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

twinstead said:
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.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Only a handful of eyewitnesses mention the light poles at all.

We have 2 of them on record and on video tape admitting they deduced it after the fact.

Only 2 specifically claim they "saw" the light poles hit.....

Wanda Ramey and an "anonymous" military man.

They were either exaggerating or planted witnesses.
 
Lyte Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...

You failed to point out what parts of this scenario contradict Lloyd's claim. From what I see, the scenario matches everything Lloyd has said.

I hate that I have to ask you to tell us these things.
 
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 are a true CT guy, bring it on chemtrail buddy. Show these guys who actually passed a physics class what true CT guys can do with a lick of science capability.

This one turned out bad for you. You picked the only guy who can not be debunked. You have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that our taxi man is no government agent.

Biggest point of the days…

You have made us look again at the evidence and pretty much proved to us flight 77 tapped a few poles as it smashed into the pentagon.
 
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.

Either you believe Lloyd or you don't.

Clearly chipmunk does not believe Lloyd.
Click to expand...
It's quite consistent with Mr. England's account. That's the beauty of it.
 
Lyte Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're a lying little ****.
Edited by Lisa Simpson: 
edited to remove inappropriate comment


Chipmunk's scenario accounts for pretty much all of the damage and what the driver reports happened, allowing for the fact that he's just missed being impaled by centimetres so it's quite impressive that he gives as coherent account as he does.

Do not use insults to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lyte Trip said:
Incorrect.

Only a handful of eyewitnesses mention the light poles at all.

We have 2 of them on record and on video tape admitting they deduced it after the fact.

Only 2 specifically claim they "saw" the light poles hit.....

Wanda Ramey and an "anonymous" military man.

They were either exaggerating or planted witnesses.
Click to expand...

And you are either an attention whore or completely nuts.
 
Gravy said:
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.


I didn't think we'd see anyone stupider than TS1234, or who out-Killtown's Killtown, but chemtrail boy takes the cake.
Click to expand...

You can call it "damage" if you want but it is notable that the severed sharp aluminum pole did not rip the upholtery even though it caused this "damage".

Regardless; the main point is the hood is not damaged and this is impossible with a pole that long and heavy that was over the hood as Lloyd explicitely explained.

Period.
 
Timble said:
Chipmunk's scenario accounts for pretty much all of the damage and what the driver reports happened, allowing for the fact that he's just missed being impaled by centimetres so it's quite impressive that he gives as coherent account as he does.
Click to expand...

One important point to make is that the base of the light pole is not round -- it's square. If it were round, there would be nothing to keep it from rolling over into a resting position, with the bend pointing downward, and the hood would indeed be scratched in that case. However, with the square base, the bend in the pole can be kept up above the hood. Again, unlikely, but not impossible.
 
Timble said:
You're a lying little twat.

Chipmunk's scenario accounts for pretty much all of the damage and what the driver reports happened, allowing for the fact that he's just missed being impaled by centimetres so it's quite impressive that he gives as coherent account as he does.
Click to expand...

Nice breech of the terms of agreement.

Mods?

Chipmunk's hypothetical scenario contradicts Lloyd's claim.

You can make all the excuses for Lloyd you want but the point stands.

His account is impossible.
 
Lyte Trip said:
You can call it "damage" if you want but it is notable that the severed sharp aluminum pole did not rip the upholtery even though it caused this "damage".

Regardless; the main point is the hood is not damaged and this is impossible with a pole that long and heavy that was over the hood as Lloyd explicitely explained.

Period.
Click to expand...

You put the "Period" on it too early: You haven't DEMONSTRATED why it is impossible for the hood not to be damaged or the uphostery not ripped.

Will you be providing this soon?
 
Lyte Trip said:
You can call it "damage" if you want but it is notable that the severed sharp aluminum pole did not rip the upholtery even though it caused this "damage".

Regardless; the main point is the hood is not damaged and this is impossible with a pole that long and heavy that was over the hood as Lloyd explicitely explained.

Period.
Click to expand...

Holy crap! Do you read anything that anyone writes here?

THE SEAT IS DAMAGED. Notice how it is sagging considerably? PLEASE admit that the seat itself has been damaged. I'm not talking about the LEATHER. I'm talking about the SEAT ITSELF. Do you agree that it has been damaged?

And yes, the hood is not damaged. There's a plausible explanation for this given to you by Chipmunk, and you haven't addressed it AT ALL.
 
This is great!

You jref'ers are proving my point for me perfectly!

Do you have any other alternative scenarios that help explain how impossible Lloyd's claim is?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Nice breech of the terms of agreement.

Mods?

Chipmunk's hypothetical scenario contradicts Lloyd's claim.

You can make all the excuses for Lloyd you want but the point stands.

His account is impossible.
Click to expand...


How about deranged little wanker then?
Deluded little tosser?
Phuquewit?

Trolls are always the first to cry when someone upsets them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom