Ingersoll Pentagon/Cab photos - please help?

Originally posted by ANOK

Why bother lifting a heavy light pole when you could just smash the windshield?

I have a better question- Why bother smashing the windshield when, according to you people, everyone within a five mile radius from the Pentagon was a secret disinformation agent paid to say false testimony so they didn't need to waste their time with staging broken windshields?

Can you answer why large dirt mounds were erected in places blocking the impact point, and the only place you can see the impact point from the flyover was where Lloyd's cab was?

I have a better question- Can you answer why in the entire five mile radius from the Pentagon that you're singling out the only spot near the Citgo station that had an obstruction blocking the line of sight? Both lanes of the highway, the parking lot nearby, whatever those buildings are at that big rotary across the street, etc had a clear unobstructed line of view.

Let me answer the questions for you. You don't have a microbe of tangible proof backing any of your claims up so you have to resort to silly innuendo dropping to keep your inane conspiracy accusations alive.

Originally posted by kwakakev
Wither I am an expert on poles or not has no relevance. Either the evidence presented stands on its own or it does not.

This is bait and switch. The question isn't whether the evidence stands on its own or not. The question is whether your interpretation of the evidence is correct or not, and I'm asking you what qualifications you have that's you'd know what a breakaway lightpole should look like for you to even make such an interpretation. For all you know, every breakway lightpole looks like this. For all you know, there's some glaring technical detail you're not spotting that proves that no breakway lightpole should look like these. For all you know, iIt might even be the case that poles from manufacturer A breaks away one way while poles from manufacturer B break apart another way. What are the individual components of the breakaway post even called, other than simply "this contraption" or "that square looking thing"?

The point is that you don't know- all you're doing is quoting the drivel you read on some damned fool conspiracy website and filling in the blanks with stuff you're making up off the top of your head to embellish what you yourself want to see. Thus, your interpretation based upon your nonexistant expertise does not stand on its own.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by userid1

My comments are on how witnesses recall events and risk to the integrity of their recollection.

By comparing t-shirt colors and jet liners? Terrible analogy - just awful.

Here's your quote from which the following responses came from:

What happens if they do start talking with each other or start seeing other versions of the events is that their memories and recollection changes to adapt to the most dominant versions of the story, despite generally being inaccurate.

Me:

That's mass hallucination, not rounding the corners on rough memories.

You:

I strongly disagree with this statement and find it patronising, misleading and uninformed.

If you're trying to suggest that people can be "finessed" into recalling a commercial jet liner versus a missile, or whatever, then I believe your statement is purposely misleading, completely uninformed, and if you feel that it's patronizing, it wasn't my intent, but rather the more obvious observation.

Wrong, the problems come in with the other witnesses and jury members see these published comments as it can influence their testimony and perception of the case. This is why it is common practice not to publicly discuss a case and not to let witnesses sit in on a court case. Sometimes exceptions are made, but general practice is to try and preserve witness integrity.

Well, since there's no court case regarding the veracity of the Gov't's OS - the jury comment has no value. And, again, if you think it's possible to somehow "influence" over 100 witnesses to "see" a commercial jet liner when that wasn't what they think they saw - you're spinning a huge yarn.

The photographs show they weren't. I don't understand how I am cherry picking when I am trying to understand how this evidence fits in with the rest. Denying this evidence exists is cherry picking.

My quote - which remains conveniently unaddressed by you.

by inference, that means that people had to "plant" debris while everyone else who was there to watch the smoke and flame, or help victims looked on in silence - a silence that lasts to this day. Step back and ask yourself, it that scenario in the least bit probable - or even possible for that matter?

Absolutely possible and very likely, look at how NIST has avoided and remained silent on all the information that indicates explosives where used with the WTC buildings. A lot of the people on site at the Pentagon would be subject to national security laws due to their work in the military. Bradley Manning is just one of many recent examples of what happens to people who talk.

WTC and Bradley Manning have *nothing* to do with this - stay on topic. Of the witnesses noted, many were NOT subject to national security conventions.

you:

Not the strongest, but is a strong one like the seats themselves as they are made to survive crash events. Still where are the seats?

me:

Don't really care

your response:

This is evident with your discussion

my whole quote - as it might make a difference in interpretation:

...- between engine parts, landing struts, tires, and wheels - I'm not overly concerned that no pictures were taken of seats - and since you can't prove that pictures were ever taken of them or not - you really shouldn't be hanging an argument on this either. We don't see pics of personal effects, but we have reports of them being returned to loved ones don't we?

Here's the bottom line, you can't support your conspiracy since the witnesses are in direct contention. Your attempt to discredit the witnesses is a fail - nobody is buying it. You need another approach - and I wouldn't pin it on the lack of pictures of passenger seats 'cause that dog won't hunt either.

Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Alfie1

Can you answer why large dirt mounds were erected in places blocking the impact point, and the only place you can see the impact point from the flyover was where Lloyd's cab was?
stevenwarran.blogspot.com...
No coincidences there...

You've been answered multiple times on this by people intimately familar with the geography surrounding the Pentagon - and yet you cling to this unsupportable theory. Why?

There were multiple observation points other than the Citgo and the graves of Arlington National Cemetary - this has been proven. Why are you arguing?

How could the pole smash the windscreen but the rest of the car is ok?

Ummm, maybe because we drive on the right side of the road here in the US and the damage would on the other side of the vehicle? We see right away the Jersey barrier is behind the cab, meaning that the camera is facing in the direction of oncoming traffic. The pole would have fallen from the side of the road, behind the camera, and hit the passenger side of the cab. The photo is looking at the driver side of the cab.

Mr. England stated the pole went through the front windshield, therefore, the pole would not have hit the passenger side of the cab. How exactly would the passenger side be damaged as a result of this account by the witness? Where are the photos of the damage to the passenger side of the cab? Oh yeah, there are none, but trust me, the damage was there.

So basically, we've gone from a picture of a light pole resting on a cab, to the passenger side of the cab being damaged to the only visible exterior damage to the cab being the shattered windshield. Must be fun continuously spinning fairy tales and not having to validate and substantiate your preposterous claims which are obviously based on fantasy and designed to be marketed to imbeciles.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The whole reason this thread even exists is the result of a question Tezzajw doesn't want to answer

No, GoodOlDave. You are very wrong, again. The reason this thread was created has been explained in the first post of this thread.

This thread was created to address your factual error about the Ingersoll photo. You got it wrong, GoodOlDave. You were peddling your incorrect information in another thread until finally, in this thread, you admitted that you made a mistake.

Further into this thread, you claimed for a fact that other images showed passenger remains. You have not proven this claim. For the sake of your credibility, GoodOlDave, you need to prove this claim or retract it.

All of your other off-topic-wall-of-text-rants, illogical assertions and false generalisations are chaff to this thread. Take up those issues in other relevant threads.

Sorry for jumping in without having read the entirety of the thread. Llloyd England and his wife (the FBI employee) have their own agenda. Why is Lloyde (as of 1995) storing the vehicle? Probably because he hopes to sell it in the future as a 9/11 artefact. Did something penetrate Lloyde's windshield? I doubt it. What do you think one of those lamposts weighs? At least 500 lbs I'd guess. So Lloyde and one other anonymous individual managed to pull the pole out of his cab? Amazing! They must have stood on the hood and have had a fulcrum in the background. No marks on the hood? Great paint job! But even assuming that they could have extricated it without expanding the damage, as per the photos, how much damage might we have expected in the first place, given a vehicle (at what speed?) impacted by an airborne pole sheared by a plane travelling over 500 mph, which caused the driver to hit his brakes and slew sideways, with at leat 30' of a 40' pole sticking out of his car..., making a relatively small hole in his shatterproof glass windshield even prior to removal of the pole...? Sorry folks, this is just not possible. Lloyd's cab may have somehow sustained some damage, but it was not the result of a lamp pole penetrating his windshield. I've watched the interview with Lloyde and heard the background comments of his wife, and all I can say is that they have their own agenda which they hope will lead to a future pay-off. Perhaps they are right; perhaps it will.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Let's not forget those that had the plane thunder over their heads real low. And those that mention how the plane was nose down the whole way, and how it went right int the Pentagon with a massive explosion, and a soul mentions anything about it pulling up at a high rate of speed up and over.

Also, no witnesses from behind the Pentagon. ie the other side of the impact area. Hell I remember standing on the backside of the Lincoln Monument looking right towards the Pentagon, and there are always quite a few people standing or sitting around back there, taking in the sites. They would have been in a primo seat for any fly overs. Same thing at the Jefferson Memorial. Both are a little higher up, and if anyone was back there, they would have seen everything that happened right after the explosion from the impact. Same thing at General Lee's house in the Arlington National Cemetery. Great view of the Pentagon from up there.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

The point is that you don't know- all you're doing is quoting the drivel you read on some damned fool conspiracy website and filling in the blanks with stuff you're making up off the top of your head to embellish what you yourself want to see. Thus, your interpretation based upon your nonexistant expertise does not stand on its own.

Your credibility attack is an obvious sign of desperation as you attempt to hold the official story line. For the record I do have experience with crash repair and metal work. The signs are obvious between metal ripping and metal being cut for anyone with such experience. If you do not know the difference then say so or get another opinion, but to undertake a smear campaign is just a dirty, political trick rather than a conceded search for the facts.

reply to post by FirstUsedBooks


A glancing blow would fit nicely.

reply to post by tezzajw


Still have not found a photo with the light pole on the cab, or the theorised damage to the other side of the cab. But here is one of the inside of the cab. The lack of damage is no surprise to most people here.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a92fef47de7a.jpg[/atsimg]

www.911weknow.com...

reply to post by kwakakev


The dashboard shows severe damage.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Mr. England stated the pole went through the front windshield, therefore, the pole would not have hit the passenger side of the cab. How exactly would the passenger side be damaged as a result of this account by the witness? Where are the photos of the damage to the passenger side of the cab? Oh yeah, there are none, but trust me, the damage was there.

Unfortunately for you, your fellow conspiracy mongors here made the mistake of providing us with a complete smackdown for your diatribe. We now have a photo of the interior of the cab, and since the photo came from one of your damned fool conspiracy websites, you have to consider its pedegree to be genuine.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/63956ae1e8d0.jpg[/atsimg]

As you can see from the remains of the windshield hanging down over the steering wheel, the pole DID come through the windshield, and from the extensive damage from the dashboard being torn off and pushed downs it's clear there's much more extensive damage than what your imaginary guy running out into traffic with a sledgehammer would be able to accomplish.

The lightpole fell from the passenger side so this necessarily means the passenger side would have been damaged too (the passenger side window looks like a big chunk of glass is missing), but that's entirely moot as the extensive interior damage shows your entire argument to be moot. You conspiracy people keep insisting "pics, or it didn't happen". Here you have a pic, so therefore it did happen.

So, now you're in a dilemma of choosing between having to retract your abject paranoia, or having to denounce the very conspiracy websites you're getting all your information from. Which will it be?

reply to post by userid1

By comparing t-shirt colors and jet liners? Terrible analogy - just awful.

It is unfortunate you have completely missed to point about witness recollections and how memories are formed. The evidence is clear that something was flying, the question is what it was. The pentagon surveillance video shows whatever hit the pentagon is not consistent in size to a Boeing 757. There was also a C- 130 in the air at the same time piloted by Lt. Col, Steve O'Brien who claims he was following flight 77. With the WTC hit there was an expectation of further commercial planes to hit infrastructure as well. The 9/11 Inquiry did claim witness intimidation was occurring as well www.guardian.co.uk... .

I am not looking to resolve inconsistencies by dismissing them.

Ok, lets look at mass hallucinations. The only actual cases I know of include mass hysteria and are a result of food or environmental poisoning. While the term mass hallucination has been applied to UFO sightings, this is rubbish as cameras are not subject to such psychological affects. I am not aware of any neurotoxins put into the food or water supply, but if there is any evidence of this I am sure it would be explosive.

WTC and Bradley Manning have *nothing* to do with this - stay on topic.

If you do not understand the implications of national security in terms to 9/11 then you have not looked into the case enough, or you exactly know what the implications are and just trying to derail it.

Here's the bottom line, you can't support your conspiracy since the witnesses are in direct contention.

There is more than enough just in this thread to prove there is a conspiracy, let alone all the other threads. While all the answers are not yet clear, enough is to show there is a lot of treason going on and traitors in the system.

Originally posted by kwakakev
Your credibility attack is an obvious sign of desperation as you attempt to hold the official story line. For the record I do have experience with crash repair and metal work. The signs are obvious between metal ripping and metal being cut for anyone with such experience. If you do not know the difference then say so or get another opinion, but to undertake a smear campaign is just a dirty, political trick rather than a conceded search for the facts.

How do you figure I'm the one in desperation here? The gigantic amount of evidence from plane wreckage to recovered passenger effects to eyewitness accounts all show it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, and since you're refuting this I'm asking you what your prior experience is in traffic pole examination that allows you to know what a collapsed pole should or should not look like. It isn't a smear campaign to point out that due your zero experience in traffic pole forensics that you're only seeing things that you yourself want to see. It's simply pointing out that due your zero experience in traffic pole forensics you're only seeing things that you yourself want to see.

I'm not a nuclear engineer and I have zero expertise in nuclear science, so if someone shows me a photo of a nuclear reactor it would be uninformed and ignorant of me to insist I'm seeing a broken control rod when I have no idea what a control rod even looks like and hardly know what a nuclear reactor looks like. I'm asking why you seem to think this doesn't apply to you.

reply to post by kwakakev

There is more than enough just in this thread to prove there is a conspiracy, let alone all the other threads. While all the answers are not yet clear, enough is to show there is a lot of treason going on and traitors in the system.

Because you don't understand how the damage occured to a cab, it means there is some conspiracy afoot?

I'll bet if you called the cabby he'll let you see the car for a fiver.

Originally posted by kwakakev
It is unfortunate you have completely missed to point about witness recollections and how memories are formed. The evidence is clear that something was flying, the question is what it was. The pentagon surveillance video shows whatever hit the pentagon is not consistent in size to a Boeing 757.

This claim has already been shown to be false. The object on the video footage was not only blurry as it was at a distance, the ticket pylon in the foreground was obstructing the view of the object so you cannot even accurately determine the size of the object even if the image was blurry.



This was already pointed out to you and I know you've seen it. the animation has photographic evidence backing it up and you can even see the outline of the tail of the plane was there one moment, and gone the next, showing that it was a moving object. I can conclude your previous misuse of this incorrect claim was a simple mistake, but as you choose to consciously continue using this incorrect claim despite knowing it is false, I have to conclude you are now intentionally lying.

I invite you to prove me wrong.

Originally posted by tezzajw
No, GoodOlDave. You are very wrong, again. The reason this thread was created has been explained in the first post of this thread.

This thread was created to address your factual error about the Ingersoll photo. You got it wrong, GoodOlDave. You were peddling your incorrect information in another thread until finally, in this thread, you admitted that you made a mistake.

...and the entire reason I even brought up the taxi photo was to illustrate how the conspriacy mongors are consciously picking and choosing what the so-called evidence is that they consider credible and what they consider to be faked, even if the material is coming from the exact same source. You didn't succeeed in steering the discussion away from having to address this in that last thread so it should come as no surprise to you that you're unable to steer the discussion away from having to address this in this thread.

This is the SIXTH time I'm asking this now. I don't want to hear any more of your bickering over the precise location where the light pole was lying, I don't want to hear any more of your attempts to avoid answering the question by asking more questions, and I certainly don't want to hear any more of your false indignation. There is nothing more you can possibly add to any of that. All I want to hear from you now is a straight answer. Please address the question already or stop spamming this thread:

Why are conspiracy theorists insisting photograph A (such as the taxi cab) is faked/staged while photograph B (such as the Pentagon damage) is legitimate when they're all coming from the same photographer? If one is suspect, then they're both considered suspect. If one is legitimate, then they're both considered legitimate. You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by userid1

It is unfortunate you have completely missed to point about witness recollections and how memories are formed.

I haven't missed the point - you simply haven't been able to coherently make it.

The evidence is clear that something was flying, the question is what it was. The pentagon surveillance video shows whatever hit the pentagon is not consistent in size to a Boeing 757.

That's a matter of opinion, and I haven't heard any reason to believe yours is any more credible than anyone else's. Simply put, you assume too much from these grainy photos.

There was also a C- 130 in the air at the same time piloted by Lt. Col, Steve O'Brien who claims he was following flight 77.

Yes, and he was on a perpendicular course to flight77 at 3K feet. Now, are you seriously trying to suggest that all these witnesses mistook a two engined, brightly painted commercial airliner when it flew right over their heads at low altitude for a 4 engined, matte gray finished prop plane at 3K feet? Have you ever seen a C-130? They're pretty distinctive.

I am not looking to resolve inconsistencies by dismissing them.

And yet, you're trying to invalidate the 100 witnesses by suggesting they "talked each other into a single story", or were "led by the nose by reporters into a single story" or were "bound by security rules to a single story". Sorry, these are all lame attempts to discredit the witnesses and particularly those who watched the plane actually impact the building. They know exactly what they saw, and the sheer numbers of reports without conflict gives them more than enough credence to be considered proof in any US...court of law. I take their multiple accounts as fact.

If you do not understand the implications of national security in terms to 9/11 then you have not looked into the case enough, or you exactly know what the implications are and just trying to derail it.

Excuse me, this thread deals with evidence specific to the Pentagon attack - NOTHING ELSE. Do I need to repeat this? There is no way I'm going to allow you to muddy the conversation by bringing WTC into it - which has a COMPLETELY different set of conspiracy premises associated with it, or Bradley Manning which has nothing to do with anything at all regarding 9/11.

There is more than enough just in this thread to prove there is a conspiracy, let alone all the other threads. While all the answers are not yet clear, enough is to show there is a lot of treason going on and traitors in the system.

Then make your case because you haven't so far. All I've heard you say is that the over 100 witnesses aren't reliable for the most dubious of reasons, the grainy video doesn't meet your *expectations* of what a 757 should look like, and you can't find a pic of a plane seat - despite the pics of all the other debris - large and small.

If you think that's making a case, then they must have a much lower standard of proof wherever you're from.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Also, no witnesses from behind the Pentagon. ie the other side of the impact area. Hell I remember standing on the backside of the Lincoln Monument looking right towards the Pentagon, and there are always quite a few people standing or sitting around back there, taking in the sites. They would have been in a primo seat for any fly overs. Same thing at the Jefferson Memorial. Both are a little higher up, and if anyone was back there, they would have seen everything that happened right after the explosion from the impact. Same thing at General Lee's house in the Arlington National Cemetery. Great view of the Pentagon from up there.

Good point. In fact, THIS should show exactly how these "fly over that nobody noticed" claims are complete rubbish:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c701c4556c25.jpg[/atsimg]

This supposed flyover would have needed to fly from left to right, in plain view of two parking lots, a whole mini-city of buildings, a marina, three highways, four bridges, and pretty much all of Washington D.C. That white pencil looking thing on the right is the Washignton Monument which as you pointed out has tourists hanging around there daily. And yet, nobody noticed it. Right.

At this point this is nothing but making up pathetic excuses for why they shouldn't need to give up their inane conspriacy stotries. It's as if these people prefer to cling to their claims and look foolish rather than ever admit they're wrong. This photo certainly won't convince them, but I doubt anything ever will.