Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye Of The Storm

Originally posted by matrix911

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by matrix911

and while you're at it, i'm curious what evidence you have and support for the explanation you've given for how a boeing 757 can (within simple physics and known data on what happens when a 757 crashes anywhere into anything) fits in the hole made at the pentagon.

Don't be so upset. EVERYONE here is claiming that AA77 could not have hit the Pentagon. I already know that.

I am just asking questions about their claims that AA77, instead, flew over and away from the Pentagon. BIG and LOUD 757s just don't disappear on command, do they?

Would you please be so kind to provide the eyewitnesses and media reports reporting a jet, AA77 or the claimed "decoy" jet that supposedly flew the NoC flightpath, flew toward, over, and away from the Pentagon?

Is there a claim here by tezzajw and other cit members saying there are?

second, I'll ignore that you didn't answer my other 2 or 3 very simple questions... for now.

again, As for aa77 flyer over the pentagon claim... are tezzajw and others saying that? I think most are saying something flew over or may have, but not aa77... is that correct or the issue IYO?

jthomas, i never got a response to my reply above...

Here is a 10 minute youtube piece with me live as the featured speaker at the Granada Forum explaining the Lloyde situation:

Craig,

For what it's worth...

You're work is the first I've seen since 9/11 that puts a face and a name to the people on-the-ground involved in a vast conspiracy that, if true, would require the coordination of hundreds of people.

Keep going. This may very well be the "Magic Bullet" that unravels some truth, conspiracy or not, of the event.

reply to post by cogburn


Thanks cogburn.

Knowing what we know it makes it impossible to stop and we won't.

The information exposing this deception will only grow as will the coalition of people demanding justice.

You're right about this being the "magic bullet" of 9/11. Many people have told us that.

But this is no conspiracy theory as the evidence keeps on piling up and attention to this will only grow.

CIT has so far only been working on phase 1, evidence gathering, but the next phase will definitely make a lot more people start listening.

I can promise you that.

I have been looking around a bit on this site and your forums and maybe the Search functions fails me...

Could you point me in the direction of the theory on how the poles got to be in their state if not struck by an aircraft of the appropriate dimensions?

For the time being I'd like to challenge a few of your assertions regarding the C-130.

You have ample evidence that the NTSB/84th RADES data is not consistent with eyewitness testimony, except for that of the C-130 pilot... which corroborates the NTSB/84th RADES data.

It's interesting that in the same thread Anthony Tribby is not mentioned in your posted witness list, however you do take the time to deconstruct his video. Have you talked to him? Do you plan to?



Your "plot" is not based on anything beyond supposition and has no mathematics to support your assertion that the position of the C-130 as shown in the video is anything other than where the 84th RADES says it is.

In fact, this image is extremely misleading because the angle at which you indicate the plane is moving is not consistent with the 84th RADES data plots... however the conclusion you reach is also misleading.

Using 3 of your images laid on atop the other to make a composite, I am able to construct a possible POV from which Anthony Tribby could indeed have video taped what he did. Your own plots of his POV do not agree with each other, which indicates to me that there is no mathematics backing your assertion as to the viewing angle. This makes my estimation of the viewing angle as equally as valid as yours, not to mention my plot agrees with the 84th RADES data.



The two large white arrows are a possible POV from the beginning to the end of the area that you highlighted as his position on the highway as well as crossing through your landmarks as indicated in the composite.

Can you provide any mathematical analysis for your conclusion that the distance and position of the C-130 from the camera is in any way inconsistent from the 84th RADES data?

You do yourself a disservice by asserting such things are true with less data than the supposed conspiracy provides.

It's interesting to note that the reliability of your witnesses... MOST of your witnesses is not the best. Time and time again you ask if they saw a C-130 in the sky and the reply was no... however we have video proof, and your eventual concession, that there was indeed a C-130 north of the Pentagon... but then you assert that it did exist (even though none of your witnesses saw it) but doesn't match the 84th RADES data so it too must be in on it somehow. That's not investigation. That's conspiracy theory.

As to the Pentagon officer that "swears on his life".... If a witness were to swear to me on his life that what he said was 100% correct... and then after recounting his full testimony, would have to backtrack on the actual position where he was standing, opposing council would be on their feet before the witness finished their sentence. The absolute conviction of a witness does not lend to the factual nature of evidence. It's purely emotional.

Given your assertions regarding a second aircraft based on Roosevelt's testimony and given the speed of commercial aircraft why is Roosevelt's plane not evident on any video released to date? Cruising speed for a 757 is 500 mph, per Boeing. Cruising speed for a 737 is 530 mph, per Boeing. C-130 has a cruising speed of 374 mph.

Cont next post....


[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

If Roosevelt took 10 seconds to reach the outside, and Tribby's video begins 15-20 seconds after the impact, this means Roosevelt walked outside 5-10 seconds before Tribby started filming.

In those 5-10 seconds, traveling at max cruising speed, the plane would have traveled 0.69 miles.

A plane flying at that speed, at that altitude, for that long, should produce more than just one "solid" eyewitness, no?

If the plane gained altitude, it would not have been able to maintain cruising speed. My aerodynamic math is not all that sharp and we don't know the angle of ascent, but let's assume the speed decreases to 350 mph, equal to the cruising speed of the C-130 and a decrease of 30%. This puts the aircraft 0.49 miles away from the Pentagon when Tribby turned on his camera to start filming.

Did Tribby or anyone else on the 395 witness the 2nd plane Roosevelt described? It would seem that if Tribby were able to capture the Pentagon fires within 15-20 seconds after the impact that he very well witnessed the initial explosion, potentially witnessed the plane prior to impact, and is highly likely to have witnessed a second airliner as it flew off.

Are you attempting to refute the 9/11 report or conduct your own investigation? If you are refuting the 9/11 report that is one thing, but if you are attempting an honest investigation of the incident your investigation is incomplete in its inclusion of any contradictory evidence.

Again, you're on the right track but there's still so many unanswered questions that the theories you posit to "fill in the blanks" in the witness testimony is woefully misleading at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

EDIT: Note that Andrews AFB is ~15mi away from the Pentagon and the rogue aircraft would pass between Andrews AFB and P-56A. Using the speed data above at cruising speed, that puts the plane passing the nose of Andrews AFB 1.8 minutes after it flew over Roosevelt's head. If it was really going THAT fast then it's totally possible that Tribby missed it while fumbling for his camera. I still don't think it was even going 350mph, much less 500mph, if it existed at all. Unless you are suggesting that it landed at Andrews, in which case it would need to be moving much slower, and therefore within the ability of Tribby to catch it within his POV.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn] Various typos and math errors.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

Up until this point I haven't questioned your overall theory, just the facts you have submitted to support that theory.

Here's something I found in your posted documentation on your forums that begins to take your work out of the realm of investigation and into the domain of conspiracy theory.

Aldo Marquis posted on Jan 15 2008 that:

Thomas J. Trapasso (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT1400 S. Barton, dubious conflicting witness and can't see Pentagon from location)

If this were a fact-finding mission, where are the facts related to this interview? A GSS of both the forums and your related websites reveals no such posted documentation. Does it exist and if it does may we see it? What makes it dubious? If this is a true investigation, there should be nothing that his story conflicts with anything until the investigation is complete and all the facts may then be weighed against one another. From your own witness list, which may or may not be accurate at this point, it is far from complete in its vetting of witnesses. How can you already determine that it doesn't fit the "picture"?

I think that you may not only be properly vetting each lead but you are attempting to fit each new piece of information into a pre-existing narrative as opposed to allowing the facts create the narrative. If it truly is as obvious as you say then there's hardly a need for editorializing on the facts.

You take great pains with each of your on-camera interviews, however I can't help but wonder if other "dubious" or "contradictory" accounts are not as rigorously investigated and documented.

