Alleged Light Pole Damage To Taxi - Possible? Impossible?

Originally posted by SPreston
then that breaking glass expanding outward from the tip of the penetrating pole would have struck Lloyde's face with such great force, that it would not matter if it was sharp or not.

All this, and yet you refused to answer the simple question about how April Gallup could have survived being 30 ft away from some alleged massive blast that breached the newly reinforced walls at the Pentagon.

You seem to use the argument that one NOT need to be in the direct line of the debris here to face injury... yet in that now closed thread, I asked yoy several times to try and explain how it could be possible that she could have survived your fairytale explosion.

So here's the questions for you- why are you using ths argument HERE, but you refused to even consider it in the other thread? Did you realize that in order to cover up the lie about explosives making the hole at the Pentagon that you have to tell an even BIGGER and STUPIDER lie?

Correct?
A person would assume you would know this.....

Answer is no - might be difficuly for someone who does cut and pastes
from mommys basement to understand.

Windshield glass as stated before is safety glass - plastic layer holds
glass together . Can see that from pictures. Only very small fragments
of glass spall off during impact. Have seen it at numerous accident scenes
and drills. Cut fair number of windshields using electric saws, hand saws
and crash axe - the tough plastic and adhesives to bind it prevent from
fragmenting. Get very fine pieces. Only time will see injury you describe
is if victims face directly impacts windshield

IF that 200+ pound pole had struck that windshield right next to Lloyde's face at 40 mph, (the alleged speed of the taxi - but more likely 80+ mph - the alleged speed of the taxi plus the likely speed of the alleged hurled light pole allegedly struck by a 90 ton 535 mph aircraft) then that breaking glass expanding outward from the tip of the penetrating pole would have struck Lloyde's face with such great force, that it would not matter if it was sharp or not. A baseball bat has no sharp edges and one can easily cut a person's face with it. Lloyde's face and head should have been cut terribly. But no bandages and no bandaids and no treatment in sight? Correct?

Originally posted by thedman
Windshield glass as stated before is safety glass - plastic layer holds
glass together . Can see that from pictures. Only very small fragments
of glass spall off during impact. Have seen it at numerous accident scenes
and drills. Cut fair number of windshields using electric saws, hand saws
and crash axe - the tough plastic and adhesives to bind it prevent from
fragmenting. Get very fine pieces. Only time will see injury you describe
is if victims face directly impacts windshield

That piece of glass missing from that teensey little hole in the windshield went somewhere.



IF that pole had hit that windshield as alleged, the small end would have passed Lloyde's head in the driver's seat at a speed of 40 mph (58.6 feet per second) plus the speed that YOUR aircraft allegedly hurled it. But you 9-11 perp defenders all believe that YOUR aircraft impact at 535 mph just gently laid the 337 pound light poles down, at the same time tearing the truss arms and light heads violently off the main poles and tearing some of the poles in two. Aren't 9-11 physics laws just great?

Where light poles fell - red dots are original bases


Assuming for the moment that Lloyde was actually driving the taxi, and not sitting in it up on a flatbed truck, and assuming also that Lloyde was not weaving from lane to lane like a drunk, the light pole would have flown at Lloyde at an angle from its broken off base, when allegedly struck by the outer portion of the right wing, to the hole in the windshield.

757 wingspan 124 feet 10 inches


The closer Lloyde was to YOUR aircraft, the greater the angle to the windshield would have been. There is no possible way that light pole hit the passenger seat through that hole in the center of the windshield. If Lloyde was anywhere beneath YOUR alleged aircraft or left wing when allegedly struck, then the small end of the pole and the glass fragments would have struck Lloyde directly in the head and ruined his seat.



However Lloyde and his seat seem to be just fine. But you guys with your sudden love for 21st Century 9-11 physics, think the 200+ pound 33 foot long pole levitated there somehow in some magical fashion, floating there patiently waiting in Lloyde's lane for Lloyde and his windshield to arrive.



That will not work. Lloyde was supposed to be driving along at 40 mph (58.6 feet per second) when he claimed the long light pole smashed into his windshield. Then after Lloyde gathered his senses, he hit the brakes, and skidded to a sideways stop after allegedly going 40 feet. So the principle of levitation will no longer work, and we have the big problem with the trajectory of the pole and Lloyde's poor head. YOUR aircraft had to hurl the light pole towards the windshield at least 40 feet or more. Right at poor Lloyde's head.

Enough with this light pole fairy tale. I'm sick of it. You OCT fanatics believe whatever you want.





[edit on 11/2/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston

But of course since the aircraft actually flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and since YOUR aircraft could not possibly have survived a collision with five 337 pound light poles within a time frame of one second, and since YOUR aircraft could not possibly have survived a high G pullup after hitting the five light poles at the bottom of the hill and since YOUR aircraft left NO JET FUEL on the road or on the lawn or in the Pentagon, then your argument is moot. Correct?

But of course since CIT and P4T admit that all of their 13 Noc eyewitnesses believe AA77 hit the Pentagon (with one pointing to the South Side flyover on film!); and that CIT and P4T are unable to explain how AA77 magically escaped experiencing high g-forces in a supposed pull-up; and that you and CIT cannot come up with any eyewitnesses seeing AA77 fly over and away from the Pentagon out of thousands who could have; and finally, since CIT screwed up so badly using witnesses that confirmed AA77 hit the Pentagon, CIT and P4T completely forgot that the damage to the Pentagon and the wreckage and bodies found within the Pentagon are entirely consistent with the known fact that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You'll never be able to refute the actual evidence, SPreston, which explained long ago why you and CIT are deathly afraid of interviewing eyewitnesses who you know full well will laugh in your face.

Alleged Light Pole Damage To Taxi - Possible? Impossible?


Therefore in summation; it has been conclusively PROVEN that the Lloyde England light pole script is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. It could not have happened as scripted.

For whatever reason, the #1 light pole was dragged across the road from its hiding spot and carefully arranged and the bend in the pole and the broken pieces were carefully arranged on the road and the broken lamp glass scattered right by the front bumper, and the taxicab and the stomped front passenger seat and the torn rear seat and the busted windshield and the smashed dash and Lloyde England standing there at parade rest for hour after hour, were carefully scripted and staged and manufactured, most likely by those Federal agents guarding the stage scenario, with their cars blocking access.



Yep, there is that Saturn again, parked at a different angle, back to guard the staged and scripted light pole Hollywood theatrical presentation for the bamboozled American boob tube addicts.

Originally posted by SPreston
Yep, there is that Saturn again, parked at a different angle, back to guard the staged and scripted light pole Hollywood theatrical presentation for the bamboozled American boob tube addicts.

Would it be possible to run a license plate check on that car, then match the requisition records to see who could have been driving it?

The number plate looks like I-665 or 1-665. I'm not familiar with US number plates.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by tezzajw]

Would it be possible to run a license plate check on that car, then match the requisition records to see who could have been driving it?

Only police agencies or the DMV can run license plates and then only for
official puposes.

Oposted by SPreston
Yep, there is that Saturn again, parked at a different angle, back to guard the staged and scripted light pole Hollywood theatrical presentation for the bamboozled American boob tube addicts.

posted by tezzajw
Would it be possible to run a license plate check on that car, then match the requisition records to see who could have been driving it?

The number plate looks like I-665 or 1-665. I'm not familiar with US number plates.

A couple of guys are trying to trace it. It is a Virginia Firefighter license plate. We think it is Mr blue shirt's car. The guy in the white shirt came out of the Jeep Cherokee. - www.dmv.state.va.us...

There is nobody inside the Saturn - Mr blue shirt can be seen through the driver's area
(Original) Cropped image of original with adjusted brightness and contrast
Cropped photo

Somebody is moving that white Saturn around the taxi scene.

Saturn parked across highway lane with Cherokee - Jason Ingersoll photo - Original image


Taxi original photo after roof collapse



It seems that the taxi and Lloyde and the Federal agents stood there for hours and hours waiting for a tow truck. It looks like the Pentagon fire is about out in the trial exibit above, so did the taxi sit there for days waiting for a tow truck?



Doesn't it seem odd that nobody is ever photographed talking to Lloyde and Lloyde seems to be ignoring everyone?



Why did they leave that piece of pole laying in the way in the far lane?



These cars needed to get by, but they left that piece of pole in the way in the far lane for days?




[edit on 11/3/08 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


To answer your question, Is the damage to the windshield possible or not? The answer is absolutely yes, I believe.

First, The "hole" is not small at all in fact it is large. The picture that is taken from the "full frontal" position is very misleading. Someone (I'm sure in a attempt to drive the car and not have the giant hole, or to keep the weather out) has basically pushed the window back together. I wouldn't be surprised if the inside was possibly taped wear the large tears were. However it was done that picture is misleading the picture that show the absolute clearest damage is the one that is at the top of the post I am replying to. It is the one that has Loyd directly behind the Lincoln, the only thing written on it is the word "fed" pointing to the guy in the blue shirt on the rt side of the photo. If you look closely you can see the actual "hole" which includes the top right of the hole which has torn the windshield in two spots making possible for a lg part of the hole to "fold" in and once the pole was removed gravity took that piece and laid it back down. There is also a lg "hole" which is actually a part of the larger hole, it lays on the dash and you can only see that hole in the photo i mention b/c like I said someone has folded that piece of the bottom windshield back up in the full frontal pic.

I hope thats easy to follow, I do not have the ability to show the pics and draw on them to show exactly what I'm saying but it is clearly obvious if you take a closer look to the differences between the full frontal pic and the pic at the top of the post I am replying to, that I'm referring to.

Furthermore, I also think your diagram of the pole in the windshield looking like it is unable to touch the ground is also misleading. I have to believe that the only thing that makes common sense with the hood damage or the lack there of is the fact that the bend damage that was left on the pole from the impact was large enough to make it possible for it to touch the ground while at the same time clear the hood no problem. You can see very easily that the pole was lying on the dash and that it moved back and forth around a foot or more. Also, I have owned many Lincolns, they are extremely touch vehicles especially the Town car edition it is by far the "nicest" of their line up. The seat has been broken completely off the hinge/bolt system that was holding together. Which based off my own experiences with them no one could "stomp one apart" You would need a, maybe 3 4 hundred pound man putting a very large amount of pressure.

I for one wish they would release more information preferably the videos. I have a hard time believing that a aircraft moving at 535mph would basically bounce off the plane. I understand the fact of them being built to break off for a aircraft 200 ft from a airport but this is obviously for airplanes that are on approach or take off(What around 175mph both ways?). And were told the engine ingested one of the 70lb lights and (we must guess burst into flames?? at least creating lg amount of white smoke) creating a rather large spiraling smoke cloud that was trailing the aircraft (according to the pentagon video at least) But I cant seem to find anyone who witnessed this. Thats another thread tho.

Sorry Spreston I think your barking up the wrong tree on this one solely based of the photographic evidence presented.

posted by baffledon911
Furthermore, I also think your diagram of the pole in the windshield looking like it is unable to touch the ground is also misleading. I have to believe that the only thing that makes common sense with the hood damage or the lack there of is the fact that the bend damage that was left on the pole from the impact was large enough to make it possible for it to touch the ground while at the same time clear the hood no problem. You can see very easily that the pole was lying on the dash and that it moved back and forth around a foot or more.

That is by no definition a large hole in the windshield in comparison to a cross-section of the curved pole entering the windshield on-the-fly. And can you explain how that heavy base sitting on the road surface at 40 mph and then a skidding stop sideways, could manage not to gouge the asphalt road surface, nor rip the roof right off from the tremendous centrifugal force of the claimed skid sideways?



Just imagine that curved light pole flying straight at the windshield, and fitting through that hole in the windshield, and you want an even bigger curve on the pole so the base can touch the ground? If the pole was rotating even a bit, it would have hit the roof and hood, or smashed the entire windshield taking out one of the corner posts. If it was not rotating, but flying straight like a javelin, then it could not have fit through the windshield hole.

The entire light pole scenario is just too ludicrous to waste any more time on; especially since the actual aircraft has been proven Over the Naval Annex and could not possibly have reached those five light poles.



The only thing that makes common sense with the hood damage or the lack there of is the fact that there was no aircraft hitting light poles and no light pole hitting a windshield and no videos showing a aircraft hitting light poles and no videos showing a light pole hitting a windshield. Why do you think the FBI was there on the scene at the very first, prepped to start confiscating videos within minutes of the explosion? They also confiscated cameras and rolls of film and chased people away. Even Jason Ingersoll's camera was confiscated and 'adjusted'. Some known photos are missing from the record.




[edit on 11/5/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston
And can you explain how that heavy base sitting on the road surface at 40 mph and then a skidding stop sideways, could manage not to gouge the asphalt road surface,

Unless roads are made differently in the USA, then anything like the heavier base of a light pole should scratch the surface. I can't see any evidence of that light pole being dragged along the road in those pictures.

Good call, SPreston.

posted by SPreston
And can you explain how that heavy base sitting on the road surface at 40 mph and then a skidding stop sideways, could manage not to gouge the asphalt road surface,

posted by tezzajw
Unless roads are made differently in the USA, then anything like the heavier base of a light pole should scratch the surface. I can't see any evidence of that light pole being dragged along the road in those pictures.

Good call, SPreston.

Actually there is a scratch on the roadway made by the pole base. It can be seen in this photo. But this scratch is going straight across the road toward the far wall. This scratch is not occuring down the road to the north from the direction of the taxi's alleged 40 mph screeching stop. This scratch is not a high speed gouge by a taxi pushing the pole ahead of it like a plow; but a slow speed lazy scratch.



This scratch was made by lazy agents staging evidence at a crime scene, when they dragged the heavy pole base from its hiding spot on the other side of the HOV lane wall. The scratch in the asphalt starts right at the corner of the base. Stupid lazy bums. Just cannot hire good help anymore, can you?

Original Geoff Metcalf image

reply to post by SPreston


All Im saying is I believe the end of that pole could of made the hole and still not touched the hood.

Why there are no large scrapes into the black top is beyond me all i can think is that we have not seen the pics or it wasnt documented.

As you said i think this is rather a mute point in light of the other "real" problems with the Pentagon attack. Which for me is: Why not release the clear video and alternate views that Im sure they have to have. Why do Pentagon police officers and others believe the plane was where it seems impossible due to the damage? Why does faa recreation flight path match exactly the "other" flight path that is not consistent with the damage.

But thats another thread.

Originally posted by baffledon911
All Im saying is I believe the end of that pole could of made the hole and still not touched the hood.

Why there are no large scrapes into the black top is beyond me all i can think is that we have not seen the pics or it wasnt documented.

These two sentences combined, do not make sense.

If you believe that the pole could have made the hole, then you should know why there were no scrapes into the black top.

You either know entirely what happened, or you don't. There's no inbetween position to take.

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous the whole light pole story seems... I doubt that anyone could ever recreate the exact circumstances of it happening, even if they tried to plan and stage it, with scientific precision. It's not plausible. The only exterior damage the car suffers, travelling at around 64 km/h is a smashed windscreen, without any other damage to the bonnet or road surface... hmm...

[edit on 7-11-2008 by tezzajw]

Take a look at the replies in this thread, from the usual suspects, and note what they state.

ThroatYogurt asks for confirmation of the pole dimensions - fair enough, good questions that he's allowed to ask. He also posts some of Craig's pictures of the taxi interior, without stating why he does so. He does not try to explain how the pole did what it allegedly did.

jthomas completely ignores the point, as usual, and rants about the alleged Flight AA77 not flying over the Pentagon. He does not try to explain how the pole did what it allegedly did.

thedman explains how windscreen glass is shatterproof and that it should not have cut Lloyde's face - fair enough, whatever. Maybe it should have, made it shouldn't have, it's probably beside the point. He does not try to explain how the pole did what it allegedly did.

Seymour Butz tries to take us off topic to another thread that was discussing April Gallup. He does not try to explain how the pole did what it allegedly did.

The ONLY person, in this thread who tries to explain what the pole allegedly did is baffledon911. No disrespect, but he looks like a relative newcomer, as his long-winded replies not only fail to make sense, but they also contradict each other.

It's very interesting that none of the usual debunking crew can offer ANY explanation for how the pole did what it allegedly did.

Is there a reason that some people are avoiding this thread, in the hope that it falls from the main page? Is Lloyde's story THAT unbelievable that some people wish it would just disappear, as it's not worth trying to defend???

I wonder... I can't think how a pole of that length, hitting a car travelling at 64 km/h, could match the damage that is evident (and not evident) in the pictures that we see. If I was looking for a hole in the 9/11 story, then I think this is a good place to start looking for some cracks... If I was a 9/11 truther with lots of money, then I would be doing everything that I could to buy that taxi from Lloyde, to secure it as evidence. When you consider how precious little evidence is available for the public, Lloyde's taxi is the strange exception... why?

[edit on 7-11-2008 by tezzajw]

Is it possible that the top half of the pole was busted clear off the main pole and this is what hit Lloyds car? This part of the pole would have been easier to get thru the smaller hole in the windshield and damage the dashboard but NOT the hood??

Bud316

Originally posted by bud316
Is it possible that the top half of the pole was busted clear off the main pole and this is what hit Lloyds car? This part of the pole would have been easier to get thru the smaller hole in the windshield and damage the dashboard but NOT the hood??

Bud316

This is not what Lloyde describes.

This would mean that he has lied since day one about removing the pole with help from the "silent stranger" and falling down in the process as the bent top part of the pole came out of the car.

There is no motive for him to lie about this to the FBI the next day, his wife, the media, and of course us unless his entire story was fabricated.

Are you sure you watched our new presentation in full where we examine the actual cab in person?

The interior damage is not reconcilable with any small piece of the pole.

It's clear they tried replicating damage from a long pole on the interior but failed to pull it off on the exterior.

posted by bud316
Is it possible that the top half of the pole was busted clear off the main pole and this is what hit Lloyds car? This part of the pole would have been easier to get thru the smaller hole in the windshield and damage the dashboard but NOT the hood??

Actually in an early interview, Russell Pickering who was on Lloyde's side tried to get Lloyde to admit that a smaller piece went through the windshield. But Lloyde was adamant and insisted it was the small end of the bent long pole with the heavy base sticking out past the hood. Afterwards Pickering admitted that Lloyde's account was impossible.

Google Video Link

Lloyde indicates he was at the front of the hood, and when the pole came out of the windshield, the bent part rotated down and he fell backwards with the pole on top of him. This video was re-recorded at a Truth rally.

Lloyde drew this picture personally.

reply to post by tezzajw




Im not really sure what exactly you mean by "new comer" Ive been coming to this site for 9/11 research since 04. I am well researched on the official story and the so called conspiracies.

I lived 15mins away from the Pentagon on 9/11 and was working down the road from dulles on 28 when it happened. I experienced the whole strange messed up day in person.

It still doesn't change what i think about this, and i am not contradicting myself, I think you are confused.

Listening and reading Spreston's last post I am even more convinced. Ill try to shortly clarify.

Yes, I believe based on the evidence that the pole entered the car and was still not able to touch the pavement b/c originally I thought the curve wasn't curved enough that even if it was pointed "down" while resting on the dash that the part with the base still wouldn't touch the pavement, even if he slammed on the brakes or whatever.

Now after the pic's of the destroyed dash and the video to me theres only one thing that makes sense. The pole must have been "thrown" off the base so that it was able to enter the window fast enough and hard enough to "stick" in a sense inside. Once he stops and they go to move it Loyd seems to be saying the curved part was pointed towards the sky(inside the vehicle)with the base pointed upwards(Like the pic Loyd drew). When they attempted to move it the curved part must have come loose in a sense that it gave way and spun so that the heavy base was now closer to the ground. This is what Loyd is trying to explain what happened to him when the pole all of a sudden "fell" on him but didn't touch the ground, b/c it couldn't the weight had just shifted and knocked him over. Thats why there were no large scrapes in the road.

I hope thats clear enough for you, I'm sure you most likely will find another reason to doubt his claims. Its truly amazing, after taking in all this information concerning the whole "Pole" thing, I think Loyd is one lucky guy to not have been killed let alone seriously injured. It looks like a giant hammer smashed his dash. Loyd mentions that there was traffic everywhere (I had to laugh) b/c everywhere in the entire city is like a giant parking lot moving along inch by inch with short bursts of movement. Anyone who lives there can testify to that. So the thought that any thing could have been staged at that precise moment is total insanity.

Disclaimer to Tezz: This is only a theory!

Originally posted by baffledon911
The pole must have been "thrown" off the base so that it was able to enter the window fast enough and hard enough to "stick" in a sense inside. Once he stops and they go to move it.....

Here is where your belief, or faith if you will, falls apart and fatally diverges from evidence and science.

For the pole to "stick" there would have to be evidence of damage showing that it stuck far enough into something to hold up the weight of the pole with the much HEAVIER and LONGER base end of the pole being at least 75% outside of the car suspended in mid air over the hood!

Here is the top bent end of the pole:


Pretty decent sized diameter wouldn't you say?

Now look at the extremely minor tiny little tear they fabricated in the back seat proving the pole did NOT impale it.


Don't forget how MOST of the pole would be over the hood with the large heavier end sticking out.



Now imagine the incredible amount of kinetic force we should expect from a 90 ton Boeing hitting the pole at 535 mph:


This kinetic force is greatly increased by the 40 mph cab traveling in the opposite direction:


But think what would happen to the pole (that we know for a FACT did not impale the back seat) as the car came to an instant sideways stop after locking the brakes as described by Lloyde:

(imagine pole still inside car sticking out over the hood 20 feet or so)

Do you REALLY think the pole wouldn't shift at all and remain suspended over the hood during that entire experience without damaging the roof or the windshield frame either?

And how could the hole in the windshield remain so concentrated and relatively symmetrical even thought the top of the pole has such a drastic bend in it?

Please.

The notion is absurd.

The plane was nowhere near these poles.

The scene was staged which is why the physical evidence is so ridiculously anomalous.



Also.....notice how the lamp assembly and arm piece are all laid out nicely in front of the pole as if it landed that way:


If the pole entered further down the road and they pulled the pole out after the car stopped what are the chances the lamp assembly and arm piece would be in the same exact spot?