• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Lloyd England: Eye of the Storm

CurtC said:
That's what I was wondering. I don't find Lloyd's statements about which pole it was particularly persuasive. And I'm having these thoughts, because my gut agrees with you that having a very long, heavy pole, supported by its skinny end, dangling out of Lloyd's car without causing any damage to the hood, and then Lloyd and one other guy lifting this long heavy pole out of his car again without causing any damage to the exterior, is not very plausible. The smaller section of pole is much more plausible to me, even in light of Lloyd's description.

However, let me point out that even the long pole scenario is way more plausible than stealth-planted light poles.
Click to expand...

I agree, and that's why the official story and Lloyd's story smells so bad.

Even the point of how the pole gets into the cab is just impossible based
on timing, direction, angle, etc.

It is clear to me that Lloyd is talking about the heavy, long
part as he describes it falling onto him and needing help from a silent stranger
to remove it from the car.

He even enacts the removal of the long pole in one of the videos, along with
a drawing of what it looked like.

If you haven't already watched the videos, just try it. You may get a different view of what is being presented.
 
Turbofan said:
Somewhat. I do it almost daily when building roll cages for cars.

In the context of the official story with one fixed end of the pole, and then
being struck by a fast moving object- no!
Click to expand...

I guess you are right. It is so much more likely that planted the poles on a busy highway in broad day light without anyone noticing via some sort of crazy magic trick. Kind of like how they really pulled the jet up and over the Pentagon. How many people say they saw that happen again?
 
So why are you putting the burden of proof on us? You're the one who finds the physical scene (and Lloyd's account) irreconcilable with the physics of the impact. It's up to you to demonstrate your claim by testing a valid model of the impact or mathematically proving the impossibility of the scene. Why tell us to do it for you?
 
Turbofan said:
Somewhat. I do it almost daily when building roll cages for cars.

In the context of the official story with one fixed end of the pole, and then
being struck by a fast moving object- no!
Click to expand...
Wow you sure do have a lot of time to post, sorry to hear business is down.
BTW how is it going over at those engineer forums?
:dl:
 
Pretty good there Bobert.

MacGuyver is discussing the FDR with me and the others right now.

We're down to two theories from about six

As for the cab story, Lloyd's car would have to be stopped and lined up
with the direction of light pole impact to make it even remotely possible
for the pole to end up in the back seat.

Even at that point, if the pole falls onto the car, how does it spear the windshield,
and move horizontally toward the back of the car as it is tipping over
without damaging the roof, or hood?

Please note, Lloyd's car stopped in the second (midde lane) as per photo.
 
Turbofan said:
Pretty good there Bobert.

MacGuyver is discussing the FDR with me and the others right now.

We're down to two theories from about six
Click to expand...

Cool, while you got the brain trust together, why don't you guys run the calculations of the CIT NOC flight path. Just do the flat turns first, and then we'll all get together and work in the descents, and then CIT can run the numbers on the pull up and over.

Good luck!
 
Turbofan said:
Pretty good there Bobert.

MacGuyver is discussing the FDR with me and the others right now.

We're down to two theories from about six
Click to expand...
That is a lie. In fact, MacGuyver is pretty pissed at you for continually misrepresenting what he says:

MacGyverS2000 said:
As I said from the get-go, I don't mind a scientific discussion, but I do mind when my words are taken out of context or used in an improper manner. It is wrong to tell others their conclusions are incorrect and that proof can be had by rereading my posts... truth in point, you seem to be misreading (or conveniently forgetting) what's in my posts. I try to be quite careful in my wording, and your posts (such as the one above) are starting to show a level of desperateness seen only when the facts do not support the argument.

So far, few (if any) of my posts have supported any of your claims. In case I'm not being clear enough... Until at least one of your claims is proven correct by the statements I'm making (which has not happened yet), please do not, in any way, shape, or form, point towards my statements as being in support of your claims.
Click to expand...
You are still batting .000 TF. And you're a proven liar to boot.
 
If I'm not mistaken, I 've already presented some numbers concerning this?

Navy Annex elevation 135 feet. Navy Annex roof height about 50 feet?
A total of about 185 feet?

Pentagon elevation 33 feet. Roof height 77 feet. A total of 110 feet.


The distance between both buildings is about 2700 feet.

it would be simple to draw an arc from each roof top and apply different
speeds to work out g forces averaged over the distance.

Does anyone see a problem with keeping the g's under three using my
values?

Is there anything else that should be factored?
 
WildCat said:
That is a lie. In fact, MacGuyver is pretty pissed at you for continually misrepresenting what he says:


You are still batting .000 TF. And you're a proven liar to boot.
Click to expand...

