Ingersoll Pentagon/Cab photos - please help?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

a) There's a flipping gigantic hole in the middle of the windshield. You don't think that counts as damage to the car when a falling object came into contact with it?

I could do that easily with a hammer. Knocking a light pole onto a car would write the whole car off and leave a massive dent in it.

All light poles are set up with frangible transformer bases so when some drunk driver hits it, the light pole will break away at the base and the car won't wrap itself around the pole and kill the driver.

Even so, it still looks like the poles where unbolted from what I have seen and in conjunction with all the other available evidence.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by Alfie1

 

How could any conspirators plan to take down lightpoles, smash them about and twist them, skewer a cab with one and, on a bright sunny morning in front of an office building employing thousands, expect not to be seen ?

The same way that they could run around a drop a few pieces of plane wreckage around the lawn and set up a couple of bins on fire to act as a smoke screen. People have seen and photographed this. Some are still too scared to release all the evidence they have and understandably so, but enough have talked about it. Some have even tried to take it to court.

Out of curiousity, do you have proof of this?

At least the court records would be interesting.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So what should they have done, require him to continue driving a cab with a smashed windshield?

Are you serious? A broken windshield can be replaced, a new car was not necessary.

And it wasn't *his* cab. It still belonged to the cab company. If he quit his job he'd have to give it back.

Do I really need to point this out to you? I mean, really?

Then why is the old car parked on his property? Why would the cab company not repair the windshield and put the cab back in service? The majority of cab drivers in DC are owner operated...

....in which the majority of drivers are owner-operators free to make their own schedules and keep whatever money they earn on the job.

reason.com...



BTW this is what Lloyd said in an interview...

Lloyd England says, "I was not on the bridge. Whatever those pictures show,
it's not where I was that day. I know I was there. I was never near the bridge."

Talk about having to have things pointed out to you Dave... You don't know as much as you think you do mate.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by Alfie1

 

How could any conspirators plan to take down lightpoles, smash them about and twist them, skewer a cab with one and, on a bright sunny morning in front of an office building employing thousands, expect not to be seen ?

The same way that they could run around a drop a few pieces of plane wreckage around the lawn and set up a couple of bins on fire to act as a smoke screen. People have seen and photographed this. Some are still too scared to release all the evidence they have and understandably so, but enough have talked about it. Some have even tried to take it to court.

So let me just check that I have this straight. The conspirators plan was to dispense with the aircraft that had been hi-jacked and fake everything at the Pentagon crash site. (drugging all the witnesses to a plane perhaps ?)

So, while you had perps taking down light poles, deforming them, impaling a cab with one; you have other perps distributing hundreds of Boeing 757 parts. Not only on the lawn but within the blazing building and including heavy items like engine parts and landing gear parts. And the perps never expected that any of this would be seen ?

You seriously think that is a rational scenario ? Would like to hear about your witnesses and photos please.

reply to post by roboe


The latest court case was brought forward by April Gallop, an employee at the Pentagon. Judge John M. Walker Jr, a cousin of G.W. Bush took the case despite the conflict of interest and quickly dismissed it with prejudiced like all other court cases that involve the 9/11 topic. There is heaps on the net about this.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/db2a7051f78c.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2bfe2fb9e338.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Alfie1

So, while you had perps taking down light poles, deforming them, impaling a cab with one; you have other perps distributing hundreds of Boeing 757 parts. Not only on the lawn but within the blazing building and including heavy items like engine parts and landing gear parts. And the perps never expected that any of this would be seen ?

From what I have researched and questioned about the case, there was no plane. Don't forget, this took place at the pentagon and is one of the most highly militarized pieces of land in the world. Noting happens there without the military knowing and controlling it. This is why there is such a confusing conspiracy scene to help cloud and confuse and information that does get out. But as in all criminal cases, a bunch of lies does not add up like the truth.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, I stand corrected. Unlike the conspiracy mongors I have no ulterior agenda other than the facts, so I have no qualms about retracting my errors.

Thanks for that admission, GoodOlDave. We couldn't have your factual error polluting other 9/11 threads, so I'm glad that it's been cleared up.

Originally posted by Alfie1
How could any conspirators plan to take down lightpoles, smash them about and twist them, skewer a cab with one and, on a bright sunny morning in front of an office building employing thousands, expect not to be seen ?

Out of curiosity, could you please provide a complete list of all the people who saw the light pole skewer the cab?

reply to post by kwakakev

at the pentagon and is one of the most highly militarized pieces of land

Highly militarized? Wasnt aware of any weapons on site except those of the guard force

The Pentagon is an OFFICE BUILDING ! Not a military base like that of Fort Benning

Want militarized ? Check this out ...

www.benning.army.mil...

Love to take one those M1 tanks out for a spin

reply to post by kwakakev

April Gallop and her recent foray into the world of low has been discussed ad nauseum here, so I won't bother too much with that. Although I'm fairly sure her lawsuit didn't involve descriptions of men in black walking around, planting airplane parts, bodyparts, and broken lamp posts.

Really? This is it? This is the smoking gun that's going to bring down the "powers that be"? Some silly speculation about exactly how much damage is supposed to happen when a light pole impales a car's windshield?

This is one of the many reasons that this line of conspiracy fantasy isn't even going to make it as a footnote in history.

reply to post by roboe


Her lawsuit claims there was no plane. So how did the poles fall? Why is the damage to the taxi inconsistent with a pole falling on it?

You are right that this case has been discussed here so I will leave that for other threads.

reply to post by hooper

Really? This is it? This is the smoking gun that's going to bring down the "powers that be"? Some silly speculation about exactly how much damage is supposed to happen when a light pole impales a car's windshield?

Hooper, your memory cells are of great concern to me. You have been involved in the 9/11 discussion for quite some time and are familiar with many of it's aspects. This is a massive crime committed by the state with huge international repercussions. It is not going to be a single fact or uncovered inconsistency that unravels this case, but the combination of public reviewed evidence that sorts out the facts from the fiction and names the true suspects with this case.

There is a lot of strength, power and capability behind these events and it is going to a take a lot of public international pressure to confront it and hold it to account. The dam holding back the truth may still be standing, but its cracks are showing. Once it starts to flow again there will be no holding it back.

This is one of the many reasons that this line of conspiracy fantasy isn't even going to make it as a footnote in history.

It is almost ten years on and we are still talking about it...

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Alfie1
How could any conspirators plan to take down lightpoles, smash them about and twist them, skewer a cab with one and, on a bright sunny morning in front of an office building employing thousands, expect not to be seen ?

Out of curiosity, could you please provide a complete list of all the people who saw the light pole skewer the cab?

Lloyd England himself is of course a witness to that. But to humour you I will amend what seems to be being suggested. Is this it ?

Perps took down lightpoles, smashed and twisted them and placed them to mimic being struck by a Boeing 757. A cab was damaged to mimic being impaled by a pole.

At the same time, other perps were distributing hundreds of Boeing 757 parts; not only over the lawn but well within the Pentagon itself and including heavy engine parts and landing gear parts.

All this took place on a bright sunny morning between a huge office building employing thousands and a major highway backed up with traffic. At the planning stage the perps concluded they could accomplish all this without anyone seeing anything and they were proved right.

Does that about sum up the ludicrous proposition ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
Lloyd England himself is of course a witness to that.
But to humour you I will amend what seems to be being suggested. Is this it ?

Stay focussed, Alfie1. Concentrate only on what I asked you to do. Your other assumptions are not necessary. Let's stick with the facts. We can both pretend that we are GoodOlDave, only dealing with facts.

Fact:
The only witness that you can provide, who allegedly saw the light pole skewer the cab, is Lloyde England.

Thanks for providing your exhaustive witness list.

reply to post by kwakakev

Hooper, your memory cells are of great concern to me.

Thank you for your concern.

You have been involved in the 9/11 discussion for quite some time and are familiar with many of it's aspects.

Well, the real ones at least. I am having trouble keeping up with all the make-believe aspects.

This is a massive crime....

There we agree!

....committed by the state with huge international repercussions.

You lost me there. But that's one of those make-believe aspects I guess.

It is not going to be a single fact or uncovered inconsistency that unravels this case, but the combination of public reviewed evidence that sorts out the facts from the fiction and names the true suspects with this case.

Yeah, but you guys have had ten years to compile, produce and present all these "smoking guns" to the public and so far - nothing. The silence is deafening.

There is a lot of strength, power and capability behind these events and it is going to a take a lot of public international pressure to confront it and hold it to account.

19 men hijacked four planes, killed the flight crew and crashed the planes. Not exactly Operation Overlord. Didn't really require a lot of strength or power - just an evil willingness.

The dam holding back the truth may still be standing, but its cracks are showing. Once it starts to flow again there will be no holding it back.

That thing you think is the dam holding back the truth - thats actually the truth.

It is almost ten years on and we are still talking about it...

And "we" is getting smaller and smaller and smaller and then.....all gone.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by roboe

 

Her lawsuit claims there was no plane. So how did the poles fall? Why is the damage to the taxi inconsistent with a pole falling on it?

You are right that this case has been discussed here so I will leave that for other threads.

edit on 9-7-2011 by kwakakev because: added questions.

That depends on what lawsuit you are talking about. You surely can't be unaware that she sued American Airlines because of injuries she said she suffered as a result of their plane hitting the Pentagon ?

The woman has zero credibility.

reply to post by Alfie1

The woman has zero credibility.

Same with NIST.

Originally posted by kwakakev
I could do that easily with a hammer. Knocking a light pole onto a car would write the whole car off and leave a massive dent in it.

Baloney. A hammer would show a bunch of tiny impact marks all over the windsheld, not one gigantic impact mark. Light poles are made of aluminum, not steel, so those things are only around 200-300 pounds, the same weight as two or three grown men passengers the car would be carrying. What do you think the car is made of, cardboard?

I'm willing to be convinced, though- show me a photo of the far side of the taxi where the light pole hit. Showing me photos of the side of the car that the pole wouldn't have hit while asking "where's the damage" is being pretty phony on your part.

Even so, it still looks like the poles where unbolted from what I have seen and in conjunction with all the other available evidence.

Oh, so now you people are experts in frangible light poles just as you're experts in crash site forensics as well as experts in aeronautics. How many light poles have you examined in your career so that you'd know how the frangible components broke away, exactly?

In case you didn't realize this, your unrepentently making up crap off the top of your head and passing it off as fact ISN'T helping your conspiracy stories, any.

Originally posted by ANOK

Are you serious? A broken windshield can be replaced, a new car was not necessary.

So what are you saying, that if the only car they had on hand to give him after the accident was a new car, they should have refused to give it to him and kept him unemployed until they got him another old one entirely to placate the suspicions of you conspiracy people?

Then why is the old car parked on his property? Why would the cab company not repair the windshield and put the cab back in service? The majority of cab drivers in DC are owner operated...

I can speculate all sorts of reasons from "the media put it there specifically to set up that photo shoot" to "the cab company wanted to please the moon god" that have absolutely nothing to do with any convoluted secret plot to take over the world. The one answer that comes immediately to mind is, "Why the flip would I care why the old car was parked on his property?"

You're going absolutely nowhere with this bit. You're only wallowing in it for its innuendo dropping value. You know that and so do I.

....in which the majority of drivers are owner-operators free to make their own schedules and keep whatever money they earn on the job.

What difference does it make what "the majority" of drivers are doing? We're talking about Lloyd Egland and he works for a cab company with its own cab fleet.

BTW this is what Lloyd said in an interview...

"Lloyd England says, "I was not on the bridge. Whatever those pictures show,
it's not where I was that day. I know I was there. I was never near the bridge."

Excuse me? *This* is your proof that Lloyd England is a secret disinformation agent paid to say false things to cover up the conspiracy, by denying where the photos showed where he was that day? Please post the full quote he made, becuase the way you're presenting it you're all but screaming at the tops of your lungs that you're dishonestly quoting him out of context.

Talk about having to have things pointed out to you Dave...

You don't know as much as you think you do mate.

I never said I was an expert on 9/11. Learning new details about the events of the day is one of the reasons I come here. The only thing I know for a fact is that you conspiracy people don't give a flip about the facts. You're trying to pull a fast one and sucker people into thinking some sinister conspiracy is going on regardless of what the facts are. So far, you ain't exactly showing me wrog.