| 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! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Lloyd England and the mysterious light pole | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 08:08 PM (1,654 Views) | |
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 16 2008, 08:08 PM Post #1 |
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 16 2008, 08:29 PM Post #2 |
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Jan 16 2008, 09:56 PM Post #3 |
![]()
|
The witnesses did not "determine" the flight path. The witnesses saw the plane north of the CITGO.
How does the pole create a round hole in the windshield if the pole is curved?
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? |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 16 2008, 09:58 PM Post #4 |
|
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?
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. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 16 2008, 10:55 PM Post #5 |
|
Here are the relevant images for reference: Specs from VDOT of same style pole: ![]() 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) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 16 2008, 11:26 PM Post #6 |
|
What evidence proves that they were correct when they state that they saw the plane north of the CITGO?
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)
What is a "knocked around" seat supposed to look like? According to Lloyd, it looks like that....and he was there. |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 16 2008, 11:39 PM Post #7 |
|
Just because people agree on something doesn't make them right.
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.
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. |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 16 2008, 11:59 PM Post #8 |
|
It does when they say the plane hit the building though, right?
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?
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. |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 17 2008, 12:28 AM Post #9 |
|
No. Just because people agree on something doesn't make them right. (It doesn't matter which side they are on)
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.
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.
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?
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Bonkers | Jan 17 2008, 09:13 AM Post #10 |
|
I have a question. Isn't this thread just a veiled "No-Plane" theory? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 17 2008, 09:24 AM Post #11 |
|
Deleted User
|
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? |
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 17 2008, 10:15 AM Post #12 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 17 2008, 03:30 PM Post #13 |
![]()
|
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?
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?
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 17 2008, 03:34 PM Post #14 |
![]()
|
Corroboration by other witnesses.
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?
According to Lloyd? Is it according to anyone else? |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 17 2008, 04:32 PM Post #15 |
|
The physical evidence corroborates Lloyd's account.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 17 2008, 06:55 PM Post #16 |
![]()
|
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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. |
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Jan 17 2008, 08:57 PM Post #17 |
![]()
|
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.
A knocked around seat looks like a seat that is not knocked around. Ok.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 17 2008, 09:20 PM Post #18 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Jan 17 2008, 09:27 PM Post #19 |
![]()
|
No typo. |
![]() |
|
| Avenger | Jan 17 2008, 09:33 PM Post #20 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 17 2008, 09:42 PM Post #21 |
|
The cab windshield and the pole, which match the account given by Lloyd.
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,
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.
As I have said before, simply because a few people tell the same story doesn't make it true.
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who would be expected to corroborate it? How many contradict him?
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.
Exactly
Why would that be a concern? No one contradicts him. Which witness(es) would be expected to support Lloyd's account? |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 17 2008, 09:45 PM Post #22 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 17 2008, 09:55 PM Post #23 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 17 2008, 09:58 PM Post #24 |
|
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......
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 17 2008, 10:08 PM Post #25 |
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2

















7:28 PM Jul 10