9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

[Obviousman]

5 hours ago, RubyGray said:

I have nothing at all  against people quoting the eyewitness testimony. Of course that is the correct procedure. But when a post consists of a cut & paste of scores of such testimonies, with zero accompanying discussion, just the snarky admonition "Quit while you're behind," then I think I am justified in my objection.

I disagree. I am simply not going to waste my time on a pointless exercise.

What you are doing - in effect - is when there are 100 witnesses to a crime and 99 of them say they saw a man shoot the victim, you concentrate on the one person who says "I think he had a gun but I can't be sure" and say the shooter is innocent.

[RubyGray]

On 9/21/2019 at 2:22 PM, Obviousman said:

What you are doing - in effect - is when there are 100 witnesses to a crime and 99 of them say they saw a man shoot the victim, you concentrate on the one person who says "I think he had a gun but I can't be sure" and say the shooter is innocent.

Not at all.

You are making a supposition, that "99 witnesses say they saw a man shoot the victim".

Your analogy fails because in this case, there are overwhelming numbers of eyewitnesses who say they saw someone else shoot the victim.

Edited September 22, 2019 by RubyGray
typo

[Gwynbleidd]

On 9/20/2019 at 2:29 PM, RubyGray said:

How come nearly everyone here is Australian?

LOL I've just been reading through this and couldn't help but laugh when I read that @RubyGray - there's a couple that are from overseas, but yes, the others are mostly Aussie that are replying. 

I've been enjoying reading the posts resurrecting this thread - I'm wondering if you could copy and paste the links that have helped form your theory, if you don't mind please.

And by the way, welcome to UM!    

[RubyGray]

On 9/20/2019 at 1:54 PM, Peter B said:

RubyGray, I'd be grateful if you could address this point of Liquid Gardens's.

Out of interest, has there been any attempt to find CCTV footage from locations past the Pentagon where any overflying plane would have gone?

Hello Peter,

I'm not the expert on every video made or released, but I think cjnewson88's YouTube channel has the best collection of the released videos.

I believe the CCTV footage from Double Tree Hotel has the most significant evidence of the various videos released, which is not saying much, but there has definitely been some interference with the tape before it was released.

There are several versions of this, and only one that I have found is of sufficient quality to clearly show the mutilation that has been done to it.

That version of the CCTV footage now seems to have disappeared from YouTube, but I will post the screenshots from it that reveal how two consecutive frames were manipulated before release by the FBI.

This is a very brief example of the alterations made to it, but it is striking.

This man is ignoring the spectacle of rthe burning Pentagon behind him, and the video freezes him in this position for several seconds, as he looks into the sky towards the Reagan National Airport.

Suddenly, the man disappears ... except for the parts of his anatomy which were behind the timestamp, that is, for a single frame.

 

 

There is more CCTV from the Residence Inn, slightly west of the Double Tree, which reveals some very interesting evidence that corroborates Lloyde England's story about not being on the bridge when the pole hit his cab.

It also shows the mysterious white van that Lloyde England described, which nobody else believed, on its progress southbound down Route 27.

9/11 Pentagon Attack FOIA release

 

There is the live TV footage from FOX5NEWS, which is much better quality, colour and timestamped, from a similar vantage point as the Residence Inn's, but of course it was taken from far away - I am not sure of the address - and the details are tiny, but they are there. Not that any OCT Faithful will ever accept that.

1st report of plane hitting Pentagon

 

There is an amateur video taken by a resident at the Double Tree, which shows a helicopter flying away from the Pentagon, several minutes after impact. This is a military helicopter, not a blue and white Park Police chopper.

Several eyewitnesses described a helicopter near the impact site of the Pentagon, before and during the event, but this has never been correctly identified until now.

9/11 - Pentagon Smoke From Doubletree Hotel 9.46am

 

The same helicopter also shows up, earlier and travelling in the opposite direction, in the Residence Inn, Double Tree and FOX videos. If you know what you are looking for, that is.

There are two excellent photographs of it which identify it positively.

This helicopter is also seen in the amateur video taken from the bridge, in the segment shot by Eugenio Hernandez.

For some reason, I cannot get this video to show up on YouTube today. So I have uploaded the copy I have, here :

EUGENIO HERNANDEZ + AMATEUR 9 11 VIDEO from COLUMBIA PIKE OVERPASS BRIDGE

 

 

The amateur video shot from the north Pentagon lawn, showing the cemetery wall where LLoyde England's cab came to rest after the pole hit his windshield (02:39 - 02:45), and many other interesting details :

911 First Two Handheld Camera Videos Of Pentagon After 9:38 am

 

[RubyGray]

Despite what most people believe, there are numerous eyewitness testimonies which are compatible with having seen a flyover.

Here are the locations of some of them relative to a putative flyover flightpath.

Here are brief descriptions of their testimonies.

 

[RubyGray]

Here is the full blog posted by "Skarlet" on the afternoon of 9/11.

I am posting it in its entirety because it is so hard to find elsewhere in this format.

She was deeply conflicted about what she had seen.

She had the strong impression that the plane had flown over the Pentagon, but that was countered by constant media saturation with the "AA77 hit the Pentagon" story.

SKARLET    (was “PUNK PRINCESS” blogger)

then   “www.MEANLOUISE.com” 9/11/2001

We just closed all of the windows in the house. We’re close to the Pentagon and the air is thick with black smoke. It’s beginning to seep into the house. We sat outside with all of the neighbors for a while, but the air was turning our eyes red and making it hard to breathe. It was time to come in.

Everyone smells the fuel. It’s not just my imagination. I’ve showered several times now. Washed my clothes again and again. I can’t get rid of the smell, I was no longer sure if it was real or my imagination. Everyone tells me it’s real, but for a while I wondered if they could be humoring me, pretending to smell it. It’s hard to know what the **** to think.

We never turn on the TV in the mornings. Today, on a whim, Husband did, just as a plane hit the WTC. As they were showing the impact in replay they cut away. A second plane had crashed.

It was unthinkable. It was confusing. It was also New York, it wasn’t here.

I tore myself away and got in the car. I had a meeting, there would be hell to pay if I missed it. The Dean would never forgive me. I had a bad feeling but I went anyway.

As I drove in I surfed the radio stations looking for news. All music. No mention of NY. Traffic was bad on the highway. I had this delusional idea that I should take a shortcut. That it would be a safer route. I don’t do it often, since it’s easy to get tangled in a military convoy if you scoot through at the wrong time of day. It involves some access roads, the Pentagon parking lot, some back roads. It’s hard to know what I was thinking, but I’m pretty sure I felt like of all the potential targets in town, no one was dumb enough to hit the Pentagon. Plus, there wasn’t any news on the radio, so we had to be in the clear.

As I came up along the Pentagon I saw helicopters.

That’s not strange. It’s the Pentagon.

Then I saw the plane. There were only a few cars on the road, we all stopped. I know I wanted to believe that plane was making a low descent into National Airport, but it was nearly on the road. And it was headed straight for the building.

It made no sense.

It was there. A huge jet. Then it was gone.

A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. The noise was beyond description. The smell seemed to singe the inside of my nose. The earth seemed to stop shaking for a second, but then sirens began and the ground seemed to shake again – this time from the incoming barrage of firetrucks, police cars, military vehicles.

People were pouring out of the building like ants. An MP checked on me. Made sure I hadn’t been hurt. No burning debris in the car, just smoke. Just me.

We had a conversation. I don’t remember it.

He tried to send me south, but traffic was pouring out of the city by now.

“Where do you work?”

I told him.

“Go there. Stay there.”

He cleared me to leave the grounds and sent me on my way. I felt like I’d been hypnotized. The man told me to drive north, so I drove north. It was the stupidest possible thing to do.

I called my boss. I had no memory of how to work my cellphone. I hit redial and his number came up. “Something hit the Pentagon. It must have been a helicopter.”

I knew that wasn’t right, but I heard myself say it. I heard myself believe it, if only for a minute.

“Buildings don’t eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn’t crash. Where are the parts?” That’s the conversation I had with myself on the way to work. It made sense this morning. I swear that it did.

When I got to work, no one could believe that the Pentagon had been hit. They were busy following reports that the State Department had been bombed. There’s not a lot of airflow in the media center, there in front of the monitors. After a few minutes of arguing with my coworkers, insisting the Pentagon had been hit, it came on the news. The images came on the news.

Up to that point I’d been ordered to attend that meeting I went in for in the first place. My somewhat sooty, smelly, shocked demeanor got me out of it.

Unfortunately, now there was no way to get home. The roads were jammed. There was no where to go.

I finally cleared my head enough to drive and spent hours getting home. I spent an eternity in my car. I couldn’t roll up the windows, the car smelled like the Inferno.

Eventually I got back home, back to the place I should have stayed in the first place.

There seems to be no footage of the crash, only the site. The gash in the building looks so small on TV. The massiveness of the structure lost in the tight shots of the fire. There was a plane. It didn’t go over the building. It went into the building. I want them to find it whole, wedged between floors or something. I know that in’t going to happen, but right now I pretend.

I want to see footage of the crash.

