The Physical Damage To The Cab, let's look at it in context Options

[Craig Ranke CIT]

People who try to make excuses and suggest that the physical damage to Lloyde England's cab could have been accomplished in real time with a light pole or piece of a light pole are not looking at the information in context.

Examining images of the cab either immediately after the event or preserved under a tarp on Lloyde's 30 acres of woods for almost 7 years changes the frame of reference so this article will bring it back into context.

Before I elaborate I feel it's important to always remember of course that it has been independently proven many times over that the plane was nowhere near the poles to begin with.
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/citgogif.gif)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif.gif)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/witness%20flight%20paths/allpaths.jpg)


But for those who for whatever illogical reasons are unable to accept the scientifically validated north side evidence, let's hypothetically place the plane on the south side and examine the physical evidence of the light pole and cab.

But I have to issue one more disclaimer. I need to stress how the following scenario is extremely hypothetical since we also now have mathematical proof that the final descent required due to the topography and obstacles physically proves the plane could not have hit the light poles as reported. This is due to the fact that the required G forces at the reported speed of 535mph have been proven impossible. The plane would have broken up over the highway.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/VDOT_Pent_Alt_a.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/VDOT_Pent_Alt_ab.jpg)
All relevant calculations available in this 13 minute presentation from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Moving along....

If it was hypothetically possible for the plane to hit light pole 1 as reported we must consider the incredible amount of kinetic energy the light pole would absorb from the approach of this 90 ton Boeing:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/approachgif.gif)

But let's not forget the dynamics involved with the cab coming to an immediate skidded sideways stop traveling around 40 mph:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/sliding.gif)
(imagine the pole is in the windshield as Lloyde clearly claims and the interior damage to his cab requires)


But wait!

I'll admit I don't have the exact formulas to calculate this but here is what I would suggest from a layman's perspective: the fact that the 40 mph car and the 535 mph passenger jet would be coming TOWARDS each other would multiply the kinetic force of the pole on the car significantly.
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/driving.gif)

Correct?

Anyone disagree with this?

Now let's take a closer look at the physical damage to the cab.

It's been completely established how there is no damage to the hood and how it in fact looks freshly waxed!

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Lloyd/DSC_0421.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Lloyd/lloydshood.jpg)

[lunk]

Learning to drive a car, I remember being told to turn into the skid.
I don't know why I was told to do this,
as it seems to be the only action to take,
in a skid, anyway.

Regardless, I wonder are the cab tires pointing the right direction,
to recover from a skid?
They may be, not sure.