Merged Lloyd England: Eye of the Storm

[The Big Dog]

Oddly, as corroborated by a multitude of witnesses from Arlington National Cemetery and the Cito gas station, and others, the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, and could not possibly have knocked down this light pole nor the other 4 light poles nearby. And recently on 9-12-2008, this flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo was corroborated by the FAA federal agency.

Isn't that interesting?

Hi SPreston, you see unlike the sheep boards you typically frequest where fanatical mods like JFK do not allow the slightest whisper of dissent from the official party line (and in so doing, have managed to kill the board but that is story for another time), here when one makes a claim, or spams a thread with a ridiculous video, you can expect to be asked to support your claims.

Now I have already asked you politely to prove that an airliner could actually fly the CIT NOC path and or the alleged FAA video.

Aren't you concerned that neither CIT or PFFT has ever taken me up on that challenge? Aren't you concerned that the entire CIT NOC path is impossible and thus their entire stupid theory crumbles to dust?

Or don't you care? BAAAAAAA.

 

[SPreston]

Corroboration - the true meaning according to Wildcat

But poor SPreston has no idea what corroboration actually means. He posted the definition, but unfortunately he doesn't understand the words in the definition.

Please enlighten the world with your genius.

 

[SPreston]

Cannot stay on topic?

Hi SPreston,

Now I have already asked you politely to prove that an airliner could actually fly the CIT NOC path and or the alleged FAA video.

The topic of this thread is Lloyd England: Eye of the Storm, which is exactly what my post detailed. The photos of record, the VDOT dimensions, the interviews of Lloyde England, the examination of the taxicab, simple logic, were all useful towards the corroboration of whatever pertains to the truth.

 

[DavidJames]

How would you possibly know what they have done or not done?

Simple because if they did, one of three things would happen.

1. They would get a positive response and they would shout it from the rooftops.
2. They would get a negative response and they would shout coverup.
3. They would be ignored and they would shout coverup.

Neither CIT nor Pilots for 9/11 Truth are required to inform their enemies of their actions.

Their enemies? Are you serious. They think all those people are their enemies? They think insurance investigators are their enemies? They think all the DA's are their enemies? The think all the lawyers are their enemies?

Do you feel that way? Are you aware that paranoia is a mental illness

 

[Turbofan]

Hey Caustic, I think you better stick to brooms and stuff you're much better at it.

You still haven't shown us how the pole entered the car? Remember the
direction of force acting on the light pole vs. the angle of traffic?

Here are some numbers to help you out:

Pole length - 32 feet after clipping

Cab length - 18 feet

Hood length - 4 feet

Highway width at pole #1 - 44 feet

Base point of pole to median - 49.5 feet

Lane width - 12 feet

Merge lane - 18 feet

Alleged angle of impact on pole:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/approachgif.gif

Position of cab upon rest:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/eye of the storm/241a.jpg

P.S. You can use as many anchors as you wish to make it work LMAO!

 

[The Big Dog]

The topic of this thread is Lloyd England: Eye of the Storm, which is exactly what my post detailed. The photos of record, the VDOT dimensions, the interviews of Lloyde England, the examination of the taxicab, simple logic, were all useful towards the corroboration of whatever pertains to the truth.

Hmmmm, considering that I quoted directly from your post and asked you to support the claims in your post, your response is predictable typical of the CIT facsists cowardly curious?

But allow me to explain, the CIT thugs' latest silly hit piece is premised on England's alleged claim that he was not on the bridge, and his adoption of the NOC path. That change of story was in turn based on the CIT's representations about the CIT NOC flight path. So it is reasonable, is it not, to ask whether the CIT NOC flight path is even possible. If it is impossible (hint: it is) does that not also corroborate what happened to the light poles and the cab?

Careful Spreston, your cherished belief in the CIT fraud may shortly run head on into math and science.

 

[The Big Dog]

You still haven't shown us the CIT NOC flight path? Remember the
direction of force acting on the plane?

P.S. You can use as many false experts over at CIT and PFFFFT as you wish to make it work LMAO!

Bump for Turbo and Cap'n Bob

 

[Pi_314]

Through corroboration from Lloyde England and the official script, this 33 feet is the length of pole which has been alleged to have been hurled in some miraculous unscientific method by an alleged 757 aircraft wing, flying east at 535 mph, to the north in the wrong direction, in some other miraculous unscientific fashion past the fuselage of this alleged aircraft, into the windshield of a taxicab allegedly driving south on Hwy 27 at 40 mph. Why this alleged light pole hurled into this taxicab like a javelin, did not destroy the taxi and kill the only occupant remains a mystery.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that the light pole was traveling 535 mph toward the cab?

 

[X]

Corroboration - noun
1. confirmation that some fact or statement is true through the use of documentary evidence
2. to strengthen
3. The act of corroborating, strengthening, or confirming; addition of strength; confirmation; as, the corroboration of an argument, or of information.

You surely realize TexasJack that the photos of record, the VDOT dimensions, the interviews of Lloyde England, the examination of the taxicab, simple logic, are all useful towards the corroboration of whatever pertains to the truth, don't you?

According to corroboration by VDOT, the lamp head is 40 feet above ground level. By simple observation, the main light pole, tapered from 10 inches diameter at the base to 6 inches diameter at the top, and extruded from 1/8 inch thickness aluminum, and which weighs 247 pounds, is about 37 feet long and is straight. It seems about a four foot section lying beyond the taxi, was broken off the #1 light pole by an unknown force, at the lower truss arm connection. The remaining main pole length, which appears to be mechanically bent, would be about 33 feet in length.

Through corroboration from Lloyde England and the official script, this 33 feet is the length of pole which has been alleged to have been hurled in some miraculous unscientific method by an alleged 757 aircraft wing, flying east at 535 mph, to the north in the wrong direction, in some other miraculous unscientific fashion past the fuselage of this alleged aircraft, into the windshield of a taxicab allegedly driving south on Hwy 27 at 40 mph. Why this alleged light pole hurled into this taxicab like a javelin, did not destroy the taxi and kill the only occupant remains a mystery.
This is corroborated by the alleged driver of the taxicab, Lloyde England in live interviews and other previous media testimony, who claims he did not see where the pole came from, and also claims that he brought the taxi to a 40 foot skidding stop sideways in the road, with this 33 foot pole through the windshield, between the front seats, smaller diameter end stuck in the leather back seat, and the larger diameter base end sticking out over the hood in mid-air.

As corroborated by simple measurement of the taxi, observation of the hole in the center of the windshield, and the taxi interior, and common sense, about 6 feet of the pole was inside the taxi interior, between the front seats, and nestled in the back seat, with the bent portion of the pole about at the windshield. About 5 feet of the pole was poised in mid-air above the hood, with the remaining 22 feet of the heavier base end of the pole sticking out past the bumper in mid-air. How less than 15% of the pole's mass could support more than 85% of the pole's mass suspended in mid-air through this wild gyration remains a mystery.
As corroborated by the photos of the taxi taken on 9-11-2001, the highly waxed hood of the taxi is undamaged by this pole, even through the alleged sideways skidding stop from 40 mph. Furthermore, the 33 foot long pole was allegedly removed from the windshield at the request of the driver, by a silent mysterious stranger and Lloyde himself, without damaging the hood in any way, even though the pole allegedly rolled in the hands of Lloyde, allegedly knocking him down with the pole on top of him. As corroborated by a multitude of photos taken on the morning of 9-11-2001, there is not one photo of the alleged pole through the windshield, nor a photo of two persons removing the pole from the windshield. Also quite curious, is the evident fact that the pole hanging in midair past the bumper, would be much longer than the distance across the highway exit lane to the guard rail. Why the end of the pole did not hit the guard rail and slam the pole into the driver also remains a mystery.
As also corroborated by a multitude of photos taken on the morning of 9-11-2001, there is no sign of bandages or bandaids on the face of Lloyde England, which might have covered cuts and injuries from the alleged shattering of glass in his face. Furthermore as corroborated by the same photos, the elderly Lloyde England was kept out in the open by the apparent Federal agents guarding the taxicab, standing near the rear bumper of his taxi for hour after hour of photo ops, obviously in no need of treatment or bandaging of cuts or injuries.

Oddly, as corroborated by a multitude of witnesses from Arlington National Cemetery and the Cito gas station, and others, the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, and could not possibly have knocked down this light pole nor the other 4 light poles nearby. And recently on 9-12-2008, this flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo was corroborated by the FAA federal agency.
Isn't that interesting?

Your bias is showing.

Everything I have highlighted in the above post reveals your arguments from personal incredulity and your operation from a preconceived conclusion.

If you were truly interested in figuring out what happened, you would not have used weasel-words like "miraculous unscientific method", "silent mysterious stranger", "in the wrong direction", etc.

They demonstrate that you have already discounted the veracity of some of the evidence in deference to your pre-determined conclusion.

Further, most of your argument is based on ignorance and incredulity.
You either don't personally think something could have happened, or don't understand why it happened, therefore you discount it instead of properly and impartially considering it.

"alleged to have been hurled in some miraculous unscientific method by an alleged 757 aircraft wing, flying east at 535 mph, to the north in the wrong direction"
Incredulity. You don't think it should have happened that way, therefore you conclude it didn't. But your only evidence is your personal take on the matter. This is an attempt to bias the reader.

"Why this alleged light pole hurled into this taxicab like a javelin, did not destroy the taxi and kill the only occupant remains a mystery."
Incredulity. You don't think it should have happened that way, therefore you conclude it didn't. But your only evidence is your personal take on the matter. This is an attempt to bias the reader.

"How less than 15% of the pole's mass could support more than 85% of the pole's mass suspended in mid-air through this wild gyration remains a mystery."
Incredulity, and a gross misunderstanding of physics. Not only do you presume this impossible based on what you think should have happened, you grossly misrepresent the physics of the situation. It is the strength of the pole, the weight, and the forces resisting motion that matter here, not merely the mass. You attempt to make it sound like an impossible scenario by making the claim that "x amount of mass cannot support y amount of mass through some movements". Well, this is plainly wrong. Gun barrels on tanks are supported by only a small portion of their mass. Doors are supported by only a small portion of their mass. Wings on an aircraft are supported near their base only, which would constitute a small portion of their mass. I can hold a long steel rod in my hands, and keep it roughly horizontal despite holding only the last foot or two in my hands. This argument is not so much an attempt to bias the reader as it is an attempt to mislead them. Very dishonest.

"the highly waxed hood of the taxi is undamaged by this pole, even through the alleged sideways skidding stop from 40 mph."
Incredulity. You don't think it should have happened that way, therefore you conclude it didn't. But your only evidence is your personal take on the matter. This is an attempt to bias the reader.

"without damaging the hood in any way, even though the pole allegedly rolled in the hands of Lloyde, allegedly knocking him down with the pole on top of him."
Incredulity. You don't think it should have happened that way, therefore you conclude it didn't. But your only evidence is your personal take on the matter. This is an attempt to bias the reader.

"there is not one photo of the alleged pole through the windshield, nor a photo of two persons removing the pole from the windshield."
Incredulity. You are the only one who sees this as a problem, and you seize on it because you can use it to reinforce the rest of your incredulous arguments. But the reinforcement would only have value if a) this is actually a problem, and b) the other statements were based on fact instead of hyperbole. This is an attempt to bias and mislead the reader.

"the evident fact that the pole hanging in midair past the bumper, would be much longer than the distance across the highway exit lane to the guard rail. Why the end of the pole did not hit the guard rail and slam the pole into the driver also remains a mystery."
Incredulity.You don't think it should have happened that way, therefore you conclude it didn't. But your only evidence is your personal take on the matter. Your use of the word "mystery" is an attempt to make it appear as some sort of normally impossible scenario, making this statement a compound argument from incredulity. This is an attempt to bias the reader.

"there is no sign of bandages or bandaids on the face of Lloyde England, which might have covered cuts and injuries from the alleged shattering of glass in his face. [Lloyde remained near his cab for some time] obviously in no need of treatment or bandaging of cuts or injuries."
Incredulity based on ignorance. Windshields consist of two panes of glass, sandwiched around a tough plastic sheet. This is so that if they break, the glass will remain together instead of flying about in shards. It is for precisely the reason you jumped upon (injury) that they do this. It is safer. The glass, though broken, will remain together as a cohesive unit instead of creating dangerous shards and flying splinters. If you don't believe me about the windshields, find one you can destroy. An old parts-car or something. Break it. See how many shards go flying around to cause injury. This is an attempt to mislead and bias the reader. Very dishonest.

"a multitude of witnesses from Arlington National Cemetery and the Citgo gas station, and others, the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, and could not possibly have knocked down this light pole nor the other 4 light poles nearby."
And here you reveal your bias. Glaringly. You are discounting some very substantial physical evidence in favour of a pet theory that defies almost all the evidence of that day. This rejection of evidence and sound theories is why you needed to make so many dishonest misleading, and ignorant arguments in your post. Somebody truly interested in finding out what happened that day, somebody not operating from a conclusion they already determined, somebody honest, would be using this evidence to help formulate their theory. Eyewitness testimony is fine, but bear in mind it is unreliable. As Pomeroo pointed out to TC 329, many of the eyewitnesses to the Titanic's sinking reported the ship sinking intact, whereas other reported it breaking. Why the difference? Many reasons. Perspective, distraction, memeory lapses, etc. The human mind is most definitely not a perfect recorder of events, and as such even the most well-meaning eyewitness should have their statements compared to the physical evidence instead of the other way around. And it should be pointed out that there were also many witnesses who say the plane flying along the generally accepted flight path. You discount them due to your bias. Why? Because you assume they are mis-remembering (or bought out, but let's not divert topic). What is important to note is that you are aware witness testimony can be unreliable. ou just prefer your preconceived conclusion and therefore lend full credence to the few witnesses whose testimony is completely contradicted by the physical evidence. Your bias is showing.

"this flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo was corroborated by the FAA federal agency."
There is a whole other thread on this topic. I suggest you read it. And try not to let your bias lead you by the nose.​

As you can see (or at least, as any impartial readers can see), your post and "theories" are based on ignorance, bias, and incredulity. There is no substance, there is no foundation.
Further, your ideas and perceptions run directly counter to all the physical evidence, tracking data, most of the eyewitnesses, etc. That is a staggering amount of data you disregard based on a minority of witnesses and personal incredulity.

Your post, therefore, is worthless as an argument. That is why some of the other posters mock it. They can't be bothered to take the time to refute something that is so obviously insubstantial. So they laugh at those who think confusion, ignorance and misunderstood physics makes for valid arguments.

 

[SPreston]

Enemies? Everybody but you?

What's really interesting is that neither CIT nor PfT have taken their "evidence" to the police, FBI, DA's, lawyers, insurance fraud investigators, or anyone who could review it and begin action to achieve justice.

That, CT boy, is interesting.

How would you possibly know what they have done or not done?

Neither CIT nor Pilots for 9/11 Truth are required to inform their enemies of their actions

Their enemies? Are you serious. They think all those people are their enemies? They think insurance investigators are their enemies? They think all the DA's are their enemies? The think all the lawyers are their enemies?

Do you feel that way? Are you aware that paranoia is a mental illness

Actually I was referring to you and your fellow pseudoskeptics.

Surprised?

 

[Turbofan]

If it is impossible (hint: it is) does that not also corroborate what happened to the light poles and the cab?

We have several video witness accounts that say you're wrong.

I still don't see why a plane can't fly over the Annex, north of Citgo and
pull up over the Pentagon.

P.S. For the pole lovers, it's not the speed of the pole traveling toward
the cab, it's the ANGLE.

 

[SPreston]

Your posts, therefore, is worthless as an argument. That is why some of the other posters mock it.

Skipping past all your kindergarten coloring nonsense, the real reason is that you pseudoskeptics are dedicated to maintaining the status quo and protecting the real perpetrators of 9-11. You people mock everything here. Your entire existence is based upon mocking, glad handing and circle jerking.

 

[WildCat]

I still don't see why a plane can't fly over the Annex, north of Citgo and
pull up over the Pentagon.

I know, that's why you guys at PfffT are such a joke. You propose an impossible flight path, and don't even understand why it's impossible.

 

[WildCat]

Skipping past all your kindergarten coloring nonsense, the real reason is that you pseudoskeptics are dedicated to maintaining the status quo and protecting the real perpetrators of 9-11. You people mock everything here. Your entire existence is based upon mocking, glad handing and circle jerking.

That's because getting truthers to actually think logically has about as much a probability of success as teaching a dog to talk.

It's not because of us your movement isn't gaining any traction, it's because you have no facts and no evidence. Just the paranoid rantings of a street corner lunatic.

 

[TexasJack]

Question for the CIT huggers, why has your Lloyd England investigation been rejected by the proper authorities?

 

[X]

Skipping past all your kindergarten coloring nonsense, the real reason is that you pseudoskeptics are dedicated to maintaining the status quo and protecting the real perpetrators of 9-11. You people mock everything here. Your entire existence is based upon mocking, glad handing and circle jerking.

Is that all you have to say?
I detailed where in your posts you display bias, ignorance and incredulity.
I told you in detail why your post fails as an argument, and why no-one outside the CIT choir will take it seriously. Why it will not convince even a fence-sitter.


And in return, you call it "kindergarten colouring nonsense" and dub me a "pseudoskeptic". You accuse me of being here only to mock, when I am here to try to educate people.

You very rudely throw my work back in my face instead of using it to address the weak points of your argument.

Is bluster all you have? Are you truly so incapable of addressing ym poiints that you resort to flinging childish insults?

This does not help your credibility.

 

[Turbofan]

I'm not surprised this coming from Wildcat; one of the least technical members
around here.

What's the height of the Annex? 50 feet? What is the elevation at the
Annex? 135 feet?

What is the height of the Pentagon 77 feet? It's at the bottom of a hill.
What is the elevation there? 33 feet?

Well gee smart guy, even if the Annex was flush with the ground, the
elevation is still higher than the Pentagon + local elevation!!!

How is this "IMPOSSIBLE" to fly over if it's already higher?

 

[The Big Dog]

We have several video witness accounts that say you're wrong.

I still don't see why a plane can't fly over the Annex, north of Citgo and
pull up over the Pentagon.

Because the G-Forces would tear the plane apart. In other words, CIT has scammed you from day one with a Flight Path that is impossible. Doesn't that make you mad? "How is this "IMPOSSIBLE" to fly over if it's already higher?" Because the CIT witnesses including Boger and Morin said it was descending, plus that was absolutely essential for the CIT fantasy Hollywood special effect explosion.

"Skipping past all your kindergarten coloring nonsense, the real reason is that you pseudoskeptics are dedicated to maintaining the status quo and protecting the real perpetrators of 9-11. You people mock everything here. Your entire existence is based upon mocking, glad handing and circle jerking."

Oh, my request for the math to support your fantasy has frightened you? Why do so many truthers think you Pentagon No Planers are disinfo?

 

[WildCat]

I'm not surprised this coming from Wildcat; one of the least technical members
around here.

Says the guy who bragged about how he was going to take his case to an engineering board to LHFAO as the engineers rip us a new one, only to find that not a single engineer there supported you. Have you forgotten that so soon TF?

Have the PfffT had the findings of their pretend FDR experts corroborated by real FDR experts yet? Does it bother you that no actual FDR experts have joined PfffT?

What's the height of the Annex? 50 feet? What is the elevation at the
Annex? 135 feet?

What is the height of the Pentagon 77 feet? It's at the bottom of a hill.
What is the elevation there? 33 feet?

Well gee smart guy, even if the Annex was flush with the ground, the
elevation is still higher than the Pentagon + local elevation!!!

How is this "IMPOSSIBLE" to fly over if it's already higher?

Show the math laughing boy, go ahead. Should be simple for a smart guy like you... unless you're actually just another mark suckered by the snake oil salesmen at PfffT.

Did your new PfffT coffee mug arrive yet?

 

[Pi_314]

Thought I'd ask again

Through corroboration from Lloyde England and the official script, this 33 feet is the length of pole which has been alleged to have been hurled in some miraculous unscientific method by an alleged 757 aircraft wing, flying east at 535 mph, to the north in the wrong direction, in some other miraculous unscientific fashion past the fuselage of this alleged aircraft, into the windshield of a taxicab allegedly driving south on Hwy 27 at 40 mph. Why this alleged light pole hurled into this taxicab like a javelin, did not destroy the taxi and kill the only occupant remains a mystery.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that the light pole was traveling 535 mph toward the cab?