It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Taxi Cab Challenge

page: 4
6
share:

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:20 AM

Originally posted by trebor451
-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.

Says you...but I'll agree only because it doesn't make a hill of beans
for this scenario.

-The dynamic action of said light pole, after being hit by an unknown part of the aircraft, whether leading edge of a wing

FYI - it had to be a wing tip in order to complete the physical damage

...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.

There are certain limits to this 'unknown behaviour' you have drawn out;
we'll get to that.

Now, let's get to some real facts. Lloyd said the pole entered the car
and he was skidding for 40 feet, from 40 MPH. The car came to rest
at the first red dot closest to the base of pole #1 (about 30 feet away.

This means, the pole entered the car at about 70 feet from the base
point of pole #1.

Do you agree, or disagree with these two above points?

Do you agree, or disagree with the two red dots showing an approximate
distance of the cab:

[edit on 19-5-2009 by turbofan]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:43 PM

Originally posted by turbofan
Originally posted by trebor451
-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.

Hold on there, Hoss! What do you hope to prove here? Set the objectives first. Establish what you will be attempting to achieve. Let your audience know what you are striving to do. Moving goal posts is a favorite tactic of the Troothers in general and PfT in particular and I won't put up with that here.

Are you going to say that it was "impossible", as in the light pole would be physically and actually unable to perform the movements and motions and actions necessary to end up in the taxi? "Improbable"? "Unlikely?" Tell me what you intend to prove.

For my part, I maintain that it is perfectly possible for this scenario to happen. Every element of it, from the aircraft/light-pole impact to the terminal position of car and light post can be examined and found eminently possible within allowable and acceptable standards of random occurrence.

In other words, I don't care how improbable or unlikely *you* think the combination of physical action that needs to take place for this event, if it *could* have happened, based on the available photographs, witness testimony and the general events of that morning, I am satisfied it did happen.

In other other words, calling Lloyd England a liar and/or spy and/or operative and/or part of the scheme and/or the first perp or whatever it is you and your CIT buddies call him is further evidence of your failure. That falls into the "what you think" category, and again, I could care less "what you think". I know what you think.

So, please tell me what you intend on accomplishing here.

On edit to add: One more comment, I suppose. Unless you can prove that Lloyd or someone got out a tape measure and measured his skid marks, the "40 feet" is advisory only and is merely an estimated guess, as far as I'm concerned. I just hope your whole argument does not teeter upon the fulcrum of a "40 foot skid".

[edit on 19-5-2009 by trebor451]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:56 PM

Originally posted by trebor451
-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.

Translation: I don't know how to model the dynamic forces. I'm hoping that no one calls me out on this, as I can't prove it.

-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.

Translation: I can't model the light pole being hit. I don't know how to do it, so I'll claim that no one should be able to. Using my own authority, I'll claim that it randomly bounced.

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.

Translation: Using my own authority, I'll claim that it randomly bounced. However, I hope that no one picks out the error in my reasoning. If it acted randomly, then it is far more likely to have struck the bonnet, roof or windscreen frame, as they are much larger targets than the windscreen. I hope that no one calls me out on that, as I can't prove why the windscreen should have been the only part hit.

(At least I threw in the words stochastic and conversely - they sound mathematical and it looks like I'm giving a proof.)

Speculation about what you "believe", "could", "should" or "might" have happened renders this discussion or any submission from you useless

Translation: I don't have to prove what happened, as I know what happened.

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.

Translation: This is not about you speculating. This is about me speculating and trying to get away with it. I sounded so convincing earlier in the post, but now I'm not so sure. Have I convinced myself that there was a light pole in the taxi? Yes, of course the government has convinced me!

Every element of it, from the aircraft/light-pole impact to the terminal position of car and light post can be examined and found eminently possible within allowable and acceptable standards of random occurrence.

Translation: I can't prove it, so I'll state that because it is so random and unlikely to happen - that it happened! That double-dose of poor logic will have them confused. Not as confused as me, I know it happened - the government told me it did! Lloyde wouldn't lie!

Edit to fix incorrect quote.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by tezzajw]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:48 PM

Originally posted by trebor451
Hold on there, Hoss! What do you hope to prove here?

That your official taxi cab story is a joke.

Moving goal posts is a favorite tactic of the Troothers in general and PfT in particular and I won't put up with that here.

There's no need to move goal posts as we've confirmed the details
and quoted them as we discuss the topic. Feel free to scroll back at
any time and read what you agreed to.

Are you going to say that it was "impossible", as in the light pole would be physically and actually unable to perform the movements and motions and actions necessary to end up in the taxi?

We will let the discussion speak for itself. We're about three posts away
from a very difficult situation.

Stay with me, we're almost there. Don't be a chicken and pull a reheat on
us!

On edit to add: One more comment, I suppose. Unless you can prove that Lloyd or someone got out a tape measure and measured his skid marks, the "40 feet" is advisory only and is merely an estimated guess, as far as I'm concerned. I just hope your whole argument does not teeter upon the fulcrum of a "40 foot skid".

Skid marks? We don't need no stickin' skid marks!

The proof is all in the photos my friend. The cab stopped before
the light pole. With photo evidence we can pin point the exact
location of the car in relation to pole #1.

From a speed of about 40 MPH, we can estimate the stopping distance
for Lloyd's vehicle. You can toss out a number here if you like; it doesn't
really matter 'much', but please be reasonable because there are methods
to accurately provide this value.

So back to the previous question: do the red dots indicate the approximate
pole entry location, and resting position of the cab?

[edit on 19-5-2009 by turbofan]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by trebor451
I don't care why he did not see the aircraft; the point is he did not see
the aircraft.

Translation: It doesn't fit the official story too well, so I better leave it alone.

Pay attention. That quote was from TF. If you are going to attribute quotes in a pejorative manner, please take the time to make the proper attribution.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:58 PM

Originally posted by trebor451
Moving goal posts is a favorite tactic of the Troothers in general and PfT in particular and I won't put up with that here.

Moving light posts is a favourite tactic of the government loyalists in particular and I won't put up with that here.

Yes, they like to move one particular light post, from its fixed base point so that it passes through Lloyde's taxi windscreen.

Mind you, they do it all without proof and claim that they don't need to prove something that they know happened.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by trebor451
Pay attention. That quote was from TF. If you are going to attribute quotes in a pejorative manner, please take the time to make the proper attribution.

Accepted. My apologies. I messed up my quote tags at 6 am.

See, I'm big enough to admit that I stuffed up a quote!

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:49 PM

Originally posted by trebor451

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.

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.

Funny thing- when I read the title of this thread, I notice the "taxi cab" and "challenge" portions. I must have missed where it said "CIT, PffT, tree forts, buffoonery, or Dungeons and Dragon's".

Wouldn't the quality of discussion here be generally better if trebor started a new thread to discuss those off-topic subjects or searched for an older existing thread (although I can't really see any relevance to taxi cabs or light poles)?

[edit on 19-5-2009 by rhunter]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:21 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:16 PM

posted by SPreston

posted by Orion7911
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?

The scratch leads directly from the pole base across several lanes of pavement towards the wall separating the Hwy 27 southbound from the HOVlane.

Trial Exhibit of Hwy 27 HOVlane

After allegedly removing the heavy 30+ foot long pole from the windshield, why would an old man and his imaginary friend carry the pole across the road, and then drag it back? In fact what would they drag the heavy 200+ pound pole back with? Was one of them carrying a length of rope in his pocket? Why not just set the heavy pole down in front of the taxi and be done with it?

It appears that the Federal agents, or somebody else staging the poles, just got lazy and dragged the heavy pole across the road from its hiding spot behind the HOVlane wall with a piece of rope kept in the white Saturn or green Jeep Cherokee, or some other vehicle.

Jason Ingersoll photo showing Saturn and Cherokee

Original Geoff Metcalf photo showing scratch across road

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:06 PM

I'd much rather Trebor stay here and finish his 'one on one' debate with me.

He's down to some pretty significant questions at the moment. Once

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:10 PM

posted by trebor451

-The dynamic action of said light pole, after being hit by an unknown part of the aircraft, whether leading edge of a wing

posted by turbofan

FYI - it had to be a wing tip in order to complete the physical damage

Only an outer wing section could strike #1 and #2 light poles. If an engine struck a pole, then the opposite wing tip would have entirely missed its light pole by 11' 6" or more. Light poles #3, #4, and #5 could not have been hit by an engine or fuselage either.

Larger too scale version of above image

Official Flight 77 flight path according to 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY script

Of course as we now know for sure, the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and High over the light poles and overhead highway sign in its path and High above the 1st floor and hundreds of feet north of the #1 light pole and could not possibly have knocked down any of the five staged light poles.

A PROVEN fact. Correct?

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:43 AM
I guess Ill finally take another shot at this again before you wrap this thread up.

I do not believe that Loyd is recalling the events from that day exactly as they happened. I personally believe this is evident from available photographic evidence. That being said I will attempt to explain this in simple terms.

First theres no way that Loyd was driving 40 mph. Especially when you factor in the time of morning and couple that with the majority of witness statements that say traffic was at a stop and go stand still. I do believe he was moving just not anywhere close to 40mph.

The jet comes in and hits the pole and literally throws the part of the pole that enters Loyd's car. Leaving the lamp and other pieces to move forward slightly but basically be left behind falling to the pavement below. This is why it appears that Loyd is behind the crashed debris that is pictured ahead of the taxi and light pole.

In the process of being thrown into his cabs cabin I believe the bent part enters the cab first and momentum and the way it happens to enter make so that it is coming out of the windshield and laying to the side of the drivers side maybe even wedged in so that it is not touching the ground but I also believe that maybe he is not remembering this correctly, either way this is the reason why there is no damage to the hood.

As someone mentioned earlier the mark on the ground is all wrong if you try to make it fit with the events as Loyd remembers them. What seems more likely to me is that do to the fact that Loyd is driving so slow when he stops there is no sliding he simply stops. The pole is removed and then slid over to its position where it will later be photoed with the line that it leaves in the pavement from when they slid it. Then Loyd pulls his car over to the right a little to 1)block off pole and debris 2) To leave a lane open for traffic to pass. OR possibly the pole enters and he slows to a stop pulling over to the right in the process where he will later be photoed. Because the pole is laying off to the drivers side of the cab sticking out of the windshield. They pull the pole out straight out the driver side setting down and then sliding the heavy part across the ground leaving the mark where it will also be photoed.

Another thing, the plane came in so low or maybe it was the pole being thrown thru the tree but either way doesn't the leaves from the tree that are littered all over the highway prove that something pretty violent happened right there. Do you really believe "someone" went through the trouble of picking leaves from the tree right there next to the pole and littered them all over the place.

This is just another theory of what might of happened, I think most of you guys don't even take the time to try and make sense of what happened while not relying on the witnesses testimony to some how guide you when it is notoriously wrong. I'm not sure if anyone has been involved in a serious accident. Usually though the driver will not remember correctly what happened. I believe this is the case with Loyd, CIT and other here have tried to make this the crutch of there argument when in reality even though Loyd may swear this is what happened he was almost killed in a serious car accident (if you can call it that).

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:54 AM

Originally posted by turbofan

So back to the previous question: do the red dots indicate the approximate
pole entry location, and resting position of the cab?

[edit on 19-5-2009 by turbofan]

I would make the entry location an unknown, but the vehicle terminus is fine. Proceed.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
I do not believe that Loyd is recalling the events from that day exactly as they happened.

Your whole theory completely contradicts what Lloyde said, just so it can fit your version of events?

Why? What's the point? Your pure speculation did not prove that the light pole was ever in the taxi.

I think most of you guys don't even take the time to try and make sense of what happened

I take it that you're addressing some government loyalists here? Some of them don't try to prove what happened because they think that they know what happened - no need to prove it.

Loyd may swear this is what happened he was almost killed in a serious car accident (if you can call it that).

Please show your proof that Lloyde was involved in any kind of accident on 9/11?

[edit on 20-5-2009 by tezzajw]

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 05:43 AM

I think you need to study Lloyd's account more closely. The car was not
able to start after this 'accident' and therefore could "not have been moved" as you put it.

More to the fact, "if" there's a 30 foot pole sticking out your window,
why would you move the car sideways to block two (or more lanes)
of traffic, when leaving it parallel to any lane would leave more room?

make much sense.

Furthermore, as I'm about to show Trebor, the pole cannot enter the
vehicle as required due to the direction of force imparted by the wing.

Would either of you like to propose a stopping distance from 40 MPH,
or shall we stick with 40 feet?

You may want to try a few braking tests in your car before answering;
even better if you have a similar car to Lloyd's.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 05:52 AM

Tezza sorry but what the heck are you talking bout mate. My pure speculation is no different than yours. Except that you try to blame things that don't make sense with Loyd and or your version of what you think happened with the light poles on unknown co conspirators or GL's as you often like to refer to them..Am I wrong? BTW this was a taxi cab challenge to ask for alternate theory of how LP1 made it into Loyd's cab.

It's very easy to do all the way from the great outback where you know nothing but what you read about nova and DC. I on the other hand know all about all of the endless people that would have to be duped just to pull off the planting of these light poles. Your talking about the regular pentagon police and security people , VDOT, the actual people that moved the poles around, countless people driving on the roads and Loyd.

I'm not gonna sit and argue with you about it , I'm just here to give Turbo a alternate theory as to what might have happened.

To me stuff like this walks that very thin line which is disinformation. But I also understand CIT makes a good case for the NOC theory and has to explain these LP's somehow. Also I know the Debunkers won't even touch this stuff, so I figured I would give a alternate theory as to what happened, try to explain the available photographic evidence. I may be wrong, but I'm certainly not going to just resort to GL agents participating in the event in order for it to make sense unless there is overwhelming proof and for me with this cab there just isn't.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Tezza sorry but what the heck are you talking bout mate. My pure speculation is no different than yours.

But it is. I don't speculate about what happened. All I know is that Lloyde's damaged taxi was photographed next to a light pole on the road. Lloyde was standing there for a while with some Feds guarding him. That's it.

Except that you try to blame things that don't make sense with Loyd and or your version of what you think happened with the light poles on unknown co conspirators or GL's as you often like to refer to them..Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. I don't have a version of events. I'm waiting for someone to prove to me what happened. Government loyalists in this thread have sorely disappointed me. None of them have been able to show that the light pole was in the taxi. None of them have been able to show that a jet hit the light pole.

BTW this was a taxi cab challenge to ask for alternate theory of how LP1 made it into Loyd's cab.

I thought that you might also offer some proof to go along with your theory? Your story is merely a conjecture, lacking proof. It is discounting lots of Lloyde's testimony, so how valid do you really think it is?

It's very easy to do all the way from the great outback where you know nothing but what you read about nova and DC.

It gets tough with kangaroos jumping all over my keyboard, but I still manage to stay informed. Thanks for your concern about my geographical limitations.

I on the other hand know all about all of the endless people that would have to be duped just to pull off the planting of these light poles.

Is that another conjecture of your's? If you know so much, then why didn't you use any of that knowledge to prove your initial conjecture?

[edit on 20-5-2009 by tezzajw]

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:00 PM

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't speculate about what happened.

cough...cough

...with some Feds guarding him.

There's speculation right there, and silly speculation at that. What makes you think "Feds" were guarding him, other than your speculation? Why would "Feds" be guarding a 69-year old cab driver who claimed a light pole came through his windshield? Got proof they were "Feds"? If you do, please show us. if you don't, you are "speculating" they were "Feds".

"Speculation". "Status Quo". You are getting quite the vocabulary training here. I ought to charge you tuition.

I don't have a version of events.

What non-version of your event has "Feds" guarding Lloyd?

Your story is merely a conjecture, lacking proof.

And...the "Feds" guarding Lloyd...that is not conjecture, I suppose.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 01:48 PM

Originally posted by turbofan
More to the fact, "if" there's a 30 foot pole...

And I'm sure you will let us know *how* you came up with the "30 foot" estimate?

Furthermore, as I'm about to show Trebor, the pole cannot enter the
vehicle as required due to the direction of force imparted by the wing.

Oh goody! This ought to be good! We get to find out *precisely* where the wing hit the pole, at what height, where on the wing it hit, how airwake flow and turbulence affected the pole's action post-impact, if there were any post-impact forces imparted on the pole (underwing fairings, engine cowling, etc)! At last! Answers!

Would either of you like to propose a stopping distance from 40 MPH,
or shall we stick with 40 feet?

60 to 80 feet is what I came up with with the parameters being 40 mph and a braking coefficient of .8. Lots of variables, though, we don't know - thinking time, reaction time, actual windshield impact point, actual brake application point, etc. Just going on Lloyd's statements of "40 mph and 40' skid" is, shall we say, poor science.

Therefore (and I'm sure I don't have to remind a brilliant aeronautical mind of this), garbage in, garbage out. Unless you or someone else (perhaps we can get a speculation from Tezzjaw) can provide definitive data on where Lloyd began braking or the other unknowns, this is an exercise in guestimation.

Still, I look forward to your presentation!

top topics

6