Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Q24

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

2,189 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RubyGray

The erudite reply I would expect from an ocker knocker who believes Gene Cernan walked on the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
On 10/6/2019 at 10:57 AM, RubyGray said:

I would say rather, that it's not a good sign that PROBST mentioned this. As a former military man, he should have known better than to make such an absurd statement.

You chose to discuss eyewitness Frank Probst. So I collated all the first person testimony I have been able to find from him, which is very sparse, vague and contradicted by the other eyewitness testimony. 

Lloyde England, unlike Probst, was interviewed many times by many individuals over about 10 years, and despite what CIT claimed, his testimony was always consistent. It is the photographs taken of Lloyde and his cab on the bridge beside a large downed lightpole, which have obscured the facts, and caused all the skepticism and misrepresentation of Lloyde England's own testimony.

His testimony was always video or audio recorded.

It is lengthy, detailed and comprehensive.

It is artless, candid, honest and freely given.

It is unrelentingly constant in the face of Craig Ranke's exasperation and ridicule, and the widespread hate campaign caused by their flawed conclusions and false accusations.

Lloyde drew a sketch of the pole inside his cab, which contradicts the official story about a 30-plus foot lightpole having caused the damage to his cab.

The physical damage to the preserved cab, inside and out, confirms the dimensions and position of the pole which Lloyde England sketched.

His claimed location far north of the bridge as the plane flew across him, is attested by written and videoed first-person eyewitness testimonies. Sergeant William Lagasse, Father Stephen McGraw and Tony Terronez are three eyewitnesses who gave detailed, specific first-person testimony to Lloyde England's cab having been hit by a pole while north of the heliport.

Detective Don Fortunato's testimony confirms that when he arrived at the scene, he saw Lloyde England's windscreen had been smashed by "pieces of pole", and video shows that his silver sedan was initially parked across the lane divider beside Lloyde England's cab next to the cemetery wall. It was soon, and for the rest of the day, parked in similar relationship to Lloyde's cab on the bridge.

There are many others who witnessed Lloyde England's cab beside the cemetery wall, but whose testimony has never been sought, merely because the photos of Lloyde and his cab on the bridge are unquestioningly accepted as proof of the Official Story. Eyewitness locations are interpreted in light of these photos, and therefore misrepresented, and their testimonies dismissed, because of those misleading photos taken from at least 11 minutes post impact.

Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke were scathing in their rejection of the testimonies of Father McGraw, Mary Ann Owens, Joel Sucherman, etc., due to the photos of Lloyde England's cab on the bridge. But England, Owens, McGraw, Lagasse, Sucherman, Narayanan etc were all perfectly honest witnesses whose accounts confirm the North-of-Citgo flightpath, when their claimed locations are plotted relative to it, rather than to the official flightpath.

Steve Riskus was driving on Lloyde England's tail at the time the plane flew over the highway. He began taking photos "within one minute" of impact, thus confirming his location. Riskus' second photo reveals shattered glass and black skid marks on the highway north of the Columbia Pike exit sign.

This exact spot was twice personally identified on site, on video, by Lloyde England to Craig Ranke and Christopher Taylor, as being his location when the plane flew over his car, and the pole smashed his windscreen, causing him to skid to a halt. Steve Riskus confirmed to an Italian researcher that his view of the plane was of it "about 100 feet or so away" (admittedly an underestimate, but certainly much closer than the 1,300 feet from his verified location to the bridge) and that it was broadside on to him, as it crossed Route 27 opposite the heliport. This corroborates Lloyde England's testimony of his view of the plane flying over his car, as well as scores of other accounts.

4 independent videos taken within 8 minutes of the impact show the cab beside the cemetery wall,, with pole through the windscreen, then being relocated to the bridge.

The only testimony which I am aware of, claimed to support Frank Probst's account, is Don Mason's. Being written in third person, this is not admissible evidence. 

Captain Lincoln Liebner was less than 100 yards from the impact site, much closer than Probst or Mason. Liebner flatly contradicts Probst's version. He stated, on a video taken within weeks of 9/11, that he saw the plane hit "between the second and third floors". Other close eyewitnesses also had this impression of an elevated impact, including ATC Sean Boger and Mary Ann Owens. Clearly the impact hole is on the ground floor, but what they saw in that brief moment convinced these people that the plane was much higher. If the plane was so high, then clearly, it was not the plane's wing whit cut through the generator, and the two engines did not impact the ground as Probst claimed.

Liebner demonstrated on an overhead photo how he witnessed the plane flying perpendicular to the wall, at the level of the heliport tower. Again, far north of the generator trailer. These impressions, fresh in his memory, contradict both the official trajectory and Probst's account, but confirm the testimonies of Steve Riskus and Lloyde England, etc etc. Whatever Liebner saw, he described as best he could. He was there, and unlike Probst who testified that he ran away, Liebner ran towards the fire and was the first rescuer on the scene, who continued retrieving victims until he was sent off in an ambulance (seen on video). This validates Liebner's testimony, and casts doubt on that of Probst.

