Ingersoll Pentagon/Cab photos - please help?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Have the perps made more than it cost to finance do you think? Given that your inside job now includes FDR experts, military missile launchers, a missile, planes, numerous evidence planters, explosive experts, explosives, FBI insiders, CIA insiders and Pentagon employees it sounds like it might have cost a lot.

Had a look at the national debt lately? All this corruption is looking like it might cost a lot more still to come.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

Unlike you, I don't give a debunker's rear end where the truth movement or anyone else resides. However, considering your lack of knowledge about vehicle laws and road safety, I think YOU should stay safely in your residence and avoid getting behind the wheel of an automobile.

Do we know for sure he drove it home? As opposed to calling AAA.

Perhaps you are not aware of how the real world works. While it is technically illegal to drive with a broken or even cracked windshield it does happen all the time. I myself did just same thing a year and a half ago. My son tried to climb a tree with his car. A quick tow to the frame shop got the car in movable condition. I drove it home missing the front bumper, hood, shattered windshield and two duck taped airbags. A police officer pulled along side at a light, looked things over and smiled. Since I was in the right lane, driving well below the speed limit, and had a trailing safety car with flashers on he knew it was not a joy ride.

Also the police had better things to worry about on 911 than a car with a busted windshield. Especially if he informed them that it was directly a result of the attack.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
The theory of some guy running around with a sledgehammer is not something which I brought up, nor one which I support. What I stated was this theory is a lot more believable than the moronic shill garbage you and your gullible buddies are pushing. You're excused though, since your lack of reading comprehension is no doubt directly proportional to your mental capacity.

This drivel serves no purpose other than to bolster your ever shrinking faith in your conspiracy propaganda and it is easily dismissed as such. We've already seen numerous videos showing the passenger jet striking the south tower and quite a number of eyewitnesses in Manhattan saw the first plane strike, proving that the hijackers, whoever you happen to believe them to be, did in fact have disposable passenger jets under their control and were using them as anti-building weapons. Therefore it's almost pre-ordained that regardless of what happened at the Pentagon, be it a genuine terrorist attack or an orchestrated conspiracy, it still involved the established model of involving an actual passenger jet. Even if you claimed it was a remote controlled passenger jet that was steered into the Pentagon by expert CIA/Mossad/whatever black ops controllers, that would even make more sense AND still fit all the established facts better than the outright idiotic claims you conspiracy people are making up off the tops of your heads.

Why do you collectively sneer at the "no planers" who insist the planes hitting the towers never existed and yet you turn around and become "no planers" insisting the plane hitting the Pentagon never existed? There's literally no difference whatsoever.

Big chunk of glass missing from front passenger side door? Hardy, har, har! Where is the glass on the passenger side seat from the shattered window on the passenger side door? Oh yeah, I have the answer for you, someone vacuumed it up prior to the photo.

OR, more likely, the window is completely missing and that white thing on the window in the background is a tarp of some kind to cover up the missing window. Glass doesn't break in straight lines like, and the background behind the white cover is vegetation which means this was almost certainly taken after it was removed from the scene.

Go ahead, accuse the secret agents of purposely breaking a perfectly good passenger side door window to make the smashed windshield look more tragic for this photo. I double dog dare you. You know you want to.

A picture of what? Damage to the Passenger side of the vehicle? Nooo! Damage to the hood or roof of the vehicle. Nooo! So what exactly does this picture prove? Isn't this picture consistent with the other pictures of the exterior of the vehicle?

I can tell right away that you're starting to get desperate. It's already been stated how safety glass in windshields are designed so I won't waste my time or yours repeating it. The fact is that it isn't for debate that windshields are made of safety glass, and are designed to withstand heavy duty impact damage. Whatever hit this windshield was extremely big and extremely heavy for it to not only punch through, but take much of the windshield with it. If you are attempting to claim anything else, you will be lying.

One question. If I trade in my abject paranoia does that mean I become a full fledged delusional gullible shill with the reading comprehension and investigative skills of a garden slug? If so, I am game, but I will require some sort of compensation for this downgrade. Deal?

I can promise you anything you'd like, but at this point it's outside of my power to give you even a shred of credibility. You conspiracy theorists insist on demanding all kinds of proof, and when we give it to you, all you do is make up excuses for why you shouldn't have to believe it. If you have an agenda to dismiss every piece of proof under the sun as being "secret gov't disinformation" before you ever even see it, then why do you demand that we present it to you in the first place?

