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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

posted by Soloist

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!



We are certainly agreed there. The very dumbest ever. Pure stupidity indeed. The Three Stooges of the FBI; screwing up a simple light pole staging event. The 9-11 Perps gave them the easiest role in the entire 9-11 script; and the Three Stooges screwed it up royally. I wonder where those fools are buried? Maybe that is why they have not come forward as expert eyewitnesses to the light pole sticking out of the windshield and removing the light pole. Maybe that is why they have abandoned poor Lloyde to his lying.



Why those Federal agents guarding the light pole, taxi, and Lloyde could have been government loyalist heroes, valiantly stepping forward to rescue the light pole fiasco from a fate worth than death. Yes even heroes to you Soloist; saving you from your foolish tantrums as you beat your head on the Pentagon wall.



But where are they. They are anonymous, never saying one word in support of the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. The Three Stooges must be dead.



And now with your incompetence; they have totally screwed up the Doubletree Hotel video too.




posted on May, 16 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Wow. It's called sarcasm. But I did quite enjoy your over the top, ultra-dramatic tirade that has nothing to do with anything.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Hey Trebor, and other GL's:

I've shown how the pole into the cab is impossible.

Prove me wrong please. Let's get back on topic.

Oh...and someone please call up Reheat. I'm surprised he hasn't
posted on ATS since this thread was started. Hmmm...wonder why?



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Hey Trebor, and other GL's:

I've shown how the pole into the cab is impossible.


How exactly have you shown it would be "impossible"? I don't remember seeing any evidence of the sort.

It is physically and logically possible that an aircraft could (and did) fly low enough to hit the light poles.

It is physically and logically possible that those light poles (and they did) bounce around in some manner, way, shape or form after being hit by the aircraft.

It is physically and logically possible that one of these poles, in a manner regardless how improbable or implausible, impacted Lloyd's care in a way such that it did not mar the hood of his cab.

Having faith-based denials of such not only happening but claiming that the aforementioned is even *impossible* reinforces my belief that, along with your claim in another post that a tail of a airliner should be "at or near the surface" after a 500 mph crash at a near vertical velocity vector into a reclaimed strip mine, you know nothing about aircraft.


[edit on 16-5-2009 by trebor451]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

How exactly have you shown it would be "impossible"? I don't remember seeing any evidence of the sort.


See my post above. The 'aircraft' was moving at an approximate 60 degree
angle to the direction of traffic.

How does a pole falling near perpendicular to the car, enter the windshield
and lodge itself in the back seat?


It is physically and logically possible that an aircraft could (and did) fly low enough to hit the light poles.


Logical, maybe. Physically, not really. YOu will need to study the landscape
and FDR data to understand this.


It is physically and logically possible that those light poles (and they did) bounce around in some manner, way, shape or form after being hit by the aircraft.


Oh yeah? Bounce around? From the photo evidence I have seen, all poles
fell within close proximity to their base points. Can you show me the
ground damage of where these poles dug into the grass when falling over?

Pole #1 according to the OBSS (figure it out) had to move over 50 feet
away from its base position to hit the cab. While it moved laterally (impossible),
it had to stop rotation, change direction, lay horizontal to the road long
enough to spear the windshield and wedge itself into the back seat
without damaging the hood, and roof of the car. Damn!


YOu may view my quick animation to see the trouble with this theory:

procision-auto.com...





It's amazing what some people believe. It's like Bush and Co. have the
fish hook hanging and all the GL's are jumping on!



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
It is physically and logically possible that an aircraft could (and did) fly low enough to hit the light poles.

I don't believe you. Prove it.



It is physically and logically possible that those light poles (and they did) bounce around in some manner, way, shape or form after being hit by the aircraft.

I don't believe you. Prove it.



It is physically and logically possible that one of these poles, in a manner regardless how improbable or implausible, impacted Lloyd's care in a way such that it did not mar the hood of his cab.

Now I really don't believe you. Prove it!



Having faith-based denials of such not only happening

Having a faith based acceptance of such happenings, without being able to prove them shows a lack of logic, common sense and critical thinking.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Having a faith based acceptance of such happenings, without being able to prove them shows a lack of logic, common sense and critical thinking.


Having a faith-based opposition to such happenings, without being able to disprove them shows a lack of intelligence, logic, common sense and critical thinking.

It really eats at you that I don't have to "prove" anything, doesn't it? I don't have to do anything because it is "accepted" knowledge that the aircraft hit the poles, one of the poles impacted Lloyds' car and the aircraft continued into the building.

YOU are the one who has to prove this didn't happen, and how is that going so far? How long do we have to keep waiting for the Tribunals that will hang people like me after a "fair and balanced" trial? Its been 7 and a half years. Will we still be waiting for your tribunals 10 years from now? 15? 20? Should I not plan on an early retirement? Should I begin to get my affairs in order? You'll let me know, won't you? Its the very least you could do for an internet buddy.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by trebor451]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Having a faith-based opposition to such happenings, without being able to disprove them shows a lack of intelligence, logic, common sense and critical thinking.

You really don't have a clue how logic operates. Fair enough, your loss.

I don't need to disprove the light pole and taxi - you need to prove it.



It really eats at you that I don't have to "prove" anything, doesn't it?

It must really eat at you that you can't prove the light pole was in the taxi.



I don't have to do anything because it is "accepted" knowledge that the aircraft hit the poles, one of the poles impacted Lloyds' car and the aircraft continued into the building.

With that, your last remaining credibility flies out the window. You have not been able to prove that the light pole was ever inside the taxi on 9/11.



YOU are the one who has to prove this didn't happen, and how is that going so far?

No, you have to prove it happened. You claimed it happened, so you have to prove it. The logic of this is so far above your ability to understand it and it shows. I'm glad you're typing your illogical statements to be left for public record on these servers.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   

posted by tezzajw
Having a faith based acceptance of such happenings, without being able to prove them shows a lack of logic, common sense and critical thinking.


posted by trebor451
It really eats at you that I don't have to "prove" anything, doesn't it? I don't have to do anything because it is "accepted" knowledge that the aircraft hit the poles, one of the poles impacted Lloyds' car and the aircraft continued into the building.


Not anymore it's not. Now it is proven knowledge that the aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and could not possibly have hit the light poles. Even the FAA agrees.


posted by trebor451
YOU are the one who has to prove this didn't happen, and how is that going so far?


It is going just great and tezzajw would agree. Thank you for asking. How are your efforts going, at finding even just one single solitary real living eyewitness who has seen:

1. The light pole flying under the alleged aircraft fuselage and up the road?
2. The light pole impacting the windshield of the taxi?
3. The light pole sticking out of the windshield at any time?
4. The light pole being removed from the windshield by Lloyde and his imaginary friend?
5. Any one of the light poles knocked down by an aircraft?
6. A commercial aircraft which was NOT flying Over the Naval Annex?
7. An aircraft creating the heavy white smoke trail across the lawn?
8. An aircraft hitting the generator trailer?
9. A commercial aircraft near the Pentagon which was not banking to the right?

Good luck on your endeavers. You will need it and the rapidly self-destructing 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is going just fine for us. How is it for you? Losing sleep as your fantasy world collapses around you?




[edit on 5/17/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPrestonIt is going just great and tezzajw would agree. Thank you for asking.


If the current state of CIT and PffT buffoonery is what you call "going just great" I'd hate to see what "abject failure" looks like. If PffT's current "Fund Raiser" is any indication, you *still* don't have anyone buying in other than the local Dungeons and Dragon's chapter.


How is it for you? Losing sleep as your fantasy world collapses around you?


Sleeping like a baby, thanks! Let's just say having you or tezzjaw or the CIT boys or your Fearless Leader at PfffT or TF or anyone from your tree fort cart me off to the gallows is not exactly on my list of concerns.

Still haven't had anyone prove that the events discussed in this thread are impossible. Want to try it again, tezzjaw? TF? In the meantime, we'll just let the status quo continue on its merry way.




[edit on 5/17/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Alright Trebor, I'll take you on one to one.

Let's start with some facts that we can both agree upon:

- Pole #1's top portion of the pole and light fixture smashed about 10 feet
from the base pole.

- Lloyd's cab stopped before pole #1

- The aircraft was moving at 462 knots

- Llyod was traveling at about 40 MPH

- Lloyd's car skidded for 40 feet with pole lodged into car

- Lloyd did not see AA77

Do you agree with all of these points, or would you like to change any?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Still haven't had anyone prove that the events discussed in this thread are impossible. Want to try it again, tezzjaw? TF?

I don't need to entertain anything other than the null hypothesis, trebor.

You're unable to show that the light pole was ever inside the taxi.

Nothing more needs to be stated about your faith-based belief, when it is clear how willing you are to believe something that's never proven to have happened.

Kind of religiously dogmatic, in a scary way...



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Alright Trebor, I'll take you on one to one.
Let's start with some facts that we can both agree upon:


We can try, but I am familiar with PfT's habit of taking known facts, looking for any anomaly and finding one, however minute or innocuous or expected, twisting it to match their desired result. Or, they “make up facts” when some are needed to further their agenda. For example, you *need* Gopher 06 to be part of the "Master Plan", hence your bogus claim that it took off after the National Ground Stop issued by the FAA and flying some absolutely hilarious flight path along the National Mall vice a regular departure as filed. Second example: you *need* an April Gallop, making that absolutely hilarious and at the same time ludicrous law suit. The fact that you all support that suit so fervently tells me there is not a sane mind among you, however this discussion is not about Gallop’s joke, so we will press on regardless.


- Pole #1's top portion of the pole and light fixture smashed about 10 feet from the base pole.


This is a completely ambiguous and convoluted statement that makes no sense. Are you saying it impacted the ground 10 feet from the base pole? Do you mean "base of the pole"? Are you saying the pole was impacted by the aircraft wing 10 feet from the base of the pole? Please clarify this statement.


- Lloyd's cab stopped before pole #1


More ambiguity. Are you saying Lloyd's cab stopped before the base of what had been pole #1? Or that the pole ended up in front of the pole? Be specific.


- The aircraft was moving at 462 knots


Accepted


- Llyod (sic) was traveling at about 40 MPH


Accepted, in so far as that is the speed Lloyd claimed he was driving.


- Lloyd's car skidded for 40 feet with pole lodged into car


Accepted, in so far as that is what Lloyd claims he skidded


- Lloyd did not see AA77


Moot point. Means nothing. Lloyd does state he did not see the aircraft - why? Diddling with the radio? Talking on the radio? Distracted? Looking at cell phone? Daydreaming? Looking off to the side? Did anybody ask him? There could be any number of reasons why he "did not see the aircraft". He did say he heard it, however, and if you apply the claimed cause of damage to the Pentagon that the CIT and PfT boys adhere to (planted explosion), Lloyd would have had to hear those claimed explosions from inside his car while traveling down the road. If you claim that Lloyd did not see the aircraft, hence the aircraft was not there, this discussion or debate or "one on one" or whatever this is called is over and you fail. The leader of your own "organization" claims the speed the aircraft was flying meant the "sound" was 200 knots ahead of the aircraft - an extremely crude yet passably acceptable analogy to the propagation of sound waves at sea level from a moving object, so Lloyd would have had to be looking up the hill and seeing the aircraft on its decent down from the Annex complex in that particular scenario. Trees surrounding the overpass area Lloyd was approaching could have also obscured the approach of the aircraft. This claim means nothing and has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.


Do you agree with all of these points, or would you like to change any?


Go back and be more specific about points 1 and 2 and remove point 5. We'll go on from there.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451


- Pole #1's top portion of the pole and light fixture smashed about 10 feet from the base pole.



This is a completely ambiguous and convoluted statement that makes no sense. Are you saying it impacted the ground 10 feet from the base pole? Do you mean "base of the pole"? Are you saying the pole was impacted by the aircraft wing 10 feet from the base of the pole? Please clarify this statement.


The glass and boom portion of the light pole, fell and crashed onto the
highway within about 10 feet of the base (as seen in the photos).


- Lloyd's cab stopped before pole #1



More ambiguity. Are you saying Lloyd's cab stopped before the base of what had been pole #1? Or that the pole ended up in front of the pole? Be specific.


The cab stopped before the base of what had been pole #1.


- The aircraft was moving at 462 knots


Accepted


- Llyod (sic) was traveling at about 40 MPH


Accepted, in so far as that is the speed Lloyd claimed he was driving.


- Lloyd's car skidded for 40 feet with pole lodged into car


Accepted, in so far as that is what Lloyd claims he skidded


- Lloyd did not see AA77


Lloyd does state he did not see the aircraft ...


I don't care why he did not see the aircraft; the point is he did not see
the aircraft.

This is important and we'll see why later.

Please confirm the clarified points and we'll proceed.

Thank you.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Lloyd does state he did not see the aircraft - why?...

I take it that this is the beginning of a proof that a light pole hit the taxi, trebor?

Please, continue with the rest of your proof. I'm waiting for the part where you model the motion of the light pole to show how it can impale the taxi window, without leaving a scratch on the bonnet.

No need to U2U me, I'll be here in the thread reading, so I'll know when your proof has been posted!



[edit on 18-5-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston




I find this photo extremely interesting in regards to the scratch across the pavement. Not sure if its been discussed more here about that scratch, but what strikes me most and perhaps what we need to discuss more, is the trajectory, angle or PATH of the scratch.

If lloydes car came to rest and wasn't moved since it was allegedly impaled by that light pole, then there's something very wrong IMO with the scratch path... or in other words, the path isn't consistent with the location of the cab. It appears the scratch would have to be showing another location that it would have to have come from or originated right?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
This is the same type of circular argument, denial and false logic used by disinfo agents and perp defenders like Sean Hannity, Oreilly and Geraldo.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that trebor is an advid fan of those clowns.

treb, I notice you keep trying to drag this thread off topic to hide your inability to answer the challenge.




Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by SPrestonIt is going just great and tezzajw would agree. Thank you for asking.


If the current state of CIT and PffT buffoonery is what you call "going just great" I'd hate to see what "abject failure" looks like. If PffT's current "Fund Raiser" is any indication, you *still* don't have anyone buying in other than the local Dungeons and Dragon's chapter.


How is it for you? Losing sleep as your fantasy world collapses around you?


Sleeping like a baby, thanks! Let's just say having you or tezzjaw or the CIT boys or your Fearless Leader at PfffT or TF or anyone from your tree fort cart me off to the gallows is not exactly on my list of concerns.

Still haven't had anyone prove that the events discussed in this thread are impossible. Want to try it again, tezzjaw? TF? In the meantime, we'll just let the status quo continue on its merry way.




[edit on 5/17/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
I don't need to prove anything. It has already been proven by happening.


I'm almost choked on my cheeseburger when I read that.


That has to be one of the most amazing comments and examples of twisted logic or reasoning I've ever seen here. I almost want to use it as my sig.

wow. just wow.

With OCT defenders like trebor, is it any wonder the official story continues to fall faster than the freefall of wtc 7?






[edit on 19-5-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

The glass and boom portion of the light pole, fell and crashed onto the
highway within about 10 feet of the base (as seen in the photos).

The cab stopped before the base of what had been pole #1.

The aircraft was moving at 462 knots

Llyod (sic) was traveling at about 40 MPH

Lloyd's car skidded for 40 feet with pole lodged into car



- Lloyd did not see AA77

Lloyd does state he did not see the aircraft ...

I don't care why he did not see the aircraft; the point is he did not see
the aircraft.

This is important and we'll see why later.

Please confirm the clarified points and we'll proceed.

Thank you.


Proceed. I am more than curious why Lloyd's not seeing the aircraft is "important", however from a purely factual perspective, Lloyd did say he did not see the aircraft. What you do with that factual statement, again, will be interesting.

My own points for agreement:

-The aircraft is perfectly capable of flying at the altitude required to impact the light poles and at a speed required to impart unknown, dynamic physical forces to the light pole.

-The dynamic action of said light pole, after being hit by an unknown part of the aircraft, whether leading edge of a wing, an engine fairing or whatever, will include acting in a manner that precludes a deterministic reaction. Conversely, the action of the light pole post-impact can be expected to act in a stochastic manner, or one that will result in random action and an unknown behavior.

Speculation about what you "believe", "could", "should" or "might" have happened renders this discussion or any submission from you useless (which is where this will end up, based on yoru other submissions on these subjects). I am not interested in what you "think". I already know what you "think (i.e. missile batteries at the Pentagon, Gopher 06 flight events,etc) and to be quite honest your credibility is suspect at the git-go. This is not about speculation. I am well aware of CIT and PfT's penchant for making "stuff" up when you are in need of "facts" and I will not put up with anything of the sort.

Continue.


[edit on 19-5-2009 by trebor451]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join