The Mainstream Media, The Government, Lloyde's Taxi and That Light Pole.

Firstly, let me state that I have no idea how that light pole managed to end up on the road, next to the damaged taxi. I’ve asked a few different people in other threads to prove what happened – sadly not one of them could do so. I don't have an opinion on how the event came to pass, as I support the null hypothesis, until an alternate hypothesis can be proven.

I contend that mainstream media propaganda was used to sell parts of the Pentagon story. Lloyde’s damaged taxi and the light pole, are an interesting, logical puzzle that the mainstream media has promoted all on its own agenda.

Reheat challenged me to show him where Lloyde’s taxi and the light pole were mentioned in any official government report:

Reheat
Show me an Official Report that analyzes the Taxi Cab being hit by a pole.

As far as I know there’s no official mention of Lloyde’s event in any government report. There is no evidence of any kind of investigation performed on the taxi or the light pole. There are no known official interviews with Lloyde, nor are there any known official interviews with the men who were photographed standing with Lloyde, by the taxi.

Reheat, you are correct. That leads me to ask the question, why was the event omitted from being investigated by the government?

If the government didn't promote the story, then who did?

trebor stated this gem of a quote about the light pole striking the taxi:

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

trebor appears to blindly accept a story that the light pole impaled the taxi, after being hit by Flight AA77. The question is – who’s story is he believing? How many other people, like trebor, show this apparent faith-based belief in the event?

I can no longer state that trebor is believing the government’s version of events, as the government apparently never investigated or made an official comment about Lloyde’s taxi and the light pole. The only investigation that I have seen regarding Lloyde’s taxi and the light pole is CIT's Eye of the Storm investigaton.

trebor, who’s version of events are you accepting, if it’s not the government’s version? I’ll take a guess and state that you believe the media’s version of events?

I can find taxi-light pole references from some online sources after a quick Google search:
Arabesque - witnesses describe plane hitting light poles
Flight 77 evidence summary
Wiki - Flight 77

How credible are those sources and the witness statements in them?
How many of those witness statements have ever been independently verified?

In some instances media reports about Flight 77 are not to be believed. Here’s an example:
Aziz El-Hallan was given mainstream media coverage, making claims that he had part of the wreckage from Flight AA77 and that the jet flew so low that it shattered car windscreens.
Was he mentioned in any official government report? No.
Was his story ever verified before he went on TV?

If Aziz was telling the truth, then he should have been officially interviewed by at least one government law enforcement agency, considering that he claimed to have part of the wreckage, right?

If Aziz wasn’t telling the truth, then did we see the mainstream media retract the story and provide an apology? Honest journalists and media corporations have a duty to the truth, don't they?

The mainstream media was used to sell Lloyde’s story and Aziz’s story. The government apparently did not follow up either of those witnesses to include their accounts in the official story.

Where does this leave us? People who support the notion that Flight AA77 hit the light pole must be making the claim based only on media sources and not any official government report. TV and internet journalism must have swayed the minds of those people, for them to believe an unverified account from one eyewitness, Lloyde, who claims that a light pole hit his taxi.

The burden of proof is upon those people who think that Flight AA77 hit the light pole and punctured Lloyde’s taxi, to prove that it happened. Reheat will agree with me here, as he stated this in another thread:

Reheat
You claim the animation is supported, so the burden of proof is on you and you have FAILED, so far.

Clearly, Reheat understands the logic that all claims being made must be proven. Naturally, this includes the claim that a light pole hit a taxi.

Now, just when we think that it’s all clear about Lloyde’s taxi and the light pole, and how the government kept out of it and the mainstream media sold the story, let’s throw in a logical twist… One of the more astute posts that I have seen for a long time, by NIcon links to this page.

Yes, that’s right… The official government story never once mentions the light pole creating the taxi damage, but as you can see, the government is willing to visually imply that it happened, by using an image of the alleged 'post-event', in the Moussaoui trial.

There you go, Reheat, it’s not quite what you wanted, but you will agree that an official government image, used in a court of law, does show Lloyde’s taxi and the light pole in a prominent way. Is a picture worth a thousand words in this instance? Maybe this picture is the government's substitute for a real, professional, forensic investigation of Lloyde's taxi and the light pole?

Government story believers, you have a dilemma on your hands. Ask yourself these questions:
Do you believe that Lloyde’s taxi was hit by a light pole?
If so, why?
What’s your source for such claims?
How did your source prove that the light pole hit Lloyde’s taxi?

Why would the government not investigate the light pole striking the taxi or publish it in any official report, yet decide to use an image of the alleged 'post-event', in a trial, to imply that the event was factual?

Government story supporters, you need to offer more than a faith-based belief in mainstream media propaganda to prove that Flight AA77 hit the light pole and then punctured Lloyde’s taxi. If you can’t prove that it happened, then don’t claim that it happened. Reheat and I will both be upset that you would dare to make a claim that you can't prove.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


Should I be flattered that another thread has been initiated quoting me? I didn't know I was that important.

To save time, my reply will be short. I don't give a flip about the light poles or Lloyde's taxi other than I hope Lloyde received compensation for loss of his lively hood for a while. There were hundreds of people who were interviewed in an attempt to piece together what happened in view of the physical evidence. There were also hundreds who were not interviewed perhaps because the information was not pertinent to whether or not the Pentagon was struck.

"Truthers" care about this issue because it's trivia and it apparently appears to be a "gotcha" for those who want to devise alternative theories, refuse to accept logical explanations, and continue with preconceived delusions.

If anyone has an alternative theory that can be proven with evidence have at it. I haven't seen one yet in almost 8 years and as you said everyone should prove their claims.

Before you chide me for a Burden of Proof fallacy, I know nothing that absolutely proves the light pole were struck by the aircraft or that one of them struck Lloyde's taxi. However, I have a multitude of ways to prove that AA 77 struck the Pentagon. That's all that's important.

If you're upset about it, charge the Government with a Burden of Proof fallacy and take them to Court.

BTW, I don't care what Hani Hanjour had for breakfast either, it's trivia.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Reheat
Should I be flattered that another thread has been initiated quoting me? I didn't know I was that important.

You're not that important to me, Reheat. However, your challenge to me was - at least to me it was. I like a puzzle and 9/11 presents plenty of them.

If anyone has an alternative theory that can be proven with evidence have at it. I haven't seen one yet in almost 8 years and as you said everyone should prove their claims.

True, I agree. No one has been able to prove the alternate hypothesis that Lloyde's taxi was struck by the light pole.

Before you chide me for a Burden of Proof fallacy, I know nothing that absolutely proves the light pole were struck by the aircraft or that one of them struck Lloyde's taxi.

Great. So we both agree that not only do you not care about Lloyde's taxi and the light pole, you admit that you can't prove it happened. I'm fine with that, Reheat.

So can I count on using you as a referee when other goverment loyalists want to state to me that Flight AA77 hit the light pole and punched it into Lloyde's taxi? I can refer them to this thread where you and I both agree that the claim has never been proven.

However, I have a multitude of ways to prove that AA 77 struck the Pentagon. That's all that's important.

Off topic. I never once mentioned anything about Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon, or not. Take it to another thread.

Edited original post for clarity. I need to hire a damn proof reader at times.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by tezzajw]

Interesting to watch Reheat distance himself from the veracity of Lloyde's account even though the official story is 100% contingent upon Lloyde's account.

It's make or break.

Anyway, yes it is true that there is NO official report that acknowledges the situation with the light poles and taxi at all let alone forensically analyzes it.

That's because this is the "building 7" of the Pentagon attack people.

But the taxicab and light pole 1 are acknowledged with exact location officially established by corporate proxy in the Integrated Consultants animation, and definitively/independently proven via photographic evidence, so no matter how much they deny it -- we know where they were located.

And the evidence proves it wasn't anywhere near where the plane flew.

End of story.

Or beginning.

Time to restore the republic.

reply to post by tezzajw

Do you believe that Lloyde’s taxi was hit by a light pole?
If so, why?

No.

What’s your source for such claims?

There are no sources anywhere.

How did your source prove that the light pole hit Lloyde’s taxi?

There are no sources that can prove a light pole hit Lloyd’s cab. It was “never” investigated, and you are right there is no mention in any government document not even in the OS.

Why would the government not investigate the light pole striking the taxi or publish it in any official report,

Because it “never” happened, just like the alleged hijacked airplanes, they were not investigated. Just like the explosion going off in the WTC they were not investigated, just like BBC and CNN reporting WTC 7 coming down 20 minuets before it happened it was never investigated, just like the 911 commission now have admitted they had to lie in their commission report and they have gone on record of what the military told the 911 commission is a different story altogether, and they wanted to recommended these top military officials to the Justice Department for a criminal investigating which never happened. Nothing was investigated nothing at all. 911 has never been investigated, the only thing that was done was a cover-up of all the events that supposedly all happened.

The TRUTH is 911 LACKS ALL THE EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT IT’S OWN STORY! There is no “evidences.” The reason why is, because the events did not happened the way the government claimed. The government is lying, the FBI is lying, the CIA is lying, and the Bush administration is lying, 911 stinks of cover- up, and 911 stinks of an inside job. The truth of who pull off 911 is coming out slowly so the American people can handle it. The people behind this treason will make Richard Nixon a walk in the park.

yet decide to use an image of the alleged 'post-event', in a trial, to imply that the event was factual?

My opinion is, another false piece of evidences the FBI, and CIA, used to convict an innocent person of pulling off 911. Can I prove my statement no, however try to prove the OS. No one can. Tezzajw, star and flag good thread.

One thing I don't understand, if the only damage to the car was a smashed windscreen and a little interior damage, then why couldn't the car have been repaired and Lloyd go back to work?

He got a new car and compensation for work lost. Now if you were in an accident that didn't write off your car it would very difficult to claim for anything other then the actual damage, which was easily reparable right?

The car is still not repaired and sitting doing nothing, why didn't Lloyd have it repaired to sell it to recover some costs?

Maybe I'm missing something?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Reheat
If anyone has an alternative theory that can be proven with evidence have at it. I haven't seen one yet in almost 8 years and as you said everyone should prove their claims.

True, I agree. No one has been able to prove the alternate hypothesis that Lloyde's taxi was struck by the light pole.

That's mildly amusing as the alternate theory is that Lloyde's taxi was damaged by something other than a light pole. There is no reason to doubt his word that it was damaged as he said in spite of the harassment by amateur sleuths some years after the incident. I don't know of anyone except a few "truthers" who are impressed with the amateur internet based forensic examiner wannabes with an agenda and personal incredulity issues.

Originally posted by Reheat
Before you chide me for a Burden of Proof fallacy, I know nothing that absolutely proves the light pole were struck by the aircraft or that one of them struck Lloyde's taxi.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Great. So we both agree that not only do you not care about Lloyde's taxi and the light pole, you admit that you can't prove it happened. I'm fine with that, Reheat.

So can I count on using you as a referee when other goverment loyalists want to state to me that Flight AA77 hit the light pole and punched it into Lloyde's taxi? I can refer them to this thread where you and I both agree that the claim has never been proven.

Muhahaha! Yea sure, I'll help you with your silly internet arguments, NOT. I think you'll noticed that I used the term absolute proof in the above comment. Lloyde said the taxi was damaged by a light pole and he indicated how it ended up lying on the ground by his taxi. Others mentioned the light poles being struck by the aircraft, but I'm simply not sure if they are quoted as saying they actually saw that or if they learned of it later.

It is quite understandable that this is difficult to absolutely prove and I suspect that no one was willing to waste the time trying. Usually, when something on the ground is struck by an aircraft, accident examiners prove it by examining the aircraft and finding corresponding damage that conclusively proves the object was struck by the aircraft. Not surprisingly, an aircraft to examine was not available in this case because it was obliterated when it struck the Pentagon.

This particular event occurred very rapidly (seconds) and with surprise, so it's not surprising that there was no video, or that people who were shocked by the aircraft might not notice poles struck that fell like match sticks. I would venture to say that it took awhile to comprehend what had happened. Falling light poles would have been the last thing on most folks mind and it's easy to understand why they might not even recall seeing it, even if they actually did. Witness statements in isolation don't prove anything anyway, it's the physical evidence that counts. Witnesses only corroborate the physical evidence.

Originally posted by Reheat
However, I have a multitude of ways to prove that AA 77 struck the Pentagon. That's all that's important.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Off topic. I never once mentioned anything about Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon, or not. Take it to another thread.

I fully understand that you've limited the topic, but the poles were not an isolated event and must be considered as part of a series of events that are all connected. I fully understand why you don't want to discuss the forest, but only want to concentrate on a few trees.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Interesting to watch Reheat distance himself from the veracity of Lloyde's account even though the official story is 100% contingent upon Lloyde's account.

No it isn't. All you've proven is your own delusional incompetence.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It's make or break.

Only in your imagination!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But the taxicab and light pole 1 are acknowledged with exact location officially established by corporate proxy in the Integrated Consultants animation, and definitively/independently proven via photographic evidence, so no matter how much they deny it -- we know where they were located.

Well, congratulations! At least you get something right.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
And the evidence proves it wasn't anywhere near where the plane flew.

No, those mutually contradicting statements have fooled no one, except you and a few of your cronies. All you have accomplished is Internet based talk, talk, talk, talk.....

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
End of story.

Or beginning.

Time to restore the republic.

No, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed when you try to do anything other than pollute Internet Forums with your fraudulent talk, talk, talk, talk....

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Reheat]

posted by Reheat

It is quite understandable that this is difficult to absolutely prove and I suspect that no one was willing to waste the time trying. Usually, when something on the ground is struck by an aircraft, accident examiners prove it by examining the aircraft and finding corresponding damage that conclusively proves the object was struck by the aircraft. Not surprisingly, an aircraft to examine was not available in this case because it was obliterated when it struck the Pentagon.

No Reheat, your bluffing will not work again. Not surprisingly, an aircraft to examine was not available in this case, because it was flying Over the Naval Annex and nowhere near those staged light poles and could not possibly have hit the Pentagon 1st floor because it was flying too high to hit the 1st floor.

The PROVEN north flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo destroys your precious 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY and you know it Reheat.

Originally posted by tezzajw
The mainstream media was used to sell Lloyde’s story and Aziz’s story. The government apparently did not follow up either of those witnesses to include their accounts in the official story.

Where does this leave us? People who support the notion that Flight AA77 hit the light pole must be making the claim based only on media sources and not any official government report. TV and internet journalism must have swayed the minds of those people, for them to believe an unverified account from one eyewitness, Lloyde, who claims that a light pole hit his taxi.

I don't think the Media was trying to sell anytime except Newspapers and Advertising. What evidence do you have of Government controlled Mass Media, except paranoia?

The Mass Media is always interested in "human interest" type stories, so what is surprising that they would report this stuff? It sells Newspapers and Advertising. They have history of repeating the same stuff over and over again for any story that captures National/International attention because there is only a finite amount available to them.

As Trebor said, the events happened because there are photographs and video that prove they happened. It is perfectly normal due to "common sense" and logic that the aircraft caused these things to happen as it has not been shown that there were giant gophers in the area to fell the light poles.

How do you know that Aziz wasn't interviewed? I don't know that he was, but you don't know that he wasn't either. What YOU think is important might be of non consequence to an investigator. After all, there were literally thousands of people involved in one way or another and the investigation is still open.

I will add one more thing about journalists or reporters in the Mass Media. If they thought they could win a Pulitzer Prize by exposing the "conspiracy" there is no doubt in my mind they would attempt to do it. Yet, the only ones polluting the media are Internet based "truthers" pumping garbage to anyone who will listen to them, which today is not many because their fraudulent evil movement is dead.

Originally posted by Reheat
There is no reason to doubt his word

Reheat stated that he does not care one way or the other about Lloyde, but he has no reason to doubt his word that the light pole hit the taxi.

Yes, Reheat, there are lots of reasons to doubt Lloyde's word. No one else can verify his story, while he was supposedly travelling on a busy freeway. There is no other person who has ever testified that a light pole hit Lloyde's taxi.

When agreeing to be interviewed by CIT, Lloyde provided evidence that contradicted his part in the story. He was denying the position of the taxi as seen in some images that Craig showed him.

Here are some of Reheat's attempts to explain Lloyde's story. Note that he is not definitive about any of them, as he isn't sure that it happened, but he still believes Lloyde.

Originally posted by Reheat
Lloyde said the taxi was damaged by a light pole...
Others mentioned the light poles being struck by the aircraft...
It is quite understandable that this is difficult to absolutely prove...
Usually, when something on the ground is struck by an aircraft...
This particular event occurred very rapidly (seconds) and with surprise, so it's not surprising that...
people who were shocked by the aircraft might not notice poles struck that fell like match sticks...
I would venture to say that it took awhile to comprehend what had happened...
Falling light poles would have been the last thing on most folks mind and it's easy to understand why they might not even recall seeing it, even if they actually did.

Can we count how many times that Reheat waved his hands and guessed what happened? Nothing in that above selection was definitive in any way.

Reheat has written his own short essay on what might have been. While stating that he doesn't care about it, Reheat is parroting the mainstream media about Lloyde.

Witness statements in isolation don't prove anything anyway, it's the physical evidence that counts. Witnesses only corroborate the physical evidence.

Agreed. So how do you explain the physical evidence to the taxi? How can a large light pole impale the windscreen, stay lodged in the dash and back seat during a skid, yet not manage to scratch the bonnet, windscreen frame or window?

You're right, the physical evidence does count.

I'm glad to include you as someone who admits that he can't prove Lloyde's account true. It's great to have you on board, Reheat.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by Reheat
As Trebor said, the events happened because there are photographs and video that prove they happened.

Reheat, you need to decide on a position and stick with it. Sometimes your logic impresses me. You admit that claims need to be proven.

Now, you want to side with trebor and claim that it happened because it did? How can you contradict yourself so many times within a few posts in one thread?

The photographs do not prove that it happened. The photographs show a broken light pole on a road, next to Lloyde's damaged taxi.

It is perfectly normal due to "common sense" and logic that the aircraft caused these things to happen as it has not been shown that there were giant gophers in the area to fell the light poles.

Oh, please... for the sake of your dwindling credibility, please prove that the plane did it. Alternatively, if you think that it was gophers, then please prove that too.

How do you know that Aziz wasn't interviewed? I don't know that he was, but you don't know that he wasn't either.

I don't know. That's why I asked it as a question in my OP. You need to brush up on your reading skills, Reheat. Perhaps they are slipping a little as your feelings about Lloyde's truth waxes and wanes?

Reheat, I agree with you that the government never officially mentioned Lloyde, who was a critical piece of evidence for its story. Given that, would you care to share your opinion for why the government would use an image of the alleged taxi incident in the Moussaoui trial?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Reheat
There is no reason to doubt his word

Reheat stated that he does not care one way or the other about Lloyde, but he has no reason to doubt his word that the light pole hit the taxi.

Don't lie about what I said. I said I didn't care about how this related to the entire story, but I added that I hope he got compensated. Someone else has stated that he did, but I didn't know about it.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Yes, Reheat, there are lots of reasons to doubt Lloyde's word. No one else can verify his story, while he was supposedly travelling on a busy freeway. There is no other person who has ever testified that a light pole hit Lloyde's taxi.

Just who has tried to find someone to verify his story? CIT? If that's all then that is the joke of the Century (last one too). No one really cares about Lloyde's story except "truthers" so why would someone else look for a witness.

Originally posted by tezzajw
When agreeing to be interviewed by CIT, Lloyde provided evidence that contradicted his part in the story. He was denying the position of the taxi as seen in some images that Craig showed him.

I don't know and neither do you if he was screwing with Ranke or if he truly was confused. My feeling is he was messing with Ranke's mind. He was not in a Courtroom under oath, you know.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Here are some of Reheat's attempts to explain Lloyde's story. Note that he is not definitive about any of them, as he isn't sure that it happened, but he still believes Lloyde.

You certainly have given me no reason to doubt it. An amateur analysis based on photographs doesn't cut it. If you think you can determine details from a photograph then the next time you have a physical examination by a doctor, just send him a few photographs and let him determine your physical condition from those.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Can we count how many times that Reheat waved his hands and guessed what happened? Nothing in that above selection was definitive in any way.

There is no hand waving at all, as there is no convincing evidence contrary to Lloyde's original story to justify rejection of that story. ALL of your "so called" evidence is simply personal incredulity based on photographs.

Originally posted by Reheat
Witness statements in isolation don't prove anything anyway, it's the physical evidence that counts. Witnesses only corroborate the physical evidence.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Agreed. So how do you explain the physical evidence to the taxi? How can a large light pole impale the windscreen, stay lodged in the dash and back seat during a skid, yet not manage to scratch the bonnet, windscreen frame or window?
You're right, the physical evidence does count.

I was actually referring to the physical evidence at the Pentagon which is directly related to this, but if you wish, there is plenty of damage to the taxi, you just don't think it's enough. That's personal incredulity....There is nothing more....

Originally posted by Reheat
I'm glad to include you as someone who admits that he can't prove Lloyde's account true. It's great to have you on board, Reheat.

I never once said I could prove it was true and have made no attempt to prove it is true. On the other hand you can't prove it's false either. So, we're back to the beginning, aren't we. Do you want to continue this circular argument or is that what you intend to create in the beginning?

You're not making very much progress with this, are you?

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Reheat, I agree with you that the government never officially mentioned Lloyde, who was a critical piece of evidence for its story. Given that, would you care to share your opinion for why the government would use an image of the alleged taxi incident in the Moussaoui trial?

How many times do I have to keep repeating that Lloyde's story is not a critical piece of evidence for the whole story at all. It doesn't matter whether Lloyde is telling the truth or not. No collusion or complicity has been shown at all. If you think it does then by all means give some money to CIT and take it to Court. If I knew I could witness that in a Courtroom, I'd pay money just for the giggles.

Was that photograph questioned by the Defense at the Moussaoui trial and was it thrown out by the Judge? If it wasn't the Defense accepted it as valid evidence. But, forgive me, I keep forgetting that Internet sleuths are smarter than Attorney's defending someone or Moussaoui defending himself in the legal system.

Originally posted by Reheat
No one really cares about Lloyde's story except "truthers" so why would someone else look for a witness.

Ummmm, let me take a guess here - how about to verify his story? You remember what Lloyde said "History is his story", right?

Hey, if you want to believe Lloyde, without any corroboration, that's your prerogative! Go right ahead and be a believer!

Originally posted by Reheat
I don't know and neither do you if he was screwing with Ranke or if he truly was confused. My feeling is he was messing with Ranke's mind. He was not in a Courtroom under oath, you know.

Your feeling? So what you're admitting is that you don't know and again, you are reduced to guessing. Taken at face value, watching Craig's video, Lloyde was refusing to admit that his location was where the images placed him.

Guess all you like, Reheat, but it won't explain why Lloyde's testimony was contradictory to the photographic evidence.

Originally posted by Reheat
An amateur analysis based on photographs doesn't cut it.

Reheat confirms my position with this comment.

Think about it. Why do we have to resort to an amateur analysis? Because none of the USA law enforcement agencies conducted a professional, forensic analysis on the taxi that we know of. That's why the best that we can do is to examine Craig's footage of the taxi and the Ingersoll images taken at the time.

Originally posted by Reheat
There is no hand waving at all, as there is no convincing evidence contrary to Lloyde's original story to justify rejection of that story.

Reheat resorts to the logical fallacy of accepting a story, without it being proven.

Lloyde's story has never been proven and Reheat wants evidence to prove that it never happened? Logical fallacy. Try again.

Originally posted by Reheat
ALL of your "so called" evidence is simply personal incredulity based on photographs.

I'm not supplying evidence to prove anything Reheat. I haven't made any claims about the light pole and the taxi. I've stated a couple of reasons why I question Lloyde's story. You and I both admit that Lloyde's story has never been proven, so my reasons for questioning it are valid.

Originally posted by Reheat
there is plenty of damage to the taxi, you just don't think it's enough. That's personal incredulity....There is nothing more....

How was the taxi damaged, Reheat?

Prove it.

Originally posted by Reheat
I never once said I could prove it was true and have made no attempt to prove it is true. On the other hand you can't prove it's false either.

I'm not trying to prove it's false, Reheat. You resort to your logical fallacy again, twice in the same post.

I don't need to prove it is not true. There is no burden of proof upon me to prove that it is true. You know that, yet for some reason you resort to using a logical fallacy - why?

Originally posted by Reheat
So, we're back to the beginning, aren't we. Do you want to continue this circular argument or is that what you intend to create in the beginning You're not making very much progress with this, are you?

Indeed, we are back at the beginning. You and I both admit that Lloyde's story has not been proven and it has never been mentioned in an official government report.

I've made lots of progress with this thread. I've managed to quote you stating that you don't think Lloyde's story is important. I've managed to quote you admitting that Lloyde's story has not been proven. I've managed to quote you using a logical fallacy to try and shift the burden of proof on to me, when I have not made any claims.

Why do you make so many logical errors when it comes to Lloyde's taxi incident, Reheat?

Originally posted by Reheat
How many times do I have to keep repeating that Lloyde's story is not a critical piece of evidence for the whole story at all. It doesn't matter whether Lloyde is telling the truth or not.

Yes, you've claimed that Lloyde is not important and now you claim that it doesn't matter if he's lying or not. Why bother trying to argue with me about it if you think that Lloyde may be lying and you're allowing the possibilty that the event was bogus?

Originally posted by Reheat
Was that photograph questioned by the Defense at the Moussaoui trial and was it thrown out by the Judge? If it wasn't the Defense accepted it as valid evidence.

That's the critical question, isn't it? Why would the Defence team accept the implied event, as pictured in the image, without a challenge? I don't know.

However, your answer avoids my question. If the government did not consider Lloyde's story a critical piece of evidence, which you stated, then why would the government use the image in a court of law?

You can't have it both ways, Reheat. The government can not logically, at the same time, consider Lloyde's event both important enough to show in a court of law - yet unimportant enough to not officially investigate it and present the findings in a report.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Reheat
So, we're back to the beginning, aren't we. Do you want to continue this circular argument or is that what you intend to create in the beginning You're not making very much progress with this, are you?

Indeed, we are back at the beginning. You and I both admit that Lloyde's story has not been proven and it has never been mentioned in an official government report.

I've made lots of progress with this thread. I've managed to quote you stating that you don't think Lloyde's story is important. I've managed to quote you admitting that Lloyde's story has not been proven. I've managed to quote you using a logical fallacy to try and shift the burden of proof on to me, when I have not made any claims.

Why do you make so many logical errors when it comes to Lloyde's taxi incident, Reheat?

I still don't think Lloyd's story is important to the overall big picture of events at the Pentagon. Congratulation on capturing a quote from me. I hope you preserve it in a place of honor.

It's easy to pretend you have no claim, then there's nothing to defend. Congratulations on your scheming tactic. Others use it too.

I'll have you know it's my choice to accept Lloyde's story at face value when there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. Call it what you will.

What happens if I get to 3 accusals of committing a logical fallacy. Do I strike out at Internet baseball? Are you going to sue me? Do I get labeled as a detractor on an Internet Forum? Or is it just so you can call me names, such as a "believer"?

Oh, be sure to notify me if there's a pending Court Case with all of this evidence against Lloyde's story you're so proud of. I'd really like to observe it for the giggles and snickers it would provide.

Originally posted by Reheat
I still don't think Lloyd's story is important to the overall big picture of events at the Pentagon. Congratulation on capturing a quote from me. I hope you preserve it in a place of honor.

Yes, all of your quotes on this thread are preserved for all to see and read.

I'll have you know it's my choice to accept Lloyde's story at face value when there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. Call it what you will.

I have called you out on it and for the logical fallacy that you attempted to pass off in an attempt to support your position. It's a belief that you have based on faith. You admit that the government didn't consider the event worthy to describe it in a report. Therefore, you have no official basis to believe the event, other than the testimony provided by Lloyde, as reported by the mainstream media.

We are back to square one, you do agree with my contention that the mainstream media sold Lloyde's story. You've bought it.

What I can't reconcile is that you choose to believe him, yet you don't care either way if he's telling the truth, or not? Such lax standards of proof that you admit to, Reheat.

You can't have it both ways, Reheat. The government can not logically, at the same time, consider Lloyde's event both important enough to show in a court of law - yet unimportant enough to not officially investigate it and present the findings in a report.

reply to post by tezzajw


You're really beginning to get boring. I'm not impressed at all with your accusations.

First of all - you have NOT proven that I have committed a logical fallacy at all in that I have not requested you or anyone else to prove anything. I have merely stated that I accept Lloyd's story at face value simply because there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. That is not a Burden of Proof logical fallacy as I have not demanded anyone prove anything regarding the taxi story. I have merely stated that I do not believe the evidence presented is sufficient to contradict Lloyde's statements. That is obviously my opinion and you can either accept that as my opinion or "stuff it".

Secondly, I was not living in the US during the 9/11 Attacks, so you can not necessarily accuse me of being unduly influenced by US Mass Media. In fact, I learned of Lloyde's taxi story from the initial "expose" by CIT. I then did some investigating and arrived at the best conclusion according to my own judgment.

Thirdly, if you think the US Government or anyone else has an obligation to prove Lloyde's story beyond a reasonable doubt then take it up with them, not me.

This thread has become one about me, not the issues and if you continue I will report every post you make as a personal attack.

Stop the attacks on my opinion and stop now!

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Reheat
You're really beginning to get boring. I'm not impressed at all with your accusations.

Then why do you freely and willingly participate in this thread?

Originally posted by Reheat
First of all - you have NOT proven that I have committed a logical fallacy at all in that I have not requested you or anyone else to prove anything.

Yes I have. Right here:

Originally posted by Reheat
On the other hand you can't prove it's false either.

By stating that I can't prove its false, you are committing a logical fallacy.

Secondly, I was not living in the US during the 9/11 Attacks, so you can not necessarily accuse me of being unduly influenced by US Mass Media. In fact, I learned of Lloyde's taxi story from the initial "expose" by CIT. I then did some investigating and arrived at the best conclusion according to my own judgment.

Wow. Thanks for that! Brilliant!

So after seeing CIT's investigation, which sources did you use to investigate the event? Government sources or media sources?

I guess that you should thank Craig and CIT for the work that they did to help you form your opinion, huh?

This thread has become one about me, not the issues and if you continue I will report every post you make as a personal attack.

No, this thread has always been about the thread title: The Media, The Government, Lloyde's Taxi and That Light Pole.

By freely and willingly responding in this thread and offering your opinions, you have allowed your opinions to be scrutinised. I have not made personal attacks against you, Reheat. However, I have attacked your opinions.

Please, if you feel that I have been unfair to you, contact a Moderator.

Stop the attacks on my opinion and stop now!

When you present conflicting opinions that don't make sense, I will continue to point that out.

If you don't want your opinions to be attacked, then stay out of the thread. As many Moderators have stated, attack the post, not the poster.

It is your opinion that you don't care about Lloyde's story, but you believe it, whether it is right or wrong. You admit that you have not based your opinion on any government investigation, so it must have come from media and online sources, after CIT sparked your interest.

You can't have it both ways, Reheat. The government can not logically, at the same time, consider Lloyde's event both important enough to show in a court of law - yet unimportant enough to not officially investigate it and present the findings in a report.