Originally posted by kwakakev
I could see this coming from a mile off and these techniques are getting old. Don't like the message so shot the messenger. It is not rocket science to tell the difference between cut and ripped metal.

I'm not trying to shoot the messenger, so if I'm presenting myself to appear as if I am, that's my own human failings. I know full well this drivel isn't coming from you, but from one of those conspiracy websites you go to. You yourself are the victim in their con.

Let me ask you something- how long would it even take for an oxy torch to cut these? Practically ten seconds after the attack every reporter with a police scanner within ten miles was going to make a bee line there to cover every inch of the scene so it's a given they'd have to clear out before then.

Well this one may surprise you then, I am qualified in information technology and multimedia. This means I can stand up in court and talk about video, pixels and other media analysis, so according to your logic you must believe me now with these surveillance tapes. I did check out the video you had in the last link and its claim of how a 757 plane was in the pentagon surveillance video was surprising to say the least so I double checked it with the video from Judicial Watch because I have seen a lot of fake videos in relation to the 9/11 events.

Actually I was more concerned with your claim that you can spot signs of sabotage on a component that you know nothing about, particularly when those who do have expertise in such things aren't seeing this anything even when it's lying on the workbench in front of them...but this will do as well.

Since you're qualified in media analysis, you can give me a qualified explanation. If you examine the location of the guard house and if you examine the location of the impact area, you can get a good estimate at how far away the object in the video was. From that particular model of fish eye lens and the fact this was obviously originally recorded to tape (making digital pixel examination pointless), how large would this object need to be for it to be seen on this video at that distance?

If there was anyway that a 757 was captured with these videos it would have stopped all debate about this in its tracks and we would not be here. There is no nose of the plane visible in the surveillance tape as your video claims, so what was flying is smaller than a 757.

The nose would have been shown against the dark background of, well, blur, so it wouldn't be discernable either way, so your argument is spurious. What you can NOT debate, however, is the large tail rudder of the craft showing distinctively against the sky background. It wasn't present in the video frame before the attack, it was conspircuously there in the frame showing the sillouette of flight 77 in that frame just before the impact, and then absent from the next the frame containing the initial explosion. You already know the significant distance from the security gate and the area of impact, so that tail rudder would necessarily have to be pretty large to be discernable at a distance like this.

So what other craft other than a large passenger jet would have such a huge tail rudder like this? Certainly not any small aircraft I'm aware of and definitely no cruise missile in use.

Do we know for sure he drove it home? As opposed to calling AAA.

Since you do not know, I guess this makes your previous commentary/analogy about driving the car home irrelevant speculation. You should do yourself a favor and save your unsubstantiated beliefs and tall tales for the gullible moronic suckers who are stupid enough to believe them.

Also the police had better things to worry about on 911 than a car with a busted windshield. Especially if he informed them that it was directly a result of the attack.

Since the damage to the vehicle was directly a result of the attack, did the authorities follow proper investiagative procedure and impound the vehicle to closely examine the evidence? Or did they just tell Mr. England to drive it home with a blasted front windshield and contaminate the evidence? Since you obviously like to speculate, I am sure you have a doozy for this one.

This drivel serves no purpose other than to bolster your ever shrinking faith in your conspiracy propaganda and it is easily dismissed as such. We've already seen numerous videos showing the passenger jet striking the south tower and quite a number of eyewitnesses in Manhattan saw the first plane strike, proving that the hijackers, whoever you happen to believe them to be, did in fact have disposable passenger jets under their control and were using them as anti-building weapons.

How does your "drivel" about the WTC directly relate to the topic of this thread? For obvious reasons which you obviously are not aware of, competent criminal investigators would investigate each occurrence on 911 independently instead of lumping all the incidents together, which you are so anxious to do.

How does a number of eyewitnesses seeing the WTC strike prove that those planes were hijacked? How does this prove that an airplane was involved in the Pentagon attack? I have to hear this one. Oh I get it - you're from the school of let's jump to conclusions and spread unsubstantiated rumors as fact prior to conducting a thorough investigation of what actually transpired on that date. I'm surprised the mainstream media hasn't discovered your special talent and hired you.

I can tell right away that you're starting to get desperate.

Desperate? Was this thread created because of my ignorant and false statement about non-existent photographic evidence about a light pole being on top of a vehicle? Am I the one backtracking, eating crow and doing unsuccessful damage control due to making an uninformed and blatantly false statement which a school kid wouldn't even make? And by the way, keep the personal attacks coming, since this is an obvious sign of my desperation.

I can promise you anything you'd like, but at this point it's outside of my power to give you even a shred of credibility.

I am genuinely ecstatic and extremely grateful that it is outside of your power to give me any shred of credibility. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in continuing to refrain from giving me any credibility whatsoever. No doubt, this is the best thing that you can do for me.

If you have an agenda to dismiss every piece of proof under the sun as being "secret gov't disinformation" before you ever even see it, then why do you demand that we present it to you in the first place?

As the reason for this thread clearly shows, you should be a little more concerned about your agenda than my agenda. I am telling you this for your own good so you do not make the same embarrassing and ridiculous mistake again. It is kind of difficult for anyone to take you seriously when you cannot get your facts straight about something as simple as existing photographic evidence.

But then again, it has been a decade since the attacks and you, of all people, are not expected to keep straight all the propaganda and lies which are being shoveled. So, in that case, your screw up is very understandable, although inexcusable from a serious investigative standpoint.

Looks like a beginner's brush up course on 911 may be in order for some people.

just another quick question.... i was looking at all the surrounding lightpoles in the photographs and it seems that the lightpole in question is a whole different lightpole......? all the ones in the background are straight up and down with the two arms holding the actual lamp..... this one is curved at the top..... one piece...

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
How does your "drivel" about the WTC directly relate to the topic of this thread? For obvious reasons which you obviously are not aware of, competent criminal investigators would investigate each occurrence on 911 independently instead of lumping all the incidents together, which you are so anxious to do.

I have already made myself clear- It has been shown from the attack on the WTC that the conspirators did in fact have passenger jets under their control that they were using as anti-building weapons, so the attack on the Pentagon almost certainly used the exact same plan of attack. Therefore, if it can be shown that the plane that hit the Pentagon genuinely was flight 77 then all this inane bickering over the cab photos, whether or not James Ingersoll was a secret agents, whether the wreckage recovered from the Pentagon was genuine, all of that, is pointless and a complete waste of your time. Or, are you saying that Lloyd England secretly damaged his own cab AND flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon?

How does a number of eyewitnesses seeing the WTC strike prove that those planes were hijacked? How does this prove that an airplane was involved in the Pentagon attack?

I never said the eyewitnesses seeing the WTC strike prove the planes were hijacked. I said the WTC eyewitnesses prove that hijacked planes were being used as weapons against buildings. It was the eyewitnesses in the vicinity of the Pentagon stating it was a passenger jet they saw hit the Pentagon who are proving it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon. If you're going to wallow in these ridiculous conspiracy stories then at least quote me correctly.

If you're attempting to claim the passenger jets really weren't hijacked and were under remote control (or some other subterfuge was used to make it appear that a passenger jet hit the WTC) then these conspirators would have necessarily used the exact same subterfuge at the Pentagon...so you're STILL wrong. Do you ever even think your own conspiracy stories all the way through or are you just making stuff up as you go along?

Desperate? Was this thread created because of my ignorant and false statement about non-existent photographic evidence about a light pole being on top of a vehicle? Am I the one backtracking, eating crow and doing unsuccessful damage control due to making an uninformed and blatantly false statement which a school kid wouldn't even make? And by the way, keep the personal attacks coming, since this is an obvious sign of my desperation.

Yes, this is a mark of desperation on your part. My only error was thinking the lightpole was lying on top of the cab when it was in fact lying next to the cab. Your objections are idiotic for two reasons-

A) You people are refuting that the light pole is what caused the damage, not where the lightpole ended up after the cab was damaged. Thus, you people would necessarily insist that any photo of a lightpole lying on top of the cab would have been staged exactly as you people are insisting now that the photo of a lightpole lying next to a cab was staged. If you're attempting to claim otherwise, then you will be lying.

B) As there is still a gigantic amount of evidence from eyewitness accounts to airplane wreckage to passenger effects recovered to the black box being recovered that it was not only a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, it was flight 77, and the light pole was only one of a thousand interconnected details of the day. Your gleefully jumping up and down thinking you "got me" by pointing out an honest mistake is grasping at straws on your part becuase in the end, flight 77 really did knock over the lightpole and the lightpole really did damage the cab, regardless of where the lightpole wound up.

So, if you want to continue bickering over my error, be my guest, as I really don't care. I will whole heartedly accept the fact that I was incorrect AS WELL AS that it really was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, so if it soothes your ego somehow to lambaste me after you've been proven horribly wrong on everything else. have at it.

As the reason for this thread clearly shows, you should be a little more concerned about your agenda than my agenda. I am telling you this for your own good so you do not make the same embarrassing and ridiculous mistake again. It is kind of difficult for anyone to take you seriously when you cannot get your facts straight about something as simple as existing photographic evidence.

So in other words, since the conspiracy claims your side is putting out is exponentionally more laughable than any error I made, it only means neither of us have any credibility. I have no agenda so I can live with that. Can you?

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

Since you do not know, I guess this makes your previous commentary/analogy about driving the car home irrelevant speculation. You should do yourself a favor and save your unsubstantiated beliefs and tall tales for the gullible moronic suckers who are stupid enough to believe them.

My unsubstantiated beliefs??? Well excuse me! Since when were missiles, hammers and oxy torches substantiated?

AS to holding the car for investigating. Just what would they find? Airplane finger prints I suspose? WHen one car crashes head long into another you don't have to match paint marks to prove they hit each other. You are beginning to be just plain silly about this. There are just too many witnesses to this event for you to contest this evidence based on your non experienced photo analysis.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Since you do not know, I guess this makes your previous commentary/analogy about driving the car home irrelevant speculation. You should do yourself a favor and save your unsubstantiated beliefs and tall tales for the gullible moronic suckers who are stupid enough to believe them.

Your quote from a related thread:

Instead, the Government provides the malleable unwashed masses with a nice little photo of an engine part propped up neatly against some unrecognizable debris. Why is that engine part on display after such a devastating explosion?

It seems you're too thick to take your own advice before it bites you in the behind. What a surprise...
Do you even understand the definition of the word "hypocrite"?

Are you saying there ys no photo of a pole on the car?
I have seen it in a Utube video.
it must be easy to find.
oh! Utube deletes evidences.

Originally posted by Properganda
just another quick question.... i was looking at all the surrounding lightpoles in the photographs and it seems that the lightpole in question is a whole different lightpole......? all the ones in the background are straight up and down with the two arms holding the actual lamp..... this one is curved at the top..... one piece...

I think you will find that all the lightpoles involved were identical but they suffered different degrees of damage. You might be interested in this simulation :-

www.youtube.com...

As you would expect, the lightpoles were hit lower as the aircraft approached the Pentagon as it was still losing a bit of height.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Have the perps made more than it cost to finance do you think? Given that your inside job now includes FDR experts, military missile launchers, a missile, planes, numerous evidence planters, explosive experts, explosives, FBI insiders, CIA insiders and Pentagon employees it sounds like it might have cost a lot.

Had a look at the national debt lately? All this corruption is looking like it might cost a lot more still to come.

It was a serious question. Do you think they've made more than it cost?

And do you thnk they took the 2.3 trillion from the Pentagon to fund it? Because if so, and it was a money making enterprise, why bother spending any at all?

I'm interested also in your notion of a high national debt being good for whoever planned this, which you seem to think involved arms manufacturers. Why would a high national debt be good for them? Military funding relies on a solvent USA.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Let me ask you something- how long would it even take for an oxy torch to cut these? Practically ten seconds after the attack every reporter with a police scanner within ten miles was going to make a bee line there to cover every inch of the scene so it's a given they'd have to clear out before then.

At an estimate, about 10 seconds to 2 minutes depending on the specific tool used how much power it has. Apart from the pole on the road, the other poles could have been down for hours before the event and would have gone unnoticed by drivers. I expect all the poles would have been down and Lloyd's cab set up before the explosion took place and attention was placed upon the Pentagon. As long as a roadworks sign was up, any work that was taking place would not have appeared suspicious to most drivers.

Actually I was more concerned with your claim that you can spot signs of sabotage on a component that you know nothing about

I do have experience with metal and the different ways it can be cut, poles are made of metal so your presumption of my ignorance is unjustified. Disregarding these observations that many people have made and supported because you have not found a certified pole examiner to review the evidence is premature on your part. I do commend your seeking of professional advice with matters you are inexperienced in, but it is better form to wait until you are informed to cast judgement.

Since you're qualified in media analysis, you can give me a qualified explanation. If you examine the location of the guard house and if you examine the location of the impact area, you can get a good estimate at how far away the object in the video was.

No, the depth perception of still images is very poor. Stereoscopic images do have a capability at depth perception, but with the frames from both of the guard stations out of sync and partly obscured any calculations would be very difficult and involve some guess work.

To make an estimate of how far away the image is you need other information like the point of impact and angle of approach. With significant evidence that the poles are a staged event I am leaning towards the North approach as the actual angle of approach. This means that the object came in perpendicular to the point of impact and shares the same depth of field with this impact site.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6eaeda9d1f8f.jpg[/atsimg]

With various flight paths witnessed and to be complete in the search of truth all of these possibilities do need to be explored. So a more accurate calculation needs to be performed. In the next image, the pixel length of 3 reference points along the height of the pentagon (71 feet) has been made to represent the upper northern, lower northern and southern approaches. The reference points selected are perpendicular to the different approachs of the aircraft and so share a similar depth of field that can be used to calculate the size of the object.



Upper Northern Approach = 71 / 60 * 41 = 48 feet
Lower Northern Approach = 71 / 38 * 41 = 76 feet
Southern Approach = 71 / 19 * 41 = 153 feet

This method of calculation is dependant on the approach of the aircraft that was taken as it is one of the factors used. If the aircraft took the Northern approach then the size is around 50 - 80 feet long. If the Southern approach was taken then the size is about 150 feet. Being on a 45 degree angle with the building reduces the side profile of the plane as well so it is possible that this is a Boeing 757, as long as the Southern flight path is accurate.

Another factor than can affect the calculation is the distortion due to being a fisheye lens as this has not been taken into consideration. A fisheye lens is a very generic term that basically means it has a wide field of view which can vary greatly in specifications. To accommodate the extra viewing region there is some level of distortion that can range from minor to major levels depending on its field of view. The Pentagon cameras do have a minor level of distortion which can bee seen with a slight curve to the perspective lines of the pentagon building and foot path. At a rough estimate it is not unreasonable to expect an error rate of +/- 5% due to this distortion as the image in the centre of the frame appears larger than images near the edge of the frame.

In conclusion this calculation is not definitive but supports two competing theories, it was a Boeing 757 on the Southern path or a smaller plane on the Northern path.

From that particular model of fish eye lens and the fact this was obviously originally recorded to tape (making digital pixel examination pointless), how large would this object need to be for it to be seen on this video at that distance?

It depends on the approach angle of the aircraft. I find your words "obviously originally recorded to tape" a little exposing as only those very familiar with Pentagon security would know what was obvious about their systems. I do not find digital pixel examination pointless and would be surprised if they where still using analogue video systems, Digital Video Tapes are a common standard. By Master tapes I mean an original copy of the captured video with its video codec. Every time a video is recompiled to a different video standard, as with Google video there is a loss in quality. With so few pixels to work with, the original source and format is the best and most accurate.

The nose would have been shown against the dark background of, well, blur, so it wouldn't be discernable either way, so your argument is spurious. What you can NOT debate, however, is the large tail rudder of the craft showing distinctively against the sky background.

The large tail rudder is visible in both tapes and I have no problem with it. I still do have serious problems in the representation of the nose and question the integrity of the video.

So what other craft other than a large passenger jet would have such a huge tail rudder like this? Certainly not any small aircraft I'm aware of and definitely no cruise missile in use.

I am not aware of any witness statements that saw a missile, but there have been some witness statements that say it was a small plane. One theory is that it was a missile dressed up as a plane with wings, tail fins and paint job.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

It was a serious question. Do you think they've made more than it cost?

I was serious as well. We are dealing with people who kill, maim and torture for a living, not all in the force are like this but the higher up the chain the darker it gets and they have made bucket loads. Their primary concern is themselves and it becoming the 'tragedy of the commons' as more and more partake in this attitude while neglecting the greater responsibility. The war budget doubled overnight with 9/11 and now America spends more on war than most other nations combined. The return on investment was very profitable for some, but now the nation is struggling because of it.

And do you thnk they took the 2.3 trillion from the Pentagon to fund it? Because if so, and it was a money making enterprise, why bother spending any at all?

I don't know how much it has cost, getting to the bottom of budgets is a challenge in the best of situations and with all these secrets and black budgets is is near impossible unless you are on the inside. It is very likely that some of the missing money went on parts of it, other parts could have come from other government funding sources and just hidden or misrepresented through the compartmentalisation system. While money does not make the world turn around it does make people move and an important part of every business plan.

I'm interested also in your notion of a high national debt being good for whoever planned this, which you seem to think involved arms manufacturers. Why would a high national debt be good for them? Military funding relies on a solvent USA.

It is one of those lose ends as they fail to comprehend the bigger picture and relinquish their responsibility. But worst case scenario, they have the guns, tanks and planes and so will continue to get what they want, unless the rest of the world puts them back in line. If the rest of the nations starves to death it is not their problem, just make some more money with the FEMA camps.

Originally posted by kwakakev

I was serious as well. We are dealing with people who kill, maim and torture for a living, not all in the force are like this but the higher up the chain the darker it gets and they have made bucket loads. Their primary concern is themselves and it becoming the 'tragedy of the commons' as more and more partake in this attitude while neglecting the greater responsibility. The war budget doubled overnight with 9/11 and now America spends more on war than most other nations combined. The return on investment was very profitable for some, but now the nation is struggling because of it.

So your answer is yes? I must say you don't seem to have very accurate figures. The "war budget" doubled? Are you sure? America spends more on war than "most" nations combined? I'd agree with the latter, but it's not a very precise statement.

The fact is that military budgets have gone up, but most of the money isn't spent on consumables. At most these profiteers you're talking about must be making a few billion a year spolit a lot of ways. Given that the attacks must have cost billions this doesn't seem a particularly good investment.

I don't know how much it has cost, getting to the bottom of budgets is a challenge in the best of situations and with all these secrets and black budgets is is near impossible unless you are on the inside. It is very likely that some of the missing money went on parts of it, other parts could have come from other government funding sources and just hidden or misrepresented through the compartmentalisation system. While money does not make the world turn around it does make people move and an important part of every business plan.

You don't answer my question. If this is a money making enterprise why not just not spend the money? Keep it. If you've got 2.3 trillion it makes sense just to, you know, hang on to it.

It is one of those lose ends as they fail to comprehend the bigger picture and relinquish their responsibility. But worst case scenario, they have the guns, tanks and planes and so will continue to get what they want, unless the rest of the world puts them back in line. If the rest of the nations starves to death it is not their problem, just make some more money with the FEMA camps.

So they accidentally ruined the economy?

Do you think they've made more than it cost?

Yes, they have made more than they spent setting it up. Overall though with the cost of war to lives, infrastructure and standard of living there has been an overall loss. It is about distribution of resources, some win some lose. While these criminals get away with it, crime does pay.

Given that the attacks must have cost billions this doesn't seem a particularly good investment.

It was not a good investment if their prime objective was national security as now the nation is less secure. With increased privatisation of war with companies like Halliburton and many other involved in contracts, the cash flow is in the Trillions.

If this is a money making enterprise why not just not spend the money?

You really do need to ask the people involved for there reason why they done it. Racism, culture, oil, drugs, war, money are all common justifications in trying to explain it. In trying to understand the black budgets is not an easy process, here is one paper that tries to shine some light on it www.exopolitics.org... , if you find any others I would like to know.

So they accidentally ruined the economy?

With the power of the corruption in the system I am not surprised the GFC happened. A lot of these issues are still unresolved and have just been delayed. If there was more responsibility in the system then there would have been a better chance to limit the problems before they got out of hand. I cannot say for certain if the damage to the economy was intentional or unintentional, but it is a very real consequence causing a lot of concern. There are lots of things affecting an economy and there are many reasons when they do fail, mismanagement and corruption are the main two.

Originally posted by kwakakev

Yes, they have made more than they spent setting it up. Overall though with the cost of war to lives, infrastructure and standard of living there has been an overall loss. It is about distribution of resources, some win some lose. While these criminals get away with it, crime does pay.

What does that mean? I'm asking if they made money. You seem to think so, although you don't seem to have any evidence of this.

It was not a good investment if their prime objective was national security as now the nation is less secure.

That's not what I mean. I meant it doesn't seem like agood way of making money.

With increased privatisation of war with companies like Halliburton and many other involved in contracts, the cash flow is in the Trillions.

You literally just make this up as you go along, don't you? The entire military busget of the US is not in the trillions.

You really do need to ask the people involved for there reason why they done it. Racism, culture, oil, drugs, war, money are all common justifications in trying to explain it. In trying to understand the black budgets is not an easy process, here is one paper that tries to shine some light on it www.exopolitics.org... , if you find any others I would like to know.

Hang on. A minute ago you seemed to think it was purely a money-making venture. Now it could be almost anything. And in fact "oil drugs war and money" are really just the same thing - cash generators.

Crime requires a motive, usually. If you can't think of one then chances are the crime didn't happen the way you think it did.

With the power of the corruption in the system I am not surprised the GFC happened. A lot of these issues are still unresolved and have just been delayed. If there was more responsibility in the system then there would have been a better chance to limit the problems before they got out of hand. I cannot say for certain if the damage to the economy was intentional or unintentional, but it is a very real consequence causing a lot of concern. There are lots of things affecting an economy and there are many reasons when they do fail, mismanagement and corruption are the main two.

I thought it was military spending that ruined the economy. that's what you said before, anyway.

Never mind. You don't seem to have any idea of why this might have happened, of how it went down or of the motives of the perpetrators. You don't even have any idea of who they were, how they financed it or what's in it for them. It looks more and more like it's all just a figment of your imagination.

Your gleefully jumping up and down thinking you "got me" by pointing out an honest mistake is grasping at straws on your part

I'd call it a "dishonest mistake", but why bicker over details? And just for your information, I prefer not to gloat about other people's shortcomings.

So in other words, since the conspiracy claims your side is putting out is exponentionally more laughable than any error I made, it only means neither of us have any credibility.

My side? Obviously somebody died and made you king, leaving you with the task of determining who belongs on which side. By the way King Dave, can I be appointed captain of my side? Even if it is a fictional creation of your imagination, I am sure it would be fun.

I have no agenda so I can live with that. Can you?

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, nor shatter your fragile ego, but worrying about whether or not you have an agenda is currently rather low on my list of concerns. However, if in the future, your agenda does interest me more, I will make sure you and your ego will be the first to know.

AS to holding the car for investigating. Just what would they find? Airplane finger prints I suspose?

For one, an experienced investigator can positively determine if the light pole in question did actually fall on top of the taxi cab. But of course, we wouldn't want that now, since the results of such a simple vehicle appraisal would blow this clearly bogus story out of the water.

WHen one car crashes head long into another you don't have to match paint marks to prove they hit each other.

As long as the damage to both vehicles is consistent with such an occurrence. On the other hand, if the car accident was a hit and run, matching paint marks is actually one of the few definitive ways of proving which vehicles were involved.

Unfortunately, in this case, the limited damage to Mr. London's taxi cab IS NOT consistent with the claim of a 250 pound light pole going through the windshield and a large portion of it resting on the hood. No dents or scratch marks on hood = no light pole going through windshield.

There are just too many witnesses to this event for you to contest this evidence based on your non experienced photo analysis.

This thread is about photographic evidence, not human witnesses. How is your comment relevant, since the photos of the Mr. England's cab on the highway show none of these witnesses anywhere near the location?

It does not take a professional photo analyst to figure out that a large light pole traveling at a high rate of speed, smashing through a windshield and coming to rest on the hood, would leave some sort of visible damage to this same hood. All it takes is a person with some common sense.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


And you call yourself a Scholar? never mind is right. You are just a baby looking to be spoon feed and could not do any real research to save a nation.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


For one, an experienced investigator can positively determine if the light pole in question did actually fall on top of the taxi cab. But of course, we wouldn't want that now, since the results of such a simple vehicle appraisal would blow this clearly bogus story out of the water.




I am glad you agree on that. So what is this damaged cab doing still in Lloyd's possession, which he can show to anyone that calls as he did with CIT ? Either the cab was damaged by the pole or the wicked perps are being monumentally blind to the prospects of their set-up being exposed. Strange when they are usually portrayed as being able to remove all forensic traces and only too ready to silence anyone who might speak out of turn.