Ingersoll Pentagon/Cab photos - please help?, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times

Topic started on 30-6-2011 @ 05:40 PM by tezzajw

In this post, GoodOlDave typed the following statement (bolding mine):

Quote GoodOlDave
Let's face it, you're not targetting him because of what he's saying, how he's saying it, or whether the guy has body odor. You're targetting him because of what happened to his cab, in that it was hit by a light pole that was knocked over by flight 77. I'm sure you've seen that famous photo of the light pole lying on top of the cab that corroborates his account. He isn't the one who took that photo- Jason Ingersoll did, and he's the same photographer who took the photos throughout the day including the very ones showing the damage to the Pentagon wall that the conspiracy mongers refer to, to claim an airplane couldn't create that kind of damage.

In this post, about 11 hours later, I asked GoodOlDave:

Quote tezzajw
GoodOlDave, please provide a link to the Ingersoll photo that shows the light pole lying on top of the cab.
I haven't seen it.
Thanks.

A few minutes later, in this post, CodexSinaiticus posted the following image:

Quote CodexSinaiticus

However, we can all clearly see that the lightpole in that photo is not lying on top of the cab, like GoodOlDave claimed.

Roughly 13 hours later, GoodOlDave replied in the same thread, with this comment:

Quote GoodOlDave
I have said many times that the conspiracy theorists are involved in this whole thing NOT to discover the facts behind 9/11, but becuase of the outlet for abject paranoia that it brings, and their emotional attachment to this ideology is so great that any attack on their ideas is perceived as a personal attack upon themselves and they respond in kind.

Note that GoodOlDave was not addressing either me or CodexSinaiticus, he was addressing another ATS member. Also note, that in his post, GoodOlDave did not make any comment on the Ingersoll photo.

It is clear that GoodOlDave values the facts behind 9/11, as he stated so himself, in the above quote.

To help GoodOlDave with his facts, can anyone please provide a link to an Ingersoll photo that shows the lightpole lying on top of the cab? Remember that GoodOlDave has claimed that this is a famous photo and also remember that GoodOlDave values facts above all else.

I am certainly interested to see this photo and without GoodOlDave suppplying the link, I hope that someone else can establish the facts on behalf of GoodOlDave.

reply posted on 30-6-2011 @ 06:07 PM by kwakakev

How could the pole smash the windscreen but the rest of the car is ok? A staged scene is the only answer and cast doubt with the story of the plane knocking down the light poles. Try not to get too caught up with GoodOlDave, it is a tough case with many different stories around. He does ask questions though and that is important to get to the bottom of it all.

reply posted on 30-6-2011 @ 06:15 PM by thedman

reply to post by kwakakev

I take it you have not seen a car impaled on a guard rail?

Seen all sort of freak accidets where you wonder "How the f**K did they do that?"

Guess such stuff does not happen in truther land.......

reply posted on 30-6-2011 @ 06:40 PM by kwakakev

reply to post by thedman

Might have seen it, not sure as have seen a lot of photos. Got a link?

reply posted on 30-6-2011 @ 07:09 PM by ANOK

reply to post by tezzajw

There is no such picture. According to Lloyd England someone helped him remove the light pole.

The only damage was the windshield, but Lloyd was given a brand new cab for his 'help'.

His whole account is in question.

Interview with Lloyd England...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 30-6-2011 @ 07:22 PM by Hijaqd

reply to post by ANOK

The only damage was the windshield, but Lloyd was given a brand new cab for his 'help'.

Yeah that sounds completely reasonable, broken windshield and no other damage equals (in the voice of Bob Barker) A Brand New Car.

Here's a direct link to the important video on the subject of Lloyde England.

YouTube Link

reply posted on 30-6-2011 @ 08:21 PM by DIDtm

Originally posted by Hijaqd
reply to post by ANOK

The only damage was the windshield, but Lloyd was given a brand new cab for his 'help'.

Yeah that sounds completely reasonable, broken windshield and no other damage equals (in the voice of Bob Barker) A Brand New Car.

Here's a direct link to the important video on the subject of Lloyde England.

YouTube Link

Careful. The resident believers of the OS dont want to admit they have seen this video.
After all Lloyds original statements are taken as gospel to the local residents.

This video will completely destroy his cred.

reply posted on 1-7-2011 @ 03:14 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by ANOK
There is no such picture. According to Lloyd England someone helped him remove the light pole.

Then why would GoodOlDave claim that there is a famous Ingersoll photo of the light pole lying on top of the cab?

Afterall, GoodOlDave almost exclusively posts in the 9/11 forum and he takes pride in knowing the facts of 9/11.

GoodOlDave - where is your proof that the famous Ingersoll photo exists? Your presence in this thread would be most welcome. I'm waiting for you to supply me with the facts about that Ingersoll photo.

reply posted on 1-7-2011 @ 04:15 AM by ANOK

reply to post by tezzajw

Well not sure if you remember but the OSers also used to claim there were pics of passengers still in seats at the pentagon, until I showed them in a thread that the so called photos of passengers were unidentified bodies, and they were not in aircraft seats.

They make lots of claims that turn out to be untrue.

www.thepentacon.com...

Where Lloyd's cab was located was one of the only places you could see the impact point at the pentagon. There were dirt mounds erected just before 911 and removed right after. That whole scene had to be a set up, the light poles, Lloyd's cab etc.

Lots of pics here...

stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

Maybe Dave is confused and thinking of this lol...

Drawn by Lloyd himself.

reply posted on 8-7-2011 @ 11:51 AM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by tezzajw
It is clear that GoodOlDave values the facts behind 9/11, as he stated so himself, in the above quote.

To help GoodOlDave with his facts, can anyone please provide a link to an Ingersoll photo that shows the lightpole lying on top of the cab? Remember that GoodOlDave has claimed that this is a famous photo and also remember that GoodOlDave values facts above all else.

I am certainly interested to see this photo and without GoodOlDave suppplying the link, I hope that someone else can establish the facts on behalf of GoodOlDave.

All right, I stand corrected. Unlike the conspiracy mongors I have no ulterior agenda other than the facts, so I have no qualms about retracting my errors. Instead of "lightpole lying on top of the cab" I should have said "lightpole lying next the cab it just hit". I'm not certain why I thought it was lying on top of the cab.

Not that it matters, as the photo was still most certainly taken by Jason Ingersoll, who most certainly was the same one who took the photo of the Pentagon damage the conspiracy mongors use to point out imaginary discrepencies. This most certainly means the conspiracy mongors are using double standards to "prove" their conspiracy claims as they artfully pick and choose what is credible evidence and what isn't, even when it's all coming from the same person. That was the point I was making when I first mentioned this and you're not doing anything to show it's wrong.

Thank you for reminding me of this thread, by the way. I've been busy lately...

reply posted on 8-7-2011 @ 12:07 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kwakakev
How could the pole smash the windscreen but the rest of the car is ok? A staged scene is the only answer and cast doubt with the story of the plane knocking down the light poles. Try not to get too caught up with GoodOlDave, it is a tough case with many different stories around. He does ask questions though and that is important to get to the bottom of it all.

Ummm, maybe because we drive on the right side of the road here in the US and the damage would on the other side of the vehicle? We see right away the Jersey barrier is behind the cab, meaning that the camera is facing in the direction of oncoming traffic. The pole would have fallen from the side of the road, behind the camera, and hit the passenger side of the cab. The photo is looking at the driver side of the cab.

So that's the entire reason for why you think there's a coverup- that Lloyd England didn't have the courtesy to drive on the highway against the flow of traffic for the benefit of you conspiracy theorists. Sometimes, the phrase "grasping at straws" doesn't even remotely describe what you people are doing.

reply posted on 8-7-2011 @ 12:15 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by tezzajw

There is no such picture. According to Lloyd England someone helped him remove the light pole.

The only damage was the windshield, but Lloyd was given a brand new cab for his 'help'.

His whole account is in question.

So what should they have done, require him to continue driving a cab with a smashed windshield? And it wasn't *his* cab. It still belonged to the cab company. If he quit his job he'd have to give it back.

Do I really need to point this out to you? I mean, really?

reply posted on 8-7-2011 @ 01:22 PM by kwakakev

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Sometimes, the phrase "grasping at straws" doesn't even remotely describe what you people are doing.

Lol, you said it mate.

So a light pole gets knocked over by an aeroplane and falls on a car. The windscreen gets smashed, yet the metal frame around the window is untouched.

This area of the car is clear in the photo. I ain't looking for straws, just answers.

reply posted on 8-7-2011 @ 01:49 PM by roboe

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by GoodOlDave

Sometimes, the phrase "grasping at straws" doesn't even remotely describe what you people are doing.

Lol, you said it mate.

So a light pole gets knocked over by an aeroplane and falls on a car. The windscreen gets smashed, yet the metal frame around the window is untouched. This area of the car is clear in the photo. I ain't looking for straws, just answers.

Out of curiousity, what should have happened to the metal frame?

As for how the lightpole fit it, it got stuck in part of the backseat (I believe some of photos CIT took show a significant tear) and rested on the dashboard, which is why the hood didn't get damaged.

Which reminds me, did CIT ever bother telling Lloyd that they believe he's part of a coverup conspiracy?

reply posted on 8-7-2011 @ 01:57 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by GoodOlDave

Sometimes, the phrase "grasping at straws" doesn't even remotely describe what you people are doing.

Lol, you said it mate.

So a light pole gets knocked over by an aeroplane and falls on a car. The windscreen gets smashed, yet the metal frame around the window is untouched. This area of the car is clear in the photo. I ain't looking for straws, just answers.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The only metal frame we can see in these photos is on the driver site, the opposite side of the car that the lightpole hit. Please show me a photo of the opposite side of the car that clearly shows the metal was untouched, as you claim it was.

Seriously, dude are you really suggesting that Lloyd England pulled a thirty foot long 250 pount lightpole out of his pocket and threw it out onto the highway? Or are you saying a bunch of secret agents ran out into a busy highway carrying a thirty foot lightpole, dumped it on the pavement, and then ran away? You're looking for answers, so how about looking for an answer for that?

reply posted on 8-7-2011 @ 02:08 PM by Alfie1

According to CIT Lloyd England made a "virtual confession" of being a small cog in a conspiracy of which he was aware.

But despite the fact that he supposedly represents a time-bomb who could spill more at any moment he continues to live the life of an elderly retired cab-driver in humble circumstances. CIT managed to knock on his door and talk directly to him.

So why haven't the alleged "men in black" attended to this grave danger ?

reply posted on 8-7-2011 @ 02:28 PM by kwakakev

reply to post by roboe

Out of curiousity, what should have happened to the metal frame?

The way I picture a large light pole that gets knocked over by a plane and hits a car is that it lands with a lot of force on it. With all that weight and momentum it is not going to come to a rest still sticking up in the air, but will not stop until it is at rest on the ground or firmly embedded on the car. I do not understand how the window could be smashed, yet the rest of the car around the window is fine and without the forceful impact that would naturally occur.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Please show me a photo of the opposite side of the car that clearly shows the metal was untouched, as you claim it was.

My claim is around the window or more generally, the top of the car as that is where falling objects come in contact with objects beneath them.

I am implying that this is just one of many staged events that day. All the light poles that fell look like they where unbolted. This region of the the poles is very strong, but without independent analysis absolute proof still remains elusive.

reply posted on 8-7-2011 @ 02:39 PM by Alfie1

reply to post by kwakakev

The lightpoles were actually designed to break away easily if struck by a car ( to minimise injuries ).

How could any conspirators plan to take down lightpoles, smash them about and twist them, skewer a cab with one and, on a bright sunny morning in front of an office building employing thousands, expect not to be seen ?

reply posted on 8-7-2011 @ 02:47 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kwakakev

My claim is around the window or more generally, the top of the car as that is where falling objects come in contact with objects beneath them.

I am implying that this is just one of many staged events that day. All the light poles that fell look like they where unbolted. This region of the the poles is very strong, but without independent analysis absolute proof still remains elusive.

a) There's a flipping gigantic hole in the middle of the windshield. You don't think that counts as damage to the car when a falling object came into contact with it?

b) Whatever damned fool conspiracy website it was that told you that "this region of the poles is very strong" is lying to you. All light poles are set up with frangible transformer bases so when some drunk driver hits it, the light pole will break away at the base and the car won't wrap itself around the pole and kill the driver. They've been making light poles this way for a long, long time before 9/11.

If a car can break a light pole, then an airplane certainly can break a lightpole.

reply posted on 8-7-2011 @ 03:05 PM by kwakakev

reply to post by Alfie1

How could any conspirators plan to take down lightpoles, smash them about and twist them, skewer a cab with one and, on a bright sunny morning in front of an office building employing thousands, expect not to be seen ?

The same way that they could run around a drop a few pieces of plane wreckage around the lawn and set up a couple of bins on fire to act as a smoke screen. People have seen and photographed this. Some are still too scared to release all the evidence they have and understandably so, but enough have talked about it. Some have even tried to take it to court.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^