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

Lyte Trip said:
The perspective of that image foreshortens the length of the pole.

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/pentagon%20trip/cabandlongpole.jpg[/qimg]

The bend in the pole is at the very top and the pole is close to 40 feet long.

You are also forgetting the driver claims that after being speared by the pole while he was cruising down the highway at 40 mph, he skidded, came to a sideways stop, got out of the car, accepted help from a silent stranger, and THEN removed the pole with help outside of the car.

In other words his "perception" of the pole was not limited to his view from inside the car.
Click to expand...

The fact remains that given :
the tip of the pole in the back of the car / it resting on the dashboard / the pole's length / the width of the pole's base, it looks to me very unlikely that it even could have damaged the hood.
But that would depend on exact dimensions and degrees of curvature.

Other possibilities are -

that for a while (until he came to a halt, sideways after skidding) the pole was actually supported for a while by the base of the seat - or some other solid structure at the back of the car - but was then flung sideways when he stopped.

that he's rotten at drawing
 
Lyte Trip said:
Unless you incororate the geometry of the pole into your calculations they are worthless.

Try again.
Click to expand...

Hey, no sweat. To incorporate the geometry of the pole, the center of mass moves a little towards the center of the arc That is the bend in the pole. since the bend would effectivly shorten the length of the pole, it would bring the center of mass closer to the fulcrum and lessening the mechanical advantage.
 
Bell said:
Mathematics can't explain what common sense can [/trifle troll mode]



Mathematics can't explain what common sense can [/trifle troll mode]



Mathematics can't explain what common sense can [/trifle troll mode]



Mathematics can't explain what common sense can [/trifle troll mode]
Click to expand...

Correct.

If I am wrong then you should easily be able to use mathematics to prove it.

Get to work.
 
Trifikas said:
Hey, no sweat. To incorporate the geometry of the pole, the center of mass moves a little towards the center of the arc That is the bend in the pole. since the bend would effectivly shorten the length of the pole, it would bring the center of mass closer to the fulcrum and lessening the mechanical advantage.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

The pole is tapered and most of the weight is closer to the base.
 
Lyte Trip, can you help me out? I'm finding your conclusion in this thread more than a little confusing. To recap your position Lyte Trip, is your contention that:

1) The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 2001 was not caused by a plane crash.

2) Parties unknown (let's call them The Conspiracy,) faked evidence to make the damage to the Pentagon look like a plane crash.

3) Part of their deception involved damaging and staging Mr Lloyd Englande's taxi.

4) Mr Englande is now telling a story accounting for the damage to his taxi that is not the truth.

5) Your evidence that Mr Englande is not telling the truth is the variation between his verbal statements and the physical evidence of his car and the light pole which allegedly struck it, as evidenced by pictures taken at the scene on September 11 2001.

6) You have discounted any possible mistake or vagueness of memory on the part of Mr Englande.

7) You have determined that Mr Englandes account makes extremely specific claims regarding the final postion of the light pole on Mr Englande's car which are subject to mathematical and physical analysis.

8) You have performed the required analysis and disproved Mr Englande's specific testable claims.

9) Your conclusion is that Mr Englande is lying, willingly or otherwise, on behalf of the Conspiracy.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here. I just want to know if I understand your basic position. Please correct anything I have misunderstood in the course of this thread.
 
GlennB said:
The fact remains that given :
the tip of the pole in the back of the car / it resting on the dashboard / the pole's length / the width of the pole's base, it looks to me very unlikely that it even could have damaged the hood.
But that would depend on exact dimensions and degrees of curvature.

Other possibilities are -

that for a while (until he came to a halt, sideways after skidding) the pole was actually supported for a while by the base of the seat - or some other solid structure at the back of the car - but was then flung sideways when he stopped.

that he's rotten at drawing
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

The bend of the pole is at the very top and was limited to the back seat area according to Lloyd.

chipmunk erroneously places it on the dash in order to make sense out of Lloyd's impossible account.
 
GlennB said:
that he's rotten at drawing
Click to expand...

That's not how I would say it, but it is what I have been thinking.

You know, Little Lying Trifle Troll, there are more people as bad at drawing as you are.

*remembers LT's drawing of a lever lol*
 
chillzero said:
About the accuracy of Mr England's testimony.

He says he didn't see the car again, and never drove it again after that day. He has no tv evidence showing what happened to him - only his panicked flashes of what happened at the time.

I was in a crash a few years back - a minor one - and I was convinced that I had been THAT close to having my legs crushed by the impact over my side wheel from the other car. After a day or two I even thought I remembered the touch of the metal coming toward my feet, and my pulling them away. A few days later I went to my car at the recovery yard, and was astonished to find that the impact had been further from my feet than I had realised, and the car was not so badly dented as to have put my legs in any danger. If I had never seen the car again, I would probably still be convinced I had been lucky to walk away from a near-crippling accident.

Adrenaline and shock do big things to memories, and this man makes no attempt to cover up the fact that his memory of the event is imperfect. When he tries to correct what is put to him, he is ignored, and the same point made again until he is too flustered or exasperated with the rudeness to argue back with any conviction.

Very poor approach, in my opinion. You should be ashamed to be using this interview anywhere.
Click to expand...

Oh - and I forgot to mention... when I had my crash, I didn't have the Pentagon in flames nearby.

I just don't understand your problem with this poor man, or your reasoning behind why he would lie.
 
Carnivore said:
Lyte Trip, can you help me out? I'm finding your conclusion in this thread more than a little confusing. To recap your position Lyte Trip, is your contention that:

1) The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 2001 was not caused by a plane crash.

2) Parties unknown (let's call them The Conspiracy,) faked evidence to make the damage to the Pentagon look like a plane crash.

3) Part of their deception involved damaging and staging Mr Lloyd Englande's taxi.

4) Mr Englande is now telling a story accounting for the damage to his taxi that is not the truth.

5) Your evidence that Mr Englande is not telling the truth is the variation between his verbal statements and the physical evidence of his car and the light pole which allegedly struck it, as evidenced by pictures taken at the scene on September 11 2001.

6) You have discounted any possible mistake or vagueness of memory on the part of Mr Englande.

7) You have determined that Mr Englandes account makes extremely specific claims regarding the final postion of the light pole on Mr Englande's car which are subject to mathematical and physical analysis.

8) You have performed the required analysis and disproved Mr Englande's specific testable claims.

9) Your conclusion is that Mr Englande is lying, willingly or otherwise, on behalf of the Conspiracy.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here. I just want to know if I understand your basic position. Please correct anything I have misunderstood in the course of this thread.
Click to expand...

That is correct except that I also have multiple independently corroborated accounts that the plane flew on the north side of the station that will satisfactorily demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt to EVERYONE that Lloyd's claim impossible.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Incorrect.

The bend of the pole is at the very top and was limited to the back seat area according to Lloyd.

chipmunk erroneously places it on the dash in order to make sense out of Lloyd's impossible account.
Click to expand...
For crying out loud. You accept a claim of England when it supports your case, and dismiss a claim of England when it doesn't support your case.

Why do you accept that the bend of the pole was inside the car if you don't accept other aspects of the testimony?

Why?



Why?
 
roger said:
I've gone through relatively minor (compared to this event) tramautic events (rock climbing) with people and we each usually end up with differing/inconsistant stories after the event. This doesn't mean the event did not happen; it means memory is inconsistant, especially pertaining to details that aren't important to the process of survival (such as what angle a pole was at relative to a car).

Inconsistancies in a 5 year old memorized event is not evidence of the event not happening, it is not evidence of a coverup, or a lie. It's expected, normal, almost inevitable.
Click to expand...

Ive asked this of him several times through two threads. My personal experience with a LIght pole through a car and my "confusion" on the matter when I tried to identify the guy who caused the destruction and why my "memory" was in error at the time. It didn't take me 5 years to misremember something; it took only 50 minutes.

Still no answer from Lyte Headed about it.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Incorrect.

The pole is tapered and most of the weight is closer to the base.
Click to expand...

Won't matter. Put all the weight of the pole on that side of the fulcrum at your best mechanical advantage - 3x. it's only 720 lbs of force. The taxi ain't moving.
 
Lyte Trip said:
That is correct except that I also have multiple independently corroborated accounts that the plane flew on the north side of the station that will satisfactorily demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt to EVERYONE that Lloyd's claim impossible.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the geography there.
Perhaps you could draw a map showing the Pentagon, the station, and Mr England, that will help me understand what you are trying to say?
 
chillzero said:
Oh - and I forgot to mention... when I had my crash, I didn't have the Pentagon in flames nearby.

I just don't understand your problem with this poor man, or your reasoning behind why he would lie.
Click to expand...

I already answered this many times.

I don't know "why" he would lie.

Perhaps he has been coerced, mentally manipulated, or bribed.

But I do know that I have evidence that will show everyone beyond a reasonable doubt that his claim is impossible.
 
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