The Strange Case of Lloyde England

[spooked911]

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-eyeofthestorm.html

I watched this latest video by CIT on Pentagon taxi-cab light-pole "victim" Lloyde England, and it is pretty mind-boggling in its implications.

Now the video is pretty long-- over 90 minutes-- but it has some amazing stuff.

All right, so the first thing is that England's official story of the light-pole (knocked over by flight 77 flying overhead) into his cab just doesn't make sense-- there's no way the huge pole went into his car and got pulled out without the hood being scratched or dented.

But the really wild part of this video is when Craig Ranke shows England photos from 9/11, showing where his cab was when it was struck, and England says the pictures weren't where it happened. It is truly bizarre.

Either:
1) LE is lying
2) LE is *extremely* confused (hard to believe he was this confused unless he was on serious psychotropic drugs, and he doesn't seem to be drugged)
3) the photos were manipulated
4) the cab was moved from where his accident was and the photos were staged with an actor at a location to fit the official flight path

#1, 3 and 4 are possible, and I personally suspect some combination of these three.

Interestingly, where he SAYS he was actually supports the northerly flight approach, and it seems like the light pole-cab incident could have been set-up to support the official flight path story.

There are a number of very odd things about England.

-- reads David Icke, took some conspiracy course (not clear where)
-- makes a number of cryptic statements that could have deeper meaning
-- his wife apparently supports the flyover theory
-- in a conversation with Jeff Hill, LE says he is poor, but he has a nice house, with fancy artwork, has his own property in the country
-- has two life-size Egyptian mummy cases (sarcophagi) in his living room
-- his cab # is 677 (the 77 is meaningful for flight 77 and has significance in numerology)

So he is a suspicious character, to be sure-- and he pretty much destroys the official story of the Pentagon.

[LARED]

1. I think you forgot one possibility #5

Lloyde England is telling the truth as he best remembers it, and his words are being twisted by people that suffer from extreme levels of confirmation bias that should be studied by mental health professionals.

[SDuderstadt]

2. I vote for...

that explanation.

I never cease to marvel at the lengths Spooked will go to embarrass himself and, unfortunately, DU in the process.

[deconstruct911]

5. Kind of like whistleblowers. nt

[LARED]

6. What are you babbling about now? nt

[deconstruct911]

10. read what I replied to. nt

[LARED]

11. l wrote what you replied to. nt

[Twist_U_Up]

81. and of course...have difficulty understanding. as usual

[LARED]

87. Always a pleasure having you drop by.

Come again soon.

[zappaman]

7. making no sense as usual

this thread started out sad and is rapidly approaching pathetic

[spooked911]

8. If you watch the video, you can see it is not just England not remembering

Properly-- beyond any reasonable doubt.

[LARED]

9. spooked, I watched until Ranke's

Delusional thinking became to much to watch. There is no need to torment myself for another 80 minutes.

I'm not concerned I was going to be persuaded to see the light by missing out on all the other tormented "facts" presented

[spooked911]

12. well, you need to fast forward to where they show England the pics.

It is bizarre. It was not a simple matter of confusion. They even drove to the spot. England was completely sure the pics were wrong.

[William Seger]

17. Uh.... So what?

It's really a shame that you can't tell Lared where to fast-forward to hear Ranke explain how England's faulty memory of where the cab was hit justifies accusing England of being an accessory to mass murder. Ranke seems to have left his fellow crackpots to jump to their own irrational conclusions about that. So, let's hear yours...?

[spooked911]

18. Dude-- Ranke says more than once that he thinks England could have been a victim

--that he was used. The simple facts are--

1) the pole story is unlikely to impossible in the face of the damage pattern on the cab-- the hood was not scratched!

2) England presents a bizarre story about where he was-- maybe he is telling the truth, and he was scammed-- but he in not simply unsure, he is totally sure the pictures were wrong. That is not just faulty memory.

3) England has a nice house, with fancy art and he has property in the country, but tells Jeff Hill he can't make ends meet?

4) England took a conspiracy course

5) England's wife thinks there was a flyover.

No one is accusing England of anything-- particularly no one is accusing him of being accessory to 9/11-- until the story is clear. But the story -- THE OFFICIAL STORY-- stinks.

Stop your holier-than-thou act, it's ridiculous, and it's ridiculous you can't admit how ridiculous the official story is.

[William Seger]

21. Wrong!

Ranke explicitly accuses England of being involved in faking of the downed light poles and lying about the damage to his cab, and thus of being a willful agent of the evil "inside job" plot, and thus an accomplice to mass murder. As I said, England's story completely destroys the delusional nonsense that Ranke still hopes will win him fame and fortune.

> 1) the pole story is unlikely to impossible in the face of the damage pattern on the cab-- the hood was not scratched!

In this case, it doesn't matter how unlikely it is, since the evidence says it happened and England is not lying. Ranke knows that, but blithely denies it, as if that should be good enough. Anyone who has the simple ability to rationally look at the totality of the evidence knows that.

> 2) England presents a bizarre story about where he was-- maybe he is telling the truth, and he was scammed-- but he in not simply unsure, he is totally sure the pictures were wrong. That is not just faulty memory.

Yes, it is just a faulty memory and there's nothing "bizarre" about an old man (or anyone else, really) being confused about the exact spot, especially if you're not obsessed with proving a bizarre theory based on the exact spot. We know precisely where he was from the pictures and the other witnesses, and we know that it destroys Ranke's fantasy. He could not have been "scammed" about the light pole crashing through the windshield. Either it happened or he's lying, and the evidence says it happened.

> 3) England has a nice house, with fancy art and he has property in the country, but tells Jeff Hill he can't make ends meet?

WTF? Maybe having a nice house with fancy art and property in the country is why he has trouble making ends meet. And if he can't make ends meet, why doesn't he just demand that the PTB pay him more to keep quiet about what "really" happened?

> 4) England took a conspiracy course

A course in how to get involved in a conspiracy? Sponsored by the PTB to recruit accomplices? No, he just had an interest JFK conspiracy theories and few other strange things like Icke fantasies. So what? Why should that make him more likely to be involved in a conspiracy?

> 5) England's wife thinks there was a flyover.

I do believe that's a lie -- I did watch it, ya know, and her vague comment about a conspiracy does not amount to "think{ing} there was a flyover" -- and it wouldn't matter if she did, since she wasn't there. Does she really know and understood what Ranke is claiming about her husband being involved?

> No one is accusing England of anything-- particularly no one is accusing him of being accessory to 9/11-- until the story is clear.

"CIT" has directly made that accusation -- as in the video I linked to above but that's by no means the only incidence -- and they continue to do so.

> But the story -- THE OFFICIAL STORY-- stinks.

So say a bunch of a irrational conspiracy crackpots who deliberately forsake evidence-based reasoning and hate Occam's Razor. What this whole thing with England really shows is that even though their case is based on personal incredulity rather than evidence, they have no problem imagining any sort of ridiculously large and complicated hoax with any amount of faked evidence, and that they will accuse anyone and everyone who says otherwise of being involved in it, regardless of how many accusations it takes.

> Stop your holier-than-thou act, it's ridiculous, and it's ridiculous you can't admit how ridiculous the official story is.

Complete bullshit. There is absolutely nothing "ridiculous" about the "official story" that 19 radical Islamists hijacked four planes and managed to hit three of their targets, and there is nothing "ridiculous" about the massive amount of evidence that proves it. What it shows is how vulnerable we were -- and still are! -- to terrorists who will commit suicide attacks, and it shows that they are not stupid about finding and exploiting our vulnerabilities. You are the one who apparently refuses to see that this "flyover" bullshit is far beyond ridiculous, beyond absurd, and well into pathologically delusional. Even if you prefer to decide which story is more credible based on nothing more than which seems more ridiculous to you, I cannot see how any sane person could prefer the idiotic "flyover" theory. But there is no reason to make a decision based on that, given the amount of physical evidence and the number of witnesses! "CIT" is trying to sell a story that's far, far beyond implausible based on nothing but the naked assertion that all that evidence was faked, somehow or other, and that all the witnesses are either lying or confused -- including their own, who say the plane hit the building. In the case of England and many, many others, "confused" won't do, so they have no choice but to accuse those people of lying, and therefore complicity in a mass murder. When you accuse specific people of murder and complicity, Spooky, you damn well better have some credible evidence, but all you and "CIT" have is idiotic bullshit. It isn't possible to denigrate "CIT" enough for what they say about a cab driver and other witnesses who just happened to be there, based on absolutely nothing but the claim that their tiny handful of witnesses are infallible in their perceptions and memories of the plane's path, while a much larger group of witnesses are all either confused or accomplices, so they "conclude" that the PTB must have planned and flawlessly executed an absurdly complicated and risky hoax. Only someone who is completely incapable of distinguishing between the wildest Hollywood fantasies and reality could entertain such a speculation for more than a few seconds.

And if you're going to insist on promoting this ridiculous fantasy and slander against the witnesses, then you best be prepared to be ridiculed, so please stop whining about it.

[spooked911]

25. Yes, England could be a victim, as Ranke says.

On the other hand, the evidence doesn't look so good for him being completely innocent either.

However, NO ONE is accusing England of being a prime top-level perp of 9/11, and thus your hyperbole about him being an accomplice to mass murder is ridiculous. Almost certainly, England is a low-level patsy, and likely has been threatened in some way to not tell everything-- or maybe is under orders to give misdirection. To act, as you do, that England is willingly lying, is absurd.

I'm too tired now to respond to the rest, but I do have a response. Will try to do in the morning. I also have evidence that the photos conflict about where England's cab was.

[SDuderstadt]

26. "England is a low-level patsy"

Jesus, Spooked. What's it going to take to get you and those two internet clowns, Ranke and Marquis, to leave this poor guy alone?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

86. Yeah, ones that actually make sense, which...

would leave all of yours out, dude.

[spooked911]

29. Longer response

(though somewhat pointless, since you're not convincing me, and I'm apparently not convincing you. This is where it would actually be good to talk face-to-face to see how serious you are about this)

> 1) the pole story is unlikely to impossible in the face of the damage pattern on the cab-- the hood was not scratched!

In this case, it doesn't matter how unlikely it is, since the evidence says it happened and England is not lying.

Dude-- the whole point is that the evidence DOESN'T say what happened clearly (the hood is too unscathed) AND that England is confused AT BEST about what happened!!!

Yes, it is just a faulty memory and there's nothing "bizarre" about an old man (or anyone else, really) being confused about the exact spot, especially if you're not obsessed with proving a bizarre theory based on the exact spot. We know precisely where he was from the pictures and the other witnesses, and we know that it destroys Ranke's fantasy. He could not have been "scammed" about the light pole crashing through the windshield. Either it happened or he's lying, and the evidence says it happened.

Again, it's not simply faulty memory, because England doesn't admit he might be remembering it wrong. A confused person would admit that they might be wrong.

Also, these pics show there is discrepancy in the photographic record of where LE was:


These two pics leave absolutely no doubt that there was funny business with where LE was.

As to whether LE is lying, it's possible that part of a light pole hit his cab, and not the one we see in the pics-- and that the scene in the pics was staged or photoshopped. The whole point from the beginning is that the long pole shown in the pics next to the cab could not have gone through his windshield and been taken out leaving the hood unscathed.

And the other stuff is not really worth responding to. I don't know how much you really mean all that, but it would be interesting to meet you in person to discuss this.

[SDuderstadt]

31. "A confused person would admit that they might be wrong"

Not necessarily, dude. Just because someone is confused, doesn't mean they're aware they are confused. You're a perfect case in point.

Your silly claim to this effect is yet even more proof about how precious little you know about human cognition, dude. I guess it's just one more area we can chalk up to you mistakenly believing you know more than you do.

[spooked911]

33. England was shown pictures of himself at a location and he denied he was there,

over and over, and he was sure he was somewhere else.

That's not confusion.

The pics I posted also show there was some manipulation of the scene, at minimum.

[SDuderstadt]

34. I'm sure he didn't trust Ranke and...

unless you are a mind reader, dude, you have no fucking idea what England's state of mind is.

I'm begging you once again to leave England alone and quit embarrassing DU, dude. Enough is enough.

[Twist_U_Up]

83. "Just because someone is confused, doesn't mean they're aware they are confused"

look up "confused" in the dictionary and your pic is there.
lol

[SDuderstadt]

85. How is your "9/11 was an inside job" crusade...

coming along? Any new converts, TuuTuu?

[LARED]

32. "These two pics leave absolutely no doubt that there was funny business with where LE was."

How did you figure that out?

Nothing seem out of place with the two pictures.

I would guess your appallingly bad spacial abilities are once again on display.

[spooked911]

35. take another look then

the scenes are very different-- the car is at different angles, and is next to different guardrails

[SDuderstadt]

36. How do you know the pictures were....

taken contemporaneously, dude? Is it all that surprising that any number of vehicles might have been moved????

[spooked911]

38. I doubt they were taken at the same time

but the funny thing is how they moved the lamp pole on the ground AND the car.

[LARED]

37. The car position looks the same to me;

just taken from two very different angles and positions, with different focal lengths.

[spooked911]

39. try looking at the position of the lamp pole now

[LARED]

40. Did that, no change.

Everything looks preety normal given the pictures are taken from two entirely different angles and focal lengths.

[spooked911]

41. LARED--

in one pic, the cab and broken lamp are next to a stone wall, in another, the cab and broken lamp are nowhere near a stone wall.

I know the perspectives are very different but dude-- the parts of the road are totally different between the two pics. It couldn't be much more obvious.

[LARED]

42. Spooked

I understand it looks like the cab is near a stone wall in one picture and not near a stone wall in the other. The only reason you believe this is true is because you lack the ability to spatially see that it is the same location. Just taken from two different locations using different focal lengths.

In the long distance shot the stone wall is on the left side behind the bushes. You can't see it because of the angle. In the zoomed shot the stone wall appears to be close because it is a zoom lens taken from a different angle. Best I can tell the car did not move between the two shots.

Your inability to spatiality "see" your way around different perspectives may go a long way in explaining why lots of thing "just don't seem right" to you, while the rest of the world thinks it looks just fine.

[spooked911]

43. I figured that was your explanation but it simply can't be true

because the bushes near the stone wall/bridge are totally different between the shots. Also, look at the relationship of the trees/bushes and the bridge signs:

[LARED]

46. Spooked you have just validated my argument

Thank you

[spooked911]

50. the denial is strong in you, my son

Like I said with Seger, it would be interesting to actually meet with you in person and see how serious you are about denying the fakery here.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Why don't you meet with all of us...

dude?

Your mildly threatening tone is just one more reason no one here takes you or your delusion seriously. What are you going to do, hit us with a bunny cage?

[zappaman]

54. Hey Spooked

Why don't you meet in person with the people who lost someone that day and tell them your "theories"?
How come you haven't yet?
What are you afraid of?

[LARED]

66. I have found a series of puzzles to help you improve

http://www.spatialpuzzles.com/Pages/mainmenu.html

Puzzle 1 - What should the top view look like?












Answer

[zappaman]

67. that makes no sense, LARED

obviously you have been duped by the powers that be.
the correct answer is

[SDuderstadt]

68. How did you get a picture of...

Spooked?

[spooked911]

72. that's cute but

England's cab and the lightpoles are still in two different spots

[eomer]

60. No way is the taxi in the same position in those two photos.

In the closeup one it is clear that the front of the car is within about 8 to 10 feet of the stone wall.

In the other photo it is clear that the front of the car is much more than 10 from from any part of the stone wall.

I don't know what else it proves, if anything, but no way is it in the same position in those two photos.

[William Seger]

61. That's why the focal length of the lens matters

Photographer's call it "depth compression." Long (telephoto) lenses cause objects in the photo to appear closer together in depth than they really are, whereas wide-angle lenses have the opposite effect. I first noticed it as a kid, watching baseball: A telephoto shot of the pitcher taken from behind home plate made it look like the second baseman had moved up to right behind the mound.

Without knowing the focal length of the lens that was used, there is no factual basis for your assertion that "it is clear that the front of the car is within about 8 to 10 feet of the stone wall."

[SDuderstadt]

62. Wouldn't you need to define...

"focal", "length" and "lens" for people like Spooked to comprehend this?

[zappaman]

63. like that would help

:tinfoilhat:

[SDuderstadt]

64. My intentions were good....

why are you and the TPTB trying to suppress this?

[LARED]

65. If one bothers to look closely at the zoomed shot provided by spooked

One would see the effects of depth compression. The white car in front of the taxi appears to be so close one gets the impression the rear of the white car should intersect the taxi. If the guy in the blue shirt was not there it would be even more pronounced.

[eomer]

69. No, it is clear. Look again at the closeup photo.

There is a stripe that can be seen in the foreground. From the relationship between the stripe, the vehicles, the pole, and the other stripe next to the curb, it is clear that the two stripes marks off a lane that is more or less the normal width of a highway lane.

Now look at the position of the taxi in the lane. The front grill is roughly in the center of the lane. The distance between the front of the taxi and the rock wall is roughly the distance represented by half the lane. No way is that distance more than about 8 to 10 feet.

Clearly in the closeup picture the rock wall extends farther down the highway lane to our left than the taxi does. The rock wall extends at least as far to our left down the lane as the position of the pole lying on the pavement. This is clear from the relationship between the pole, the stripe, the width of the lane, the other stripe next to the curb, and the rock wall.

No way are these conclusions a false impression created by depth compression. You can tell by the relationship between the objects, the way they occupy the space on the ground, and, if all that's not enough, by the way the shadows of the objects occupy the space on the ground.

A person standing right next to the small end of the pole could obviously walk to the rock wall in 2 or 3 steps. A person could obviously stand on the end of the shadow cast by the taxi and walk to the rock wall in 2 or 3 steps.

I don't remember whether or why the car not being moved is key to the official story but, if it is and your case rests on this, then you're in trouble.

[LARED]

70. Which line is longer?

If I told you, you were looking at a three dimensional space, what line would you say is longer?

[eomer]

71. How long is this line?

If you were looking at it in three dimensional space, how long would you say it is?

.


No way to tell, obviously.

But luckily we've got a lot more visual cues to go by in the photo we're looking at.

Even if you could get some "movement" out of a depth compression effect, you'd be moving the taxi in the wrong direction. You'd be moving it even further down the rock wall to the right but you would need to move it to the left in order to reconcile it with the other photo.

Clearly the rock wall extends farther down the lane in the direction that is to our left than the position of the taxi. It extends at least as far as the small end of the pole, which can be seen by mentally drawing a line from the small end of the pole over to the curb stripe, perpendicular to the curb stripe. Such a line segment would be at most 8 to 10 feet long and it would intersect with the rock wall. The taxi is clearly farther down the lane to our right than that line through the small end of the pole. This fact, that the rock wall extends farther down the lane to our left than the position of the taxi, cannot be reconciled with the taxi being in the same position in the other photo.

I know you're going to want to go off into obscure, obfuscating arguments when you've been proved wrong. But the facts are really plain to see in the photo. But keep at it, if you'd like; you're just damaging your own credibility.

[William Seger]

76. Do I need to draw you a picture?

OK, here ya go:



The yellow line just goes down the gap between the trees and the overhead sign structure seen in the picture looking toward the damage of the Pentagon. The red line goes from the center of the tree past the right edge of the signs on the bridge, as seen in the other picture. If the cab wasn't moved between the two pictures, then the front right corner would be near the intersection of those lines.

Even though that's a rough approximation, it shows why there is simply no mystery about why we see the stone wall in one photo and not in the other.

Now, if you or Spooky would like to give me a reason for thinking the cab was moved that doesn't involve spatial disorientation and guesses about distances, then have at it. If you can't, then maybe it's time to move on.

[eomer]

88. Your yellow line is wrong.

Look at the two light poles in the photos (indicated by blue ellipses).

For the yellow line to pass through the taxi it should pass near the light pole that is on the right side of the ground shot photo (which is the bottom light pole in the aerial shot). Your yellow line lands way off to the left of the left light pole in the ground shot. It needs to rotate significantly in the clockwise from above direction.

The blue line in my revised aerial shot is roughly where your yellow line should have been.

The purple ellipse is roughly where the taxi is in the closeup ground shot.

The green ellipse is roughly where the taxi is in the far off ground shot.

It's in two different spots in the ground shots.

[William Seger]

90. Nope, you're wrong

I drew the yellow line in Google Earth to go directly to the crash site:



Your blue line is just wrong, and the lightpole you have circled appears to be the one on the other end of the bridge. (Edit: No, that light pole was also knocked down. I'll see if I can locate that pole tonight.) (Edit again: Actually, moving the line to point toward that side of the Pentagon made it easy to find the pole)




There is no reason to think the cab was moved. Not that it really matters except to show what kind of baseless claims you can find on 9/11 bullshit sites.

Google Earth is an amazing resource. I suggest you download it. It also has streetviews in this area which you may find helpful in figuring out what the photos really show.

[spooked911]

93. you're good with google earth

but according to your pic, the cab is to the left of the yellow line in one of my pics (the stone wall one), and to the right of the yellow line in the other pic (the highway sign pole pic)-- at best.



Jesus, it's like you do all this work, but can't put together the final critical fact of where the cab was in the two pics.

[spooked911]

92. um, sorry, but no

in this pic, the cab is no where near your yellow line.


the other issue is that there is no large tree to the left of the signs here

comparable to the tree with the red circle

[William Seger]

94. My god, you are totally hopeless

I'll bet that even these pics won't help you figure it out:

[eomer]

95. OK, I agree.

For the record, I started agreeing after your earlier post with the yellow line to the Pentagon in GoogleEarth, but didn't have time to finish looking and reply.

Also for the record, it turns out it is the yellow line photograph that misleads the eye, not the red line photo. The taxi really is within about 10 feet of the rock wall as the eye tells us in the red line photo. It is not 20 feet away from the rock wall as the eye tells us in the yellow line photo. We're fooled in the latter because our eye interprets the guard rail as being roughly perpendicular to our line of sight (due to its horizontal line) when in fact it is not.

[spooked911]

98. Thanks--

I see what you did there, and it is a pretty decent alignment, given what you have to work with. I'm sure it is good enough to convince the OCTists.

But it is still not quite right, for a number of reasons. I'm not sure if you just eyeballed the alignment of the lines and car or if you measured. I suspect you eyeballed.

I know, you are going to groan and complain how impossible and hopeless I am, etc, but nonetheless, I am not convinced.

The biggest problem here is that the foliage south of the bridge doesn't match in any of the photos. The overhead Google shot may be from a different year, so we can excuse some different foliage there, but the top two are supposed to be at the same time yet the foliage south of the bridge are strangely different.

Other problems:

1) the cab in the top shot is much more into the right-hand lane than you depict, and this throws a lot of your positioning off.
2) your angle of the stone bridge shot is not right-- and it looks like the shot was taken close to the cab, judging from the perspective sizing of the signs and the cab (the cab is much larger than the signs and this doesn't fit with your sight line).
3) if you look at the broken light pole top cover, it is laying very close to the stone wall in the top shot (we can place this piece with a high degree of certainty) and thus really shouldn't be visible in the second shot -- or at minimum, it should be much close to the trees.


I agree that it doesn't make sense that they would move the car and pole pieces over just a few feet, and that it makes more sense if the car and pieces are in the same position in both shots. But the pictures just don't show this.

[LARED]

100. Spooked you need to accept the fact that

your spatial inabilities continue to lead you astray. Every problem you identify above is simply your inability to "see" things in perspective via a camera lens.

Instead you continue to "find" problems that don't exist in order to justify your primary mode of critical thought ie If it doesn't look right to me it must be a faked.

[zappaman]

102. "but nonetheless, I am not convinced"

there's a shocker.

[sgsmith]

105. Foliage "not matching"

Maybe this will help with spatial positioning:

In this picture, the front of the cab is in the right hand lane of the road. In addition, the grill is fairly close to where the metal guardrail comes off of the stone wall. At the point the stone wall is recessed a foot or so allowing the guardrail to veer away from the road.



In this picture, the front of the cab is visible behind the guardrail, which implies that the stone wall has ended. There's also a fairly tall bush to the left of the yellow vertical line.



In this picture, which attempts to position the cab in the road, you can see where the stone wall steps back a short distance on both sides of the bridge, both before and after the bridge proper. There's also a fairly tall bush close to the intersection of the red and yellow lines. Also, the stone wall ends about where the tall bush is.



I'd say that the positioning of the cab in the last picture is fairly close to where it was in reality.

[SDuderstadt]

106. with all due respect...

This seems clear to everyone except Spooked. I don't think there's much value in trying to help him see something he has a bias against.

[LARED]

107. I wonder, Is it a bias or some

sort of cognitive disability? He is wrong so many times regarding the spatial interpretation of the images of 9/11 I am beginning to wonder if it's some sort of reduced capacity.

Sort of like being color blind.

[SDuderstadt]

108. I think it is...

in fact, a cognitive disability, along witha bias against science and Logic, exacerbated by something bordering on Asperger's Syndrome.

[spooked911]

109. Thanks

I understand your points, but it's still very odd that no foliage is seen over the left guardrail in the top picture.

In terms of where the cab was, just because Seger put it where two lines meet, doesn't mean that was the way it was. In fact, the top pic shows that the cab was farther into the right-hand lane than he depicted, and if you use the pole pieces as a guide, the cab was closer to the guardrail in the top pic. The cab wasn't moved a great deal between shots, but probably about 15 feet. Unless there was photoshop involved.

The key thing to note is that indisputably, in the top pic, the top piece of the lightpole is next to the guardrail where there is still stone wall. In the second pic, the top piece of the lightpole is next to the guardrail where there is no stone wall even close.

[zappaman]

110. *sigh*

when spooked uses words like "indisputably", you know you're in trouble.

[SDuderstadt]

111. Actually, when Spooked uses words like "indisputably"...

it's a certainty he's dead wrong but, of course, you already knew he was wrong before you began reading his goofy bullshit anyhow.

[spooked911]

112. This photo shows Seger's sketchup is wrong

The cab is straddling the third white lane divider from the right, whereas in Seger's sketchup, the cab is across the second lane divider from the right-- and closer to the overhead sign. I assume everyone can see the shadow from the overhead sign is falling to the left of the overhead sign in the pic, and the first white lane marker from the right, is really to the left of the overhead sign in the pic. In other words, don't be fooled by the shadow.

The cab on the third white line places it closer to the stone wall, and makes that picture more believable. The cab on the third white line, however, makes this image impossible:

[LARED]

113. I see the effects of depth compression

and your inability to understand it's effects still prevents you from sorting this out. In reality, if nothing else, your new image actually strengthens the accuracy of Seger's estimated location.

[spooked911]

114. Depth compression doesn't magically make a lane marking appear

But nice try.

[LARED]

115. "lane marking appear"

Huh? Please explain what you mean.

[spooked911]

119. the cab is over the third lane marker from the sign, Seger's shows it over the second marker from

the sign. You seem to be saying that this discrepancy can be explained by compression. Or not?

[LARED]

121. Now I understand what you are talking about.

The problem is not depth compression it is that there is nearly no discrepancy between the image used by Seger and the image used by you.

Based on the size and location of the shadow of the sign support structure and the size and shape of the signs shadow on the road, it is obvious the sun is just about overhead the sign. What tells us this clearly is the size of the sign's shadow. It is barely discernible because it is so small. It can only look small if the sun is nearly overhead the sign. Meaning the car is in just about the right place in Seger's estimated location based on the lane marker locations.

Once again you trip yourself up by not comprehending spatial relationships.

[William Seger]

116. Without a doubt...

... you just may be the most thoroughly incompetent "photo analyst" who ever littered the web with nonsense and bullshit.

I'm on my way out for the evening so I only have a few minutes to waste on you right now, but here are a couple of questions for you to ponder in the meantime:

1. The current Google satellite photo is fairly recent. Why do you assume the lane dividers haven't been repainted since 2001? (Hint: Google Earth also has some photos from September 2001 if you turn on the "historical" view.)

2. You're inferring that because the shadow of the overhead sign is "to the left" of the sign itself, that implies that it is farther away from the camera than the sign. In fact, judging from Google's 2001 photo, if it falls between the lane markers you claim it does, you're claiming that it must be about 40 feet farther away. But in fact, that's a completely unsubstantiated conclusion, since it isn't possible to tell from just that photo whether the shadow is closer, farther, or directly under the sign. However, it is possible to make a pretty good guess by knowing where the sun would have been at that approximate time in the morning. So where was the sun then, and could it have possible cast a shadow 40 feet north of the sign structure? (Hint: The Naval Observatory has an online solar position calculator but remember to convert the EST times shown in the generated chart to EDT.)

[spooked911]

117. Heh

1. I knew you'd say that. Though the markers look pretty much identical and most likely they just repainted over old markers. Distance-wise, I doubt that there would be fewer markers than shown in that photo.

2. I am inferring where the sign pole is because we can't in fact see the pole on the other side of the road. So it is clear the pole is to the right of the picture-- out of view.

There are still other problems with those two photos being the same scene besides the lane markers, but the lane marker are probably the easiest proof.

[SDuderstadt]

118. The funny thing is...

your "proof" never seems to convince anyone other than you, dude.

[William Seger]

120. The problems are not with the photos

One problem is that you are simply wrong, again, but the bigger problem is that the reasons you are wrong so ofter are totally beyond your comprehension. The sun was almost directly in line with the overhead sign structure at that time of morning, so the shadow in that photo is almost directly under the sign. That would put it about in the same place as it is in the Google Earth satellite photo. There is no way in hell that the shadow could be between the lane markers you are claiming, some 40 feet farther north. Your spatial visualization skills are simply appalling, and that's not a subjective opinion. You are trying to judge the distance to the shadow without having any reference points, and not only do you not have any idea how to do that, you don't even seem to realize that that's what you're doing. And, btw, the lane markers are not in the same place they were in 2001 -- the road was apparently resurfaced around 2005 -- but in this particular case, your estimate of the shadow's location is so incredibly far off that it doesn't even matter.

In short, what you have there, just as LARED said, is another photo 100% consistent with the other two, showing that there is absolutely no reason to believe the cab was moved.

[spooked911]

122. OK, I am wrong about the sign, the shadow and the lane markers

FWIW, I was fooled because I thought the overhead sign would have a support post between the divided highway sections. Not having that pole threw off the perspective.

I still maintain there is a problem with the pictures that initially I said conflicted-- the long side view and the stone wall shot. Unfortunately, I have been too busy to put together the necessary visual proof of how those pictures differ. Thus, I thought I had a simpler proof here and jumped on it.

[zappaman]

123. understandable

get back to us when you aren't so busy.
I, for one, can't wait to see what you come up with!

[spooked911]

126. I've already described the problems earlier-- the foliage, where the pole debris was, etc

It's just that I think you will only pay attention if I make a good diagram-- and of course even then you probably will find some problem with what I say. So a good diagram is necessary, but unfortunately a good diagram will take longer than I have free time for.

The funny thing is that really, I was trying to help England's case here for why he said the pictures didn't show where he was-- that the pics were altered.

[zappaman]

127. the pics were altered?

why on earth would you think that and why would it matter?
"let's see, we got away with the mini-nukes, disposed of the passengers, made sure no one saw the missile that hit the pentagon, so it's time to relax and...oh shit! Did anyone remember to alter a picture from the freeway? Hurry up and do it! Someday some intrepid internet sleuth may closely examine it and notice it just doesn't look right!"
keep digging, Spooked, you're almost there!

[spooked911]

128. It was part of the ongoing mindfuck of 9/11.

I'm sure you know all about it.

[LARED]

129. Spooked how's the forthcoming photo analysis progressing?

The one that shows the cab was moved.

[spooked911]

132. the cab wasn't necessarily moved

there could have been photo fakery

[LARED]

134. I can hardly wait for your analysis to be completed nt

[zappaman]

196. I wonder if the analysis is complete yet?

what is spooked hiding?

[spooked911]

197. as I already said--

"a good diagram will take longer than I have free time for."

Sorry.

[SDuderstadt]

198. And...

Spooked cops out yet one more time.

Is anyone surprised?

[LARED]

199. Darn, I saw this thread back at the top and I thought

Spooked had come back with his anaylsis.

[SDuderstadt]

200. Nope...

We just keep getting the Spooked shuffle.

[spooked911]

205. you know

if I actually thought it would change minds, I would do it. But you and your pals are intractable and generally a waste of my time.

[SDuderstadt]

206. More unintentional irony...

dude?

In terms of intractability, no matter how absurd your claim, you just blithely disregard everything that contradicts your goofy bullshit.

If you could prove your claim, you'd do it. You're a waste of everyone's time.

[zappaman]

130. yes I know all about

OPERATION MINDFUCK!
:rofl:

[spooked911]

133. yeah, it's not really funny

:(

[SDuderstadt]

124. Now, if you'd just open up your mind to...

all the other things you're simply wrong about (which, admittedly, would be a rather huge list), I suspect your credibility score would inch up a notch or two.

[LARED]

125. Do I detect a small kink in the mental armor

protecting you from stepping into reality?

Good for you!!!!!!!!

[spooked911]

74. The backgrounds are so different as to make

focal length moot.

Give it up-- the cab and poles were moved and photo'd at a different spot. It's okay to admit this. It doesn't prove that 9/11 was an inside job, if that makes you feel better.

[LARED]

79. Your confidence is astounding

I guess when you have absolutely not a clue why you are wrong. it's easy.

[spooked911]

73. thank you

that's all I'm saying about the pics

[zappaman]

75. good

now this silly thread can die.
maybe you can say more but to the families of people that died that day.
go on.
what are you afraid of?

[William Seger]

77. And all I'm saying is...

... that someone so grossly incompetent at photo analysis shouldn't go around making accusations based on nothing but your own misperceptions and misconceptions. But you keep doing it, over and over and over.

[SDuderstadt]

78. And over and over and over and over...

and over and over and over.

Which is why Spooked is regarded as something of an inside joke here.

[spooked911]

89. So this is how it is?

When faced with cold, hard evidence that you can't refute, you retreat to baseless insults.

Good to know.

[William Seger]

91. No, this is how it is

You're wrong twice in one short sentence: 1) Your claim is completely refuted in post #76; and 2) given the large number of claims you have made based on faulty interpretation of photos and your apparent inability to understand why they're faulty after repeated explanations, there's nothing "baseless" about the insult.

[LARED]

47. Spooked, I just noticed the red circle in the trees

This is where you have it wrong. The trees seen in the close up shot sre the trees on the left hand side of the bridge in the long shot photo.

[spooked911]

49. wow

talk about denial.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Wow....

talk about delusion.

[LARED]

55. So I take it you really think the smoking gun is finally found?

Good luck with it. I only hope Mr England sues for harassment. You and your clan of spatially challenged woo addicts will deserve it

[SDuderstadt]

56. I'll contribute to England's....

legal fund.

Spooked should be ashamed of himself...but, of course, he's not.

[NYMdaveNYI]

57. that’s an absurd insinuation

Something Craig Ranke tried to convey to Mr. England several times: There’s only one bridge in the area. THUS, your argument is invalid

this must mean... THE TREES ARE TERRORISTS

[William Seger]

45. Yes, it's pointless, because:

A) You simply do not understand how implausible your underlying premise is that anyone would even plan such a preposterously complicated hoax with any expectation of getting away with it, much less actually get away with it, when simply crashing a plane into the building is so damn simple.

B) You simply do not understand how near impossible it is that even a small plane, much less a 757, could just fly over the Pentagon during rush hour and nobody noticed.

C) You simply do not understand how near impossible it is that all of that evidence could have been faked by any means, much less within a matter of seconds, and that all the witnesses were either fooled or part of the plot.

D) While it's true that simply being ludicrously implausible doesn't mean it didn't happen, you simply do not understand what kind of proof you would need to convince a rational person that it did happen; that all that physical evidence must have been faked, and that all those witnesses are either confused or lying. Therefore, you simply do not understand that the gap between what you and "CIT" present and what would be required is mind-boggling.

E) I simply do not understand how anyone could be that far out of touch with the ordinary means of dealing with reality on a rational basis. The only conceivable explanation, to me, is that you and Ranke do not.

[spooked911]

51. Seger--

the photos I posted above DO *NOT* MATCH. There was CLEARLY FAKERY here.

The light pole story is impossible, in terms of the pole flying into the cab going 40 mph and the hole in the windshield and the undamaged hood and then England taking the pole out when it should have been left in as evidence.

Multiple witnesses say the plane flew on a different path than the official story. There are multiple other problems with the official plane story.

It doesn't matter how implausible this may be when these are the facts that dispute the official story.

I'd be happy to meet with you and discuss this, if it would help.

[William Seger]

58. You are simply wrong

Obviously, you're not going to take my advice about finding another hobby, but seriously: photo analysis just ain't your thang. LARED is correct about the trees, and there is absolutely nothing inconsistent in your photos. If you don't believe it, you can go to Google and use the satellite and street views to see if you can figure out what's happening in those photos. If you still can't figure it out, it really doesn't matter, since I'm pretty sure most people can.

> Multiple witnesses say the plane flew on a different path than the official story.

Well, gee, that might be convincing if it weren't for the fact that multiple witnesses say it flew over the bridge and hit those poles, and a huge number of witnesses say it hit the building, including Ranke's own. That's when a judge would turn to the physical evidence to decide who was right. Using the physical evidence, we would know the exact path even if there wasn't a single witness. You still fail to comprehend what Ranke is up against when he uses the path described by a tiny handful of witnesses to claim that all the other witnesses are wrong or lying, and all that physical evidence must have been faked by means that Ranke doesn't even begin to explain. There's nothing unusual about witnesses saying they saw different things, and it doesn't necessarily mean that any of them are lying. There could be misperceptions, which is most likely the case with the maintenance shop workers: Ranke asked them to draw the plane's path on a map, but of course the plane was in the air, not rolling on the ground! They were perpendicular to the path, so the only thing they could possibly use to judge the path would be an estimate of how far away the plane was, and the distance to objects in the air is notoriously difficult to judge. A huge 757 in the air could easily look closer than it really was, which would cause them to put the path farther north than it really was. Or witnesses could simply be misremembering what they saw, which is likely the case of the police officers. Since those officers worked together, it's possible that one really gets his "memory" of what happened from the other, which frequently happens, which is why they both now "remember" the same path. One of Ranke's original witnesses actually puts the plane on a path that couldn't possible agree with the officers yet Ranke treats people like they are stupid by trying to fudge that path so it could. If it was where the officers say, there's no way in hell the auto shop witness could have seen the plane at all out his office window, so according to that witness the officers are certainly wrong. That leaves you claiming that Ranke's witnesses' perceptions and memories are infallible while ignoring that they tell completely contradictory stories.

> It doesn't matter how implausible this may be when these are the facts that dispute the official story.

Facts certainly take precedence over probabilities -- which is why your incredulity about the pole through the windshield is completely irrelevant -- but Ranke and you have failed miserably to produce any "FACTS that dispute the official story." As I said, I really can't understand how you could possibly be that far out of touch with reality, and now you insult my intelligence AND my integrity by insinuating that maybe I don't believe what I'm saying? Once again, I find that DU's rules won't permit me to make a appropriate response to that insult.

[zappaman]

59. how about meeting with others, spooked?

Why don't you meet in person with the people who lost someone that day and tell them your "theories"?
How come you haven't yet?
What are you afraid of?

[spooked911]

99. first, I already addressed this a few times before

second, obviously this is not such a simple matter

third, why do you care so much about me meeting with them? What are you trying to accomplish? If you'd actually like to arrange a meeting with me and a family member, let me know.

[SDuderstadt]

101. Why don't YOU arrange it, Spooked?

In fact, why don't you arrange to meet with a number of family members? I'd suspect you'd find them to be even less tolerant of your goofy bullshit than the rest of us here.

Make us proud, dude.

[spooked911]

103. becauze YOU'RE the one

who seems to think this is so important.

[zappaman]

104. I gave you links to groups before, Spooked

are you scared they may not be receptive to your "theories"?
by the way, who IS receptive to your "theories"?
other internet "detectives" with too much time on their hands?

[LARED]

20. Spooked I made it to twenty minutes and can now conclude

without doubt that Ranke is an ass clown without equal.

[terrafirma]

30. Ya' know....

A couple things I find interesting when you compare the truthers respective scenarios between the WTC and the Pentagon.

At the WTC, the PTB used some sort of holographic planes/brainwashing/video fakery to make millions of people believe they used planes.

At the Pentagon, they actually used a plane to make people thing there was a plane, but the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. It instead flew over and either fired a missle or set off a bomb, and no one saw it flying away.

You'd think a holographic plane would've been better suited in DC because they wouldn't have to worry about people seeing a possible fly-over; they could just turn the hologram off.

And if they faked all these videos in NYC, why couldn't they come up with one or two videos to clearly show the plane in DC?

Just doesn't seem very well thought out on the PTB's part.

[William Seger]

3. And this is why

... I don't hesitate to say that Craig Ranke isn't just an incredibly delusional conspriracist; he's an incredible asshole. You have sunk to a new low by repeating his bullshit about England here.

Ranke saw the cab and took pictures of it, then blithely ignored the fact that the damage to the cab is perfectly consistent with England's story. It simply doesn't matter that a bunch of dimwitted conspiracy crackpots just can't figure out what must have happened and just can't believe England's story; all the real evidence says it's true, and only a complete idiot would conclude that means the real evidence must have been faked and that England must be a liar. The light post must have been in the air when the end crashed though the windshield and lodged itself in the back seat, and with end lodged in the back seat, there is no mystery about why it didn't damage the hood. Far stranger and unexpected things happen every day in accidents. And it simply doesn't matter that these same assholes try to buttress their unjustified character assassination with the fact that an old man -- or anyone else, for that matter -- doesn't remember the exact spot years later. What does matter is that Ranke doesn't even attempt to make a coherent and credible story out of all this "suspicious" stuff; he just implies that it somehow invalidates England's well-documented and corroborated story, and people like you don't even notice that Ranke's accusations don't make any sense.

No, Spooky, England completely destroys Ranke's fantasy, and Ranke knows that this bullshit slander of England is his only defense. You should be ashamed of yourself for volunteering to assist.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Well said, WS...

unfortunately, your logic will be lost on Spooked, who appears to have embarked upon a one-man campaign to humiliate DU.

[spooked911]

14. Yes, the truth is embarrassing, isn't it?

And as far as I can tell, WS has not even watched the video-- nor have you or LARED..

[SDuderstadt]

16. I watched the ENTIRE video...

dude. You're the only one who seems convinced by it.

Again, this is why you're not taken seriously around here.

[spooked911]

13. No, you are wrong.

You need to watch the film before making any more conclusions about it.

[William Seger]

15. I HAVE watched it

... and I am not wrong: Craig Ranke is not just an irrational conspiracist; he's a disgusting asshole. The people who hijacked AA77 would gladly slit Ranke's throat and enjoy watching him die, yet Ranke accuses an old cab driver who just happened to be there of being an accessory to mass murder, just because he is one person who knows for sure that Ranke's "north of the Citgo fly-over" theory is idiotic bullshit. England isn't by any means the only one who knows that, and it's certainly not just because England's cab got hit by a light pole. My parents neighbor is another, because he clearly saw the plane plow into the building. Wake up, Spooky, yank your head out and take a good sniff at what you're supporting here.

[spooked911]

19. But if anything, England supports the northerly approach of the plane!

Because that's where he said he was!

And your demagogery is not going to work on me because you're wrong.

1) the people who hijacked AA77 were evil no matter who they are-- in my conspiracy and yours.

2) no one is accusing England of being an accessory, except you keep wanting to defend him of that charge for some reason. It's like me accusing you of being incoherent about where you were on a given night, and you defending yourself by saying you didn't steal that car. I'm not saying you're guilty-- just that your story isn't straight. But your denial of a crime I didn't accuse you of makes things worse.

[William Seger]

22. Wow.

Can you really not see how irrational it is to simultaneously assert that England is wrong about where he was, since we have photos that prove where he was, and that England's faulty memory of where he was actually supports Ranke's fantasy?

Just, wow.

And again, if you aren't aware of the accusations that "CIT" makes, then you need to do some research. Here's another video where Ranke distorts what England says into a "confession": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho

[spooked911]

24. photos never lie, eh?

The key point is that according to England, the plane flew further north.

England was very sure he was further north on the road. It's possible the photos were faked, or staged with someone pretending to be England, such that England is totally innocent.

On the other hand, England seems to have some oddities about him, as mentioned in the OP.

But it's just foolish to pretend there is nothing suspicious about all of this.

[zappaman]

27. "But it's just foolish to pretend there is nothing suspicious about all of this."

disgraceful.
spooked, please stop.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Have you no decency, dude?

At long last, have you no decency?

Why don't you just leave Lloyde England alone before you make a bigger spectacle of yourself than you already have?

[immune]

202. "The people who hijacked AA77

would gladly slit Ranke's throat and enjoy watching him die"

Really? They would? But I thought they were all dead.

Oh wait ....

Tracking the 19 Hijackers
What are they up to now?
At least 9 of them survived 9/11
A former high-level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left
was left deliberately--for the F.B.I. to chase." New Yorker 10/1/01 by Seymour Hersh

http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

I guess Ranke had better hire some bodyguards if he cherishes his throat!!!

[zappaman]

23. disgraceful

spooked, all the crap you post is a disgrace.
people died that day and lives were changed forever for many many people.
and for you to keep promoting this old crap which has been debunked numerous times is a slap in the face to everyone with common sense.
once again, try spewing this nonsense in front of someone who lost a father, mother, wife, daughter, husband, son, friend, or neighbor that day.
you won't do it and instead keep posting the same nonsense that's been floating around the internet for years on a forum where you are endlessly ridiculed.
I find your obsessions morally disgusting.

[spooked911]

44. good discussion of this here

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread406922/pg1

[William Seger]

48. SSDD

Absolutely nothing new there. What you really need to look for is a good discussion of why argument from personal incredulity is always fallacious, but it's particularly annoying and pointless when a lack of understanding something simple is offered as evidence of something extraordinary.

Ranke's "Mystery of the Undamaged Hood" was solved perhaps within minutes of when it was first offered. That's my diagram of the cab and pole that's linked to in that thread, and the purpose was to show what should be obvious to anyone with normal visualization skills: If the end of the pole got lodged in the rear seat, then it wouldn't touch the hood, and the (exaggerated) length of the pole is irrelevant. Ranke went to Virginia, no doubt hoping to find something -- anything -- that he could use to make a new video to sell to the more gullible conspiracists. England took him to see the cab for himself, and Ranke took many pictures that fully supported that simple and obvious explanation: Although the hood wasn't damaged, the dash board, passenger seat, and rear seat certainly were, and that damage was completely consistent with the end of the pole smashing through the windshield, virtually destroying the passenger seat, and getting jammed into the rear seat in a way that it couldn't touch the hood but it put a huge dent in the dashboard.

Mystery solved? Hell no, not to a crackpot-turned-huckster who came all that way to make another video. So Ranke used his favorite "analysis skill" of completely ignoring the physical evidence and proceeded to try to find something -- anything -- that might cast aspersions on the man who was nearly killed by that pole, thereby invoking his second favorite "skill" of calling all the best witnesses liars. Unfortunately for Ranke's budding career, the best he could come up with was that England is now confused about where the event happened, and that England himself appears to have some vague suspicions about some kind of conspiracy (which Ranke takes as a "virtual confession" that England was involved in one). Ranke doesn't even make a serious attempt to explain how either of those things implicate England in anything (most likely because any attempt would be laughable), but the title of your OP shows that that's good enough for some folks. England's case is "strange" therefore he is a liar and therefore all that physical evidence must have been faked in ways that "CIT" either refuses to speculate on (for obvious reasons) or speculates laughable crap like the plane flying through the fireball and disappearing.

[LARED]

80. To any believer that the car was moved....

How far do you think it was moved?

[defendandprotect]

96. I've seen a good bit of info on Lloyde England -- seems he's trying to whistleblow --

but not quite --

Obviously, very risky for anyone entangled in these false flag operations --

usually someone has hooks into them which put them in this position to begin with.

[zappaman]

97. yes, Defendandprotect

that MUST be it!
:rofl:

[scott75]

131. Spooked, and anyone else interested...

I'd argue that Lloyde's England's story is best known by the makers of the video you mention, as well as others who are close to them. There are, ofcourse, those who disagree with them, but I think it's best to see CIT and its supporters support their arguments first hand. Here's some threads where they do just this when confronted with someone who disagrees with their views:
Lloyde England is not in on it for 1000 reasons

And here's a thread that from a researcher that endorses CIT's position:
Barrie Zwicker Endorses CIT and 'National Security Alert'

[spooked911]

135. thanks-- interesting that they start out with this:

"However, if Lloyd's cab were north of the bridge then Mcgraw's claim would make much more sense. This suggests that Lloyde's cab was either moved or the photos depicting him south of the bridge were photomanipulated."

(emphasis added)

[SDuderstadt]

136. Or that none of you know how to analyze photos and take...

distance, angle or perspective into account.

Case in point: I was watching a baseball game on MLB.TV the other night and, like both commentators, was outraged when a player from the opposing team was called safe by the 1st base umpire. Similarly, when the replay from our perspective was shown, our outrage was doubled as it showed the first baseman clearly tagged the runner well before he reached the plate. There was NO doubt about it and both I and the commentators were roundly asparaging the 1st base umpire.

That is until the replay from the camera showing the perspective of the first base umpire was shown and, much to our amazement, we were clearly wrong, as the 1st baseman missed the runner by over a foot. We were stunned, to say the least, that our certainty turned out to be false, simply because we saw it from the wrong angle.

However, unlike you (and your compadres sharing the same delusion), I quickly admitted I was wrong based upon the EVIDENCE, DESPITE how convinced I was initially from the perspective I had. It's that experience, as well as a host of others, that has taught me to regard my beliefs as provisional, that is, I hold a belief, acknowledging that it could possibly be wrong, until I see proof to the contrary.

Too bad you and your "friends" seem incapable of that.

[SDuderstadt]

138. Case in point...

I made a groaning mistake in the post above. I didn't mean to say "asparaging", I meant to say "disparaging".

I daresay if it had been you, Spooked, I'm pretty sure if someone called you on it, you would have insisted that you actually DID mean "asparaging" and that it means to force someone to eat asparagus.

[spooked911]

146. dude

I have already admitted a mistake here and am happy to do so when the evidence shows it.

I still remain unconvinced that these two photos show the same exact cab location:

[LARED]

140. "photomanipulated"

Photos being photomanipulated?

Huh?

[zappaman]

141. I just photomanipulated myself

ohhhhhhh yeah.....

[SDuderstadt]

142. You owe me another keyboard...

z-man.

[zappaman]

143. I think we should have The Company pay for it.

you need to send a standard requisition request(form A25-C7).
also tell them "the lettuce has sprouted arms and is tossed with salmon".
BBfG6-9972

[SDuderstadt]

144. That's TWO keyboards now....

my last form A25-C7 was rejected because I did not have the tinhorn dictator we installed in the country we overthrew sign off on it.

BTW, have you completed the refresher course in destabilization techniques yet? I flunked the "subverting the local police force" section.

[spooked911]

137. simple question--

if the light pole hit and PENETRATED his cab WHILE he was driving, wouldn't the top of the pole have smashed INTO his cab?

Why is the light top then lying on the ground smashed around in pieces?



(yes, I'm still working on the photo analysis, sorry it is taking so long)

[LARED]

139. Maybe

The top of the pole, ie the fixture, is still connected by wires so when the pole was removed the top came out.

or

The top part did break off in the cab and it was removed from inside and placed on the ground.

or

this is all an elaborate hoax where the pole is really a hologram.

[spooked911]

145. I don't understand your first part about the wires

As far as it going in and then being taken out--
1) wouldn't the top make a larger hole in the windshield?
2) why would they place it in such a random pattern that looks like that's how the pole just fell?

Indeed, it looks like there is glass smashed on the ground near the top pieces-- like they fell and impacted there!

[zappaman]

147. "I don't understand"

stop right there.

[LARED]

148. I should know better

The top of the light pole has a light fixture and a lamp or bulb. The lamp is connected to wires that travel up the pole from the ground to the lamp. There are also controls that "magically" figure out when it gets dark and turns on the light. The wires of course provide the power to make the light.

It is possible that when the pole was knocked into the cab the light fixture broke off the pole and was still semi attached by the wires. Hence when the pole was pulled out of the cab, the fixture came with it even though it was not attached to the pole as it normally would be. As seen in the picture you provided the fixture or top of the pole is next the the top of what's left of the pole. If the fixture was still attached by the wires it would explain why it is laying next to the pole.

Regarding your other questions;

1) wouldn't the top make a larger hole in the windshield?

Let me guess. Once again this just doesn't look right to you so there is something inexplicable going on. Right? How big is the hole supposed to be? You tell me with a well thought out reasoning and then there is something to talk about.


2) why would they place it in such a random pattern that looks like that's how the pole just fell?

Random pattern? What? Maybe, just maybe. it looks like that's how the pole just fell, because that's exactly what happened.

[spooked911]

149. Seriously?

If the top of the lightpost went in-- with the large lamp head, the hole SHOULD be the size of the lamp head.

This hole is big, but it's not that big:


Certainly, the windshield should have broken completely before the lamp head broke off from the pole.

I'm calling bullshit for this scene.

[SDuderstadt]

150. So, Spooked...

to you, it's more logical that the "perps" elaborately "staged" this scene, somehow got it wrong, yet not one person witnessed it being staged.

This is why people read your posts, scratch their heads and chuckle to themselves.

[spooked911]

151. The evidence is the fucking evidence

The evidence here supports a bullshit official story, witnesses be damned.

What the FUCK does the absence of a readily available online witness testimony have to do with anything?

[SDuderstadt]

152. Jesus, Spooked...

do you honestly think someone saw the scene being staged, but has stayed silent about it?

Agsin, this is why people don't take you seriously, dude. Your inability to grasp this should be of concern to you.

[spooked911]

157. Honestly, think about it

1) most people going by quickly, wouldn't even see anything abnormal-- some people moving a pole and a smashed windshield, and they are supposed to worry about that on such a crazy day?

2) the odds of someone watching the whole scene being setup are almost nil, given the distractions going on at the Pentagon

3) even IF someone saw apparently suspicious activity, there is a very good chance they wouldn't post their observation online or go to a reporter on their own. Plus, they might be scared to speak out.

4) think of a large city, and obvious crimes going on while people just walk by. Most people just don't want to get involved.

The bottom line, is that it is highly likely the scene could have been staged without anyone saying anything or speaking out.

[SDuderstadt]

160. Fucking unbelievable...

is there ANY fatal weakness in ANY of your absurd claims that you won't ridiculously rationalize?

Seriously, dude, this is precisely why NO ONE (with the exception of a few "truthers" who are even more critical thinking-deficient than yourself) believes any of your nonsense. You've also claimed that a number of "truthers" have fled this forum because of its "culture" and, while it's tempting to believe that the "no bullshit" standard laid down by skeptics is the impetus, I think it's far more likely they're simply too embarrassed to be seen in the company of your goofy bullshit. I also think there's a slight possibility that you're the "Stephen Colbert" of the "truth movement", but I frankly don't think you're nearly that clever.

Once more, I sincerely beg you you to quit embarrassing liberalism and the Democratic Party, in general, and DU, in particular, with your goofy bullshit.

[spooked911]

168. Seriously?

What on EARTH was wrong with what I wrote?

[SDuderstadt]

173. I hereby announce the creation of....

"Spooked's Gambit".

When WE make a claim, you immediately want to know, among other things, what witnesses we have. When we provide the names of over 100 who say AA 77 hit the Pentagon, you immediately claim they were all "fooled".

However, when I ask you for the name of a SINGLE witness to back up your goofy bullshit claim that Lloyde England's 9/11 claim was staged, you immediately go into the most absurd (and laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic) song-and-dance you've ever engaged in, bizarrely claiming that it's entirely possible it was staged, yet not ONE person saw anything remotely like what you claim.

So, from now on, anytime you ask for a witness to support any claim I make, I'm going to invoke "Spooked's Gambit". In case you've forgotten how laughable it was, I'll display it here.

1) most people going by quickly, wouldn't even see anything abnormal-- some people moving a pole and a smashed windshield, and they are supposed to worry about that on such a crazy day?

2) the odds of someone watching the whole scene being setup are almost nil, given the distractions going on at the Pentagon

3) even IF someone saw apparently suspicious activity, there is a very good chance they wouldn't post their observation online or go to a reporter on their own. Plus, they might be scared to speak out.

4) think of a large city, and obvious crimes going on while people just walk by. Most people just don't want to get involved.

The bottom line, is that it is highly likely the scene could have been staged without anyone saying anything or speaking out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=290716&mesg_id=292288


Not that you actually had a shred of credibility left to squander, you DO realize what you've done, right?

[zappaman]

174. love it!

not bad for an intel fuck like yourself!
:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

175. Well, I've worked my way up....

I started as an intern, then graduated to "intel foreplay".

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

179. Yet, you don't have a single witness who saw...

it being "staged", so you offer a ridiculous rationalization (actually a set of 4). Who's being absurd, dude?

You just got called on your goofy bullshit...again.

[immune]

203. I don't see anybody

in that last photo you posted to see anything at all. Where are all the people? Behind the cameraman, maybe?

[LARED]

153. 'This hole is big, but it's not that big:'

And you know this how? Let me guess. It just doesn't seem right to you, so there can only be some inexplicable reason.

I told you Spooked give me evidence, then we can have a discussion.

[spooked911]

158. do I need to draw a picture?

does that hole in the windshield look big enough to you to fit a lamppost head?

Yes or no or maybe?

[SDuderstadt]

161. YES, it certainly does...

Do we really need to be bored with more of your spatial perception handicaps, dude?

[spooked911]

169. how big do you think that lamp pole top was, plus the arm?

It ALL would have to go in, you know.

[LARED]

162. It absolutely looks big enough. nt

[mrarundale]

154. Nobody still thinks a plane hit the Pentagon

Do they?

[SDuderstadt]

155. Ask the 100+ witnesses who saw the plane...

hit, dude.

[LARED]

156. Nobody

on your planet perhaps, but here on the third planet from the sun it has been a settled fact since 9/11/2001. I am using the earth calender so you may have to convert to whatever calender is in use on your planet if you want to get a better understanding of how long this foolishness has been going on on Earth.

BTW, welcome to my planet, Please enjoy your stay.

[LARED]

167. I forget to tell you that

alien overlords are surrounding the earth and prevent the inhabitants from leaving. So once you arrive on earth from your planet you can't go home.

Sorry.

[immune]

204. Pentalawners absolutely do believe it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x90388

[spooked911]

159. Seger's alignment is definitely off in one clear way

Look at the amount of the cab over the lane marker here-- it is past the wheel well whereas Seger has it before the wheel well




Seger:


Seger's alignment is sort of okay with the above pics-- though I think the red camera angle is quite a bit off-- should be more to the left.

But, the real problem is this picture:


There is just way too much space between the cab and the foliage. Plus, the foliage still doesn't fit between these two pics:

[LARED]

163. Once again I must ask

you to just fess up.

This is just a weird psychological test to see how long rational people will engage completely moronic theories. Spooked an eight year old child can orient the foliage from one image to another once told how it all fits together. Yet you still seem to not be able to sort this out.

It is simply not possible to believe you on this any longer.

[zappaman]

164. actually

Many believe that SPOOKED is a dis-info agent.
he certainly makes the "troofers" look ridiculous.

[LARED]

166. I'd fire him if he was a disinfo agent

Dis-info agents have to have some credibilty to be useful.

[spooked911]

170. Dude--

what didn't you understand about what I wrote?

[zappaman]

171. dude

the better question is...what do you UNDERSTAND?
certainly logic and spatial comprehension seem to be out of your league?

[LARED]

172. I understood what you wrote. It's ridiculous.

I tried to explain this before. The red circle on the top of the trees belongs on the trees on the left side of the picture. Those are the trees seen behind the cab in the other picture of the cab seen below.

[spooked911]

180. Fine, but

and your point doesn't address the issue of what the heck happened to the tree that is circled and the bush on the right side. The issue is the foliage between the stone bridge and the overhead sign-- it can't be seen in the lower picture. In the upper pic, there is far too much space between the foliage and the car.

The car is only about 20 feet off between the two pics, but it is off, no question.

Note-- I didn't put the red circles in the upper pics.

[LARED]

181. So I guess that leaves three options

1. The cab was moved slightly.

2. The images were altered or possibly "photomanipulated" (whatever that means)

3. Your spatial intelligence is about 2 (or more) standard deviations to the left of normal.


I'm' going with option three based on the facts and evidence.

[LARED]

182. Just a kick to see if spooked will admit

to finally figuring it out.

[zappaman]

183. kick

Curious if spooked has finished his photo-analysis yet...

[spooked911]

184. Sorry, no.

I understand what Seger did, and it's a clever reconciliation, but it isn't the answer.

Not that you really care about it. You just want to promote the idea that I am full of shit.

[LARED]

186. Trust me, promoting that idea needs no

help from me. You do a bang up job all by yourself.

[spooked911]

189. According to you.

Yet still, you all seem incapable of seeing simple things, and so the ever present question remains of what the fuck you are doing here all the time.

[LARED]

191. 'you all seem incapable of seeing simple things'

Like what?

[sgsmith]

165. digging a deeper hole

thanks for the extra picture. it helps to show another point of reference, which reinforces the general correctness of Seeger's drawing. Care to guess what it is?





How about the HOV traffic lane control arm? It's definately behind the cab in the photo and a horizontal line using the arm would cross the yellow and red lines to the top side of their intersection.

But I'm sure it "doesn't look right".

[William Seger]

176. Oh yeah, it's at LEAST a foot off

:eyes:

But as I said when I posted the first diagram, "Even though that's a rough approximation, it shows why there is simply no mystery about why we see the stone wall in one photo and not in the other." It was just an (apparently unsuccessful) attempt to help you figure out what's happening in those the photos.

Hard to believe, though, that you still can't quite figure out the trees. That red line is from the center of the tree that you're have such difficulty locating in the other picture (hint: it's the one on the far left, on the other side of the road, not the one in the center that you have circled), and it passes by the edge of the signs hanging from the bridge. So, it's pretty accurate.

As for "just way too much space between the cab and the foliage," you seem to be still struggling with the concept that all a 2D photo can show you is relative angular separation as seen from the camera's point of view, not distances (and especially not distances that aren't perpendicular to the point of view). What my diagram shows is that there IS no "real problem" with that photo, and I doubt that many people here haven't yet figured out what the "real problem" is.

[LARED]

177. I think you were off by at least 13 inches, and that makes all the difference

That will no doubt be the next defense from spooked. I wonder if spooked finally got it and is to embarrassed to fess up?

[spooked911]

185. I understand this quite well, thank you.

First, I didn't circle that tree.

Second, You clearly do not understand my points*, particularly about the foliage.

Your reconciliation was clever, but ultimately falls short because of the reasons I've described.



*or maybe you do, and you just want to mess with me! Wouldn't surprise me.

[zappaman]

187. Spooked, are you okay?

you sound kinda depressed.
I mean that sincerely.
is the photo analysis not going well?
where have you been?
you are much more engaging and interesting than BeFree who makes no sense whatsoever.

[spooked911]

188. I'm fine, just busy

and got tired of the scene here.

I don't have time, haven't had time, to put together the proper diagram of the photos, but maybe this weekend...

[SDuderstadt]

190. Nice rationalization, Spooked...

I bet you can't provide a diagram that remotely makes sense.

[LARED]

192. He'll never take the bet. nt

[spooked911]

193. I'm sure it would make sense to most intelligent people

but that you would find some reason why it was incomprehensible.

In any case, it is clear that the whole England story stinks, per the original post.

[LARED]

194. Spoken like a true believer

You might as well just say. I believe the story stinks based on faith, and faith alone.

[William Seger]

195. "per the original post"

> All right, so the first thing is that England's official story of the light-pole (knocked over by flight 77 flying overhead) into his cab just doesn't make sense-- there's no way the huge pole went into his car and got pulled out without the hood being scratched or dented.

Of course there's a way: If the end of the pole got wedged into the lower part of the back seat, then it wouldn't touch the hood. Ranke has the photographic proof that that's exactly what happened, but decided to count on his target audience being too stupid to realize what it meant.

> But the really wild part of this video is when Craig Ranke shows England photos from 9/11, showing where his cab was when it was struck, and England says the pictures weren't where it happened. It is truly bizarre.

No it isn't bizarre. It's easy for anyone to be confused about the exact spot that something happened on a road, because it's all so much alike.

> Either:
1) LE is lying
2) LE is *extremely* confused (hard to believe he was this confused unless he was on serious psychotropic drugs, and he doesn't seem to be drugged)
3) the photos were manipulated
4) the cab was moved from where his accident was and the photos were staged with an actor at a location to fit the official flight path

#1, 3 and 4 are possible, and I personally suspect some combination of these three.

What a surprise: automatic dismissal of the most probable answer for absolutely no reason other than it would leave you with no mystery to solve, and including two highly implausible answers for absolutely no reason other than creating artificial suspicion which you hope will mislead people into reaching the same "conclusions" you have.

> Interestingly, where he SAYS he was actually supports the northerly flight approach, and it seems like the light pole-cab incident could have been set-up to support the official flight path story.

The photos were taken withing minutes of the crash, and we know exactly which poles were knocked down and which weren't, so there was absolutely no reason to move the cab several hundred feet "to support the official flight path story."

> There are a number of very odd things about England.

-- reads David Icke, took some conspiracy course (not clear where)

Well, I do think that's very odd, which proves nothing except that a lot of people are interested in things that I think are odd. What I can't quite figure out is why you guys think that makes England more likely to participate in a conspiracy.

> -- makes a number of cryptic statements that could have deeper meaning

Or not. But I love the way you guys accuse England of lying and then turn around and claim that he undermines himself by deliberately making "cryptic statements that could have deeper meaning." Yeah, he's just daring you geniuses to figure it out.

> -- his wife apparently supports the flyover theory

Utter bullshit. Nothing she said implied that in any way. And even if she should happen to believe that, it wouldn't matter at all; she wasn't there.

> -- in a conversation with Jeff Hill, LE says he is poor, but he has a nice house, with fancy artwork, has his own property in the country

Lot's of people who have nice houses and other nice things live paycheck to paycheck and consider themselves "poor" because they can't afford other things they'd like to have. Duh.

> -- has two life-size Egyptian mummy cases (sarcophagi) in his living room

Uh... wow. And from that, we can deduce.... :wtf:

> -- his cab # is 677 (the 77 is meaningful for flight 77 and has significance in numerology

Okay... words fail me on this one. That's beyond silly.

> So he is a suspicious character, to be sure-- and he pretty much destroys the official story of the Pentagon.

I'll tell you what's "suspicious": If you try to fit everything that happened into your "fakery" scenario but you end up with a preposterous story of how and why this "fakery" was done, that should be a clue that you just may be on the wrong track.

Oh, and btw, you're completely wrong about the photos showing that the cab was moved. It's true I was guessing what you were trying to say, but that's only because what you were actually saying didn't make any sense at all to me. But feel free to try again, if you really want to keep bumping this ridiculous thread.

[KDLarsen]

201. So, after 200 posts, let me get this straight..

The whole 9/11 conspiracy depends on the memory of an elderly gentleman, who experienced a horrific situation where he was literally inches from death? And depends on him remembering to the milisecond what happened 7-8-9 years ago (depending on when the Treehouse Brigade were talking to him)?

y/n/m?