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 (1,652 Views)
nicepants

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
Jan 17 2008, 09:58 PM
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
"...the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) was also found nearly 300 feet into the structure."

The Pentagon Building Performance Report
American Society of Civil Engineers (January 2003).
-Page 40
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

nicepants
Jan 17 2008, 10:20 PM
"...the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) was also found nearly 300 feet into the structure."

The Pentagon Building Performance Report
American Society of Civil Engineers (January 2003).
-Page 40
what no pic?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
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.

In this photo, was this round pole bent or straight?
Quote:
 
You also didn't answer my question...did the part of the pole which was bent go through the windshield?

So you DO know what I meant. Well, according to Lloyd, he didn't know the pole was bent until he pulled it out of his windshield. If you're trying to say the bend was outside, then I have an idea of where you're going with this. Are you from Jref? Are you going to say the base was to the side and on the ground?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
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.


That is not physical evidence. That is a photo of a light pole on the ground and a cab with a damaged windshield.

So we have it established. You believe the improbable and unproveable account of Lloyd England which has nothing to support it but his ever changing unsubstantiated account and a photo versus 6 eyewitnesses who all place the plane on the north side of the Citgo.


Quote:
 
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,


How is it physical evidence in support of LLoyd's account, when Lloyd's account has changed and has nothing to support it but his improbable and unsubstantiated story that hinges on a plane hitting it from the south side of the Citgo? It is physical evidence which proves the staging of the scene. But I do not see any "physical evidence" that supports a light pole getting clipped by a 757.

You have a photo of a cab with a damaged windshield and a light pole on the ground and nothing to support your assertion, but Lloyd's improbable and unsubstantiated account.

Just putting things in perspective for you.

Quote:
 
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.


You disagree because you would rather believe 1 man and a photo over 6 people who directly implicate him in a lie. That is personal incredulity.

Quote:
 
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.


Actually, in this case yes it does. The light poles are secondary to where everyone saw the plane fly Nicepants.

Nicepants, if it isn't true, then what is it?

You heard Sgt Lagasse, Sgt Brooks, and Robert Turcios- all 100% sure, willing to bet a life on it that the plane was on the north side. Levi Stephens exiting the south parking lot facing the Annex and Sean Boger in the heliport tower.

Either they are right or they are wrong. Which is it and what do you base your decision on?

Would you tell them to their face?


Quote:
 
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


Silly, I know what it means. It is the basis of your arguments.

I was giving you the reasons why I believed them, and frankly why I even investigated the Pentagon.

[/quote]
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. Beause 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.[/quote]

There is no faulty reasoning. This isn't debate club, Nicepants. This is a real life investigation with real life evidence with real life participants, myself being one of them.

I know you are stuck on debating "truthers" and getting them mired in these circular arguments. I know it makes you feel good because you think that it it makes you intellectually superior and you are able to maintain the status quo. But this is't one of those situations. You should take a step back and take a look at how this debate has been going, who we are, and what we have. This is not a game of reasoning and debating etiquette. This is a game of evidence. You think they are the only ones who saw the plane there, Nicepants? The cat is out of the bag and you can't put it back in by trying to intimidate people with over confident circular arguments.


Quote:
 
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.


No it is impossible to improbable or "unlikely" and that is a clue or supportive evidence in addition to the direct evidence.


Quote:
 
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.


No, I asked you a simple question that only requires a guess one way or the other. You know the answer to it and that is why you are avoiding it. : )

Quote:
 
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.
Quote:
 


No, I do understand. I guess it is you who is lacking the understanding.

You have a photo of a pole on the ground next to a cab with a damaged windshield. NO ONE saw the plane clip that pole. No one saw the plane on the south side versus the SIX witnesses who implicate him in a lie. No one saw the pole spear Lloyd's cab. No one saw him remove it. You do not have documentation which provides the original position of the pole. You do not have an analysis on his cab or on the pole. You do not have a report on the flight path through the poles. You don't know where the pole came from. It is physical evidence supporting a staged scene, not a pole clipped by a jet into a cab.



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

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


Someone on Rt 27. Why don't you ask Mike Walter, I think he has something interesting to say about the cab.

I don't know how many "contradict" him, but I know 6 directly implicate him in a lie and we have the name of a 7th.

Quote:
 
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.


I am asking for a simple guess on your part.


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


Exactly


So do you accept what the witnesses are telling you? If not explain how they all got the same thing wrong.Explain why they refuse to correct themselves or retract their statements? Explain why they stand by where they saw the plane. Explain why Brooks called our movie an eye opener and admits he could have been fooled.

Quote:
 
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?


Well hmmm, again, I said nothing about contradicting, but 6 directly implicate him in a lie.

I told you, witnesses on Rt 27 would be able to shed light on his account. Get out there and find some.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

so why cant lloyd remember how he removed the pole?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 17 2008, 10:20 PM
Domenick DiMaggio CIT
Jan 17 2008, 09:58 PM
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
"...the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) was also found nearly 300 feet into the structure."

The Pentagon Building Performance Report
American Society of Civil Engineers (January 2003).
-Page 40
Hmmmm and then there's version TWO:

The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) was found early in the morning of September 14, 2001. Government reports indicate the FDR was found at the entrance hole of the collapsed E ring. "...the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long.... Pentagon officials said the recorders, also called "black boxes" were found around 3:40 a.m. under mounds of wreckage in the collapsed part of the building.." (MSNBC Sept 28). "Dick Bridges, a spokesman for Arlington County, Va...said the recorders were found 'right where the plane came into the building.'" ( PBS - Sept 14).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smiling_Gorilla
Member Avatar
troll
Domenick DiMaggio CIT
Jan 17 2008, 10:21 PM
nicepants
Jan 17 2008, 10:20 PM
"...the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) was also found nearly 300 feet into the structure."

The Pentagon Building Performance Report
American Society of Civil Engineers (January 2003).
-Page 40
what no pic?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Terral
911Truther
Hi Domenick:

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


Please forgive, but Domenick’s conclusions about what Lloyd knows is completely irreverent to anything that actually struck the Pentagon on 9/11. How can you even say "Lloyd don’t know how he and the unknown stranger removed the huge light pole from his cab," when we have other accounts of how Lloyd and his helper removed the light pole from his cab? :0)

Liberty Post Article:

Quote:
 
Lloyd, 69, began the morning of September 11, 2001 like most days, driving his taxi cab. A passenger in Rosslyn told him what had happened at the World Trade Center so he turned on his radio and headed home. As he approached the Navy Annex, he saw a plane flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a BIG BOOM and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened.


I will not restate all of the details already presented here for which nobody yet has a reply. The point here is that Lloyd obviously knows how he and his helper removed the light pole from the windshield, because he repeated the account to many ‘qualified’ news reporters and journalists.

Quote:
 
Domenick >> The account in itself is impossible.


No sir. Lloyd’s windshield was hit and damaged by Pole #1 struck by the painted up A-3 using the South-Of-Citgo Flight Path at 9:31:39 AM, according to my explanation in the Opening Post linked above. Lloyd and his helper wrestled with the light pole, in front of a ‘single smoke plume’ for just about five minutes, during the same time the retrofitted A-3 made the wide northerly turn to create all the fire damage at 9:36:27 AM shown in the bottom of these two diagrams. Lloyd’s account is impossible for ‘you’ to understand, because Domenick sees only ‘one attack,’ when there were ‘two attacks’ all along.

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


That is because FIVE MINUTES passed from the time of the original 9:32 Attack (read the real FAA Timeline Report) and when ‘you’ think something actually hit the Pentagon for the ‘first time’ around 9:38 AM. Nobody staged any light pole evidence at 9:38 AM, because they were all knocked down during the 9:32 AM attack. The reason you guys think Lloyd is lying is because you are forcing ‘all’ of his testimony into a ‘single’ 9:38 AM attack. :0)

GL,

Terral
Edited by Terral, Jan 27 2008, 10:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

Terral
Jan 27 2008, 10:11 AM
Hi Domenick:



Hi Terral

Quote:
 
Please forgive, but Domenick’s conclusions about what Lloyd knows is completely irreverent to anything that actually struck the Pentagon on 9/11.



My "conclusion" is Lloyd's own words.


Quote:
 
How can you even say "Lloyd don’t know how he and the unknown stranger removed the huge light pole from his cab,"



Because that is exactly what Lloyd says when Russell asks him?

Quote:
 
when we have other accounts of how Lloyd and his helper removed the light pole from his cab? :0)

Liberty Post Article:

Quote:
 
Lloyd, 69, began the morning of September 11, 2001 like most days, driving his taxi cab. A passenger in Rosslyn told him what had happened at the World Trade Center so he turned on his radio and headed home. As he approached the Navy Annex, he saw a plane flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a BIG BOOM and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened.


Terral,

If I say Lloyd says he doesn't know how he and an unknown stranger removed the pole from his cab and you post a link that says Lloyd and an unknow stranger removed the pole from his cab, it doesn't explain still how the pole was removed which Lloyd was ask to demonstrate on film and became visibly dumbfounded by the question....

Quote:
 
I will not restate all of the details already presented here for which nobody yet has a reply. The point here is that Lloyd obviously knows how he and his helper removed the light pole from the windshield, because he repeated the account to many ‘qualified’ news reporters and journalists.


Perhaps there is no reply because it doesn't warrant a reply?

I'm not interested in debating you're 2 plane theory. Your whole five minute scenario fails because all of CIT's North of Citgo witnesses all missed the fact that the Pentagon had already been attacked (according to only you) before the plane approached.







Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply