9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

[RubyGray]

1. Steve Riskus: "I could see the "American Airlines" logo … It knocked over a few light poles in its way."

WHAT RISKUS ACTUALLY SAW :

Italian website :

Q: Steve, did you see the plane hitting light poles? Did you see light poles falling down?
RISKUS: I didnt see the plane hit the poles and I didnt see the light poles falling down. I saw them after they were already on the ground.

He drew the flightpath of the plane, perpendicular to the building, across the Heliport tower.

HE WAS A NORTHSIDE WITNESS.

He was about 1,300 feet north of the bridge, therefore could not have seen the 5 downed lightpoles from his location.

 

2. Mark Bright: "… at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down."

WHAT THEY OMITTED :

"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low ...”

He is a NORTHSIDE WITNESS.

He saw the plane fly across the Navy Annex.

A plane on this trajectory CANNOT have hit the 5 downed lightpoles, nor made the directional damage inside the Pentagon

 

3. Mike Walter: "… it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there."

Mike Walter said this within minutes of the impact. The reporter said they had heard the pole hit a taxi.

Walter stammered and said he DID NOT SEE THAT.

He changed his story every time he told it for years. He proved himself an unreliable witness.

 

4. Rodney Washington: "… knocking over light poles"

By Robert Schlesinger and Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 9/12/2001

Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest ... The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

NOT first-person eyewitness testimony.

At several hundred yards away, Washington COULD NOT SEE the lightpoles.

The plane DID NOT BOUNCE on the helipad.

 

5. Kirk Milburn:

"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I GUESS it was hitting light poles."

“GUESSING” is NOT EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY.

CIT contacted the deceased Milburn’s son to verify his location, and confirmed that HE HAD NO VIEW OF THE LIGHTPOLES.

 

6. Afework Hagos: "It hit some lampposts on the way in."

NOT EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY.

Was driving on Columbia Pike. Does not give his exact location, and does not state that he witnessed the impact, nor the poles being hit.

 

7. Kat Gaines: "saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles."

“Her commute to the airport took her south on Route 110, in front of the parking lots of the Pentagon. As she approached the parking lots, she saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.

“She then HEARD the plane power up and plunge into the Pentagon.”

NOT first-person eyewitness testimony.

She was on the opposite side of the Pentagon, so could not see the impact.

Yet she claimed to have seen the plane flying low, EAST of the Pentagon, BEFORE the impact (like several other witness on that side of the Pentagon).

NO TELEPHONE POLES were knocked down.

She was 2,800 feet to the east of the overpass bridge, therefore she CANNOT have seen the 5 downed lightpoles.

 

8. D.S. Khavkin: "First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles."

HOW would she know???
Aldo Marquis went to the trouble of looking up the address of this witness, who wrote that she HEARD what “APPEARED TO BE A SMALL AIRCRAFT” fly directly overhead of her apartment.

Her apartment was at 2001 Columbia Pike, Arlington, west of the Sheraton Hotel.

She DID NOT SEE the plane, but was reciting what she heard and saw in the media.

OVER 3 MILES from the Pentagon.
She is NOT a witness!

 

9. Wanda Ramey: "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”

Wanda Ramey (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT), cannot remember if she thought she actually saw the plane hit a pole or simply deduced it after seeing it on the ground like everyone else we spoke with.

 

10. Penny Elgas: A piece of American Airlines Flight 77 was torn from the plane as it clipped a light pole. It landed in her car. Now in the Smithsonian Institution's 9/11 collection.

ASSUMPTION!

Jeff Hill phone interview 2009:

HILL You saw it? You saw it hit one of the light poles?

ELGAS No I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a light pole. But that's how I ended up with a piece of the plane. Is that it clipped the pole. The tail. That was actually the tail that I turned in to the Smithsonian, a piece of the tail.

HILL What I was reading it fell into your car?

ELGAS Well that's what THEY said, but that's not what happened.

HILL Er you just picked it up or?

ELGAS I picked it up.

 

11. Lincoln Liebner: "It was probably about thirty feet off the ground, clipping the lampposts. I could clearly see through the windows of the plane. It was maybe going 500 miles an hour – when it just flew … into the Pentagon ... less than a hundred yards away."

Liebner does NOT SAY HE WITNESSED THE PLANE HITTING LIGHTPOLES.

Here are two other things he said, which contradict the Official Story:

"The aircraft went in between the second and third floors."

Captain Lincoln Leibner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad. (ABC)

Captain Liebner drew the flightpath of the plane which he witnessed.

He believed it flew perpendicular to the building, at the level of the Heliport Tower, and much further north and higher than the impact hole

This makes him a NORTHSIDE WITNESS.

This plane COULD NOT have hit the 5 lightpoles, nor made the directional damage inside the Pentagon.

[bknight]

"1. Steve Riskus: "I could see the "American Airlines" logo … It knocked over a few light poles in its way."
WHAT RISKUS ACTUALLY SAW :
Italian website :
Q: Steve, did you see the plane hitting light poles? Did you see light poles falling down?
RISKUS: I didnt see the plane hit the poles and I didnt see the light poles falling down. I saw them after they were already on the ground.
He drew the flightpath of the plane, perpendicular to the building, across the Heliport tower.
HE WAS A NORTHSIDE WITNESS.
He was about 1,300 feet north of the bridge, therefore could not have seen the 5 downed lightpoles from his location."

This shows once again, that eye witness accounts are very fallible.  They change with time and circumstance(manner of questions asked).  They are secondary to hard evidence.

Why would you indicate that the second is what he saw? Rather than the first account? 

If as you believe the light poles were a ruse, then how were they knocked over?  Why did no one indicate "Wow this is strange there are light poles on the ground".

What are the exact height measurements of the cemetery wall?  How did the injured people on the lawn (in the correct path of the airline) come to be injured?  How did the generator in front of the building become damaged?

[RubyGray]

On 11/6/2019 at 12:55 AM, bknight said:

"1. Steve Riskus: "I could see the "American Airlines" logo … It knocked over a few light poles in its way."
WHAT RISKUS ACTUALLY SAW :
Italian website :
Q: Steve, did you see the plane hitting light poles? Did you see light poles falling down?
RISKUS: I didnt see the plane hit the poles and I didnt see the light poles falling down. I saw them after they were already on the ground.
He drew the flightpath of the plane, perpendicular to the building, across the Heliport tower.
HE WAS A NORTHSIDE WITNESS.
He was about 1,300 feet north of the bridge, therefore could not have seen the 5 downed lightpoles from his location."

This shows once again, that eye witness accounts are very fallible.  They change with time and circumstance(manner of questions asked).  They are secondary to hard evidence.

Why would you indicate that the second is what he saw? Rather than the first account? 

What makes you imagine that his "second account" is any different from his "first account"?

We absolutely know his location on southbound Route 27 was about 100 yards north of the Columbia Pike exit sign, depending on how long it took him to stop, because he took the earliest photos of the scene. 

His first photo shows a small white chip on his red car, probably from flying debris. His second photo shows the road north of the exit sign, with the Pentagon across the highway (and black skid marks on the road, exactly where Lloyde England said he was when the pole speared his windshield and he locked up his brakes).

On the same day, Riskus uploaded his photos to a website which he had (fortuitously) created the previous day!!! 

There he wrote,

"I took these pictures seconds after I saw an American airlines 757 crash into Pentagon. I was heading towards 395 on Route 27 when the plane crossed my path about 100ft ahead and crashed into the side of the pentagon.

"Steve Riskus

"AIM: youthenraged"

Note that he says :

*  it was an American airlines plane

*  It was a 757

*  it crossed his path

*  It was only about 100 feet away.

This is EXACTLY what he told the Italian researcher in 2011.

The plane was very close, surely more than 100 feet, but definitely not  >1,300 feet away, as it would have been had it flown across the bridge. In that case, neither would he have said that it "crossed my path".

It CROSSED the highway right in front of him. This implies, as he confirms in several maps which he later marked with his location and the flightpath he witnessed, that the plane was about perpendicular to the road and the wall.

He identified it on 9/11 as an AA 757. He could not have done this from 1,300 feet away, because the plane would not have been at 90 degrees to the road, but at >150 degrees, almost heading towards him, had it been flying across the bridge. He could not possibly have seen the logo on the tail.

The version which said "It knocked over a few light poles in its way" was from the Italian website email interview :

 

STEVE RISKUS  [Interview conducted by email by "Agent Fescado"]

"... I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof first... It did dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 ft or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles on it's way... "

Riskus then goes on to clarify, when asked, that he DID NOT SEE THE POLES KNOCKED DOWN,  but saw them on the ground later. Even this must mean that he saw them on the news, as he did not drive down route 27, but exited via Columbia Pike, and the overpass was soon blocked to traffic for the rest of the day.

Therefore your statements,

"This shows once again, that eye witness accounts are very fallible.  They change with time and circumstance(manner of questions asked).  They are secondary to hard evidence."

fail completely. Riskus' photos constitute hard evidence of his location when the plane crossed his path, and his photos and comments posted on his website that very afternoon, constitute sound evidence of what he witnessed, which was identical with what he repeated 10 years later. His testimony did NOT change with time.

Therefore, STEVE RISKUS WAS A GENUINE NORTHSIDE EYEWITNESS, whose location is absolutely confirmed by numerous photographs.

And he DID NOT SEE THE PLANE HIT ANY LIGHTPOLES.

The only problem with Steve Riskus' evidence is that he did not tell the WHOLE truth. He left out the part where he was driving on Lloyde England's tail when the plane flew across the highway in front of him, suddenly appearing from behind the trees that topped the cemetery wall and obscured his view of its approach.

That is exactly what Lloyde England also experienced. Had he been driving towards the bridge, and IF the plane had been travelling on the official flightpath, then Lloyde would have had a perfect view of it flying towards him for about 7 - 10 seconds. But he testified that he only glimpsed the plane for a moment as it flew over him, because he too, like Riskus, was driving beside the ANC retaining wall and tree cover that obscured the approach of the plane from the west.

Steve Riskus deliberately concealed the fact that Lloyde England was driving right in front of him when a pole was fired through his windshield, and deliberately avoided that location in any of his photographs, giving the appearance of completely clear southbound lanes.

But we know from 4 independent videos that there was a white van, a black towtruck, a low loader trailer and a black CAPITOL CAB right there beside the wall, around which Riskus had to negotiate as he moved between taking photos #2 and #3.

This implicates Riskus as an operative in the 9/11 plot, whose premeditated purpose was to give the appearance of documenting the event, while actually obfuscating the fact of Lloyde England's true location.

There is detailed discussion of Steve Riskus illustrated with analysis of his photographs here on page 8 of my thread "LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED" :

http://letsrollforums.com//showpost.php?p=277922&postcount=76

Edited November 10, 2019 by RubyGray
Typo

[ChrLzs]

Please make it stop.   You can't reason someone out of a position that they reached using no reasoning...

bknight, while I applaud your efforts, this is now just an opportunity for Ruby to post walls of text.  I'm sure *she* re-reads them with great relish and delight, but everyone else has now left.

[RubyGray]

5 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Please make it stop.   You can't reason someone out of a position that they reached using no reasoning...

bknight, while I applaud your efforts, this is now just an opportunity for Ruby to post walls of text.  I'm sure *she* re-reads them with great relish and delight, but everyone else has now left.

Vacuous post as ever

[ChrLzs]

Yes, this thread sucks.  Counting down to closure....

[RubyGray]

The thread is a great concept. There are many issues that were never properly resolved, because there never was a genuine investigation. 

But of course its success depends on people actually addressing the topic - the flight 77 (Pentagon) eyewitnesses, which so far you have never done.

As you only appear here to kick sand in people's faces, which surely gets old, why bother coming back at all?

This forum does deal with "Conspiracies" and "Unexplained Mysteries", which are surely in abundant supply here, so why do you feel it necessary for you to derail and lampoon anyone who posts on the thread topic, with your hollow taunts?

Why don't you actually discuss one or more of the witnesses? Since you seem unable to quit peeking at this thread.

[ChrLzs]

12 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

The thread is a great concept.

No, it isn't.  It is essentially argument about anecdotes and trivia and memory failures, and has no logical progression.

12 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

There are many issues that were never properly resolved, because there never was a genuine investigation.

There will ALWAYS be plenty of stuff that is never resolved, in every aspect of life, in every tragedy.  There is simply not enough information properly recorded.  People's perceptions,as you have proved uneloquently above are not proper recordings, they are perceptions, that even at the start are distorted, and then within seconds will change and morph according to the person's 'wiring'.  And of course some folks just make **** up for their fifteen minutes.

12 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

But of course its success depends on people actually addressing the topic - the flight 77 (Pentagon) eyewitnesses, which so far you have never done.

I addressed it at the start, and again above.  Anecdotal inconsistencies are worth roughly ZERO, often less.

12 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

As you only appear here to kick sand in people's faces, which surely gets old, why bother coming back at all?

Think of them as "My 2-cents worth" drive-throughs.  (They are like drive-by's, only not violent..)

 

12 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

This forum does deal with "Conspiracies" and "Unexplained Mysteries", which are surely in abundant supply here, so why do you feel it necessary for you to derail and lampoon anyone who posts on the thread topic, with your hollow taunts?

Yes, we rule out the rubbish and try to find genuine mysteries.  The fact that people make stuff up, and memories can't be relied upon..?  Well, we already knew that.  No mystery there.

12 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

Why don't you actually discuss one or more of the witnesses? Since you seem unable to quit peeking at this thread.

Because it's worthless, anecdotal, waffle that afaics, leads nowhere.  See above.  See last 87 pages.

In fact, may we have a show of hands from the audience - anyone here newly convinced that Ruby's onto something?

If so, can you give me an executive summary as to what that 'something' is? and also point directly at the smoking gun bit - ie the absolutely irrefutable evidence and the logical outcome that follows from that?  No more walls of text, please.  Summarise.  Use brevity.  Start at the topmost, bestest, killer evidence bit.

 

[preacherman76]

Actually this would be easy to resolve. They just have to release the footage of the several surveillance tapes they confiscated from local businesses, and from the pentagon its self.

Yet they refuse. Hmm.

[preacherman76]

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

No, it isn't.  It is essentially argument about anecdotes and trivia and memory failures, and has no logical progression.

There will ALWAYS be plenty of stuff that is never resolved, in every aspect of life, in every tragedy.  There is simply not enough information properly recorded.  People's perceptions,as you have proved uneloquently above are not proper recordings, they are perceptions, that even at the start are distorted, and then within seconds will change and morph according to the person's 'wiring'.  And of course some folks just make **** up for their fifteen minutes.

I addressed it at the start, and again above.  Anecdotal inconsistencies are worth roughly ZERO, often less.

Think of them as "My 2-cents worth" drive-throughs.  (They are like drive-by's, only not violent..)

 

Yes, we rule out the rubbish and try to find genuine mysteries.  The fact that people make stuff up, and memories can't be relied upon..?  Well, we already knew that.  No mystery there.

Because it's worthless, anecdotal, waffle that afaics, leads nowhere.  See above.  See last 87 pages.

In fact, may we have a show of hands from the audience - anyone here newly convinced that Ruby's onto something?

If so, can you give me an executive summary as to what that 'something' is? and also point directly at the smoking gun bit - ie the absolutely irrefutable evidence and the logical outcome that follows from that?  No more walls of text, please.  Summarise.  Use brevity.  Start at the topmost, bestest, killer evidence bit.

 

You are seriously trying to turn this conversation into why a thread shouldn't exist? In the conspiracy section no less? This is a total troll move man.

[Mello_]

Time passed and I didnt read any good evidence to support 9/11 was false flag.

[RubyGray]

5 hours ago, Mello_ said:

Time passed and I didnt read any good evidence to support 9/11 was false flag.

Hello Mello, there is plenty of evidence, tucked away amongst the barrage of hater spiel. Maybe you missed it?

Anyway, I don't think the original intention of the thread was to prove a false flag, but to be a resource cataloguing and comparing the available eyewitness testimony. Not everybody can see the discrepancies between them, nor the significance of them, nor the way that many have been twisted to defend a specious conclusion,  but I do.

[Mello_]

1 hour ago, RubyGray said:

Hello Mello, there is plenty of evidence, tucked away amongst the barrage of hater spiel. Maybe you missed it?

Anyway, I don't think the original intention of the thread was to prove a false flag, but to be a resource cataloguing and comparing the available eyewitness testimony. Not everybody can see the discrepancies between them, nor the significance of them, nor the way that many have been twisted to defend a specious conclusion,  but I do.

Give 5 evidences that are good enough!

[ChrLzs]

3 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Hello Mello, there is plenty of evidence, tucked away amongst the barrage of hater spiel. Maybe you missed it?

Anyway, I don't think the original intention of the thread was to prove a false flag, but to be a resource cataloguing and comparing the available eyewitness testimony. Not everybody can see the discrepancies between them, nor the significance of them, nor the way that many have been twisted to defend a specious conclusion,  but I do.

Ruby, thanks for letting us know that your conclusion is specious.

I still don't know what that conclusion is, other than that witness anecdotes aren't worth the paper they are not written on... but at least we now know that it is specious.  Not much more needs to be said.

 

{driveby}

[RubyGray]

An interesting item I just found on an old forum.

This is eyewitness testimony from an English lady who was working in Washington on 9/11. 

She seems never to have been interviewed again after this, as with so many other witnesses whose story could very well be an account of having seen the flyover plane.

We first heard there was a fire at the Pentagon and then there was a really low flying aircraft outside our window that nearly knocked out all the glass. It seemed to be heading straight for congress. 
Harriet Anderson, Sheffield, England

The link to the source of this first-person witness quote was already long dead many years ago. 

Of course, it is to be expected that if somebody testified to having witnessed the flyover plane, even if they themselves did not recognise this for what it was, then the media would bury all references to the testimony. 

They most certainly would not contact such a witness to elucidate more details of the flyover plane.

[Trelane]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 2:28 PM, RubyGray said:

Hello Mello, there is plenty of evidence, tucked away amongst the barrage of hater spiel. Maybe you missed it?

Anyway, I don't think the original intention of the thread was to prove a false flag, but to be a resource cataloguing and comparing the available eyewitness testimony. Not everybody can see the discrepancies between them, nor the significance of them, nor the way that many have been twisted to defend a specious conclusion,  but I do.

If this were truly the case then where is the litigation for it? Where are all the claims of FOIA requests denied? Why aren't there any journalists at any level reporting this?

[RubyGray]

3 hours ago, Trelane said:

If this were truly the case then where is the litigation for it? Where are all the claims of FOIA requests denied? Why aren't there any journalists at any level reporting this?

You seem not to have read my post.

I said that even if most other people cannot see the evidence for what it is, I can.

I cannot speak for most other people, but I guess it is common knowledge that journalists write only what complies with the received propaganda.

[Obviousman]

[RubyGray]

On 12/13/2019 at 6:28 PM, RubyGray said:

We first heard there was a fire at the Pentagon and then there was a really low flying aircraft outside our window that nearly knocked out all the glass. It seemed to be heading straight for congress. 
Harriet Anderson, Sheffield, England

This is some of the evidence, which was successfully buried by the media.

I never saw this before, until I came across it on a 2008 forum, where the poster said he had found it years before, then lost it and finally found it again.

What  are the connotations here?

This lady was working in an office building on the east side of the Potomac River.

Someone in the office noticed the explosion and smoke at the Pentagon.

Then an illegally low aircraft flew so dangerously close to their building that it seriously rattled all their windows. Just as some eyewitnesses had said the low-flying 757 rattled car windows of motorists near the Pentagon.

This at a time when there was a nationwide grounding of all commercial planes.

The plane was "heading straight for congress". That is about 3.5 miles northeast of the Pentagon. I don't know her address at the time, but presumably she was closer to Congress than the Pentagon, to be able to make this distinction.

If the plane was flying at say 300 mph, it would take 42 seconds to fly this distance. It would be interesting to know the time interval this lady was talking about, but no hard-hitting journalist ever thought to ask.

Just like no journalist EVER followed up on the testimonies of 

MICHAEL KELLY

DON SCOTT

KAT GAINES,

for instance, which were all given very early, but were one-hit wonders never researched nor repeated.

Why? I believe that all these were FLYOVER WITNESS TESTIMONIES, which the witnesses themselves did not even recognise as such at the time, but which were nipped in the bud after initial publication.

How many testimonies were recorded by the Center for Military History etc, which have never been made public? Very few of the hundreds of interviews are accessible. How many 911 calls were made by people who saw a dangerously low-flying aircraft overhead after the Pentagon explosion? We will never know, because for some reason, all such calls were sequestered.

ALL these people and more, such as Roosevelt Roberts, Levi Stephens, Dewitt Roseborough,  Meseidy Rodriguez, Maria de la Cerda, Erik Dihle, Robert Turcios, Darius Prather, Aziz ElHallou, Dennis Smith,  etc, gave anomalous testimony which can be interpreted as indicative of having witnessed a flyover plane at some phase of its trajectory.

The guy in the forecourt of the Doubletree Hotel, looking up into the sky to the EAST while the Pentagon is in flames behind him on the CCTV footage, had to be watching something even more significant in the air. So where is his recorded testimony? How come no journalist ever sought him out?

How many flyover plane eyewitnesses DID recognise this for what it was, and decided wisely to keep this secret to themselves? Again, we have no way of knowing. The story of David Ball, who allegedly talked about his experience, was invited ontoJim Fetzer's talk show to discuss it, but was very reluctant, and was then found murdered, has been ridiculed by official story believers. But what if it was true?

How many other eyewitnesses were dealt with in this manner? 

Consider the case of Virginia Department of Transportation Operations Manager, Christopher Landis. A young family man with everything to live for. He worked at the VDOT depot on Columbia Pike just opposite the Navy Annex. Here, many monitored screens relayed video from traffic cameras near the Pentagon. Three cameras in particular showed the area where the jet flew that day, along Route 27. One at the bridge, one near the Helipad, and one north of the Columbia Pike exit sign. Even if (which I dohbt) nobody saw the plane fly towards the Pentagon on any of these monitors, and even if (which I also doubt) these cameras did not record live action 24/7,  then no doubt these cameras would soon have been trained on the area after the fact, and would certainly have been recording from then on.

In this case, there was multiple footage of (at the very least) Lloyde England's taxi cab having the pole removed from its windshield by the Silent Stranger in the WHITE VAN. There was footage of Lloyde falling onto his back as the secobdary explosion occurred at the Pentagon about 4 minutes post impact (photographed by Daryl Donley) under the weight of the pole, as that Silent Stranger returned to his van and drove south to park (behind the camera) on the bridge for several minutes.

There was footage of that police detective pushing Lloyde to the ground and packing him off while the tow truck operators loaded his cab onto that unique orange tongueless low loader trailer seen in the background of Jason Ingersoll's photo DSC_0420, which so resembles the orange tongueless low loader trailer seen in Craig Ranke's video, "VDOT TOUR OF LIGHT POLES", in the very depot which Christopher Landis managed.

There was footage, from both north and south, of that towtruck relocating Lloyde England's cab from the cemetery wall to the top of the bridge, and of the DECOY CAB which had held its place, speeding away as the towtruck arrived. There was footage of the tableau being arranged by a crew of operatives, and of that huge lightpole being dragged across the highway where it left that telltale scratch in the road surface seen in Jason Ingersoll's photo DSC_0420. 

There was footage of the towtruck and unloaded trailer exiting north via the northwest on-ramp, and unhitching the trailer there on the side of the cloverleaf, where it left telltale tyre tracks on the grass (as captured on Ingersoll's DSC_0420) as it did a U-turn back onto the cloverleaf, and drove out onto Columbia Pike.

There was footage of Donald Rumsfeld' own bodyguard collecting Lloyde England in a brown Jeep from further north in the HOV lane, then decanting him near his cab, and guarding him while Corporal Jason Ingersoll took a series of high-resolution photographs of this crucial scene.

When Craig Ranke interviewed Christopher Landis, Ranke reported that he was noticeably very nervous. However, Landis did give permission to film inside the monitor room ( CIT video "INSIDE THE VDOT BUILDING"),  from the top of this buioding (CIT video "VDOT ROOF") and outside in the depot's lightpole storage area where that orange trailer was.

Landis also gave Ranke the full, high-resolution Jason Ingersoll photo collection.

Within a few days, Christopher Landis had "committed suicide".

This was not widely reported in relation to 9/11, probably because it occurred several years later. But some people have made a connection.

However, I would go further and suggest that Christopher Landis was a whistleblower, whether he died by his own hand or because of foul play. He was in the box seat to know exactly what had been pulled off right there on the highway in front of the Pentagon, behind the backs of witnesses watching the Pentagon burn. He knew where that low loader trailer came from. He knew how the lightpoles were manipulated. He may have had no foreknowledge nor played any part in the scheme, but as Operations Manager, he was ultimately responsible for the displacement of lightpoles and misuse of VDOT vehicles.

[Trelane]

@RubyGray, could it be that there is really nothing to all of this? Certainly there would have been more to come out over the years it there was something to it all.

[Phaeton80]

8 minutes ago, Trelane said:

@RubyGray, could it be that there is really nothing to all of this? Certainly there would have been more to come out over the years it there was something to it all.

'Come out' where, CNBC, Fox, CNN, NYT?

Irrational expectation.

[Trelane]

7 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

'Come out' where, CNBC, Fox, CNN, NYT?

Irrational expectation.

Come out from anywhere. Not irrational at all.

 

[RubyGray]

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

@RubyGray, could it be that there is really nothing to all of this? Certainly there would have been more to come out over the years it there was something to it all.

Well, I have found plenty!

And I am publishing whatever I can find!

I am still finding stuff, such as that quote from Harriet Anderson, who seems to be a genuine flyover witness buried beneath years of apathy and ignore.

So what happens when this evidence is posted?

It is (a) studiously ignored

        (b) mindlessly ridiculed

        (c) generally disbelieved,

even when there is abundant video evidence, photographs and eyewitness testimony.

The days when intelligent people seriously researched and discussed these issues are, tragically, gone.

Nobody cares any more.

Except the professional knockers, who imagine their transparent heckling is valid argument against eyewitness testimony that runs counter to the sacrosanct official fairytale.

[Trelane]

26 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

Well, I have found plenty!

And I am publishing whatever I can find!

I am still finding stuff, such as that quote from Harriet Anderson, who seems to be a genuine flyover witness buried beneath years of apathy and ignore.

So what happens when this evidence is posted?

It is (a) studiously ignored

        (b) mindlessly ridiculed

        (c) generally disbelieved,

even when there is abundant video evidence, photographs and eyewitness testimony.

The days when intelligent people seriously researched and discussed these issues are, tragically, gone.

Nobody cares any more.

Except the professional knockers, who imagine their transparent heckling is valid argument against eyewitness testimony that runs counter to the sacrosanct official fairytale.

Sorry, I mean besides you of course. Surely there must be some reporter who has put all of this together. If it is indeed true.

[RubyGray]

Well you would think so wouldn't you!

But that seems not to be the case. Nobody has ever even looked for the video evidence that I have found. In their heyday, CIT knew that the taxi cab next to the lightpole on the bridge tableau had to have been staged. For all sorts of reasons, it just could not have happened that way.

Even before he ever went to Arlington or interviewed Lloyde England, Aldo Marquis had started a thread on AboveTopSecret forum titled "THE MYSTERY OF THE MOVED TAXI". He knew the cab had to have been damaged elsewhere, then moved into position, but he started off on the wrong foot and never looked hard enough for the evidence.

I have resurrected that thread also, in case you wish to check it out. There is also my thread at LetsRollForums, titled "LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED WITH NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOTOS AND VIDEO". That is heading for 22,000 views although new memberships have been blocked for a while and nobody else posts there. This subject generates a lot of interest from a silent undertow of readers. And it is significant enough for a contingent of dedicated knockers to spend their time flinging muck whenever they have the opportunity. But there is very little genuine discussion. Even from CIT supporters. I would have thought they would be thrilled to have this new evidence which solves so many problems that stalled their investigation, so it could move forward again. But they are as aggressively dismissive as anybody else.

CIT just ended up concluding that there was no evidence for there ever having been  a pole inside the cab, for a silent stranger driving a White Van who helped remove the pole, for the cab being moved into position, etc, so they went with the appalling decision to accuse Lloyde England of being an accomplice. Everybody was polarised either into accepting the official story, or CIT's false interpretation of Lloyde's account.

But I believed Lloyde's video testimony was totally frank and honest, so I looked for the evidence that nobody else believed existed, that would vindicate his own story. I was stunned to find that every detail was right there on the video record, and even more that Lloyde never knew about.

I have spent thousands of hours on this topic, for no reward other than knowing this lie has now been exposed. I guess this is the reason why no journalist will ever bother doing likewise. Who else would care this much? Who would ever spend so much time on this? Who is going to pay them? The mainstream media is not going to publish this. They are in the pockets of the PTB. 

I don't know how much more evidence there is that remains to be found, but there must be some. Or a lot. There are at least 2 sets of unpublished photos I know of which could be pivotal. What I have found so far has always been there for anyone to see, but people have glossed over or misconstrued it. Sometimes because witnesses typically refer to their location by the wrong highway designation. Such as Route 27, 110 and I-395 being used interchangeably. When you pinpoint where they actually were, all becomes clearer. Often, witnesses were not questioned properly. Their vague testimonies were wrongly attributed to the Official Flightpath. More investigation shows that this was a major error.

So I believe this thread can be a valuable resource, especially if it can get some new testimony from eyewitnesses. Unfortunately I live 12,000 miles away from Arlington, but perhaps some conscientious person will be prompted once more to do some field research in the style of CIT, but based on new evidence.

Edited December 16, 2019 by RubyGray
Typo