*split* Lyte's proof that the Lloyd England's experience is false

Regnad Kcin said:
Lyte:

Your argument from incredulity is noted. Funny how you don't apply the same disbelief to your far more outlandish ideas.
Click to expand...

My argument is based on facts brought back from the scene.

First hand testimony from Lloyd himself and the actual measurements of the pole from the VDOT.

Not to mention the fact that we have PROVEN that Lloyd's scene was staged with the nonindependent accounts of the citgo witnesses.

Watch Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios one more time and then watch Lloyd.

Can you honestly say you believe Lloyd's story over ALL 3 of them?

I'm sorry but if you do your critical thinking skills are in serious question.
 
Lyte Trip said:
The arch with which a javelin is thrown would be NOTHING like the force with which the pole would have been hit by a 757.

Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous?

So what is the force of the pole when it is hit by a 757?

What is the strength and speed of a pole deflecting off the wing of a 757? Have you done this research? If you have, I would be happy to look at it.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Oh! So now you just admit he was lying?

Either you

A: Come up with a plausible, humanly possible way for Lloyd England's taxi cab to be damaged, without use of a pole, in the middle of the highway, with nobody noticing,

or

B: You drop all of this and admit you are just plainly wrong.

Which one would serve you better in the long run?
Click to expand...

Watch the movie bro.

It's all in there.
 
Perhaps we can throw your logic back at you, Lyte. You seem to think that since in your opinion it was impossible for the plane to have flown per the official story, all evidence--even if it seems overwhelming--that supports the official story is either a mistake or nefariously planted.

Therefore, you feel you can safely totally ignore any of the contrary evidence.

Well, I think the physical evidence, first responder accounts, and eye witness testimony of the plane crash is overwhelmingly in favor of the official story. Therefore, even if it seems unlikely to you that Lloyd's account is true, it has to be because it fits the rest of the evidence. That pole was able to crash into his windshield exactly like he describes, and he was able to extract it without scratching his hood.

The small number of eye-witness accounts that are contrary to the official story are simply anomalies that exist in any event of this type.

Therefore I can safely totally ignore pretty much every bit of 'evidence' you present.

See. Isn't that fun?
 
It's not a matter of believing Lloyd's story over your witnesses Lyte, it's a matter of believing Lloyd's story because it, unlike your witnesses' stories, fit in with the majority of evidence.

If any accounts should be scrutinized the most it's theirs.
 
Why are you people wasting your time with this guy? He's been refuted. Move on and stop giving him attention.
 
Let's put this in perspective shall we?

We have 3 witnesses all placing the plane on the North side of the Citgo. We have 1 directly illustrating that it was headed to the North side of the Citgo.

We have Lloyd England allegedly driving 50-55 mph, 40 mph in our interview, in the center lane according to Lloyd.

As he nears pole 1, it is allegedly struck by a 44,000 lb wing assembly of a 757 allegedly traveling 530 mph.

Allegedly pole 1 is severed and the 30 ft base is speared into his cab, at an obvious angle, which it then straightens to allow it to make it's way into his backseat on only the passenger side.

LLOYD ENGLAND, WHO WAS DRIVING IN THE CENTER LANE, SPINS SIDEWAYS WITH A POLE IN HIS WINDSHIELD AND ENDS UP SIDEWAYS IN THE SAME LANE.

Questions:

1. Are the chances GREATER that the pole would cause damage to his hood? Or is it LESS likely that the pole would cause damage to his hood in such an event?

2. He allegedly spun out sideways with a pole in his windshield and allegedly he removed it with the help of a silent stranger.

Are the chances greater that his hood would be damaged while spinning out with the pole in his windshield in the air as he drew? Or are the odds greater that his hood would remain untouched with a pole in the air as he spins out sideways.

Would it be more likely that they would remove this very heavy pole toward the direction of the shoulder, which is the direction they were pulling out towards?

Or would they remove it, walk around the car place it an angle across the center lane, for it to later be moved leaving a scratch in the asphalt?

Which is more likely?
 
Lyte Trip said:
stuff?
Click to expand...

Why are YOU even bothering these questions? What is more likely:

1. The government staged some hideously complex conspiracy and a plane did not hit the Pentagon, but flew over?

or

2. A 757 AA jumbo jet struck the Pentagon?

You argue from incredulity on certain topics, but don't understand why others question your theories, accounts and motives.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
Why are you people wasting your time with this guy? He's been refuted. Move on and stop giving him attention.
Click to expand...

Yes why would they bother with little ol' me?

Obviously the gov't has been so forthcoming with evidence to prove the impact.

Look at all the videos we recieved and how long it took to get them.

The damage is clearly anomolous, even being called "counter-intuitive" by official story proponents.

95% of pilots and A & P mechanics who are members, not posters, at PFT do not believe a 757 caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Victims like April Gallop and others either don't believe the impact or have major questions.

4 witnesses place the plane drastically off course from the official damage path.

Multiple witnesses do not describe an AA, majority stating it was white.

We have "witnesses" who place "some sort of plane" or jet over the Pentagon and veering away, peeling off at the time of the explosion.

The C-130 pilot's account is now proven to be impossible to EXTREMELY problematic due to the release of the NTSB's flight path study.

Nothing to see here, move along.
 
Last edited:
Disbelief said:
Why are YOU even bothering these questions? What is more likely:

1. The government staged some hideously complex conspiracy and a plane did not hit the Pentagon, but flew over?

or

2. A 757 AA jumbo jet struck the Pentagon?

You argue from incredulity on certain topics, but don't understand why others question your theories, accounts and motives.
Click to expand...

If it looked like a 757 hit the pentagon, would we be here even discussing the matter?

It is not that complex, you are just caught up in the 'Big Lie' technique they used on you. The lie is so big, you can't believe it is a lie.

But Lagasse and Brooks know now. Are you not concerned about how they feel or what the implications are now that they know what the official story states?
 
Lyte Trip said:
If it looked like a 757 hit the pentagon, would we be here even discussing the matter?

It is not that complex, you are just caught up in the 'Big Lie' technique they used on you. The lie is so big, you can't believe it is a lie.

But Lagasse and Brooks know now. Are you not concerned about how they feel or what the implications are now that they know what the official story states?
Click to expand...
No, the only reason is that you are incapable of recognizing that you are the most incompetent investigator in the history of investigations! A big, freaking plane hit the Pentagon, and you can't figure that fact out.
Amazingly, breathtakingly incompetent!
 
Lyte Trip said:
Yes why would they bother with little ol' me?

Obviously the gov't has been so forthcoming with evidence to prove the impact.

Look at all the videos we recieved and how long it took to get them.

The damage is clearly anomolous, even being called "counter-intuitive" by official story proponents.

95% of pilots and A & P mechanics who are members, not posters, at PFT do not believe a 757 caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Victims like April Gallop and others either don't believe the impact or have major questions.

4 witnesses place the plane drastically off course from the official damage path.

Multiple witnesses do not describe an AA, majority stating it was white.

We have "witnesses" who place "some sort of plane" or jet over the Pentagon and veering away, peeling off at the time of the explosion.

The C-130 pilot's account is now proven to be impossible to EXTREMELY problematic due to the release of the NTSB's flight path study.

Nothing to see here, move along.
Click to expand...

No offense my friend but it's more of a 'why would you bother trying to reason with the ranting insane man who hangs out on the corner' kind of question, in my mind.
 
Lyte Trip said:
If it looked like a 757 hit the pentagon, would we be here even discussing the matter?

It is not that complex, you are just caught up in the 'Big Lie' technique they used on you. The lie is so big, you can't believe it is a lie.

But Lagasse and Brooks know now. Are you not concerned about how they feel or what the implications are now that they know what the official story states?
Click to expand...


What is a 757 hit on the Pentagon supposed to look like? Why do you think you are the expert on what it is supposed to look like?

It is extremely complex to pull off what you are saying happened. You have to fool thousands of people or get others to outright lie for you. Remember, you are saying this of a large number of military people who swear to protect the US from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

No, I could do not care what two witnesses feel about the official story when you compare it to the hundreds or thousands that support it. Do you not care what these witnesses think? Do you not care what your crappy theory does to people who were there?
 
thinkingaboutit said:
No offense my friend but it's more of a 'why would you bother trying to reason with the ranting insane man who hangs out on the corner' kind of question, in my mind.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you don't live up to your name.

When you decide to, "debunk" the above points I made.

Good luck with that.
 
Disbelief said:
It is extremely complex to pull off what you are saying happened.
Click to expand...

So all 4 were all mistaken simultaneously?

Lying simultaneously?

Not remembering correctly simultaneously?

Please state your answer on this.

It is not complex. It has been explained how this could be done.

Are you certain everyone would have been focused on a cab while there was a flaming hole in the side of the pentagon and potential other plane coming to hit them?

Are you certain everyone would have been focused on 4 poles laid out in the sloped down grassy lawn as they drove down the highway listening to reports of the attacks in NY, scanning the sky for planes?

Are you certain someone would have seen a pole and/or some debris dropped from a truck? Are you certain it wasn't already on the shoulder and then moved the resting spot?

Are you certain that a team of 5 people could not accomplish this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom