Proof of Photomanipulation

What about the other witnesses like Penny Elgas who have it flying just in front of her? She can't have been as far down the ramp as CIT want as she turned off on the now removed NE loop of the cloverleaf. And off course she watched it hit so the supposed overflight is impossible too.

Of course CIT didn't tell Lloyd about Penny, did they.........
Click to expand...


No, Penny was North past the bridge. She said she was just in front of the Pentagon.

You really want some interesting testimony try Father Mcgraw. He was far north of the bridge right near where Lloyde claimed he was. Father Mcgraw said the cab was a "few feet" from him. He corroborates Lloyde.

Watch "From the Law to the Lord" on google videos. Its about 10 minutes long.
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
good grief that's an ambulance! and traffic is still moving! And if it were where the yellow star was it would be floating in the air.

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/ambulance.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

So as far as the white van goes...we can tell from the positioning of the front tires its relation to the tree. The far tire is visible and the near tire is hidden by the tree. If we moved furhter left we would be looking at the cab more head on, and if we moved futher right it would become more obscured by the tree. Right?
 
Mobertermy said:
The photos provided were from a cameraman that Lloyde said was "up on the bridge." Why was there a cameraman just hanging out at the bridge on 9/11? Let me get this straight - Lloyde is suspicious, but a cameraman just hanging out on the official flight path is not?
Click to expand...

Most of the pictures shown are by a guy who had his Camera up at the Navy Annex and walked down to the Pentagon taking pictures as he went. He did what photographers do...take pictures.
Tens of thousands of people work in the area, is it suspicious that one had a camera?
 
Mobertermy said:
So as far as the white van goes...we can tell from the positioning of the front tires its relation to the tree. The far tire is visible and the near tire is hidden by the tree. If we moved furhter left we would be looking at the cab more head on, and if we moved futher right it would become more obscured by the tree. Right?
Click to expand...
How about straight back (in relation to the line of sight). How far back do you think it could get before it "ran out of road"?
 
Mobertermy said:
No, Penny was North past the bridge. She said she was just in front of the Pentagon.

You really want some interesting testimony try Father Mcgraw. He was far north of the bridge right near where Lloyde claimed he was. Father Mcgraw said the cab was a "few feet" from him. He corroborates Lloyde.

Watch "From the Law to the Lord" on google videos. Its about 10 minutes long.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30

for her to have gone forward and turned off on the (now removed) NE loop she had to have been back about where Lloyd was (but traveling in the opposite direction and 3 or 4 lane over) there is no other turn off that fits her description and of course she saw the plane hit........
 
DGM said:
How about straight back (in relation to the line of sight). How far back do you think it could get before it "ran out of road"?
Click to expand...


If I'm interpreting your question correctly I don't think we could know because of foreshortening.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Wrong again.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30

for her to have gone forward and turned off on the (now removed) NE loop she had to have been back about where Lloyd was (but traveling in the opposite direction and 3 or 4 lane over) there is no other turn off that fits her description and of course she saw the plane hit........
Click to expand...

I would say she was on north side of bridge. She also had a piece of debris with her from the plane hitting a pole. So that leaves CITers with another weird dilemma...are all the witnesses that say a plane hit a pole or other obstacles lying.

Penny is not a clear cut NoC pole witness. Father McGraw is - he also specifically mentions the cab.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
where, I'm not wading again through 90 minutes of heavily edited CIT excreta to get to one picture.......
Click to expand...
It's at 1:16 but don't bother, Nothing remarkable. looks similar to one of the FBI images. Lloyde is so confused, Craig was getting pretty frustrated and it was amusing insisting lloyde and his cab was as the photos show but Lloyde keep insisting that he wasn't there. But even his descriptions defied what he was insisting, The pentagon being behind him, The annex being visible. What was revealing (or I had forgotten) was that the mystery helper was driving a van, I am wondering if that was the white van that was stationary for two images parked in the fast lane under the overhead sign.
 
DGM said:
How? If you move straight back that relationship is not going to change.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the problem is that the more north the van is moved from this line of sight the more of it that gets obscured by the tree right?

The van is in the far left southbound lane, do you agree?
Click to expand...
That's where I would say it is because traffic is still moving.
 
A W Smith said:
It's at 1:16 but don't bother, Nothing remarkable. looks similar to one of the FBI images. Lloyde is so confused, Craig was getting pretty frustrated and it was amusing insisting lloyde and his cab was as the photos show but Lloyde keep insisting that he wasn't there. But even his descriptions defied what he was insisting, The pentagon being behind him, The annex being visible. What was revealing (or I had forgotten) was that the mystery helper was driving a van, I am wondering if that was the white van that was stationary for two images parked in the fast lane under the overhead sign.
Click to expand...

You can see the annex from where he claimed to be.

And what Craig says is remarkable from my perspective (truther/non-CITer) because Craig says Lloyde denies "over and over and over" that the pictures were right...yet Craig accuses him of being an accomplice that was essentially posing for the pictures to sell as evidence for the Official Flightpath. Why would anyone that was in on it such a staging of photos then deny the photos were right when some conspiracy theorists show up at there door with a camera?

Let's face it...on this issue either the Debunkers are right or I am right....CIT's position is just insanely illogical.
 
Mobertermy said:
I would say she was on north side of bridge. She also had a piece of debris with her from the plane hitting a pole. So that leaves CITers with another weird dilemma...are all the witnesses that say a plane hit a pole or other obstacles lying."
Click to expand...

I would disagree but either way she was not the much further south required by the CIT CT.

Penny is not a clear cut NoC pole witness. Father McGraw is - he also specifically mentions the cab.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

again placing the car just where the photos have it unless the pole flew 100 yards which seem unlikely.

Remember there were no poles down where Lloyd mistakenly thinks he was therefore he wasn't there. Lloyd just makes a mistake, thats all. no mystery.
 
Mobertermy said:
Yes, but the problem is that the more north the van is moved from this line of sight the more of it that gets obscured by the tree right?
Click to expand...
To a point, If you move the van back and keep that relationship the same you can get almost (if not) all the way to the North side of the bridge. In fact I'm fairly sure it is blocking the view of TA4.

Mobertermy said:
That's where I would say it is because traffic is still moving.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that but, you can see the sun reflecting (off the van) against the "Jersey barrier".
 
" Why would anyone that was in on it such a staging of photos then deny the photos were right when some conspiracy theorists show up at there door with a camera?"

Exactly. But confusion explains his behavior perfectly.

"Let's face it...on this issue either the Debunkers are right or I am right....CIT's position is just insanely illogical.[/QUOTE]"

and your track record of being right is? :) QED
 
sheeplesnshills said:
again placing the car just where the photos have it unless the pole flew 100 yards which seem unlikely.

Remember there were no poles down where Lloyd mistakenly thinks he was therefore he wasn't there. Lloyd just makes a mistake, thats all. no mystery.
Click to expand...

the pole number as it is laying on the road (076) matches that of one on the south west end of the bridge that's just barely visible in Google street view.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
again placing the car just where the photos have it unless the pole flew 100 yards which seem unlikely.

Remember there were no poles down where Lloyd mistakenly thinks he was therefore he wasn't there. Lloyd just makes a mistake, thats all. no mystery.
Click to expand...

If a pole was hit NoC they'd have to cover that up. (You don't have to agree this occured, just the logic).
 
DGM said:
To a point, If you move the van back and keep that relationship the same you can get almost (if not) all the way to the North side of the bridge. In fact I'm fairly sure it is blocking the view of TA4.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you have to take into account what part of the van will be visible, and we can also see the sign in the middle of the bridge.
 
Mobertermy said:
Yes, but you have to take into account what part of the van will be visible, and we can also see the sign in the middle of the bridge.
Click to expand...
If the van was on the south side of the bridge it would have to be in the far right lane.

As far as the sign goes, read your post #646.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom