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

[tsig]

So you lie because you think others are telling lies? So you make up the north of the Citgo station story without evidence? Why are you telling lies about 9/11? Why not get some facts and attack the reasons instead of making up lies?

I think you do not understand my position

fire is hot

heat weakens steel

gravity

 

[jaydeehess]

Here is what happened:

[qimg]http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/cabSide1.jpg[/qimg]
(courtesy: -Raven- @ LCF)

or it could have landed on his car thusly(please excuse my poor graphics ability) this would be a top down view;

The pole comes down , the end of the curved part hitting the window and coming through it. The car is moving ta 45 MPH, that is 66 feet per second. The car would travel the length of the curved part of the pole(about 6 feet ) in 0.1 seconds. Lloyd hits the brakes and turns the wheel to the right away from the direction the pole came from(a natural response), the pole will not come out since it is lieing in the space between the windsheild and the hood. The car skids to the position we see in the pictures and the pole, having been removed by Lloyd and the other man, gets put down where we see it in the pictures.

It would still match Lloyd's drawing. An artist would know how to illustrate what he saw with true perpective but Lloyd is not an artist.

 

[JimBenArm]

For Lyte upon his return, which he no doubt will:
You call yourself an investigator. What other investigations have you done? Who have you brought to justice, and where? Who asked you to do this? What forensic skills do you have? What forensic labs do you have at your disposal?
I don't care about what you say the evidence says. You have no standing to interpret it, no ability to do so, no education to do so, no facilities to do so. You are a sorry musician trying to pretend he's Lt. Columbo, and failing at it miserably. Give it up, dude, you're the biggest laughing stock since William Hung thought he could sing! And at least he had some entertainment value!

 

[beachnut]

I think you do not understand my position

fire is hot

heat weakens steel

gravity

I think I messed up and missed the Lyte trip post.

imdumb -> I missed, where do I send the beer...?

 

[tsig]

I think I messed up and missed the Lyte trip post.

imdumb -> I missed, where do I send the beer...?

Just put in the nearest black hole.

 

[beachnut]

it is on its way

 

[Rrramon]

Lyte, in the scientific community, when one is assailing a conventionally held theory, they generally offer an alternative theory which can then be held up to the same scrutiny.

I think that, since everyone here on both sides of this issue claims to be on the side of science and logic, you should then play by those same rules.

Granted we accept that this man's account is physically impossible (which it doesn't look like anyone here is ready to grant, myself included, but let's just do it for the sake of argument), what is one plausible theory that would explain why he would make up this fantastical story about a plane sending a light pole through his windshield?

Bear in mind you don't have to claim it is the gospel truth. I am just looking for one possible scenario that would explain why he would lie about this.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Lyte, are you going to do a course in accident investigation, to see if Lloyd's account is impossible?

 

[twinstead]

Lyte, in the scientific community, when one is assailing a conventionally held theory, they generally offer an alternative theory which can then be held up to the same scrutiny.

But in CT world, once any real or imagined anomaly is found in a conventionally held theory, any pet theory can be substituted in its place no matter if it can be held up to the same scrutiny or not.

It all depends on the world view and politics of the CT, be he from the right or left. Extremists have no business investigating anything, as our resident ideologue Lyte readily illustrates.

 

[Belz...]

We have 3 witnesses all placing the plane on the North side of the Citgo.

And we have physical evidence, and witnesses, who say otherwise.

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.

Please stop trying to make it sound worse than it really is. You're not helping your case.

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.

This is the same form of logic that folks use for the "magic bullet" theory. It's a strawman, pure and simple.

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.

Yes, indeed.

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?

Irrelevant. Those are two possibilities, none of which are impossible (which is a tautology, of course. The mere fact that they are possibilities precludes them from being impossible.) Even if one is LESS likely, why would you choose to ignore it ?

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.

Again, you're trying to make "more likely" mean "the only possibility". That is simply not true.

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?

And again.

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?

Irrelevant.

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.

This seems like a double-standard to me. The evidence you've seen, you claim was faked or planted. The evidence you DON'T see, you claim is being withheld. Sauce for the goose, Lyte. Why would you care if evidence is being withheld ? If it were presented and supported the "official story", you'd probably just keep saying it is fake.

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

Again, just because something is unlikely (say, like 4 planes being hijacked and rammed into buildings on the same day -- if it were likely, there would have been procedures in place to prevent such a thing) doesn't mean it can't happen.

And intuition is a poor substitute for reason.

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.

Truth is not a popularity contest.

 

[Belz...]

So all 4 were all mistaken simultaneously?

Lying simultaneously?

Not remembering correctly simultaneously?

Your use of the word "simultaneously" is misleading. Their accounts seem to agree on ONE important point. But it doesn't follow that those accounts are correct. In fact, your own strategy can be used against you, here. If you claim the witnesses who support the "official story" were TOLD what they think, then it's entirely possible that, by asking leading questions many years after the facts, you got exactly the answers you were looking for from those four people.

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?

After nearly being speared by a metal pole ? I'd wager my focus could be a little off.

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?

I'm not sure they would've missed the government agents planting them, either.

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?

Irrelevant question. How can you be certain of some negative assertion ?

So now you are accusing me of leading ALL 4 witnesses? So you are suggesting they all saw it on the South side of the Citgo, and I convinced them otherwise, by leading them. Ok THAT is what you call a conspiracy theory.

No, it isn't.

They could not accomplish it without being seen.

You simply don't know that.

Yes, he does. There were simply too many people on site. And even if he DIDN'T know, neither do you, so the exercice is pointless, and yours is an argument from ignorance.

Again, most people were concerned about two things. Staring at the action going on at the Pentagon and another plane arriving. What if the pole and debris were already on the shoulder and were simply moved into position.

That's a mighty big gamble for the conspirators, don't you think ? If a single witness turns around in shock, he'll see them planting evidence. Not the kind of headline you want.

What we do know is the plane was not near the pole that was allegedly struck.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Well fortunately for us, the *opinion* of an anonymous poster at Jref does not speak for the rest of the world.

Right back at you, lieutenant.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I like how Lyte makes it sound as if 3-4 witnesses is a colossally huge number that no one can afford to ignore.

...and then goes on to ignore, at a minimum, 26 witnesses...

 

[twinstead]

I like how Lyte makes it sound as if 3-4 witnesses is a colossally huge number that no one can afford to ignore.

...and then goes on to ignore, at a minimum, 26 witnesses...

And don't forget the physical evidence. You know, the stuff that's all planted or fake?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Anybody else notice the degredation of the edge at the bottom of he light pole, on the inside of the bend, Looks like something dragged or pushed that edge down the road while it was in contact with the road.

 

[Belz...]

Nope, you simply bypassed them in another thread. Don't worry, you have proven to me you know little to nothing about them.

Ah, another vague declaration to help support your case and insinuate i "know little to nothing ".

It wasn't wavue, and he didn't insinuate. He flat out said it.

That's the point, you have no idea.

Neither do you. Four witnesses out of over a hundred do not make your theory a fact.

Four different people about a simple right or left claim?

Yes. Even something as simple as that.

Yes I am saying that is impossible. Especially because it didn't happen.

Circular reasoning.

But your accusations towards myself and the witnesses are noted.

Well, we've noted your own accusations towards Lloyd long ago.

So which is it? Did I lead them? Or was there no accuracy due to "time degrades on memory"? All four were lead and there was no accuracy due to time degards on memory. Gotcha-you know you contradicted yourself, right?

Gosh, you CTers are so damn bad with logic. There is no contradiction -- the two are not mutually exclusive.

Are you a pilot? Do you think a pilot would be comfortable with testing 5 break away poles in 757 going 500+ mph? Do you think he would have confidence in the wings not being damaged enough to impede a successful flight away from the poles after?

If he was going to crash into a building anyway ??

Um, the evidence is there. We've been questioning it since day one. We have the proof now. You can speculate all you want.

Again, eyewitness accounts do NOT constitute proof when they contradicts the physical evidence. In fact, they pretty much never constitute proof.

That's when I know I am winning a debate, when i am accused on evading questions.

Interesting. When someone accuses me of evading questions, the only thing that I know for sure is that I MAY have missed a question. And I wasn't aware this was about "winning". Thanks for clearing that up.

The plane was on the North side of the Citgo.

Since the plane as on the North side and pulled up, it did not hit the building.

Non sequitur. The plane could very well have flown to the north of the Citgo, pulled up, hit the building, and the evidence was later planeted. It's a stupid scenario, but it shows that your conclusion doesn't follow.

They THINK it flew into the Pentagon.

Or...

They are lying.

It's amazing you can say this about the witnesses that DON'T support your hypothesis, but take offense when the same is implied about those who DO. How can you continue to apply such a double-standard and not notice ?

Sorry, but they think YOU are mistaken. Isn't that interesting?

Only to the extent that it just proves my point.

Is the video mistaken?

That data has been proven to be manipulated and/or altered.

What do you mean "proven" ?

Why would he remember the exact locations of the light poles when he didn't even see them get hit?

Because memory is infallible ?

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.

Unfortunately you are ill-equipped to determine any of that.

 

[Belz...]

Yes the physical damage had to have been staged.

Why ? Because your four witnesses cannot possibly be wrong ?

There are 2 potential reasons why the plane was not on the correct path:

1. A mistake.

2. The plane was deliberately off the path so if anyone saw it fly over it would be confused with a "2nd plane" that "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered off" immediately after the explosion.

See ? This is why you're a crappy investigator. You can't even get your possibilities straight. You are assuming your conclusion, plain and simple, and working backwards to prove it.

In light of the cover stories and because it was so easy to find people on the street that saw the plane and described it as "white" number 2 makes the most sense.

No, it doesn't.

It's backed up with facts.

You wouldn't even know what to do with those.

Why did the whole Lloyd thing happen?

To support the lie. Plain and simple.

Again, speculation. You DO know what that is, right ? Just because YOU only see that possibility doesn't mean it's the truth.

Lloyd gave a human element to this critical planted data and his story and images were touted throughout mainstream media.

That's the kind of reasoning we get in movies, not in reality.

 

[Belz...]

Just put in the nearest black hole.

it is on its way

Why the hell did I get it down here, then ?

 

[Disbelief]

Ah, another vague declaration to help support your case and insinuate i "know little to nothing ".

Vague? No, I flat out said that you know little to nothing, but it was about C-130s. If you took it to mean something more than about C-130s, then you have self-esteem issues.

No. You seem to have a pretty good idea. So please do elaborate. You bypassed the other options in favor of your own. So which is it?


Well they are.


Key words: "I have no idea"

That's the point, you have no idea. You are simply relegate to theorizing about something you admitted having no idea about. Why don't you call them all and clear it up?

You have no idea about what happened at the Pentagon, but you theorize away. Since you do not release raw footage of your interviews, we actually have no idea how much leading you did of the witnesses.

Four different people about a simple right or left claim? Yes I am saying that is impossible. Especially because it didn't happen. But your accusations towards myself and the witnesses are noted.

Noted? For what? You have the nerve to accuse many people, including military people who are sworn to protect the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and then call me out for accusing you?

Can you actually type that with a straight face? We've been over this Disb. So which is it? Did I lead them? Or was there no accuracy due to "time degrades on memory"? All four were lead and there was no accuracy due to time degards on memory. Gotcha-you know you contradicted yourself, right? Seems like you are throwing anything up and hoping it sticks.

Release the raw footage of the interviews. Then, we can see if they are hesitant and you supply them with some "useful" information. You think leading and degraded memories are mutually exclusive, when they are far from it. In fact, the shoddier there memories, the easier it would be for someone to lead them.

What other witnesses that "do not support" me? Please specify.

I have seen the other witnesses listed for you, and you blow them all off as shills, liars or mistaken. Yet, the FOUR that support you are iron clad. Well, except when they don't support you about the plane hitting the Pentagon. Then, they are mistaken. Do you not understand the hypocrisy in that?

Well whatever, you are forced to believe 4 witnesses to the plane or Lloyd's absurd, detail changing story, that we've been questioning since day one. Are you a pilot? Do you think a pilot would be comfortable with testing 5 break away poles in 757 going 500+ mph? Do you think he would have confidence in the wings not being damaged enough to impede a successful flight away from the poles after?

Plus all the other witnesses that have been shown to you in numerous threads. Strange how you try to pit it as your 4 witnesses versus Lloyd's account and manage to forget about all the other people.

No, I am not a pilot. If I were, why would I be worried about testing a 757 hitting breakaway poles? That is not a normal occurence, so there would be no tests for that. You act like the plane hit the poles and then flew up and around, when it was on a crash course with the Pentagon. It is not like it had to fly for miles.

One last thing, you do realize that these planes are very tough. Like I said, I was at Pope AFB when an F-16 hit a C-141 on the flightline. If you research the crash, you see that the F-16 struck a C-130 that was landing, ripping off one side of the tail. You will also see that the C-130 did not crash. It actually pulled out of its landing pattern, circled back around and then landed, all while missing most of its tail. Of course, in your world that would be impossible because it doesn't seem possible.

Um, the evidence is there. We've been questioning it since day one. We have the proof now. You can speculate all you want.

You have no evidence, you have speculation. You disregard the real, physical evidence as staged. You disregard the FDR that shows the plane hit the Pentagon as inconsequential. You disregard the DNA evidence of the people on flight 77 as tainted by the chain of command. You disregard the evidence of many more eyewitnesses as lies or mistakes. In total, you have nothing.

I have 4 people who witnessed the plane drastically off the damage flight path.

So where are your witnesses who saw the pole spear that cab's windshield?

Where are your witnesses who saw the plane on the South side of the Citgo?

Where are the witnesses YOU spoke with?

As pointed out to you repeatedly, you have four witnesses many years after the fact while there are many more who dispute your account.

I will use your logic against you. No one saw the pole hit the cab's windshield, because they were distracted by the jet flying so close over head and were looking at that!

I have spoken to zero witnesses. Just because you have, means nothing. Many here have given you kudos for getting off of your butt and doing something besides googling, but it does not make you right. If I go and interview five witnesses that counter your argument, do I win?

That's when I know I am winning a debate, when i am accused on evading questions. Is that your way of making it look like I am drowning in this debate?

Did it ever occur to you I may have answered them elsewhere? I may have missed them? I was busy with the 20 other posters and their questions?

Winning by avoiding questions? Strange rules you have. I know you did not answer them elsewhere, because I have been looking for the replies. I know you were not busy with others, because you picked out a specific quote from me and skipped the rest. If you had time to quote and answer part, why not the rest?

Now, if you are such a crack investigative team, why would you NOT take the extra time to go see the actual car? It could have answered many questions, like if there was damage in the backseat where the pole might have struck.

@Bolo I really do not think that is damage to the car. I am not a photographic expert, but I have seen tens of thousands of vehicles as part of my job and that looks like a simple reflection. There is a slim possibility, but I think that is very unlikely.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Tell ya what Disb.

Go talk to the witnesses, show them the footage, and ask them if we misrepresented them.

If they do, we will release all the raw footage.

You are no different than a conspiracy theorist, with your wild accusations and theories.

 

[The Silver Shadow]

Just a thought, I've been reading this thread and haven't bothered posting here until now, but I was thinking that maybe Lyte, when questioning, gave vague questions to the witnesses and got vague answers in return for him to interpret the way he wanted to interpret. That's one possibility that has me thinking. We could use the raw interview footage to see if that's a possibility...