| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| This forum | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 26 2009, 01:33 PM (1,763 Views) | |
| tuatara | Apr 30 2009, 06:14 PM Post #26 |
|
He is standing by a taxi cab claiming a lightpole went went through his screen because it was hit by a plane. There is a large amount of evidence that the plane was not even close to the lightpoles and nobody on the busy highway claimed to see the pole hit the cab. How confused, ambiguous and inconsistent do you have to be to make up a story like that? He is lying. 3,000 people died that day and yet I have to feel sorry for Lloyd England? Explain to me how that works. |
 |
 
|
| mik | Apr 30 2009, 06:22 PM Post #27 |
|
Something happened to the lamp post tuatara, but I don't think you know what, I don't think Craig knows, I don't think Aldo knows, and I don't think Lloyd knows either. Lloyd may assume a plane hit them, most people do, they are not lying, but they may be wrong. Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no witnesses to the staging of the lamp posts incident either. |
|
|
| tuatara | Apr 30 2009, 06:35 PM Post #28 |
|
Do you actually think a lightpole smashed into Lloyd's cab? Yes or no please. |
|
|
|
| mik | Apr 30 2009, 06:42 PM Post #29 |
|
I think a lightpole or part of a lightpole smashed into Lloyd's cab. |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Apr 30 2009, 06:51 PM Post #30 |
|
Well now we're making progress. So effectively you believe the plane hit the lightpole but somehow nobody on a busy highway saw it hit the pole. Meanwhile multiple people were seeing a plane fly north of the Citgo gas station, 2 of them having a simple choice between left and right and these are corroborated by other witnesses. Yet if the plane had hit the lightpole that smashed into Lloyd's cab, some of them would have had almost no view of the plane. So you are calling a lot of people liars who are all giving a similar account, yet believing Lloyd England who has nobody to corroborate him. That doesn't seem possible to anybody with a logical brain. And your original complaint is being dumped into the Skeptics forum - even though you obviously are a skeptic? |
|
|
|
| mik | Apr 30 2009, 07:01 PM Post #31 |
|
No I did not say that. I said
Previously I said
I'll add that I do not know what happened to the lightpoles. I'll also add, that to my knowledge, there are no witnesses to what happened to the lightpoles. There is Lloyd, who says that his cab was hit by a lightpole. That's all we seem to have. |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Apr 30 2009, 07:14 PM Post #32 |
|
Please be logical here, I only have so many hours in my day to waste. So you are open to the possibility that the light pole might have just fallen over (along with 4 of his friends), coincidentally on the same day that a plane allegedly flew into the Pentagon. At some point, you need to make a definitive call here before I give up completely - did the plane hit the lightpole? |
|
|
|
| mik | Apr 30 2009, 07:23 PM Post #33 |
|
I think we can agree that there are many ways to knock over a lightpole, hitting them with a plane could be one of them. I do not know whether a plane hit these lightpoles. I think it is very possible that a plane did not hit the lightpoles. I know the lightpoles were subject to some force which knocked them over, I do not know the source of that force. There appear to be no witnesses to the source of that force. What do you think happened to the lightpoles? Edit: The problem is tuatara, a plane not hitting the lightpoles does not make a liar out of Lloyd England. Edited by mik, Apr 30 2009, 07:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
| tuatara | Apr 30 2009, 07:46 PM Post #34 |
|
OK consider this conversation over, you are a time-waster pure and simple. If you can type
and
within the same post, then it is time for me to go and bang my head against a wall, that activity promising to be slightly more productive that engaging with you in discussion. |
|
|
|
| mik | Apr 30 2009, 07:56 PM Post #35 |
|
I think your banging your head against a wall because you don't know what happened to the lightpoles, and therefore you can't explain why Lloyd England is a liar. Nobody seems to know what happened to the lightpoles, and therefore nobody should be calling Lloyd England a liar, that is not complicated. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Apr 30 2009, 09:01 PM Post #36 |
|
Which is precisely why a new investigation is warranted. As far as what I think, In Lloyde's own words he never saw or heard the plane until the explosion.... AFTER he had removed the pole. Lloyde places himself on a path which would corroborate the NoC story, however the pictures place him elsewhere. I suggest you study the layout of the area around the Pentagon, placement of the downed poles and locations of the witnesses and then watch that interview in it's entirety once more... Then return with you opinion. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | May 1 2009, 06:49 AM Post #37 |
|
If we were talking about only one light pole, you might have made a point mik. Even if we don't know the actual physical details, we do know what logically must have transpired with the 5 light poles. 5 'downed' light poles observed around the time of the Pentagon 9/11 incident can only be rationally explained so many ways. They were either accidentally knocked down or deliberately brought down. If they were accidentally knocked down, the only event in that time frame that could possibly account for it would be the official story's aircraft, and thus, the contrary testimony of 13 on camera eyewitnesses would be discredited. If they weren't "knocked down", but intentionally brought down, the eyewitness testimony stands, and the only logical conclusion to be arrived at, given the event that occurred at the Pentagon, is that the fallen light poles were part of a 'staged event', create the illusion that a low flying aircraft struck them while on its way to colliding with the Pentagon.
Lloyde insists that he wasn't on or near the bridge. Unless there was another cab identical to Lloyde's, that was also hit by the same light pole, the photographic evidence says otherwise.   Rather than call Lloyde England a liar, maybe we'll just say he's stubbornly, probably contractually, clinging to a story that is in direct contradiction with stronger photographic and eyewitness evidence. There is too great a difference between where the photo evidence places Lloyde and where he says he was.  This from a man who has professionally patrolled this specific area as a cab driver for decades. If he was telling the truth, such a serious conflict could not occur. So really it doesn't matter whether we know what actually occurred to the 5 light poles. What really matters, as JFK has previously pointed out, is that the case against Lloyd's story is so strong, that it warrants a full and proper investigation. MM Edited by Miragememories, May 3 2009, 10:58 AM.
|
|
|
|
| mik | May 1 2009, 12:07 PM Post #38 |
|
OK.
OK. Are there any south side witnesses?
OK.
That Lloyd is in error seems obvious, but why people leap to the conclusion that he is lying and in on it, just makes no sence. I'll quote myself from earlier.
I suspect Lloyd is not terribly lucid or reliable on any subject, and certainly not this one. Going after Lloyd is a witch hunt, and it is immorial. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | May 1 2009, 01:02 PM Post #39 |
|
Please stop your manipulation of the newer readers by repeating the same suggestive misleading phrases over and over. Lloyde is involved. He is in on it. He has admitted it. The fact is the plane approached on the north side. That means no poles were hit, which means that no pole speared his windshield, which means that he or someone else damaged his car, which means the poles were staged, which means the story he gave is a calculated lie. Do I need to repeat that for you? |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | May 1 2009, 01:07 PM Post #40 |
|
You are wrong. We do know. So does Lloyd. Light poles were not hit, because the plane was nowhere near them. Yet light poles and pieces of light poles were lying on the ground. Poles were pinched at the ends indicated they were prefabricated. The poles were planted. There is no other conclusion that can be reached and your shoulder shrug and "I dunno" certainly aren't an explanation. Instead, it seems diversionary. |
|
|
|
| mik | May 1 2009, 01:23 PM Post #41 |
|
I note that only two endorse the public accusation of Lloyd England, any more? Also my repeated question, are there any south side witnesses? Is ignored. This silence is deafening. Aldo, like a cliche conspiracy theorist you present assertions as fact. If you cannot distinguish between the two, then I'm not interested. God help any other 911 witness who does not recall events with sufficient accuracy. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | May 1 2009, 02:25 PM Post #42 |
|
The answer is no. There are none. Every single confirmed first-hand witness account that exists unanimously supports a north side approach. If you had actually researched the information before choosing to "debate" this issue that you are completely uneducated on you would already know this. This is why there is PROOF that Lloyde's account false besides fact that he admitted his involvement in a "planned" operation that was "for the people with all the money". Why is this so hard for you to understand and/or accept? Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, May 1 2009, 02:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | May 1 2009, 02:46 PM Post #43 |
|
Plus the notion that Lloyde was merely "confused" about his alleged north side location (as opposed to deliberately lying) is proven false since minutes before the interview in his living room started, while he wasn't aware he was being audio recorded, he let it slip that he KNEW that his neighbor took pictures of the pole and cab "up on the bridge". So there really is no debate here. Just in case you missed it, I put out a brand new short yesterday highlighting this and highlighting Lloyde's admission of involvement. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, May 1 2009, 02:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
| SPreston | May 1 2009, 02:49 PM Post #44 |
Patriotic American
|
Although it is completely unnecessary, I will. The interviews speak for themselves. You should view them sometime. Lloyde accuses himself of lying through his own testimony. As to alleged official south flight path eyewitnesses; lying publicly on videotape has apparently rendered them unwilling to come forward. Even the dedicated government loyalists who traveled to Arlington were unable to find any, and one of them was too timid to even question the person he thought was 'Edward Paik'. Apparently the faith of these apologists for the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is not very strong. Why haven't you traveled to Arlington to dig up south path witnesses? Are your hands tied? Where is your committment? |
|
|
|
| mik | May 1 2009, 03:34 PM Post #45 |
|
OK, but for the record, confirmed by whom? I don't see the value in repeatly stating that Lloyd's account is in error, or false, or inconsistent, or wrong, or whatever. That is clear, and I've been very clear about that from the very beginning. We agree on that. We all agree on that, as you say Craig, there is no debate there.
Lloyd is completely unreliable Craig. This much I have gleamed from your videos. That you hang on this mans every word, and latch onto every inconsistency, is hopeless and a waste of your time. Regarding your video which you claim highlights Lloyd's admission of involvement, it really doesn't. You don't know what happened to the lightpoles, you have no lightpole witnesses, you have no lightpole evidence, you don't have a lucid lightpole theory, you don't even seem to have a vague lightpole theory, you don't even have a Lloyd England theory. It's just you calling a confused old man a liar. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | May 1 2009, 03:42 PM Post #46 |
|
mik dude, You have demonstrated a complete inability to think logically or look at evidence objectively with a pure desire to spin information that you have not bothered to even lift a finger to research. Lloyde's account is unreliable because the witnesses unanimously prove the plane did not hit the light poles. That means ALL witnesses confirmed by ANYONE. If you have evidence demonstrating otherwise, provide it. If not you have no choice but to concede that this is what the evidence proves or else you will be exposed as intellectually dishonest. Debate over. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, May 1 2009, 03:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
| mik | May 1 2009, 04:05 PM Post #47 |
|
OK.
Does anyone know what happened to the lightpoles? Does anyone have a lightpole witness? Does anyone have any lightpole evidence? Does anyone have a lucid lightpole theory? Does anyone have a vague lightpole thoery? Does anyone think Lloyd is not a confused old man? |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | May 1 2009, 05:30 PM Post #48 |
|
Did you also note that no one has denounced it either chief?
It wasn't ignored. It wasn't read. You've already lost my interest for the most part with your truther sock and it has been clearly established there are no SoC witnesses and the NoC flight path has been clearly established.
Mik like the cliche pseudo skeptic you ignore facts in favor of a conspiracy theory. All you've been doing is thinking out loud on a forum. You seem to not be able to comprehend or pretend to not comprehend is that you are believing a "confused" old man over very lucid people who have been corroborated to the point of useless redundancy. pssst Mik, your fake mustache is falling off. |
|
|
|
| mik | May 1 2009, 06:09 PM Post #49 |
|
Noted, but given how bias this forum is, that should not be very reassuring. The post that you did not read must have been this one.
As you see, I agree that the northside witnesses are credible - common ground. I agree they imply that a plane did not hit the lightpoles - more common ground. Craig has given an answer to the south side question. So the remaining question is
Which is related to the questions you may not of read in my previous post
I should add, do you have a Lloyd England theory? You guys have publicly branded him a liar and accused him of involvement, but you don't seem to have any idea what actually happened on that bridge? Not a clue, no theory, not even a guess? You say I'm ignoring facts, where are these facts? Where is your fact based theory Aldo? |
|
|
|
| JFK | May 1 2009, 06:55 PM Post #50 |
|
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=224680&t=1560952 |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
2:39 PM Nov 24
