Merged Lloyd England: Eye of the Storm
- Thread starter TheLoneBedouin
- Start date
CurtC
Illuminator
I voted for Obama. I guess I must be a Truther now! OK, here goes...
Hey guys! Did you know that besides the Twin Towers, there was a third building that collapsed that day? It was not hit by any airplanes, but it collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed!
How's that?
Hey guys! Did you know that besides the Twin Towers, there was a third building that collapsed that day? It was not hit by any airplanes, but it collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed!
How's that?
nicepants
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,723
Turbofan said:
Shouldn't the truthers all have voted for McCain since Sarah Palin supports a new 9/11 investigation?
Last edited:
Where in heck did the flyover theory originate when there is absolutely no one claiming to have seen it happen? Why haven't the fools just stuck to their NOS nonsense and pretend they never mentioned a flyover? It certainly wouldn't be unprecedented to change their story midstream. JAQs!
You live in Canada?
No offense but the CIT fools had to go to Canada to get their biggest
BTW TF just like your flawed views of facts related to 9-11 so to are your views flawed when it comes to the election.
53% to 46% is not an ass kicking!
Is there ever a time when you will tell the truth?
Will you ever not lie and distort to make a point.
Look up sociopath.
I supported Obama BTW so does that mean I am not part of the NWO?
Obamas win was the worst thing that could have happened to your pathetic movement.
No it wasnt. Not even close. You cant even be honest enough to see this?
You must not be very familiar with election coverage here in the US because they seem to always call the winner early.
Yes lots of people may hate Bush, whats your point?
Ok so 80% supported Obama....WHAT A SHOCK!
BTW do you have a link to that poll?
You are at the North Pole and facts are at the South Pole.
Mangoose
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 921
Repeating my question again since it has been ignored by Turbofan on multiple threads.
Here is a graphic that shows why a flyover would have been visible to both cameras:
Last edited:
Waiting for someone here to approve the prelim numbers. What do you
think, can we go with it?
Can one of you math specialists or experts in "the physics of flight" consider
Lloyde's story in context and work out some calculations for me here?
Use approximated specs of the pole, and the tapered weight of the lighter bent top end in contrast to the much heavier bottom end that Lloyde claims was over the hood.
What sort of energy we should expect from the approach of a 90 ton Boeing
at 530+ MPH?
Also calculate the effect of the cab traveling about 40 mph in the opposite direction.
Then calculate what kind of forces would act on the pole as the car skidded
to a stop sideways.
(imagine the 30 foot long pole still inside the cab as described by Lloyde and required by the interior damage)
Does it really make sense to you that the heavy end of the long pole would remain suspended over the hood through this entire experience?
No damage to the roof, windshield frame, or even causing more damage to
the windshield?
After you figure all of that, ask yourself how the pole ended up through the
windshield when Llyod's car was several feet away from the impact point
when he claimed it entered his cab.
Last edited:
I ALREADY answered this! You show me where the Boeing 757, AA 77
seems to be in that video using those same cameras you're asking to capture
the flyover!
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
I ALREADY answered this! You show me where the Boeing 757, AA 77
seems to be in that video using those same cameras you're asking to capture
the flyover!
There are two videos with more frames that were released earlier that would have shown the flyover.
They show something in the video so why would they not show the flyover?
Mangoose
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 921
I ALREADY answered this! You show me where the Boeing 757, AA 77 seems to be in that video using those same cameras you're asking to capture the flyover!
You supplied no answer to my question at all. I already said in my initial post that both videos show major activity near ground level (wholly unexplained by CIT since they do not have the plane so low) in the frame immediately preceding the explosion, but because of background objects and a lack of contrast it is difficult to distinguish the object over the lawn from the trees and buildings in the background. And I already said that this problem would not occur at all in the case of a flyover plane in the sky.
So stop bouncing the question back without attempting an answer. Very simple...Tell me why these two cameras did not capture the flyover. What explanation do you have for no plane being visible in the sky in either the frame prior to the initial explosion or the frame following it -- in both videos? And what is causing that activity near ground level in the frame preceding the explosion? I say it is the plane. In fact in the video without the pillar, I can make out the plane -- although because of image quality it is rather ambiguous. What do you say that object is (which pops into view the frame immediately prior to the explosion, and thus is associated with the event)?
You want me to believe that's an airplane huh? It ain't gunna happen.
For all we know it could be a missile, or smaller aircraft, or maybe drawn in.
It's amazing how the frames just happen to miss enough of the 'object' to
keep us guessing.
Now you want me to tell you why I can't see a flyover from a source that
I don't trust (being your government). Does that make any sense to you?
Do you have anything else to show me?
For all we know it could be a missile, or smaller aircraft, or maybe drawn in.
It's amazing how the frames just happen to miss enough of the 'object' to
keep us guessing.
Now you want me to tell you why I can't see a flyover from a source that
I don't trust (being your government). Does that make any sense to you?
Do you have anything else to show me?
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
Of course it ain't going to happen because that goes against your fantasy. Too bad the eyewitness testimonies, debris, damage, DNA evidence, etc. goes against your fantasy. Oh yeah, let's not forget the complete lack of any proof at all of a flyover.
nicepants
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,723
If you don't think it makes sense, provide some evidence to support your claims....something other than personal incredulity.
How do you know it didn't cause more damage to the windshield?
We are the government! Did you read our Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence? You are hearsay garbage statement spewing p4t spokesperson, hawking DVDs full of dumb ideas at 15 or 16 bucks, or has it gone up to 20 bucks for 34 Gs of stupid?
You do not understand DME, FDRs and other 9/11 issues, you will not understand any thing in this thread. Gee, you can’t even tell me which lamppost hit Lloyd’s cab.
It was flight 77 confirmed by a FDR, witnesses, DNA, RADAR, and even CIT witnesses saw 77 hit the Pentagon.
The only reason you are here is due to the fact no one who disagrees with you is at the p4tf. The p4t forum is a group think full of dumb ideas and all the little p4t want to be pilots agree with the fearless leader terrorist apologist who sells DVDs on line, Balsamo the 34 G flight path specialist for woo.
Evidence on 9/11 makes your ideas false!
