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: 6
6
share:

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:12 AM

Originally posted by trebor451
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?

You claim the story is true, so you should be able to supply all of the variables. You're the one with burden of proof.

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

Keep in mind that you think this happened, therefore you should be able to supply some parameters for them, along with suitable error bounds.

What was the angle of bank of the aircraft?
What was the precise flight path?

You should know, you're the one reading from the official story script.

Where did the aircraft wing hit the pole?
At what height was the pole hit?
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)

None of these have been proven. It's all a part of your script. If you think that it happened, then you need to prove that it did, point by point.

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...

On the contrary, what you have is nothing. Go and get those computers and run your algorithms. Until then, you have nothing.

All that you do is speculate about how a light pole could punch the taxi but every step of the way, trebor, you stop short of proving it. Remember, the only person on this planet who you are basing your official script upon, is Lloyde England.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by tezzajw]

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:43 AM
Well Mr. "trebor451", if you had studied this event closely, you could
have answered about 75% of the questions listed.

Allow me to help you out:

>> What was the angle of bank of the aircraft?

According to the official story and clip points of the light poles, the
aircraft was virtually leveled off, with a slight bank to the port side.

Since we do not have FDR data for this leg of flight, we must use
the "physical damage" and position of poles to accurately estimate
the bank angle.

Pole #1 was "cut" at about 35 feet from the base point, and pole #2
has a severe bend at the half-way point of the pole. We can use
the USGS data for the elevation of these poles and calculate the
bank angle. 8 degrees of bank to the port side is what I calculate.

[Note the problem with this bank]

>> What was the precise flight path?

Once again, if you had studied this event you would know the exact
"flight path" in order to knock down the 5 light poles. Feel free to
research this before you reply.

>> Where did the aircraft wing hit the pole?

Based on the distance of pole 1, from pole 2 and the wing span of a
757, along with the reach to strike poles 3, 4, and 5 you can once
again accurately position the aircraft wing tip to within +/-24 inches.

Since you are keen on P4T, you may want to view their analysis
to better understand the trajectory of the alleged "aircaft".

>> At what height was the pole hit?

Pole #1 was "hit" at the 35 foot mark from the base.

>> Modeling the airwake/turbulence factor (discounted out of hand
>> by you, which is not a surprise).

Well tell me sir, if wake turbulence is such a factor and we should
consider it, please explain why the glass lay on the road next to the
boom section and lamp of the light pole? These lighter objects had
less momentum as they fell within feet of the base point, yet you
want us to believe the heavier, longer pole should be considered for
wake effect? Come on really?

Why did the glass, or other parts of the light pole not get pushed
around by localized eddy currents, and extreme pressure changes?

Give me your best hypothesis to allow for this ridiculous parameter.

>> Actual speed of car (vice estimate by Mr. England)

We can use Lloyd's account. We can use the posted speed limit. We
can also vary the speed of the car from 0 MPH to 100 MPH if you like?

>> Actual location of car at impact

Hopefully as close to base point #1 as possible for your sake and the
official story.

>> Actual braking distance (a significant unknown based on the
>> aforementioned location and speed of car, vice the estimate by Mr.
>> England)

Since Lloyd did not see "AA77" and likely did not brake until the impact
to his windshield occured, we can tie this in together with your question
above.

We may also use MFG data for braking distance, and calculators based
on weight, speed and road conditions for example.

>> Physical positioning of pole in car

This has already been covered as per "photo evidence".

>> What part of pole actually impacted the car

This part has also been covered by "photo evidence".

I get a sense you're getting frustrated and nervous about the results
as we get closer to the reveal. I don't blame you! We can wait until
you get back from the business trip to finish this off. I'm not going
anywhere.

You might also want to think about how much momentum the long
section of the pole had once the wing sliced through it.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by turbofan]

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:05 PM

posted by Stillresearchn911
reply to post by SPreston

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.

What? No. That is not all that we are missing.

Why don't you contact VDOT and get those videos of the light pole sticking out of the taxi windshield? What has taken you so long? The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is in desperate need of help and you have been sitting around doing nothing? Where is your patriotism; your loyalty to the government storytellers?

While you are down there, maybe you should also find some eyewitnesses to the light pole through the taxi windshield which we are also missing. While you are at it, you might look up some eyewitnesses to the heavy white smoke trail in the videos, which we are also missing.

You could contact the local FBI and perhaps pick up the 85+ confiscated videos which we are also missing. Surely some of them will show what was going on around Lloyde's Taxi. Of course that may be the very reason they were confiscated and censored in the first place.

You might ask the local FBI if they will let you take home the confiscated and censored Arlington County 9-11 hotline call-ins and transcripts; but don't hold your breath. They were withheld from We the People for good reason while the New York 9-11 hotline call-ins and transcripts were released to the public. But calls concerning Lloyde and his taxi would probably not be included in the New York material would they?

Maybe some real live breathing eyewitnesses to the aircraft flying the official Flight 77 south flight path, which we are also missing, might be a good idea. Those invented so-called witnesses from the MSM, without photos and without extensive interviews and without videotaped interviews and some even without names, have apparently dived into their holes, and the government loyalists from James Randi struck out and could not even find one single solitary witness. Poor guys.

Maybe those citizens (Federal agents?) standing around (guarding?) Lloyde's taxi might be hanging around the area and you might get some sworn affidavits from them (on the Holy Bible) that they saw the light pole sticking out of the windshield. Maybe they will do it if you give them a few bucks.

Did I forget any. . . . . . . . . . Oh yeah, we are missing a whole bunch of serial numbers to four aircraft. Could you get just one for us while you are down there?

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:51 AM
All good points SP, but those who continue to make excuses tend to
forget these important facts.

As we wait for Trebor to return, does anyone else want to pick up the
pieces? Don't be shy, there's lots of room for others to participate!

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:55 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
Well Mr. "trebor451", if you had studied this event closely, you could
have answered about 75% of the questions listed.

Apologies for my absence.

Sorting through the silly posts of the past few days from those with a tad more substance, I find there isn't much difference between the two.

Rather than address each and every excuse you have for the guesses you came up with on the variables I submitted, suffice it to say, your defense of your schema is pretty funny. "How did you calculate the length of the pole?" "I measured it from photographs!" "What about perspective and parallax? Focal length of the lens? Subject distortion from anomalies of photography?" "I measured it from photographs!" Ok...great.

The *only* parameter that you know for a fact is the final location of Mr. England's vehicle, and that is only if the automobile was not moved at any time after the event.

Each and every thing else is conjecture or fantasy or make-up or a guess on your part. Speed, AOB, impact points on a/c and on light pole, boundary layer effect on debris, actual dynamics of the pole post-impact, etc - all are subjective variables that can only be logically estimated via a high-speed simulation/model (unless you are able to recreate the event in real-time using a live-simulation). What is *really* funny is that you have to create a perfectly logical and plausible flight path and flight parameters to show that this entire event could not have happened. More PfT logic.

To throw together numbers that came out of your grommet and aver them as the definitive parameters for the event is actually what I expected from the PfT playbook.

Looking forward to your "presentation", such as it is, and I look forward to hearing about your "analysis" on the evening news - or somewhere, at least, other than the Rock Creek Press.

BTW...how far, in feet, is the inboard engine cowling lip from the wingtip? Starboard or port engine - doesn't matter.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 10:17 AM

Originally posted by trebor451

Rather than address each and every excuse you have for the guesses you came up with on the variables I submitted, suffice it to say, your defense of your schema is pretty funny. "How did you calculate the length of the pole?" "I measured it from photographs!" "What about perspective and parallax? Focal length of the lens? Subject distortion from anomalies of photography?" "I measured it from photographs!" Ok...great.

You do know there is a Taxi cab just a few feet away from the pole,
correct?

Care to take a guess as how one might find the width of the bumper?

We know the light pole stats from the DOT;

We know the bumper width from MFG data

We know the lane widths

We know the resting position of the cab and light pole.

Why do you find it so difficult to measure the light pole based on these
facts alone?

Since you "forgot" to give us a vehicle speed and light pole length,
can we go ahead with 40 MPH and 35 feet for this debate?

Once we start, please don't cry about 'goal posts' and that I never gave
you a chance to evaluate the scene.

For someone that believes this pole thing really happened, you sure as
hell don't support your case with any data, or explanation.

So then, shall we carry on with the above numbers, or would you like
to propose some values?

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by SPreston

Larger photo

Well turbofan, it looks like the pseudoskeptics are primarily here just to derail multiple threads and dodge your questions.

Moving onward beyond all that, Lloyde's cab is actually looking more like a 1990-1994 vintage to me now (not a 1997), but the differences in the specs appear to be pretty minor.

1994 Lincoln Town Car (note the park lights, grille, and front bumper).

1990-1992 Lincoln Town Car (note the park lights, grille, and front bumper).

The online specs I found just list 1990-1997 Lincoln Town Car.

Wheelbase, in. 117.4

Overall Length, in. 218.9

Overall Width, in. 76.7

Overall Height, in. 56.9

Curb Weight, lbs. 4040

consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com...

Index of metric Lincoln specs

That page only goes back to 1995, which tells us:

External dimensions: overall length (mm): 5,560, overall width (mm): 1,953, overall height (mm): 1,445, wheelbase (mm): 2,982, front track (mm): 1,595, rear track (mm): 1,608 and curb to curb turning circle (mm): 12,192

Weights: curb weight (kg) 1,832

www.internetautoguide.com...

That Oregon State Police braking distance spreadsheet that I posted here several pages ago seemed perfectly functional to me, but here is another one (but it doesn't allow different vehicle masses and doesn't indicate what mass was used):

Braking spreadsheet

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:22 PM

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.

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.

Wow, the usual off-topic rant about "Pffft" and personal insults like "moonbats" on a conspiracy discussion forum- who would have guessed?

25 years in aviation, hmm? So this was the usual response, as opposed to discussing taxi cabs, lightpoles, or researching appropriate/applicable variables, physical specifications, and researching other reasonable parameters.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:42 PM
reply to post by rhunter

Methinks we all may need knee boots to wade through trebor451's you know what.

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:48 AM

Originally posted by trebor451
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.

en.wikipedia.org...

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.
...
Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true.
...
Overview

Commonly in an argument from personal incredulity or argument from ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of opinion which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if "obvious" is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view).

Well, that should cover 2 of the early thread derails- carry on.

See also argumentum ad hominem (and general tedium
)

en.wikipedia.org...

Edited to fix tags, added link.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by rhunter]

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:37 PM

Originally posted by turbofan

You do know there is a Taxi cab just a few feet away from the pole,
correct?

For someone purporting to be something of an "expert" in aeronautical matters you and your team here sure do appear pretty dense to what I trying to put forth.

Read carefully. I will not and cannot (neither can you, despite you and your team's frantic digital gesticulating) estimate that which cannot be accurately estimated. You DON'T know what the actual flight path was. You DON'T know if the right wingtip barely impinged the VDOT camera pole, ergo you DON'T know exactly where the aircraft flew. You DON'T know exactly where on the the aircraft the first light pole hit. You DON'T know the precise dynamics of Lloyd's car. You don't UNDERSTAND the variables of perspective and parallax and lens focal length with regards to photo analysis, making whatever numbers you come up with bogus. You can make up whatever numbers or data you like, but the bottom line is (read this next line out loud if you think it will help) "they will never be anything else than numbers you MAKE UP".

MAKING UP the data to support your thesis is really pretty funny, but again, it is what is expected from you and your team. This tactic is par for the course on nearly everything you and your team do, from cherry picking witness statements to leading questions to overt extrapolation of others thoughts to making up numbers - all to match your pre-conceived and pre-determined conclusion.

So, we'll just continue to wait for your "evidence" to appear on some other media outlet other than the Rock Creek Press. I'm done with this thread. I gave you ample opportunity to make your case but, in true CIT/PfT form you insist on creating yoru own "evidence. You and your team can take your handwaving and your fanciful concoctions of mysterious numbers and peddle them to others.

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:46 PM

Originally posted by trebor451
For someone purporting to be something of an "expert" in aeronautical matters you and your team here sure do appear pretty dense to what I trying to put forth.

Read carefully. I will not and cannot (neither can you, despite you and your team's frantic digital gesticulating) estimate that which cannot be accurately estimated. You DON'T know what the actual flight path was. You DON'T know if the right wingtip barely impinged the VDOT camera pole, ergo you DON'T know exactly where the aircraft flew. You DON'T know exactly where on the the aircraft the first light pole hit. You DON'T know the precise dynamics of Lloyd's car. You don't UNDERSTAND the variables of perspective and parallax and lens focal length with regards to photo analysis, making whatever numbers you come up with bogus. You can make up whatever numbers or data you like, but the bottom line is (read this next line out loud if you think it will help) "they will never be anything else than numbers you MAKE UP".

MAKING UP the data to support your thesis is really pretty funny, but again, it is what is expected from you and your team. This tactic is par for the course on nearly everything you and your team do, from cherry picking witness statements to leading questions to overt extrapolation of others thoughts to making up numbers - all to match your pre-conceived and pre-determined conclusion.

So, we'll just continue to wait for your "evidence" to appear on some other media outlet other than the Rock Creek Press. I'm done with this thread. I gave you ample opportunity to make your case but, in true CIT/PfT form you insist on creating yoru own "evidence. You and your team can take your handwaving and your fanciful concoctions of mysterious numbers and peddle them to others.

Dictionary: cop-out cop·out (kŏp'out')

also n. Slang.

1. A failure to fulfill a commitment or responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely.
2. A person who fails to fulfill a commitment or responsibility.
3. An excuse for inaction or evasion.

www.answers.com...

See also-

Fundamental physical constants

estimate

eta:
Small angle approximation

[edit on 27-5-2009 by rhunter]

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:39 AM

Originally posted by trebor451
Read carefully. I will not and cannot (neither can you, despite you and your team's frantic digital gesticulating) estimate that which cannot be accurately estimated. You DON'T know what the actual flight path was.

Come on! Are you serious? Your official BS story says the aircraft
knocked down 5 light poles and hit the Pentagon.

If you measure the spacing of these poles and angle a 757-200 to
knock them all down, you can very well determine the exact flight
path.

What sort of garbage are you trying to pull? Do you want to debate this
illusion, or not? The plane flew within inches of the 5 poles with a
defined angle into the imaginary impact point. Sorry, but you cannot
change this if you believe AA77 made this damage.

At 460+ knots there is absolutely no time / distance to slalom a massive
commerical airliner around these poles with magic Hani backflips.
This craft is more, or less a bullet on a straight track. Do you understand
that much?

You DON'T know if the right wingtip barely impinged the VDOT camera pole, ergo you DON'T know exactly where the aircraft flew.

Wrong. Please check the flight study done by P4T, you might actually
learn something.

You DON'T know exactly where on the the aircraft the first light pole hit.

Within a very small margin, damn right we do. Again, do some research.

You DON'T know the precise dynamics of Lloyd's car.

Dynamics of his car?
All we need to know is a speed estimate,
direction, and resting point for this exercise. You can leave the dynamic
BS for the kids that don't know better.

You don't UNDERSTAND the variables of perspective and parallax and lens focal length with regards to photo analysis, making whatever numbers you come up with bogus.

You don't understand that the car is just feet away from the pole?
Focal length?

You can make up whatever numbers or data you like, but the bottom line is (read this next line out loud if you think it will help) "they will never be anything else than numbers you MAKE UP".

I don't make things up, the numbers are valid based on photo evidence.
For your information, the length of the pole doesn't really matter much
for you magical story to become false. I'm just trying to get your commitment
to the values so we can proceed.

I'm not surprised that you left out the replies to my questions.

Let's try another angle then:

How much energy do you figure was transferred to the lower portion of the
light pole after the wing "sliced through it" at 460+ knots?

Keep in mind the top section fell within 10 feet of the base. Also keep in
mind the lower section of the pole was bolted to the ground.

Do you feel the heavier bolted section should move more, equal, less than
the top sliced section?

Just answer that; we'll leave the cab speed and pole length as variable.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by turbofan]

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 07:14 AM
T.F. ain't playin', yo?

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 08:24 AM
reply to post by trebor451

What a complete fraud. The taxi/light pole scenario is completely undefendable, and trebor451 knows it. Thus his disingenuous nonsense with which he spins and dances; avoiding explanation and discussion, and completely avoiding proving any supicious details of the rapidly self-destructing 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. Are all of these government loyalists complete cowards; unwilling to defend the government tale with confidence and loyalty to their masters and in complete detail?

To contact the #1 and #2 light poles simultaneously, AND complete the official destruction pattern within the Pentagon 1st floor, the official 124' 10" wingspan 757 aircraft is limited to a certain flight path and level attitude which contacts each light pole with an outer wing tip. To vary in either direction would cause one of the light poles to be entirely missed. Or to bank in either direction would cause a light pole to be missed.

In order to hit AND enter the 1st floor without striking the building foundation, the alleged 757 aircraft of necessity must fly level and inches above the lawn as the official Pentagon Building Performance Report ascertains.

However the PROVEN flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo prevents all of this, rendering impossible the ability of the 90+ ton aircraft to manuever south in less than three seconds to the official flight path through the light poles and low and level across the lawn.

The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is just too impossible to be considered to have ever happened as scripted. There is just no possible way the aircraft knocked the light poles down from its flight path Over the Naval Annex and no possible way the aircraft struck and entered the 1st floor from its position to the north and banking to the right high above the 1st floor and high above the overhead highway sign and undamaged light poles in its path.

The light poles and the taxi and Lloyde England were staged to create an illusion.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:32 PM
Let's not let this slip away. Trebor still needs to answer some questions
so we can finish up. Thanks for the reminder Tezz!

How much energy do you figure was transferred to the lower portion of the
light pole after the wing "sliced through it" at 460+ knots?

Keep in mind the top section fell within 10 feet of the base. Also keep in
mind the lower section of the pole was bolted to the ground.

Do you feel the heavier bolted section should move more, equal, less than
the top sliced section?

Just answer that; we'll leave the cab speed and pole length as variable.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:14 AM
Bump for Trebor, or anyone else supporting the pole and taxi theory.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:31 AM

Originally posted by trebor451
This tactic is par for the course on nearly everything you and your team do, from cherry picking witness statements to leading questions to overt extrapolation of others thoughts to making up numbers - all to match your pre-conceived and pre-determined conclusion.

Its called analytical bias, or to be more precise "systematic bias" which is a subset of the former. It is the very foundation of your approach to this and all the other questions. You would have no argument if you didn't let bias intrude into your theses, ergo you must let bias rule your processes.

The fact you don't recognize this is evidence you and your team don't know what you are talking about.

Feel free to continue to make up numbers and data that match your pre-conceived conclusions. You seem to enjoy that, but don't expect anyone with any analytical or intellectual rigor to accept it.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by trebor451]

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by trebor451
Its called analytical bias, or to be more precise "systematic bias" which is a subset of the former.

Do you want to know what confirmation bias is, trebor?

I'll give you an example:

Originally posted by trebor
I don't have to "prove" it because it happened.

Edit: Maybe it's not called confirmation bias... it's probably better described as glorified ignorance instead.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by tezzajw]

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by trebor451
Feel free to continue to make up numbers and data that match your pre-conceived conclusions. You seem to enjoy that, but don't expect anyone with any analytical or intellectual rigor to accept it.

So you are quitting this discussion?

Aw shame, I was enjoying it

new topics

top topics

6