Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
That's what the
Last edited:
*split* Lyte's proof that the Lloyd England's experience is false
- Thread starter Undesired Walrus
- Start date
HyJinX
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,662
You're insulted by cats? Hmmmm...how do feel about dogs?
Cat pictures are easier to find than pictures of loons.
Oh, I found one.
Maybe this is what flew over the Pentagon.
HyJinX
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,662
At 12:56
At 3:17
...let us not forget, Lyte, you asked me to post pictures of cats. It's seems your memory is about as good as your 4 "smoking gun" witnesses.
At 3:17
...let us not forget, Lyte, you asked me to post pictures of cats. It's seems your memory is about as good as your 4 "smoking gun" witnesses.
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
The car was supposedly 90 miles away and we simply did not have the time.
We had Lloyd's full account and private images of the car on 9/12/2001.
What's odd is that Russell had fully believed from previous conversations with Lloyd that the car was at his house so we all expected to be able to examine it.
This turned out not to be the case and we did not have time for a road trip to "the country".
Why don't you go in your backyard and burn some aluminum to prove the light poles wouldn't have damaged the hood?
Because I am waiting on a message from Dr Steven E. Jones right now. I am right now investigating something else if Chlorinated water can dissolve aluminum and guess what I found out, in some circumstances it can.
The research goes on.
anyway I would much rather play right now with explosives like hydrogen oh the things chemistry can do like make planes disappear.
Then Lightweight Aluminum lamp posts.
That data has been proven to be manipulated and/or altered. Besides the fact that Russell Pickering proved how they removed the camera that had the view of the Pentagon and continue to sequester the tape of this view......http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread225549/pg1
Here is an analysis from a security professional with 16 year experience installing CCTV systems:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4992
The mound in front of him at the citgo station is the only one that obstructed his view. He ran to the top of it and saw the tail of the plane "pull up" and claims the "fireball" obscured the alleged impact.
Why would he remember the exact locations of the light poles when he didn't even see them get hit? The location of the cab and light poles is a relatively insignificant detail compared to what side of the station the plane flew.
Regardless he did not see the poles or the cab get hit so there is no reason to suggest he should or would remember those relatively insignificant details or that the fact that he was incorrect about this has ANY bearing whatsoever on his definitive placement of the plane on the north side.
That would be called a logical fallacy.
He was close enough to it that the direction he has the plane headed is enough. The fact that it passes over Columbia Pike is enough as well. Granted.....by itself Edward's account wouldn't be solid evidence....but in light of the citgo station witnesses it is 100% corroboration.
Yes I know that you choose to approach 9/11 truth from a lawyer's perspective. The job of a lawyer is to win the case for their client not find the truth.
The fact that ALL witnesses at the citgo saw report the plane in the same place should be enough. Even witnesses like Mike Walter any Penny Elgas who report the plane "banked" support our case.
It is a reflection of the broken windshield and roof of the car.
You can see the Capitol Cab sign.
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Oh, it gets better.
I got this graphic from PFT or CIT, somebody. Here's what they think happened on September 11th at the Pentagon.
The night before, the other four poles were planted where they were found. Nobody whizzing along in traffic later would look at them.
The last pole was aboard a trailer (along with other props). A few minutes before the scheduled Pentagon hit, the trailer comes north on 395 (follow the red arrow). It takes the exit (somebody tosses some glass out onto the exit here), continues on Columbia, takes the next exit and stops right at the yellow square.
England is now in place as well.
The plane illusion happens. At this point, the guys planting the evidence HAVE TO have seen one thing - the plane didn't approach the Pentagon correctly.
Here these guys had been setting up physical evidence all night and all morning long for the south approach -- and the plane had flown to the north of the Citgo! Completely wrong!
And yet they continue to pull forward, help England plant the last pole, apparently almost getting the cab location wrong (because Lagasse places the cab back at first). Can't you imagine THAT conversation?
*sigh*
I got this graphic from PFT or CIT, somebody. Here's what they think happened on September 11th at the Pentagon.
The night before, the other four poles were planted where they were found. Nobody whizzing along in traffic later would look at them.
The last pole was aboard a trailer (along with other props). A few minutes before the scheduled Pentagon hit, the trailer comes north on 395 (follow the red arrow). It takes the exit (somebody tosses some glass out onto the exit here), continues on Columbia, takes the next exit and stops right at the yellow square.
England is now in place as well.
The plane illusion happens. At this point, the guys planting the evidence HAVE TO have seen one thing - the plane didn't approach the Pentagon correctly.
Here these guys had been setting up physical evidence all night and all morning long for the south approach -- and the plane had flown to the north of the Citgo! Completely wrong!
And yet they continue to pull forward, help England plant the last pole, apparently almost getting the cab location wrong (because Lagasse places the cab back at first). Can't you imagine THAT conversation?
*sigh*
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Then why doesn't the spot on the hood I'm pointing out look like a mirror image of any part of the windshield?
I see the Capital Cab sign. It's a mirror image of the sign on top. The spot I'm pointing out isn't a mirror image of anything on the windshield. It would have to be, to be a reflection of the windshield damage, wouldn't it?
Oh, and you missed a bit of my post:
That is what you think happened, right? The first faked evidence wasn't enough, so they faked some more evidence - and got it so wrong that their faked evidence actually proved the opposite of what they wanted to prove.
That is what you think happened, right?
I see the Capital Cab sign. It's a mirror image of the sign on top. The spot I'm pointing out isn't a mirror image of anything on the windshield. It would have to be, to be a reflection of the windshield damage, wouldn't it?
Oh, and you missed a bit of my post:
That is what you think happened, right? The first faked evidence wasn't enough, so they faked some more evidence - and got it so wrong that their faked evidence actually proved the opposite of what they wanted to prove.
That is what you think happened, right?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
If you are insulted by cat pictures they
This is why you fail at critical thinking.
OF COURSE crime investigators think about what people would normally do and what is out of the ordinary when trying to determine the truth about a crime.
We aren't hypothetically analyzing unrelated points.
We are investigating a world wide black operation of mass murder.
In regards to the planners........well they made a lot of mistakes. Another question would be why didn't they damage the hood?
Clearly staging Lloyd's scene would have to happen as quickly and discreetly as possible.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Angles of the reflection and camera etc change the perspective. You can also see trees in the reflection. Are you suggesting the image was faked?
Huh?
When did I say that?
I have no explanation for the anomalous FDR.
That's up to the NTSB to respond to.
qarnos
Cold-hearted skeptic
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,084
About 10 years ago my neighbour won the Lottery. Are the chances GREATER that he would win the Lottery? Or is it LESS likely that he would win the Lottery?
What does this prove?
Abosultely NOTHING!
You can not calculate the odds of something happened after it has happened and expect any kind of meaningful result.
qarnos
Cold-hearted skeptic
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,084
No, first it is up to you to demonstrate an anomoly exists. AntiSophist demonstrated a while ago, with evidence, that the FDR data is entirely within the error tolerance of the FDR.
The NTSB more than likely have no idea who you are or what your claims are. You are of no significance to them, and will continue to be so unless you can actually prove anything, which you can't - otherwise you would be out there saving the world from the NWO instead of arguing with us.
qarnos
Cold-hearted skeptic
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,084
Interesting theory, but I
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Not that much. The Capital Cab sign is clearly the Capital Cab sign in the reflection on the hood. However, the damage to the hood I'm pointing out isn't a mirror image of anything in the windshield, no way, no how.
It's damage to the hood from the pole. Something your own picture (a picture of a picture) shows.
Making your claim of no damage to the hood false.
I am not suggesting the image is faked. Why would you even think that?
No, no. This is your theory, Craig. Show some responsibility for it.
You say that the cab evidence was faked. You say the FDR evidence was faked.
The conspiracy that faked one faked the other. You're saying that they went back to fake that FDR evidence, KNOWING THAT THE OTHER EVIDENCE WASN'T HOLDING UP, and yet somehow faked evidence that proved 180 degrees the opposite of what they wanted that evidence to say.
That is what you are saying, isn't it? That is the natural result of believing the things you want us to believe, isn't it?
Show some responsibility for your theory.
Dude......it's a reflection.
Nobody else will assert that it's damage because it is NOT.
And even if it was it's limited to about 2 inches. That would be insignificant and the point still stands. However it is not damage.
It is clearly a reflection.
As far as the FDR goes......ummmmm no.
That has nothing to do with our assertion that the plane was on the north side of the station.
NOTHING.
Yes we believe the data is anomalous and yes we believe this is worthy of attention but this has no bearing whatsoever on the testimony we have presented in The PentaCon or our hypothesis.
Nobody else will assert that it's damage because it is NOT.
And even if it was it's limited to about 2 inches. That would be insignificant and the point still stands. However it is not damage.
It is clearly a reflection.
As far as the FDR goes......ummmmm no.
That has nothing to do with our assertion that the plane was on the north side of the station.
NOTHING.
Yes we believe the data is anomalous and yes we believe this is worthy of attention but this has no bearing whatsoever on the testimony we have presented in The PentaCon or our hypothesis.