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

Thanks to chipmunk for post #162 above. Pretty much how I envisioned the scenario. Of course, additional information and/or calculations might very well alter details.
 
Lyte Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did I miss what he heard during his smack down. Did he hear a jet at low altitude like a lot of other witnesses which you, I guess, are going to ignore.

?
 
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...

Nice images!

Good job chipmunk.

At least it looks like you accurately represented the length of the pole.

Too bad this not only directly contradicts with Lloyd's claim......

But is STILL absurd when considering the fact that he was traveling 40 mph and had to "wrestle" the car to a stop.

Are you really trying to claim the pole would have never even touched the hood during this process?
 
Lyte Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...

When something fast and unexpected happens, it often doesn't register in our memory correctly, even if there is some reference frame for us to catalog the experience.

Earlier this year I was taking my Border collie to flyball class. At one point she was practicing jumping over hurdles, running away from the trainer and toward me. Since she was a substantial flight risk, she was attached to a long leash with the other end tied to my wrist.

She did the first three jumps fine, but decided to take a left turn just before she jumped the last one and into my waiting arms. She knocked the hurdle over, flashed by me at high speeds, and, a few seconds later, came to the end of the leash with a force that very nearly ripped my arm out of its socket.

Of course, I had to DEDUCE this from observing the hurdle on the ground, the position of my dog, and other telltale signs. All I actually remember is a bewildering blur of dog fur and flying hurdles, followed by the shock of her reaching the end of her leash.

Before you come back with, "We're talking planes, not dogs," keep in mind that this was a fairly innocuous event, and a plane crash isn't. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to assimilate the sight of an airliner crashing in to nearby light poles.
 
Lyte Trip said:
But is STILL absurd when considering the fact that he was traveling 40 mph and had to "wrestle" the car to a stop.

Are you really trying to claim the pole would have never even touched the hood during this process?
Click to expand...
Argument from incredulity. Get a life, and make it one that doesn't include the hobby of accusing crime victims of being at fault for what happened to them.

Next.
 
Chipmunk, that's a fairly plausible account. What about the idea that the arm part of the light pole, instead of the vertical part, was what came through his windshield? Other than Lloyd's statement that he thought it was the big part, it makes more sense to me.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Nice images!

Good job chipmunk.

At least it looks like you accurately represented the length of the pole.

Too bad this not only directly contradicts with Lloyd's claim......

But is STILL absurd when considering the fact that he was traveling 40 mph and had to "wrestle" the car to a stop.

Are you really trying to claim the pole would have never even touched the hood during this process?
Click to expand...

It certainly seems unlikely. However, many unlikely things happen every day.

Can you demonstrate that it is impossible? And, having done that, can you explain the relevancy of it being impossible?
 
The fact that chipmunk and 9/11 myths both have to make up a scenario that completely contradicts with Loyd's claim in order to reconcile what happened is rather telling.

Either you believe Lloyd or you don't.

Clearly chipmunk does not believe Lloyd.
 
Lyte Trip your theory can't even hold up to questions and scrutiny an internet forum.

I can guarantee that to the lurkers and semi-lurkers of this who read every word you post, your theory is tenuous at very very very best, and at worst criminally libelous. How in the hell do you think that this...this idiocy you term an 'investigation' would fare in a court of law?

Perhaps you should pool your money and hire a real investigative team. Real accident investigators, you know, the ones who don't start with a predisposed position and work backwards from there, would eat you for lunch.

Good luck with your rock-solid new evidence; you'll need it.
 
aggle-rithm said:
It certainly seems unlikely. However, many unlikely things happen every day.

Can you demonstrate that it is impossible? And, having done that, can you explain the relevancy of it being impossible?
Click to expand...

Yes.

And I will do this by presenting evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to hit the light poles.
 
Lyte Trip said:
The fact that chipmunk and 9/11 myths both have to make up a scenario that completely contradicts with Loyd's claim in order to reconcile what happened is rather telling.
Click to expand...

That's pretty rich coming from somebody who has to make up a scenario that completely contradicts the vast majority of eye witness in order to reconcile what happened.
 
CurtC said:
Chipmunk, that's a fairly plausible account. What about the idea that the arm part of the light pole, instead of the vertical part, was what came through his windshield? Other than Lloyd's statement that he thought it was the big part, it makes more sense to me.
Click to expand...

Beautiful.

You guys have to keep making up scenarios that didn't happen and that contradict Lloyd's claim in order to explain his account!

Very telling.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes.

And I will do this by presenting evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to hit the light poles.
Click to expand...

You mean the guesstimation by the guy at the gas station as to which direction was north? Pass.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes.

And I will do this by presenting evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to hit the light poles.
Click to expand...

No you will not.

You do not have any such evidence, little boy.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes.

And I will do this by presenting evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to hit the light poles.
Click to expand...

When pigs fly...
Troll!
 
Lyte Trip said:
Seats recline.

The leather is clearly not ripped and you can't prove it was damaged as opposed to merely reclined.
Click to expand...

What, the leather? Or the seat? The way you've structured your sentence, you make it sound like the leather was reclining.

I wasn't aware that seats reclined diagonally. That's not very good for people's backs, I would imagine.

Seriously dude, go back to post 37 and look at the picture again. If the passenger seat was merely reclined, the top of that passenger seat should still be parallel with the top of the driver's seat. There is clearly a difference of at least 20 degrees between the top of the passenger seat and the top of the driver seat.

Considering you only cherry-pick the posts to which you reply, I guess I shouldn't count on hearing from you now.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes.

And I will do this by presenting evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone with less than four functioning brain cells that the plane flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to hit the light poles.
Click to expand...

There, fixed it for you.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Seats recline.

The leather is clearly not ripped and you can't prove it was damaged as opposed to merely reclined.
Click to expand...

Of course. All Lincoln luxury cars are designed with front seats that recline with the right shoulder twenty degrees further back than the left. That's because rich folks who sit in front seats prefer to look out of the rear passenger windows.

Lincoln luxury cars are also the only automobiles that have upholstery diagonally hand-stitched by monkeys.

8790455fb2bb842f2.jpg

I didn't think we'd see anyone stupider than TS1234, or who out-Killtown's Killtown, but chemtrail boy takes the cake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom