How many wintesses say they saw a plane hit light poles?

reply to post by tezzajw


tezza, i dont know how much more proof you need.
A) testimony from numerous eyewitnesses who DID see the plane knock over the lamposts.
B) An actual vehicle with a smashed windshield AND a piece of lampost in said windshield.
C) Photos of said smashed windshield.
D) Driver of said vehicle.

You would make a very very very poor crash scene investigator tezza. You have witnesses, you have the lamp post, you have the smashed windshield that obviously wasnt smashed BEFORE the plane flew over, and the knocked over lamp posts. I mean damn tezza, do you need sock puppets to explain it? I honestly dont think you are interested in the truth at all, and prefer to just play stupid trolling games in order to discourage any rational thinking.

Originally posted by GenRadek
A) testimony from numerous eyewitnesses who DID see the plane knock over the lamposts.

Have you read the OP of this thread? Which witnesses are you pinning your hopes on, who state that they saw the light pole hit the taxi?

Originally posted by GenRadek
B) An actual vehicle with a smashed windshield AND a piece of lampost in said windshield.

Yes, there is a damaged taxi on the road. Prove how it was damaged.

Originally posted by GenRadek
C) Photos of said smashed windshield.
D) Driver of said vehicle.

With the driver contradicting the position of the taxi as shown in the photos, when he was interviewed on camera. Nice one, GenRadek. I guess it's too annoying for you to remember that Lloyde contradicted himself numerous times, right?

Originally posted by GenRadek
you have the smashed windshield that obviously wasnt smashed BEFORE the plane flew over,

You need to prove that. You're assuming something that you do not know to be true.

Your handwaving plea for people to believe you has been noted, GenRadek, along with your absence of proof to demonstrate that the light pole hit the taxi.

reply to post by tezzajw


So lets use your warped logic for a second tezza, in an easier setting:

You are at home. The neighborhood kids are playing baseball outside your window. All of a sudden you hear a loud smash in the next room facing the street where the kids were playing. You rush into the room to find a large hole in your window, and a baseball on the floor with the glass from the window around it. You rush out to find the kids that did it and see the baseball bat on the ground not too far from your window. The neighbors say they saw the kids playing ball, and one claims to have seen the ball hit and head towards your window, and heard the crash, but DID NOT see the actual ball smashing the window. The police are dispatched and they come and plainly look around, see the ball, the bat, the smashed window, and the eyewitnesses, including the one who saw the ball when it was flying towards your window. The police say well, obviously by looking at the evidence, it appears the neighborhood kids smashed your window with a baseball accidentally.

So now tezza, are you going to believe the neighbors and the police based on their investigation? Or are you going to claim its all a lie, and there is no proof the baseball was hit by the kids and went through your window because no one (including you) saw the actual baseball going through the window? tezza, sometimes the facts just speak for themselves.

But if you are going to claim that you need PROOF that the window was smashed, because you are unconvinced with the amount of other proof it happened, well then that usually means that YOU think something else happened tezz. Now what is that other occurrence that happened that had a lamp post crash through a windshield? Stop playing troll games tezza and start answering questions.

Originally posted by GenRadek
So lets use your warped logic for a second tezza, in an easier setting:

This thread is not about baseball, GenRadek. It might pay you stay on topic. I don't speculate in off-topic hypothetical fantasies.

If you are stating that the light pole hitting the tax is fact, then you have a duty to prove it. I can accept that you might only want to claim it as your opinion, which is fine. Opinions do not need to be proven, as they carry no definitive conclusions with them.

reply to post by tezzajw


Tezz it has already been proven:
ie:

Eyewitnesses, smashed windshield, lamp post on the ground and partially in windshield. But since you are ignoring them because, according to you, you just HAVE to SEE the actual physical act of the lamp post coming down and impacting the car. Somehow, your critical thinking is in a very poor state, as you cannot even understand or piece together events that are linked together.

Lets go over this again simplified:
Traffic on the highway, in path of 757.
Eyewitnesses see aircraft low to ground.
No mention of any lamp posts on the ground prior to aircraft arrival.
Eyewitnesses report seeing some lamposts knocked over by aircraft.
Eyewitnesses then report aircraft impacting Pentagon.
Eyewitnesses then report a windshield smashed, with a lamp post nearby the vehicle.
Pictures are taken of hole in windshield, and lamp post.
Driver and one other, saw the cab hit by said lamp post debris.

So following the facts, and using logic, it speaks for itself that the smashed windshield was the direct result of the aircraft knocking over a lamp post, and having it impact an unlucky vehicle below. Don't need anything more.

My analogy was just using the same elements in a simpler example, easier to understand what sort of twisted logic you are using. Since you failed to understand that part, and just handwaved it away, I assume you are not interested in truth at all, or logical thinking. or you have an impaired ability to think logically. I hope not, but sometimes I wonder.

Now its up to you to refute the evidence, and come up with alternate idea of how the windshield was smashed, and lamp posts knocked over. Again enough with the troll games

Originally posted by GenRadek
Lets go over this again simplified:
Traffic on the highway, in path of 757.
Eyewitnesses see aircraft low to ground.

So?

Originally posted by GenRadek
No mention of any lamp posts on the ground prior to aircraft arrival.

So? That has no bearing on when the light poles may have been knocked over.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Eyewitnesses report seeing some lamposts knocked over by aircraft.

Which eyewitnesses are you claiming saw this? Read the OP of this thread and let us know who you're choosing. Show me where you have interviewed them to independently verify their account.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Eyewitnesses then report aircraft impacting Pentagon.

So?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Eyewitnesses then report a windshield smashed, with a lamp post nearby the vehicle.

So? How many of them saw the light pole hit the taxi? How many of them saw the light pole in the taxi?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Pictures are taken of hole in windshield, and lamp post.

Yes. So? The pictures show a damaged taxi and a light pole on the road. Where is your proof that light pole was ever in the taxi and caused the damage to the taxi?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Driver and one other, saw the cab hit by said lamp post debris.

The driver has discredited himself with subsequent follow-up interviews. The other person is...?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Now its up to you to refute the evidence, and come up with alternate idea of how the windshield was smashed, and lamp posts knocked over. Again enough with the troll games

There is no requirement for me to provide any theory about what happened. I was not in chargeof the investigation and I am not in possession of all the facts. You've failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

There is photographic evidence of a damaged taxi and a light pole on the road. I don't need to refute this. You need to prove that light pole was struck by a plane and then hit the taxi.

All you have given me is a media story, GenRadek. Nothing official and nothing proven.

Did someone mention rational thinking? OK, let's give some rational thinking a try.

According to the official story, a plane comes zooming in towards the Pentagon at over 400 MPH, knocks down not one, not two, not three, not four, but five different light poles with its wings. After knocking down the five poles, the wings remain in tact and the airplane continues on its merry way toward the Pentagon and scores a direct hit.

How was this airplane able to continue on the same direct flight path after its wings clipped five different light poles? Five direct hits to the wings and this plane just continues flying in a straight path like it did not impact anything.

Why are there are no wing pieces visible in the vicinity? Five impacts at a high rate of speed against metal light poles and no discernible wing parts?

How come there is no fuel leakage on the lawn from the wings? At the reported speed, the wings should have at least sustained an amount damage which would have caused fuel to leak from them.

Why are the downed light poles in such close vicinity from where they originally stood? If you have a 400+ MPH wing hitting these poles, wouldn't you expect the poles to travel a considerable distance from where they originally stood?

How is a lightweight carbon airplane nose able to create a hole through the Pentagon's exterior wall, while the heavier and stronger metal engines are unable to do so?

How can both wings fold back upon impact when the official story has the plane contacting the wall at an angle and not directly straight?

The bottom line? There has been no rational explanation put forth to explain these events. As for the alleged witnesses, anyone with a functioning brain knows it is difficult to have credible witnesses when you have a Mickey Mouse investigation.

I read this one witness account where this lady was stuck in traffic, saw the plane approaching and was able to exit her vehicle in time to look up and witness the underbelly (and the AA logo of course) of the plane. At speeds of over 400 MPH and at such a low altitude, this stuff is just laughable.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


So your idea of "rational" is when the wing of a huge commercial jetliner going close or over 500mph makes contact with a 6 inch diameter hollow tublar light pole the wings should shear off and the whole plane go careening off course like a pinwheel.

Really, you think that is rational?

As for fuel on the lawn. Even if a hole was punctured in the wing and fuel started to come out - exactly how long was the plane over the lawn? Less than 1 second? Fuel wouldn't even have time to reach the ground.

And on and on and on.

reply to post by hooper


the pole should leave it's moor at nearly five hundred mph, then. any poles struck by a plane going that fast should far, FAR from where they stood, and there should be a visible path of destruction from each one.

thay were laid gently onto to the ground.

A diagram showing the alleged flight path and hitting said lamp posts taking into consideration........

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd511eb9d46b.jpg[/atsimg]

A diagram showing the alleged flight path and hitting said lamp posts, and where it would have to be to be in the CCTV`s field of vision, taking into consideration........

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ed785699253b.jpg[/atsimg]

Case closed.

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by hooper

 

the pole should leave it's moor at nearly five hundred mph, then. any poles struck by a plane going that fast should far, FAR from where they stood, and there should be a visible path of destruction from each one.

thay were laid gently onto to the ground.

Sorry, that is simply your very bias opinion. You are very entitled to it, just don't be suprised when others (OK, everybody) may not happen to agree that the poles were "laid gently on the ground".

reply to post by Seventh


Yeah and I am sure there is no technical problems with that diagram, all to scale and everything, right?

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
How was this airplane able to continue on the same direct flight path after its wings clipped five different light poles? Five direct hits to the wings and this plane just continues flying in a straight path like it did not impact anything.

Why are there are no wing pieces visible in the vicinity? Five impacts at a high rate of speed against metal light poles and no discernible wing parts?

How come there is no fuel leakage on the lawn from the wings? At the reported speed, the wings should have at least sustained an amount damage which would have caused fuel to leak from them.

It is this sort of "analysis" that makes this whole Truther thing so enjoyable to watch.

5 lamp poles, designed to be knocked over by a (these are Michigan Department of Transportation standards, but I submit them as representative of the light poles in Arlington) 1,800 lb (820 kg) passenger car impacting at 22 mph (35 km/h) and an angle of 0 to 20 degrees will rip the wings off a 100 ton 757 traveling at 750 feet per second.

As far as "fuel" leaking, it does not appear "SphinxMontreal" knows much about aircraft wing construction and where the fuel tank is in relation to where the leading edge of the wing is.

You guys are great!


[edit on 19-11-2009 by trebor451]

reply to post by hooper


physics?
show me a gouge in the lawn.
the fact is, the lamp poles either rip the wings (which simple inertia would guarantee some degree of damage to the wing), or, they snap off easily at the base, in which case, they fly off end over end at hundreds of miles an hour. familiar with newton's cradle? a baseball and a baseball bat?

it is impossible to knock something (less massive) down slowly when the (much more massive) thing striking it is going fast.
a five hundred mile an hour (not believable speed, btw, at sea level in an airliner) 100 ton plane would send those lightpoles right into the pentagon with extreme violence, not gently lay them down on the lawn without even marring it.

lloyd the taxi cab driver's constantly shifting story is another clue. he says that he wasn't even on the bridge when the light pole hit his cab. he says he was further north.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Lloyde's testimony has been shredded by his interviews with CIT. Lloyde contradicts himself a few times and disputes other fixed photographic evidence.

He is an unreliable witness.

Great. We have a precedent set here. According to the ATS member "tezzajw", if a witness contradicts himself, he becomes an unreliable witness.

Using that criteria, we can eliminate the following CIT witnesses due to the fact they contradict themselves in their testimony in various ways (claiming "NOC" and impact at the same time, changing their location or simply getting their location wrong or forgetting where they were, placing the aircraft in radically different locations, therefore contradicting (and therefore eliminating as a reliable "witness") themselves and others, etc) and are therefore categorized as "unreliable witnesses":

Officer Lagasse
Officer Brooks
Officer Roberts
Sean Boger
Levi Stephens
Terry Morin
Robert Turcois

This is just a start. Using the ATS member "tezzajw"'s own criteria of "contradicting testimony", we can very likely render all of CIT's "witnesses" unreliable. The above list is only the low-hanging fruit of this "unreliable witness" thread.

The ATS member "tezzajw" needs to tell CIT to go back to the Witness drawing board and come up with some more.

Originally posted by trebor451
Using that criteria, we can eliminate the following CIT witnesses due to the fact they contradict themselves in their testimony in various ways (claiming "NOC" and impact at the same time

Huh?

Are we reading this right? trebor, the self alleged 25 year veteran 'civil servant' government DoD employee, is asking us to piece apart a witness statement based upon his belief system?

Wow... he couldn't be any more illogical if he tried.

Casual readers, witness the complete destruction of logic by trebor, as he scrambles to somehow define what a contradicting witness statement is.

trebor, in case you don't get it (and clearly, you don't), there is nothing contradictory about a witness reporting that they saw a plane fly NOC and hitting the Pentagon. That is what the witness saw.

You need to take a break from the screen and think about this for a very long time. Maybe, when you've figured out your logical error, you'll come back and apologise for your misleading statement.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Seventh

 

Yeah and I am sure there is no technical problems with that diagram, all to scale and everything, right?

Perfectly to scale.......

* From the right edge of image up to the yellow cabinet (35 pixels, 6,2 % of image width).
* Behind the yellow cabinet (46 pixels, 8,1%).
* From the yellow cabinet up to the front of the pentagon (89 pixels, 15,6%).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6513b458f5db.jpg[/atsimg]

The following image is extracted from an aerial view. Over it have been drawn the lines corresponding to the lateral limits of the CCTV field. A line has been plotted, perpendicular to the axis of the camera, which corresponds to a vertical plane Homothetic to the sensor of the camera. On this line have been reported the percentages measured on the previous image. Drawing the lines from the camera up to this line, the trajectory of the plane (confirmed by the impact point in the Pentagon and the struck lamp poles) is intersected.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0c9d0920df3d.jpg[/atsimg]

Good enough for you?.

reply to post by billybob


Well, actually, the faster the impactor is moving, the more likely it is that the stationary object will be severed with little velocity imparted to it and those poles were all severed at the impact point as well as having the frangible bases fail.

The very basic application of Newton's law you mention is only valid as long as the UTS of the impacted object is sufficient to survive the energy of the impactor by remaining intact. Because these poles were severed, the horizontal acceleration imparted to them becomes a resultant of the pole's inertia combined with the duration of the impulse up to the point of failure and that period of contact between the wing and the pole would be only about 1mS or less in this case.

The same principle was demonstrated earlier on 9/11 when 2 planes effortlessly penetrated the WTC's outer walls.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by trebor451
Using that criteria, we can eliminate the following CIT witnesses due to the fact they contradict themselves in their testimony in various ways (claiming "NOC" and impact at the same time

And I quote the ATS member "tezzajw":

Lloyde contradicts himself a few times and disputes other fixed photographic evidence.

He is an unreliable witness.

Using the precedent set by the ATS member known as "tezzajw", a witness who contradicts himself is an "unreliable witness".

Many of the CIT witnesses they put forth contradict themselves in numerous ways. Thus, by the ATS member "tezzajw"'s own definition makes them "unreliable witnesses".

What is really funny is seeing the ATS member "tezzajw" run away from this claim.

In addition, the ATS member "tezzajw" claims that a 757 aircraft can fly on a flight path north of the service station and still impact the Pentagon:

...there is nothing contradictory about a witness reporting that they saw a plane fly NOC and hitting the Pentagon.

a claim that does not in any way, shape or form match the physical evidence of damage to the building and a claim hotly disputed by the CIT crowd as impossible.

Let's see that again:

...there is nothing contradictory about a witness reporting that they saw a plane fly NOC and hitting the Pentagon.

The ATS member "tezzajw" claims there is nothing contradictory about a witness reporting that they saw a plane fly NOC on a flight path that makes it impossible - not improbable...not unlikely - impossible to cause the damage to the Pentagon.

Highly documented analysis of the damage to the building in the Pentagon Building Performance Report states the aircraft impacted the side of the building at an angle of approximately 42 degrees. There is no way possible, from a physics perspective or from any other perspective that an aircraft, flying "NOC", could cause the damage that the building sustained.

Wanda Ramey stated she saw the plane hit the light poles:

Wanda Ramey: "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by trebor451]

Originally posted by trebor451
What is really funny is seeing the ATS member "tezzajw" run away from this claim.

Here we go again... time for another round of destroying logic from trebor, the self alleged 25 year career veteran 'civil servant' government DoD employee.

Casual readers, watch as we disect trebor's post and pick apart his utter failings to quote me and his over-eagerness to try and shove words into my mouth...

Originally posted by trebor451
In addition, the ATS member "tezzajw" claims that a 757 aircraft can fly on a flight path north of the service station and still impact the Pentagon:

Quote me on this trebor. In my 4300+ posts quote me where I conclusively stated that this is what happened. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon, so why do you persist in trying to inform everyone about what I allegedly believe?

Which witnesses stated that they saw a plane fly NOC and hit the Pentagon? We need to specifically work out who you're discussing, at this point, using names. For those witnesses who made this claim, at face value, that's what they saw. There is nothing contradictory in a witness reporting that, as that is what they believe they saw.

Originally posted by trebor451
The ATS member "tezzajw" claims there is nothing contradictory about a witness reporting that they saw a plane fly NOC on a flight path that makes it impossible - not improbable...not unlikely - impossible to cause the damage to the Pentagon.

You really must not know what the word 'contradiction' means, trebor.

There is nothing at all contradictory about a witness stating that they saw the plane aproach NOC and hit the Pentagon. They are reporting what they saw.

The most interesting of these witnesses, to me, would be Boger. He is in a perfect position to witness the NOC approach and describes a NOC approach. He did all that before he stated that he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. At face value, that is his testimony. There is no contradiction there because Boger is saying it as he saw it, provided he was completely honest.

Originally posted by trebor451
Wanda Ramey stated she saw the plane hit the light poles:

Wanda Ramey: "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.

Wanda Ramey was contacted by CIT to verify this. She can't recall making that claim. It's all been documented by CIT. You should read it, as it shows that Wanda's claim is not reliable.

You didn't research that too well, did you? It makes you look like you're proving my point about unreliable witnesses, when you supply one, Ramey, for all of us to discuss.

trebor, take a longer break from the screen and think about the errors in logic you have made in this post. I hear there's some nice DoD offices around Florida way. The tropics might help you think a little more coherently. Remember, you still have your homework assignment where you have to quote me on all of the false claims that you made about me in the other thread.