Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Lloyd England and the mysterious light pole
Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 08:08 PM (1,653 Views)
Domenick DiMaggio

Lloyd don't know how he and an unknown stranger removed the huge pole from his cab.



The account in itself is impossible.

Lloyd even claims to hear the impact explosion after getting out of the cab and having the pole allegedly removed from his cab.

There are more problems with his account but let's start with these 2.

ETA : link to video

google links don't work with the video code?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
Jan 16 2008, 08:08 PM
Lloyd don't know how he and an unknown stranger removed the huge pole from his cab.



The account in itself is impossible.

Lloyd even claims to hear the impact explosion after getting out of the cab and having the pole allegedly removed from his cab.

There are more problems with his account but let's start with these 2.

ETA : link to video

google links don't work with the video code?
What I see from that video:


"Lloyd is wrong because the 3 witnesses we spoke to said the plane was North of the Citgo." - What evidence proves that they were correct in their determination of the flight path?

Arguments from Personal Incredulity - (If you're claiming that the facts below refute lloyd's account)
- lloyd's hood was undamaged - Does every light pole through a windshield damage the hood?
- Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 

"Lloyd is wrong because the 3 witnesses we spoke to said the plane was North of the Citgo." - What evidence proves that they were correct in their determination of the flight path?

The witnesses did not "determine" the flight path. The witnesses saw the plane north of the CITGO.
Quote:
 
Arguments from Personal Incredulity - (If you're claiming that the facts below refute lloyd's account)
- lloyd's hood was undamaged - Does every light pole through a windshield damage the hood?

How does the pole create a round hole in the windshield if the pole is curved?
Quote:
 
- Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?

According to Lloyd, it did more than just travel through the windshield. He claimed the pole knocked the front seat around and embedded itself in the rear seat. Does the front seat look knocked around to you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

nicepants
Jan 16 2008, 08:29 PM
What I see from that video:


"Lloyd is wrong because the 3 witnesses we spoke to said the plane was North of the Citgo." - What evidence proves that they were correct in their determination of the flight path?



Multiple corroboration. Further confirmation from other witnesses that the plane was on the North side. But let's get past that for arguments sake and move to Lloyd's account. Can we?

Quote:
 
Arguments from Personal Incredulity - (If you're claiming that the facts below refute lloyd's account)
- lloyd's hood was undamaged - Does every light pole through a windshield damage the hood?
- Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?


So then you believe a shattered cab windshield is more than strong enough to support (unevenly balanced mind you) 250+ pounds?

And I can safely say that you also believe 2 massive objects traveling towards each other with such force will result in minimal damage?

Please clarify your beliefs on that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Here are the relevant images for reference:

Specs from VDOT of same style pole:
Posted Image

Lloyd's illustration of how the pole was allegedly in his car when he came to a stop before he allegedly removed it with help from the silent stranger. (bent top lighter end in back seat, heavier base end allegedly over the hood)
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

avenger
 
nicepants
 

"Lloyd is wrong because the 3 witnesses we spoke to said the plane was North of the Citgo." - What evidence proves that they were correct in their determination of the flight path?

The witnesses did not "determine" the flight path. The witnesses saw the plane north of the CITGO.

What evidence proves that they were correct when they state that they saw the plane north of the CITGO?


avenger
 
nicepants
 
Arguments from Personal Incredulity - (If you're claiming that the facts below refute lloyd's account)
- lloyd's hood was undamaged - Does every light pole through a windshield damage the hood?

How does the pole create a round hole in the windshield if the pole is curved?


Well, the pole is round. Perhaps you have another idea for what shape the hole should have been? (Please describe how you arrived at said conclusion)



avenger
 
nicepants
 
- Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?

According to Lloyd, it did more than just travel through the windshield. He claimed the pole knocked the front seat around and embedded itself in the rear seat. Does the front seat look knocked around to you?


What is a "knocked around" seat supposed to look like? According to Lloyd, it looks like that....and he was there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
 
nicepants
Jan 16 2008, 08:29 PM
What I see from that video:
"Lloyd is wrong because the 3 witnesses we spoke to said the plane was North of the Citgo." - What evidence proves that they were correct in their determination of the flight path?
Multiple corroboration. Further confirmation from other witnesses that the plane was on the North side. But let's get past that for arguments sake and move to Lloyd's account. Can we?


Just because people agree on something doesn't make them right.

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
 
nicepants
 
Arguments from Personal Incredulity - (If you're claiming that the facts below refute lloyd's account)
- lloyd's hood was undamaged - Does every light pole through a windshield damage the hood?
- Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?


So then you believe a shattered cab windshield is more than strong enough to support (unevenly balanced mind you) 250+ pounds?


No, I never said that.

At what time was the windshield of the cab the only source of support for the pole? In the video, Lloyd states that it was being held up by the dash, and his drawing puts the rear end of the pole in his back seat.

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
 
And I can safely say that you also believe 2 massive objects traveling towards each other with such force will result in minimal damage?


No, you cannot because I have never made any such claim. Also, I believe the term "minimal damage" is inappropriate in describing the damage to Lloyd's windshield. I would put that in the "significant damage" category. "minimal damage" to a windshield would probably be a chip or a small crack.

My question was related to the statements in the video, which seem to cast doubt on Lloyd's story due to the lack of damage to the hood of the car. I want to know how you determined that the pole would/should have damaged the hood of Lloyd's car, and to what extent.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

nicepants
Jan 16 2008, 11:39 PM
Just because people agree on something doesn't make them right.







It does when they say the plane hit the building though, right?

nicepants
 
Domenick DiMaggio CIT
 
nicepants
 
Arguments from Personal Incredulity - (If you're claiming that the facts below refute lloyd's account)
- lloyd's hood was undamaged - Does every light pole through a windshield damage the hood?
- Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?


So then you believe a shattered cab windshield is more than strong enough to support (unevenly balanced mind you) 250+ pounds?


No, I never said that.

At what time was the windshield of the cab the only source of support for the pole? In the video, Lloyd states that it was being held up by the dash, and his drawing puts the rear end of the pole in his back seat.


In the photos above it looks as all dashboard damage is superficial and mainly attributed to the face plate of the dash. Do you disagree?


nicepants
 
Domenick DiMaggio CIT
 
And I can safely say that you also believe 2 massive objects traveling towards each other with such force will result in minimal damage?


No, you cannot because I have never made any such claim. Also, I believe the term "minimal damage" is inappropriate in describing the damage to Lloyd's windshield. I would put that in the "significant damage" category. "minimal damage" to a windshield would probably be a chip or a small crack.

My question was related to the statements in the video, which seem to cast doubt on Lloyd's story due to the lack of damage to the hood of the car. I want to know how you determined that the pole would/should have damaged the hood of Lloyd's car, and to what extent.


Yes I can because you are saying they are "Arguments from Personal Incredulity - Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?" This is what we are discussing. These conclusions can be reached through common sense for the most part.

You try to dismiss something in a deceptive manner and it's easily seen because of what you have to believe in order to doubt what it is you're questioning in the first place. It shows just how silly the argument truly is. A light pole spearing your car while you're doing 40MPH is going to cause significant damage to say the least. Everyone of us can pretty much come to that conclusion because we've been in cars doing 40MPH I'm sure and we all get a pretty good idea of what the results would be of a light pole impaling your vehicle before you can even think to react. The pictures are right there.

The question is does the story and evidence seem plausible and on a whole the answer is no.

The minimal damage I am referring to is the cab as a whole not just a windshield.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
 
nicepants
Jan 16 2008, 11:39 PM
Just because people agree on something doesn't make them right.
It does when they say the plane hit the building though, right?


No. Just because people agree on something doesn't make them right. (It doesn't matter which side they are on)

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
 
In the photos above it looks as all dashboard damage is superficial and mainly attributed to the face plate of the dash. Do you disagree?


That's possible. I'm not in any position to say how much damage a pole would cause to this particular dash, there are too many unknowns. What I do know is that Lloyd was there and said that the dash was supporting it.

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
 
Yes I can because you are saying they are "Arguments from Personal Incredulity - Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?" This is what we are discussing. These conclusions can be reached through common sense for the most part.


It is conclusions like this which you claim to have reached by "common sense" which were actually reached by imploring the use of a logical fallacy. The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

Arguments from personal incredulity go like this: "I can't believe this couldn't have happened without ripping the seat, therefore, it couldn't have happened". This is not a sound argument.

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
 
You try to dismiss something in a deceptive manner and it's easily seen because of what you have to believe in order to doubt what it is you're questioning in the first place. It shows just how silly the argument truly is. A light pole spearing your car while you're doing 40MPH is going to cause significant damage to say the least. Everyone of us can pretty much come to that conclusion because we've been in cars doing 40MPH I'm sure and we all get a pretty good idea of what the results would be of a light pole impaling your vehicle before you can even think to react. The pictures are right there.


Yes, the pictures are right there. Something went through his windshield, and he tells us it was a pole.
You claim that the damage to Lloyd's car is inconsistent with what is to be expected.

Please explain:
- What damage could be reasonably expected from the impact Lloyd described?
- How did you determine the answer to the above question?
- What testing have you done to ensure that your hypothesis is accurate?


Domenick DiMaggio CIT
 
The question is does the story and evidence seem plausible and on a whole the answer is no.

Why does it not seem plausible? (We're getting back into personal incredulity again)

Adding from Wikipedia: Commonly in an Argument from Personal Incredulity or Argument from Ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of her or his choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of opinion which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if "obvious" is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Edited by nicepants, Jan 17 2008, 12:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bonkers

I have a question. Isn't this thread just a veiled "No-Plane" theory?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bonkers
Jan 17 2008, 09:13 AM
I have a question. Isn't this thread just a veiled "No-Plane" theory?
That's still acceptable at the Pentagon because lots of people buy it there. Lots and lots of people repeating it is why. And cause somethings, like Lloyd's account, are truly odd. It's only at WTC that NPTs are verbotten if I read the rules right.

Why am I still awake?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Bonkers
Jan 17 2008, 09:13 AM
I have a question. Isn't this thread just a veiled "No-Plane" theory?
Absolutely not.

In fact we have proven that there was a plane and we are also the ones killing the missile disinfo meme.

Certainly the evidence such as this proves that the plane that was there did not hit the building unlike at the WTC.

The reason for that is simple in the sense that they wanted complete control of the damage because clearly they did not plan on totally demolishing their own headquarters.

Think of it this way.....it was the same M.O. at the WTC and Pentagon, real planes were used as psychological tools while the actual destruction was implemented covertly with pre-planted explosives.

It's clear the operation was much more complex at the WTC than the Pentagon since the damage was so much more significant.

In other words it makes no sense for someone who believes in controlled demo at the WTC to suggest that the Pentagon operation was too complex for the perpetrators to stage in their own backyard.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 16 2008, 08:29 PM


Quote:
 
What I see from that video:


"Lloyd is wrong because the 3 witnesses we spoke to said the plane was North of the Citgo." - What evidence proves that they were correct in their determination of the flight path?



The corroboration is the evidence. It was 4 people not 3. And now, it is 6.

What evidence proves Lloyd is correct in his determination of what happened to him and his cab? Any corroboration?


Quote:
 
Arguments from Personal Incredulity - (If you're claiming that the facts below refute lloyd's account)
- lloyd's hood was undamaged - Does every light pole through a windshield damage the hood?


Witnesses on location confirm the plane was on the north side of the Citgo which means the pole was not even hit that day. That's not incredulity, that is evidence.

Lloyd's undamaged hood is support for this evidence.

Tell me two things, Nicepants...

1. If a 757 traveling 500+ clips a light pole and 20+ feet of the base is speared through a windshield is it more likely or less likely that it will damage or at least scratch the hood?

2. If multiple witnesses(6) on the ground confirm/corroborate that the plane was on then north side of the Citgo and NOT one confirms/corroborates Lloyd's story OR the south side flight path, is it more likely or less likely that Lloyd is telling the truth?


Quote:
 
- Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?


If the pole that was speared into Lloyd's cab by a jet 530 mph pushed his seat back off the center hinge and made it's way into his backseat, is it more likely or less likely that would it rip/tear/or scar the upholstery of the seat?
Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 17 2008, 03:35 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
What evidence proves that they were correct when they state that they saw the plane north of the CITGO?


Corroboration by other witnesses.


Quote:
 
avenger
 
nicepants
 
Arguments from Personal Incredulity - (If you're claiming that the facts below refute lloyd's account)
- lloyd's hood was undamaged - Does every light pole through a windshield damage the hood?

How does the pole create a round hole in the windshield if the pole is curved?


Well, the pole is round. Perhaps you have another idea for what shape the hole should have been? (Please describe how you arrived at said conclusion)


Do you have any witnesses who saw the plane cause that hole in his cab?

Do you have any witnesses who saw the plane on the south side which would allow said pole to be hit by the plane, which then in turn helps validate Lloyd's story of the base of the pole causing that hole in his windshield?



Quote:
 
avenger
 
nicepants
 
- Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?

According to Lloyd, it did more than just travel through the windshield. He claimed the pole knocked the front seat around and embedded itself in the rear seat. Does the front seat look knocked around to you?


What is a "knocked around" seat supposed to look like? According to Lloyd, it looks like that....and he was there.



According to Lloyd? Is it according to anyone else?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
 

The corroboration is the evidence. It was 4 people not 3. And now, it is 6.

What evidence proves Lloyd is correct in his determination of what happened to him and his cab? Any corroboration?


The physical evidence corroborates Lloyd's account.


Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Witnesses on location confirm the plane was on the north side of the Citgo which means the pole was not even hit that day. That's not incredulity, that is evidence.


So how is it that you determined that the n.o.c. eyewitnesses are evidence that the pole wasn't hit...
instead of determining that the pole being hit was evidence that the n.o.c. eyewitness accounts were somehow wrong?


Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Lloyd's undamaged hood is support for this evidence.

The fact that Lloyd's hood was undamaged (Regardless of how unbelievable it is to you) is not evidence that Lloyd is lying. (Unless you have proof that any light pole hitting a car like lloyds would damage the hood.)

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Tell me two things, Nicepants...

1. If a 757 traveling 500+ clips a light pole and 20+ feet of the base is speared through a windshield is it more likely or less likely that it will damage or at least scratch the hood?


I don't know of any way to accurately calculate such odds. But it wouldn't matter, anyways. Even if the odds of that happening are 1/1000, that is not evidence that it didn't happen.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
2. If multiple witnesses(6) on the ground confirm/corroborate that the plane was on then north side of the Citgo and NOT one confirms/corroborates Lloyd's story OR the south side flight path, is it more likely or less likely that Lloyd is telling the truth?


The n.o.c. claims are directly contradictory with Lloyd's claims. The physical evidence of the pole & damage to the car, however, support Lloyd's account, and contradict the n.o.c. eyewitnesses, since the plane couldn't have been n.o.c. if it clipped the light pole.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
 
- Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?


If the pole that was speared into Lloyd's cab by a jet 530 mph pushed his seat back off the center hinge and made it's way into his backseat, is it more likely or less likely that would it rip/tear/or scar the upholstery of the seat?


A statement like this: "I don't think this could have happened without ripping/tearing/scarring the upholstery, so the lack of same is evidence against Lloyd's claims". Is back into Personal Incredulity territory.

You cannot use your own beliefs about the seemingly low likelihood of an event as evidence against that event having taken place.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
According to Lloyd? Is it according to anyone else?


To my knowledge, Lloyd is the only one who witnessed the pole hitting his car, and no other eyewitnesses dispute this (that I am aware of).
Edited by nicepants, Jan 17 2008, 04:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 17 2008, 04:32 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
 

The corroboration is the evidence. It was 4 people not 3. And now, it is 6.

What evidence proves Lloyd is correct in his determination of what happened to him and his cab? Any corroboration?


The physical evidence corroborates Lloyd's account.


Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Witnesses on location confirm the plane was on the north side of the Citgo which means the pole was not even hit that day. That's not incredulity, that is evidence.


So how is it that you determined that the n.o.c. eyewitnesses are evidence that the pole wasn't hit...
instead of determining that the pole being hit was evidence that the n.o.c. eyewitness accounts were somehow wrong?


Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Lloyd's undamaged hood is support for this evidence.

The fact that Lloyd's hood was undamaged (Regardless of how unbelievable it is to you) is not evidence that Lloyd is lying. (Unless you have proof that any light pole hitting a car like lloyds would damage the hood.)

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Tell me two things, Nicepants...

1. If a 757 traveling 500+ clips a light pole and 20+ feet of the base is speared through a windshield is it more likely or less likely that it will damage or at least scratch the hood?


I don't know of any way to accurately calculate such odds. But it wouldn't matter, anyways. Even if the odds of that happening are 1/1000, that is not evidence that it didn't happen.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
2. If multiple witnesses(6) on the ground confirm/corroborate that the plane was on then north side of the Citgo and NOT one confirms/corroborates Lloyd's story OR the south side flight path, is it more likely or less likely that Lloyd is telling the truth?


The n.o.c. claims are directly contradictory with Lloyd's claims. The physical evidence of the pole & damage to the car, however, support Lloyd's account, and contradict the n.o.c. eyewitnesses, since the plane couldn't have been n.o.c. if it clipped the light pole.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
 
- Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?


If the pole that was speared into Lloyd's cab by a jet 530 mph pushed his seat back off the center hinge and made it's way into his backseat, is it more likely or less likely that would it rip/tear/or scar the upholstery of the seat?


A statement like this: "I don't think this could have happened without ripping/tearing/scarring the upholstery, so the lack of same is evidence against Lloyd's claims". Is back into Personal Incredulity territory.

You cannot use your own beliefs about the seemingly low likelihood of an event as evidence against that event having taken place.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
According to Lloyd? Is it according to anyone else?


To my knowledge, Lloyd is the only one who witnessed the pole hitting his car, and no other eyewitnesses dispute this (that I am aware of).
Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 

The corroboration is the evidence. It was 4 people not 3. And now, it is 6.

What evidence proves Lloyd is correct in his determination of what happened to him and his cab? Any corroboration?


The physical evidence corroborates Lloyd's account.


What physical evidence? A photograph of a cab and a pole? Is that physical evidence or is that your interpretation of physical evidence? Physical evidence would be a scientific report that included an analysis/examination on Lloyd's cab and said light pole (or all the other light poles) illustrating how the event took place. Do you understand? Do you concede that?


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Witnesses on location confirm the plane was on the north side of the Citgo which means the pole was not even hit that day. That's not incredulity, that is evidence.


So how is it that you determined that the n.o.c. eyewitnesses are evidence that the pole wasn't hit...
instead of determining that the pole being hit was evidence that the n.o.c. eyewitness accounts were somehow wrong?


Because all the witnesses said the same thing. You know, that pesky corroboration thing again. Because Lloyd's story did not make sense. Because I find it hard to believe that the plane could and did hit the light poles without impeding successful attack. Because I did not believe a 757 hit there based on the "counter-intuitive" damage and debris pattern. Because the topography would make it highly improbable that the plane would be able to hit pole 1 and miss the overhead sign and VDOT mast. Because witnesses did not describe an AA. Because the FDR does not support an impact of Flight 77. Because the flight path has been documented somewhere other than the NTSB flight path.


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Lloyd's undamaged hood is support for this evidence.

The fact that Lloyd's hood was undamaged (Regardless of how unbelievable it is to you) is not evidence that Lloyd is lying. (Unless you have proof that any light pole hitting a car like lloyds would damage the hood.)



It may not be direct evidence, but it supports the direct evidence. Which was my point.

I tend you use logic, with a little physics. I asked you to give your opinion one way or the other and you couldn't do that. Why?




Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Tell me two things, Nicepants...

1. If a 757 traveling 500+ clips a light pole and 20+ feet of the base is speared through a windshield is it more likely or less likely that it will damage or at least scratch the hood?


I don't know of any way to accurately calculate such odds. But it wouldn't matter, anyways. Even if the odds of that happening are 1/1000, that is not evidence that it didn't happen.


It is not evidence? But does it not add more weight to the north side approach evidence? Why can't you just answer the question honestly? Are you scared to commit to such an answer? I can see why.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
2. If multiple witnesses(6) on the ground confirm/corroborate that the plane was on then north side of the Citgo and NOT one confirms/corroborates Lloyd's story OR the south side flight path, is it more likely or less likely that Lloyd is telling the truth?


The n.o.c. claims are directly contradictory with Lloyd's claims. The physical evidence of the pole & damage to the car, however, support Lloyd's account, and contradict the n.o.c. eyewitnesses, since the plane couldn't have been n.o.c. if it clipped the light pole.


I've explained this to you did I not. You do not have "physical evidence" you have a photo and your interpretation of that photo. They do not support LLoyd's account because the only thing that allows that is your own personal incredulity and double standard. Not one witness corroborates Lloyd's account. 6 witnesses corroborate each othe when it comes to the north side.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
 
- Passenger seat wasn't ripped - Does every light pole through a windshield rip the passenger seat?


If the pole that was speared into Lloyd's cab by a jet 530 mph pushed his seat back off the center hinge and made it's way into his backseat, is it more likely or less likely that would it rip/tear/or scar the upholstery of the seat?


A statement like this: "I don't think this could have happened without ripping/tearing/scarring the upholstery, so the lack of same is evidence against Lloyd's claims". Is back into Personal Incredulity territory.

You cannot use your own beliefs about the seemingly low likelihood of an event as evidence against that event having taken place.



I didn't mention mine. I've been asking for yours and you have CAREFULLY skirted around the question more than once now. What gives?







Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
According to Lloyd? Is it according to anyone else?


To my knowledge, Lloyd is the only one who witnessed the pole hitting his car, and no other eyewitnesses dispute this (that I am aware of).


No other witnesses dispute this? Like the no other witnesses dispute the north side?

No witnesses SUPPORT Lloyd's account, that should be your concern.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Well, the pole is round. Perhaps you have another idea for what shape the hole should have been? (Please describe how you arrived at said conclusion)

Like I told you before, the pole was bent. That bend would not have created a round hole. Please don't ask me what a bent pole looks like.
Quote:
 
What is a "knocked around" seat supposed to look like? According to Lloyd, it looks like that....and he was there.

A knocked around seat looks like a seat that is not knocked around. Ok. :'(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

avenger
 
Quote:
 
Well, the pole is round. Perhaps you have another idea for what shape the hole should have been? (Please describe how you arrived at said conclusion)

Like I told you before, the pole was bent. That bend would not have created a round hole. Please don't ask me what a bent pole looks like.
I know what the bent pole look slike. What shape of hole in the windshield would said pole have created? Did the bent part of the pole go through the windshield?


nicepants
 
Quote:
 
What is a "knocked around" seat supposed to look like? According to Lloyd, it looks like that....and he was there.

A knocked around seat looks like a seat that is not knocked around. Ok. :'(


That does not make sense. Typo?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

No typo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

I see you like to play dumb all the time. You act like you don't know what I mean when I say the pole was bent. You don't know what a knocked around seat looks like.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
 

The physical evidence corroborates Lloyd's account.

What physical evidence? A photograph of a cab and a pole?


The cab windshield and the pole, which match the account given by Lloyd.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Is that physical evidence or is that your interpretation of physical evidence?

That is physical evidence. He said that a pole went through his windshield, we see the hole in the windshield and a photo of the pole. That's physical evidence.
Physical evidence - is any evidence introduced in the form of a physical object,

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Physical evidence would be a scientific report that included an analysis/examination on Lloyd's cab and said light pole (or all the other light poles) illustrating how the event took place. Do you understand? Do you concede that?

I understand what you are saying, you do not accept the damage to Lloyd's car as physical evidence in support of his claims. I disagree.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
 
So how is it that you determined that the n.o.c. eyewitnesses are evidence that the pole wasn't hit...
instead of determining that the pole being hit was evidence that the n.o.c. eyewitness accounts were somehow wrong?


Because all the witnesses said the same thing. You know, that pesky corroboration thing again.

As I have said before, simply because a few people tell the same story doesn't make it true.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Because Lloyd's story did not make sense. Because I find it hard to believe that the plane could and did hit the light poles without impeding successful attack.


"argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Because I did not believe a 757 hit there based on the "counter-intuitive" damage and debris pattern. Because the topography would make it highly improbable that the plane would be able to hit pole 1 and miss the overhead sign and VDOT mast. Because witnesses did not describe an AA.* Because the FDR does not support an impact of Flight 77.** Because the flight path has been documented somewhere other than the NTSB flight path.***


Does it bother you that most of your conclusions are the result of faulty reasoning?
* Witnesses do describe an American Airlines Jet.
** Except for the fact that the FDR was recovered from INSIDE the Pentagon.
*** By 6 people.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Lloyd's undamaged hood is support for this evidence.

The fact that Lloyd's hood was undamaged (Regardless of how unbelievable it is to you) is not evidence that Lloyd is lying. (Unless you have proof that any light pole hitting a car like lloyds would damage the hood.)

It may not be direct evidence, but it supports the direct evidence. Which was my point.


It does not support the evidence. It is an argument from personal incredulity...it supports nothing. The fact that you believe something to be strange, or unlikely is not evidence that said event did not occur.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Tell me two things, Nicepants...

1. If a 757 traveling 500+ clips a light pole and 20+ feet of the base is speared through a windshield is it more likely or less likely that it will damage or at least scratch the hood?


I don't know of any way to accurately calculate such odds. But it wouldn't matter, anyways. Even if the odds of that happening are 1/1000, that is not evidence that it didn't happen.


It is not evidence? But does it not add more weight to the north side approach evidence? Why can't you just answer the question honestly? Are you scared to commit to such an answer? I can see why.


It does not add any weight to either side because it is a logical fallacy. I did answer the question honestly. Honestly, I don't know! There is no way for me to know the answer to that question given the sheer volume of variables. If you think you know the answer to that question, please explain how you arrived at said answer.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
I've explained this to you did I not. You do not have "physical evidence" you have a photo and your interpretation of that photo. They do not support LLoyd's account because the only thing that allows that is your own personal incredulity and double standard.


I don't think you understand the concept of Personal Incredulity.
Lloyd's damaged car is "physical evidence". It was presented in the posted video, it has nothing to do with my interpretation. Lloyd said that a light pole went through his windshield, and there is a hole in his windshield. The physical evidence in the form of Lloyd's car and accompanying photographs support what Lloyd said happened. I used no double standard and no logical fallacies when referring to this evidence.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Not one witness corroborates Lloyd's account.

Who would be expected to corroborate it?
How many contradict him?

Aldo Marquis CIT
 

If the pole that was speared into Lloyd's cab by a jet 530 mph pushed his seat back off the center hinge and made it's way into his backseat, is it more likely or less likely that would it rip/tear/or scar the upholstery of the seat?

I didn't mention mine. I've been asking for yours and you have CAREFULLY skirted around the question more than once now. What gives?


I have no way of knowing the answer to that question. It would depend on an infinite number of variables. If you know the answer, please explain how you made your determination.


Aldo Marquis CIT
 
No other witnesses dispute this? Like the no other witnesses dispute the north side?


Exactly

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
No witnesses SUPPORT Lloyd's account, that should be your concern.

Why would that be a concern? No one contradicts him. Which witness(es) would be expected to support Lloyd's account?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Avenger
Jan 17 2008, 09:33 PM
I see you like to play dumb all the time. You act like you don't know what I mean when I say the pole was bent. You don't know what a knocked around seat looks like.
I'm not playing dumb...I really would like to know what shape the hole in Lloyd's windshield should have been, and how you arrived at this conclusion. Because I saw a photo of a round pole, and round holes are usually made by round objects.

You also didn't answer my question...did the part of the pole which was bent go through the windshield?

It sounds like you are using your own beliefs as to what the damage "should have looked like" to conclude that the damage to Lloyd's car was not caused by what he said caused it, which would be an Argument from Personal Incredulity.
Edited by nicepants, Jan 17 2008, 09:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 17 2008, 06:55 PM
It may not be direct evidence, but it supports the direct evidence. Which was my point.

I tend you use logic, with a little physics. I asked you to give your opinion one way or the other and you couldn't do that. Why?
You might have missed it but nicepants already explained to me twice that we're not allowed to do that and if we do it doesn't count.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

nicepants
Jan 17 2008, 09:42 PM
** Except for the fact that the FDR was recovered from INSIDE the Pentagon.




Ok. Show me where. Where was it recovered from?

Evidence of this magnitude would obviously be documented before ever being touched. So show the rest of us where it was recovered at inside the Pentagon.

If you can't then please tell us who to trust as a source for that information.

Someone cue the Jeopardy theme this is gonna take a while...... :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
Jan 17 2008, 09:55 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 17 2008, 06:55 PM
It may not be direct evidence, but it supports the direct evidence. Which was my point.

I tend you use logic, with a little physics. I asked you to give your opinion one way or the other and you couldn't do that. Why?
You might have missed it but nicepants already explained to me twice that we're not allowed to do that and if we do it doesn't count.
Giving opinions is fine, but stating that factual claims must agree with your personal beliefs and opinions is not logical.

"I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true." (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply