9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Litmus test..
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:05 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

sam wrote:

KP50 wrote:

As I asked earlier (and you studiously avoided), are you happy that the sole witness to the lightpoles is a taxi driver with an improbable tale that is uncorrobated by anyone else? Maybe you can hazard a guess why nobody else noticed a very large jet barreling over lightpoles and sending them smashing into a taxi cab?

Yes. Easy. If I were witnessing a commercial airliner only yards off the ground about to plunge at high speed into a world-famous building then the last thing I'd be doing is watching the events surrounding a taxi on the nearby road.

And you'd be watching the plane too.

Lloyd England, however, had the end of the lightpole in his cab. Which I imagine grabbed his attention somewhat.

Now - you answer my question (the one that you have studiously avoided) -- how is it that the NoC manoeuvre is damn near impossible for a commercial plane and not one witness described anything even remotely resembling a 60°+ bank ??? You know, the bank required for a NoC flightpath??

On a nearby road? What about on the same road? What about right in front of you? Surely somebody would have noticed? Bizarre isn't it? Almost as if the taxi driver was the only car on that part of the road. And then the lightpole managed to pierce the windscreen without hitting any other part of the car - even when said taxi driver and unknown accomplice decided to remove the lightpole immediately. That's a lightpole being struck by a very large fast moving jet. Bizarre isn't it? But still you seem happy to believe this man's story - because you have to accept, if he is incorrect, 9/11 in an inside job. Again I ask, how many people have to give the alternative NOC flightpath for us to start to doubt the taxi driver?

Well of course if the plane flew north of the Citgo, it could not have impacted the Pentagon where there is that small hole in the world. But given that there no evidence of a plane having struck the Pentagon, I have no problem with that.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

KP50 wrote:

I just feel this is nonsense - it's not debate, it's just you voicing your own incredulity at something you obviously do not believe. Lots of people describe the light-poles being hit. The fact that very few specifically mention this taxi is not really evidence of anything - how many were asked specifically about the taxi? Probably none. Nobody saw the taxi windscreen being staged either, so I could voice just the same amount of incredulity about an alternate conspiracy version of events there. It's just such a pointless debate.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

Alex_V wrote:

I just feel this is nonsense - it's not debate, it's just you voicing your own incredulity at something you obviously do not believe.

Yes I am thinking for myself - have you tried it? That is how I worked out for myself that 9/11 was a crock.

Alex_V wrote:

Lots of people describe the light-poles being hit. The fact that very few specifically mention this taxi is not really evidence of anything - how many were asked specifically about the taxi? Probably none.

Where are these lots of people? Find me one who claims to have been on the scene and witnessed the lightpoles being hit.

Alex_V wrote:

Nobody saw the taxi windscreen being staged either, so I could voice just the same amount of incredulity about an alternate conspiracy version of events there. It's just such a pointless debate.

It has a lot of point. Why would they see it being staged? I am presuming that they managed to close the road, certainly the photos taken soon after show very few cars on that part of the road whereas the lanes in the other direction are queued up. My theory is backed up by the number of witnesses who observe the plane not near to the lightpoles.

pepik
Banned
Banned

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:23 am Post subject:

Quote:

Yes I am thinking for myself - have you tried it? That is how I worked out for myself that 9/11 was a crock.

Funny how when you "think for yourself" it is indistinguishable from when you repeat what conspiracy websites tell you to think.

Quote:

Where are these lots of people? Find me one who claims to have been on the scene and witnessed the lightpoles being hit.

Maybe they're hanging out with the people who saw the light poles get planted. And the people who saw the plane miss the Pentagon, and something else hit it.

I mean this is the level of argument you are reduced to - incredulous that nobody would see a light pole hit a taxi. But without a moments pause you accept that nobody would notice a 757 flying right past the Pentagon while a missile streaks in and hits it. Its amazing to me that you are so willing to degrade yourself with arguments this crazy.

Essentially your approach is this - all the witnesses support your view, so your view is backed by solid evidence. Witnesses contradict the official view, so the official view must be wrong. Yet the only way you get to this analysis is throwing out all the witnesses who agree with the official view, assume they are all conspirators, accepting only witnesses who agree with you, and ignoring the fact that there are no witnesses to the one part of your theory that matters - that no plane hit the Pentagon. In fact your theory requires to to accept only PART of the testimony of SOME of the witnesses, since your own witnesses contradict your version.

Can you see why troof is going nowhere, despite the arrogance and contempt of its promoters? Its been seven years and your arguments are not getting better, they are getting worse.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:03 am Post subject:

pepik wrote:

Quote:

Yes I am thinking for myself - have you tried it? That is how I worked out for myself that 9/11 was a crock.

Funny how when you "think for yourself" it is indistinguishable from when you repeat what conspiracy websites tell you to think.

This is really your favourite quote isn't it - very tiresome. I preferred "show me a single structural engineer who ......"

pepik wrote:

Quote:

Where are these lots of people? Find me one who claims to have been on the scene and witnessed the lightpoles being hit.

Arrogance? I think you overshadow me there. Your refusal to actually address any of the issues involved is staggering - all you throw out is bluster.

We are focussing on the lightpoles - you could have spent your early morning actually finding a single witness who can corroborate the impossible story of the taxi driver. Because if he is incorrect/lying, it is an inside job - do we agree there? Irrespective of anything else that happened.

Personally I don't think a missile did hit the Pentagon - where did you get that idea from?

pepik
Banned
Banned

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:26 am Post subject:

Quote:

This is really your favourite quote isn't it - very tiresome. I preferred "show me a single structural engineer who ......"

Really? Please show me the last time I used either.

Quote:

Arrogance? I think you overshadow me there. Your refusal to actually address any of the issues involved is staggering - all you throw out is bluster.

You evade a point about your selective use of witnesses by accusing me of bluster? Hilarious.

Quote:

We are focussing on the lightpoles - you could have spent your early morning actually finding a single witness who can corroborate the impossible story of the taxi driver.

When you explain why your version of events requires no witnesses, but mine required witnesses for every single detail (which you throw out anyway), they I may look. Until then its a mug's game.

Quote:

Because if he is incorrect/lying, it is an inside job - do we agree there? Irrespective of anything else that happened.

Oh yes the other day I took a drivers license theory test. There were 20 questions. I got 18 correct and two lies.

Quote:

Personally I don't think a missile did hit the Pentagon - where did you get that idea from?

What a great opportunity for your to tell us exactly what you think happened that day at the Pentagon. But you won't.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:35 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

KP50 wrote:

Well of course if the plane flew north of the Citgo, it could not have impacted the Pentagon where there is that small hole in the world. But given that there no evidence of a plane having struck the Pentagon, I have no problem with that.

Given that your NoC witnesses confirm that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, this would make them "liars" in your world. So your whole NoC theory depends on the testimony of people that you yourself would brand as liars. Brilliant logic, KP50. I would love to see a lawyer ripping this to shreds in a courtroom.

And you never did explain how nobody - not one witness - describes the plane in the 60° bank required for the NoC turn. Any chance you might do that one day?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:51 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

sam wrote:

KP50 wrote:

Sorry what is this 60 degree bank? No idea what you mean.

As an example, the Navy Annexe witness would have no view of the Pentagon - he saw the tail of the plane and then the explosion - he deduced that the plane hit the Pentagon - as you would do.

What about that taxi driver then? Still think the lightpole can do that to his car? Found any corroborating witnesses yet?

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:00 am Post subject:

pepik wrote:

When you explain why your version of events requires no witnesses, but mine required witnesses for every single detail (which you throw out anyway), they I may look. Until then its a mug's game.

Every single detail? I am throwing out the taxi driver because his version of events is impossible and unverified by anyone else on what was supposedly a busy commuter road. Whereas my version of the flightpath is supported by many witnesses.

Yet again in one your posts, you don't actually say anything - remarkable. Find a corroborating witness for the taxi driver, it was a seminal event, surely there must be one.

I tend towards the flyover and explosion at the Pentagon. It is the only explanation that actually makes some sense.

pepik
Banned
Banned

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:29 am Post subject:

Quote:

It is the only explanation that actually makes some sense.

Yet contradicted by all the witnesses, including the ones you rely on.

Quote:

Whereas my version of the flightpath is supported by many witnesses.

Except that it isn't, since your flightpath doesn't end with a crash into the Pentagon.

Quote:

Find a corroborating witness for the taxi driver, it was a seminal event, surely there must be one.

The seminal event was the plane crashing into the Pentagon, not a light pole hitting a taxi, what utter nonsense you are coming up with.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:32 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

KP50 wrote:

Sorry what is this 60 degree bank? No idea what you mean.

The one I described to you on Monday. The one where you replied on Monday 12:09 with the flightpath overlaid on the overhead photo, embedded in your reply. The one describing the bank required to make the NoC turn towards the Pentagon.

The one the plane would have to make, yet not one soul described. That one.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

KP50 wrote:

Where are these lots of people? Find me one who claims to have been on the scene and witnessed the lightpoles being hit.

Arabesque (who is a truther I believe) maintains a very good list of who saw what at the pentagon.

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what. html

There are 22 quotes of people who mention the lightpoles, to varying levels of authenticity.

Here's a longer version of some of their quotes, explaining where they were and what they saw.

Quote:

Father Stephen McGraw: "…I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars… passed about 20 feet over my car… The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car…. My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression…

Rodney Washington, stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon:"It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening," Washington said. The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it. It "landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon," Washington said.

Sgt. William Lagasse in an email conversation with "my good friend" Dick Eastman:"Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path. It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down, it struck several light poles next to rt 27...

Wanda Ramey, stood at the Mall plaza booth and had an excellent view on the crash:"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up and crashed into the west side of the building," she said. "It happened so fast. One second I saw the plane and next it was gone." Recalling those moments again, Ramey said it appeared the building sucked the plane up inside. "A few seconds later, I heard a loud boom and I saw a huge fireball and lots of smoke," she said."

Steve Riskusfrom the nearest highway. He saw this plane pass at a distance of about a 100 feet (Interview conducted by email by "Agent Fescado"):"I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the
roof first... It did dead center on the side... I was close enough that I could see the American Airlines logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles on it's way..."

Mark Bright, Defense Protective Service officers and one of the first on the scene:”I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down…. I heard the plane power-up just before it struck the Pentagon.”

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer in the traffic jam at Columbia Pike:”There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in… I saw American Airline insignia and when it made impact with the Pentagon initially I saw smoke, then flames”

Mary Ann Owens, on a highway between Arlington National Cemetery and the Pentagon:"The sound of the engines came so quickly I thought it was another helicopter landing. I looked left to see a large plane barely clear the I-395 overpass. Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. ...

Mike Walter, USA Today...it turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the "Pentagon right there." "Now there are some people who say that it skipped and went into the Pentagon and it may have gone that way, but that’s not what I saw. What I saw was the jet went very low into the Pentagon and it went straight."

D.S. Khavkin., from an 8 story building nearby:
”At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft...The engine was at full throttle. First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon.”

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:12 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

sam wrote:

Really? It's been "never actually shown to occur"? Nowhere? Chuck some burning wood or fabric in a skillet of molten lead with a flame around and it won't continue to vigourously burn? I must try this. I have some bulk lead, and random hydrocarbons. Also camping gaz, safety visor etc. Just need to get hold of an iron pan. Will you admit you're wrong if shown to be wrong?

This alleged contradictory posture very much reminds that if you could have, you would have; but as it is you haven't because you can't. I half expect Pepik to stagger in attempting to grab your coat while clutching two pints of lager and imploring you to "leave it, it ain't werf it, Sam".

But to answer your question, if you can show an essentially similar, glowing, yellow-white continuous free-flowing matching incendiary stream in bright daylight conditions, I'll be very happy to be proven wrong. I'll even go away and get the biggest, fattest book of science wot I can find.

sam wrote:

It wouldn't be white hot. That's your theory, not mine. It would be molten battery metal plus burning hydrocarbons, contained by the concrete floor above, until it collapsed.

Well that's your (second hand) theory, not mine. And despite its never having occured other than in (I think) an idle FEMA/BPAT suggestion, you seem quite happy to believe in it. And you still don't understand that to emit white light an object has to be white hot.

sam wrote:

My head - stuck out of a car window - is not at 1500°C and above. Given the resolution of the film, those larger falling "pieces" have to be at least as big as a shoe box, probably bigger. Are you seriously suggesting that blobs of molten steel that size will cool, solidify, and become reflective in the space of the 3 seconds or so that we witness them falling in the film?

No, I'm suggesting that they shed enough heat while falling from 1000ft fast enough to appear to become noticeably less bright in daylight conditions. The cooling and solidifying part is only in your own imagination.

sam wrote:

You still haven't answered why therm?te would be placed 4 windows away from the beginning of the all-important corner section. And, while you're here, why is the aluminium facade not suffering despite its melting point being much lower than steel? Why is the fire seemingly well within the building?

No one claimed it was placed there; we only see where it exits the building. I could add probably flowing across a buckled concrete floor acting like a heat resistant ceramic until it burns its way out through the exterior wall after having weakened the corner column, but that's just my conjecture.

sam wrote:

And more - you have proposed linear therm?te delivery systems. You have proposed just shoving it down inspection/bolt holes. Neither of these (ridiculous) proposals would have it spewing sideways, directly out of the building..

So you like to claim. Continuously, while spouting even more ridiculous claims about your proposed behaviour of molten lead and wood.

sam wrote:

And you have still not addressed the difference between black-body radiation theory (much quoted by you) and the apparent colour of glowing materials, despite being challenged on it a number of times. And - having got your initial assessment utterly wrong - you have not explained which of those fireplace photos was closest to the "truth" (whatever that is, where the eye and the camera are both so easily fooled vis-a-vis colour. Unlike spectroscopy, which is absolute as it measures actual wavelengths)

As do our eyes, by detecting and interpreting the visible spectrum with a degree of accuracy. We can readily detect for example that an iron fire poker has heated up by an extra 300°C when it turns from dull red hot to orange hot, just by looking at it.

What you haven't understood is that both photos of your fire are close to the truth, depending on the viewing conditions. In the low light exposure, the glowing red longer wavelength elements are visible, and in the flash version they're overwhelmed by the (reflected) colour temperature of the flash from the white ash. In both cases the central core remains the same colour temperature, whose identical RGB values you can verify in most art prorammes.

But let's establish that the WTC event in question happened in good daylight conditions - not semi-darkness. Oh, and where spectroscopy is useful is in examining the colour components inherent in making up what we perceive to be white. Otherwise the universe above 1200°C would be a mystery.

sam wrote:

I have read it (heaven help me) twice, and parts of it more than that. I have never seen such a huge festering pile of unsupported assertions and pseudo-science assembled together in one place in my entire life.

If that's the case, perhaps it's time you found a new hobby. One where wild, unsupported statements are de riguer, if not expected. Does UKIP have a forum?

sam wrote:

Just one example, to illustrate ... you'll admit that Ross's entire theory falls flat on its face if the planes don't impact within an accuracy of a few floors, yes? You happy with that? Are you happy that Ross's proposed CD theory becomes utterly and publicly transparent if the planes miss their targets just a tad?
Would you make that critical degree of accuracy part of your plan for the 9/11 CT and all that supposedly followed?

Nah.

I've got a photo of an (inert and unexploded) unpowered 2000lb laser bomb which has been flown in through a truck driver's window, controlled by 4 x 6 inch span crank-action fins. I don't understand your incredulity at a variety of common and available guidance technologies.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:24 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

Alex_V wrote:

KP50 wrote:

Where are these lots of people? Find me one who claims to have been on the scene and witnessed the lightpoles being hit.

Quote:

I am well aware of the list - the problem with it is that upon further investigation, some of them are in fact deducing the lightpoles being struck having found out about it later on. McGraw, Lagasse and Walter did not see the lightpoles being struck as they have confirmed in recent interviews. Others of the witnesses in Arabesque's list weren't even close to the Pentagon. So we need to discover which of these statements is actual a description of what they witnessed or just a description of what they believe happened.

I take it you see no problem at all with the taxi driver's tale?

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:33 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

sam wrote:

KP50 wrote:

Sorry what is this 60 degree bank? No idea what you mean.

Funny how your knowledge of the area is improving so fast - maybe you are almost ready to take on the OCT flightpath impossibility question? Just a couple of weeks ago you didn't even know the official flightpath.

Any plane over the Navy Annexe destroys the taxi driver's story - the guy in the Pentagon helipad describes the plane coming over the Navy Annexe and banking. Seems a lot of people think the plane flew over the Navy Annexe. Now if you think there is some sort of impossible manoevre in there, maybe you need to prove it.

So what do you think would happen to a car struck by a lightpole which has been sheared by a jet travelling at very high speed?

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

KP50 wrote:

Keep squirming. McGraw indicates that the taxi was a few feet from his own car - this rather flies in the face of the taxi being out of the way, and only being spotted after the event. How do you explain that?

Quote:

Others of the witnesses in Arabesque's list weren't even close to the Pentagon.

That's why I quoted the extended quotes, of people who actually describe the plane hitting the pentagon (as a hundred witnesses attest to on Arabesque's list).

Quote:

So we need to discover which of these statements is actual a description of what they witnessed or just a description of what they believe happened.

I agree with that. The problem you have is...

- It is incredibly unlikely that any witness was asked specifically about the lightpoles.
- No witness directly indicates they saw the plane pass over the lightpoles intact.
- No witness saw evidence being faked.
- The incident happened in broad daylight in front of a great many witnesses.
- Huge numbers of witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Quote:

I take it you see no problem at all with the taxi driver's tale?

I would love it do be documented in perfect detail to shut these silly conspiracy theories up. But there is no evidence that directly suggests the taxi was faked. What more is there to say?

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

chek wrote:

A 2000lb laser-guided bomb to take out a truck? My oh my, the NWO has money to burn.

eta : on second thoughts, I'd quite like to see this photo. Please post it. Was the 2000lb bomb postively guided through the truck window? Where did it end up? Why was such a vast device aimed at a truck at all, let alone its window exactly??? Please explain.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:14 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

Alex_V wrote:

KP50 wrote:

Squirming? It is called looking in detail. Maybe you should watch this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5085491450059007792

which shows that McGraw was many feet from the taxi driver and heading in the other direction.

Alex_V wrote:

You may disagree with some of the conclusions of CIT but at least they are out there interviewing witnesses. Do you not think it odd that 6 people independently believe that the plane flew to the north of the Citgo station over the Navy Annexe? How can they all be so wrong in such a similar way? It doesn't really matter whether they think the plane hit the Pentagon or not - if a flyover of a low jet was timed to coincide with a very large explosion from the building, what else would you think - given the events in New York?

Alex_V wrote:

I would love it do be documented in perfect detail to shut these silly conspiracy theories up. But there is no evidence that directly suggests the taxi was faked. What more is there to say?

1. The taxi driver claims that a light pole, sheared by a fast moving plane, impacted his front window without injuring himself.

2. His car is undamaged on the bonnet and the roof suggesting that the pole must have hit the window at the exact angle so that all the force was abosrbed by the insides of the car and the pole was left sticking out of the window and not responding to the call of gravity.

3. He claims that he and another man then removed the light pole without scratching the bonnet.

So does that not seem an odd tale to you? It sounds like a bag of * to me.

There is no evidence at all that the lightpole entered his cab other than him saying so. Nobody else appears to be on that road to confirm his tale. It sounds like something that might happen in a film - those of us acquainted with rudimentary physics know that it is so unlikely as to border on impossible.

Are you happy that your faith in the OCT depends on such an event actually happening?

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

sam wrote:

A 2000lb laser-guided bomb to take out a truck? My oh my, the NWO has money to burn.

As we're well aware, when it comes to weaponry there's always money to burn - although it would be quickly extinguished by a further cash flood from the vast sea of greenbacks eagerly waiting to be put to use in the truly industrial scale science of slaughter. There's no stinting on expense even for the most minor of improvements in 'kill ratios'.

sam wrote:

eta : on second thoughts, I'd quite like to see this photo. Please post it. Was the 2000lb bomb postively guided through the truck window? Where did it end up? Why was such a vast device aimed at a truck at all, let alone its window exactly??? Please explain.

It was likely just an available target on a test range somewhere, and meant to demonstrate the guidance system rather than any already well documented destructive power. Though I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were to have somebody's eye out, flying in the window like that. What happened in the next few milliseconds isn't detailed.

The point however being that even with a comparitively primitive mechanical control system as used by GBUs, highly accurate guidance is not a major problem.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:08 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

McGraw confirms that he didn't directly see the lightpoles hit, but confirms his certainty that the plane flew over him and crashed into the Pentagon. Why didn't they ask him when and where he saw the taxi? Weird omission. To say that the OT depends on the taxi story is a bit ridiculous. There is no evidence, other than your incredulity, that it was faked. There is no evidence, other than your incredulity, that the plane flew over the Pentagon rather than into it.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

Alex_V wrote:

McGraw confirms that he didn't directly see the lightpoles hit, but confirms his certainty that the plane flew over him and crashed into the Pentagon. Why didn't they ask him when and where he saw the taxi? Weird omission.

To say that the OT depends on the taxi story is a bit ridiculous. There is no evidence, other than your incredulity, that it was faked. There is no evidence, other than your incredulity, that the plane flew over the Pentagon rather than into it.

McGraw was a long way from the taxi ..... and facing in the other direction.

OK so you're happy that the taxi driver smashed his own window and then claims it was a lightpole? Yes or no?

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:19 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

KP50 wrote:

McGraw was a long way from the taxi ..... and facing in the other direction.

How far away? Why didn't they ask him in the interview?

Quote:

OK so you're happy that the taxi driver smashed his own window and then claims it was a lightpole? Yes or no?

Absolutely not. What evidence do you have, other than your own incredulity at his story, that he did that?

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:54 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

Alex_V wrote:

KP50 wrote:

McGraw was a long way from the taxi ..... and facing in the other direction.

How far away? Why didn't they ask him in the interview?

There is a map in the video showing their rough location. His line of traffic must have been facing the other way (he wasn't on the same carriageway).

Quote:

OK so you're happy that the taxi driver smashed his own window and then claims it was a lightpole? Yes or no?

Absolutely not. What evidence do you have, other than your own incredulity at his story, that he did that?[/quote]

You don't have incredulity at his story then? You really think a 30 foot pole can impale itself in a car window and then not crash onto the bonnet? Can I quote you on this?

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

chek wrote:

sam wrote:

Just one example, to illustrate ... you'll admit that Ross's entire theory falls flat on its face if the planes don't impact within an accuracy of a few floors, yes?

Precision impact, protecting the critical high-explosive charges in the core and the therm?te in the corners (?). A wiser person than Gordon Ross might ask why the required precision impact was so skew-whiff. Why the hell didn't this (presumably) remote-guided plane just come in straight and true - instead of down and across in a severe bank - so as to hit the exact floor area required for Ross's CD scenario. Damn, get it wrong by a floor or two and it all goes pear-shaped. And it "went wrong" by several floors.

The Ross theory is not a plan that even the most megalomaniac CTist would go for.

_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

Quote:

Alex_V wrote:

OK so you're happy that the taxi driver smashed his own window and then claims it was a lightpole? Yes or no?

Absolutely not. What evidence do you have, other than your own incredulity at his story, that he did that?

You don't have incredulity at his story then? You really think a 30 foot pole can impale itself in a car window and then not crash onto the bonnet? Can I quote you on this?[/quote]
Alex, please describe how a 30 foot pole weighing (so I hear) almost 200 pounds is able to precisely pierce the windscreen of a car without damaging any other part of it. Bear in mind the angle that the pole has to travel, the direction the car will be travelling.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:16 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

Quote:

Alex, please describe how a 30 foot pole weighing (so I hear) almost 200 pounds is able to precisely pierce the windscreen of a car without damaging any other part of it. Bear in mind the angle that the pole has to travel, the direction the car will be travelling.

I think his account is that it was wedged through to the back seat resting on the dashboard. The angle of the pole is almost impossible to calculate, given that we don't know where the plane hit it, in what direction, or whether it bounced off anything else.

I don't see the point of the discussion though - saying "How could that happen?" based on a desperate hope that what happened was impossible, despite knowing little of the incident with any real accuracy. If it was impossible, then prove it.

And while you're at it, you could try and prove your "can't hit the lightpoles and then level out" - another speculative and utterly flawed theory that you have gone nowhere with.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:32 am Post subject: Re: Litmus test..

Alex_V wrote:

Quote:

It is impossible because it is impossible - as any sane person (or small child) can realise. It is a 30 foot pole weighing (by all accounts) a couple of hundred pounds. A small child can tell it is impossible as they have used a see-saw and that is about all the physics you need for this one.

Ahhh if he had only left the pole in until the photographer arrived .........

pepik
Banned
Banned

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:28 am Post subject:

Its true, we may never know what happened to the taxi. But at least we know the plane hit the Pentagon. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:30 am Post subject:

pepik wrote:

Its true, we may never know what happened to the taxi. But at least we know the plane hit the Pentagon.

So you think the taxi driver is lying also? Why would someone smash their own car window do you think?

pepik
Banned
Banned

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:49 am Post subject:

I have no idea what happened to the taxi driver. I'm more concerned about the plane. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum