| 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! |
| Lloyde England and His Cab - The Eye of the Storm; Now released! | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 29 2008, 03:54 PM (4,859 Views) | |
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 03:58 PM Post #51 |
|
This is further example of why you are a disgusting intellectually dishonest pseudo-skeptic. Lagasse is a witness who has his entire career and life to lose by speaking out against his boss, the government. He is not an anonymous pseudos-skeptic with a potty joke screenname who has nothing to lose. He is not a researcher or someone that is objectively studying the evidence of that day. You devote ALL of your posting time to spinning and obfuscating information that contradicts the official story. You are not to be trusted. |
 |
 
|
| mycal | Oct 30 2008, 03:58 PM Post #52 |
|
I must have missed your documentary on how Brooks explains how he described, perfectly, a UA plane that didn't exist in 2001, or how Lagasse argued with you as to where the poles were. You have no interest in trying to see if they are right, wrong, or mistaken. They can be wrong about many facts, but the only thing that matters is noc. How are they reliable and Lloyd isn't? I want to see the interview with Lagasse, where you tell him that he was fooled into thinking the plane hit the building. The only way you can conclude noc a fact, is to talk to ALL witnesses who saw something, and put everything together with the physical evidence. You have inteviewed 13 of hundreds. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 04:00 PM Post #53 |
|
No but like stinkey shit you are. See my last reply to him. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 04:10 PM Post #54 |
|
This is EXACTLY how you are dishonest. You refuse to back up WHY or HOW the plane could have impacted the building NoC. But forget about that..... This thread is relative to the LIGHT POLES. Are you "not so sure" that it's impossible for an NoC plane to hit the downed light poles? Do you believe the plane was NoC? Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Oct 30 2008, 04:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Oct 30 2008, 04:14 PM Post #55 |
|
Don't you mean how he DIDN'T, describe, perfectly a AA plane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01? 
...beeeeeecause that is where he saw the plane fly towards.
Um they were right and they were mistaken. And um it is irrelevant based on where they saw the plane on the north side of the Citgo. Haven't we cleared this up for you people like 50 times already?
Riiiiight. Now you're getting it. Good job!
Because they are heavily independtly verified and corroborated and Lloyd isn't. Because they didn't tell us an absurd story about a 40 light pole spearing their car's windshield without damaging their hood. Because when confronted with details they had deduced or might have mistaken, they conceded and Lloyd when confronted with details he may have deduced or might have mistaken, he didn't. Because the damage at the Pentagon and the damage with the light poles is inconsistent with a 757 impact.
I want world peace. We all want a lot of things.
We did it via e-mail.
Please. take your silly little demands somewhere else. We spoke to all witnesses that were relevant and accessible. It is now a fact. the plane flew NoC.
Hundreds of what? You know there are hundred of NoC witnesses? I wouldn't go that high? But how did you arrive at that number? You confirmed those witnesses exist how? |
|
|
|
| mhawk | Oct 30 2008, 04:16 PM Post #56 |
|
While I appreciate your confidence in me, your answer doesn't reflect well on those witnesses. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 30 2008, 04:20 PM Post #57 |
|
Thanks. That has an awfully interesting file header... Look at it with a hex editor. It is decieving as the exif data appears below something which looks encrypted... And my exif reader did not pick up the exif data.  Edit to add - Datetime
Edit - the apparent original size
Edited by JFK, Oct 30 2008, 04:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 04:26 PM Post #58 |
|
Excuse the misread. For the record I meant the opposite. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 04:28 PM Post #59 |
|
Interesting. Here is what riv over at our forum said when he looked at the images the same way:
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Oct 30 2008, 04:29 PM Post #60 |
|
Brooks was. Did you hear that he told us our movie was an "eye-opener" and that "anything was possible" when it came to him being fooled. Everyone is different, especially when you are at the center of the controversy. The only thing you should be worrying your little head about is the fact that the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo. It is irrelevant if they believe it flew NoC and impacted, because it is impossible to do so. Sorry. |
|
|
|
| JackD | Oct 30 2008, 04:30 PM Post #61 |
|
...experiment about damage to lloyd's windshield -- find someone who has NO IDEA ABOUT PENTAGON EVENTS> -- someone who could care less. never heard of Lloyd, cab, etc. a total noob. now., show them the Fall 2001 photo of lloyds cab, when it was sitting in his driveway. show them the windshield. ask them to describe the damage to windshield & hood. ask them to identify how many times they think windshield was struck -- how many single impact sites they can find on windscreen. one? two? more? i think the results would be interesting to all, no matter what you thin abut lloyde. |
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Oct 30 2008, 04:36 PM Post #62 |
|
Label away.
Yeah, he works for the Government. Does that excuse him from being -- according to you -- "intellectually dishonest"?
Consider the possibility that you do not know my entire position, and are merely assuming you do. And no, as I've said before, I'm not about to state it either.
Claim away.
Right back at you, CIT. |
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Oct 30 2008, 04:37 PM Post #63 |
|
You seem to refuse to consider alternate possibilities about what happened.
Yeah, it's really off topic.
No. I'm sure it is impossible. Haven't I said that before? What does it matter what I'm sure of anyway, though, huh Craig?
Yes. 
|
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Oct 30 2008, 04:39 PM Post #64 |
|
Exactly. Why not use the same logic with Lloyde? |
|
|
|
| mhawk | Oct 30 2008, 04:41 PM Post #65 |
|
Misread excused. Did you also mistype when you stated: "Intellectually honest people understand that you MUST choose one because the claims are mutually exclusive." ? |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Oct 30 2008, 04:44 PM Post #66 |
|
Um because it is illogical. So Lloyd saw the plane on the NoC path and was under the NoC plane yet still had pole 1 spear his cab as he drives all the way to and past the bridge (with a 40 ft light pole sticking out of his windshield in mid air over his hood no less) to then turn his car sideways, then pull pole 1 out and leave it on the ground south of the bridge? Is that what you are saying Mr Logical? How did pole 1 end up in his cab, if the plane flew NoC? JFK, I would seriously start moving some people into the skeptic camp. If I was a newbie, thanks to these clowns, I would be confused. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Oct 30 2008, 04:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 04:45 PM Post #67 |
|
Ok now that you admit the plane was NoC, and you admit it's impossible for it to hit the light poles, I know that your incessant badgering of CIT and our assertions is completely illogical, unwarranted, and yes....intellectually dishonest. You are not to be trusted and your tactics are transparent. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Oct 30 2008, 04:48 PM Post #68 |
|
Maybe you missed that whole "importance" thing. I think you went right past the "relevance" thing too. If you feel it is important to get those witnesses to abandon one those claims, namely the impact, then go right ahead. Contact them. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 04:53 PM Post #69 |
|
No but if you were intellectually honest you would understand the context of the statement was in regards to researchers, scientists, or even casual posters who are questioning the events of 9/11 and objectively considering all evidence from a critical or skeptical point of view. NONE of the witnesses we spoke with remotely fall into that category. They don't question the events or look at the evidence at all and Lagasse deliberately shut down in further discussions after suggesting to us that all the "engineers" who put together the ASCE report are simply WRONG. Truth seekers who communicate honestly should easily understand that this was the context of my claim whereas it is quite obvious how people interested in spin and obfuscation who refuse to to honestly discuss the information, like you and stinkey, would refuse to. |
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Oct 30 2008, 04:55 PM Post #70 |
|
What's so illogical about that? Lloyde does say that he does not know where the pole came from, does he not?
I do not know. Speculation. It's kind of like the question some people ask about the passengers of a plane if it didn't crash where they thought it crashed. We just do not know at this point. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Oct 30 2008, 04:57 PM Post #71 |
|
Obviously because the evidence proves the plane flew NoC making it impossible to hit the light poles, as you agree. And because the evidence proves Lloyde's location was south of the bridge. How can you not understand this? Oh yeah......you're a pseudo-skeptic who refuses to discuss the information honestly. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Oct 30 2008, 05:01 PM Post #72 |
|
hahaha Stinkey. Are you ok? How old are you guy? You can't be more than 10 or 11. Think it through, Stinkey. You'll get it.
I don't care. I do know where it allegedly came from. I know where his cab was located based on photographs. I know he identified the pole that he claims he pulled from his cab. I know it can only be pole 1.
Wow dude. I think we are done here. No, i KNOW we are done here. |
|
|
|
| Grit1645 | Oct 30 2008, 05:05 PM Post #73 |
|
I feel kind of sorry for this guy (Lloyde). On the one hand he seems like a guy (and his wife too?) who would love to believe in some giant intricate conspiracy. On the other hand he knows that something happened to him and his cab, and what he did in response to that. He's obviously confused about where he was, but the day is etched in his mind so deeply that even the pictures can't "rewrite" what he recalls. I agree with Bernie that this is not that out of line. It does seem a little odd to me that he and some other guy (who never spoke?) would take the pole out of the cab. If it were me, I wouldn't have gone near it, what with the broken glass and jagged metal and all. Why not leave that to people better equipped with gloves, etc.? One thing. You have categorically stated that it is impossible for the pole to have gone into the cab (and been removed therefrom) and not damaged the hood or roof. You have not done any experiments to this effect, however. If there were any way to at least attempt an experiment? (And simply asking some noob to describe the damage as Jack suggests isn't good enough.) Remember, there were people who said it was impossible to build a machine to fly. What may or may not seem impossible is not always in keeping with reality. I would say it is physically impossible to shoot yourself in the head with a nail gun and live, but it's been done - more than once. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Oct 30 2008, 05:09 PM Post #74 |
|
Is it not possible that Lloyde's point of view and that of CIT's are both right? Lloyde may have been a victim of just being at the wrong place, at the wrong time. An inside job type of attack, would have to pre-determine the flight path for a precision guided missile in order to stage it to appear as if a Boeing 767 had passed through at 500+ mph. To me, it makes sense that the light poles had to have been rigged to rip, or blast free of their bases. One of those rigged lamp poles ejected through the air as part of a choreographed plan could well have impaled Lloyde's cab as he said. This would also explain Lloyd's confusion about the timing of external events immediately during and after the light pole encounter. His testimony about when he heard the explosion always seemed too late to me. If the timing was just a bit premature on the rigged lamp poles, that would account for Lloyde not hearing the explosion until some seconds after his collision. It could explain much of the eye witness testimony. These events were all happening very closely together with military precision. A remote-controlled American Airlines jet could be timed to arrive on a nearby low approach path and fly very low over the Pentagon. When the large 500 mph Boeing 767 reached a predetermined point from the Pentagon, a cruise missile, incoming at 3500 mph, would be timed to strike the Pentagon just as fly over occurs. MM |
|
|
|
| JFK | Oct 30 2008, 05:14 PM Post #75 |
|
Something else which I just noticed.... This is NOT in the 84 RADES data  Therefore either the 84 RADES data is fake, or the plane could have flown over undetected..... Or both. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
4:35 AM Nov 29
