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

Gravy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lloyd's account is impossible.

He is likely a victim but only as a patsy to a false flag black operation.

I have evidence that will show beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the case.

You will be forced to concede or call multiple other more credible witnesses liars.
 
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...

"Wrestleing" the car to a stop does go along with Chipmunk's scenario.
What do you do when you are "wresteling" a car? Probably fighting to keep the car straight when a light pole has jamed into your front passenger seat with the other end scraping the asphalt forcing a hugh lurch to the right. You try to compensate by turning the steering wheel to the left (or to the right if your experiance enough to know to turn into the spin) and wind up spining out to the left and jack knifeing the pole over the hood and to the left.
The windshield and dashboard damage suporrts this.
The pole was curved and could have avoided damaging the hood (or bonnet).
 
Lyte Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...

Most rational discussions follow the following pattern:

claim -----> evidence ------> argument

You're using the following method, Lyte Trip:

claim -----------------> ????

You make claims and don't support them. You claim that the account is "physically impossible" but don't say why. You say that Chipmunk's scenario contradicts Lloyd's account without pointing out the contradiction. You haven't used a lick of evidence since your original post. And I want to know why!
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do but Mark's absurd scenario is ceratainly not it.
 
Lyte Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can explain this to me, Lyte, because I don't get it.

Why is planting 100 false witnesses, bringing down four light poles, pre-damaging a taxi cab so it looks like it was hit by a light pole, putting a big hole in the Pentagon and catching it on fire, planting body parts, plane debris, and a FDR in the middle of the fire, and faking the video evidence, EASIER than just flying a plane into the freakin' Pentagon?
 
chipmunk stew said:
No. You "deduced" that:
Click to expand...

Exactly. They badgered him into this story, and now they're holding it against him. Dispicable.


and even illustrated it for us.
Click to expand...


Did their video show the circumstances of this illustration being made? I couldn't stand the crap quality long enough to find out.

Did Mr. England realize that they would be using this very basic sketch as the basis for a whole CT that accuses him of being in on it? How seriously did Mr. England take this? I can't imagine a 70+ year old man doing more than just humouring these young weirdos who keep asking him about trivial details of where the post was, when there are so many more important issues they should be addressing....
 
Lyte Trip said:
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.
Click to expand...
Show your work supporting this claim.

Lyte Trip said:
The hood would still be damaged.
Click to expand...
Show your work supporting this claim.

Lyte Trip said:
Hopefully the chipmunk will be honest and make an accurate model that depicts Lloyd's claim of the pole being suspended in mid-air.
Click to expand...
Demonstrate clearly, so that even someone that has read none of this thread, how his diagram is inconsistent with Mr. England's statements.

Lyte Trip said:
Otherwise he is ALSO proving the impossibility of Lloyd's account.
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument. This is another case in which the burden of proof determines whether it is actually a fallacy or not. If a proposing team fails to provide sufficient support for its case, the burden of proof dictates they should lose the debate, even if there exist other arguments (not presented by the proposing team) that could have supported the case successfully. Moreover, it is common practice in debate for judges to give no weight to a point supported by an argument that has been proven invalid by the other team, even if there might be a valid argument the team failed to make that would have supported the same point; this is because the implicit burden of proof rests with the team that brought up the argument. For further commentary on burdens of proof, see argumentum ad ignorantiam, above.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad logicam
 
Lyte Trip said:
Lloyd's claim of the pole being suspended in mid-air.
Click to expand...
Source this or retract it.

RUSSELL: So the curved part comes out here
LLOYD: I don't know, I don't know-
RUSSEL: And the base part is out like this? [Gestures up in air]
LLOYD: No, it was down lower, down this way. [Gestures to right and down]. See it's the, it's the car that held it up.
RUSSELL: Okay.
LLOYD: The inside, the interior of the car that held it up.
RUSSELL: The interior blew [still gesturing upwards]
LLOYD: The dashboard held it up.
RUSSELL: Was it resting on the hood or was it up [still gesturing up]
LLOYD: I can't say, I don't know. But it was out here.
RUSSELL: Okay.
Click to expand...

Definitely willfully obtuse.
 
uruk said:
"Wrestleing" the car to a stop does go along with Chipmunk's scenario.
What do you do when you are "wresteling" a car? Probably fighting to keep the car straight when a light pole has jamed into your front passenger seat with the other end scraping the asphalt forcing a hugh lurch to the right. You try to compensate by turning the steering wheel to the left (or to the right if your experiance enough to know to turn into the spin) and wind up spining out to the left and jack knifeing the pole over the hood and to the left.
The windshield and dashboard damage suporrts this.
The pole was curved and could have avoided damaging the hood (or bonnet).
Click to expand...

According to Lloyd the car was moving 40 mph and ended up sideways on the road.

Also according to Lloyd the pole was NOT touching the ground but was suspended in mid-air over the hood.

Chipmunk's graphic contradicts Lloyd's claim in an effort to rationalize his impossible account.

In doing so he too has conceded that Lloyd's account is impossible.

The only way for chipmunk to save face is to create another image depicting the pole suspended in mid air AS LLOYD CLAIMS IN HIS ACCOUNT.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Right but you have failed to point out a single lie!
Click to expand...
You said that a version of Lloyde England's account has him getting out of his car and then hearing the impact. That was a lie.

Added to the lie quoted in this post, that's two lies.

There you go.

Stop, Craig. You have a serious mental problem that has led you to accuse 9/11 victims of complicity in the attacks. Please get help. This is not a game.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Source this or retract it.



Definitely willfully obtuse.
Click to expand...

That transcript specifically states how he claims it was held "up".

Nowhere does he EVER indicate it was anywhere near the ground.

And YOU are being obtuse by refusing to acknowledge the illustration that lloyd made which is ALSO showing exactly what he is describing:

lloydsillustration.jpg


Pole suspended in mid-air over the hood.

Not touching the ground.
 
The only way for chipmunk to save face is to create another image depicting the pole suspended in mid air AS LLOYD CLAIMS IN HIS ACCOUNT.
Click to expand...
WHERE DOES LLOYD CLAIM THIS IN HIS ACCOUNT!?!?!?

Sorry for the drama, but this appears to be the only way to get Lyte Trip to answer the question.

Now SHOW us where England specifically says "suspended in mid-air"!
 
Lyte Trip said:
He is likely a victim but only as a patsy to a false flag black operation.
Click to expand...

A question:

If this were a false flag operation, why would they point the plane at a newly renovated section that was:

1. Less vulnerable than other sections
2. More expensive to fix than other sections

Wouldn't it make more sense to fly into a section that had not been renovated yet, since it was going to be rebuilt anyway? More damage, more lives lost, more sympathy for the military, and, most importantly (since the neo-cons care only about money) LESS EXPENSIVE?!?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Lloyd's account is impossible.
Click to expand...
Argument from personal incredulity.

Lyte Trip said:
He is likely a victim but only as a patsy to a false flag black operation.
Click to expand...
Unsubstantiated allegation.

Lyte Trip said:
I have evidence that will show beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the case.
Click to expand...
Claims of having evidence, are not themselves evidence.

Lyte Trip said:
You will be forced to concede or call multiple other more credible witnesses liars.
Click to expand...
2 + 2 = 5, but only for extremely large values of 2.
 
Lyte Trip said:
That transcript specifically states how he claims it was held "up".

Nowhere does he EVER indicate it was anywhere near the ground.

And YOU are being obtuse by refusing to acknowledge the illustration that lloyd made which is ALSO showing exactly what he is describing:

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/lloydsillustration.jpg[/qimg]

Pole suspended in mid-air over the hood.

Not touching the ground.
Click to expand...
Right, and Lloyde's drawing is a forensic document, drawn to scale, with the pole 10 feet long. Right, chemtrail boy?

Stop, Craig. You have a serious mental problem that has led you to accuse 9/11 victims of complicity in the attacks. Please get help. This is not a game.
 
Gravy said:
You said that a version of Lloyde England's account has him getting out of his car and then hearing the impact. That was a lie.

Added to the lie quoted in this post, that's two lies.

There you go.

Stop, Craig. You have a serious mental problem that has led you to accuse 9/11 victims of complicity in the attacks. Please get help. This is not a game.
Click to expand...

Not a lie at all.

The article implies it was the impact and makes no mention of secondary explosions.

I did not even attribute the claim to Lloyd and wrote it off as a mistake of the reporter.

Nice strawman. (as usual)
 
Lyte Trip said:
That transcript specifically states how he claims it was held "up".

Nowhere does he EVER indicate it was anywhere near the ground.

And YOU are being obtuse by refusing to acknowledge the illustration that lloyd made which is ALSO showing exactly what he is describing:

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/lloydsillustration.jpg[/qimg]

Pole suspended in mid-air over the hood.

Not touching the ground.
Click to expand...


He also has it sticking into the back window.

And where are the doors? His taxi had doors.

And, no hubcaps? Why aren't the wheels round?

Could it be that this photo is not 100% accurate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom