Discussion of the Pentagon taxi cab driver's impossible account.

Wow. This is incredible. Once this thread plays out it needs to be preserved somewhere for posterity. Truly a textbook example of the kind of thinking shown by CT nutjobs.

* They place infinite faith in eyewitness testimony, yet when one contradicts their pet theory then he must be a liar, delusional or under evil government mind control.

* "Common sense" and a Warner Brothers understanding of life trumps math and physics.

* False dilemmas are thrown out left and right. If anyone questions a witness's account then you're accusing him of being a liar. One of my personal pet peeves.

* Evasion of the questions: "Watch the video and you'll see." "Look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions." "See my previous (irrelevant) post."

* A weakness that borders on pathetic. Rarely do they make any outright accusations or statements. They're always prefaced with "it seems" "perhaps" or "I doubt I will never know for sure if he was merely a victim or an accomplice." Grow some balls, guys. If you really believe what you are saying with the absolute certainty you seem to have, then man up, make an accusation and be prepared to defend it.

"Just asking questions." Pussies.
 
A hypothetical scenario in which all the evidence fits:

Mr. England is driving along, when the pole crashes through his windshield--

cabTop1.jpg


cabIso1.jpg


From Mr. England's perspective, the pole protrudes up and out over the hood, when in fact the base of the pole is in contact with the ground--

cabSide1.jpg


Mr. England struggles for control of the car and comes to a stop nearly perpendicular with the road--

cabTop2.jpg


cabIso2.jpg
 
chipmunk stew said:
A hypothetical scenario in which all the evidence fits:
Mr. England is driving along, when the pole crashes through his windshield--
Mr. England struggles for control of the car and comes to a stop nearly perpendicular with the road--
Click to expand...
Makes perfect sense to me, just as I'm sure it made perfect sense to all people who were there.

Note the damage to the dashboard.

87904575a13fb6b07.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Makes perfect sense to me, just as I'm sure it made perfect sense to all people who were there.
Click to expand...

Can we do better though? Is the available physical evidence sufficient to test (in part) the hypothesis? Does any of the witness testimony corroborate, or dispute, the hypothesis? etc
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Can we do better though? Is the available physical evidence sufficient to test (in part) the hypothesis? Does any of the witness testimony corroborate, or dispute, the hypothesis? etc
Click to expand...

I'd be very surprised if any of the witnesses could give us that much detail. This would have happened in just a few seconds, while a whole lot of other things were happening. It's very unlikely that anyone else was paying that much attention to exactly where the light pole went, while they were themselves probably trying to avoid an accident.

I think you analysis is the best we'll get, that explains all the details we have available. Of course, that will never satisfy the CTists.
 
Lyte Trip said:
If you don't understand the basic physics of an unbalanced see-saw then you sure aren't going to understand the calculations that describe it.

Lloyd claims that the longer, heavier end of the pole was suspended in mid air directly over the hood.

Not lying on the ground and sticking out laterally.

His claim is impossible which is why 9/11 myths made one up contrary to what he claims.
Click to expand...

Lyte,

I have asked you three times for the same information. I have assured you all three times that I will have no problem following your calculations. Your responses to me and others did not answer my simple requests, but they were quite revealing.

Based on statements that you have made in this thread and your inability to provide answers to simple questions, it is my belief that:

1. You do not possess any knowledge with regards to classical physics.

2. You often struggle to comprhend what you read.

3. You lack some very basic communication skills.

4. You did not author all of your first post yourself. You have consistently demonstrated that you are having difficulty comprehending the meaning of "your own words" contained in that post.

5. You do not understand how evidence is validated, or any other processes and procedures that are used in accident investigation.

6. You are completely incapable of acknowledging obvious mistakes and errors, even the inconsequential ones.

7. You are willing to be dishonest in an effort to support your position. Your dishonesty manifests itself in intellectual dishonesty, deceitfulness, and when cornered, outright lying.

8. You are the low boy on the totem pole whenever you and your other playmates make a play date in DC.
 
I thought I would post this thread with some super high rez shots of the taxi.

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3264&st=30

You can also see a couple shots of poles broken off at the base. With the base still attached into the ground. Of cource this makes the swapped pole theory even more absurd than it already sounds.

Other details include leaves on the ground, a long scrap on the street.
 
This can't be it. Surely this isnt the "ground breaking, earth shattering" evidence that is gonna change the world as we know it?

We have an entire theory based around a lack of damage to the hood of a car, where LT and S4S feel there must be. Thats all. No calculations using various angles of entry, both in the y and x axis, no calculations with various angles after impact, just an old mans account, 4-5 years later, and a simple drawing, and some misapplied laws of physics based on a simple lever.

Chipmunks diagrams offer a perfect explanation for no damage to the hood, but even that isnt needed. the entire pole was only 247 pounds, not tonnes, pounds. That is less that the average NFL Linebacker. I don't care if the fulcrum was a single inch from the near end, it does not mean the end could not half gotten caught up on the seat, or something else, hence holding in position.

What do you think, the car should have tipped upside down from the weight on the far end of the see-saw? give me a break.

Disappointed does not even begin to describe how I feel after reading through 60-70 pages of this crap.

TAM
 
chipmunk stew said:
A hypothetical scenario in which all the evidence fits:

Mr. England is driving along, when the pole crashes through his windshield--

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/cabTop1.jpg

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/cabIso1.jpg

From Mr. England's perspective, the pole protrudes up and out over the hood, when in fact the base of the pole is in contact with the ground--

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/cabSide1.jpg

Mr. England struggles for control of the car and comes to a stop nearly perpendicular with the road--

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/cabTop2.jpg

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/cabIso2.jpg
Click to expand...

wow, all of that just described how my friends car was hit by a light pole because of a drunk driver. Nearly exactly how it happened to us when we were in the car. Luckily no one was in the front passenger seat.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Can we do better though? Is the available physical evidence sufficient to test (in part) the hypothesis? Does any of the witness testimony corroborate, or dispute, the hypothesis? etc
Click to expand...
Father McGraw describes the taxi being smashed by the light pole right in front of him, but of course Lyte Twirp thinks he's the perfect candidate to be a "deep cover" gubmint agent.

I never in my life expected to encounter such flaming idiocy as comes from the "truth movement" every single day.
 
Gravy said:
You are lying again. Do you constantly lie because you will not, or because you cannot stop?

You said
There is no "benefit of the doubt" to be given. YOU INVENTED THE IDEA THAT LLOYDE HEARD THE IMPACT AFTER HE GOT OUT OF THE CAR. IT'S YOUR PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH, NOT HIS AND NOT OURS. YOU HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH HONESTY, CRAIG. DON'T BLAME OTHERS FOR IT.

Now, do you agree that YOU, and no one else, used the word "impact" to describe the noise Lloyde heard after exiting the car? And do you now retract that claim?
Click to expand...

I do not retract it.

The article most certainly does imply the explosion was due to the impact of the plane since there was no mention of secondary explosions.

In addition to this.....Lloyd has NEVER mentioned hearing an explosion again.

Quite the contrary.

He makes a point to repeatedly say how quiet everything was.
 
Gravy said:
Father McGraw describes the taxi being smashed by the light pole right in front of him, but of course Lyte Twirp thinks he's the perfect candidate to be a "deep cover" gubmint agent.

I never in my life expected to encounter such flaming idiocy as comes from the "truth movement" every single day.
Click to expand...

We have father McGraw admitting to us on camera that he DID NOT see the light poles get hit by the plane or hit the cab but that he deduced it after the fact from seeing the poles on the ground.

This is rather curious since the light poles were directly in front of him and the idea that he saw the plane but not the poles being hit doesn't make much sense.
 
chippy said:
Sweet! I've been used as a source in a 9/11

Additionally, I noticed that you said that the passenger seat was "allegedly" damaged. Look at the top picture from the quote. You'll see that the passenger seat has clearly been knocked back, especially when you compare the top of the seat to the top of the driver's seat...they aren't parallel. It's been damaged. So stop saying "allegedly".
Click to expand...

Seats recline.

The leather is clearly not ripped and you can't prove it was damaged as opposed to merely reclined.
 
Lyte Trip said:
I do not retract it.

The article most certainly does imply the explosion was due to the impact of the plane since there was no mention of secondary explosions.

In addition to this.....Lloyd has NEVER mentioned hearing an explosion again.

Quite the contrary.

He makes a point to repeatedly say how quiet everything was.
Click to expand...

Um, is it possible that by the time Lloyd got out of the cab, that he actually heard the last secondary explosion? I mean, is that possible and if not, why not?

Lurker
 
Lurker said:
Um, is it possible that by the time Lloyd got out of the cab, that he actually heard the last secondry explosion? I mean, is that possible and if not, why not?

Lurker
Click to expand...

Sure it is.

But as I told Gravy and as my OP makes clear........

This has nothing to do with my argument of the impossibility of his account.
 
Lyte Trip said:
This is rather curious since the light poles were directly in front of him and the idea that he saw the plane but not the poles being hit doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...

A bloody great plane come tearing across at 500 mph at treetop height crashes and explodes, how, likely are you going to be to take in all the details?

I notice you're ignoring chipmunk stew's model of how the lampost could have fallen because it's consistent with the testimonies, physics and the photographs, without any need for faked lamposts and explosive devices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom