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
Police stopped traffic before the plane hit; Eyewitness says he saw a plane
Topic Started: Jan 27 2008, 06:16 AM (3,858 Views)
Hetware

"Pot meet kettle."

My discussion with you ended at that point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

Hetware
Jan 31 2008, 11:15 AM
"Pot meet kettle."

My discussion with you ended at that point.
That's fine.

Now I know there are 2 seperate fields of 9/11 research you're afraid to debate me in. Want to move to the WTC next? I'm sure whatever your theory is on that is probably most likely wrong and uninformed too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Terral,

She published no interview, transcript, or illustration. She did not even quote Lloyd or bother to reference his name. That is not evidence. She thinks he is Middle Eastern. He is not. She talked with someone else and THOUGHT that he was the "lone cab driver" which made you THINK he is Lloyd. It had to have been a different cab driver or else she is simply lying. Lloyd has never said anything about being the last one through the barricade in ANY of his interviews.

I find it quite comical how you sing the praises of Russell Pickering, reference the phone interview with Lloyd that he talks about on his site....and then deride us for our interview with Lloyd claiming we "grilled" him about the pole.

Yes I was there with Aldo and Dylan but take a wild guess who the guy "grilling" Lloyd about the pole was.
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 31 2008, 11:45 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stundie

WOW!! This pentagon thing isn't so clear cut is it? I thought there was a unified theory with a few discrepancies, but it appears not.

The question I want to ask is did anyone see the plane clip the light poles on the South Flight Path??

If so, what did they say they saw?
If not, then holding up the traffic and having a valid reason for this because the President is on his way, might allow the lightpoles to have been staged i.e. put into place.

Cheers

Stundie
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 31 2008, 11:45 AM
Terral,

She published no interview, transcript, or illustration. She did not even quote Lloyd or bother to reference his name. That is not evidence. She thinks he is Middle Eastern. He is not. She talked with someone else and THOUGHT that he was the "lone cab driver" which made you THINK he is Lloyd. It had to have been a different cab driver or else she is simply lying. Lloyd has never said anything about being the last one through the barricade in ANY of his interviews.

I find it quite comical how you sing the praises of Russell Pickering, reference the phone interview with Lloyd that he talks about on his site....and then deride us for our interview with Lloyd claiming we "grilled" him about the pole.

Yes I was there with Aldo and Dylan but take a wild guess who the guy "grilling" Lloyd about the pole was.
Father McGraw was the premier suspect for witnessing the light pole incident. CIT interviewed him and he admitted he did not witness it happen and only deduced it after the fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Stundie
Jan 31 2008, 12:13 PM


The question I want to ask is did anyone see the plane clip the light poles on the South Flight Path??

Great question Stundie.

There are about 20 previously published statements from people who simply mention the light poles in their accounts.

The question is whether or not they actually saw a plane hit them or simply saw them on the ground.

We have personally interviewed 4 of them (Joel Sucherman, Mike Walter, Stephen McGraw, and Chad Brooks) and every single one admitted that they did not see the plane hit the poles and merely deduced it from seeing the poles on the ground after the fact.

NONE of them claim they saw a pole hit the cab or sticking out of the windshield of the cab as Lloyd claims.

Out of all the statements only Wanda Ramey claims she saw a plane hit the poles. Because of the overwhelming evidence proving the plane could not have done this we believe she was embellishing or deducing.

I will post a thread right now analyzing ever light pole claim that exists.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stundie

Thanks Craig for the answer,

Do you or anyones else know if the distances these light poles travelled from where they were originally posted would comply with a plane travelling at 500mph? Any research ever done?

I imagine wings hitting a light poles would cause significant damage to the wings? Just look at what happens when a bird hits a plane at that speed. I also find this quite hard to believe that the hijackers manage to keep the plane 20-30ft off the ground at 500 mph too.

But that's just my opinion.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

Stundie
Jan 31 2008, 01:32 PM
I imagine wings hitting a light poles would cause significant damage to the wings?


You're correct.

Unless you're in denial like "skeptics" and the pro-impact crowd.

I had quite the argument about this because I said the poles would have caused fatal damage to the wings and the plane would have crashed/skidded into the building as compared to flying level 5' off the ground as the allegedly authentic 5 frames indicates.

Some people think birds are composed of stronger materials and say that the poles are "break away" poles which means they're meant to give during an impact. Even so, they are breakaway at the bottoms, not at the top where the plane would have been clipping them. And even if a car impacts a "break away" pole the pole is still going to cause significant damage to the vehicle. You are still hitting an object. You hit a deer or a dog it causes damage and they're not cemented into the ground....

The plane is alleged to have done this 5 times and remain intact and controllable.

Also the turbulance wake is alleged to have had no effect what so ever on any of the vehicles.

Some of the witnesses referenced by the pro-impact crowd state they also saw the plane clipping antenna's of vehicles during it's approach because it was flying so low. Can you imagine what the blast from a 757 doing 500MPH inches above your head would do to the vehicle you are sitting in?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Stundie
Jan 31 2008, 12:13 PM
WOW!! This pentagon thing isn't so clear cut is it? I thought there was a unified theory with a few discrepancies, but it appears not.

Yes Stundie,

We have uncovered a major smoking gun and at the same time confirmed there was a plane.

It just didn't look like an AA and did not cause the physical damage.

The brilliant thing about our evidence is that the witnesses thought they were supporting the official story, they had no idea of the implications of what they were saying.

They stand by where they saw the plane and this would implicate the cab driver as well as a handful of others.

I hope this helps you to understand. This is MAJOR! Hence the vehement attacks from pseudo skeptics and pseudo truthers.
Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 31 2008, 05:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stundie

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
Jan 31 2008, 01:50 PM
Also the turbulance wake is alleged to have had no effect what so ever on any of the vehicles.

Some of the witnesses referenced by the pro-impact crowd state they also saw the plane clipping antenna's of vehicles during it's approach because it was flying so low. Can you imagine what the blast from a 757 doing 500MPH inches above your head would do to the vehicle you are sitting in?
I'm open regarding research in to the pentagon crash, I have no formed opinions other than the goverments refusal to release footage of whatever hit The Pentagon, kind of shows they are hiding something. The dodgy clips that have been shown do not show anything.

Anyway, back to the quote above and to confirm that I agree with what you are saying here.

Top Gear - A very popular program about cars here in UK shows you what would happen to a car if it was to pass by a jet (747) at full throttle. The cars are 50 yards away, so I would imagine when Atta is supposedly have gone full throttle and hit the pentagon, I would expect cars to be flung all over the place if he was travelling so low as to knock over the lightpoles.

Here it is for your viewing - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24iZDl-U8es
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hetware

Stundie
Jan 31 2008, 12:13 PM
WOW!! This pentagon thing isn't so clear cut is it? I thought there was a unified theory with a few discrepancies, but it appears not.

The question I want to ask is did anyone see the plane clip the light poles on the South Flight Path??

If so, what did they say they saw?
If not, then holding up the traffic and having a valid reason for this because the President is on his way, might allow the lightpoles to have been staged i.e. put into place.

Cheers

Stundie
The guy who said the traffic was stopped also said he saw the plane hit the light pole. I really don't have more details. The person who reported it to me said he is not interested in following up on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Hetware
Jan 31 2008, 11:04 PM
The guy who said the traffic was stopped also said he saw the plane hit the light pole. I really don't have more details. The person who reported it to me said he is not interested in following up on it.
No he did not.

Quote him or admit that you are wrong.

ETA: I thought you were talking about Lloyd but the point still stands.

Conjecture is not evidence.
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 31 2008, 11:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hetware

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 31 2008, 11:06 PM
Hetware
Jan 31 2008, 11:04 PM
The guy who said the traffic was stopped also said he saw the plane hit the light pole. I really don't have more details. The person who reported it to me said he is not interested in following up on it.
No he did not.

Quote him or admit that you are wrong.
How do you know what someone said to me in private conversation?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Wouldn't it be hard for him to see a light pole clipped from 395?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Hetware
Jan 31 2008, 11:23 PM
How do you know what someone said to me in private conversation?
Again....I thought you were talking about Lloyd.

What you have is beyond nothing.

"It was more like someone I have known well for years told me what one of his coworkers told him."

That is not evidence.

It is hearsay.

It means nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Avenger
Jan 31 2008, 11:30 PM
Wouldn't it be hard for him to see a light pole clipped from 395?
It would be virtually impossible.

There is no place on 395 where you have a clear view of the light poles.

Of course locals do often refer to route 27 as 395 since they are connected and 27 is only about a mile long.

Regardless........hetware has provided zero evidence and same goes for his friend.

People who know people that support the official narrative are a dime a dozen.

It does not prove the official narrative true.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hetware

Hearsay is a form of evidence. His account is consistent with the most reasonable scenario, and consistent with the physical evidence. Under the formal rules of evidence in a court of law, physical evidence is considered more reliable than witness accounts. The physical evidence is consistent with a 757 flying across the Navy Annex parking lot, knocking down light poles on Washington Blvd, and slamming into the Pentagon at ground level.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hetware

The man was driving a truck. That means he would have been physically above a passenger in a car. He would be able to see over the Jersey walls. I know the route well. I used to drive it every day for years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Hetware
Jan 31 2008, 11:40 PM
Hearsay is a form of evidence.
:blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
His account is consistent with the most reasonable scenario, and consistent with the physical evidence. Under the formal rules of evidence in a court of law, physical evidence is considered more reliable than witness accounts. The physical evidence is consistent with a 757 flying across the Navy Annex parking lot, knocking down light poles on Washington Blvd, and slamming into the Pentagon at ground level.

Again, what created the exit hole at the C-ring.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
Avenger
Jan 31 2008, 11:50 PM
Quote:
 
His account is consistent with the most reasonable scenario, and consistent with the physical evidence. Under the formal rules of evidence in a court of law, physical evidence is considered more reliable than witness accounts. The physical evidence is consistent with a 757 flying across the Navy Annex parking lot, knocking down light poles on Washington Blvd, and slamming into the Pentagon at ground level.

Again, what created the exit hole at the C-ring.
The landing gear.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hetware

Landing gear would not have created that hole. Since the hole was on the order of the size of the fuselage, and there was nothing else of a similar dimension, it stands to reason that some portion of the fuselage (probably crumpled up like aluminum foil) created the hole.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

That's not what Lee Evey said. Do you have a picture of this crumpled up piece of fuselage?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hetware

What he said is consistent with what I am saying. The first floor of the Pentagon is contiguous from the point of impact to the exit hole. There were some columns between the point of impact and the exit hole. Some of them were knocked down, and others were significantly damaged by impact. It looks as though the piece that made it to the C-ring wall bounced off some of the columns on the way through.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bret08
Member Avatar
repeated trolling offender
Hetware
Feb 1 2008, 12:42 AM
What he said is consistent with what I am saying. The first floor of the Pentagon is contiguous from the point of impact to the exit hole. There were some columns between the point of impact and the exit hole. Some of them were knocked down, and others were significantly damaged by impact. It looks as though the piece that made it to the C-ring wall bounced off some of the columns on the way through.
There is no way that any fuselage made it to the c-ring. The landing gear is one of the strongest parts of an aircraft. It could very easily have made that hole. The hole does not have to be the size of the landing gear or fit its shape.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply