Simple Proof That the Pentagon Cab Story Is Bull

[spooked911]

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2010/12/even-simpler-proof-that-pentagon-cab.html

and

http://pentagonhit.blogspot.com/2010/08/simple-proof-that-pentagon-cab-story-is.html

also see:
http://pentagonhit.blogspot.com/2010/07/strange-case-of-lloyde-england.html

[SDuderstadt]

1. Jesus, Spooked...

how many times are you going to flog this, dude?

[NYMdaveNYI]

11. They’ll keep

re-hashing this shit until the Sun burns out.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[spooked911]

26. what "shit"?

You mean clear evidence that the official story is wrong?

How horrible we keep rehashing this. Shame on us.

[zappaman]

33. shame yourself

you are the one who keeps bringing up the same shit over and over and over,
merry xmas!

[spooked911]

36. I'm not posting not the same thing

I am pointing out a new facet of the story. If you can't deal with that, I'm sorry.

[terrafirma]

2. So what you're saying...

is that the perps donned their invisible ninja outfits, removed the standard "straight" light pole, went out to New World Orders 'R Us, purchased a completely DIFFERENT light pole, went back to the scene, placed it on the street, punched a whole in Lloyd's windshield, then went to grab a beer.

More or less?

[zappaman]

3. finally!

I think you nailed it!
The invisible ninja suits was the missing piece of the puzzle.

[ryan_cats]

9. Don't forget the wine...

Don't forget the wine, the NWO has the best vineyards and vintners around. They sell their great wine under the ******* label so no one can track it back to the NWO.

[NYMdaveNYI]

12. Yes, indeed we do.

Us members of the Illuminati take pride in our superior vineyards, and lightpole services.


You should know that I’m the chairman of the Illuminati Workers’ Association.


I’d like to have you come to one of our union meetings sometime, we’ll have TooJay’s catering.

[Indi Guy]

4. Don't Expect the Naysayers to Debate Facts here...

They'll just setup straw-men so as to divert attention away from any and all empirical evidence which they are at a loss to explain -- let alone confront.

[SDuderstadt]

5. WHAT "empirical evidence"???

Has it ever occurred to you that if you guys actually presented some empirical evidence, you wouldn't be the butt of so many jokes, and, in fact, we'd embrace your cause?

While you're at it, could you detail some of those supposed strawman arguments from us? Please be specific.

[terrafirma]

6. Then perhaps you can share your theory

as to why there's a "different" light pole in the middle of the street.

In my mind, the only way for that to have happened would be as follows:

1.) Perps remove light pole that was "knocked down" by "plane".
2.) Rather than use this light pole for England's taxi, they plant a different light pole (never bothering to check for any similarities or differences).
3.) Perps cart off original light pole to be disposed of.

Now... which part of that makes sense? Imagine you're the one doing this. How on earth would it not be easier to remove the original light pole and USE THAT SAME POLE FOR THE TAXI???? Why go to the extra trouble of getting a totally "different" light pole and giving yourself extra work to do covertly in the hopes that no one will see?

[spooked911]

13. exactly!

But don't expect any real answer from supporters of the OCT.

[defendandprotect]

7. Pentagon and light poles are some of the weakest links in OCT myth .....

And obviously the cab driver seems to want to "spill the beans" --

There's other evidence that height of the plane and the path of the plane would have

prevented any hitting of this flag pole ---

Other than the fact that it's even more obvious that NO PLANE hit the Pentagon --

Thanks for the reminder of how much of this OCT is ridiculous -- and as we can see

from the lack of response -- indefensible.

[terrafirma]

8. The thread was started this morning....

Lack of response?

Maybe people are working. Maybe they're getting ready for the holidays. Hard to imagine, I'm sure.

D&P, what's your theory for why the perps decided to use a different light pole?

[apocalypsehow]

10. "lack of response" - That's a hoot. This has been debunked over & over & over & over & over & over &

over again ad naseum. There really is no need to "respond" to it again. Still, many of us on the "OCT" side are so dedicated to actual facts, actual truth, actual reliable history, that I have no doubt that someone will undertake the effort to once again pick apart the distortions and outright errors in this repeatedly disproved "theory."

Most "OCT'ers" are sticklers for verifiable facts like that.

"Other than the fact that it's even more obvious that NO PLANE hit the Pentagon --"

:rofl: - Sorry: the fact that someone can type that sentence with any kind of seriousness gets me every single time.

[spooked911]

15. please show me where someone has debunked the lightpole in the cab story

and specifically, where they show why the pole that hit the cab was different from every single one of the other lightpoles along the same road.

Thanks.

[terrafirma]

18. Why no response to the logic

of using a completely different pole?

Spooked, since you brought it up, I figured at least you'd have a plausible explanation why it would be easier to remove one pole and plant another instead of just using the same pole.

[spooked911]

21. First of all, I am glad that you recognize the pole is different

Second, more important than what I think happened is whether this pole, that is clearly the wrong type compared to other ones along the same highway, was in fact standing in position on the highway prior to the cab incident.

Since it seems extremely unlikely that the highway builders put one wrong pole at this spot, we are faced with the proposition that the pole was planted somehow.

Considering that the complete story of the pole falling and hitting the cab going 45 mph, going in horizontally and stabbing the back seat, leaving the hood untouched story is essentially impossible, plus England's confusion over where the incident occurred, we have to say that this pole being of a different type all fits together with the idea that this is just another small psyop within the larger psyop of 9/11.

[terrafirma]

22. So it's extremely unlikely

that the highway folks originally erected the wrong pole...

But it's highly plausible that the perps went to the trouble of planting the wrong pole while carting the original one away?

Is that what you're saying? I can't really tell because you dodged/ignored the question.

I am asking you, Spooked, if you feel that a logical scenario for the perps to follow would be to cut down the original light pole, cart it away, and bring a completely different one in for the taxi story? Does that sound logical to you?

[zappaman]

24. maybe not invisible ninjas?

maybe it was magical elves.
after all, that is just as feasible as "no planes", isn't it?

[spooked911]

27. So you agree that the this pole is out of place, right?

So that casts doubt on this whole cab story, right?

As to what exactly happened, I can only guess.


Nonetheless-- I would say that it's possible or even likely that there was no regular pole that they took down and carted away. More that they added this irregular pole to create the cab scene.

Does that help you?

You know, logic cuts both way. If there is any logic to this cab story, then the irregular pole, the lack of damage to the hood of the cab, and the fact that England says he was not at that location all point to the official story being very wrong. Q.E.D.

[terrafirma]

28. No.

I agree that you will continually grasp at straws that you cannot logically explain.

Now you're suggesting there was never a pole to be knocked down to begin with??

You redefine "moving the goalposts".

[spooked911]

29. Logic *I* cannot explain?

Where have *you* explained the multiple oddities I have pointed out here?

Yes, I am suggesting there was never a pole to be knocked down to begin with. What is wrong with this idea?

Why am I "moving the goalposts" or "redefining" it?

[LARED]

30. What is wrong with this idea?

Are you that removed from reality that you don't understand the rest of the world thinks the no plane "idea" is beyond idiotic

[terrafirma]

31. You change your story as needed

There is logic in you, and you do see how ridiculous it is to suggest that one pole would be swapped for another.

So you change it to say there was never a pole there to begin with.

All with absolutely nothing but speculation to back it up.

But whatever fits, right?

[spooked911]

35. that is what a scientist does

you find the best explanation for the data.

Now, what i haven't found is an explanation for the data from you.

[terrafirma]

40. A scientist huh?

That's rich.

Especially considering the stories you've changed have nothing to do with the "data". It's all supposition and guesswork on your end. And when the utter lack of logic and reason of those "theories" are pointed out to you, you change them.

Or ignore them.

Or pretend you're a scientist.

[zappaman]

41. I disagree

a scientist conducts experiments.
Spooked has conducted experiments...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

[terrafirma]

42. God...

... that one is such a classic.

Thanks for making my Monday a tad more bearable. :)

[CJvR]

44. LOL!

Almost as funny as the creationist proving the great flood carved the Grand Canyon with a sandbox and a bucket of water.

One would hope conspirationalists will advance into the iron age soon and discover what smiths have known for a few millenea, that hot metal soften.

[apocalypsehow]

19. Please introduce yourself to your mouse, your web browser, and the "search" function. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[spooked911]

20. I did that already and didn't find those answers

Now it's your turn.

[apocalypsehow]

23. Your inability to navigate your way around a search function is a problem that is uniquely yours.

Tutorials are available for such problems - I suggest you consult them. Discussion concluded.

[spooked911]

25. Uh no

I have concluded no one has "debunked" what I claimed.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

[sgsmith]

16. Perhaps it just got bent?

This picture seems to show the angled portions of the light pole assembly lying behind the cab.



Another view of the scene.



I see that another pole has a similar bend to the straight pole. (middle picture of three) I guess the ninjas were busy that day.

[LARED]

17. How could it be bent if no plane ever hit it.?

You must remember you are dealing with no planers. The simple, sensible, and rational reasons to explain spooked question will never penetrate the no planer 'thought process'.

In that world highly sophisticated covert operations in broad daylight in front of the media and hundreds of people is far more plausible than it got bent when the plsnr hit it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

34. if a large plane hit the light then it would have made a mark on the lawn

[LARED]

38. In the future please provide a translation

into one of the native earth languages.

Thank you in advance.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

43. so you would expect a huge jet

to just gently skim along without making a mark. You must believe in magic.

[LARED]

45. If the plane hit the ground prior to hitting the pentagon

then there wouold be a skid mark of some sort. If the plane did not hit the ground prior to hitting the pentagon then there would be nothing to cause a skid mark of some sort.

It really is that simple.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

46. it's hard to believe that anything that big

would not leave a mark. A 757 is very heavy.

[zappaman]

47. It's hard to believe

that people still don't understand that a plane hit the pentagon and still cling to the crazy belief that a missile hit it instead.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

48. I still don't see how a large heavy plane could -

maybe a smaller more agile plane but a large cumbersome plane couldn't hit a building at the bottom without slithering along the ground.

[zappaman]

49. "a large cumbersome plane couldn't hit a building at the bottom without slithering along the ground.

why not?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

51. impossible

[terrafirma]

52. Why is it impossible?

Is the ground around the Pentagon magnetized?

[sgsmith]

53. Do you have any left seat time?

If not, you're opinion is just that - an opinion with nothing to back it up.

[Larry L. Burks]

70. No plane. No missile did this.

A plane nor a missile would have caused the type of damage to the light pole that you can see in the pictures.

If the DEW struck the ground and the building. It would have changed the water in the grass and the dew on the ground to turn into steam. That’s why some pictures look like there is a trail of smoke.

The line of fire. The light pole. Then the ground. Then the building.

But if you look closely at the pictures.

The light pole, the ground, and the building all go off at the same time.

What ever did this was traveling at the speed of light.

And it can’t be seen with the human eye.

No plane. No missile did this.

[zappaman]

72. interesting

was it some sort of anti-gravity device or possibly alien technology that we reverse-engineered?

[plain1]

74. Maybe the whole thing was faked?

It's too far-fetched to believe what is called the official story.

[LARED]

50. If it did not hit the ground, it is not hard to believe it didn't leave a mark

What is so hard about that for you to comprehend?

[plain1]

54. Third rail

It skidded, but left no marks. It did the impossible -- i.e. it flew a few feet off the ground, high enough so that no parts
of the plane ever touched the ground.

[zappaman]

55. why would that be impossible?

why is flying "a few feet off the ground, high enough so that no parts of the plane ever touched the ground" a physical impossibility?

[plain1]

56. For the same reason why my Saab 9000 couldn't.

It wasn't designed/engineered to be capable of doing that.

[zappaman]

57. your saab 9000

is not relevant.
try again.

[plain1]

58. The same reasoning applies to a large airliner

They aren't designed to fly a few feet off the ground.

[zappaman]

60. truly one of the silliest posts ever

you think a plane and a car are the same?
even apples and oranges have more in common.
are you "immune" to logic and/or reasoning?

[plain1]

61. Reality, my friend.

Commercial jetliners aren't designed to fly horizontally a few feet off the ground. C'mon, you knew that.

[zappaman]

63. wow

you do realize commercial jetliners are designed to fly.
do you also realize that flying horizontally a few feet off the ground is flying?
does your saab fly?

[plain1]

66. I agree. They're designed to fly.

They just aren't designed to fly a few feet off the ground.

[William Seger]

68. LMAO! Whose "reality" is that?

Where are you getting this "reality" that it flew "horizontally a few feet off the ground?" If it hit the lightpoles about 20 feet above the bridge, and it hit the base of the wall about 25 feet lower than the bridge, a rational person would NOT conclude that it was flying "horizontally"; a rational person would conclude that it was in a shallow dive, and that conclusion would fit perfectly with the eyewitness accounts.

(But even so, I can't think of any rational reason why you would claim that commercial jetliners can't fly horizontally a few feet of the ground. That's perfectly possible right up to the point that you hit something sticking up higher than the ground. Duh.)

[plain1]

69. depends on how you define it

Maybe you believe things like that, but I doubt many people do.

[William Seger]

76. How I define what? Reality?

Hmmm, yes, that might explain a lot of our differences.

[plain1]

77. Seems your definition

of "fly" only has to mean a matter of a few yards.

[William Seger]

99. WTF?

If we're talking about flying a commercial jet horizontally a few feet off the ground, then I'd take the "under" bet for getting more than a "few yards" out of it in most places on the face of our planet, but I have no idea what definition of mine you're referring to.

But as it happens, we're talking about flying into the base of a building in a shallow dive, so a few yards will do, dontcha think?

[zappaman]

100. actually

if you fly an inch above the ground, aren't you still flying?
or you would call that an impossibility?

[SDuderstadt]

103. Really?

If planes aren't "designed to fly horizontally a few feet off the ground", how, precisely, do they land? Duh.

[William Seger]

59. Wow

I had no idea that commercial jets weren't designed/engineered to land. Thanks for the warning.

[plain1]

62. Are you saying you believe it landed on the lawn? eom

[William Seger]

64. Uh.... no

We know where the plane hit the lightpoles on the bridge. We know where it hit at the base of the building. We know it didn't hit the lawn first because there were no marks on the lawn. We therefore have a very precise flight path, and there's nothing "impossible" about it. Your claim that planes aren't "designed/engineered" to do that ranks right up there with the most ridiculous assertions ever posted on this ridiculous forum.

[plain1]

65. Believe what you want to

I don't buy it.

[William Seger]

75. So what?

Why should anyone care what you don't "buy" if you don't have a single rational reason for "buying" something else?

[plain1]

78. Same applies to what you were sold. eom

[zappaman]

79. "Same applies to what you were sold"

false.
there are very good reasons for seger to state what he has stated.
you, on the other hand, have no reasons other than a lack of logic, knowledge or common sense.

[plain1]

84. There's always a chance he might become more open-minded.

You too.

[William Seger]

87. You've declined several invitations to provide rational reasons for what you believe

... or don't believe. What is it that I'm not being open-minded about?

[plain1]

88. Evidence which points to a different explanation

I could understand why a public official would buy whatever the gov't is selling. Even someone like "Gary Mack" at the
Sixth Floor Museum...but it's surprising that a private citizen wouldn't be skeptical of what politicians try to sell.

[William Seger]

101. LOL, if you had any evidence...

... other "truthers" might not consider "no-planers" to be government disinfo agents trying to discredit the "movement" with idiotic nonsense, huh.

Reality check: It wasn't politicians who told us four planes were hijacked and crashed.

[William Seger]

82. Uh, no it doesn't

What I "bought" is based on credible evidence and sound reasoning. It isn't a foolproof method, but it beats the holy crap out of whatever method is in second place.

[plain1]

83. Believe it or not.

You say you do. I don't agree with your claims.

[spooked911]

37. the plane exerted massive force on it to bend it ~45 degrees perfectly

but it only knocked it about 10 feet from its base?

I also love how this massive force only knocked the various other parts of the lamp about 10-20 feet away.

[LARED]

39. 45 degress perfectly? 10 feet from it's base?

You know this how?

From post 16

[Larry L. Burks]

67. This is the kind of evidence I’ve been looking for. DEW

The pictures don’t lie. Only curved space can produce this kind of evidence at room tempter. The metal of the light pole has turned from a solid state and moved into a liquid state. That why it looks like it melted.

You can see fragmented pieces of the pole all over the ground. It has been fragmented. It was well on its way to turning in to dust. Big pieces breaking up into smaller pieces. And the smaller pieces breaking up into yet smaller pieces. The Metal of the pole has changed from a solid state to a liquid state. And then on in the fragmenting process Well on it’s in to forming dust. Dust Just like the Twin Towers did on 9/11.

A plain hitting that light pole wound not have produced this type of evidence. That pole has been shattered. Just like a boom had gone off inside of it.

But the fragments did go flying off in the air. They fell straight down

That light pole did the same thing that the Twin Towers did. They fragmented in to dust and fell straight down

If the light pole was in the line of fire of the DEW. It would have done the same thing to the light pole as it did to the building.

The pictures don’t lie.

Only a DEW that works off the technology of worm holes and curved space can produce this kind of evidence. A DEW of this type can do the very same thing to a sky scraper as it did to the light pole.

The very same thing that got the light pole . Got the Towers.

Look at the dam pictures.

[William Seger]

85. My mind has just been shattered

Just like a boom had gone off inside of it.

[LARED]

86. It's been a while since someone claiming dustification

showed up around here.

We from earth welcome you.

[spooked911]

32. thanks-- that is a hypothesis to consider.

The reason I think it is unlikely to be caused by a plane impact is because of the extreme amount of perfectly even bending, with no hint of pinching or tearing. But this is a good hypothesis in the sense that it would say that the pole is the standard type, just bent perfectly near the top somehow.



Would be nice to know how much of the top was actually sheared off if it is a more standard pole. Also, would be good to know if there is a clear point of impact on the pole, where the plane would have hit.

[Larry L. Burks]

71. The pictures don’t lie.

The pictures don’t lie. Only curved space can produce this kind of evidence at room tempter. The metal of the light pole has turned from a solid state and moved into a liquid state. That why it looks like it melted.

You can see fragmented pieces of the pole all over the ground. It has been fragmented. It was well on its way to turning in to dust. Big pieces breaking up into smaller pieces. And the smaller pieces breaking up into yet smaller pieces. The Metal of the pole has changed from a solid state to a liquid state. And then on in the fragmenting process Well on it’s in to forming dust. Dust Just like the Twin Towers did on 9/11.

A plain hitting that light pole wound not have produced this type of evidence. That pole has been shattered. Just like a boom had gone off inside of it.

But the fragments did go flying off in the air. They fell straight down

That light pole did the same thing that the Twin Towers did. They fragmented in to dust and fell straight down

If the light pole was in the line of fire of the DEW. It would have done the same thing to the light pole as it did to the building.

The pictures don’t lie.

Only a DEW that works off the technology of worm holes and curved space can produce this kind of evidence. A DEW of this type can do the very same thing to a sky scraper as it did to the light pole.

The very same thing that got the light pole . Got the Towers.

Look at the pictures.

[zappaman]

73. sorry

but what is a DEW?

[apocalypsehow]

80. A "Directed-energy weapon," i.e., a raygun. AKA "science fiction," save in the most primitive form.

[zappaman]

81. well, that makes sense

I have always thought an energy weapon or maybe some kind of ray gun took down the towers.
I have also always believed that STAR TREK was a documentary series.

[Larry L. Burks]

89. This is not my first time around the block.

9/11 is not the first time that they have used the Directed Energy Weapon System be fore the eyes of the public

It’s nothing we haven’t seen before.

The first time way back in 1986 when they passed the 250,000 billion dollar bill in to law to fund this type of system.

The second was on 9/11

After 9/11 George Bush got another 250,000 billion to put it into action.

They know what it is and they know what it is capable of doing.

Specially after they have seen it in action on 9/11

Sci-Fi my ass. Works like a champ. You have seen the pictures.

It’s kind of hard to say that it doesn’t work after the fact the it just did.

Worth ever penny.

Why do you keep saying that it’s not real. When every body else knows that it is.

Would every President in the past 30 years lie to you.

All of them has stated that it is real

Even Obama.

What is the matter with you people?

[plain1]

90. If I undrstand your position correctly, it sure makes...

more sense than what the government said happened.

[zappaman]

91. only if you are

"immune" to rational thought.

[plain1]

92. Your claims have been thoroughly debunked ...

years ago. Rational, thinking people just shake their head at the audacity of the broken record heads who are mired in
old thinking, disproven claims.

[zappaman]

93. "Your claims have been thoroughly debunked ..."

ok, that was actually hilarious.
are you "immune"...to real discussion?

[plain1]

94. Glad you liked it

Doesn't change the fact that the Gov't lied about JFK, Apollo, 9/11, and much more.

[zappaman]

95. no

I guess I must be "immune"
:rofl:

[plain1]

96. Then it's high time to learn the facts...

and quit being immune to the truth.

[terrafirma]

97. If you have those "facts"...

you might want share them with people who'd be interested in them.

I'd suggest the authorities, but you'd just say they're all controlled by the PTB.

I'd suggest our enemies, but really... America doesn't have any "real" enemies, right? They're all manufactured by the people running... America!!!

I'd suggest your countrymen, but the 5 you have shared these "facts" with were probably already convinced of things like space beams to begin with, and the rest of the general population is too "asleep" to realize the truth.

Sooooo.... Yeah, I guess in hindsight, your best bet is to post your blather on an internet forum.

Have a nice day!

[zappaman]

98. "Your claims have been thoroughly debunked "

says who?
go ahead...let's see a debunking of the facts.
try using evidence and not fiction.

[William Seger]

102. Thoroughly debunked?

Here on Earth, all the "no planers" have come up with is long lists of things they refuse to understand, so virtually nobody takes them seriously -- not even other "truthers."

[ryan_cats]

104. 250,000 Billion?

The first time way back in 1986 when they passed the 250,000 billion dollar bill in to law to fund this type of system.

So, exactly how much of our GDP makes up 250,000 Billion???????????????

Isn't 1000 Billion, 1 Trillion, anyone?

That makes 250,000 Billion out to be 250 Trillion.

Using Google-fu, I find out our GDP in 2010 is: $14.199 Trillion. In 1986 it was $4.425 Trillion dollars.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp

I'm thinking $250 Trillion is rather a lot of money in 1986, yes? Care to revise?

ETA: 1986 GDP.

[Larry L. Burks]

107. 250,000 Billion = 1/4 Trillion dollars

1,000,000 BILLION = 1 trillion. Count the zero's. It helps.



1,000,000,000,000 is one trillion. It is written as a one with 12 zeros behind it.


I hope this helps.

[SDuderstadt]

108. Ummm, Larry...

250,000 Billion would be 250 Trillion, not a quarter of a trillion.

Count the zeros. Duh.

[SDuderstadt]

118. Larry...

You DO realize that 1,000,000 Billion would be 1 Quadrillion, right?

I certainly hope when you're "manipulating gravity", that you have someone else doing the calculations.

[apocalypsehow]

105. "9-11 is not the first time that they have used the Directed Energy Weapon System"

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV7Ha3VDbzE&feature=player_detailpage

[spooked911]

106. More problems with England's story

"Lloyd, 69, began the morning of September 11, 2001 like most days, driving his taxi cab. A passenger in Rosslyn told him what had happened at the World Trade Center so he turned on his radio and headed home. As he approached the Navy Annex, he saw a plane flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened."

Found at
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg1
(Original link is dead)

There is NO WAY this time-line is possible-- the plane would have hit the Pentagon a few seconds after the lightpole incident, yet it would have taken one minute at minimum for the described series of events with another car stopping and the two people trying to move the pole.

[SDuderstadt]

109. Spooked...

you should probably make a citizen's arrest of Lloyd.

I would suggest taking Larry L. Burks with you in case Lloyd puts up a fight.

[Larry L. Burks]

110. . Are you blind or what?

How could you have ever missed all the evidence that’s seen in these pictures.
I think you should go back and take another look.

Every one of those picture contradict the other pictures. There is no way you can add these pictures together and make a scene that could be real
Look closely at the metal guard rail alone the stone wall. It’s on the wrong side.
Look at the back ground in the pictures.
In one picture you can see the rubble of the Pentagon. It is up close and is not on fire.
In the other pictures the Pentagon is a long ways off and it’s on fire and has smoke coming out of it.
The cab keep moving around. In one picture it is pointing in one direction and in another picture it is pointing in another and still another picture it is pointing in another direction.
There is nothing right about these pictures.
Oh by the way. The (Original link is dead) Thing. It’s part of the cover-up.
Happens to me all the time.

[SDuderstadt]

111. I wouldn't...

"weary" about it, Larry.

It's more than overcome by you and Spooked finally joining forces. My prayers have been answered.

[LARED]

112. If the source is ATS and references a dead link it must be proof. nt

[spooked911]

113. Here's the story from the wayback machine

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050502064233/http://www.survivorsfundproject.org/SFPFinal/survivors_fund_project_clients/lloyd.asp

Now, perhaps, you can address the impossibility of his story.

[LARED]

114. What impossibility?

Quick list of a few possibilities

1. Lloyd is simply mistaken about the sequence of events
2. There was a secondary explosion after the plane impacted. Oh I forgot you don't even think there was a plane.

[spooked911]

119. that would be quite a mistake

Of course, none of his story adds up anyway. Yet, you still believe his pole into the cab story, I assume.

What sort of secondary explosion would be so massive?

[LARED]

120. How do you know the explosion was so massive?

When a building is on fire all sorts of thing blow up. Computer monitors, tires, aerosol cans, piping systems, etc. And frankly I find Lloyd's narrative somewhat inconsistent. But I attribute that to a slightly confused old man being assaulted by 9/11 goons that take what he says and twists it into a CT.

When my neighbors garage caught fire a few years ago I was woken up by what I thought was series of M-80's going off in my front yard. Fires make stuff go boom.

[Larry L. Burks]

121. Only the Shadows know for Sure.?

I was reading about the FBI and the dead birds thing.

But what caught my eye. Was the clip to the right that said. “planes chase black shadows”?

DEW any one?

Well. One thing lead to another.

But while looking at the planes that chase there own shadows. (DEW) I looked at the clip where they talked about the shadows of the planes that hit the twin towers.

It’s all true. About the shadows. They don’t lie.

The Dooms Day Planes that carry these DEW systems. That the Government can’t talk about. And the pictures they have off them at the twin towers and Washington.

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/chemtrails-the-planes-that-chase-the-shaddows-t41377-10.html


http://www.disclose.tv/forum/chemtrails-the-planes-that-chase-the-shaddows-t41377-10.html


http://www.disclose.tv/forum/chemtrails-the-planes-that-chase-the-shaddows-t41377-10.html

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/chemtrails-the-planes-that-chase-the-shaddows-t41377-10.html


http://www.disclose.tv/forum/chemtrails-the-planes-that-chase-the-shaddows-t41377-10.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7_OEEdRN4k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0&NR=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2crnOsx4Eks&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFk_1i2NRmo&feature=related

Which in turn brings us back to the cab and light pole story.

Look closely at the pictures and then look at the shadows.

The Shadows never lie.


Oh MY GOD!!!!!



It was all staged. A fake.

Why did they have to fake all of the events on 9/11?


Here is your proof.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0&feature=related

No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage.

No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage.


No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage. No heat damage.



Oh MY GOD!!!!!


This brings us back to DEW, worm holes and curved space.

I rest my cast.

Oh. One more thing. If you go look at the pictures that they released by the video cameras.

If you look closely at the air in the picture. Way to the right and above the building. It don’t look right some how. It may be expressing the same effects as being heated. At room temperature. AS if the air has been heated. But was not.

One of the effects of this type of DEW.

This DEW will effect the air. If they used a DEW.

IF you use computer enhancement. It will bring out the abnormalities of the effects on the air. Of the DEW system.

The air may have turned in to steam. Expanded. Causing a refection effect. The air that has been expanded will have a different density than the air that was not effected. A optical distortion. That some times can be seen by the necked eye.

And be seen even better yet by way of computer enhancement tek.

[SDuderstadt]

122. Does anyone have the slightest idea....

WTF Larry is babbling about?

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

115. Does anyone know how I can...

include pictures I took myself within a post?

We were on Xmas vacation in another town and I noticed a stretch of highway with at least 4-5 distinctly different types of light poles within less than a tenth to a quarter of a mile.

Doesn't that blow Spooked's stupid claim out of the water?

[zappaman]

116. no, dude

not if those poles were planted there to help cover up the planting of the poles at the pentagon.
Obviously, the PTB is getting nervous about Spooked's investigations and are now trying to cover their asses.
Do you even think before you post, dude?

[SDuderstadt]

117. LOL!

You always crack me up, Z-man.