Please
respect the opinions of others. The conspiracy forum covers some
sensitive and controversial areas and it is important that participants
avoid uncivil behaviour. This means no flaming, no trolling, no flamebaiting and no personal attacks against other members.
Please
try to keep an open mind, there is little point in posting in this
section if you are unwilling to consider any opposing viewpoints. If
you are unable to discuss issues without becoming rude and offensive
towards anyone who does not share your opinions or beliefs then the
conspiracy forum is not for you.
Members are also asked to avoid
copying and pasting huge amounts of text from other web sites to
support an argument. One or two quoted paragraphs and a source link are
more than sufficient, and always include your own opinion to go along
with any quoted material you use.
Full forum rules and guidelines can be found - Here.
I'm glad that you atleast admit that you are going on a hunch here. You think that she was apparently being sarcastic; I don't.
As a minimum it is fact that Lloyd England’s wife has a problem with CIT; she understandably does not like them.
I'm
not sure if she doesn't like CIT per se, so much as how their expose
might affect her and her husband. I have a feeling that she may also be
tormented as to how much she should reveal.
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM)
She
was also being deliberately uncooperative, eg when asked about the taxi
cab. This is clearly observed in the interview. Stepping into your
fantasy for moment then and assuming for whatever reason that ‘she
knows all about the flyover’ why ever would she suddenly at that point
‘admit it’ to them? It makes as much sense as the rest of this rampant
speculation – none.
Like I
said before, a tormented conscience is a powerful thing. For a brief
moment, she may have decided that it would be best to reveal some
things.
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM)
QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 01:18 AM)
And
since we're already in the realm of speculation, why not go further;
what if she knows that the official story is a lie? Or as Lloyd said in
an exchange with Craig Ranke:
Lloyd: You know what history is? Just what I said you gotta understand what you are saying. History is his story.
CIT: Absolutely.
Lloyd: It's not the truth, it's his story! It has nothing to do with the truth, it's his story!
Have
you seen the movie Men In Black? ‘What if’ she is ‘maybe’ an alien
‘perhaps’ inhabiting the body of the ‘alleged’ Lloyd England’s wife?
Hmmm… interesting theory yes? Well I’m sure you can’t prove this isn’t
the case.
I think you'd agree that when delving into the speculative, we should try to stick to the more plausible possibilities.
This post has been edited by Scott G: Today, 12:13 AM
In case you missed me mentioning it in post 236, here it is again:
3.
personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias [e.g.:]
Of course she's in favor, but then she has her own agenda.
In the aforementioned post, I further elaborated on this definition:
But
then, don't we all have personal motivations and viewpoints? And I have
yet to meet a person who has no bias at all. I find that the most
useful thing is to simply try to put yourself in the shoes of others.
Why do they believe or atleast claim to believe this or that? I have
found that by attempting to keep to this way of seeing things, that the
world becomes an incredibly complex place. On the plus side, however, I
find that I get frustrated with people less. When attempting to
persuade someone, to me it becomes something like a very complicated
puzzle; if I could just find which pieces of evidence that they'd
believe and that I could provide, I could persuade them...
I
think that CIT simply tried to present the information in such a way so
that what they believe to have learned from the witnesses would be
evident to the viewers. Clearly, this hasn't always been the case; I
believe you are a testament to this.
Yes,
but we must still be aware that there are different types of agenda –
those based on what people want to believe and those based on evidence
are two differing examples. One agenda can push fantasy and speculation
whilst the other promotes the truth. My agenda and CIT’s agenda follow
different philosophies.
I
personally would like to believe that both you and CIT want to reveal
the truth. In your defense, I have noticed (and have made this clear to
both CIT and P4T) that their patience is not as long as my own. I
believe it is for this reason that both groups have booted you from
their forums, with one of those bootings still in effect I believe (the
CIT one). However, the more I look at the evidence, the more I believe
that you are missing out on a lot of the important evidence they and I
have presented to you.
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM)
QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 01:48 AM)
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 06:30 PM)
QUOTE (Craig Ranke)
This
right here has always kept me questioning Lloyd's account, I mean why
would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent
stranger who allegedly helped him. And he also claims he fell down
removing the pole, so if he did fall over while holding the pole,
naturally this would damage the cab as well. So there are many factors
that don't make sense about Lloyd's account. And after visiting the
cab, and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up
his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible, in
fact now we're even more certain that this light pole could not have
speared the windshield of Lloyd's cab.
Perhaps Lloyd England removed the pole because he didn’t want to drive around with it sticking out of his taxi cab.
Assuming
that he could have lifted it out of his car, even with the help of
someone else, there are still all the other points that CIT has made,
and which I see you have yet to address.
What points?
Sigh. The paragraph you were responding to was the punchline of the 3rd point in my post 243. You skipped right over the first 2. Here they are again..
Point 1:
QUOTE (Craig Ranke)
And
now we get to look close at the interior, and see if there's anything
here, because Lloyd claims that the pole speared the windshield of the
cab. So a lot of people figured, well you don't know, maybe the pole
went all the way through the back seat, and that's what held it up over
the hood and why it didn't scratch the hood, so this means it would
literally have to puncture the back seat and through the floor boards,
perhaps.
This may have held up such a long pole, but the fact is
there's no damage to the cab in this regard. So now we know for a fact
that the floor boards were intact, in fact they were holding water at
the time. There was only a minor puncture [picture of minor puncture]
in the back seat, very minor. So the pole certainly didn't go through
it.
Point 2:
QUOTE (Craig Ranke)
Ofcourse,
even if it had, it would be strange, because the top part of the pole
was bent [picture of pole], so if it had punctured all the way through,
it's doubtful that it would have been able to lift the pole out at all.
I
have also seen no evidence that the light pole was ever even in his
cab, and the points that CIT has made to discredit the possibility that
it was sound logical to me.
So let’s get this straight – despite the fact his windshield was smashed, the dashboard damaged, the rear seat ripped,
Many things can smash a windshield, damage a dashboard and mildly rip the rear seat.
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM)
the light pole lay by his taxi cab
Yes,
it lay -by- his taxi cab. Not in it. All the solid evidence points
towards it being impossible that it had ever been lodged in Lloyd's cab.
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM)
and Lloyd England’s account itself are all well documented,
His
account is well documented, yes, but he has since contradicted his own
account. When you add this with the fact that it seems impossible that
the light pole was ever in his account, we're well on our way to
confirming this to be a staged event.
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM)
you say there is no evidence the light pole was in the cab.
That's right.
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM)
Yet you are happy to believe undercover agents ran into the middle of the road in broad daylight,
Ran? Please. They walked. With notepads. This close to the pentagon, this was clearly their turf.
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM)
faked the damage to the cab, dragged the light pole into position
It
would seem their may actually be a bit of evidence of the light pole
being dragged into position, as well as evidence that it was never in
Lloyd's cab. If I can ferret it out from P4T, I may bring it up here.
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM)
and then bribed or threatened Lloyd England to go along with this plot, all with no evidence. ph34r.gif
The
most damning evidence is the fact that all the reliable eyewitnesses
place the plane north of the citgo gas station, and therefore away from
the downed light poles. Since the plane couldn't have taken them down,
-something- had to have done it. At which point, Men in Black setting
up the scene begins to make a lot more sense.
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM)
QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 17 2009, 01:48 AM)
However,
there are limits to the amount of research that I'm willing to do in a
given amount of time, so at times we get what I'll call an impass; you
state that the list doesn't have the information required to counter
your points and I don't want to spend the time trying to ascertain
whether you're right or wrong.
A quick glance of the list will tell you that it does not counter the eyewitnesses.
It's precisely your quick glances that I don't trust. I'll get back to this later though.
QUOTE (Q24 @ Aug 16 2009, 10:26 PM)
I
hope you are not meaning that I could provide the evidence supporting
the official flight path and completely overwhelming the handful of
North of Citgo claims yet you won’t spend the time to confirm this.
That would be wilful ignorance of evidence against your theory.
After
reviewing your track record over at P4T, it seems that you were the one
who was overwhelmed. I said as much over there, when tracking the
progression of what I call subthread 13, in this post: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10775249
This post has been edited by Scott G: Today, 12:51 AM
Group: Member
Posts: 480
Joined: 16-February 08
Member No.: 69024
QUOTE
His
account is well documented, yes, but he has since contradicted his own
account. When you add this with the fact that it seems impossible that
the light pole was ever in his account, we're well on our way to
confirming this to be a staged event.
This
is one of the stupidist insinuations. The crack team of artful hacks
who descended upon that old man got him worked up and confused.
Pick on someone your own age.
Creeps!
And, now your smear his name all over the internet?
Lowlife is a proper term for such behavior.
But, hey. It typical of leftwing hacks to be mean to innocent, old men.
Look, from where I, P4T and CIT stand, the official flight path was: (1) impossible (as P4T has made clear)
False.
Near everyone appears to agree that there are some problems with the
Flight 77 black box data released by the NTSB and I can’t find a
serious rebuttal to this anywhere. This does not logically lead to the
conclusion that the official flight path was “impossible”. Instrument
error, human error or even faked data could be responsible for the
black box data problems.
I
agree that some of the data may have been faked; the fact that there
was no push back of the dial when going down is one place that was
clearly faked. However, the most important point is that the black box
data has the plane on a North of the Citgo gas station approach.
Clearly, they didn't do a very good job faking the data, because it
clearly contradicts the official flight path, as well as the damage
trajectory at the pentagon. But this isn't why I said that the official
flight path was impossible.
The reason I stated it was
impossible was because of the information contained in one of P4T's
videos. Specifically, information from P4T's 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, starting at 9:52 and ending a few minutes later:
...we will demonstrate the accuracy of the scale and topography at the end of this presentation.
The
radius of this ark is 20.5 centimeters. But remember the scale of this
presentation is 1 cm= 100 ft. So we need to multiply 100 to 20.85 and
we get a radius of 2,085 feet.
With the radius, we can use a
simple formula required for measuring acceleration as "a = v^2 / r".
This is the proper formula to use for such a problem.
Using
the velocity as provided by the NTSB for both scenarios, 781 f/s, we
need to square that, then divide by 2085, to get 292.5 f/s squared. We
then divide that by 32 f/s squared to get 9.14 G.
G
force calculation for this pull up equals 9.14 Gs. We also need to add
1 G for earth's gravity, for a total of 10.14 Gs required.
Transport
category aircraft are limited to 2.5 positive Gs. Although a 757 could
perhaps withstand more G forces then 2.5, it's highly unlikely it could
withstand more than 5 or 6.
Remember, this calculation is for
the least challenging pull. If we hypothetically lower the aircraft
altitude from the NTSB plotted altitude, to the lower height of the
VDOT antenna.
As we can see G loads required to pull out of a
dive from the top of the VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757. It is
off the charts if we account for altitude as plotted and produced by
the NTSB.
Placing the aircraft at the FDR altitude, the most
challenging pull, we can measure the radius of the ark needed to pull
out of such a dive.
Again, we switch to the orthogonal view, for
accurate measurements and we get a radius of 576.9 feet. Plugging that
radius into the same formula, and adding 1 g for earth's gravity, we
get 34 Gs.