He may be pissed off, but I believe I've been misunderstood so we're starting
over.

Proven liar? Just like you?
 
Turbofan said:
Does anyone see a problem with keeping the g's under three using my values?
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere. You do realize, BTW, that a 3 g turn in an airplane requires a bank angle of 70 degrees? If that had been the case, witnesses would not have said "I saw an airliner coming at the Pentagon," but instead "I saw an airliner on its side coming at the Pentagon"?
 
CurtC said:
Now we're getting somewhere. You do realize, BTW, that a 3 g turn in an airplane requires a bank angle of 70 degrees? If that had been the case, witnesses would not have said "I saw an airliner coming at the Pentagon," but instead "I saw an airliner on its side coming at the Pentagon"?
Click to expand...

Let's go at this slowly and see if we can come to some conclusion.

The only data we have to go from is the witness accounts of the NOC
approach , correct?

If I use the inside and outside paths drawn on the maps (as per witness
account), will that be sufficient?
 
Turbofan said:
Pretty good there Bobert.

MacGuyver is discussing the FDR with me and the others right now.

We're down to two theories from about six

.
Click to expand...
YOU ARE LYING!
You were banned over at MG's forum after you LIED about being a practicing engineer.
Did you AGAIN LIE and rejoin using a sock?
If you are not lying then please link to the thread in question.
 
Turbofan said:
Pretty good there Bobert.

MacGuyver is discussing the FDR with me and the others right now.

We're down to two theories from about six

As for the cab story, Lloyd's car would have to be stopped and lined up
with the direction of light pole impact to make it even remotely possible
for the pole to end up in the back seat.

Even at that point, if the pole falls onto the car, how does it spear the windshield,
and move horizontally toward the back of the car as it is tipping over
without damaging the roof, or hood?

Please note, Lloyd's car stopped in the second (midde lane) as per photo.
Click to expand...
BTW I like how you are tying to be slick posting as if somehow MacGuyver agrees with your fantasies about the light pole.
Somehow I seriously doubt he is knowingly agreeing with your lies.
I am sure he wont appreciate this.
 
Bobert said:
YOU ARE LYING!
You were banned over at MG's forum after you LIED about being a practicing engineer.
Did you AGAIN LIE and rejoin using a sock?
If you are not lying then please link to the thread in question.
Click to expand...

I NEVER lied about being an engineer. It was made very clear that I was
not an engineer on that forum.
BTW I like how you are tying to be slick posting as if somehow MacGuyver agrees with your fantasies about the light pole.
Somehow I seriously doubt he is knowingly agreeing with your lies.
I am sure he wont appreciate this.
Click to expand...

I did not say MacGuyver is agreeing with me. I said we are discussing
the FDR.

Stop twisting my words.
 
Sigh. Turbofan you'd think such a flyover would be witnessed and reported by DOZENS of people. Don't you find it odd that there aren't ANY?
 
twinstead said:
Sigh. Turbofan you'd think such a flyover would be witnessed and reported by DOZENS of people. Don't you find it odd that there aren't ANY?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far. Who's to say a flyover would be noticed, or perceived
due to the OGCT?

At the time of the event, would you say most people were swayed by the
media? Now many years later, you have people coming forward and looking
at independent evidence.

With the airport not far from the Pentagon, and planes flying around and over
the Pentagon, maybe someone did see the flyover plane but didn't know it.
Now, years later after putting it all together, could they positivey ID the
suspect plane?

We do know there was more than one aircraft involved. There are just too
many unknowns to say 'nobody saw a flyover'.

If I were you, I 'd be much more concerned about the NOC witnesses because
that is a total contradiction of the official story.

Lloyd's story is also not credible at all, and he was in the media forefront
pushing the story.
 
Sorry. A flyover would definitely be witnessed. The sight and sound of a 757 flying low over one of the largest buildings in the world at 500 mph, would be impossible to miss. There are all kinds of people that saw and heard a large jet up until it got to the Pentagon, but zero after. I wonder why?

This is just one of the many reasons why rational people regard Beavis and Butthead and PffffT as moronic crackpots.

As for Lloyd, who cares if Beavis and Butthead have managed slightly confuse an elderly man about an event that happened seven years ago. His story is hardly very important for the big picture. Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon. This is a fact and the evidence to support it is so overwhelming it is ridiculous. The evidence that it didn't hit the Pentagon is non-existent. The fact that a very small group of morons are not satisfied means nothing really.

The only use Beavis and Butthead and PffffT have in the world is as entertainment. Just yesterday I was telling my girlfriend about the flyover "theory," and never having heard of it (like the vast majority of people), thought the whole idea is hilarious.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom