Lloyde England and His Cab - The Eye of the Storm

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
3
…
12

Lloyde England and His Cab - The Eye of the Storm; Now released!
Topic Started: Oct 29 2008, 03:54 PM (4,824 Views)
mycal	Oct 30 2008, 02:08 PM Post #26
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08	How could Lloyd be a victim, if what you are alleging is true?
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08


mycal	Oct 30 2008, 02:12 PM Post #27
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08	Why not re-interview Lagasse and tell him he was wrong about which light poles were knocked down. Ask him how the plane could be noc, yet poles are knocked down soc. He would have to agree that there was a deception or admit he may have been mistaken about where the plane was.
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08


Stinkey Puh	Oct 30 2008, 02:17 PM Post #28
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08	This is off topic, but if you want it that way, go ahead. Craig Ranke stinkey, Do you believe the plane flew NoC or do you believe it hit the building? Intellectually honest people understand that you MUST choose one because the claims are mutually exclusive. I'm thinking the witnesses saw it fly NoC. That's what they say, after all. But they also say it impacted.
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08


mycal	Oct 30 2008, 02:23 PM Post #29
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08	Lloyd has proven to be a human being. He isn't eve sure where his car was anymore. That is why you can never let eye witnesses overrule physical evidence. People always make mistakes even minutes after an event. The pole is curved. Why couldn't the hooked end be in his car and the long end arc over the hood and the other end is on the ground. His hood would not be damaged then. They could have just picked up the curved part out of the car and dropped it onto the street. You can't go by the letter of his every word and then if he's off on one small detail, convict him of murder. He is not expected to tell you everything to the nanometer. His wife is the smartest person in that room.
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Oct 30 2008, 02:26 PM Post #30
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	You all also forget that Lloyd was repeatedly shown photos of his cab (and him) south of the bridge. Any normal person, innocent of involvement would concede that they were wrong about their position after being shown picture after picture. The plane approached on the north side of the Citgo therefore no poles were struck. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Oct 30 2008, 02:54 PM.
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Stinkey Puh	Oct 30 2008, 02:29 PM Post #31
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08	mycal Why not re-interview Lagasse and tell him he was wrong about which light poles were knocked down. Ask him how the plane could be noc, yet poles are knocked down soc. He would have to agree that there was a deception or admit he may have been mistaken about where the plane was. It certainly seems that way. If Lagasse and Darius can be mistaken, why can't Lloyd? According to Craig (you can find this in the CIT Pentacon subforum), this is what Lagasse said -- after watching the Pentacon -- about where the plane was: Excerpt of email from Lagasse Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. Obviously what I saw happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane was on the North or South side of the gas station. Interestingly, Craig (from this topic) Intellectually honest people understand that you MUST choose one [NoC or impact] because the claims are mutually exclusive. Craig (from that topic at the CIT forum) After watching The PentaCon Sgt Lagasse refused to admit to us that the north side approach is irreconcilable with an impact.
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Oct 30 2008, 02:32 PM Post #32
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	mycal Oct 30 2008, 02:23 PM Lloyd has proven to be a human being. He isn't eve sure where his car was anymore. That is why you can never let eye witnesses overrule physical evidence. People always make mistakes even minutes after an event. The pole is curved. Why couldn't the hooked end be in his car and the long end arc over the hood and the other end is on the ground. His hood would not be damaged then. They could have just picked up the curved part out of the car and dropped it onto the street. You can't go by the letter of his every word and then if he's off on one small detail, convict him of murder. He is not expected to tell you everything to the nanometer. His wife is the smartest person in that room. Ok Bret, So where is the physical evidence? Physical evidence exists in physical form. What proof do you have that photos of light poles lying on the ground are physical evidence of a plane striking them? Do you have the forensic report plane's/cab's interaction with the pole(s) or just photos and your belief? See, because we have heavily corroborated eyewitnesses that place the plane north of the Citgo. This means no poles were hit. Lloyd was shown photos over and over and over. Any logical person innocent of any wrongdoing would admit they are wrong once shown photographic proof of their position. He isn't confused. He is a current cab driver and is very lucid about directions and locations. Plus oh yeah, he was FUCKING shown the photos of his position over and over and over. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Oct 30 2008, 02:32 PM.
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Oct 30 2008, 02:34 PM Post #33
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	mycal Oct 30 2008, 02:12 PM Why not re-interview Lagasse and tell him he was wrong about which light poles were knocked down. Ask him how the plane could be noc, yet poles are knocked down soc. He would have to agree that there was a deception or admit he may have been mistaken about where the plane was. We have via e-mail. He stands by where he saw the plane and logically so.
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Oct 30 2008, 02:40 PM Post #34
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: mycal Why not re-interview Lagasse and tell him he was wrong about which light poles were knocked down. Ask him how the plane could be noc, yet poles are knocked down soc. He would have to agree that there was a deception or admit he may have been mistaken about where the plane was. It certainly seems that way. If Lagasse and Darius can be mistaken, why can't Lloyd? They were mistaken because they didn't study the official reports and deduced where the poles were from memory based on where they saw the plane. The importance of their memory from that day does not center on pole location, it centered on which side of the gas station the plane flew on. Lloyd was there and had an interaction with the pole. He was shown multiple pictures of where he was located. In the face of that, he still maintained his outlandish story and change of position with a notable nervousness. Quote: According to Craig (you can find this in the CIT Pentacon subforum), this is what Lagasse said -- after watching the Pentacon -- about where the plane was: Excerpt of email from Lagasse Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. Obviously what I saw happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane was on the North or South side of the gas station. Interestingly, Craig (from this topic) Intellectually honest people understand that you MUST choose one [NoC or impact] because the claims are mutually exclusive. Craig (from that topic at the CIT forum) After watching The PentaCon Sgt Lagasse refused to admit to us that the north side approach is irreconcilable with an impact. So?
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Oct 30 2008, 02:53 PM Post #35
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Great job CIT. Lloyd appears to be an unwilling participant in 9/11, possibly a mind control victim. They picked the right candidate with his gentile honest demeanor. His wife knows something, possibly the true story behind the Pentagon, that a flyover did indeed take place. Thanks so much Halifax. I am not sold on the "unwilling" or "mind control thing". But yes it remains a possibility. Quote: When Lloyd talks about HIStory and how he is just a little guy, you almost had him there. I think he was inferring that he is an unwilling participant in the big event and the official story is HIStory. Just MHO. Right, but then that would throw out the mind control thing. That would mean he is aware of 'them'. I would only accept that he was manipulated and forced, but his demeanor is or was too upbeat when he was in the mode of fooling what he thought were unresearched individuals. Quote: BoneZ, you missed a few points. If Lloyd swears up and down he was in a place he actually wasn't, something is up. You don't walk away from it, but instead dig deeper. Regarding the poles, you forget about the black soot along the unusually straight cut. Exactly. He was shown pic after pic. A person who is innocent of wrongdoing who is confronted with photographic evidence will concede they were wrong. He didn't. He did that for a reason. Quote: My only concern is that Lloyd's life is in danger because of this video. If the heat is turned up, something may happen to him like Barry Jennings. That's the only reason I would say not to push it. Perhaps. But he has been in danger since we discovered the NoC witnesses. I am not sure they are too worried. Quote: 9/11 has so many loose ends it's not even funny. But the bigger the lie, the easier the sell. Absolutely. That is so key. It is the Big Lie technique. Quote: Although anyone with a critical eye can clearly see that the 9/11 official story is a complete fabrication, many people do not have the capacity to accept the truth no matter what. See the skeptic section. haha. Quote: CIT, your investigation proves a cover up and gross deception. But your are deducing a flyover which is reasonable however. Any rational person must agree with you. I think you proved NoC beyond a reasonable doubt. Too much corroboration. So that means the plane MUST have flown over simple as that. Thank you thank you thank you. Exactly. "But your are deducing a flyover which is reasonable however. Any rational person must agree with you." There is a shortage on rational people, Halifax. I am not sure if you are aware or not, but we do have a flyover witness in Roosevelt Roberts. See our Northside Flyover presentation. Quote: You guys must realize that you are playing with fire. Your investigating is real and genuine. That means you will receive the harshest criticism. They are afraid of you. The closer you get to the truth, the more dangerous things will become. I worry about that. But the cat is already out of the bag. I don't think they want to jeopardize things anymore by mucking around with us directly. They would rather ignore us or discredit us. Quote: Be careful and continue to do the right thing. We will brother. Bless up!
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Bernie big shorts	Oct 30 2008, 02:54 PM Post #36
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08	SPreston Oct 30 2008, 01:49 PM Bernie big shorts Oct 30 2008, 12:39 PM I will attempt to clarify the confusion, though i doubt it will help! I believe Lloyd is telling the truth. I also think he's mistaken about his location. It is perfectly normal in a traumatic situation for eye witnesses to recall being nearer to the event than they were. I believe that's why Lloyd remembers being closer to the pentagon than he was and why the north of citgo witnesses recall the plane being nearer to them than it was. There is no need to question the honesty of people like Lloyd England or the north of citgo witnesses, they are displaying typical human emotions in misjudging the perspectives of the event. Really? Then please explain how the aircraft knocked those light poles down then. The aircraft has been PROVEN to have flown Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. The FAA has confirmed that flight path. There was only one aircraft and the poles were laying on the ground. Therefore Lloyde had to have lied about the pole flying through his windshield. It doesn't matter if he is confused about his exact location or not; either location will not work. The light poles were staged. Lloyde is not confused at all. He was not confused about his location in the first interview. Now Lloyde knows that the official flight path is bogus, so he needs to move the taxi. Lloyde just has not thought through the difficulties with moving the taxi north up the road. You do see that CIT, with their strong eyewitnesses proving the north flight path, has effectively destroyed the official Flight 77 flight path don't you? Soon something new will have to be manufactured by the 9-11 perps, to keep the American sheeple floundering around in confusion. SPreston, The aircraft hasn't been proven to have flown north of citgo, it has been speculated based on eyewitness accounts. This is unreliable. The damage at the pentagon and the data from the fdr is consistent with a south of citgo path. The FAA flight path you mention isn't the official data as i understand. You say Lloyd is lying about the pole flying through his car, this is an unfounded allegation, it is very unfair on a very nice old man that took a lot of time out to help the CIT guys. If you consider the obvious tendencies to locate things nearer to you in a traumatic situation that i discussed in a post above you can see that there is a rational explanation for both the north of citgo witnesses and Lloyds mistaken memory.
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Oct 30 2008, 02:55 PM Post #37
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	You all also forget that he said his neighbor who took the picture of his cab was up on the "bridge". He is caught. Simple and plain.
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Bernie big shorts	Oct 30 2008, 02:58 PM Post #38
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08	Craig Ranke CIT Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM Bernie big shorts, You forgot the part about Lloyde's story being physically impossible and the damage to his cab irreconcilable with alternative scenarios. Craig, I can't see how Lloyds story is physically impossible other than him getting his location wrong. I do agree that it was pretty remarkable and fortunate that the light pole speared his windshield without injuring him or the hood. But remarkable things happen all the time.
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Oct 30 2008, 03:04 PM Post #39
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Bernie big shorts Oct 30 2008, 02:54 PM Quote: The aircraft hasn't been proven to have flown north of citgo, it has been speculated based on eyewitness accounts. Yes it has. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Corroboration is a scientific process. It is not speculation. If you want to know which side of the gas station the plane flew on what do you do, Bernie? Who do you ask, Bernie? Quote: This is unreliable. No it isn't. It is more than relaible, because it is a simple questions about a simple detail that no one has forgotten and no one, including the eyewitnesses we've contacted, has been able to refute. Quote: The damage at the pentagon and the data from the fdr is consistent with a south of citgo path. Dude. Seriously. Pilotsfor911truth.org. Seriously. Do you even know what you are talking about? Quote: The FAA flight path you mention isn't the official data as i understand. It sure as shit is in line with what the witnesses describe and certainly OFFICIALLY comes from the FAA. Quote: You say Lloyd is lying about the pole flying through his car, this is an unfounded allegation, it is very unfair on a very nice old man that took a lot of time out to help the CIT guys. Round and round we go. The plane approached on the north side of the Citgo. This has been established to the point of redundancy. You have nothing but photographs of light poles on the ground and you want to claim the heavily coroborated eyewitnesses are "unreliable". What a crock of shit. Quote: If you consider the obvious tendencies to locate things nearer to you in a traumatic situation that i discussed in a post above you can see that there is a rational explanation for both the north of citgo witnesses and Lloyds mistaken memory. What about when right before you become "mistaken" you slip up about the position of a photographer being on the "bridge" where he takes a photo of your cab that was on the bridge, then after you start your assertive "mistaken-ness", you are then shown picture after picture after picture of you on the bridge? Would you concede you were wrong and a victim of "tendencies to locate things nearer to you in a traumatic situation" or would you continue on maitaining the absurdity of this false position location? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Oct 30 2008, 03:05 PM.
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Oct 30 2008, 03:08 PM Post #40
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Bernie big shorts Oct 30 2008, 02:58 PM Craig Ranke CIT Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM Bernie big shorts, You forgot the part about Lloyde's story being physically impossible and the damage to his cab irreconcilable with alternative scenarios. Craig, I can't see how Lloyds story is physically impossible other than him getting his location wrong. I do agree that it was pretty remarkable and fortunate that the light pole speared his windshield without injuring him or the hood. But remarkable things happen all the time. So then you do agree, if the same event happened twice, that it is improbable or unlikely that it wouldn't damage the hood or even say the roof for that matter? Coincidence Theorists. Sheesh.
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


mycal	Oct 30 2008, 03:11 PM Post #41
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Oct 30 2008, 02:32 PM mycal Oct 30 2008, 02:23 PM Lloyd has proven to be a human being. He isn't eve sure where his car was anymore. That is why you can never let eye witnesses overrule physical evidence. People always make mistakes even minutes after an event. The pole is curved. Why couldn't the hooked end be in his car and the long end arc over the hood and the other end is on the ground. His hood would not be damaged then. They could have just picked up the curved part out of the car and dropped it onto the street. You can't go by the letter of his every word and then if he's off on one small detail, convict him of murder. He is not expected to tell you everything to the nanometer. His wife is the smartest person in that room. Ok Bret, So where is the physical evidence? Physical evidence exists in physical form. What proof do you have that photos of light poles lying on the ground are physical evidence of a plane striking them? Do you have the forensic report plane's/cab's interaction with the pole(s) or just photos and your belief? See, because we have heavily corroborated eyewitnesses that place the plane north of the Citgo. This means no poles were hit. Lloyd was shown photos over and over and over. Any logical person innocent of any wrongdoing would admit they are wrong once shown photographic proof of their position. He isn't confused. He is a current cab driver and is very lucid about directions and locations. Plus oh yeah, he was FUCKING shown the photos of his position over and over and over. Dude, you are trying to embarrass this old guy with a 7yr old memory, to further your opinions. His wife correctly pointed out that you will not believe anything he says, because you believe noc. Why were you there? Why not ask Lagasse or Brooks to clarify their errors? This man is the farthest thing from a govt agent I have ever seen. Why would he keep the car? He is keeping it because he is a regular guy and this is his claim to fame or maybe he wants a reminder of how he escaped death. That car would have been scrap metal by know if he was woking for the govt. He has nothing to hide. He is not the sharpest tool in the box and you are taking advantage of that to make it look like he is lying. There is no way he could be a victim, either he is intentionally lying or he is telling the truth to the best of his ability.
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Oct 30 2008, 03:26 PM Post #42
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Dude, you are trying to embarrass this old guy with a 7yr old memory, to further your opinions. My opinions? His memory has been the same since day 1, champ. His story has never changed only his position when confronted with our knowledge of where the plane really flew and what it really did. Do your homework. Quote: His wife correctly pointed out that you will not believe anything he says, because you believe noc. Like that shit is even relevant. She also agreed that the plane didn't hit and kept going. Now what, "DUDE"? And PS...she didn't say we "will not believe anything he says, because you believe noc". She didn't even know about or understand the NoC. Quote: Why were you there? We were there to confront Lloyd about the evidence of the plane flying NoC. Quote: Why not ask Lagasse or Brooks to clarify their errors? We did. Why don't you? Quote: This man is the farthest thing from a govt agent I have ever seen. How about an asset? How just a broke old cab driver who is easily enticed by large sums of money? How about coerced? How about manipulated? Nice strawman, no one from CIT called him a "gov't agent". Get a grip. Quote: Why would he keep the car? He wanted to sell it to a museum. In fact, he and his wife both seemed concerned about getting $ for this "experience". Quote: He is keeping it because he is a regular guy and this is his claim to fame or maybe he wants a reminder of how he escaped death. Nice, you're a mind reader now. Quote: That car would have been scrap metal by know if he was woking for the govt. He has nothing to hide. And you know this how? Your mindreading skills again? Dude they left the poles on the lawn for 3 weeks after 9/11. They...didn't...care. Quote: He is not the sharpest tool in the box and you are taking advantage of that to make it look like he is lying. As opposed to a gov't agent taking advantage of that and making it look like he is telling the truth???? Quote: There is no way he could be a victim, either he is intentionally lying or he is telling the truth to the best of his ability You know what my bet is on. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Oct 30 2008, 03:28 PM.
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Bernie big shorts	Oct 30 2008, 03:31 PM Post #43
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Oct 30 2008, 03:08 PM Bernie big shorts Oct 30 2008, 02:58 PM Craig Ranke CIT Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM Bernie big shorts, You forgot the part about Lloyde's story being physically impossible and the damage to his cab irreconcilable with alternative scenarios. Craig, I can't see how Lloyds story is physically impossible other than him getting his location wrong. I do agree that it was pretty remarkable and fortunate that the light pole speared his windshield without injuring him or the hood. But remarkable things happen all the time. So then you do agree, if the same event happened twice, that it is improbable or unlikely that it wouldn't damage the hood or even say the roof for that matter? Coincidence Theorists. Sheesh. Not sure what you mean? If i throw a deck of cards up in the air and one lodges right down my collar it is remarkable, it would be unlikely i could do it again. It doesn't mean that it didn't happen in the first place.
Posts: 224 Group: Members Member #287 Joined: 02/07/08


JFK	Oct 30 2008, 03:39 PM Post #44
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Just curious... What was on that CD ?
Posts: 4,110 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Oct 30 2008, 03:40 PM Post #45
Posts: 1,425 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Stinkey Puh Oct 30 2008, 02:17 PM I'm thinking the witnesses saw it fly NoC. That's what they say, after all. But they also say it impacted. Just as I thought. Now you refuse to take a stance because you are intellectually dishonest and this proves it. In the past you specifically said you believed the plane flew NoC. Apparently you lied. Just making sure everyone understands how dishonest you are.
Posts: 1,425 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Stinkey Puh	Oct 30 2008, 03:43 PM Post #46
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08	Aldo You all also forget that Lloyd was repeatedly shown photos of his cab south of the bridge. Any normal person, innocent of involvement would concede that they were wrong about their position after being shown picture after picture. Unless that's what they've believed from day one. And if Lloyde is convinced that CIT is not to be trusted -- understandable, given that he apparently knows what you've said about him -- he may have suspected that you were showing him edited photos or were attempting to manipulate him with photographic illusions of some sort. His wife seemed to indicate she thought something like that was a possiblilty. Mrs. England Camera's can make changes. . . [and a while later] They can make pictures look any kind of way they want it to look. Quote: They were mistaken because they didn't study the official reports and deduced where the poles were from memory based on where they saw the plane. The importance of their memory from that day does not center on pole location. . . And how do you know the same could not be true in Lloyde's case? Quote: So? Not much. Kind of interesting, though. So where has Lloyde's story changed?
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Oct 30 2008, 03:45 PM Post #47
Posts: 1,425 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	JFK Oct 30 2008, 03:39 PM Just curious... What was on that CD ? That his neighbor gave us? I explained it in the movie. Basically 2 of the basically same low resolution image taken only about a second apart. Here they are in the original resolution from the disk:
Posts: 1,425 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


mhawk	Oct 30 2008, 03:45 PM Post #48
Posts: 50 Group: Members Member #914 Joined: 10/30/08	Craig Ranke CIT Oct 30 2008, 02:00 PM Do you believe the plane flew NoC or do you believe it hit the building? Intellectually honest people understand that you MUST choose one because the claims are mutually exclusive. So...are the "noc" witnesses "intellectually honest"?
Posts: 50 Group: Members Member #914 Joined: 10/30/08


Stinkey Puh	Oct 30 2008, 03:51 PM Post #49
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08	Woah, hold on there Craig! Craig Just as I thought. Now you refuse to take a stance because you are intellectually dishonest and this proves it. No I do not refuse to take a stance. You keep repeating it is impossible for both witness claims to be correct. I'm saying, I'm not so sure of that. Quote: In the past you specifically said you believed the plane flew NoC. That's right. Quote: Apparently you lied. You claim. Can you prove it? Quote: Just making sure everyone understands how dishonest you are. How am I dishonest?
Posts: 65 Group: BANNED! Member #457 Joined: 04/01/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Oct 30 2008, 03:57 PM Post #50
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Bernie big shorts Oct 30 2008, 03:31 PM Aldo Marquis CIT Oct 30 2008, 03:08 PM Bernie big shorts Oct 30 2008, 02:58 PM Craig Ranke CIT Oct 30 2008, 02:03 PM Bernie big shorts, You forgot the part about Lloyde's story being physically impossible and the damage to his cab irreconcilable with alternative scenarios. Craig, I can't see how Lloyds story is physically impossible other than him getting his location wrong. I do agree that it was pretty remarkable and fortunate that the light pole speared his windshield without injuring him or the hood. But remarkable things happen all the time. So then you do agree, if the same event happened twice, that it is improbable or unlikely that it wouldn't damage the hood or even say the roof for that matter? Coincidence Theorists. Sheesh. Not sure what you mean? If i throw a deck of cards up in the air and one lodges right down my collar it is remarkable, it would be unlikely i could do it again. It doesn't mean that it didn't happen in the first place. What if the first time you pre-lodged the card in your collar? haha. I keed, I keed. You admit then that it is more likely that the pole would have damaged the hood. Let's try this differently, if you were to place a bet on whether the pole, after being hit by the wing of a 757 going 500+ mph, would hit Lloyd's cab while he's driving 50 mph -or- fly randomly into the street or somewhere else. Which would you place your bet on? If you were to place a bet on whether the pole, after being hit by the wing of a 757 going 500+ mph, would hit ONLY Lloyd's winshield -or- hit his roof, hood, and windshield. Which would you place your bet on? Most imporantly, If you were to place a bet on whether the pole, after being hit by the wing of a 757 going 500+ mph, would spear it's way ONLY into Lloyd's winshield WITHOUT damaging the hood -or- spear it's way ONLY into Lloyd's winshield while damaging or scratching the hood in some way . Which would you place your bet on? How about if you were to place a bet on whether a playing card, after being thrown in the air with its respective deck of cards, would fall right into the collar of your shirt -or- randomly land somewhere else other than your collar. Which would you place your bet on?
Posts: 1,641 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
…
12