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: 5
6
share:

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:35 PM

Originally posted by trebor451
There's speculation right there, and silly speculation at that. What makes you think "Feds" were guarding him, other than your speculation?

Alright, interchange the word 'guarding' with 'watching'. Either way. It's good to see that you're learning, I'll applaud you there!

Many photos show Lloyde standing by or near his cab with some people, who may or may not look like Feds, in close proximity with him. That's it.

That's not speculation, trebor, that's what the photos show.

Just like they show a light pole on the road next to a damaged taxi.

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

The null hypothesis has Lloyde standing by his taxi within a series of photos. There are a few other men around Lloyde who look like they have taken control of the scene. Thanks for making me realise that I was speculating against the null hypothesis. I don't have proof that those men in the photos were Feds, even though they may appear to have taken control of the scene. They could be ordinary, concerned citizens who have decided to help with a crash scene on the freeway next to the Pentagon. You're right, I can't assume that they are Feds.

Once more, trebor, I accept the null hypothesis. Anything else is speculation.

You've failed to prove your alternate hypothesis that a light pole was knocked over by a jet and smashed into the taxi windscreen. It's rather silly when you think about it. Government loyalists have had nearly eight years to create a mathematical model, but they haven't.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by tezzajw]

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by trebor451
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!

All this time you want someone else to prove your conjecture? Wow... That's kind of lame, isn't it?

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.

I'm not speculating about how Lloyde braked in the taxi. That's part of your conjecture and that's your job to consider the parameters in a proof. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the taxi was able to drive that day.

Show me conclusively where it has been proven that Lloyde drove the taxi to that part of the road?

[edit on 20-5-2009 by tezzajw]

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 07:09 PM

Originally posted by turbofan
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.

Although I know much better than the 40 feet stopping distance from 40 MPH (I'm not sure my motorcycle will even do that), in the interests of accuracy, let's help the oft-derailing debunkers out a little bit here (so they don't get distracted yet again).

According to Wikipedia, Lloyde's cab looks the most like a 1995-1997 Lincoln Town Car to me:
wikicars.org...

If it is a 1997, then the curb weight would be around 4040 lbs. (~1814 kg):
consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com...

According to this page and spreadsheet from the Oregon State Police:
www.oregon.gov...

it should take about 88 feet for just the 85th percentile reaction time of 1.5 seconds (giving Lloyde the benefit of the doubt here) and the "dry asphalt" coefficient of 0.7 from the spreadsheet.

Add to that the 76.3 foot braking distance to arrest the 290074 J of kinetic energy (from 1/2mv^2), and you get about 160 feet total stopping distance for 40 MPH (~18m/sec). I modified the spreadsheet slightly to add metric units and calculations and with more accurate conversion factors, but these numbers should be reasonably close to what we have been told or can determine from the photographic evidence.

Now let's see those debunker kinematic models proving American #77 Boeing impact with lightpole #1 instead of more word games.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by rhunter]

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 07:12 PM

Originally posted by tezzajw
Many photos show Lloyde standing by or near his cab with some people, who may or may not look like Feds, in close proximity with him. That's it.

That's not speculation, trebor, that's what the photos show.

This is getting sillier and sillier with each post.

What do "Feds" look like, Tezzajw? Please...illuminate us as to what "Feds" "may or may not look like". Those people standing with Lloyd may or may not be "Feds". They may or may not be beer salesmen. Or civilian Pentagon employees. Or Bank managers. Or car salesmen. Or doctors. or contractors. or just about any-freaking-body in the world. But noooo....to *you* they look like "Feds". But that's not speculation. Of course not.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 07:45 PM

posted by turbofan

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

posted by trebor451

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.

The 9-11 perps seem to have guessed pretty good in staging the broken pieces of the #1 light pole. (lamp head, broken glass, truss arm, broken upper piece off the main pole) Looking at the official trajectory of the alleged 757 aircraft and the angled back 530 mph wing, the broken pieces could have possibly ended up near the front of the taxi and just a bit down-path from the #1 pole base; as presented to us in the surviving photos.

However, how did the 30+ foot long piece of main pole defy normal physics laws and head up the road past the engine? Imagine the alleged aircraft crossing the road at 780 feet per second. Shouldn't the wing have transferred a good bit of that velocity to the pole?

Adding the reaction time of an elderly man to the distance traveled by the 40 mph taxi after the heavy 200+ pound pole allegedly struck the windshield, would place the taxi several hundred feet up the road about even with the left wing tip, (or further) when allegedly struck by the pole.

Supposedly the high speed aircraft would already be past the taxi as the pole allegedly flew up the road. What force would cause the heavy pole to deviate from an equal and opposite reaction, and not fly in the direction of the wing which struck it, or even more to the right in reaction to the swept-back wing?

The poor science of Lloyde's words is all we have to go by isn't it? Besides Lloyde, there are ZERO eyewitnesses to an aircraft hitting the light poles, ZERO eyewitnesses to the #1 light pole flying through the air, ZERO eyewitnesses to the #1 light pole smashing through or sticking out of the windshield, and ZERO eyewitnesses to Lloyde and anybody else removing the #1 light pole from the windshield and laying it on the pavement and dragging the #1 light pole across the pavement.

Do you have such eyewitnesses?

There are also ZERO photos or videos of the #1 light pole through the taxi windshield. Do you have such photos or videos? The Federal agents guarding Lloyde and the taxi, or concerned citizens as you prefer, are unidentified with no record of ever being interviewed at any time, and have refused to come forward to clear up this matter. With their license plates clearly visible, surely the FBI and dedicated MSM journalists could have tracked them down. Why didn't they?

Have you contacted them or even attempted to? Why not?

Oddly, the Virginia Firefighter license plate on the white Saturn is still available to purchase. I checked it today. Why would that be? Did the white Saturn have a fake license plate to protect the 9-11 perps? Are not license plate numbers retired once they are no longer used by the original owner?

Purchase a Virginia Firefighter license plate

[edit on 5/20/09 by SPreston]

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 01:46 AM

Originally posted by trebor451
And I'm sure you will let us know *how* you came up with the "30 foot" estimate?[\quote]

There are several sources for the pole length based on photo scaling
and DOT figures. It's tough to measure the arc of the pole using the
picture evidence, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt with a 30 foot
figure even though I've seen estimates of 35 feet.

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!

Considering that none of the other poles were subjected to this "wake
turbulence", and the glass lay nicely on the road, let me suggest
that a 200+ pound section of pole #1 with forward momentum would experience 'f-all' with respect to jet engine 'wake'.

Just going on Lloyd's statements of "40 mph and 40' skid" is, shall we say, poor science.

You suggested 60-80 feet, and I'll give you 40 feet just to make it
interesting. As you'll see, it wont make much of a difference.

I'm just about complete with the scaling and animation of the sequence.
Hopefully, I'll have it posted for review by tomorrow afternoon.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by turbofan]

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:41 AM

Originally posted by trebor451
What do "Feds" look like, Tezzajw? Please...illuminate us as to what "Feds" "may or may not look like". Those people standing with Lloyd may or may not be "Feds".

trebor, again with your poor logic. Notice the words 'may or may not'. The 'may not' part means that they may not be Feds. I give as much credibility to the possibility that they could be Feds, or not.

There were people pictured standing near Lloyde, wearing slacks and shirts who may or may not look like Feds. They also may or may not be Feds.

I don't know if they are Feds. I should not have assumed that just because they may look like Feds and that they looked like they were controlling the scene, that they were Feds controlling the scene.

They could be anyone else who you mentioned - bankers, doctors, contractors, beer salesman... I'm sure that people of those other professions would have just as much authority blocking a major road outside the Pentagon during the first few minutes of a major crime scene. I can understand how a beer salesman might feel that it is his patriotic duty to block traffic and control the scene. In fact they could be unemployed, concerned by-standers with trauma training and field experience - who knows?

It was wrong for me to assume that people blocking the major road in front of the Pentagon and controlling the scene during a time of major crisis would be Feds. Naturally, there would be many other people who could do this, as you listed lots of other possibilities.

Do you know who they are at all? Shoudn't those people have made witness statements, considering that they were on the scene to be with Lloyde shortly after the alleged incident?

You read and quote from the pages of the official doctrine, so please let me know who those people were. The answers have to be in your official script somewhere...

This whole thread has been after proof. You've offered nothing that approaches proof in any way. You have not shown that a jet plane hit a light pole which then punched into the taxi window.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by tezzajw]

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 06:58 AM

posted by trebor451

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.

As to reaction time; keep in mind that 40 mph equates to 58.66 feet per second. If a person thinks an elderly cab driver would take 2 seconds to react to a heavy 200+ pound pole suddenly smashing through his windshield without warning, and hit the brake; then add 117.34 feet to the distance north up Hwy 27 where the taxi was originally located at the time of the alleged windshield impact.

As to 'poor science', Lloyde is your witness; not ours.

Also the time for the pole to actually travel up the road and past the aircraft engines and fuselage, after the alleged aircraft starboard wing impact, must be taken into account.

If a person thinks the alleged wing instantaneously transferred its entire 777 feet per second velocity to the 200+ pound pole; then the time to travel to the windshield would be less than half a second. Of course the kinetic energy transferred from a 200+ pound pole at that speed, would likely destroy the taxi and Lloyde.

But if a person, wishing to limit the kinetic energy transferred to the taxi from the 200+ pound pole, keeps the speed down to perhaps half the taxi speed; then add 29 feet per second (58 / 2) to the distance north up Hwy 27. If we use this figure, and our first calculations come out to 117.34 plus the alleged 40 foot braking distance or 157.34 feet; then dividing this figure by 29 fps would add 5.4 seconds to the distance to where the heavy 200+ pound light pole allegedly smashed through the windshield.

So multiplying 5.4 seconds by 58.66 fps (taxi speed) equals 316.74 added to 157.34 feet or 474.08 total feet north up Hwy 27 from the #1 light pole. That is an awfully long distance for a 200+ pound light pole to fly the wrong way; defying normal laws of physics laws all the way. And when the other pieces broke off this highly energized 30+ foot long main light pole piece; why would they just drop down on the pavement a short distance from the pole base?

And if Lloyde was that far up the road; (the top of the map is about 320 feet from the #1 pole; so add another 150 feet up the road) then why didn't he see the alleged 757 crossing in front of him in the distance?

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 08:45 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
Considering that none of the other poles were subjected to this "wake
turbulence", and the glass lay nicely on the road, let me suggest
that a 200+ pound section of pole #1 with forward momentum would experience 'f-all' with respect to jet engine 'wake'.

You really don't know anything about air wake/wake turbulence or computational fluid dynamics, do you? Not to mention what it can do to free-floating bodies. Wake turbulence can do some pretty funky things, wouldn't you agree?

Just as a reminder:

Originally posted by trebor451
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 your 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.

You have already "made up" a 30' length of the light pole and 200+ lbs, and of course the longer and heavier the pole, the better your "story" stands. You are sticking with "40'" on the braking distance, clearly a wrong number based on every braking-distance calculator/formula out there. I could care less if that "40" helps me or helps you or helps April Gallop. I'm *really* looking forward to where you place the aircraft as it passes over the
Rt 27/Columbia Pike overpass.

Accuracy is money in the credibility bank and right now your account is in the negative.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by trebor451]

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 09:37 AM

Originally posted by trebor451
You really don't know anything about air wake/wake turbulence or computational fluid dynamics, do you? Not to mention what it can do to free-floating bodies. Wake turbulence can do some pretty funky things, wouldn't you agree?

Right...but the top section of the pole, and glass was not effected by this
'wake', nor were any other poles that were knocked down?

Who are you trying to kid buddy?

You have already "made up" a 30' length of the light pole and 200+ lbs, and of course the longer and heavier the pole, the better your "story" stands.

I haven't made up a thing. YOu need to do some research.
Do you know the length of a pole given by the DOT? Did you try to
measure the pole in the photo using scaled objects and perspective?

I'm guessing no. Would you like to suggest a pole length if you don't
agree with 30 feet? I'm giving you every chance to agree with the
values. Don't back down on me now...we can't afford another reheat!

You are sticking with "40'" on the braking distance, clearly a wrong number based on every braking-distance calculator/formula out there.

As stated above, I'm giving you every chance to agree with the data
so you don't cry like other GL's that I've moved the 'goal posts'.

You want more distance? Fine, I don't care. Give me a number that
you see fit. 60, 80?

Here's my nearly complete animation. I have some scaling left to finish
and speed adjustments for the aircraft vs. car.

Please go ahead and firm up the braking distance and pole length.

But please don't give me any more BS about wake turbulence effecting
the pole when the other parts are sitting pretty.

P.S. Good point SPreston about the transfer of energy. We'll soon see
how Trebor understands what happens when a pole is chopped into
sections at very high speed.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by turbofan]

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 10:48 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
Who are you trying to kid buddy?

Not trying to "kid" anybody, but it became very clear early on that this debate is with someone who lacks the technical knowledge and professional experience necessary to discuss these matters. You are cavalierly dismissing a broad range of variables that need to either a) be addressed or b) be assigned a nil parameter because, well, it is an unknown variable. I suppose if I were faced with a field of debate that I knew nothing about and I lacked the cojones to admit it, I'd laugh it off and belittle it, too.

I haven't made up a thing. YOu need to do some research.
Do you know the length of a pole given by the DOT? Did you try to
measure the pole in the photo using scaled objects and perspective?

YOU haven't made up a thing? What do you call that 30' estimate? Do you "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" *always" lie? Is it congenital? Is it part of your core membership secret-handshake covenant? You haven't made up a thing? Shouldn't that be "Pilots for 9/11 Lies"? I thought you were supposed to be some sort of aviation expert. You haven't made up a thing. Of course not.

I'm guessing no. Would you like to suggest a pole length if you don't agree with 30 feet? I'm giving you every chance to agree with the
values. Don't back down on me now...we can't afford another reheat!

Here's my nearly complete animation. I have some scaling left to finish
and speed adjustments for the aircraft vs. car.

Please go ahead and firm up the braking distance and pole length.

But please don't give me any more BS about wake turbulence effecting
the pole when the other parts are sitting pretty.

I wouldn't think of getting into something you don't understand. No telling what your reaction would be then. You and your buddies over at your New Home Office/Headquarters! would try and track me down.

You want me to get into the variables that you ignored now or later? When you ignore variable elements in any scientific design, your result is crap. You do know that, don't you? Your cartoon would be...well, a cartoon. More suited for Saturday mornings than a serious discussion that involves multiple layers of technical acumen.

And I'm not going anywhere. Someone has to be there to counteract the BS and lies you people spew out.

Continue.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by trebor451]

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by trebor451
You really don't know anything about air wake/wake turbulence or computational fluid dynamics, do you? Not to mention what it can do to free-floating bodies. Wake turbulence can do some pretty funky things, wouldn't you agree?

Obviously, you don't know anything about it either, trebor.

You've not shown a single equation to try and model the light pole. You have not been able to prove that the light pole was knocked over by a jet and then punched into the taxi window.

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by trebor451

YOU haven't made up a thing? What do you call that 30' estimate?

Mr. Trebor, please stop dancing around the questions. If you do not like
my liberal estimate, then please measure the pole and return your own
value. As I clearly stated above, I have measured the pole cut length
to be 35 feet. I have seen values in other discussions which return
a lower value of 30 feet. Would you like to use 35 feet instead?

I'm trying to work with you here, please do not suggest I'm making up
numbers. The research has already been provided by others from the
Department of Transportation for original pole length. We're not far
off on our calculations based on photo evidence.

You want me to get into the variables that you ignored now or later?

Please go ahead and list any variables that you deem important to continue
this discussion.

While you're at it, PLEASE confirm the braking distance and pole length
as you seem to have missed those questions from my previous post.

I'd really like to finish this in the next couple of replies.

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 04:58 PM

Originally posted by turbofan
I'd really like to finish this in the next couple of replies.

turbofan, what are you thinking?

trebor and other government story peddlers have had nearly eight years to finalise a proof that the taxi was hit by a light pole!

Don't be expecting any of them to try and finish it within the next couple of replies!

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 05:21 PM
reply to post by tezzajw

Hi!,

And Tezz, I'm afraid neither will you.

Have been reading this circular thread for some time along with many of the other 911 threads, and to be honest - it would appear that this has deteriorated into no more than the usual ego v ego scoring.

A pity, as somewhere underneath the rubble, there is probably a truth which is a composite of both party's views.

And no - I don't know either - I'm still thinking, listening, watching, assimilating and considering....

Peace!

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 06:53 PM

Originally posted by trebor451
You have already "made up" a 30' length of the light pole and 200+ lbs, and of course the longer and heavier the pole, the better your "story" stands. You are sticking with "40'" on the braking distance, clearly a wrong number based on every braking-distance calculator/formula out there. I could care less if that "40" helps me or helps you or helps April Gallop. I'm *really* looking forward to where you place the aircraft as it passes over the
Rt 27/Columbia Pike overpass.

Accuracy is money in the credibility bank and right now your account is in the negative.

So it never occurred to you to try the forum search function here for VDOT and "lightpole"? The lightpoles, the black cab, and Lloyde England have been discussed on several threads at this forum- specifically like SPreston's post here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That image attached has all the numbers that you allege are "made up."

i14.photobucket.com...

There is even an older video (and threads) discussing a trip to the Virginia DOT facility to investigate these light poles.

I guess it is easier for some to just sit back and make unsupported accusations of "lies" though...

Could we return to the topic sometime soon?

eta:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 21-5-2009 by rhunter]

posted on May, 21 2009 @ 09:48 PM

Originally posted by The Wave
reply to post by tezzajw

Hi!,

And Tezz, I'm afraid neither will you.

Have been reading this circular thread for some time along with many of the other 911 threads, and to be honest - it would appear that this has deteriorated into no more than the usual ego v ego scoring.

A pity, as somewhere underneath the rubble, there is probably a truth which is a composite of both party's views.

wrong. Thats what separates posters here like Tezz/turbo and Trebor who's doing everything he can to obfuscate, deny, and divert the issue.

Tezz and Turbo present logical arguments and supporting evidence and a fair challenge. The only circular arguments and rhetoric are coming from Trebor.

If you can't recognize the differences and can't show through participation where each is right or wrong, then your OPINION is worthless in determining truth or whos right or wrong.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by Orion7911]

[edit on 21-5-2009 by Orion7911]

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:53 AM
reply to post by SPreston

And if Lloyde was that far up the road; (the top of the map is about 320 feet from the #1 pole; so add another 150 feet up the road) then why didn't he see the alleged 757 crossing in front of him in the distance?

B/c it didn't happen that way, don't you see you prove that with your math? Just b/c you come to that conclusion doesn't mean that the pole was planted.

For me it is simple..Loyd is not remembering exactly how it happened. Therefore you guys take his words to be gospel (in this case, b/c thats not always the case. Other times you guys believe he's a genius acting like a old senile man).

He was going a lot slower than 40mph in order to stop before where the pole had come for, isn't that obvious.

Lincolns(especially the older models say pre 98) are extremely sturdy, strong cars that can take a massive amount of abuse. You can tell just by looking at the interior that only something like a 200lb pole falling on it could do something like that. All of the damage to the vehicle fits what could or might happen if that pole was to be throw into it. Also, someone should combine EVERY available photo of the windshield after damaged you will see that the hole is quite large. I notice in one of the photos it appears that the windshield was pushed back together. Last time I had looked at all this in one of CITs threads the hole was almost as big as the entire windshield. It appeared to me that the pole might of entered in the top right hand corner or passenger side of the Lincoln.

So for me it all seems to line up , all were missing of course is a photo of it sticking out of his car. I would bet VDOT captured it while watching every inch of all the highways like they always do.

The thought, that after the explosion and before anyone like Ingersoll can show up some multiple man crew pops into action creating the whole entire stage perfectly, to me is just not even logical or possible.

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:44 AM

Originally posted by turbofan

I'm trying to work with you here, please do not suggest I'm making up
numbers. The research has already been provided by others from the
Department of Transportation for original pole length. We're not far
off on our calculations based on photo evidence.

Please go ahead and list any variables that you deem important to continue
this discussion.

That is the whole crux to this problem. If you don't care enough or know enough to give a damn about the variables, indeed variables that can and will change the entire result, how can anyone take you seriously?

I see a lot of prattle and chatter from your support group here about "circular arguments". I have to laugh about that because it is clear that they, like you, don't understand the complexity of this.

Please keep in mind that these are *unknowns*, and making up any parameter for them is nothing more than just that - making up a parameter - and whatever level of data you decide to apply changes the endstate in a significant manner and results in nothing more than conjecture on your part.

What was the angle of bank of the aircraft?
What was the precise flight path?
Where did the aircraft wing hit the pole?
At what height was the pole hit?
Modeling the airwake/turbulence factor (discounted out of hand by you, which is not a surprise. Having seen computational models of airwake/turbulence affects and performance before, I know the effects can produce significantly different results with similar external injections - in this case, light poles).
Actual speed of car (vice estimate by Mr. England)
Actual location of car at impact
Actual braking distance (a significant unknown based on the aforementioned location and speed of car, vice the estimate by Mr. England)
Physical positioning of pole in car
What part of pole actually impacted the car
Human factor inputs (Mr. England's reactions)

If you can't catch my drift yet, let me be clear. Without high-performance computers programmed with the variable data in a properly designed model/simulation/logical representation that takes into account not only computational fluid dynamics of the event but the expected different results from the available variables, what you have is nothing of use to anyone. Except PfT, of course, and your Support Team here.

I am on a business trip for the next few days so my inputs to this discussion will be restricted. If you would rather make childish comments about my "running away", please feel free. That would be what I would expect from the you and your team, in any event.

While you're at it, PLEASE confirm the braking distance and pole length as you seem to have missed those questions from my previous post.

You are amazing. "Confirm the braking distance"? Sure. I'll hop in my DeLorean, set the flux capacitor to Sept 11 2001 and solve this unknown that way. Or, I suppose, I could just make something up.

I'd really like to finish this in the next couple of replies.

Feel free to post whatever you wish whenever you want. I'm curious how you will address the unknowns without "making stuff up".

trebor451

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Just b/c you come to that conclusion doesn't mean that the pole was planted.

Since the NOC has been PROVEN, that alone is evidence beyond a doubt proving the poles were planted. Or iow, if there was no plane on the SOC path, then one need only apply occams razor.

So again, please explain how the poles could have been downed by a plane on the SOC path when that path has been proven IMPOSSIBLE by the ONA NOC path?

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
For me it is simple..Loyd is not remembering exactly how it happened. Therefore you guys take his words to be gospel (in this case, b/c thats not always the case. Other times you guys believe he's a genius acting like a old senile man).

Craig already addressed and debunked that reasoning in depth.
Any explanation why I never saw you offer any evidence or argument refuting what he presented?

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
He was going a lot slower than 40mph in order to stop before where the pole had come for, isn't that obvious.

huh? That makes no sense.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Lincolns(especially the older models say pre 98) are extremely sturdy, strong cars that can take a massive amount of abuse. You can tell just by looking at the interior that only something like a 200lb pole falling on it could do something like that. All of the damage to the vehicle fits what could or might happen if that pole was to be throw into it.

If you believe that, then you know nothing about basic physics, newtons law or math. Nor have you even attempted to present a model showing how what you claim is possible.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Also, someone should combine EVERY available photo of the windshield after damaged you will see that the hole is quite large. I notice in one of the photos it appears that the windshield was pushed back together. Last time I had looked at all this in one of CITs threads the hole was almost as big as the entire windshield.

If what you claim is true, then you should have no problem providing this alleged photo showing the hole "as big as the entire winshield".

And even if such a photo did exist and i highly doubt it, it still wouldn't be able to account for no damage to the bonnet and hood.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
It appeared to me that the pole might of entered in the top right hand corner or passenger side of the Lincoln.

please show a link to a photo to support that claim. Somehow I again doubt we'll see one since as far as i know, your claims contradict the actual evidence.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
So for me it all seems to line up ,

You mean like the imaginary SOC flight path?

ya, right. okay.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
The thought, that after the explosion and before anyone like Ingersoll can show up some multiple man crew pops into action creating the whole entire stage perfectly, to me is just not even logical or possible.

If you ignore the math, facts and actual evidence, and blindly accept the official lie, sure, of course its not possible.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Orion7911]

new topics

top topics

6