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.
Site Message
Forum guidelines
General of all American Intelligence:, 911 was a fraud. video
Today, 12:10 AM
0.1178 sec
--
13 
GZIP Enabled