I want to make it make sense. I want to know why there’s this gap in my memory, this gap that makes it seem as though the plane simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.

I don’t want to see footage of the crash.

It seems so unhealthy to see the planes in NY crash over and over. To see the building fall again and again. I saw it once, the Pentagon is shambles. I don’t know that I want to see the crash ever again. Even the pictures of the blaze are too much right now as the firefighters try to contain it. It’s weird to watch it on TV while the same smoke drifts by your windows.

I’ve showered and showered. Ultimately, I think I’m going to throw away my clothes. I don’t think the smell will ever come out.

I've reached my parents. My brother is already on a Classified assignment. Who the hell knows where he is. I'm assuming he's safe. I have no idea.

Posted by skarlet at September 11, 2001 08:41 PM

Edited September 22, 2019 by RubyGray
format

[RubyGray]

2 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

LOL I've just been reading through this and couldn't help but laugh when I read that @RubyGray - there's a couple that are from overseas, but yes, the others are mostly Aussie that are replying. 

I've been enjoying reading the posts resurrecting this thread - I'm wondering if you could copy and paste the links that have helped form your theory, if you don't mind please.

And by the way, welcome to UM!    

Thanks muchly for the welcome!

I hope the posts I've just made are helpful for you. I will be posting a lot more soon. Just ask if there's anything specific you want to know about my thoughts and how I arrived at them.

My interest in the Pentagon event was piqued by the work of Citizen Investigation Team. Their videos are all found on Craig Ranke's Lytetrip YouTube channel. I find most of their work to be exemplary, but they lost the plot where Lloyde England and his taxi cab are concerned. The controversy they caused with their hate campaign against this innocent victim is I think what drove their investigation into disrepute. I am trying to redress the balance there, and in overlapping areas.

Here are CIT's two major videos on Lloyde England.

I am working on a comprehensive thread on the topic of Lloyde England and all things connected with his story, below. It is a work in progress, really me thinking aloud, adding more material whenever I come across some new evidence, and needs finishing. That site has been closed to new memberships for a couple of years now, so I can say what I want without being sidetracked by ziffers. When I want to discuss the issues, I have to venture further afield. Some venues are very hostile, but things seem very civilised here.

Here is Page 8, where I mostly discuss the videos which show Lloyde England's cab at a whole other location than the bridge where the plane is supposed to have knocked down lightpoles as it flew across the highway, sending one into the taxi windscreen. Also a wealth of info on Steve Riskus, who I can only conclude is a complicit operative in the scheme.

http://letsrollforums.com//lloyde-england-vindicated-new-t32464p8.html

Here is page 9 on my thread, with some more controversial conclusions to consider. You can work back and forth through it as you want.

http://letsrollforums.com//lloyde-england-vindicated-new-t32464p9.html

It's about to tick over 20,000 views, which is interesting for a site where there's no discussion happening, and a rather obscure topic. It's as though certain people are keeping tabs on the thread to see who will be named and shamed next. The interest level rose considerably when I started posting about Rumsfeld, who was deeply involved.

[Trelane]

Ok great, so I'll ask again. @RubyGrayWhat story do you believe or do you accept as truth?

[ChrLzs]

Just to clarify something for interested readers who ARE capable of admitting they don't know enough to make grandiose claims...

CCTV footage, and indeed almost every video posted on the web is subject to JPEG compression artefacts - which appears in the form of FALSE detail in individual frames.  In other words, the algorithm that compresses the video to a size that is usable on the Internet, uses various methods to compress the file size of each frame.  In the case of jpeg compression, the information is saved in little 8x8 pixel blocks, and each block may be re-used or mathematically manipulated to save file size - it just roughly matches the data and uses duplicate data (in other locations or from previous frames) wherever possible to save bytes..  ALSO, every time a video is resaved, MORE compression artefacts- ie more FALSE DETAIL will appear.  These include 'lagging', where parts of an image (esp, in high contrast areas) remain between frames (eg the guys legs where they meet the time stamp....).

For this reason, if possible a real researcher will try to go back to uncompressed original data, if that exists.  If it doesn't, the first thing they should discuss/declare BEFORE making an issue out of small details they see, is the high likelihood that the 'detail' is 100% false, as in this case.  This almost certainly ISN'T a case of manipulated video, but simply a bit of lagging ('ghosting') detail.

If you don't know this incredibly basic fact, then you obviously are NOT even remotely qualified to analyse this sort of footage.  It just shows that .... you ain't got a clue.

What is particularly notable here is that NOT ONE of those who are making a big thing about such FALSE DETAIL, even mention jpeg compression issues.

 

Do they seriously not know about this?  I find it hard to believe that their knowledge could possibly be that shallow.

Are they DELIBERATELY misleading the forum, or just 'innocently' incompetent?

Edited September 22, 2019 by ChrLzs

[Timothy]

On 9/20/2019 at 2:29 PM, RubyGray said:

*snip*

How come nearly everyone here is Australian?

Spoiler

Because we’re a unit of disinformation agents working out of Pine Gap.

Probably because the majority of Americans are sick of having to contest this BS since day one. 

And we’re an ally and objective third party. 

So if you can’t make it obvious to us, you ain’t got much to stand on. 

[RubyGray]

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Just to clarify something for interested readers who ARE capable of admitting they don't know enough to make grandiose claims...

CCTV footage, and indeed almost every video posted on the web is subject to JPEG compression artefacts - which appears in the form of FALSE detail in individual frames.

So obviously then, you are saying that this also occurs in those 2 infamous frames, one from each of the two Gatecam CCTV videos, where were are expected to believe that fuzzy blur is AA77?

How can we ever trust any of our senses again?

Is nothing what it appears?

The Double Tree parking lot footage contains many more anomalies than this one. "Compression" effects cannot explain them all. Coincidence is not on your side there.

[RubyGray]

7 hours ago, Trelane said:

Ok great, so I'll ask again. @RubyGrayWhat story do you believe or do you accept as truth?

I do not accept the Official story.

I do accept Lloyde England's OWN testimony of his personal experience, which is not any of the various perverted interpretations of that testimony claimed by both sides. Lloyde England's testimony, if true, refutes the OCT.

As to the whole truth - will we ever know? I just know there is something deeply wrong with the generally accepted story, on every level.

[ChrLzs]

Added:

9 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

were {sic} are expected to believe that fuzzy blur is AA77?

What is the claimed speed, distance and size of the moving object?

What is the timing / shutter speed / image overlay technique in use?

What subsequent or inherent post-processing has taken place, either deliberately or via simply saving it to Youtube/whatever?

What *should* it look like, taking all those into account?

 or, in simpler terms, you and those sites you biasedly cherry-pick, are completely out of your depth.

/Added. 

9 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

Is nothing what it appears?

Not if you don't understand first principles.

Quote

Coincidence is not on your side there.

And relevant skills are not on yours.

 

Me, I'd actually be rethinking my entire approach if given the reception you're getting.

Edited September 23, 2019 by ChrLzs

[ChrLzs]

As an aside, this is a wonderful example of the techniques used by those who, shall we say, proudly wear glittering headgear...

Note above, in this post:

RUBY (not me) raised the guys legs getting tangled with the time signature in two adjacent frames of a video as her first (presumably best) example.  On that basis she then claimed the video was tampered with.  As I pointed out in some detail (and ask any decent videographer) that effect is a classic example of what JPEG compression does.  It's false 'ghost' detail.  You'll get similar effects if you are receiving a low quality digital tv signal, although it uses different compression so you get different effects.

So, did Ruby say "Thanks for explaining that, sorry, my example then is wrong."  No, of course she doesn't.  She can't be wrong, so instead, you'll note she immediately changed the topic to the shape of the aircraft.  So the very first example she gave was wrong, she refused to acknowledge that and just jumped to another topic.

It's called a Gish Gallop, where you offer a long list of 'issues', and immediately drop something when shown to be wrong.  You must not admit it and quickly move to the next 'anomaly".  And each anomaly is as poorly researched as the next/previous.  Sorry, Ruby, but you're not getting away with it here.

 

Yes, this entire addition to the thread is rather predictable... and watch Ruby rinse and repeat this technique over and over and over.  A lot happened on that fateful day, and there are of course a lot of loonies providing silly and incorrect stories about what they claimed to see, or express misinformed incredulity (why wasn't my car covered by debris?, etc ad infinitum).  So, Ruby has an almost endless supply of stuff to jump to, and as she jumps from one to another, none of them get properly covered.  To her, it all adds to her desired CT.

 

To a person with skills in analysis... it subtracts.

Edited September 23, 2019 by ChrLzs

[Tatetopa]

6 hours ago, Timothy said:

Probably because the majority of Americans are sick of having to contest this BS since day one. 

I was sitting in a break room having coffee with half a dozen other aerospace engineers after the planes hit the towers.  None of us were architectural or structural engineers so we wondered how a building said to be built for surviving an airplane collision in the design criteria could fail so miserably, and how it could then so neatly fall into its own footprint .   Calling us engineers gives us a little too much credibility, this was not our field.  And yet, listening to engineering professors afterwards who were quickly belittled I think all of us carried some lasting doubt and took some professional umbrage at how easy it was to discount engineering calculations for the official story.

I trust ChrLzs to know what he is talking about.  Looking for gotchas in video records may lead nowhere.

Still every time I look at an exceptionally tall building or drive across a massively high and complex bridge, I wonder if it was designed by the engineers that took the same statics, dynamics, mechanical properties of materials courses I did then went on to become supposed experts in the field.  Can i fully trust my own profession?  Any of you that fly are sitting in airplanes with parts designed by some of the guys sitting around that table back in the day.  Did we do a better job than the people that put up the twin towers?  I hope so.

I have really tried to do the best job I can because I know lives depend on it, but occasionally I wonder if we were smart enough, good enough and persistent enough  to avoid  the serious mistakes.  .I think we were.

[Gwynbleidd]

16 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Thanks muchly for the welcome!

Oh you're very welcome

16 hours ago, RubyGray said:

I hope the posts I've just made are helpful for you. I will be posting a lot more soon. Just ask if there's anything specific you want to know about my thoughts and how I arrived at them.

Excellent and yes, those links after my post were more helpful.  I tend to balk at videos, for some reason I prefer to sit down with a coffee and read a website rather than watch a video.  Gives my eyes a good workout

I can see you definitely have a passion for researching this particular topic - I'm usually in the politics section so I just popped in to have a bit of a life outside of the Epstein scandal at the moment.  Don't mind these guys in here - there's a lot of highly qualified people on here that frequent the forums and you'll often find a lot of skeptics who will play devil's advocate to keep you on your toes with respect to your theory/s. 

But yes, direct links to where you are sourcing your info from is a must on here.  It helps for others to be able to read it for themselves to ascertain their own opinion.  They will often supply links in return to refute your claims etc.  Like a big learning curve, but I suspect these boys have been through it all before which is why they sound so cynical at the moment.  Just take it with a grain of salt, they mean well, even if they sound like a bunch of cranky old crones sometimes! LOL    

[Timothy]

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

*snip*

I have really tried to do the best job I can because I know lives depend on it, but occasionally I wonder if we were smart enough, good enough and persistent enough  to avoid  the serious mistakes.  .I think we were.

Yes that’s the crux of it. You do your best work as capable as you are.

I appreciate you and anyone else who understands that we and our technology is fallible. 

[Tatetopa]

7 hours ago, Timothy said:

I appreciate you and anyone else who understands that we and our technology is fallible. 

We push it pretty hard, but usually we designed in some safety margins.  Some humility helps.  After all, we have been using tools and fire for well over 100,000 years and we still hit our thumbs with hammers and burn ourselves on the kitchen stove.

Now this is purely a prejudiced opinion I know; I think the trouble often starts when the money types want to cut corners and question all of those safety measures to increase corporate profits.  I am all for making money still there needs to be a balance, between cost and safety.

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 9/22/2019 at 8:58 AM, RubyGray said:

She had the strong impression that the plane had flown over the Pentagon,

Can you provide the quote where she states this?  I missed it.  And why the vague word, 'impression' and not 'witnessed'?

[TigerBright19]

Easy to get the impression that the plane was about to fly over the Pentagon.  Entirely depends on the perspective of the witness. e.g.

 

 

Witness - "look at that plane flying over the Pentagon"

Optical illusion - It's about to hit the Pentagon

 

Seen from a distance, the plane appears above the Pentagon, and then swoops in low for the impact.

 

 

Coming in fast like a speeding bullet.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Aaron2016

[RubyGray]

17 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

Oh you're very welcome

Excellent and yes, those links after my post were more helpful.  I tend to balk at videos, for some reason I prefer to sit down with a coffee and read a website rather than watch a video.  Gives my eyes a good workout  ...

But yes, direct links to where you are sourcing your info from is a must on here.  It helps for others to be able to read it for themselves to ascertain their own opinion.  They will often supply links in return to refute your claims etc.  Like a big learning curve, but I suspect these boys have been through it all before which is why they sound so cynical at the moment.  Just take it with a grain of salt, they mean well, even if they sound like a bunch of cranky old crones sometimes! LOL    

Hi again! Helpful hints noted and appreciated.

Since you are such an avid reader, just for your benefit, I include here another reply I just posted on John Wyndham's  Foreign Policy Journal article, "Bringing Closure to the 9_11 Pentagon Debate".   This is in response to a Barry Jones' perceptive observations on the lack of released CCTV footage from the Pentagon.

 

Ruby Gray on September 23, 2019 at 7:00 pm

"@Barry Jones,
Your masterful treatment of this topic is appreciated. I applaud you for your incisive remarks about the deceitful response to all FOIA requests – which says basically, “We decided that the actual moment of impact was not seen on this video, therefore we are not going to allow you to see what was actually recorded on all these withheld videos, that would incriminate us.”

Your point about the several minutes’ forewarning of the approach of a plane being sufficient to have alerted at least someone to train all CCTV cameras on the sky, is well made. So what would any and/or all of these rooftop perimeter cameras have captured? As you point out, contrary to the Official story, which has “AA77” making its large loop entirely west of the Pentagon, the plane in fact did its loop at a much lower altitude, after crossing east of the Potomac River, passing the White House, before crossing the river again and turning northeast towards the target. All cameras on the perimeter should have captured this loop, which was witnessed or heard by ANC worker William Middleton, by heliport tower staff ATC Sean Boger and Jackie Kidd, and by charter boat operator Steve Chaconas, among others.

A sceptic would think this sufficient reason for the FBI to prevent public access to the footage from any of these 80??? Pentagon cameras trained skyward.

Citizen Investigation Team did some research on the CCTV camera footage confiscated from the Citgo gas station. There were several cameras operative, showing the station premises, including video of Sergeant William Lagasse. He is seen filling his tank, then suddenly backing out and peeling off from a bowser on the northwest corner after the impact, lending credence to his testimony of having observed the plane from that location, as it followed the North-of-Citgo path towards the Pentagon, rather than the South-of-Citgo path of official infamy. The footage from these cameras was eventually released, but the FBI maintained a stranglehold on the one video aimed at the northside flightpath and Pentagon, which, the proprietor stated, would certainly have shown the plane and the explosion.

No footage has ever been released from the videos confiscated from the Sheraton Hotel, apparently. This would definitively show the true flightpath and impact, from its lofty elevation west of the Pentagon and towering above the Navy Annex.

Has anyone ever even questioned whether the Navy Annex would have had CCTV cameras that might have captured at least some of the action? Surely it would have!

All this silence is damning.

What else could those cameras possibly have captured for posterity that They Don’t Want You To Know About?

Rooftop cameras atop the west wall of the Pentagon would have recorded the plane approaching from the west, on a flightpath fatally at odds with the official trajectory.

They would also have recorded the several minutes’ presence and activity of the military helicopter remarked upon by numerous witnesses. Are we to believe that no surveillance cameras are trained on the heliport at all times? This helicopter was picked up on at least 5 independent videos of which I am aware, mostly after the impact. However, it was recorded flying on the west side of the Pentagon a few minutes prior to impact, by the Double Tree forecourt CCTV camera. Therefore the helicopter’s presence in that area is confirmed before and after, thus necessarily during, the event, and its identity is confirmed in two high quality photographs taken by two different photographers, after the event.

Yet the presence and identity of this military helicopter has been officially suppressed. Its ID has been sneakily conflated with those friendly little blue and white Park Police helicopters which were later landing on Route 27 to evacuate victims. However, this helicopter was no small fry. It was described by one Route 27 eyewitness as looking “Important enough”. Other witnesses gave confused testimony suggesting it had actually crashed into the plane. Had its activity been benign or helpful, no doubt we would be familiar with eyewitness testimony from, and accolades to, its crew for their heroic efforts. But all is stony silence regarding the purpose, and even the presence, of this military helicopter “hidden in plain sight” near the helipad of the nation’s military headquarters.

CCTV cameras would also have recorded the moment when Lloyde England’s taxi windshield was speared by a pole as the plane flew across Route 27 at the level of the heliport, on a path perpendicular to the west wall. That trajectory was confirmed by Steve Riskus on an Italian website, where he provided testimony and marked on overhead photos, the flightpath crossing perpendicular to the wall at the level of the heliport.

Riskus’ photographs were the first taken after the explosion, and confirm his location north of the Columbia Pike exit sign, north of the heliport. Riskus was driving on Lloyde England’s tail, therefore must have witnessed the impact of this pole “driven down like a javelin” as England described it. But neither CCTV footage nor Steve Riskus is permitted to reveal this disconcerting truth. The withholding of evidence that this event occurred 400 yards north of the Columbia Pike overpass bridge, over which “AA77” allegedly flew, is not proof that it did not happen. The testimony of Lloyde England is that his cab windshield was smashed by a pole while he was north of the heliport, and the evidence on Steve Riskus’ second photograph of shattered glass and black skid marks on that piece of highway, confirms Lloyde England’s truthfulness.

As does the low-resolution amateur video taken from the lawn, showing Lloyde’s cab with diagonal pole inside it, and a black tow truck waiting directly behind it.

Pentagon CCTV would have shown us all of this, as well as the assistance given by the driver of the white van in removing the pole before he drove on down to the bridge. We would have seen an identical black Capitol Cab skidding to a halt across the lanes atop the bridge at 9:37, to hold the spot for lloyde England’s cab which would soon replace it. We would then clearly see the hasty loading up of Lloyde’s cab onto the low loader trailer, its concealment with a black tarp, the two pieces of pole being loaded on the tray beside it, the tow truck’s journey south to the bridge where it did a U-turn across the lanes to offload the cab and two poles, before driving off the northwest cloverleaf, unhooking the trailer behind a pile of earth, and heading west (at which point it was photographed by Navy Times journalist Mark Faram, nearing the Citgo station). We would see the decoy cab with its two occupants, speeding away from the top of the bridge as Lloyde’s cab arrived there at 9:44 a.m.

No Pentagon CCTV footage revealing any of this has ever been released, of course. However, we DO have two amateur videos, one taken from the lawn north of the heliport, and the other shot from behind the overhead sign on the bridge, which reveal all of these things. There is also the FOX5NEWS live, time-stamped colour TV footage, corroborated by the CCTV footage from the Residence Inn in Crystal City, which both captured many of these details.

Another source of imagery of course, is the VDOT traffic cameras along Route 27. The camera on the bridge would have had a bird’s eye view of the cab and tow truck pantomime, from the cemetery wall at impact by the pole, until the staging of the tableau atop the bridge. Other cameras further north would have captured this performance from different angles.

CIT investigated this lead, and were told that VDOT policy is not to record footage unless requested to do so by police attending a traffic incident. By then of course, the action is over, which begs the question of why there would be traffic cameras at all. It has been standard practice in Australia, since long before 9/11, for these cameras to record constantly. Traffic offences are thus photographed in real time, registration numbers of offending vehicles are identified from these images, and traffic infringement fines are automatically generated and forwarded to motorists. Is the US of A so very far behind Australia, that it does not have a facility for recording traffic incidents continuously? Especially in the Pentagon environs?

Even if not, all VDOT cameras are monitored at all times. Therefore, several staff were watching as the plane crossed Route 27, and no doubt they would then have begun recording the aftermath, at least. So why has even the post-impact footage from these VDOT cameras not been released? Is it possibly because of the Lloyde England cab – tow truck – white van – decoy cab – light pole – low loader trailer sequence which would be revealed opposite the blazing Pentagon?

Somebody must have seen this sequence of events. More than one person must have seen it, and drawn the attention of their fellow workers to this curious procession, which would by now be recording.

CIT interviewed the Operations Manager at the VDOT headquarters which was (then) opposite the (then) Navy Annex. They reported that the manager was noticeably nervous during their interviews. He gave them permission to film in the VDOT yard, where inadvertently, a trailer of the unique style and same colour as the low loader trailer used to transport Lloyde England’s cab on 9/11, was captured on one of their videos. The manager gave CIT the full high-resolution series of the Corporal Jason Ingersoll time-stamped photographs, which show Lloyde England and his cab posed on the bridge, but not until at least 11 minutes post impact. This photo series also shows the infamous “white van” attested by Lloyde England but believed by nobody, parked for several minutes on top of the bridge." ... continued

[RubyGray]

... continued ...

"

They show Lloyde England himself, in the interval between his cab having been hit near the cemetery, and it’s relocation to the bridge. During this time, Lloyde was far from his cab, watching the Pentagon spectacle from the HOV lanes north of the bridge.

Another black man is seen talking with Lloyde, possibly the same man who Lloyde claimed, found a dollar bill on the road as they were walking home. Lloyde’s story of tearing this dollar bill in half, then both signing and exchanging them as keepsakes, was ridiculed by all. Yet these photographs possibly recorded that very interchange, as this man deliberately diverted Lloyde’s attention from his cab being relocated unknown to him.

The Jason Ingersoll collection then reveals the arrival of the bodyguard of the Secretary of Defense in a brown Jeep, as he angled through the traffic towards Lloyde England. A few minutes later, we see this Pentagon bodyguard, the brown Jeep, and at last, Lloyde England, clearly on the bridge near his cab. One of those photos of the cab shows the low loader trailer parked on the northwest cloverleaf in the background, with telltale tyre marks made recently on the grass by the tow truck which left it there, as it made a U-turn to exit towards the west.

Somebody with inside knowledge of this scam would be painfully aware of the significance of all these details captured so candidly by Jason Ingersoll. The general public, and Ingersoll himself, would notice nothing amiss. Someone with access to the VDOT camera footage, and the vehicle parking area at the depot, and inside involvement with the 5 DOWNED LIGHT POLES alleged to have been hit by “AA77” as it flew across the bridge, would surely suffer conflict of conscience, even if not personally involved with perpetrating this military deception. The Operations Manager, father of young children, suicided a few days after allowing Craig Ranke to film in the depot, and giving him the photo collection. Another victim of the 9/11 saga?"

[+and-then]

On 9/16/2019 at 4:13 AM, RubyGray said:

Anybody still out there who cares?

Hello Ruby Gray, welcome to UM!

I'd say millions of Americans still care about what happened that day but very few buy into the CTs.  I've watched the videos and read the opinion pieces and the one aspect of the theory that I can never accept is the number of moving parts (conspirators) that would have been needed and the lack of an answer for what happened to the passengers who were "disappeared".  

The bottom line for me is that it has been 18 years and not a single person has come forward voluntarily or made a death bed confession. Not ONE.  In this world today it's nearly impossible for a couple of people to keep a secret long term, let alone hundreds of people.  Sometimes horrific things happen because evil people are willing to do them.  Don't misunderstand me.  I fully believe our government to be badly corrupted.  I just don't believe they are efficient and disciplined enough these days to pull something of that magnitude off and never be exposed.  

 

[RubyGray]

On 9/23/2019 at 3:00 PM, ChrLzs said:

What is the claimed speed, distance and size of the moving object?

What is the timing / shutter speed / image overlay technique in use?

What subsequent or inherent post-processing has taken place, either deliberately or via simply saving it to Youtube/whatever?

What *should* it look like, taking all those into account?

 or, in simpler terms, you and those sites you biasedly cherry-pick, are completely out of your depth.

What SHOULD the plane look like? Good question. It SHOULD look like the plane seen by so many eyewitnesses, some of whom even claimed that it was as much as 80 feet above their cars as it crossed the highway.

It should look like it was flying perpendicular to the west wall, on a trajectory between the Columbia Pike exit road and the Helipad, as this is the flightpath seen and attested by so many witnesses.

Of the many witnesses, of course some are not telling the truth for whatever reason. I have to place Noel Sepulveda and Steve Storti in the lunatic fringe category, for example.

But Captain Lincoln Liebner was a very credible witness, less than 100 yards from the impact hole (he knew this because he paced it out afterwards), and he testified a few days after 9/11 to this flightpath. Even though he knew from his personal experience of rescuing victims, exactly where the explosion occurred, he demonstrated the perpendicular flightpath much further north than the hole. He also stated initially, that the plane hit a helicopter. That fleeting impression was suppressed by American media but reported by Australian ABC news.

The very fact of the presence of a military helicopter was suppressed by all media after the initial few reports, yet there remain several witness testimonies to it, as well as all the video evidence of it pre and post impact. Why then, do we not see the helicopter on the Gatecam footage? It was definitely there, close enough to the building for various witnesses to connect it in some way with the plane and explosion. It was certainly large enough to be identifiable in the Gatecam images, and slow enough to not be obscured by movement unsharpness.

Another eyewitness who was on Route 27 and saw the perpendicular flight path is James Cissell. His testimony was shamelessly reinvented by a Cincinatto Post journalist, and Cissell angrily corrected that false information.

"The reporter took extreme creative license not only with the title but also with the story as a whole. Why he felt the need to sensationalize anything that happened on September 11 is beyond me. My words to the reporter were, 

"I was about four cars back from where the plane crossed over the highway. That it happened so quickly I didn't even see what airline it was from. However, I was so close to the plane when it went past that had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of passengers peering out." 

also : 

"Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online seems off to me. I remember the plane coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle," said Cissell.

Another witness, north of the Pentagon, reported the same perpendicular trajectory. Unlike almost every other witness, he was southbound, and about 20 yards or more, north of the Columbia Pike exit sign. The bridge over which the plane allegedly flew diagonally, as in the Gatecam footage, was about 1,300 feet south of him. At that angle and distance, he would have scarcely been able to recognise it. Yet Steve Riskus claimed that he witnessed the plane broadside on, and identified it as American Airlines, just "100 feet or so" south of him. This testimony has the plane flying on the northside flightpath, corroborated by scores of eyewitnesses. 

As for me being out of my depth, well aren't we all? "THEY" got away with it, and nobody has yet been able to call them to account. At least I admit that the murky waters of the Pentagon event are so much deeper than the average official story believer thinks. But my profession is medical imaging, so you are quite wrong to dismiss my ability so abruptly.

Edited September 24, 2019 by RubyGray
Typo

[Trelane]

@RubyGray, what do make of accounts to the contrary?