9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

[Peter B]

On 10/18/2019 at 2:52 AM, RubyGray said:

and I don't think RubyGray has eliminated the possibility the car she claims is England's is actually another car;

Lloyde England himself eliminated this possibility. He stated that his was the only cab involved in 9/11, that he was north of the heliport when the pole hit, and that his car came to rest just south of the overhead sign beside the cemetery wall...

I'm sorry, but how can England rule out the possibility there were other cabs from the same company on the road behind him? If England was actually on the bridge (where his car is later photographed) when it was hit, then the black car you claim to be a couple of hundred metres back up the road behind him could be another cab, or just another black car of the same make. Can you please show evidence (apart from England's testimony) that the black car near the helipad (that is, north of the bridge) had a light pole through its front windscreen. A screenshot from a video would be a start for identifying the car at least.

On 10/18/2019 at 3:33 AM, RubyGray said:

Rumsfeld was AWOL on the lawn playing first responders when, since George Bush was busy reading a story to some small children, he was the person in charge of mounting the defense in America's hour of direst need...

Rumsfeld never did satisfy anyone with his excuse for being absent.

Which might be evidence he did a bad job of being Defense Secretary at the time. In any case, if he was part of a conspiracy, how is it served by having him "playing first responders"?

On 10/18/2019 at 12:34 PM, RubyGray said:

STEVE RISKUS' PHOTO of the highway at the exact spot where Lloyde twice showed Craig Ranke and Christopher Taylor that he was when the pole hit, IS PHOTOGRAPHIC CONFIRMATION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE corroborating Lloyde England's testimony. There is shattered glass and black skid marks there on the road...

But he left parts out. He never mentioned Lloyde's cab, and he carefully framed his photos, from several viewpoints, to exclude the section of the highway where Lloyde, his taxi, Detective Fortunato's car, the White Van, the towtruck and trailer were. He avoided showing the decoy cab simultaneously on the bridge, but 350 yards south of Lloyde's cab.

This page on my thread illustrates all this photographic evidence.

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

Shattered glass and black skid marks: They are not proof they were caused by England's cab.

Riskus framed his photos to avoid showing England's cab: Or England's cab wasn't there to be photographed.

On 10/18/2019 at 2:11 PM, RubyGray said:

But there is such an abundance of frames including this black car, that it is possible to positively identify it as a Capitol Cab, black with an orange sidestripe, a roof light, door logo and DC cab fares label. It is also identifiable as a 1990 Lincoln Continental Town Car, by its distinctive front bumper and overall shape, by the internal features of its driver's door and side dash, its rear door handle, and by its typical rear side window quarter glass.

And what have you done to eliminate every other 1990 Lincoln Continental Town Car Capitol Cab that was operating that day?

On 10/19/2019 at 5:49 AM, RubyGray said:

Apart from nominating the "rear" windshield rather than the front, [Terronez's] is a perfect description of the damage to Lloyde's cab as seen in the many photos and videos of it. If Terronez was in the northbound HOV lane, with Lloyde's cab in the southbound lane just across the low concrete divider, it would be a simple thing in this time of shock and crisis, for his perception to transpose the front windshield of a rather boxy car travelling south with the rear windshield of one going north.

So in order for Terronez's description of car damage to be a "perfect description of the damage to Lloyde's cab" you need to assume that Terronez (a) was in the left lane, (b) forgot he'd crossed a concrete crash barrier to look at a vehicle going in the opposite direction, and (c) mistook the front of a car for its rear. I'd again humbly suggest the the far simpler explanation is that he was talking about another vehicle travelling north and not England's cab. 

On 10/19/2019 at 6:51 AM, RubyGray said:

In the video, 

https://youtu.be/-Is-xBfmhCo

...This is real-time video evidence, captured within about 7 minutes of the impact. There is no "preconceived opinion" involved here. This was before the media hype persuaded people that the plane flew somewhere other than where witnesses saw it.

This video also shows that the light poles are already knocked over. If they weren't knocked over by the plane, how and when were they knocked over - right in front of the people stuck in their cars?

On 10/19/2019 at 9:24 AM, RubyGray said:

There are 2 videos of a DECOY CAB on the bridge while Lloyde's cab is still at the cemetery site, and also in transit to the bridge. Does this not awake your suspicions?

They show a black vehicle in the same place as later photographs show England's cab. There's video which shows a black vehicle opposite the helipad. According to your interpretations of England's evidence, that second vehicle must be England's cab. But there's nothing connecting them apart from England's evidence.

If England was mistaken about where he was at the time of the plane impact, then all of the evidence immediately becomes innocuous: England's cab and England himself are recorded as being on the bridge, the black car near the helipad is some other black vehicle, the damage to England's cab was caused by a plane flying low enough over the bridge to knock a light pole into it, and the car whose driver Terronez spoke to was heading north and hit in its rear windscreen.

[bknight]

On 10/26/2019 at 5:28 PM, RubyGray said:

The application of logic, and watching of the videos which clearly show both Rumsfeld and Davis (and the rest of the security detail) closely observing this charade being played out on the highway as Rumsfeld merely pretends to care about the severely burned victims he is carrying, is far greater proof of their involvement in this premeditated psy-op, than the  grand total of TWO blurry screenshots being "proof" that Hank Hanjour flew AA77 into the Pentagon.

You are merely kicking tyres here, having no actual answer for this damning evidence that 9/11 was committed against its own loyal hardworking citizens, by the US government and cohorts.

Ok, I'll ask you to present a video link that "show both Rumsfeld and Davis (and the rest of the security detail) closely observing this charade being played out on the highway as Rumsfeld merely pretends to care about the severely burned victim".  Not the wall of text you have presented, just a link with a time stamp that presents your allegation.

[RubyGray]

On 10/27/2019 at 1:48 PM, Obviousman said:

Reminds me of that old fraud, Jack White, when he said words to the effect of:

'I'm happy to examine evidence that proves the the Apollo landings were real but since the landings were faked, any evidence that says they were true must also be faked and therefore it is a waste of my time to examine such evidence.'

So far, YOU still have said precisely nothing.

[Obviousman]

10 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

So far, YOU still have said precisely nothing.

And you say we have nothing in common........

[RubyGray]

On 10/28/2019 at 12:40 AM, Peter B said:

On 10/19/2019 at 9:24 AM, RubyGray said:

There are 2 videos of a DECOY CAB on the bridge while Lloyde's cab is still at the cemetery site, and also in transit to the bridge. Does this not awake your suspicions?

They show a black vehicle in the same place as later photographs show England's cab. There's video which shows a black vehicle opposite the helipad. According to your interpretations of England's evidence, that second vehicle must be England's cab. But there's nothing connecting them apart from England's evidence.

If England was mistaken about where he was at the time of the plane impact, then all of the evidence immediately becomes innocuous: England's cab and England himself are recorded as being on the bridge, the black car near the helipad is some other black vehicle, the damage to England's cab was caused by a plane flying low enough over the bridge to knock a light pole into it, and the car whose driver Terronez spoke to was heading north and hit in its rear windscreen.

Except it's not innocuous. There are far too many details revealed on the videos which Lloyde described in his various video and audio testimonies. Others had ridiculed these details as unbelievable, but there they all are, in real-time videos. Lloyde was not confused, he was not forgetful, and he was not lying. He was exactly the same age as Rumsfeld. Why do you believe every word Rumsfeld uttered about 9/11, yet disbelieve Lloyde England?

Apparently other posters who have been here much longer, are permitted to post wholesale quantities of images in their posts. But I am limited to a single image for a length of time that I am unable to determine, probably 2 hours. This is a serious handicap to posting this narrative in any logical sequence. There is abundant corroborative evidence, but I am not permitted to present it.

On a continuous segment of video, we see that black Capitol Cab beside the cemetery wall at 02:39 - 02:45, with the black towtruck behind it, Steve Riskus' red sedan and the white van that England described in front of it, and Detective Fortunato's silver sedan beside it.

Then the video camera turns to look south, and in the distance, we see a black car parked across the lanes on top of the bridge, at 03:22 in the video. When I saw this, I thought the same as you, that the black Capitol Cab (and many identifiable features prove that is what it is; indeed a 1990 Lincoln Continental Town Car) beside the cemetery wall, was just a crazy coincidence.

Then I found in the amateur video shot from the bridge looking north, the same black cab parked across the southbound lanes in 2 frames at 02:36.

But there were also the two videos from the Residence Inn and FOX5NEWS, which both showed a black truck with black trailer, taking off from the cemetery wall and heading south towards the bridge, leaving at 9:43:12 a.m.

There were 2 videos which showed the white van which had been stationary in front  of Lloyde's cab for 90 seconds, departing the cemetery site shortly before the black truck left, and driving south towards the bridge, where several Jason Ingersoll photos show it parked until 9:48 a.m.

The amateur bridge video then turns round, to show this black cab speeding south of the bridge, at 02:56 - 3:00.

In between, we see the progress south of the tow truck and trailer from the cemetery wall, towards the top of the bridge.

Then the first video shows the towtruck and empty trailer,  driving north off the bridge again, and exiting via the NW cloverleaf.

Mark Faram's photo shows the truck, without the trailer, exiting the cloverleaf a couple of minutes later.

Jason Ingersoll's photo at 9:56 a.m. then shows Lloyde's cab on the bridge, with the trailer parked on the northern side of the NW cloverleaf, and tyre marks on the grass in front of it.

There is a clear chronological progression of :

the cab initially on the bridge;

and the cab which was at the cemetery that replaced it;

of the arrival of the white van north of the cab at the cemetery; parked there for 90 seconds, then driving south (as Lloyde said it did, after the driver helped him remove the pole) on this highway with no other traffic (as Lloyde testified); and parked on the bridge for several minutes;

also of the towtruck and trailer behind the cab at the bridge, driving to the bridge where it did a U-turn, inloaded the cab then exited via the on-ramp (watched by Rumsfeld & Aubrey Davis) then drove off the cloverleaf, and after unhitching the trailer, exiting west onto Columbia Pike.

Not to forget the video showing Lloyde walking back from the white van to his cab at the cemetery site; standing in front of the bumper of this cab which has a significant diagonal shadow through its windshield; he is then seen wandering in the HOV lanes on the north side of the bridge; he was photographed there by Jason Ingersoll, talking with another man who is probably the fabled "MARC VANDEMERE" who tore a found dollar bill in half so they could each sign them for keepsakes, to divert Lloyde's attention as his cab was being relocated without his knowledge; and then the brown Jeep is seen driving north towards Lloyde in 2 Ingersoll photos, before Aubrey Davis delivered Lloyde there to reunite him with his cab for the photos.

Edited October 29, 2019 by RubyGray
Typo

[RubyGray]

On 10/27/2019 at 5:12 PM, Trelane said:

It was and you can find it really anywhere.

I think it because I have seen them. They are real people with real scars, with real emotions. Lloyd is a phantom that no-one has decided to champion . I would ask that you be more judicious with the term 9/11 victim. I was at ground zero in NYC for four weeks, I'm sure I have seen and gone though more than the curious cab driver.

You keep imagining that I have no sympathy with those first responders and victims. You are wrong. I have decades of working experience in a medical field.

And Yes, Lloyde was definitely a victim!

The point is that this thread is about Pentagon EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES. And (for understandable reasons), you are not providing any testimonies at all. So your complaints are not appropriate to THIS thread. Somewhere else, sure.

[bknight]

5 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Except it's not innocuous. There are far too many details revealed on the videos which Lloyde described in his various video and audio testimonies. Others had ridiculed these details as unbelievable, but there they all are, in real-time videos. Lloyde was not confused, he was not forgetful, and he was not lying. He was exactly the same age as Rumsfeld. Why do you believe every word Rumsfeld uttered about 9/11, yet disbelieve Lloyde England?

Apparently other posters who have been here much longer, are permitted to post wholesale quantities of images in their posts. But I am limited to a single image for a length of time that I am unable to determine, probably 2 hours. This is a serious handicap to posting this narrative in any logical sequence. There is abundant corroborative evidence, but I am not permitted to present it.

On a continuous segment of video, we see that black Capitol Cab beside the cemetery wall at 02:39 - 02:45, with the black towtruck behind it, Steve Riskus' red sedan and the white van that England described in front of it, and Detective Fortunato's silver sedan beside it.

Then the video camera turns to look south, and in the distance, we see a black car parked across the lanes on top of the bridge, at 03:22 in the video. When I saw this, I thought the same as you, that the black Capitol Cab (and many identifiable features prove that is what it is; indeed a 1990 Lincoln Continental Town Car) beside the cemetery wall, was just a crazy coincidence.

Then I found in the amateur video shot from the bridge looking north, the same black cab parked across the southbound lanes in 2 frames at 02:36.

But there were also the two videos from the Residence Inn and FOX5NEWS, which both showed a black truck with black trailer, taking off from the cemetery wall and heading south towards the bridge, leaving at 9:43:12 a.m.

There were 2 videos which showed the white van which had been stationary in front  of Lloyde's cab for 90 seconds, departing the cemetery site shortly before the black truck left, and driving south towards the bridge, where several Jason Ingersoll photos show it parked until 9:48 a.m.

The amateur bridge video then turns round, to show this black cab speeding south of the bridge, at 02:56 - 3:00.

In between, we see the progress south of the tow truck and trailer from the cemetery wall, towards the top of the bridge.

Then the first video shows the towtruck and empty trailer,  driving north off the bridge again, and exiting via the NW cloverleaf.

Mark Faram's photo shows the truck, without the trailer, exiting the cloverleaf a couple of minutes later.

Jason Ingersoll's photo at 9:56 a.m. then shows Lloyde's cab on the bridge, with the trailer parked on the northern side of the NW cloverleaf, and tyre marks on the grass in front of it.

There is a clear chronological progression of :

the cab initially on the bridge;

and the cab which was at the cemetery that replaced it;

of the arrival of the white van north of the cab at the cemetery; parked there for 90 seconds, then driving south (as Lloyde said it did, after the driver helped him remove the pole) on this highway with no other traffic (as Lloyde testified); and parked on the bridge for several minutes;

also of the towtruck and trailer behind the cab at the bridge, driving to the bridge where it did a U-turn, inloaded the cab then exited via the on-ramp (watched by Rumsfeld & Aubrey Davis) then drove off the cloverleaf, and after unhitching the trailer, exiting west onto Columbia Pike.

Not to forget the video showing Lloyde walking back from the white van to his cab at the cemetery site; standing in front of the bumper of this cab which has a significant diagonal shadow through its windshield; he is then seen wandering in the HOV lanes on the north side of the bridge; he was photographed there by Jason Ingersoll, talking with another man who is probably the fabled "MARC VANDEMERE" who tore a found dollar bill in half so they could each sign them for keepsakes, to divert Lloyde's attention as his cab was being relocated without his knowledge; and then the brown Jeep is seen driving north towards Lloyde in 2 Ingersoll photos, before Aubrey Davis delivered Lloyde there to reunite him with his cab for the photos.

Again you link fuzzy blurred images that could reasonably be called anything, but that is about it.  Clear images would help your case, but these are no evidence.  

You have no solid proof.

What do you think really happened at the Pentagon?

[RubyGray]

7 hours ago, bknight said:

Again you link fuzzy blurred images that could reasonably be called anything, but that is about it.  Clear images would help your case, but these are no evidence.  

You have no solid proof.

It really is hilarious how you can claim this, while insisting that the TWO, yes ONLY TWO (2)!!! (or even actually 1 1/4) FUZZY BLURRED IMAGES from the Pentagon gatecams, clearly depict American Airlines N644AA flying across the lawn!

[Trelane]

14 hours ago, RubyGray said:

You keep imagining that I have no sympathy with those first responders and victims. You are wrong. I have decades of working experience in a medical field.

And Yes, Lloyde was definitely a victim!

The point is that this thread is about Pentagon EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES. And (for understandable reasons), you are not providing any testimonies at all. So your complaints are not appropriate to THIS thread. Somewhere else, sure.

The first responders are/were eyewitnesses.

[Obviousman]

Quote

There was worse to come. A little before 9.30am, reports emerged that another plane had been hijacked. Within 10 minutes, a medium-sized passenger plane flew in low over Arlington and the Navy Annexe in Washington DC and plunged into the Pentagon's south-west face, throwing up a huge fireball.

Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head.

"It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."

A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "It added power on its way in," he said. "The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball."

>

>

AP reporter Dave Winslow also saw the crash. He said, "I saw the tail of a large airliner ... It ploughed right into the Pentagon."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/12/expertopinions.charlieporteronmensfashion

Quote

"I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon," eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/attack.in.their.words/index.html

 

Also:

http://911speakout.org/witnesses-refute-cit-fl/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/this-priest-witnessed-the-911-pentagon-plan/?jwsource=cl

 

 

[bknight]

14 hours ago, RubyGray said:

It really is hilarious how you can claim this, while insisting that the TWO, yes ONLY TWO (2)!!! (or even actually 1 1/4) FUZZY BLURRED IMAGES from the Pentagon gatecams, clearly depict American Airlines N644AA flying across the lawn!

I have never referenced the gatecam images as proof of anything other than they show the circular exhaust from the damaged right engine.  Please stop saying this, not my words.

Have you looked the documents I linked?  

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary  page one look at the location of human remains (at the very bottom of the page) and notice the mean line that mimics the true flightpath, as it should

[bknight]

On 10/29/2019 at 4:11 AM, RubyGray said:

You keep imagining that I have no sympathy with those first responders and victims. You are wrong. I have decades of working experience in a medical field.

And Yes, Lloyde was definitely a victim!

The point is that this thread is about Pentagon EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES. And (for understandable reasons), you are not providing any testimonies at all. So your complaints are not appropriate to THIS thread. Somewhere else, sure.

This is page one of the report I linked that enumerates some of the eyewitness accounts you ignore.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

"104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon. "

"6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact. "

Why do you ignore these eyewitnesses that you hold more important?

[TigerBright19]

Is there any evidence that some of the witnesses had contradicted themselves with secondary statements they made later?  Being interviewed right after a major incident (while the witness is in shock or overly excitable) can easily mask the clarity of what they actually saw.  The same can be said when the witness has spoken to other witnesses and changed their own story because they favor what the other witnesses said and have convinced themselves that the other witnesses were right and they were mistaken which can produce a revised version of their own account.  They could also be interviewed months or years later which can affect their statement due to the inability to remember with total accuracy what happened due to the passage of time.  So a single witness could potentially come up with several different versions of what they saw.  Problem is, which one is the most plausible to be true?

 

 

[bknight]

1 hour ago, Aaron2016 said:

Is there any evidence that some of the witnesses had contradicted themselves with secondary statements they made later?  Being interviewed right after a major incident (while the witness is in shock or overly excitable) can easily mask the clarity of what they actually saw.  The same can be said when the witness has spoken to other witnesses and changed their own story because they favor what the other witnesses said and have convinced themselves that the other witnesses were right and they were mistaken which can produce a revised version of their own account.  They could also be interviewed months or years later which can affect their statement due to the inability to remember with total accuracy what happened due to the passage of time.  So a single witness could potentially come up with several different versions of what they saw.  Problem is, which one is the most plausible to be true?

 

 

Yes you are correct, eyewitness testimony (very fallible) is at best secondary to hard evidence.  That  is what I have been patiently attempting to educate Ruby.  I only present the witnesses that viewed the plane on the correct flightpath, to show Ruby that her contention that no witnesses saw the downed light poles. And the correct flight path knocks over five which are imaged after the crash.  Ruby says these are faked, but provides no evidence that her allegation is correct.  One aspect of CT's, is that they don't provide hard evidence to their allegations, Ruby is no exception.  Ruby resorts to blurred fuzzy images that in reality could be described as ANYTHING, including her belief, but in reality show nothing more than this, so her case fails miserably.

@RubyGray what do you believe happened at the Pentagon? Don't tell me this is off the scope of the thread because you keep describing a "moved" taxi in your narrative.

[RubyGray]

On 10/30/2019 at 10:36 AM, Trelane said:

The first responders are/were eyewitnesses.

Maybe most of them were, but since the ones you quote are not talking, and we have no idea what they saw, when they saw it, where what they saw was, where they were when they saw it, who they are - then there is nothing to discuss about them here, is there?

[bknight]

8 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

Maybe most of them were, but since the ones you quote are not talking, and we have no idea what they saw, when they saw it, where what they saw was, where they were when they saw it, who they are - then there is nothing to discuss about them here, is there?

See post 2137 that shows this to be incorrect.  You seem to have difficulty accepting facts that don't support your allegations.

What do you believe happened at the Pentagon?

[RubyGray]

23 hours ago, bknight said:

Yes you are correct, eyewitness testimony (very fallible) is at best secondary to hard evidence.  That  is what I have been patiently attempting to educate Ruby.  I only present the witnesses that viewed the plane on the correct flightpath, to show Ruby that her contention that no witnesses saw the downed light poles. And the correct flight path knocks over five which are imaged after the crash.  Ruby says these are faked, but provides no evidence that her allegation is correct.  One aspect of CT's, is that they don't provide hard evidence to their allegations, Ruby is no exception.  Ruby resorts to blurred fuzzy images that in reality could be described as ANYTHING, including her belief, but in reality show nothing more than this, so her case fails miserably.

@RubyGray what do you believe happened at the Pentagon? Don't tell me this is off the scope of the thread because you keep describing a "moved" taxi in your narrative.

Have you no idea how illogical this post is?

I do not require "educating" by you, thanks.

Look at this skewed statement by you.

"I only present the witnesses that viewed the plane on the correct flightpath, to show Ruby that her contention that no witnesses saw the downed lightpoles".

For a start, this sentence makes no sense grammatically. In fact it is not a sentence, as something is missing.

Second, you are only ASSUMING that you know the "correct" flightpath. In a court of law, such a statement would be construed as "leading the witness" and stricken from the record.

Third, I never said nobody saw the downed lightpoles. I correctly point out that not one person witnessed a plane hitting those 5 lightpoles as it flew across the bridge. Plenty of people saw those poles on the ground after the event, and as they were intended to, they ASSUMED they had been knocked down by the plane.

Fourth, WHO are all those witnesses who stated in first-person, that they SAW THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE? Please quote their verbatim testimonies.

Fifth, a taxi with a hole through its windscreen, and considerable internal damage, IS HARD EVIDENCE.

Sixth, far from presenting "No evidence", I have indeed provided far more evidence for what I write in the form of eyewitness testimony, videos and photos, than the Pentagon has ever produced to show the plane which allegedly hit the Pentagon.

Seventh, that distinct scratch in the road surface (seen in ingersoll photo DSC_0421), ending at the sharp corner of the base of downed pole #1, is indeed suggestive of this pole having been dragged into that position from the opposite side of the highway, therefore of faking of all the downed lightpoles.

And not only did NOBODY ever see that white plume of whatever alleged to have been from the plane's engine, but at least one eyewitness stated categorically that there was no such phenomenon. That is, Steve Riskus, who saw the plane flying on the Northside flightpath, perpendicular to the west wall, at the level of the heliport.

[RubyGray]

24 minutes ago, bknight said:

See post 2137 that shows this to be incorrect.  You seem to have difficulty accepting facts that don't support your allegations.

What do you believe happened at the 

I am here addressing Trelane, who keeps repeating anecdotes about first responders he knows, who refuse to give their testimonies. Not of any value to this thread obviously, no matter how meritorious their actions after the impact.

But there are numerous first responders who did also give their eyewitness testimonies, fully and freely, in first person, which is useful to all.

Such as Sgt William Lagasse, Sgt Chadwick Brooks, Terry Morin, Captain Lincoln Liebner, and Alan Wallace, who all saw the plane at close quarters, flying on the Northside flightpath, from over the Navy Annex.

Edited October 31, 2019 by RubyGray
Scheduled Maintenance of site interrupted post

[RubyGray]

On 10/31/2019 at 1:07 AM, Aaron2016 said:

Is there any evidence that some of the witnesses had contradicted themselves with secondary statements they made later?  Being interviewed right after a major incident (while the witness is in shock or overly excitable) can easily mask the clarity of what they actually saw.  The same can be said when the witness has spoken to other witnesses and changed their own story because they favor what the other witnesses said and have convinced themselves that the other witnesses were right and they were mistaken which can produce a revised version of their own account.  They could also be interviewed months or years later which can affect their statement due to the inability to remember with total accuracy what happened due to the passage of time.  So a single witness could potentially come up with several different versions of what they saw.  Problem is, which one is the most plausible to be true?

 

 

Good points.

When someone testifies immediately after the event, then again several years later, and both these testimonies agree, they can probably be believed.

When they testify to something which nobody believes for 18 years, and then numerous real-time videos are analysed which show that person's story to be solid gold, that is reliable testimony.

Such video evidence was found after some years for Lloyde England the cab driver, and also for Sgt William Lagasse, proving him to be at the location from which he claimed to have witnessed the plane flying on the Northside flightpath. Indeed, it is proven that he could not even have seen the Official Southside flightpath from that location, and his recorded phone call logged within seconds of the impact, proves that he did see the plane, therefore logic decrees that it must have flown on the Northside flightpath.

Denial of such well-documented evidence is a perplexing phenomenon.

[bknight]

21 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

Have you no idea how illogical this post is?

I do not require "educating" by you, thanks.

Look at this skewed statement by you.

"I only present the witnesses that viewed the plane on the correct flightpath, to show Ruby that her contention that no witnesses saw the downed lightpoles".

For a start, this sentence makes no sense grammatically. In fact it is not a sentence, as something is missing.

Second, you are only ASSUMING that you know the "correct" flightpath. In a court of law, such a statement would be construed as "leading the witness" and stricken from the record.

Third, I never said nobody saw the downed lightpoles. I correctly point out that not one person witnessed a plane hitting those 5 lightpoles as it flew across the bridge. Plenty of people saw those poles on the ground after the event, and as they were intended to, they ASSUMED they had been knocked down by the plane.

Fourth, WHO are all those witnesses who stated in first-person, that they SAW THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE? Please quote their verbatim testimonies.

Fifth, a taxi with a hole through its windscreen, and considerable internal damage, IS HARD EVIDENCE.

Sixth, far from presenting "No evidence", I have indeed provided far more evidence for what I write in the form of eyewitness testimony, videos and photos, than the Pentagon has ever produced to show the plane which allegedly hit the Pentagon.

Seventh, that distinct scratch in the road surface (seen in ingersoll photo DSC_0421), ending at the sharp corner of the base of downed pole #1, is indeed suggestive of this pole having been dragged into that position from the opposite side of the highway, therefore of faking of all the downed lightpoles.

And not only did NOBODY ever see that white plume of whatever alleged to have been from the plane's engine, but at least one eyewitness stated categorically that there was no such phenomenon. That is, Steve Riskus, who saw the plane flying on the Northside flightpath, perpendicular to the west wall, at the level of the heliport.

It is indeed a sentence, again to show your contention that no one saw the light poles downed by a jet.  See 2137 link

"16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit. "  Do I know their names, no look it up for yourself.  Additionally in a court of law your statement "not one person witnessed a plane hitting those 5 lightpoles as it flew across the bridge." is scientifically and logically incorrect as there was only one light pole knocked over at the bridge, the rest were further toward the Pentagon in line with the correct flight path.  Now again I don't know any names or their testimony, I'm linking a report, you look them up.

No The correct flight path has been known for many years by radar, FDR, knocked down light poles, damage trees, generator in front of the building.

Yes the taxi is indeed hard evidence, but your allegation of a faked taxi being moved to that spot has not been proven by you.

Yes you have provided eye witness accounts, but fail to accept that those are fallible (I include those listed in the Pentagon report) and are subject to changes and inaccuracies.  That is why eye witness testimony is secondary to hard evidence.

If no one saw the white plume from the right engine, then why is it mentioned at all?  Could that be that no one was asked? Or could it have been that they weren't focused on the engine as opposed to a very large aircraft flying toward and then impacting on the Pentagon?

So what do you think happened at the Pentagon?

[bknight]

51 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

Have you no idea how illogical this post is?

I do not require "educating" by you, thanks.

Look at this skewed statement by you.

"I only present the witnesses that viewed the plane on the correct flightpath, to show Ruby that her contention that no witnesses saw the downed lightpoles".

For a start, this sentence makes no sense grammatically. In fact it is not a sentence, as something is missing.

Second, you are only ASSUMING that you know the "correct" flightpath. In a court of law, such a statement would be construed as "leading the witness" and stricken from the record.

Third, I never said nobody saw the downed lightpoles. I correctly point out that not one person witnessed a plane hitting those 5 lightpoles as it flew across the bridge. Plenty of people saw those poles on the ground after the event, and as they were intended to, they ASSUMED they had been knocked down by the plane.

Fourth, WHO are all those witnesses who stated in first-person, that they SAW THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE? Please quote their verbatim testimonies.

Fifth, a taxi with a hole through its windscreen, and considerable internal damage, IS HARD EVIDENCE.

Sixth, far from presenting "No evidence", I have indeed provided far more evidence for what I write in the form of eyewitness testimony, videos and photos, than the Pentagon has ever produced to show the plane which allegedly hit the Pentagon.

Seventh, that distinct scratch in the road surface (seen in ingersoll photo DSC_0421), ending at the sharp corner of the base of downed pole #1, is indeed suggestive of this pole having been dragged into that position from the opposite side of the highway, therefore of faking of all the downed lightpoles.

And not only did NOBODY ever see that white plume of whatever alleged to have been from the plane's engine, but at least one eyewitness stated categorically that there was no such phenomenon. That is, Steve Riskus, who saw the plane flying on the Northside flightpath, perpendicular to the west wall, at the level of the heliport.

You again indicate that a plane allegedly hit the Pentagon.  What do you believe happened at the Pentagon?  Did you look at the link in 2137?

"2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats."  There were images of at least one body in an airline seat on the web.  This image has been deleted so don't waste your time looking, but I saw it before it was deleted, and you will have to take my word or that as there is no evidence anymore.

[TigerBright19]

Reminds me of the Titanic survivors.  Almost all of them gave different versions of the sinking because they were seated differently and their observations were limited to what they could see, when they turned and looked, and how long they looked.

All a matter of perspective - who saw what?

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by Aaron2016

[Obviousman]

4 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

Reminds me of the Titanic survivors.  Almost all of them gave different versions of the sinking because they were seated differently and their observations were limited to what they could see, when they turned and looked, and how long they looked.

All a matter of perspective - who saw what?

 

 

 

 

Exactly. Their descriptions may have differed in some ways but they all agree that the ship sank. Apply the principle to the aircraft crash, and that is what RubyGray fails to understand.

[Trelane]

8 hours ago, RubyGray said:

I am here addressing Trelane, who keeps repeating anecdotes about first responders he knows, who refuse to give their testimonies. Not of any value to this thread obviously, no matter how meritorious their actions after the impact.

But there are numerous first responders who did also give their eyewitness testimonies, fully and freely, in first person, which is useful to all.

Such as Sgt William Lagasse, Sgt Chadwick Brooks, Terry Morin, Captain Lincoln Liebner, and Alan Wallace, who all saw the plane at close quarters, flying on the Northside flightpath, from over the Navy Annex.

They gave their testimonies to investigative bodies after the incident. I am not going to contact people who some retired from service to have them produce testimony to you on this or any site. Your issue with one splinter of the events of that day say more towards you than any theory you are proposing. Those men and women were thrust into hell that day. Too bad you fail to grasp that the preponderance of evidence at the Pentagon weighs against you. Best of luck in finding something other than the curious tale of Lloyd the cab driver.

[bknight]

On 10/31/2019 at 9:53 AM, RubyGray said:

Have you no idea how illogical this post is?

I do not require "educating" by you, thanks.

Look at this skewed statement by you.

"I only present the witnesses that viewed the plane on the correct flightpath, to show Ruby that her contention that no witnesses saw the downed lightpoles".

For a start, this sentence makes no sense grammatically. In fact it is not a sentence, as something is missing.

Second, you are only ASSUMING that you know the "correct" flightpath. In a court of law, such a statement would be construed as "leading the witness" and stricken from the record.

Third, I never said nobody saw the downed lightpoles. I correctly point out that not one person witnessed a plane hitting those 5 lightpoles as it flew across the bridge. Plenty of people saw those poles on the ground after the event, and as they were intended to, they ASSUMED they had been knocked down by the plane.

Fourth, WHO are all those witnesses who stated in first-person, that they SAW THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE? Please quote their verbatim testimonies.

Fifth, a taxi with a hole through its windscreen, and considerable internal damage, IS HARD EVIDENCE.

Sixth, far from presenting "No evidence", I have indeed provided far more evidence for what I write in the form of eyewitness testimony, videos and photos, than the Pentagon has ever produced to show the plane which allegedly hit the Pentagon.

Seventh, that distinct scratch in the road surface (seen in ingersoll photo DSC_0421), ending at the sharp corner of the base of downed pole #1, is indeed suggestive of this pole having been dragged into that position from the opposite side of the highway, therefore of faking of all the downed lightpoles.

And not only did NOBODY ever see that white plume of whatever alleged to have been from the plane's engine, but at least one eyewitness stated categorically that there was no such phenomenon. That is, Steve Riskus, who saw the plane flying on the Northside flightpath, perpendicular to the west wall, at the level of the heliport.

How do you reconcile those downed light poles?  How did they get knocked over, what means was used to knock them over?

What do you think happened at the Pentagon?

 

ETA why was there no light pole knocked over at the location you allege the cab was?  How is it that no one saw a tow truck moving a fake taxi to the bridge?   With all the stopped traffic on the southbound lanes someone should have seen it.  Your allegation has glaring holes. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by bknight
Added thought