Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by mmiichael
If there was a rational discussion going on here, one would concede that taxi with no damage at 9:36 and with massive damage at 9:37

If you decide to participate in a rational discussion, then you would prove the above statement.

Prove that there was no damage to the taxi at 9:36.

Originally posted by mmiichael
with a plane flying low and knocking down lamp posts means one of them hit the taxi.

You have not proven that the alleged plane knocked down Lloyde's light pole.

When you decide that you wish to enter a rational discussion, I hope that you come back and prove those claims.

reply to post by tezzajw


You have failed again to provide evidence of your previous statement and you still maintain a double standard.

In the case of the irrelevant taxi-lamp post interaction, you have not expained your theory of why such trivia is important nor have you provided an alternative explanation consistent with what was witnessed.

Originally posted by tezzajw
If you decide to participate in a rational discussion, then you would prove the above statement.

Prove that there was no damage to the taxi at 9:36.

You have not proven that the alleged plane knocked down Lloyde's light pole.

When you decide that you wish to enter a rational discussion, I hope that you come back and prove those claims.

Lloyde England had just dropped off a customer and was driving on the highway at 9:36. At 9:37 his windshield was smashed and the vehicle became inoperable blocking the thoroughfare. This happened in seconds.

No explanation other than the light pole hitting the taxi has been put forward. It is consistent with witnessed testimony on the highway and the other events. No Truther attempts at obfuscation will change this.

What is an alternative scenario? What evidence substantiates any part of it?

Unsupported theories have no weight.


[edit on 5-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by tezzajw
If you decide to participate in a rational discussion, then you would prove the above statement.

Prove that there was no damage to the taxi at 9:36.

You have not proven that the alleged plane knocked down Lloyde's light pole.

When you decide that you wish to enter a rational discussion, I hope that you come back and prove those claims.

Lloyde England had just dropped off a customer and was driving on the highway at 9:36. At 9:37 his windshield was smashed and the vehicle became inoperable blocking the thoroughfare. This happened in seconds.

No explanation other than the light pole hitting the taxi has been put forward. It is consistent with witnessed testimony on the highway and the other events. No Truther attempts at obfuscation will change this.

What is an alternative scenario? What evidence substantiates any part of it?

Unsupported theories have no weight.

That is a nice logical explanation and story but there is a difference between being plausible and being provable in terms of concrete evidence.

Originally posted by Jezus
That is a nice logical explanation and story but there is a difference between being plausible and being provable in terms of concrete evidence.

No other possible explanation is considered proof. You don't like it, that's too bad.

You may not realize it, but that's how legal systems and basic common sense operates. Otherwise we could go around saying people were hypnotized, secret technologies were employed, magic was involved, to explain anything.

Anyone who has read history, investigated events, read court transcripts, knows there are often inconsistencies in reports or testimonies. Human nature, the fallibilities of observation, memory, communication.

Here we have something so obvious. A taxi moving on a highway one minute. It's windshield smashed the next. Light poles that were up a minute before lying on the ground. A low flying plane had just passed over.

You can imagine secret agents planting a switcheroo all you like. Not a shred of supportable evidence, and doesn't make any sense. The sort of thing only highly out of touch with reality types would consider.

Either thousands of ordinary American people are withholding information, lying outright - or feeding a fringe sub-culture con-artists are trying to cash in on minor inconsistencies in the incomplete record of this peripheral event.

Hate to say it, but only the most unaware and gullible, or desperate for some "secret knowledge" could look at any of the bizarre alternate theories without snickering.



[edit on 5-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Jezus
That is a nice logical explanation and story but there is a difference between being plausible and being provable in terms of concrete evidence.

No other possible explanation is considered proof. You don't like it, that's too bad.

An explanation is not proof, concrete evidence is proof.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Here we have something so obvious. A taxi moving on a highway one minute. It's windshield smashed the next. Light poles that were up a minute before lying on the ground. A low flying plane had just passed over.

Again, this is a nice story, but repeating a story as "obvious" is not the same thing as concrete evidence.

Originally posted by mmiichael
You can imagine secret agents planting a switcheroo all you like. Not a shred of supportable evidence, and doesn't make any sense. The sort of thing only highly out of touch with reality types would consider.

Either thousands of ordinary American people are withholding information, lying outright - or feeding a fringe sub-culture con-artists are trying to cash in on minor inconsistencies in the incomplete record of this peripheral event.

Hate to say it, but only the most unaware and gullible could look at any of the bizarre alternate theories without snickering.

That is a nice explanation of what you think the alternative to your beliefs are but it is nothing but a red herring.

"If my version is wrong...well you're stupid"

I have no explanation for your lack of evidence.

Saying any alternative is ridiculous may seem logical to you, but again, this is not evidence...

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Jezus]

Originally posted by pteridine
In the case of the irrelevant taxi-lamp post interaction, you have not expained your theory of why such trivia is important

I want to know. That's important to me.

You're losing your already slim grip on this thread with your nonsense though. Keep it up, pteridine!

It's the best hand-waving that you've tried to do for a long time. Everyone reading this thread can see that you've failed to prove your claim that the light pole hit the taxi.

You've also failed to prove that passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Lloyde England had just dropped off a customer and was driving on the highway at 9:36.

Prove it.

It's easy to state, mmiichael but as you have demonstrated through this whole thread, you fail when it comes to proving your claims.

Originally posted by Jezus
An explanation is not proof, concrete evidence is proof.

Again, this is a nice story, but repeating a story as "obvious" is not the same thing as concrete evidence.


That is a nice explanation of what you think the alternative to your beliefs are but it is nothing but a red herring.

"If my version is wrong...well you're stupid"

I have no explanation for your lack of evidence.

Saying any alternative is ridiculous may seem logical to you, but again, this is not evidence...

Bad news for you. What is evident and barring any plausible alternative explanation is considered established.


Car driving along a public highway one minute. Plane flies over at 50 feet. Next minute windshield smashed. Lamp poles on the ground nearby. Driver says one went into his windshield.

Yes, secret agents could have pulled some special operation. Yes some remote controlling device could have been installed. Yes the driver could have been involved in some complex switcheroo.

Do you really think any of these explanations are realistic in the case of Lloyde England? Would perpetrators of a complex mass murder involving multiple aircraft and the destruction of billions of dollars of property feel compelled to have an old taxi's windshield shattered? And plant a piece of wing in the car? And have a plane fly over for authenticity? Would the risk of discovery be worth it? Are these master planners imbeciles? Is there a shred of evidence of any of these concocted theories? Do they make any sense?

Are you brainwashed with Truther Serum?

Originally posted by mmiichael
Bad news for you. What is evident and barring any plausible alternative explanation is considered established.

I understand you consider the version you accept as established but I don't need a "plausible alternative" to recognize and point out your lack of evidence...

Originally posted by mmiichael
Car driving along a public highway one minute. Plane flies over at 50 feet. Next minute windshield smashed. Lamp poles on the ground nearby. Driver says one went into his windshield.

That is a nice story...

Originally posted by mmiichael
Do you really think any of these explanations are realistic in the case of Lloyde England? Would perpetrators of a complex mass murder involving multiple aircraft and the destruction of billions of dollars of property feel compelled to have an old taxi's windshield shattered? And plant a piece of wing in the car? And have a plane fly over for authenticity? Would the risk of discovery be worth it? Are these master planners imbeciles? Is there a shred of evidence of any of these concocted theories? Do they make any sense?

Are you brainwashed with Truther Serum?

Nice long red herring...

but I don't have any alternative explanation for your lack of evidence.

Originally posted by tezzajw
It's easy to state, mmiichael but as you have demonstrated through this whole thread, you fail when it comes to proving your claims.

Easy to tell people they've failed. I imagine only the most hopelessly insecure person would gauge discussion group information exchanges in terms of success of failure.

I don't own reality, I'm just an observer basing my conclusions on what I see and information provided.

I fail to see any explanation of how an unimportant person like Lloyde England had his windshield smashed by anything other than a lamp pole hitting it. All other suggestions beg outrageous scenarios that could only be considered if a shred of evidence emerged in 8 years.

So far zilch.

A group of secret agents knowing there would be an explosion at the Pentagon at precisely 9:37, timing an aircraft to fly by, waiting in the exact spot to fake the taxi's windshield breakage and having crews down lamp poles has never yielded an iota of proof. An explanation of the means is lacking. The rationale behind it is ludicrous.

So I've chosen to go with the physically verifiable story with tangible supporting evidence and first hand testimony rather than the absurd imaginary fairly tale.

Not a hard decision.



[edit on 5-11-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by tezzajw


I see you continue to avoid supporting your own statements while demanding evidence from others. You have not stated a reason for the importance of the lamp post striking the cab so I believe that you do not know, yourself. I think you have no imagination or original ideas and can only ask questions.
The lamp post incident is unimportant. Prove that it is important or go back to your video games.



[edit on 11/5/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by mmiichael
So I've chosen to go with the physically verifiable story with tangible supporting evidence and first hand testimony rather than the absurd imaginary fairly tale.

Yes, you've chosen to go with Lloyde's story.

For whatever reason, I don't know, as you've failed to prove Lloyde's story - consistently.

I guess it's easier for you to believe things based on faith, mmiichael than actual proof.

Originally posted by pteridine
You have not stated a reason for the importance of the lamp post striking the cab so I believe that you do no know, yourself.

I can't be held responsible for your failure to understand why the taxi striking the light pole presents a puzzle. If that's your belief, then more power to you for having it, as it appears to be hampering your ability to try and prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

Originally posted by pteridine
I think you have no imagination or original ideas and can only ask questions.

Yes, yes, yes, put your personal insults aside, as they're distracting you from trying to prove that the light pole hit the taxi - which you have failed to do.

After (or before) you've done that, you can supply all of us with your proof that passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats. It's another of your claims that you have failed to substantiate.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Jezus
O isn't that convenient, NOW he is senile...

From his conflicting often fantastic stories it's hard not to conclude Lloyde England, now in his 70s, is senile.

Aldo Marquis, co-owner of CIT Inc, said the same thing 3 years ago.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The one thing we couldn't get over is that this man is allowed to drive. He seemed to be too senile or old to be driving a cab.

M

Right.

Aldo said that 3 years ago well BEFORE we went back and interviewed Lloyde again in 2008 and even before we had the north side interviews from the citgo station.

Now that we have so much more evidence and have spent several hours with the man during a road trip to go see the cab it is quite clear that he turns his "senility" on and off when it benefits him.

A more up to date synopsis/discussion regarding our CURRENT stance on Lloyde based on an incredible amount of progress in our investigation since 2006 is available here.

Lloyde is not senile.

He is well aware of what he did on 9/11.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Yes, you've chosen to go with Lloyde's story.

For whatever reason, I don't know, as you've failed to prove Lloyde's story - consistently.

I guess it's easier for you to believe things based on faith, mmiichael than actual proof.

In this minor incident on 9/11 there are facts determined and there's some perpetuated BS floating around. Even if some sleazy video salesmen package the BS and call it research - it's still BS.

You have offered not one single word of an alternative version of events.

Lacking any other explanation of how a cab was driving along a highway one minute and ends up with a smashed windshield after a low flying plane passes over, you are admitting the lamp pole hit it.

There was a low flying lane, lamp poles were knocked over. Seen by many, confirmed by a ton of solid evidence.

There's solid proof it happened that way, nothing even remotely approaching evidence it didn't happen that way.

If you aren't supplying anything to the contrary then you have conceded.


[edit on 5-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Right. As soon as I see you support your statement. You have failed to do that while you demand it from others. You seem to only be able to make demands and ask others for proof of things you do not understand. I have continued to state that the taxi event was unimportant and you blather on about it without making a definitive statement. Why do you believe it is important?
Possibly, because you are so physically distant and unconcerned about the US in general, you consider the events nothing more than a child's video game.

Originally posted by mmiichael
You have offered not one single word of an alternative version of events.

I don't need to. I wasn't paid to investigate the incident. Perhaps you should view the work that CIT has done with Lloyde. You already made false claims about what McGraw said, demonstrating that you failed to view that interview.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Lacking any other explanation of how a cab was driving along a highway one minute and ends up with a smashed windshield after a low flying plane passes over, you are admitting the lamp pole hit it.

I'm not admitting that at all.

You haven't proven the taxi was driving along the highway. You haven't proven the plane hit the light pole. You haven't proven the light pole hit the taxi.

Originally posted by mmiichael
There's solid proof it happened that way, no proof it didn't happen as recorded.

There's no proof that it happened that way at all.

By the way, mmiichael, how was the event recorded? Please show me the government documents that recorded the event? Your failure to produce them probably means that you're citing the 'media' records, as if the media is a reliable investigative source!

Check out my thread that's currently on the front page of the forum and see how you just confirmed that the 'recorded' event was all driven by the media.

You play more into my hands with every ill-thought post that you type.

Originally posted by pteridine
I have continued to state that the taxi event was unimportant

You have also continued to state that the light pole hit the taxi - without proof.

For something so unimportant to you, you're taking a rather strong stance on the issue, by trying to deceive the casual readers that your claim is true - when you haven't proven it. Your poor research has already been exposed when you misquoted McGraw and got it horribly wrong about him.

Your failure to do this has been repetitively noted throughout the thread.

You also failed to prove that passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats.

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't need to. I wasn't paid to investigate the incident. Perhaps you should view the work that CIT has done with Lloyde. You already made false claims about what McGraw said, demonstrating that you failed to view that interview.

You haven't proven the taxi was driving along the highway. You haven't proven the plane hit the light pole. You haven't proven the light pole hit the taxi.

You play more into my hands with every ill-thought post that you type.

I don't need to. I wasn't paid to investigate the incident.

Tell us what happened in one succinct paragraph in your next post.

Failing to do that you concede you haven't a clue, and are unequipped to pass any judgements or even comment on what has been determined.

You must of course offer proof of your story.

Anything else will be immediately dismissed as an avoidance of your inability to account for how the taxi had it's windshield smashed in the middle of a busy thoroughfare.