Discussion of the Pentagon taxi cab driver's impossible account.
- Thread starter Lyte Trip
- Start date
I believe all damage to the cab was pre-fabricated and staged.
I have evidence that will prove this HAD to be the case and you will be forced to concede this or call multiple other much more credible witnesses liars.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
...and afterwards, Lyte, you can you tell us WHY he did it, and how his actions benefited a conspiracy in any way.
Just seems like it would be easier to fly a plane into the Pentagon, but, hey, I'm not a conspiracist...
Since I never claimed this is how it was accomplished nor is it what I believe I am at not obliged to do so.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I will now make a claim that, although unsubstantiated, is far more likely to be correct than your own unsubstantiated claims:
YOU HAVE NO SUCH EVIDENCE.
As I have pointed out in my journal, it's virtually impossible for them to have staged it. The aluminum was bent, severely. A small-scale explosion does not bend steel. Cutting steel with torches CUTS steel and doesn't bend it. The only thing that could bend the steel would be a direct collision!
Look at the photos again. Look at the light poles where they broke. The aluminum is severely bent. What bent the aluminum, if it wasn't a 757?
And you still haven't answered my question of how Chipmunk's scenario contradicts Lloyd's account. Chipmunk posted the snippet of the conversation where Lloyd talked about where the pole was. The narrow end was sticking out of the window, but the base end was "down lower".
Think about that. His picture shows the base end higher than everything (if you look at it two-dimensionally), but he specifically says that the base end of the pole was "down lower" than something. Down lower than what? Down lower than everything, perhaps? Like sitting on the ground, perhaps?
You're giving too much credibility to Lloyd's picture. That's hardly a Picasso-style image, you know. I'd rather rely on his testimony than his drawing.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Spin is saying that Lloyd "I can't say, I don't know" England made a specific claim about the way the pole protruded from his cab.
The man's words are not going away. You can't run from them.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Opinions are not evidence.
Claims of having evidence, are not themselves evidence.
Additionally, stop with the false dichotomy; it has been pointed out numerous times. People that don't even read this subforum are aware of it through osmosis of its intense fallacious nature into other subforums on the JREF website.
The only person that's being called a liar here is you...
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
What's more is that he has no one who can corroborate his theory that the light pole damage was the result of anything other than the aircraft hitting them AND in order to make his theory fit he must discount the testimony of two people who say they did in fact see the aircraft topple the pole.
Furthermore this all revolves about ONE of five poles and the account of ONE person who was within inches of having his head removed from his shoulders.
With such flimsy 'evidence" Mr. Tripp believes he has the smoking gun that the impact of flight 77 into the Pentagon was faked.
It is quite mind boggling that an assummably well person can bring to bear so little logical process to an analysis.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
So is "willfully".
realitybites
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,066
This thread and topic are all over this forum, so I apologize if this has already been addressed, but...
Have we seen Lyte's theory as to how the pole DID get into Lloyd's car while accounting for the visible damage (or lack thereof)?
And is this single incident going to be the sole proof that shows 9/11 was an inside jobby-job?
Have we seen Lyte's theory as to how the pole DID get into Lloyd's car while accounting for the visible damage (or lack thereof)?
And is this single incident going to be the sole proof that shows 9/11 was an inside jobby-job?
Chimpmunk's hypothetical scenario contradicts Lloyd's claim AND is also impossible considering the car was traveling 40 mph and had to be "wrestled" to a stop.
The hood would still be damaged.
Hopefully the chipmunk will be honest and make an accurate model that depicts Lloyd's claim of the pole being suspended in mid-air.
Otherwise he is ALSO proving the impossibility of Lloyd's account.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
It's important to remember how close Lloyde England came to dying that day. He was inches away from being another Pentagon attack fatality. That could have been any one of us, or a loved one.
Stop, Craig. Look at your behavior. Remember that your words are recorded here for posterity.
You have a serious problem that has led you to accuse 9/11 victims of being complicit in the attacks.
Stop, Craig. Think about what you are doing.
Stop, Craig. Look at your behavior. Remember that your words are recorded here for posterity.
You have a serious problem that has led you to accuse 9/11 victims of being complicit in the attacks.
Stop, Craig. Think about what you are doing.
Right but you have failed to point out a single lie!
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
In order for one theory (explanation) to replace another it must explain everything the status quo theory explains, plus explain something that the status quo theory does not explain. If you can prove the status quo theory wrong then you must have another theory.