Discussion of the Pentagon taxi cab driver's impossible account.

chipmunk stew said:
Spin is saying that Lloyd "I can't say, I don't know" England made a specific claim about the way the pole protruded from his cab.

Quote:
RUSSELL: So the curved part comes out here
LLOYD: I don't know, I don't know-
RUSSEL: And the base part is out like this? [Gestures up in air]
LLOYD: No, it was down lower, down this way. [Gestures to right and down]. See it's the, it's the car that held it up.
RUSSELL: Okay.
LLOYD: The inside, the interior of the car that held it up.
RUSSELL: The interior blew [still gesturing upwards]
LLOYD: The dashboard held it up.
RUSSELL: Was it resting on the hood or was it up [still gesturing up]
LLOYD: I can't say, I don't know. But it was out here.
RUSSELL: Okay.

Definitely willfully obtuse.

The man's words are not going away. You can't run from them.
Click to expand...

Lloyd specifically says that it was the dashboard that held the pole up. The picture of the interior shows damage to the dashboard.
 
Lyte - just a small diversion, but what is the eventual point that you're trying to make here?

Hate to put words in your mouth, but it seems to be something like this -

That the conspirators - who were busy pulling off the most outrageously complex (and, to themselves, lethally dangerous) pieces of treasonous mass-murder in history - would bother to inflict false damage on a taxi, in plain view of other drivers on a busy road,and threaten Mr England into complying with their scheme, in order to bolster some false claim that an airliner crossed the road at that point?

Is this what you're saying (or, at least, hinting at) ? That they'd choose to add an extra layer of completely useless "evidence" and utterly unprofitable risk to their plot?

If not, please clarify.
 
Gravy said:
Right, and Lloyde's drawing is a forensic document, drawn to scale, with the pole 10 feet long. Right, chemtrail boy?
Click to expand...

It illustrates the details that he also describes and you all refuse to acknowledge because you know it's impossible.

He has NEVER claimed the pole was touching the ground and he has REPEATEDLY claimed it was suspended over the hood.

I am waiting on chipmunks graphic representing this or else he has also conceded that Lloyd's account is impossible.
 
chippy said:
Sorry for the drama, but this appears to be the only way to get Lyte Trip to answer the question.
Click to expand...

No, he doesn't. You first have to call him names. Then he responds... by reporting it to the mods.

Little Lying Lyte Troll is a child. Trying to impress the big guys, but when the big guys push him away, he runs crying to his mummy.
 
Lyte Trip said:
...Also according to Lloyd the pole was NOT touching the ground but was suspended in mid-air over the hood.
Click to expand...
Source this.

Lyte Trip said:
Chipmunk's graphic contradicts Lloyd's claim in an effort to rationalize his impossible account.
Click to expand...
1) The ground is not pictured in Chipmunk Stew's graphic
2) You have not demonstrated how it contradicts Mr. England's statements.

Lyte Trip said:
In doing so he too has conceded that Lloyd's account is impossible.
Click to expand...
No. For him to concede Mr. England's account is impossible, Chipmunk would need to state something to that effect. As it stands, Chipmunk's hypothetical, as shown in the graphic, is just that; a hypothetical.

Lyte Trip said:
The only way for chipmunk to save face
Click to expand...
This isn't about Japanese honor, and seppuku; this is about dealing with the objective, verifiable facts of the situation.

Lyte Trip said:
is to create another image depicting the pole suspended in mid air AS LLOYD CLAIMS IN HIS ACCOUNT.
Click to expand...
Source this.
 
Lyte Trip said:
You sure are!

This is exactly why they were able to stage it without people noticing.
Click to expand...

Darn I have seen a light post in a windshield before but you, who cites chemtrails can not believe a simple light weight post in a car window balance inside against a seat. Was the seat leather, tough leather or weak leather. Next time get more light and turn off the flash when you take pictures of pictures.

You are not the brightest bulb in the bunch, but you have the qualifications for a nut case truther. Do not start using that organ of thought anytime soon. You will have to change groups!
 
Lyte Trip said:
Not a lie at all.

The article implies it was the impact and makes no mention of secondary explosions.

I did not even attribute the claim to Lloyd and wrote it off as a mistake of the reporter.

Nice strawman. (as usual)
Click to expand...
That's another lie, Craig. That makes three. Shall I keep a tally.

Nothing implies that Lloyde heard the impact after he exited his car. YOU MADE THAT UP.

Stop, Craig. You have a serious mental problem that has led you to accuse 9/11 victims of complicity in the attacks. Please get help. This is not a game.
 
Lyte Trip said:
I believe all damage to the cab was pre-fabricated and staged.

I have evidence that will prove this HAD to be the case and you will be forced to concede this or call multiple other much more credible witnesses liars.
Click to expand...

Lyte Trip said:
Lloyd's account is impossible.

He is likely a victim but only as a patsy to a false flag black operation.
Click to expand...

This is what Gravy means when he reminds you that your posts aren't going away.

Exactly how could the damage to the cab have been "prefabricated and staged" if Mr. England was a "victim" or "patsy"?

"Oh, Mr. England, would you mind terribly if we smashed your window in, and then parked your car in the middle of the highway? Why? Oh, no reason..."


:boggled:

If you believe that the damage was staged, you must believe the Mr. England was in on it, just admit it. No more pussy-footing around.
 
Lyte Trip said:
I believe all damage to the cab was pre-fabricated and staged.

I have evidence that will prove this HAD to be the case and you will be forced to concede this or call multiple other much more credible witnesses liars.
Click to expand...

So the evil gubmint staged damage to the cab, but like idiots they left the hood undamaged so that brilliant investigators such as yourself could prove the impossibility of the story?
 
GlennB said:
Lyte - just a small diversion, but what is the eventual point that you're trying to make here?

Hate to put words in your mouth, but it seems to be something like this -

That the conspirators - who were busy pulling off the most outrageously complex (and, to themselves, lethally dangerous) pieces of treasonous mass-murder in history - would bother to inflict false damage on a taxi, in plain view of other drivers on a busy road,and threaten Mr England into complying with their scheme, in order to bolster some false claim that an airliner crossed the road at that point?

Is this what you're saying (or, at least, hinting at) ? That they'd choose to add an extra layer of completely useless "evidence" and utterly unprofitable risk to their plot?

If not, please clarify.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The damage to the light poles and the cab were pre-fabricated and staged in order to establish the fake flight path of the plane into the pentagon.

The damage to the pentagon was staged in order to simulate the impact of a 757.

A decoy plane flew fast and low over the neighborhoods to fool the people into believing a plane made impact but in reality it flew over the pentagon concealed by the fireball.

It was a perfectly timed sleight of hand illusion.

But the course of the plane was accidently off a little bit placing the plane to the north of the citgo station.

As a result of this miniscule mistake the entire plot will be exposed.
 
Lyte Trip said:
That transcript specifically states how he claims it was held "up".
Click to expand...
Source this.

Lyte Trip said:
Nowhere does he EVER indicate it was anywhere near the ground.
Click to expand...
Abscense of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Also, argumentum ad logicam... again.

Lyte Trip said:
And YOU are being obtuse by refusing to acknowledge the illustration that lloyd made which is ALSO showing exactly what he is describing:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/lloydsillustration.jpg
Pole suspended in mid-air over the hood.
Not touching the ground.
Click to expand...
Context of the drawing? What dialogue surrounded the drawings creation? How accurate does Mr. England claim this drawing to be?
 
Lyte Trip said:
It illustrates the details that he also describes and you all refuse to acknowledge because you know it's impossible.

He has NEVER claimed the pole was touching the ground and he has REPEATEDLY claimed it was suspended over the hood.

I am waiting on chipmunks graphic representing this or else he has also conceded that Lloyd's account is impossible.
Click to expand...
Stop, Craig. You have a serious mental problem that has led you to accuse 9/11 victims of complicity in the attacks. Please get help. This is not a game.
 
Horatius said:
If you believe that the damage was staged, you must believe the Mr. England was in on it, just admit it. No more pussy-footing around.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he was.

Or else he has been threatened or manipulated.

This would make him a victim.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Wrong.

The damage to the light poles and the cab were pre-fabricated and staged in order to establish the fake flight path of the plane into the pentagon.

The damage to the pentagon was staged in order to simulate the impact of a 757.

A decoy plane flew fast and low over the neighborhoods to fool the people into believing a plane made impact but in reality it flew over the pentagon concealed by the fireball.

It was a perfectly timed sleight of hand illusion.

But the course of the plane was accidently off a little bit placing the plane to the north of the citgo station.

As a result of this miniscule mistake the entire plot will be exposed.
Click to expand...
Stop, Craig. You have a serious mental problem that has led you to accuse 9/11 victims of complicity in the attacks. Please get help. This is not a game.
 
Lyte Trip said:
I believe all damage to the cab was pre-fabricated and staged.

I have evidence that will prove this HAD to be the case and you will be forced to concede this or call multiple other much more credible witnesses liars.
Click to expand...

so you';re claiming that Lloyde purposefully drove down the freeway knowing that flight AA77 was going to fly over head at the exact time it did that day, with a 40' light pole sticking out of his car just so that he was right here when it all went down? :eek::jaw-dropp
 
Gravy said:
Stop, Craig. You have a serious mental problem that has led you to accuse 9/11 victims of complicity in the attacks. Please get help. This is not a game.
Click to expand...

I know it's not a game.

I have evidence that will prove my claims.

You will be forced to concede or call multiple other more credible witnesses liars.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Perhaps he was.

Or else he has been threatened or manipulated.

This would make him a victim.
Click to expand...
Stop, Craig. You have a serious mental problem that has led you to accuse 9/11 victims of complicity in the attacks. Please get help. This is not a game. Think about what you are doing. You are behaving despicably.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Wrong.

The damage to the light poles and the cab were pre-fabricated and staged in order to establish the fake flight path of the plane into the pentagon.

The damage to the pentagon was staged in order to simulate the impact of a 757.

A decoy plane flew fast and low over the neighborhoods to fool the people into believing a plane made impact but in reality it flew over the pentagon concealed by the fireball.

It was a perfectly timed sleight of hand illusion.

But the course of the plane was accidently off a little bit placing the plane to the north of the citgo station.

As a result of this miniscule mistake the entire plot will be exposed.
Click to expand...

And you actually believe this ?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Not a lie at all.

The article implies it was the impact and makes no mention of secondary explosions.
Click to expand...
The article states, "As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion". Your presenting this as unequivecally being the impact, and then your use of argumentum ad ignoratium regarding any possible subsequent explosions constitutes a willfully false statement, aka a lie.

Lyte Trip said:
I did not even attribute the claim to Lloyd and wrote it off as a mistake of the reporter.
Click to expand...
So, now you are interpretting a news article to support your contention?

Lyte Trip said:
Nice strawman. (as usual)
Click to expand...
You wouldn't know a strawman if he asked your for a brain:

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong. In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom