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

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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.


No, it's not, that is a statement of observation, not a shifting of the burden of proof at all. I am not stating that the burden of proof lies anywhere. I accept Lloyde's account, even tho' it is not conclusively proven as an established fact. Therefore, stating that his his account has not been disproved is also my belief. I fully realize that there are a couple of options for how the whole incident occurred, but I've heard none better than a light pole struck by the aircraft that struck the Pentagon damaged Lloyde's cab.

I have seen endless debates, arguments, and bickering, but remain unconvinced by anything counter to Lloyde's original statements.

You should learn what logical fallacies are before you accuse others of committing them.

As a comparison to your accusations of faith based opinions/beliefs, do you know that the earth is not flat? Do you have proof?

Do you know that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around?

These are merely examples and not intended to introduce off topic discussions. Not everything in life is provable beyond a shadow of doubt.

As far as the Government using the mentioned photograph in Court, why not? The photo shows the taxi with a broken windshield and a pole lying on the ground. It's a part of the Historical Record of the Attack on the Pentagon. Do you contend the photo is fake?

The was a long list of photographs and other items entered by the prosecution. Since, the defense didn't object to it, it is part of the Court Record they obviously accepted it.

As I have said numerous times, there were hundreds of witnesses to this event, not all of them interviewed by the FBI. Since someone here has said Lloyde was compensated, perhaps it was investigated and not in a report issued by the Government. Has anyone attempted a FOIA to get that kind of information? If not, why not?

As I've said numerous times, "truthers" seems to be the only ones interested, so have at whatever is being attempted to be proven. I do not accept that this taxi incident is crucial to the overall case that the Pentagon was struck by an aircraft.

I'm finished with this specific part of the OP. Shift the discussion and I might participate, but I'm finished with this Taxi Cab business.



[edit on 30-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Reheat]




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
LabTOP and I were discussing the Steve Riskus "detour" around Arlington and the scene of Lloyde's cab before another thread was blasted off the tracks by some. There was a sequence of about 2 dozen photos taken then by Riskus that would indicate a traffic diversion. You might find that discussion more interesting than Reheat is, tezza:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
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?

Although I would have expected one of the government story believers to at least know their own story, the light poles are mentioned on page 13 of the FEMA/ASCE Pentagon building report in the Don Mason account.

FEMA BPS

That is it- I only found it on one page. One single mention, and it was "struck three light poles between him and the building," not five. Very strange.

Reheat informs me that my reading comprehension isn't very good though, so you should probably verify for me tezza.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
As far as the Government using the mentioned photograph in Court, why not? The photo shows the taxi with a broken windshield and a pole lying on the ground. It's a part of the Historical Record of the Attack on the Pentagon.

What...?

Who's Historical Record? Lloyde's taxi and the light pole are not part of the official government's Historical Record. Didn't you agree with me in the opening post that Lloyde, his taxi and that light pole were never once mentioned in an official government report?

It's implied deception by the government to use that picture, when the alleged crime scene was never described in any report.

You must have meant that Lloyde's taxi and the light pole are a part of the media's Historical Record, right?

It all has the feeling of an urban myth, when you stop and think about it. The government won't publish anything about it in any report, but they'll sure as hell use a picture of it in a court trial.



Since someone here has said Lloyde was compensated, perhaps it was investigated and not in a report issued by the Government.

Proof?

I can't believe your 'perhaps' unless you manage to prove it. You've agreed with me that's how claims are substantiated.



Has anyone attempted a FOIA to get that kind of information? If not, why not?

I don't know? I wonder why some government story believers would not have tried to substantiate Lloyde's story, considering some government story believers make the claim that his taxi was hit by a light pole.



I'm finished with this specific part of the OP. Shift the discussion and I might participate, but I'm finished with this Taxi Cab business.

Ok. Bye! Thanks for playing.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
Although I would have expected one of the government story believers to at least know their own story, the light poles are mentioned on page 13 of the FEMA/ASCE Pentagon building report in the Don Mason account.
FEMA BPS
That is it- I only found it on one page. One single mention, and it was "struck three light poles between him and the building," not five. Very strange.

No worries, thanks for the heads-up, rhunter. Naturally though, there will be some official government supporters who will claim that the ASCE are not affiliated with the government, so it's merely an independent publication.

Personally, I can see why official government story supporters would want to distance themselves from Lloyde's account as much as possible.


Originally posted by rhunter
Reheat informs me that my reading comprehension isn't very good though, so you should probably verify for me tezza.

Don't believe everything that Reheat states. Your reading is fine. However, to be precise, that report does not specifically mention Lloyde, his taxi or that light pole. It only mentions three unidentified light poles.

So continues the urban myth...

We won't be able to ask Reheat for clarification about the ASCE report, as he stated that he won't be returning to this thread. Afterall, Reheat's given us his opinion that although he doesn't know/care if Lloyde is telling the truth, he still believes him.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Naturally though, there will be some official government supporters who will claim that the ASCE are not affiliated with the government, so it's merely an independent publication.

Personally, I can see why official government story supporters would want to distance themselves from Lloyde's account as much as possible.

We won't be able to ask Reheat for clarification about the ASCE report, as he stated that he won't be returning to this thread. Afterall, Reheat's given us his opinion that although he doesn't know/care if Lloyde is telling the truth, he still believes him.

Oh, OK then- here is a page tying that ASCE report to NIST.gov (kind of like the other one). Funny they never corrected the erroneous "3 pole" ASCE report- there is no errata on the NIST distribution page that I saw.

Pentagon Report

NIST is the agency distributing that ASCE report and FEMA took control of both the Pentagon and WTC scenes from my research. I wonder who paid for the Pentagon BPS team's "investigation" and report? That might be interesting to look into.

FEMA Virginia Terrorist Attack

eta: It looks like that ASCE report has ties to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, BATF, NIST, and Purdue University. Purdue and ASCE would be the least "official"/government on that list, although Purdue could possibly be construed as Indiana State Government (my university was affiliated with another state government, Los Alamos NL, and the NSF). Cal Tech and NASA are nearly synonymous, too.



[edit on 31-5-2009 by rhunter]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
Oh, OK then- here is a page tying that ASCE report to NIST.gov (kind of like the other one). Funny they never corrected the erroneous "3 pole" ASCE report- there is no errata on the NIST distribution page that I saw.
Pentagon Report

You're not playing fair, rhunter!

What are you trying to do - force the official government story supporters to accept the light pole story!!! You know when you do that, they're going to have to prove it happened just the way they think it happened.

You're still yet to find the trump card, though. You haven't found a link that ties Lloyde, hit taxi and the light pole to an official government report. Three generic light poles being knocked over is technically not describing Lloyde's taxi story and that number one light pole.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
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?

Well to recap- we have portions of 1 "official" pole lying nearby Lloyde's Town Car in the NIcon post linking to this court document:

Exhibit P200027

We have NIST and ASCE telling us (rather vaguely IMO) about "3 light poles" in the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report.

My understanding is that there were 5 light poles on the ground near the Pentagon freeway interchange, but no one can find an "official"/government agency explanation anywhere for 5 light poles being on the ground. I think now this thread has come the closest for "official" explanations (and I'm actually with you on the null hypothesis about poles being on the ground).

Apparently, those light poles lay on the ground for years at a time in that area near the Pentagon. Maybe the VDOT workers are afraid to fix them or haul them away. 200+ pounds of aluminum ought to have considerable recycling/salvage value, I would think.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
I think now this thread has come the closest for "official" explanations (and I'm actually with you on the null hypothesis about poles being on the ground).

I think this thread has also become a no-go zone for official government story believers who also believe that Lloyde's taxi-light pole incident was the truth.

Besides Reheat (who we thank for his thoughtful opinons, as contradictory as they were), no one else has tried to explain the media's and government's role in Lloyde's story?

Is it that much of a taboo topic for official government story believers to tackle?



Apparently, those light poles lay on the ground for years at a time in that area near the Pentagon.www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah, that was a great thread, indeed. Light poles left on the road for a couple of years - like who cared, huh?



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

posted by Reheat
As far as the Government using the mentioned photograph in Court, why not? The photo shows the taxi with a broken windshield and a pole lying on the ground. It's a part of the Historical Record of the Attack on the Pentagon.


posted by tezzajw
What...?

Who's Historical Record? Lloyde's taxi and the light pole are not part of the official government's Historical Record. Didn't you agree with me in the opening post that Lloyde, his taxi and that light pole were never once mentioned in an official government report?

It's implied deception by the government to use that picture, when the alleged crime scene was never described in any report.

You must have meant that Lloyde's taxi and the light pole are a part of the media's Historical Record, right?



As usual, poor Reheat does not know if he is coming or going. The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is self-destructing faster then the government loyalists can keep up, and they are helpless as they ride the collapse into the abyss.

Lloyde's taxi and the light pole through the windshield is a fairy tale and the government loyalists were apparently raised on fairy tales and are unable to separate them from reality.

Perhaps Reheat will graciously point us to exactly where the taxi with a broken windshield and the pole laying on the ground are part of the Historical Record of the Attack on the Pentagon.



Incidentally, this official government kangeroo court show trial photo, which is apparently not part of the Historical Record of the Attack on the Pentagon, shows distinctly that there are several cranes at the Pentagon and that the taxi and broken light pole pieces were deliberately left blocking the southbound Hwy 27 lanes for a long long time even though the taxi and Lloyde and the light pole pieces were never investigated nor was any official report released on them nor were the Federal agents (concerned citizens) guarding the taxi and pole pieces and Lloyde ever identified or questioned as to what happened there.

Was it possible that this entire scene was unrelated to the Pentagon attack, and the policing agencies justified in ignoring it?



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

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.

Wll thats the flaw in the ointment boss, there is no theory that has been proven yet, and its 8 years latter. The most logical explanation is that something is hampering the investigation.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
The ASCE Building Performance Report was officially commissioned so it IS an official report.

But as rhunter points out they are very vague about the light poles and incorrectly report the number of downed poles as being 3 when there were 5.

However when we filed FOIA's with the VDOT to get documentation for the light poles (that they ultimately denied having) they told us that they only controlled 2 of the 5 poles and that the other 3 were controlled by the Pentagon itself (but they still denied having documentation for even the 2 that they controlled). I can only assume that poles 1 & 2 were the ones allegedly controlled by the VDOT so the ASCE was probably only referencing poles 3, 4, and 5.

Of course nobody will cop to specific details at all.

Bottom line the ONLY thing remotely official that addresses the exact location of the poles is the animation created by defense contractor Integrated Consultants but this was NOT officially commissioned.

But they do link to it on the state department website america.gov so that in essence makes it officially endorsed.

Clearly they wanted to remain as ambiguous and confusing as possible when it came to the light poles in order to let the independent "researchers" figure it by the photographs as if it was all some natural realization process of flight path damage that just so happens to "line up perfectly".



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
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?

I noted one interesting thing from watching the Aziz Elhallou video on that thread (which was closed, presumably due to off-topic ranting about "You [Craig Ranke] and CIT and PFFFT" coupled with "You know the freaks that lurk on CT sites. They make life miserable for many good people.")

Aziz Elhallou thread


Google Video Link


From my quick, rough transcription of that video, at about 03:55-04:00. "We didn't know if they going to have other explosions or... after the 3rd one happened."

Three explosions? What could that mean?



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Clearly they wanted to remain as ambiguous and confusing as possible when it came to the light poles in order to let the independent "researchers" figure it by the photographs as if it was all some natural realization process of flight path damage that just so happens to "line up perfectly".

Craig, your brilliant research justifies the paragraph above, perfectly.

There appears to be a messy interplay with Lloyde's taxi/light pole event, between the media story and the government's attempt to ignore the event, by ommission, in 'official' reports.

As we have seen in this thread, the only person willing to try and defend the government's stance, was Reheat - and he managed to contradict himself when trying to explain his opinion.

It's all quite telling, when you think about it.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter

From my quick, rough transcription of that video, at about 03:55-04:00. "We didn't know if they going to have other explosions or... after the 3rd one happened."

Three explosions? What could that mean?


My take on that is that he mentions hearing (on the radio) about the earlier 2 attacks on the WTC towers and the Pentagon was the 3rd on that day.

He didn't know when or if the attacks would be over and he wouldn't have been the only one thinking that way.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 

Well, that is certainly one opinion. I wonder if anyone has since tried to interview Aziz El Hallou about his "3 explosion" statement and the evidence that he admitted to removing from a crime scene for his Fox News interview (again- the video is linked above).



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
edit: duplicate post removed by author.


[edit on 20-6-2009 by rhunter]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
I wonder if anyone has since tried to interview Aziz El Hallou about his "3 explosion" statement and the evidence that he admitted to removing from a crime scene for his Fox News interview (again- the video is linked above).

Yeah, his piece of evidence couldn't have been that important, could it? They let him go, after giving him live-to-air TV time that mega-corporations would be jealous to receive.

I'd enjoy seeing another Aziz interview. A real interview, more like an interrogation. I bet he would make Lloyde look like a genius.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Yeah Wally, I think thats the thing, I'm pretty sure the vehicle was totaled out. CIT might know exactly. By looking at the photos, to me the dash is completely destroyed. It was a older car that would have required a large amount to repair (if it was even repairable). So the Insurers most likely totaled it.

As to why he never sold it afterwards, I believe on one of CITs vids he said he was keeping it for historical value.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Clearly they wanted to remain as ambiguous and confusing as possible when it came to the light poles in order to let the independent "researchers" figure it by the photographs as if it was all some natural realization process of flight path damage that just so happens to "line up perfectly".

Craig, your brilliant research justifies the paragraph above, perfectly.

There appears to be a messy interplay with Lloyde's taxi/light pole event, between the media story and the government's attempt to ignore the event, by ommission, in 'official' reports.

As we have seen in this thread, the only person willing to try and defend the government's stance, was Reheat - and he managed to contradict himself when trying to explain his opinion.

It's all quite telling, when you think about it.


This is exactly like the official sources NOT calling the 'wing imprints' from the alleged Shanksville crash, wing imprints. It permits a level of plausible deniability. If the story was ever proved one way or the other, the government can say 'well, we never said they were wing imprints - you came to that conclusion all by yourself!' You can download my report on the Shanksville crash from this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I believe the story with the taxi and lightpole is the same thing - they will show the photos in court, so people can make up their own conclusions, but will never officially verify it themselves...

Rewey



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join