Merged Lloyd England: Eye of the Storm

[Turbofan]

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 you forgotten that we learned Anti-sophist's BS claim about T4-T5 lag
was proven incorrect by that forum?

Have you not read the updates about the non connection to the erase line
which removes Jaydee's theory for the last few seconds of data getting
erased?

Wow, I'm soooo owned

Sorry kid, you really are non technical.

Care to take a stab at the light pole mystery, or explain how it's impossible
to fly over the Pentagon from the Annex elevation...even though the Annex
is on a hill?

Oh yes, this "descent" garbage you all talk about is false. The plane flew
north of the Annex roof high. It was not descending.

Poor guys can't even see the impossible angles of the pole and cab.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh yes, this "descent" garbage you all talk about is false. The plane flew
north of the Annex roof high. It was not descending.

Turbofan, two things, even without the descent the turn is impossible.

Second, why do you disregard Terry Morin's testimony, one of CIT's star witnesses?

"Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon."

Turbofan, now do the calculations.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Turbofan, two things, even without the descent the turn is impossible.

Second, why do you disregard Terry Morin's testimony, one of CIT's star witnesses?

According to Reheat's calculations, you're lying.

Morin > NoC1 (250 KIAS)
Heading fm Turn Radius (032°)
Degrees of turn (040°)
Turn Radius Req (~2000')
Bank Angle (70.3°)
G Forces (3)
Stall Speed (275 KIAS)

None of these parameters are impossible for all planes, therefore, the flightpath is flyable.

Now please, Wildcat, 16.5, and Turbofan, please stick to the topic (i.e. Lloyd England's Story).

 

[nicepants]

Craig TLB,

now that you're back, please answer this:

Why would Lloyd have to be involved?

CIT thinks that the military carried out the biggest conspiracy of all time ...fooling hundreds of people into believing that an airplane hit the pentagon when it actually missed.....yet they couldn't fool a single old man into believing that the plane knocked a light pole into his car?!

 

[beachnut]

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.

You will not understand it but this is collaboration! It shows the cab, where Lloyd says a plane flew right over him, and hit the pole in his cab. You must of missed the real interviews and not the NAZI like idiot interview CIT did. How stupid do you have to be to mess up 9/11 as bad as CIT does?

Photo lines up plane right over Lloyd, the closest he has ever been to a plane with the engines at 100 percent without being in the plane. Lloyd forgot to have his hearing protection on. You are a hoot, too challenged to figure out 9/11 so you fall for idiots who make up idiot ideas, and you support them with zero evidence and zero logic.

The revelation for this big news storm is seeing how many people lack knowledge and follow the false information from the worse investigators in the world; CIT is so paranoid! The funny part here, is I knew you were a full fledge drank the kool aid cheerleader from way back, go CIT! go!

 

[beachnut]

According to Reheat's calculations, you're lying.



None of these parameters are impossible for all planes, therefore, the flightpath is flyable.

Now please, Wildcat, 16.5, and Turbofan, please stick to the topic (i.e. Lloyd England's Story).

Lloyd already refutes this if you use proper interview technique and study history, something foreign to CIT!

http://mfile.akamai.com/12904/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2006/0425/8978949.200k.asx

Couple this with the photo on 9/11, and you have proof your support of CIT is based on your lack of 9/11 knowledge.

Please post the path you refer to. You left out the path. You left out the path you want to say is possible based on witness report and FDR information. So produce the path! Until the path is produced, your post is not admissible, but just an attempt to twist what people say to prove you have no logical ideas on 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

Have you forgotten that we learned Anti-sophist's BS claim about T4-T5 lag
was proven incorrect by that forum?

Have you not read the updates about the non connection to the erase line
which removes Jaydee's theory for the last few seconds of data getting
erased?

Wow, I'm soooo owned

Sorry kid, you really are non technical.

Care to take a stab at the light pole mystery, or explain how it's impossible
to fly over the Pentagon from the Annex elevation...even though the Annex
is on a hill?

Oh yes, this "descent" garbage you all talk about is false. The plane flew
north of the Annex roof high. It was not descending.

Poor guys can't even see the impossible angles of the pole and cab.

You are the non technical guy. You spew junk ideas and post zero sources, zero written evidence, and zero sense. You can't tie the FDR to Lloyd forgetting where he was on 9/11, let alone figure out why Lloyd, after 7 years, forgot where he was. You can't after 7 years figure out 9/11. This is not Watergate! 9/11 truth, your movement, is a zombie movement of fantasy. You are leading the way in posting false ideas from other people, you can't even figure out yourself. So mister technical, mover your FDR junk ideas to your the FDR thread and be wrong again.

Sorry, you did not prove any of the things you say, and the data in the FDR can be corrupted for other reason you will never be able to grasp due to bias to support the lies of 9/11 truth and Balsamo's implications of lies. Why is the failed pilot Balsamo unable to lie outright, he needs you to say the lie he implies? Why?

Sorry, the plane was seen hitting the Pentagon, it ruins your false idea.

Darn, you are now quibbling about the lamppost impacting the cab, you say it can't be done. Wow! With zero physics, you wave your hands and say it is impossible, without showing your work! WOW! You are owned by your own ideas! Wave those hands and do it again. How was that rally!?

The plane was seen by people in a steep descent. I doubt you know what a normal landing descent is to know what a steep one is! The people who drive past and work at the Pentagon know, they watch planes on approach to DCA all the time. We have expert witnesses on what a normal descent looks like. You lost this one! Bad form.

Do you get anything right about 9/11? It is impossible to go from where Morin saw the tail of 77 go, and get over the Pentagon. Your lack of Research is showing, as you ignore a CIT witness! Darn, Sean saw 77 enter the Pentagon! Oops, another CIT witness! Do you watch and read this stuff CIT tries to twist?

Oops, the NoC is refuted by a CIT witness! This is more to prove you wrong. Your post has so many wrong things; please count them. How many false statements/lies did Turbofan make in his post? The best answer gets free beer from me. The Saturday question of the beer.

Paik points to a path that misses the CITGO station to the south! Love those CIT wacky video interview; proving one thing! CIT is the worse investigating team in the world.

 

[Brainache]

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.

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.
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?

I'm not David James, but yes I do find this surprising.

I thought your enemies were the people who committed the attacks on 9/11. People who are skeptical of your claims are not your enemy, they are your audience. The skeptics here at JREF and other debunking sites are actively working with you guys to get you to lift your game and improve your arguments. If you put forward a "theory" that has enormous holes in it that even a non-technical muggins like me can drive a 767 through, don't you want to fix it up before releasing it to the general public?

Seriously it's like a Boxer calling a trainer his enemy because he makes him do a lot of sit-ups and running on the spot. Or an Author calling his Editor enemy because he points out plot holes in a new novel.

Lloyd England is not your enemy either, he is just an old Cab Driver who narrowly escaped death from a freak of circumstance. Wrong place, wrong time.

 

[bonavada]

Lloyd England is not your enemy either, he is just an old Cab Driver who narrowly escaped death from a freak of circumstance. Wrong place, wrong time.

Poor old Lloyd. I can't help wondering if he's aware of the character assasination carried out by these people? Would he have the means (or the will) to put a stop to it? CIT and the rest are very public in their defamation of Mr England. There would most definitely, I think, be a legal method for him to put a stop to it. I would gladly contribute to a fund for the guy if he needed help to pay for it. The way these reprobates are picking on Lloyd is sickening, reminds me of yobs gleefully baiting the local baglady. It should be stopped.

BV

 

[WilliamSeger]

Although it's laughable to call taking a couple of snapshots a "forensic investigation" -- no measurements, no attempt to really determine how badly the back seat was damaged -- I think the snapshots give us enough information to make a slight update to a graphic I did when Ranke first started trying to sell this nonsense:

The snapshots show that, despite the leather being torn in only one spot, the end of the pole pushed well into lower part of the back seat. This graphic shows that, in that case, even with a very bent pole, it would not have hit the hood of the car. In fact, it could have been bent enough that the base of the pole could have been resting on the ground, and it would not have hit the hood. Even if the base was above the ground as I show it here, if the top was pushed just a few inches into the back seat, the base couldn't go anywhere unless the top could rip completely through the back seat. Leather is a rather tough material.

 

[johnny karate]

TLB has contempt for the entire FDNY, so is that hard to believe he has contempt for a lone cab driver?

 

[Pi_314]

Altough CIT sucks as an investigation team, they did at least get some pics, and imagine this, they show more evidence of a pole entering Lloyds cab. I'm going to make an assumption that both arm rest were down when the pole came through the windshield, went in between the two seats, wedged in the back seat, and then proceeded to pry bar the passenger seat. Looking at the ripples in the fabric of the front seat, we can deduce a prying location, which is consistent with everything I've said.

 

[240-185]

I don't get the point...

What's the purpose to show that this taxi driver was "in on it", whereas we have 136 testimonies, bodies strapped to seats, and aircraft debris?

 

[Baylor]

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.

Windshields are a type of laminated glass (safety glass), which is coated with a plastic interlayer (PVB) so it won't cut the occupants of the car when shattered. Hence the name "safety glass". Your bringing this up as (non) evidence speaks volumes about how much "evidence" there is to support CIT's claims.

 

[Turbofan]

Hey, "netgineers":

How does the pole enter the cab based on the angle of impact vs. the
angle of cab?

I gave you all the measurements but you all ignored it. Stop making up
theories and try to prove how the pole entered the car.

 

[WildCat]

Have you forgotten that we learned Anti-sophist's BS claim about T4-T5 lag
was proven incorrect by that forum?

This is a lie. In fact, you haven't been correct in a single one of your claims. You are batting .000, I guess lying is all you can do now.

Have you not read the updates about the non connection to the erase line
which removes Jaydee's theory for the last few seconds of data getting
erased?

Wow, I'm soooo owned

You are, but you're not smart enough to know it.

Sorry kid, you really are non technical.

How ever will I live on?

Care to take a stab at the light pole mystery,

Sure, Flight 77 hit it.

or explain how it's impossible
to fly over the Pentagon from the Annex elevation...even though the Annex
is on a hill?

Wow, you think the hill helps you? You are even more clueless than you first appeared.

Oh yes, this "descent" garbage you all talk about is false. The plane flew
north of the Annex roof high. It was not descending.

Then there is no way anyone could have thought it hit the Pentagon if it was that high, and every single one of CIT's witnesses says it hit the Pentagon.

Poor guys can't even see the impossible angles of the pole and cab.

I'd ask you for the math for this, but I know you're not capable.

 

[Turbofan]

This is a lie. In fact, you haven't been correct in a single one of your claims. You are batting .000, I guess lyiong is all you can do now.

You are HOPELESS! Ask your buddy MacGuyver he's still around!

The FDR is a single point node from the FDAU on a serial connection -
THERE CANNOT BE ANY DATA COLLISIONS. Therefore T4-T5 cannot exist!

Get an education buddy!

Math for the pole entering the car? How old are you? Check out the
orientation of the road and alleged damage path. How does the pole
falling in a diagonal direction enter the cab which is on a huge angle?


Please explain mr math?!

 

[WildCat]

You are HOPELESS! Ask your buddy MacGuyver he's still around!

The FDR is a single point node from the FDAU on a serial connection -
THERE CANNOT BE ANY DATA COLLISIONS. Therefore T4-T5 cannot exist!

Get an education buddy!

Continuing to lie doesn't help your case.

Math for the pole entering the car? How old are you? Check out the
orientation of the road and alleged damage path. How does the pole
falling in a diagonal direction enter the cab which is on a huge angle?


Please explain mr math?!

It's almost as if you don't know Lloyd's car was moving at the time...

 

[WildCat]

And once again:

 

[beachnut]

Get an education buddy!

Math for the pole entering the car? How old are you? Check out the
orientation of the road and alleged damage path. How does the pole
falling in a diagonal direction enter the cab which is on a huge angle?


Please explain mr math?!

The pole entered the car, please show how it is impossible! You can't get G force right with the help of all those p4t pilots who can't do physics right. This is bad news. Pilots who can't do math and physics, and you who can't prove it is impossible for a lamppost to hit Lloyd's car and stay there. Get an education buddy? Are you talking to yourself?

The photo above shows that it was possible. Do some math; or get help from a teacher; oops, I am a teacher sometimes. I can help you but you ignore logic, correct math, and prefer to spread the lie 77 did not hit the Pentagon. When will you prove the DNA was a big frame up and tell the loved ones of the delema? Never?

Imagine the noise level at Lloyd car as a jet at FULL THROTTLE passes 30 feet over his head! LOUD! No wonder he was shaken up. But as you see there are witnesses all over making your big 77 did not hit the Pentagon lie ludicrous and stupid. BTW, notice how there is no level off needed! The Pentagon camera has a messed up fisheye or worse lens making it look like 77 was level. But like is not as it was. Why does p4t fail at everything they say about 9/11? CIT and the p4t alliance pretty is a match made in ignorance.