First things first: What Hit the Lightpoles?!

Two words sum up your post nicely: STATISTICALLY (IN)SIGNIFICANT.

Only two things are certain: that I have eaten my dinner tonight and that I will die eventually. Everything else is open to debate.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
More conspiracies within conspiracies.

So now David Icke put him up to it!

Unreal.

That's not my belief or working hypothesis or anything, just a casual thought. It does have some possibility:
the pjhoto is released, one of Icke's fans sees it and alerts him "one of your books was in that Pentagon cab driver's back seat, Dave..." this would catch his attention, he IS a no-plane fraudster himself (video).
But I'm just showing different cases can be made. It's all speculation.

This is you simply refusing to accept the implications of the evidence and going off on a tangent to cast doubt and try to neutralize the info.

I feel its ntural place IS neutralized. You're the one who's put a charge to the evidence, thus requiring a correcting neutralization. It can't be erased, just let's step back and admit none of this proves anything in particular, and this is a tangent, so back on track.

Just wanted to clear that up.

The odds of all that are greater than to believe that a light pole could crash thru a windshield and not scratch the hood. How can anyone defend a view that asks us to believe that a light pole can do what the cabbie claimed it did and not scratch the hood?

I am NOT saying that I believe all that is going on here and every statement, but to believe the cab story is too far out. Not ONE scratch? Impossible. Beyond odds. Crazy. This is an obvious set up, the whole thing, from Pentagon to Twin Towers, an total set up, so obvious. While details may be worked out, still there is NO doubt that it is all a set up, and as such the odds are aganist any part of the official story being true, any of it.

Light poles thru windows with no marks..right.

Although I do believe that 9/11 was a terrorist attack, I think it is important to note that there are no skid marks anywhere near the cab. It was a warm day right and the position of that cabs looks as though it would have had to have skidded sideways to rest in the position. Either that or it came to a stop slowly... veered towards the central reservation and then the driver turned full lock right before stopping and then turned the wheels left again which would have taken a few revolutions from full right lock... highly unlikely i wold have thought .

Thats from the perspective of the photo.. i may be wrong.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by fiftyfifty]

Originally posted by eyewitness86
The odds of all that are greater than to believe that a light pole could crash thru a windshield and not scratch the hood. How can anyone defend a view that asks us to believe that a light pole can do what the cabbie claimed it did and not scratch the hood?

Why not first try to explain why you believe that the light pole HAD to damage the hood? All anybody has said is that somehow it is self-evident without explaining why.

Also, if you believe the cab driver is lying, why do you assume that means he is a secret-agent? Maybe he just embellished his story in an attempt to make the most out of his 15 minutes of fame. Maybe he thought it sounded better to say he dragged the pole out of the car.

See, this is a perfect example of why truthers like you and Craig come across as having little credibility. You both will accept at face value the parts of stories that support your conclusions, while picking which parts of the stories are lies.

In other words, if you concede that the cabbie is lying about the pole hitting his windshield because the hood is not damaged, then why not go with the more obvious explanation -that the cabbie lied about the pole being implanted in the windshield just to embellish the story? Maybe a piece of the pole or the plane hit the windshield, and the cabbie made the whole thing up about the pole being stuck in the car.

Bottom line -even if he is lying about the pole, it does not follow that this means he is a government agent and is in on the alleged 9/11 conspiracy.

These types of far-fetched speculative conclusions are what make truthers look foolish. Concluding that the taxi driver lied and therefore he is an accomplice to mass murder is not really truth. It is nothing more than speculation. Maybe it should be called the Speculation Movement instead.

from this image its looks as if the pole bounced off the windshield

and those poles are designed to break away in case someone crashes on them so it wouldnt take much force to break them but i do imgine a jet leaving more than just scuffs on them. now if it hit the pentagon at what speed does it have to be going to vaporize and also what would be the damage and does that damge match the pentagon?

these are the questions i want answered but no one has donne it as far as i can tell. that video footage of the explosion looks fake to me a jet would cause a larger explosion than that and there is a second missing as well as the date not being right but i'll let that last one slide.
"man deja vu here i must have typed that before" thats all

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
Although I do believe that 9/11 was a terrorist attack, I think it is important to note that there are no skid marks anywhere near the cab. It was a warm day right and the position of that cabs looks as though it would have had to have skidded sideways to rest in the position. Either that or it came to a stop slowly... veered towards the central reservation and then the driver turned full lock right before stopping and then turned the wheels left again which would have taken a few revolutions from full right lock... highly unlikely i wold have thought .

Thats from the perspective of the photo.. i may be wrong.

Very perceptive.

There was no traffic going southbound and Lloyd claims he was traveling 40 mph and that he "locked 'em up" and ended up sideways on the road with the heavy end of the 30 foot + pole sticking out over the hood.

1. There is not enough stopping distance as the pole was on the ground quite near to the base.

2. You are correct in that there are no significant or visible skid marks.

Everything about this scene reeks of staging.



[edit on 10-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by robert z


Also, if you believe the cab driver is lying, why do you assume that means he is a secret-agent? Maybe he just embellished his story in an attempt to make the most out of his 15 minutes of fame. Maybe he thought it sounded better to say he dragged the pole out of the car.

That means his innocent "embellishment" included making up an imaginary "silent stranger" in a van and fabricating all the details about falling down in the process of removing the pole.

That is an intricate web to weave regarding such a high profile crime.

Naturally he knew there were many pictures and video footage of his cab and the pole.

Obviously he would know that this would be considered evidence and he claims that the FBI was over his house within an hour after his FBI employee wife told them where he was.

Do you think he would "embellish" that same story to the FBI and his wife just after the event for 15 minutes of fame?






His story about removing the pole with help from the stranger in the van has remained the same since day one and he has told it to multiple media outlets.

His wife backed up the story in person during our interview and even chimed in that it was the "long piece" of the pole when we asked him to clarify this with the photos.

Originally posted by razor1000

from this image its looks as if the pole bounced off the windshield

Please watch Lloyd's first-hand testimony in our interview with him here.

He claims he removed the pole after the car stopped and that the HEAVY end of the pole was sticking out over the hood.

He even illustrated it for us here:

Originally posted by robert z]

Why not first try to explain why you believe that the light pole HAD to damage the hood? All anybody has said is that somehow it is self-evident without explaining why.

Length and weight of the pole + kinetic energy of 90 ton aircraft + gravity = damaged hood.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

That means his innocent "embellishment" included making up an imaginary "silent stranger" in a van and fabricating all the details about falling down in the process of removing the pole.

That is an intricate web to weave regarding such a high profile crime.

Wow. Intricate web regarding high profile crime?

A career cabbie embellishing his story to make his 15 minutes of fame seem more important than it really was in NOT an intricate web. Hallucinating that secret agents manufactured snipped light poles, transported them to the Pentagon, and dragged all five out into position to create a grand illusion, and that the cabbie and his wife were part of it... now that is what I call an intricate web to weave.

Naturally he knew there were many pictures and video footage of his cab and the pole.

Exactly why the cabbie-is-a-secret-agent-theory makes no sense. It would have taken only one pic or video to blow the entire operation that you are fantasizing happened. Do you really think that the perps would risk the entire operation to embellish their own story, i.e., that the pole hit the windshield when there was zero reason for it?

Obviously he would know that this would be considered evidence and he claims that the FBI was over his house within an hour after his FBI employee wife told them where he was.

Do you think he would "embellish" that same story to the FBI and his wife just after the event for 15 minutes of fame?

I have no idea what he told the FBI and neither do you. Why imply that you do?

His story about removing the pole with help from the stranger in the van has remained the same since day one and he has told it to multiple media outlets.

His wife backed up the story in person during our interview and even chimed in that it was the "long piece" of the pole when we asked him to clarify this with the photos.

Let me guess... the mysterious stranger never surfaced, right?

So you are left with a problem in your argument. There is zero evidence that Lloyd actually lifted the pole from the windshield. This means he is lying about the pole being stuck in the windshield or he is lying about the entire event.

Just like the Citgo witnesses who saw the plane crash into the Pentagon, you are left to decide which part of the story you want to believe.

Seriously, Craig, you need to take a break from this just to clear your head. I know you are sincere and mean well, but you have lost total perspective on the real world. Internet forums are not representative of the real world. You seem obsessed with fitting every so-called bit of evidence into your theory.

Maybe your entire conclusion is 100% right. But you really need much more evidence and investigation into what you claim before you state it as fact. Otherwise, you are coming across as barely more credible than John Lear and Killtown.

If you really want the truth, and really want to make a difference, you need to dig deeper and really nail this down. Superficial conclusions and accusations are not going to cut it when it comes to 9/11. There is too much disinfo out there already and it is far too easy to be put into the loony category -especially when you cannot back up your claims like Lloyd is a government agent.

Best of luck.

We have heavily scrutinized and analyzed every previously published witness account that exists complete with plotting them on a map and determining each of their actual point of view.

We have attempted to contact most of them and been successful speaking with dozens.

We have canvassed the neighborhoods in search of unpublished witnesses and have many interviews on camera.

NONE specifically place the plane on the south side of the station where it needs to be to hit the light poles.

Everyone we spoke with who was in a position to tell place the plane on the north side of the station and we have 6 credible witnesses on record independently making this claim with NOBODY refuting them.

The placement of the plane is 100% conclusive proving Lloyd's story is a fabrication.

The fact that his story physically impossible simply supports this notion.

In light of the fact that the plane did not hit the pole we can not write off his story to mere "embellishment".

You can deny the evidence all you want but that does not make it go away.

p.s. We do not nor have we ever claimed that Lloyd is a "government agent" or a "secret agent".

We claim the evidence proves that the plane could not and did not hit the pole and that his story is physically impossible.

Lloyd could very well be coerced or manipulated which would make him a victim.

We have never claimed to know his exact level of involvement.

We simply report the evidence regardless of how controversial or difficult to accept the implications are.

Originally posted by robert z

I have no idea what he told the FBI and neither do you. Why imply that you do?

We know because his wife was an FBI employee and she vouches for his story.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We have heavily scrutinized and analyzed every previously published witness account that exists complete with plotting them on a map and determining each of their actual point of view.

We have attempted to contact most of them and been successful speaking with dozens.

We have canvassed the neighborhoods in search of unpublished witnesses and have many interviews on camera.

NONE specifically place the plane on the south side of the station where it needs to be to hit the light poles.

Everyone we spoke with who was in a position to tell place the plane on the north side of the station and we have 6 credible witnesses on record independently making this claim with NOBODY refuting them.

The placement of the plane is 100% conclusive proving Lloyd's story is a fabrication.

The fact that his story physically impossible simply supports this notion.

In light of the fact that the plane did not hit the pole we can not write off his story to mere "embellishment".

You can deny the evidence all you want but that does not make it go away.

Craig, I believe you, and I believe you are 100% sincere and honest in your approach. That said, what you outlined above is only a start.

You know as well as I do that the only way witnesses could conclusively put the plane north or south of the Citgo was if they were at the Citgo when it flew over. The fact that there were not an abundance of witnesses in the position to make this judgment is not conclusive.

The story of Lloyd the cab driver and his FBI employed wife is also not conclusive. It is interesting and maybe suspicious, but you need more than this. You need to approach the witnesses again as a cross-examiner trying to debunk their stories.

This is just my opinion on what you need to do to get this beyond the fringe loonies on ATS that think there were no planes. If you really want people to take you seriously, and to uncover the truth, you need to take your game to the next level.

Otherwise you are going to have to settle for being a tiny footnote to what has become seen as a fringe movement akin to people claiming to be abducted by aliens or who saw bigfoot.

Now would be the time to take what you are doing to the next level before the window closes permanently.

I've been reading this thread and it does interest me a lot. I have a question that I havent found covered anywhere (unless i missed it!). Regardless of whether a plane hit the poles or not, surely the thrust that would be coming from the engines have been enough to blow the poles over, and possibly even send it through the air like a spear. I dont know anything about the thrust to knocking-pole-over-ability, but was just wondering if the thrust (plus the heat from the thrust) could have been enough to blow them out of the ground. I'm not arguing theories with anyone here, I'm just curios for my own mind!

reply to post by shaolin_dragon


The damage to the poles is inconsistent with this.

A "thrust" wouldn't break the poles from the base AND pinch the top like this:






The damage was likely pre-fabricated with something like this:



[edit on 10-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by robert z


You know as well as I do that the only way witnesses could conclusively put the plane north or south of the Citgo was if they were at the Citgo when it flew over. The fact that there were not an abundance of witnesses in the position to make this judgment is not conclusive.

Of course it's conclusive.

ALL of them that WERE in the position to tell independently report the same thing.

How many independently corroborated accounts make an "abundance"?

How many would it take for you to determine it "conclusive" and what is your reason for choosing that number?

You see the notion that they are all simply "mistaken" so drastically in the exact same way is not logical.

It does not matter exactly how many there are the fact that they all report the plane in the same place is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Okay dokey, after looking, that makes sense. Why would they want to remove the lights though? Looking at the pinching at the top of the poles, it looks like the lights were cut off. I guess the way i look at the poles, is the same way as people look at the wtc (not going off topic here). When the plane hit the wtc, the beams were bent inwards, but not pinched. The poles in this case seem to be clearly pinched by something, and the jaws of life tool looks like it could cause that. If a plane hit them, they would have bent, IMO. Does that make sense?

I suppose they wanted you to think the plane clipped the top off while knocking it from it's base.

The question of why they faked it that way is pretty irrelevant and impossible to answer to be honest with you.

But we have proven with hard evidence that the plane was not near the poles.