Do you have anyone playing the role of devil's advocate on your team? If you do they are doing a piss poor job and I'd be happy to take on that role.

I don't have a problem with what you are doing, I have a problem with both how you do it and how you present the evidence collected.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
I have been looking around a bit on this site and your forums and maybe the Search functions fails me...

Well you haven't looked very hard because there are threads on ALL of this stuff and ALL of it is off topic in this one.

Could you point me in the direction of the theory on how the poles got to be in their state if not struck by an aircraft of the appropriate dimensions?

We explain it in the presentation linked in the OP.

Apparently you haven't even bothered to watch it.

Please do and report back with the hypothesis we present.

For the time being I'd like to challenge a few of your assertions regarding the C-130.

You have ample evidence that the NTSB/84th RADES data is not consistent with eyewitness testimony, except for that of the C-130 pilot... which corroborates the NTSB/84th RADES data.

Nonsense.

We have ample evidence INCLUDING the C-30 pilot as outlined in this thread. We exposed this and confirmed it direct with O'Brien before the now proven fraudulent 84 RADES data was released in 2007.

Please discuss that topic there.

It's interesting that in the same thread Anthony Tribby is not mentioned in your posted witness list, however you do take the time to deconstruct his video. Have you talked to him? Do you plan to?

The witness thread you are referring to is in regards to witnesses to the attack jet and Tribby is not one.

We did attempt to contact Tribby but he did not respond.

Our thread addressing Tribby's video is available here. Please discuss this topic there.

We aren't avoiding Tribby. His video tape supports what we have been saying all along, primarily the timing of the C-130 not showing up until a few minutes after the explosion.

The approach of the C-130 is not caught on that tape.

It's interesting to note that the reliability of your witnesses... MOST of your witnesses is not the best. Time and time again you ask if they saw a C-130 in the sky and the reply was no... however we have video proof, and your eventual concession, that there was indeed a C-130 north of the Pentagon... but then you assert that it did exist (even though none of your witnesses saw it) but doesn't match the 84th RADES data so it too must be in on it somehow. That's not investigation. That's conspiracy theory.

Now you are lying.

We never denied there was a C-130!

We provide witnesses who prove where it approached from.



It is not a surprise that most of the other witnesses (including previously published) did not notice the C-130 since Tribby confirms it was not even in the airspace until 3 minutes after the attack during all the chaos and that it was at a much higher altitude than the north side flyover jet.

Oh yeah did you know the attack jet flew on the north side of the gas station?

That is not a conspiracy theory.

As to the Pentagon officer that "swears on his life".... If a witness were to swear to me on his life that what he said was 100% correct... and then after recounting his full testimony, would have to backtrack on the actual position where he was standing, opposing council would be on their feet before the witness finished their sentence. The absolute conviction of a witness does not lend to the factual nature of evidence. It's purely emotional.

Off topic and of course wrong.

Why aren't you referencing Sgt. Lagasse's name?


Pure faulty logic. Front or back pump is a relatively insignificant detail and does not change his POV of the plane on the north side.

To suggest the notion that if a witness is incorrect about one thing proves he was incorrect about another is a pure deceptive logical fallacy demonstrating your lack of interest in truth and desire for spin and lies.

Besides the plane on the north side was unanimously corroborated by all other witnesses proving he was correct about this detail.

An intellectually honest critical thinker would understand this right away.

Given your assertions regarding a second aircraft based on Roosevelt's testimony and given the speed of commercial aircraft why is Roosevelt's plane not evident on any video released to date? Cruising speed for a 757 is 500 mph, per Boeing. Cruising speed for a 737 is 530 mph, per Boeing. C-130 has a cruising speed of 374 mph.

Off topic again.

You are all over the place!

Absence of evidence is not evidence.

RR describes a commercial airliner with jet engines at less than 100 feet banking away from the Pentagon IMMEDIATELY after the explosion which is consistent with what he told the Library of Congress in 2001.


Now I am going to have to demand that you do not muddle up this thread with off topic information any longer or you will be reported.




[edit on 17-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by cogburn
If Roosevelt took 10 seconds to reach the outside, and Tribby's video begins 15-20 seconds after the impact, this means Roosevelt walked outside 5-10 seconds before Tribby started filming.

This completely false premise proves the rest of your post worthless so I feel compelled to expose your off topic deception before it gets deleted by the mods.

Roosevelt claimed it was "10 seconds tops" which means it could have been 2 or 3 seconds for all we know.

Tribby however, specifically tells us that his video starts "approximately one minute after impact" so where did you get 15-20 seconds?

www.youtube.com...

But the C-130 does not come into the picture until 1:52 after the camera is started so that makes a total of almost 3 minutes.

172 seconds is a lot longer than 15-20.

172 seconds makes sense with the eyewitness reports and statements from the pilot, Lt Col Steve O'Brien who claims he was too far away when he saw the explosion to even be able to tell if it came from the Pentagon!

You simply made up the 15-20 second claim and it is false.

Please stop being deceptive and making unsupported assertions as if they are fact.




[edit on 17-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by cogburn
Up until this point I haven't questioned your overall theory, just the facts you have submitted to support that theory.

Here's something I found in your posted documentation on your forums that begins to take your work out of the realm of investigation and into the domain of conspiracy theory.

If this were a fact-finding mission, where are the facts related to this interview? A GSS of both the forums and your related websites reveals no such posted documentation. Does it exist and if it does may we see it? What makes it dubious?

Please save the uneducated and unjustified criticism until after you have viewed the evidence we present in full.

All of the evidence is available for free in video format and all of our videos are listed on this page.

We explain what happened with Thomas Trappasso and why we think his account is dubious in "Flight 77" The White Plane .

You have no valid basis upon which to question information that you have not even bothered to view.


Now that I have answered all of your questions I respectfully request that you limit your discussion in this thread to information from our most recent presentation Lloyde England & His Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm.

Feel free to bump old threads, start new ones, or pm me to direct you to threads for appropriate topics.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Thanks for taking the time to stand behind your statements. I'll confine the remainder of my comments in this post to the poles and how they fell. I will also confine my further comments only to the video in the OP. They are fair enough requests. The search functions on ATS leave much to be desired and GSS tends to provide more information than can be sifted through. It's not pleasant for any of us.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Could you point me in the direction of the theory on how the poles got to be in their state if not struck by an aircraft of the appropriate dimensions?

We explain it in the presentation linked in the OP.

Apparently you haven't even bothered to watch it.

Please do and report back with the hypothesis we present.

Disregarding the repeated ad hominems...

@ 8:55 You mention no official documentation of the light poles
@ 11:51 You state that the light poles indicate staging on multiple levels
@ 1:25:00-1:31:00 you mention "sooty residue", "agents drop the pole" and then "cover the area so you couldn't see". You state "there is no logical conclusion other than the poles were staged" and while stating that the facts presented by the light poles are "irreconcilable" with the testimony collected.

You do theorize how the poles arrived on scene possibly some time prior which seems absolutely plausible. However after that, you offer nothing more than a list of the oddities of the physical evidence and how it does not fit with eye witness testimony you collected.

Did I miss anything major?

My point is nothing more than this: theories are based on evidence. Evidence is born from fact. Fact, in crash analysis, is derived from reconstruction of the event with all known data and the application of physical laws to describe reality. Analysis of this level, which would be required for a successful prosecution, is not offered in the video to describe this physical evidence. Not a single time. All that is offered is conjecture that can easily be countered with more conjecture. I'll make three examples.

Ex #1- Men in suits at 9:45am appearing from all sides on a major traffic artery that cuts around the Pentagon in Washington D.C. is not de facto proof they are "agents" or even suspicious. Judging from the immediate area (Navy Annex, Pentagon, Arlington Cemetery), there's a high probability they are all government, if not military, employees or contractors. Why don't they come forward? It's not impossible to think that some people don't want folks like us harassing them for testimony for the rest of their lives. The only difference between Lloyd England and the others is car damage. Lloyd would then be the "oddity" in respect to everyone else witnessed on the bridge.

Ex #2- You offer the difference in damage to the base of two poles as evidence of something however I cannot discern what that would be. The first image is of a wind induced stress fracture in the material at the base of a light pole. The image of pole #4 shows a failure of the rings into which fit the base restraining bolts. This is not inconsistent with physics in that the failure point would change based on the difference in the application of force. A strong wind would impact the pole along its entire length thereby causing a different failure point. This ignores the possibility of pre-existing damage or inconsistent materials.

Ex #3- I don't understand how VDOT refused to provide the information if you filed a FOIA request with the state. Did you just call them up and expect admission of a cover-up or was receiving an answer that could be interpreted as a cover-up sufficient? If you did file a FOIA request it wasn't mentioned in your video and one wonders why you would choose to make unfounded allegations as opposed to just saying "we're waiting to hear back from our FOIA request".

All facts mentioned were taken directly from the OP video and nothing more.

Originally posted by cogburn
Fact, in crash analysis, is derived from reconstruction of the event with all known data and the application of physical laws to describe reality.

Exactly.

Where have we seen this level of detail to examine the light pole allegedly hitting Lloyde's taxi, as claimed?

There was no forensic work done on the light pole to determine how it could hit the windscreen, lodge in the back seat, hang over the bonnet and survive a skidded stop, all without scratching the windscreen frame or the bonnet itself.

Besides Lloyde, there are no other reported witnesses who corroborate his story.

Originally posted by cogburn
Disregarding the repeated ad hominems...

Sorry?

I issued no ad hominems.

Please refrain from false allegations.

@ 8:55 You mention no official documentation of the light poles
@ 11:51 You state that the light poles indicate staging on multiple levels
@ 1:25:00-1:31:00 you mention "sooty residue", "agents drop the pole" and then "cover the area so you couldn't see". You state "there is no logical conclusion other than the poles were staged" and while stating that the facts presented by the light poles are "irreconcilable" with the testimony collected.

You do theorize how the poles arrived on scene possibly some time prior which seems absolutely plausible. However after that, you offer nothing more than a list of the oddities of the physical evidence and how it does not fit with eye witness testimony you collected.

Did I miss anything major?

What more do you need?

You just repeated the hypothesis proving that you were already fully aware of it when you asked the question.

Unless of course you just watched the presentation for the first time AFTER asking the question.

We believe the poles were removed and damage pre-fabricated in advance.

We believe the pre-fabricated damaged poles were possibly placed the night before the event or even the day of under the cover of "securing" the area for the President's 12:00 noon scheduled arrival and/or the renovation clean up.

My point is nothing more than this: theories are based on evidence. Evidence is born from fact.

Correct.

Such as the FACT that 13 independent witnesses unanimously corroborate each other in regards to the north side approach proving the plane did not hit the poles.

Fact, in crash analysis, is derived from reconstruction of the event with all known data and the application of physical laws to describe reality. Analysis of this level, which would be required for a successful prosecution, is not offered in the video to describe this physical evidence. Not a single time. All that is offered is conjecture that can easily be countered with more conjecture. I'll make three examples.

The forensic analysis you are speaking of should be what you demand from the authorities as evidence that a 757 caused the damage as reported. They failed to provide this analysis so the notion is merely conjecture as you stated.

It is not our responsibility to conduct such an analysis.

We present scientifically verified evidence proving the plane was nowhere near the light poles. This is not conjecture and is the evidence we cite proving the plane did not hit the poles or the building.

Ex #1- Men in suits at 9:45am appearing from all sides on a major traffic artery that cuts around the Pentagon in Washington D.C. is not de facto proof they are "agents" or even suspicious. Judging from the immediate area (Navy Annex, Pentagon, Arlington Cemetery), there's a high probability they are all government, if not military, employees or contractors. Why don't they come forward? It's not impossible to think that some people don't want folks like us harassing them for testimony for the rest of their lives. The only difference between Lloyd England and the others is car damage. Lloyd would then be the "oddity" in respect to everyone else witnessed on the bridge.

So?

How does this change the fact that we provide evidence proving the plane was on the north side nowhere near the poles?

I will concede that the suits in the image could very well be completely innocent.

But they remain suspects who are implicated merely by photographic evidence showing direct association with this proven staged scene.

This is all we have ever claimed when considering them and we stand by it.

Ex #2- You offer the difference in damage to the base of two poles as evidence of something however I cannot discern what that would be. The first image is of a wind induced stress fracture in the material at the base of a light pole. The image of pole #4 shows a failure of the rings into which fit the base restraining bolts. This is not inconsistent with physics in that the failure point would change based on the difference in the application of force. A strong wind would impact the pole along its entire length thereby causing a different failure point. This ignores the possibility of pre-existing damage or inconsistent materials.

We find it questionable that the impact of the plane would allow for perfect uniform damage to the cast aluminum break-away base.

If you don't that's fine but this does not change the fact that we have evidence proving the plane was nowhere near the poles.

We have never cited the anomalous damage to the poles or sooty residue as proof of this.

Ex #3- I don't understand how VDOT refused to provide the information if you filed a FOIA request with the state. Did you just call them up and expect admission of a cover-up or was receiving an answer that could be interpreted as a cover-up sufficient? If you did file a FOIA request it wasn't mentioned in your video and one wonders why you would choose to make unfounded allegations as opposed to just saying "we're waiting to hear back from our FOIA request".

We most certainly did file FOIA requests and had a direct dialog with more than one individual who was trying to fulfill the requests.

I stated this in the presentation just as I stated how they failed to provide the information we were seeking which was merely documentation as to the exact location of the downed poles.

Not whether or not there was a cover up.


We aren't stupid and we would not ask such a thing.

They claimed they went through all of their records and that no records were kept regarding the replacement of the downed light poles in question and that they can not speak as to their exact location.

It seems as though you may have finally watched the presentation (perhaps earlier today?) but clearly did not pay very much attention to it before deciding to level further unjustified criticism.



[edit on 17-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

I'm sorry but this was hardly the nature of the response I was expecting. Within your own post you contradict your own logic and I see no reason to lend your theories any further credence, regardless of the quality of the eye witness testimony. Your flaws go to the very heart of the narrative you are attempting to potray and to refuse to reconcile them is intellectually dishonest at best or disinformation at worst.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So?
How does this change the fact that we provide evidence proving the plane was on the north side nowhere near the poles?
I will concede that the suits in the image could very well be completely innocent.
But they remain suspects who are implicated merely by photographic evidence showing direct association with this proven staged scene.
This is all we have ever claimed when considering them and we stand by it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The forensic analysis you are speaking of should be what you demand from the authorities as evidence that a 757 caused the damage as reported. They failed to provide this analysis so the notion is merely conjecture as you stated.
It is not our responsibility to conduct such an analysis.
We present scientifically verified evidence proving the plane was nowhere near the light poles. This is not conjecture and is the evidence we cite proving the plane did not hit the poles or the building.

You provided probable X,Y flight plots based on eye witness testimony. There are no experiments conducted to gauge the exact X, Y, or Z plot of the north side flyover other than eyeball recollection... That is not "scientifically verified evidence". Produce the exact science that extrapolated it so we may duplicate it ourselves independently. Why not drag those witnesses individually out to an airport and stand them under the landing path of airplanes and have them identify incoming planes as "how big it was" at various points in their testimony. Obtain the FAA data from the tower and compare it to your position on the ground and plot that data in 3 dimensions. My suspicion is that the Z plot would look like the Cyclone at Coney Island. "Above that tree" or "about over there" is about as non-scientific as you can get.

You cannot concede that the people in the images are probable innocents and yet claim that the scene is proven to be staged in the same sentence. You have asserted that if the scene was staged that the people immediately surrounding England are in on it. If the people are probable innocents it is logical to then assume that it is equally probable that a light pole was struck by a 757 and pierced Lloyd England's windscreen. That is logic, sir.

Scientific evidence must include an explanation of how the poles aren't related to the 757 to explain how they came to be where they were found at the time of the event due to the anomalous nature of their position. Your eye witness testimony is unsupported by science and your overall theory it rests on is not scientific in that it is not in keeping with the physical evidence that you have yet to prove was staged. How can you say that your "evidence" says one thing while absolutely discounting potential physical evidence to the contrary as "staged" with no proof of staging? Bravo Sierra.

Great effort is expended to document evidence that supports your pre-supposed hypothesis, however you do not make the additional effort to attempt to reconcile physical evidence with eye witness testimony you collected 7 years after the events. To attempt to make any hypothesis as to the reality of events prior to first reconciling all physical evidence, or even the contradiction between previous statements and the ones you recorded (Lagasse), is the very foundation of pseudo-science.

We expect better at ATS and when you tire of 9/11 the GFL may require your services.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
Why not drag those witnesses individually out to an airport and stand them under the landing path of airplanes and have them identify incoming planes as "how big it was" at various points in their testimony.

cogburn, I'm interested to get your opinion on Lloyde's demeanour during the interview with Craig?

What do you think about Lloyde's claims that he was not located where the pictures were taken when the light pole allegedly struck his taxi?

What do you think about the interesting words that Lloyde's wife had to say in passing?

All you have proven in your video is that an old cabby changed his 9/11 testimony on film over 7 years after the initial event and in direct contradiction to photographic evidence.

Anything else is what you brought to it.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by cogburn
Why not drag those witnesses individually out to an airport and stand them under the landing path of airplanes and have them identify incoming planes as "how big it was" at various points in their testimony.

cogburn, I'm interested to get your opinion on Lloyde's demeanour during the interview with Craig?

What do you think about Lloyde's claims that he was not located where the pictures were taken when the light pole allegedly struck his taxi?

What do you think about the interesting words that Lloyde's wife had to say in passing?

I think they were having some fun at the expense of some over-eager white boys.

Let's face it... Lloyd got to hang out and be the center of attention all day long. The more he contradicts himself the more he'll be remembered as a part of 9/11.

Do you remember Lloyd England's name prior to the CIT videos? He's famous now as being the first accomplice. I'd tell my grandkids if I were him.

EDIT: Not to mention... his wife was hella annoyed when they showed up. Let's assume she's no fool and just decided that she was going to screw with them to get even for barging in and ruining her afternoon.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by cogburn]

To support my version of Lloyd and his wife's state of mind:

In the video Lloyd says "It's not History it's his-story."

Craig responds "Yeah, yeah."

Lloyd was quoting Flava Flav? Either Craig buys it or just plays like he does. Either way from that point the conversation just gets more like a poorly written cold war spy movie.

Don't, don't... don't believe the hype.

Originally posted by cogburn

You provided probable X,Y flight plots based on eye witness testimony. There are no experiments conducted to gauge the exact X, Y, or Z plot of the north side flyover other than eyeball recollection... That is not "scientifically verified evidence". Produce the exact science that extrapolated it so we may duplicate it ourselves independently.

Man you're making this too easy.

Once again this initial paragraph can be quite simply demonstrated false proving the rest of your long-winded rant pointless.

The exact science used to validate these witness accounts was the one that is always used to validate eyewitness reports and is accepted by society and every court in the land as such.

That would be corroboration.

I'd love to hear your argument against the notion that corroboration is a scientific process.

This ought to be rich.

Why not drag those witnesses individually out to an airport and stand them under the landing path of airplanes and have them identify incoming planes as "how big it was" at various points in their testimony. Obtain the FAA data from the tower and compare it to your position on the ground and plot that data in 3 dimensions. My suspicion is that the Z plot would look like the Cyclone at Coney Island. "Above that tree" or "about over there" is about as non-scientific as you can get.

Hehe.

My last post makes this all seem rather silly wouldn't you agree?

You cannot concede that the people in the images are probable innocents and yet claim that the scene is proven to be staged in the same sentence.

Oh really?

Why not?

You should be rather familiar with our light pole hypothesis by now.

Please explain to me how light poles planted in advance definitively proves that people who were shown to be in the area afterward were involved.

I only suggest that they are implicated by association and seeming authority over the scene.

You have asserted that if the scene was staged that the people immediately surrounding England are in on it.

Whoa whoa whoa there nelly!

Please refrain from claiming I said something without quoting and sourcing it.

I never said any such thing nor do I believe it.

You are lying again.

If the people are probable innocents it is logical to then assume that it is equally probable that a light pole was struck by a 757 and pierced Lloyd England's windscreen. That is logic, sir.

Where do you get off making up this nonsense and attributing it to me?

I NEVER said they are "probable innocents" either!

If anything I think they are probably guilty operatives.

But your absurd logic of suggesting this has anything to do with Lloyde's impossible story is borderline batty.

Scientific evidence must include an explanation of how the poles aren't related to the 757 to explain how they came to be where they were found at the time of the event due to the anomalous nature of their position.

Uhhh right.

I already gave that to you and you already agreed that it is "plausible".

Remember?

You said:

You do theorize how the poles arrived on scene possibly some time prior which seems absolutely plausible.
cogburn 17-11-2008 @ 02:27 PM

But the notion that you must accept the theory before you can accept evidence is clearly backwards and yet another indication that you have a deliberate agenda to spin, confuse, and obfuscate.

Word of advice.....stay away from CIT if you want to be effective at all.

Your eye witness testimony is unsupported by science and your overall theory it rests on is not scientific in that it is not in keeping with the physical evidence that you have yet to prove was staged. How can you say that your "evidence" says one thing while absolutely discounting potential physical evidence to the contrary as "staged" with no proof of staging? Bravo Sierra.

What are you rambling about?

You are completely incoherent and devoid of logic.

We present scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence that proves the official story false.

You present NOTHING to refute it and are looking rather silly with extremely thin semantic arguments that are easily sliced to shreds.

Great effort is expended to document evidence that supports your pre-supposed hypothesis, however you do not make the additional effort to attempt to reconcile physical evidence with eye witness testimony you collected 7 years after the events. To attempt to make any hypothesis as to the reality of events prior to first reconciling all physical evidence, or even the contradiction between previous statements and the ones you recorded (Lagasse), is the very foundation of pseudo-science.

We expect better at ATS and when you tire of 9/11 the GFL may require your services.

Your posturing is transparent and vacuous.

Please address the evidence and cut all the empty verbiage.

The claim is not rocket science.

It is a simple left or right/north or south/black or white claim.

They all saw it on the north side cogburn.

All of them.





Refute that.





[edit on 17-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

I don't argue theology with true-believers, so I think I'll pass at this point and allow others to take swings at you. I think our discourse up to this point validates my points quite sufficiently.

I'll correct one thing I said before.

What you do isn't pseudo-science... it's no science.

Feel free to judge me, my motivations or my conclusions. You may say what you like, but I have no vested interest in your being a hero or a fool in this venture. I'm a classically educated fan of occult knowledge that trolls ATS and challenges anything from 9/11 theory to reptilian alien hybrids on YouTube.

I spent a few days on your psychosis and have deemed it to be wanting. After careful consideration of what you have offered as "facts" I choose not to drink your kool-aide.

I wish you the best of luck and should you ever produce anything other than unfounded contrivance based on eye witness testimony only that is corroborated on the surface of the account and unsupported by fact... I'll be the first to congratulate you.