. However, you have said: I do not see you posting the same burden of proof on the CT'ers, so you can see how my conclusion is quite logical.

My motives are not the premise for this thread. Your conclusion is irrelevant. You can't accuse me of trolling, when I've been trying to keep this thread on topic, despite your attempt to discuss anything but the light pole punching the taxi! Me a troll? Never!

The government story states that a jet plane knocked down a light pole, which punctured Lloyde's taxi. I'm interested in this thread to see that alternate proven. So far, it hasn't. Your contributions have not attempted to prove the official story.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Anyway, there's lots of threads devoted to shooting down Flight 93. I suggest that you take your opinion there

It was not an opinion it was a hypothetical, geez for someone who states :

I choose my words carefully, Soloist.

You sure do have a problem with comprehension.

So far, it hasn't.

And it never will, at least to the satisfaction of the "flyover" crowd. Video? Nope. Photo's of the pole hanging out the car? Nope. Witnesses? One crazy cabbie.

Nope, might as well end this thread now, because it will never be able to be proven.

Matter of fact, this should go down as the dumbest attempt at faking a real event ever, I mean really - planting all the poles on the ground would have been more than sufficient, no need to get some crazy old cabbie involved by faking the spearing of his cab in some complicated, convoluted manner that surely defies all physics! What a big waste of time for no real result! Phew, glad the internet sleuths caught that one!

reply to post by Soloist

I take it that by the sarcastic tone of your post, that you've given up trying to prove that the light pole was struck by a jet plane and impacted the taxi window?

Fine.

You're another one who has failed to prove his official story correct. I'll run out of chalk, while I'm keeping score in this thread alone...

Originally posted by neil_86
I can classify the whole humanity in two VERY DISTINCT groups at this point,

neil, welcome to ATS, by the way.

You can see, from this very thread, how people who support the official government story do not like to prove that the light pole hit Lloyde's taxi, as they claim.

It's a thorn in their side and they mostly respond in two ways:
1 - Drag the thread off topic.
2 - Demand that we prove it didn't happen.

Get used to their logic. Their methodology is common, especially when they've got no way of proving something that they claim is true. You got to have faith if you're a government story believer!