ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd May 2009, 03:33 PM   #41
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
I actually feel sorry for Craig. He has very clearly gone "over the edge" and hopefully he'll land on his feet, but I'm not optimistic. Dude needs serious, serious help.
Some people just aren't meant to fit into regular society. He will likely spend his years unhappy, paranoid, and angry with the world, and those who run it.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 04:41 PM   #42
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by Alzke View Post
He is quite adament that he and his cab were *NOT* on the bridge where the widely circulated photos show him. He even points out specifically where the pictures were actually taken. Lloyde does not seem senile or "tricked" by Craig as many on this board have claimed. In fact he comes across as street wise with a sharp memory, as I would expect a cab driver to be.

Go to 6:52 in the video and listen to his comments regarding the thing "so big" that he can't do anything about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho
This one is easy. He WAS on the bridge (multiple photos and witnesses to that effect). This means he is confused now by Ranke's continued badgering of him, or he simply has forgotten. Since he is very much wrong at this point, I would also take any other recalls he has with "a grain of salt". I hope this resolves the issue for you.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 05:05 PM   #43
nicepants
Graduate Poster
 
nicepants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,722
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
I actually feel sorry for Craig. He has very clearly gone "over the edge" and hopefully he'll land on his feet, but I'm not optimistic. Dude needs serious, serious help.
Meh...it's kinda hard to feel sorry for someone who acts the way he and aldo do. I think at this point they know that no one cares about their BS and they're doing all they can do to draw attention (but only internet message board attention...not the attention of any authorities, etc).

I look forward to the day when Craig & Aldo look back on their past and think what the rest of us are thinking about them now.
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein
nicepants is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 05:41 PM   #44
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
I dunno what is worse, assaulting a handicapped person, or pestering, to exhaustion and confusion, a quiet old man.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 06:39 PM   #45
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,805
If you look at some of the expressions on Lloyde's face and really listen to some of things he's saying, I get the impression that Mr. England is simply screwing with Ranke's head.

Call it a hunch.
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 07:47 PM   #46
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,830
I didn't think they made screwdrivers that small. /derail
fitzgibbon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 08:31 PM   #47
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,664
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
If you look at some of the expressions on Lloyde's face and really listen to some of things he's saying, I get the impression that Mr. England is simply screwing with Ranke's head.

Call it a hunch.
Exactly. It also appears to me that Lloyde is onto Ranke's thoughts and is just playing mind game with him. He knows it is not worthwhile to confront someone like Ranke and is simply screwing with his mind. There is nothing at all wrong with Lloyde's thoughts. He's just playing with Ranke and is marvelously successful with it. After all, it doesn't take genius to see through Ranke's thoughts. Lloyde is simply playing Ranke like a violin. He is smarter than Ranke, which is not difficult at all....

Lloyde may be old, but he is not a confused old man. He knows what he's doing, Ranke has swallowed it "hook, line, and sinker".
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 08:42 PM   #48
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,805
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Exactly. It also appears to me that Lloyde is onto Ranke's thoughts and is just playing mind game with him. He knows it is not worthwhile to confront someone like Ranke and is simply screwing with his mind. There is nothing at all wrong with Lloyde's thoughts. He's just playing with Ranke and is marvelously successful with it. After all, it doesn't take genius to see through Ranke's thoughts. Lloyde is simply playing Ranke like a violin. He is smarter than Ranke, which is not difficult at all....

Lloyde may be old, but he is not a confused old man. He knows what he's doing, Ranke has swallowed it "hook, line, and sinker".
The only thing that could make it any sweeter is if Ranke actually paid Mr. England for his time.
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 08:57 PM   #49
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,020
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
If you look at some of the expressions on Lloyde's face and really listen to some of things he's saying, I get the impression that Mr. England is simply screwing with Ranke's head.

Call it a hunch.
Don't forget, when England was in the taxi on 9-11 what was on the seat beside him?

A David Icke book.

I kid you not.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 09:11 PM   #50
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
There... are... four... lights!
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 02:33 AM   #51
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
These sociopaths have gone from dimwitted but amusing on down the food scale to disgusting manipulators.

Not one of their four or five greasy fan boys (Craig, Aldo, Preston, Mirage Memories and the useful idiots like JFK and Lin) finds it curious that Lloyd's testimony is getting fuller and more detailed with the passing years - playing right into the kind of conspiracy crap they want to hear?

Now his wife is a sooper sekret agent at the FBI? To hear Craig tell it, she must be doing black bag stuff. Funny how this hasn't come up in all these years before now.

I think there's a slight possibility that Lloyd's doing 1001 Arabian Nights and just stringing them along so long as he gets attention, but I doubt that he's intentionally playing with them - more unconscious than conscious.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 04:06 AM   #52
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
I didn't think of it that way, but it would be *********** hillarious if it were true.

So the boys get this explosive evidence from him, go to the local tv station, they do a follow up interview, and Lloyd tells them he was fooling with the boys.

I think I would laugh for a week.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 04:11 PM   #53
Bobert
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,126
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
I didn't think they made screwdrivers that small. /derail
Bobert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 12:19 PM   #54
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,193
Originally Posted by 911files View Post
This one is easy. He WAS on the bridge (multiple photos and witnesses to that effect). This means he is confused now by Ranke's continued badgering of him, or he simply has forgotten. Since he is very much wrong at this point, I would also take any other recalls he has with "a grain of salt". I hope this resolves the issue for you.
I look at :46 of the video. My guess is the interpretation of the phrase "on the bridge". In my opinion, Lloyd is not "on the bridge", but right before it.

I thought about this and if I were stopped in traffic in his locaiton and someone asked me to describe where I was, I would say "right before the bridge that passes over blah blah".

Am I wrong here?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 02:08 PM   #55
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
We got this over at DU today:
Quote:
His reaction during the 2008 interview was curious to be sure and it was all recorded complete with CIT's trip to his property in "the country" to get exclusive images and footage of the same cab preserved as it was seen damaged in all the images on 9/11.

Besides the fact that he shifted his story to match with the north side evidence proving his story false.....CIT kept audio recording for most of the experience and Lloyde was a lot more candid about his involvement when he didn't know he was being recorded.

He in essence admitted it was a "planned" event by the people with "all the money" and that he had to go along with it because it was "too big" for him to be able to do anything about it.

He admitted this with a smile on his face and a sort of wink and nudge while trying to distance himself from the planners by stressing how he is a "small man".

Here is the damning virtual confession as seen in the video. I call it a "virtual confession" because he basically admits involvement while maintaining innocence.
Brainster is right. England buys into the Icke crapola, it seems.

It seems to me that England could get them for defamation and harassment. He couldn't recover much cash in the way of judgment, but I bet a prison term wouldn't be too far off the mark. Would England ever file charges, though?
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 02:49 PM   #56
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,079
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
Incidently, a lot of new users are jumping on that post. I wonder if the treefort has branched into DU permanently? I know that both Craig, Aldo and Dom have posted there in the past, but they seem to have disappeared again.

I wonder if DU runs a tigh check on possible sockpuppets.

Also, I see they're already lining up Bolo's mock trial in the above mentioned thread

ETA: Looks like the thread got pulled.

Last edited by KDLarsen; 5th May 2009 at 03:01 PM.
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 03:34 PM   #57
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by Alzke View Post
Caught this one posted by Craig on the Above Top Secret Forums

Now I know the mere mention of CIT is sure to bring out some strong emotions on this board but I found this video very interesting. PLEASE disregard the accusing nature and tone of Craig and the video and listen to Lloyde.

He is quite adament that he and his cab were *NOT* on the bridge where the widely circulated photos show him. He even points out specifically where the pictures were actually taken. Lloyde does not seem senile or "tricked" by Craig as many on this board have claimed. In fact he comes across as street wise with a sharp memory, as I would expect a cab driver to be.

Go to 6:52 in the video and listen to his comments regarding the thing "so big" that he can't do anything about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho
Originally Posted by 911files View Post
This one is easy. He WAS on the bridge (multiple photos and witnesses to that effect). This means he is confused now by Ranke's continued badgering of him, or he simply has forgotten. Since he is very much wrong at this point, I would also take any other recalls he has with "a grain of salt". I hope this resolves the issue for you.
As I started reading this thread I wondered when someone would pick up on this.

Yes, Lloyd was on the bridge, the pictures illuistrate that. Perhaps not senile or tricked by Ranke, but still wrong.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2009, 09:14 PM   #58
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
 
1337m4n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel View Post
Better one (warning: nerd's inside joke ahead):
__________________
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif

"The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo
1337m4n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 04:16 PM   #59
rubygray
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 104
Lloyde England and Father Stephen McGraw were CIT's FIRST NORTHSIDE WITNESSES

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
As I started reading this thread I wondered when someone would pick up on this.

Yes, Lloyd was on the bridge, the pictures illuistrate that. Perhaps not senile or tricked by Ranke, but still wrong.
The question NOBODY THOUGHT TO ASK, is ...

WHEN was Lloyde on the bridge?

The first clear photo of Lloyde there, standing behind the brown Jeep rather than near his own cab, is Jason Ingersoll's DSC_0419.
This was taken at 9:55 am.
That is 18 minutes after the impact.

WHEN was the cab on the bridge?

AGAIN, we have Jason Ingersoll's first image of it there, DSC_0412.
This was taken at 9:48 am.
That is 11 minutes after the impact.

The next question is ...

WHERE WAS LLOYDE at 9:37:46 am?

LLOYDE himself answered that, many times.
WHEN IT HAPPENED, he was not on the bridge.
He was driving south on Route 27, north of the heliport, north of the Columbia Pike exit sign, when a pole came crashing through his windshield, scattering glass everywhere.
When his cab skidded to a halt, it was beside the concrete wall below the cemetery.

This location is 350 yards north of the bridge where the famous photos were later taken.

How long does it take to drive 350 yards?
Depending on one's speed, just 20 - 30 seconds.

Although Craig Ranke was happy to accept other eye witnesses' own testimony as to their location at this time, he scoffed at the adamant claims of this career cab driver, as though he was not familiar with his home town, and was too senile to recall his location at this pivotal moment in history.

Marquis' and Ranke's refusal to accept Lloyde's testimony meant that they also rejected the corroborating testimony of other eye witnesses who claimed to have seen or been close to Lloyde's cab.

Therefore, rather than connecting the dots between, say, England's and Father Stephen McGraw's testimonies, which places both of them between the heliport and the cemetery wall at impact, CIT insisted they were both located on top of the bridge beneath the official flight path, and branded both these valuable witnesses as complicit liars in a mass murder plot.

The fact is that while Father Stephen McGraw crossed the road from his car onto the Pentagon lawn at the triage site where he waited for the first victims to be brought out, Lloyde's cab was hastily relocated from the cemetery wall to the bridge site where the scene was carefully staged for the photo series necessary to sell the Official AA77 Flightpath.

Navy Times journalist Mark Faram ran from the Navy Annex after the impact, and arrived at the Pentagon lawn about 15 - 20 minutes later. He shot a series of famous photos at the triage area, including father McGraw praying with victims.

CIT claimed that McGraw had been "bussed in" specifically for this purpose, and that he was nowhere near this site initially, although he had stated that he was already on the lawn within about one minute from witnessing the impact.

However, CIT has now been proven in error.

A single screen capture from an amateur video shot on the northern Pentagon lawn from 9:39 am, shows McGraw waiting there just as he testified, 3 minutes 25 seconds post impact.

McGraw testifies that he merely crossed the lanes of traffic from his stationary car, and waited there beside the lawn.

CIT insisted he would have had to walk the 350 yards from the bridge to get there.

CIT was wrong.

Both England and McGraw were North-of-Citgo witnesses, and their testimonies actually supported CIT's work.

But Aldo and Craig stubbornly rejected their valuable evidence, which hamstrung their own investigation, and destroyed their reputations.
rubygray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 04:33 PM   #60
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,283
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
...

CIT was wrong.

Both England and McGraw were North-of-Citgo witnesses, and their testimonies actually supported CIT's work.

...
Yes, CIT lied about 9/11 and ignored reality based evidence.

The FDR from Flight 77 is evidence for the real flight path. Proves CIT lied about NoC. Big failure.

Are you trying to beat CIT at making up lies and nonsense.

Why do you make up lies about 9/11 based on failed logic and failed research?

The problem with CIT and other conspiracy minded liars on 9/11 is the failure to study how to work with eyewitnesses related to flying. It appears you do not have any aircraft accident investigation skills and prefer to make up conclusions based on fantasy.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 08:29 PM   #61
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,805
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
The question NOBODY THOUGHT TO ASK, is ...

<inanity snipped>
Wow, there's people still out there who believe this **** ?
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:31 PM   #62
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
The question NOBODY THOUGHT TO ASK, is ...

WHEN was Lloyde on the bridge?

The first clear photo of Lloyde there, standing behind the brown Jeep rather than near his own cab, is Jason Ingersoll's DSC_0419.
This was taken at 9:55 am.
That is 18 minutes after the impact.

WHEN was the cab on the bridge?

AGAIN, we have Jason Ingersoll's first image of it there, DSC_0412.
This was taken at 9:48 am.
That is 11 minutes after the impact.

The next question is ...

WHERE WAS LLOYDE at 9:37:46 am?

LLOYDE himself answered that, many times.
WHEN IT HAPPENED, he was not on the bridge.
He was driving south on Route 27, north of the heliport, north of the Columbia Pike exit sign, when a pole came crashing through his windshield, scattering glass everywhere.
When his cab skidded to a halt, it was beside the concrete wall below the cemetery.

This location is 350 yards north of the bridge where the famous photos were later taken.

How long does it take to drive 350 yards?
Depending on one's speed, just 20 - 30 seconds.

Although Craig Ranke was happy to accept other eye witnesses' own testimony as to their location at this time, he scoffed at the adamant claims of this career cab driver, as though he was not familiar with his home town, and was too senile to recall his location at this pivotal moment in history.

Marquis' and Ranke's refusal to accept Lloyde's testimony meant that they also rejected the corroborating testimony of other eye witnesses who claimed to have seen or been close to Lloyde's cab.

Therefore, rather than connecting the dots between, say, England's and Father Stephen McGraw's testimonies, which places both of them between the heliport and the cemetery wall at impact, CIT insisted they were both located on top of the bridge beneath the official flight path, and branded both these valuable witnesses as complicit liars in a mass murder plot.

The fact is that while Father Stephen McGraw crossed the road from his car onto the Pentagon lawn at the triage site where he waited for the first victims to be brought out, Lloyde's cab was hastily relocated from the cemetery wall to the bridge site where the scene was carefully staged for the photo series necessary to sell the Official AA77 Flightpath.

Navy Times journalist Mark Faram ran from the Navy Annex after the impact, and arrived at the Pentagon lawn about 15 - 20 minutes later. He shot a series of famous photos at the triage area, including father McGraw praying with victims.

CIT claimed that McGraw had been "bussed in" specifically for this purpose, and that he was nowhere near this site initially, although he had stated that he was already on the lawn within about one minute from witnessing the impact.

However, CIT has now been proven in error.

A single screen capture from an amateur video shot on the northern Pentagon lawn from 9:39 am, shows McGraw waiting there just as he testified, 3 minutes 25 seconds post impact.

McGraw testifies that he merely crossed the lanes of traffic from his stationary car, and waited there beside the lawn.

CIT insisted he would have had to walk the 350 yards from the bridge to get there.

CIT was wrong.

Both England and McGraw were North-of-Citgo witnesses, and their testimonies actually supported CIT's work.

But Aldo and Craig stubbornly rejected their valuable evidence, which hamstrung their own investigation, and destroyed their reputations.
Please give us your theory on what caused the terrible events of 9/11, make sure to include all four plane crashes and the destruction they caused.

TIA
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 03:12 AM   #63
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,970
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Wow, there's people still out there who believe this **** ?
Conspiracy nuts see only what they want to see...ignore science, make up things to create what appears to be a coherent explanation which supports an anti establishment view. It's always about being lied to for some nefarious political motive.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 07:17 AM   #64
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,833
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Conspiracy nuts see only what they want to see...ignore science, make up things to create what appears to be a coherent explanation which supports an anti establishment view. It's always about being lied to for some nefarious political motive.
Precisely Government(all forms and branches) always lies and one can not believe anything published by them(Government and all branches) .
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 07:28 AM   #65
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,833
For the benefit of someone who doesn't have time to read all the nonsensical ravings of CT's, what exactly is the theory about the cab and/or its occupants?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 04:29 PM   #66
rubygray
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 104
Simple really.

Despite CIT's desperate spin on their witness Lloyde England's testimony, he was in fact telling the whole truth as he knew it, all the time, since 9/11.

He was not old and too senile to drive a cab, as they accused. He was exactly the same age as Rumsfeld on that day, who was not deemed too old and senile to run a powerful nation's defense system.

Lloyde was not a liar, and he was not complicit in the crime of 9/11. Nor did he ever claim to be involved in any way other than by misfortunate coincidence.

Lloyde never changed his story as CIT accused him of.

SHIRLEY ENGLAND confirmed this by consistently backing Lloyde's account. The only story she knew was the same one he had told her from 9/11/2001, how he was driving beside the cemetery when a pole hit his cab. She always defended Lloyde's account against those who claimed he had been on the bridge at impact.

It was the Ingersoll photo series which convinced everyone that Lloyde and the cab were on the bridge. But as those photos were time stamped, we know that they cannot be used to prove that the cab was there at less than 11 minutes after impact.

Lloyde England consistently told the truth about his location when the pole smashed into his cab. He was north of the heliport, driving south on Route 27, 350 yards north of the bridge site where Jason Ingersoll's photos first show Lloyde's cab 11 minutes later.

Numerous witnesses saw Lloyde and his cab there. CIT also badly misconstrued the evidence of those witnesses.

Although they accepted the testimony of SERGEANT WILLIAM LAGASSE about his location and the relative position of the plane as it flew over, they glossed over his adamant statements that Lloyde and his cab were located beside the cemetery wall when the pole hit the taxi.

CIT's witness JERRI DAVIS did not see the plane as she was too far north on Route 27. She did a U-turn across the divider and came back down the southbound lanes, "where all this stuff was on the road". She stated that a man was standing in the road, right there by the cemetery wall, trying to flag her down, but she went off at the Columbia Pike exit road. Craig should have asked her what colour this man was, and about the vehicle beside him. Lloyde England testified that he got out of his vehicle and tried to flag down motorists to help him.

TONY TERRONEZ was across the divider northbound beyond the heliport when the plane flew over behind him. He ducked down in his car and heard the loud sound of glass smashing near him. After he got out of his car, he went across to the driver of the car which had had its windshield knocked out by
"something" that went through it. He said there was a 4 inch hole in it, and the rest of the windshield looked as though it had been smashed by a baseball bat. This exactly describes the damage pattern on Lloyde's windshield.

FATHER STEPHEN MCGRAW was driving north, opposite the heliport, when the plane flew across the top of his car. He testified that he saw the cab and the pole which hit it. He was derided by CIT for not mentioning the 5 downed light poles, as they imagined that McGraw must have been on the bridge, and that the downed poles would have been in front of him. But McGraw was hundreds of yards north of the bridge, "A few feet away from" Lloyde and the cab. McGraw could not see any of the downed poles, because they were all far behind him. He stated that he did not see the plane hit any poles. What he recalled seeing, was a "PIECE OF A POLE" and because of what he later heard, he only THOUGHT that this PIECE of pole was part of a single light pole which had been cut off the top of it, but he stated that the entire pole had not been knocked down.

Because CIT had such a false perception due to the Ingersoll photographs which showed Lloyde next to his cab on the bridge (but not until 9:56 am, 19 minutes post impact), they viciously maligned McGraw and dismissed his testimony.

DETECTIVE DON FORTUNATO was at the Arlington Police station when he heard the impact and drove to the site. In his two testimonies, he stated that he "ended up beside a taxi driver whose windshield had been knocked out by PIECES OF POLE apparently". He certainly did not imply that the 30-foot light pole lying beside the cab in Ingersoll's later photos, was what did the damage.

The amateur video shot by someone from the northern Pentagon lawn, opposite the heliport, "911 First Two Handheld Camera Videos Of Pentagon After 9:38 am" shows the cab beside the cemetery wall in a 7-seconds segment between timestamps 02:39 - 02:45 a.m.

The quality is very poor, and you need to watch this frame by frame, and magnify the images, but there are many individual frames which identify the black car there in the southbound lanes as :

(a) a Lincoln Continental Town Car, 1990 model, by many individual features which can be determined from internet images of this model, and also from video and still images of Lloyde's own cab taken by Christopher Taylor and Craig Ranke in the video "The Eye of the Storm":

(b) as a Capitol Cab by its distinctive roof light, rear door white logo, Virginia cab fares label, and faint orange stripe, and

(c) as Lloyde's own cab - due to the diagonal pole seen through the open driver's door, extending from the rear seat area out above the hood. Do not expect this to be a 30 foot monster as CIT falsely claimed.

And next to this Capitol Cab, as Detective Fortunato himself confirmed, a silver sedan is parked in the HOV lane across the barrier ... in the same relative position as this same silver car was parked in all other photos of the cab on the bridge, that were taken for the rest of the day. Detective Fortunato is the officer in the blue shirt seen with Lloyde and the cab on the bridge in the Jason Ingersoll series. He was filmed that afternoon speaking about this on a live news broadcast.

STEVE RISKUS was driving south on Route 27, directly behind Lloyde. He immediately began taking some photos which he published on the internet that afternoon, which became very famous. These confirm Lloyde's statement, "There was no traffic at that time". On the southbound lanes, that is, while the northbound traffic was at a standstill.

Riskus carefully framed his photos, shot from both ends of the concrete wall below the cemetery, to exclude the area where the cab and Detective Fortunato's sedan were. But his first photo shows the exact piece of road where Lloyde's cab was when the pole hit it. This area is sprinkled with shattered glass, and has skid marks veering across from the centre lane to the left lane.

THE WHITE VAN driven by the SILENT STRANGER who helped remove the pole from Lloyde's cab, was ridiculed by CIT as a lie invented by Lloyde. But several videos clearly track its arrival from north of the Columbia Pike exit sign, its stationary presence a few yards south of Lloyde's cab, its departure from there a couple of minutes later, and it's progress "on down the road" towatds the bridge, as Lloyde testified. Jason Ingersoll then took several photos which show the same white Ford Econoline Van parked on the shoulder just south of the bridge, for several minutes.

This white van is seen on the above-mentioned video at timestamp 02:43. It's rear doors are seen above the burgundy sedan travelling north. Steve Riskus red sedan is seen parked just to the right of the van.

TWO MOTORCYCLE POLICE are seen assisting with rescue efforts at several points of the above video. They are seen near the heliport, directly across the road from the cemetery wall where Lloyde's cab came to a halt. Lloyde stated that these two officers rode up and spoke with him there before going to assist at the scene.

RUMSFELD and his SECURITY DETAIL were right across the road from Lloyde and his cab. While Rumsfeld played at First Responders, the other 6 guys were mostly standing around casually, hands in pockets, making like chocolate teapots as far as offering any assistance to the victims, but keenly observing the progress of the cab as it was moved down the highway. This is seen in the above video at several points.

As I have not yet posted the requisite 15 posts here, I am unable to include links to the proof of all this and much more. However, googling "LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED" will bring up my thread on this topic, and probably also my Flickr album where I have so far added 130 images.
rubygray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 07:58 PM   #67
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,805
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
Simple really.<snip>
Say rubygray, that's quite a post there but if you don't mind, would you indulge me by answering another question?

Do you believe AA Flight 77 was deliberately flown into The Pentagon by Muslim terrorists on 09/11/2001?

Thanks in advance.
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 09:01 PM   #68
rubygray
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 104
Nope.
rubygray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 10:10 PM   #69
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,913
Lloyde England is CIA! Duh!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 03:28 PM   #70
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,318
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
Simple really.

Despite CIT's desperate spin on their witness Lloyde England's.
Damn near 18 years since the attacks and you clowns still think counting the hairs on a field mouse found outside the Pentagon will be some kind of match for the overwhelming evidence that a plane struck that building.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 04:07 PM   #71
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,578
I think there may have been a thread or a hundred on this very subject.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 06:41 PM   #72
rubygray
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 104
There have indeed been countless threads dealing with this subject, but not a single one has approached it from the point of view of Lloyde England's testimony as to his location WHEN IT HAPPENED, being the absolute truth.
rubygray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 07:45 PM   #73
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,805
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
Nope.
Ah. OK....

Anyhoo,

So what's your intent here - Discrediting the defunct and debunked CIT?

You're preaching to the choir - 99% of the regulars here would probably agree that Craig & Aldo were royalty among 9/11 Truth douchebag commoners.

Vindication of Lloyd England?

Not necessary, since Mr. England was never an issue to anyone other than the royal douchebags in question, who were fundamentally and laughably wrong about everything else in regard to the terrorist attack against The Pentagon.

So what's your point?
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.

Last edited by AJM8125; 26th June 2019 at 07:51 PM.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 09:58 PM   #74
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,715


It doesn't matter where someone was or was not, the evidence conclusively shows AAL77 hit the Pentagon after being hijacked by 5 al qaeda terrorists.

http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 10:13 PM   #75
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,283
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
There have indeed been countless threads dealing with this subject, but not a single one has approached it from the point of view of Lloyde England's testimony as to his location WHEN IT HAPPENED, being the absolute truth.
Are you saying 77 did not hit the Pentagon? Or what?

When what happened? But the bottom line is!

Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post


It doesn't matter where someone was or was not, the evidence conclusively shows AAL77 hit the Pentagon after being hijacked by 5 al qaeda terrorists.

http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 01:12 AM   #76
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,784
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
There have indeed been countless threads dealing with this subject, but not a single one has approached it from the point of view of Lloyde England's testimony as to his location WHEN IT HAPPENED, being the absolute truth.
That's because it's utterly idiotic to start from a single witness testimony, assume that testimony is in every respect accurate, and then conclude that any discrepancies between that one testimony and other sources must indicate that all other sources are incorrect. It's called the cherry-picking fallacy, and it's a thoroughly reliable way to arrive at absurd and fictitious conclusions. In general witness testimony is inconcistent and only reliable in gross details; when a hundred witnesses say they saw a plane hit a building it's most likely that the plane hit the building, but when they disagree about how big the plane was it doesn't mean that you can pick one statement, assert that all the others are liars, and conclude that there's only one reliable witness who said the plane hit the building.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 01:36 AM   #77
rubygray
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post


It doesn't matter where someone was or was not, the evidence conclusively shows AAL77 hit the Pentagon after being hijacked by 5 al qaeda terrorists.

http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
Do you include the photos and videos of Lloyde England and his cab on the bridge beside that whopper downed light pole, as evidence for AA77 hitting the Pentagon as well?

Most people do. The Coste - Chandler - Wyndham etc crowd states that Lloyde and his cab are witnesses to this, even though they deny the official story.

If so, which pole do you suggest is the one which did that damage to Lloyde's cab?
There are disagreements between proponents of Pole 1 and Pole 2. Surely after all these years, it should have been conclusively determined which pole it was.

By what means do you think it produced this damage?

Does it matter to you that Lloyde England vigorously denied that this event occurred on the bridge?

Why would he deny it, if it was true?

You post the best available versions of the few videos taken immediately after the Pentagon impact on your YouTube site.

On this one,
"9_11 Pentagon Attack Video - Aftermath",
filmed mostly from the position of the camera owner whose vehicle was about 6 to 8 car lengths south of the overhead sign on the bridge, Camera Guy has discussions with APTN journalist Eugenio Hernandez, whose Jeep was slightly closer to the overhead sign, on the other side of the road.

At 04:36, Camera Guy asks,
"Was it a plane?"

Hernandez replies,
"Yep, I saw it coming down."

Camera Guy says,
"I THOUGHT WE SEEN IT BACK HERE TOO."

So this guy, his wife and his son, were on the bridge in standstill traffic while a 757 jet flew across the highway, with its right wing tip only about 50 yards ahead of him, and 30 feet above the ground ... But he COULD NOT TELL WHAT IT WAS?
This guy and his family obviously did not see the 757 fly across the bridge.

Nor did Eugenio Hernandez. Otherwise he would have said,
"What!! Are you crazy? It was so close you could nearly touch it!" Or something similar.

Also on this video, USATODAY editor JOEL SUCHERMAN appears for quite some time, starting at 00:47 where he is standing beside his car which is next to the "Right lane must turn right" sign. He is talking on his cellphone and watching the C-130 flying down, just as he stated in his testimony. So he was right there where he claimed to be.

And yet, nor is Sucherman a witness to the plane flying on that official diagonal path across the bridge. He consistently stated that the plane flew left to right across his windscreen, and he moved his hand across rather slowly to demonstrate this, which means the plane must have been quite far away from him. He never said the plane flew across the bridge. He is a witness to the plane flying on a path perpendicular to the west wall, and far north of the bridge.

Mary Ann Owens, another Gannett employee, said the plane flew across her car. Her position can be determined from the photo she took. She was between the two trees opposite the Helipad. This means she was NORTH of the impact site. So she is another witness to a perpendicular flight path, and NOT to the diagonal path over the bridge.

Father Stephen McGraw was near the heliport when the plane flew right over the top of his car. He was even further north than Mary Ann Owens. Another eye witness who testifies against the official flight path.

Lloyde England was next to the cemetery when the plane flew above him. Another witness who denies the diagonal official flight path.

Steve Riskus was driving directly behind Lloyde. He stated that a graphic of a jet flying on a perpendicular path, far north of the bridge, "Was almost exactly what I saw that day". Another official flight path denier.

Captain Lincoln Liebner was one of the closest eye witnesses, and the first rescuer on the scene. He was standing near the southwest corner of the Pentagon, when he saw the plane fly across in front of him. Like ATC Sean Boger, he insisted that the plane hit "between the 2nd and 3rd floors" which of course is much higher than the impact hole. He also stated that the plane "hit a helicopter on the helipad". A month later, in a video interview, he pointed out the flightpath on an overhead view of the Pentagon. He specifically indicated a perpendicular flight path, connecting with the wall next to the heliport, far north of the impact hole.

Sergeant William Lagasse was adamant that "NOTHING HAPPENED ON THE BRIDGE. I NEVER HEARD THAT ANYTHING HAPPENED OVER THERE."

So there are all these credible witnesses who absolutely deny that the plane flew across the bridge on that diagonal path.

Camera Guy and Eugenio Hernandez were recorded on video talking about this, at 9:45 a.m.

However convinced you may be by the goverment account, it cannot be denied that many on-the-spot eyewitnesses testify that something else entirely occurred.

Obviously it DOES MATTER where the eyewitnesses were when they saw the plane fly across them.

Last edited by rubygray; 27th June 2019 at 01:42 AM. Reason: Typo corrected
rubygray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 01:59 AM   #78
rubygray
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That's because it's utterly idiotic to start from a single witness testimony, assume that testimony is in every respect accurate, and then conclude that any discrepancies between that one testimony and other sources must indicate that all other sources are incorrect. It's called the cherry-picking fallacy, and it's a thoroughly reliable way to arrive at absurd and fictitious conclusions. In general witness testimony is inconcistent and only reliable in gross details; when a hundred witnesses say they saw a plane hit a building it's most likely that the plane hit the building, but when they disagree about how big the plane was it doesn't mean that you can pick one statement, assert that all the others are liars, and conclude that there's only one reliable witness who said the plane hit the building.

Dave
Ah, but you are merely ASSUMING that I "began with a single witness testimony".

And anyway, it is a valid process to take a witness's testimony, and fact-check it against every piece of independent evidence, to ascertain whether or not the testimony stands up.

In the case of Lloyde England, there is possibly more such evidence than for any other single person or event at the Pentagon.

There are the well-known photos and videos taken of the cab on the bridge by various people. But these were taken at least 11 minutes after the event.

Now numerous other videos have been analysed which show what happened in the minutes preceding Jason Ingersoll's first photo of the cab on the bridge at 9:48 am, DSC_0412.

There is nothing idiotic or fictitious in what I am writing. All is the result of countless hundreds of hours of studying the evidence. See above for some of the many credible eye witnesses who flatly dispute the official flight path.

As you said, if many eye witnesses testify to having seen the same thing, then that thing is most likely what happened.

And all these witnesses, plus many more, testified that the plane flew on a path perpendicular to the west wall of the Pentagon, hundreds of yards north of the bridge.

No sense cursing me over this. Spend your energy investigating this and similar testimony for yourself.

The real myth here, is the one which pretends the plane flew diagonally across the bridge.
rubygray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 02:02 AM   #79
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,784
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
There have indeed been countless threads dealing with this subject, but not a single one has approached it from the point of view of Lloyde England's testimony as to his location WHEN IT HAPPENED, being the absolute truth.
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
Ah, but you are merely ASSUMING that I "began with a single witness testimony".
This is called "not getting your story straight."

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 02:10 AM   #80
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,283
Originally Posted by rubygray View Post
...

Obviously it DOES MATTER where the eyewitnesses were when they saw the plane fly across them.
Where you think witnesses saw 77, and to derive a flight path is not needed with Radar and FDR. There is no need for eyewitnesses to know and prove it was Flight 77 - all the DNA but the small boy was found on the course 77 impacted the Pentagon, inside the Pentagon - it is mapped out.

Witnesses are important for things Radar and the FDR can't capture. An Example, the wing breaks off, and that can be used to look for the failure. In the case of 77, the FDR gives us the final cours, speed, attitude, engine setting, g-force, and more.

Yes, when we go on site during aircraft accident investigations the next day, or as soon as possible we go to where the witness was. We might use a yard stick and align with what they saw by pointing. But this is related to what they heard and saw which would relate to the specific accident event. Like a wing breaking, you hear a sound, and see something. In the case of Flight 77 we don't need witnesses to figure out where 77 was, we have Radar, and FDR, which are evidence of exactly where 77 was, no need to use witnesses who have to be interviewed that day or the next. Interviewing years later is silly since we have FDR and Radar.

You fail to realize the problems with witnesses, and how to evaluate witness statements related to aircraft events. Have you taken aircraft accident investigation courses? There is no way you can judge the distance to 77 from witnesses accurately. There are no NoC witnesses, because 77 never was NoC.

For instance, "it was so close I could touch it", is relative to the person experience with aircraft they have seen.

How do you ignore the FDR and Radar, and other witnesses who don't support the nonsense you make up based on witnesses you select.

77 impacted the Pentagon, get the FDR and Radar. You don't believe 77 hit the Pentagon, it does not matter what you make up about witnesses. All your witnesses you misinterpret agree it was 77 that hit the Pentagon.

You can't refute the DNA, the FDR, or Radar. Science wins, your opinions how to interpret witnesses is failure. CIT did the same thing, and when I watched their videos, their witnesses were pointing to the official flight path which is proved by the FDR, RADAR, and damage to the Pentagon.

Why do you ignore the FDR? lol, if 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then you are interpreting witnesses who did not really see 77. Thus you debunk yourself and you don't know it. wow

I have the course 77 flew on, what course did you derive from witnesses you never interviewed? Go ahead, draw your path of a plane you say did not hit the Pentagon. You failed to do research, and when straight to wild speculation, lies, and fantasy.

So how does the damage to the Pentagon match the course 77 hit the Pentagon, as proved by the FDR and Radar? http://www.attivissimo.net/9-11/Pent...anceReport.pdf Don't research, just make it up, it saves time. Who did 9/11 in your fantasy world of failed research and wild speculation?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 27th June 2019 at 02:19 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.