I did not approach this subject with a "personal view" to validate. I was impressed by the consistent testimony of Lloyde England on CIT's videos, calmly maintained in the face of incredulous ridicule and hostile accusations of complicity.

Unlike every other person, I chose to do as is supposed to be done in courts of law in enlightened Western countries, and assume Lloyde's innocence of CIT's charges until he was proven guilty. I sought out all video and photo evidence I could find, and spent hundreds of hours painstakingly scrutinising it, with no idea of where this would lead. I never expected to find the evidence of how Lloyde England's cab was moved, but there it was, filmed from 4 different angles. All the many details of Lloyde England's story, mocked by CIT, were also confirmed in these invaluable records. Identities of those involved in this scheme were revealed.

But still nobody wants to even consider that the Official Story may not be the truth!

Lloyde England's testimony was lengthy, detailed and comprehensive; it was artless, candid, honest and freely given: Yet it could also be mistaken.

England's location is attested by eyewitness testimony: I get the impression the witnesses identify England's location only relative to themselves, and they don't themselves give their locations relative to fixed objects. Can you please verify?

There are people who witnessed England's taxi by the cemetery wall: Have these people verified it was England's taxi as opposed to someone else's?

Witness accounts verify a North-of-Citgo flightpath: Yet on another forum it's been pointed out to you that the NoC flightpath you ascribe to them would have involved a bank angle far steeper than any witness has claimed.

Riskus's second photo shows broken glass and skid marks north of the Columbia Pike exit sign: First, could you please post a copy of the photo in question or post a link? Second, what have you done to determine their exact origin: for example, were they caused by a collision between two startled drivers?

Captain Liebner saw the plane hit between the second and third floors: So do you accept that AA77 hit the Pentagon and didn't fly over?

Liebner ran to help, while Probst ran away, which validates Liebner's evidence and casts doubt on Probst's: Could you please explain how the actions of these two men determine the reliability of their evidence - what is the causal connection?

Incidentally, for the benefit of any readers, the other forum is this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141769 with RubyGray's first post being #59.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
Posted (edited)

There are multiple witness accounts confirming Lloyde England's location beside the cemetery, north of the heliport.

There were numerous other witnesses who, I am aware, saw or had the opportunity to see him there, and I hope to contact some of them. They have never been asked about this before. But now, 18 years after the fact, it is unlikely that people will respond.

Those who have given first person testimony to having seen Lloyde and the cab in that location, or who can be proven to have been there themselves, are:

TONY TERRONEZ

DETECTIVE DON FORTUNATO

SERGEANT WILLIAM LAGASSE

FATHER STEPHEN MCGRAW.

TONY TERRONEZ was, we can take it, identifying no other than LLOYDE ENGLAND as the man in the car opposite him on Route 27, North of the Heliport, whose windscreen was holed and shattered. The only images extant of this identical damage are from Lloyde England's taxi cab. Terronez has incorrectly identified the windshield as being “rear” rather than “front”, but otherwise, the description perfectly fits Lloyde's account. 

Everybody” was out of their cars when Terronez spoke to this man, who he stated, was in obvious shock, and staring intently North, up the highway away from the impact site. Terronez had to speak to him several times before getting a response about his ability to drive.

This is from Terronez' account :

Around 9:40 a.m. I reached the heliport area (beside the Pentagon). 

So I got about 100 yards or so past the heliport and then all of the sudden I heard this loud screeching sound that just came out of nowhere and it intensified. This huge WHOOSH! 

And something made me look in my rearview mirror and by the time I looked up I saw the side of the Pentagon explode ... 

But when I looked to the car next to me I realized that something went through (the driver's) [rear] windshield and shattered it. There was a hole where you could see that something went through it ...

I and the guy in front of me went to the car next to me and asked the driver if he was all right and if he was OK to drive. He was in shock, you could tell. He just kept looking straight ahead. He didn't even look back, he was so fixated on looking north.He didn't want to look south at the Pentagon. Andit took a couple of times for me and the other guy to say, Can you drive? Hello? Are you OK? Are you OK? And he said, Yeah, I think I can drive. We asked him again, Can you drive? and that time he was more sure and said, Yes, yes, I can drive.

Then both I and the guy in front of me looked at his [rear] windshield and saw what was about a four-inch hole in it and the rest of the window was shattered as if someone took a baseball bat to it.
Since this shellshocked driver can only be Lloyde England, it is proof that his account is 100% honest. The plane and impact caused shock, disorientation and transient hearing loss. I cannot think why anyone would be surprised. Since Terronez was just North of the Heliport, so was Lloyde, as he has always stated from Day 1. He was looking North, away from the impact site, which was to the South. Had he been on the Bridge, and looking North, he would have been looking at the impact hole.

Edited by RubyGray
EXTRA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

Detective Don Fortunato gave two testimonies. One was a verbal account on TV news that afternoon, and the other was his own written account. In both of these, he states that he was parked next to the cab driver whose windscreen was knocked out by pieces of pole. He is rather ambiguous about his location, probably because he parked beside Lloyde's cab in two different locations.

First, he states that he drove to the scene and "ran to the site". This must mean that he was parked opposite the impact hole. It cannot refer to him being on the bridge, where he was photographed with Lloyde and the cab, for this is about 350 yards from the impact site, south of the Pentagon. 

The same silver sedan is shown on video and photos to have been parked at both sites, across the divider, just as Fortunato described.

So Fortunato's own testimony, and visual evidence, places him beside Lloyde's cab at the cemetery, with the pole through the windscreen, before it was moved to the bridge.

http://letsrollforums.com//showpost.php?p=278046&postcount=88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
9 hours ago, Peter B said:

Lloyde England's testimony was lengthy, detailed and comprehensive; it was artless, candid, honest and freely given:

Yet it could also be mistaken.

So says everybody else in the world, but does Lloyde not deserve, like anybody on trial, the assumption of innocence and defence on that basis?

That is my approach, and the only approach which was thorough enough to find the video and photo evidence that confirms every ridiculed detail of his account as true.

This evidence goes even further than that. Lloyde England was somehow unaware, and uninterested in finding out, how he and his cab were hit by a pole in one location, then photographed in another. He frequently said, 

"I got no problem with that."

In the CIT video "Lloyde England and his Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm" at 26:15 we have this exchange:

CRAIG RANKE   Now your car on the road, on the side of the road in this picture, was right HERE. (Points to BRIDGE.)

LLOYDE    NO it wasn't.

CRAIG   Yeah we got pictures of it.

LLOYDE    My car is NOT there.

CRAIG    Nah, we got pictures of it.

LLOYDE   NO, my car was NOT there.

CRAIG    I can pull it up. I'll show you.

LLOYDE   I don't care what you do. My car was at the Pentagon. My car was NOT across this bridge.

CRAIG   It was on this bridge. I'll show you this picture.

LLOYDE   NO NO NO! It wasn't. My car was back here. It was on Route, it was on 27.

CRAIG    I can pull up the picture. I don't have that one printed out, but I've got it. The car was right HERE.

LLOYDE   NO it wasn't.

CRAIG    This pole is Pole #1. It was right HERE.

LLOYDE   NO. This pole is beside the cemetery. The cemetery is over here.

CRAIG    The cemetery is yeah, it's over here.

LLOYDE   That's where I was.

CRAIG ACTUALLY GETS IT RIGHT HERE, BUT MISSES THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT HE IS SAYING :

CRAIG    All the poles that were down, if your car was over HERE [cemetery], it wasn't by the poles, because the downed poles are all right HERE [bridge]. Here's the first one. This is the one they said went into your car.

LLOYDE   That's what THEY say. That's NOT TRUE.

CRAIG    That's the second one.

LLOYDE   My car was down here (cemetery).

CRAIG    Well none of these poles were downed. They were all up in all the pictures.

LLOYDE   Regardless of what THEY SAY, I was THERE. I KNOW.

CRAIG    Well there's another picture of your car right here. That's where it was. So I can pull that up on the internet. I don't have that one with me.

LLOYDE   NO. NO. NO. Well the car is back here. I was driving it.

CRAIG    Right. Well ...

LLOYDE   Hold it. Hold it. I'll tell you what we can do. We can drive down there. I'll show you where the car was. The car was NOT here. This is Columbia Pike.

CRAIG    Well your car is not there now, so you wouldn't be able to prove it by driving down there.

LLOYDE   No, but I can ...

CRAIG    I can show you why by a picture of your cab being right HERE.

LLOYDE   It wasn't there.

CRAIG    I got the pictures. So. And that's the thing.

LLOYDE   It wasn't there.

SHIRLEY   You got the pictures that were taken the same day?

CRAIG    Yeah. Yeah.

LLOYDE   NO, my car was NOT, my car was NOT there.

CRAIG    I do! It's on here. I'll show you.

SHIRLEY   Was the car there?

CRAIG    Yes!

LLOYDE   It was NOT there.

CRAIG    Absolutely was.

LLOYDE   NO it wasn't.

CRAIG    I wish I had it printed out.

SHIRLEY   Well you know what, THEY COULD HAVE MOVED THE CAR WHEN YOU LEFT ... 

LLOYDE   They didn't.

SHIRLEY   ... because THEY RAN YOU OFF ...

LLOYDE   They didn't.

SHIRLEY   YEAH!!

It is obvious that Shirley was familiar with Lloyde's story. They would have discussed it many times over the past 7 years. Shirley knew that Lloyde had been "run off from" his cab. She was the only one to spot the obvious solution. "THEY" MUST HAVE MOVED THE CAR AFTER "THEY" RAN LLOYDE AWAY FROM IT. Yet Lloyde denied this, because he had no recollection of it, and Shirley insisted her idea must be correct.

I have been accused of making this topic my own courtroom. But it is the court of public opinion that has falsely accused and pilloried Lloyde England, in the interest of defending the government story. Any accused person has a right to an honest trial. Nobody else has ever defended Lloyde ON HIS OWN TESTIMONY. Even those who claim to respect him as a witness, patronisingly claim that he was at best, "confused" as to his location. They imply, or claim, that at 69 years, he was suffering from dementia. Yet he was the exact same age as Rumsfeld, and that claim is not made against him.

Rumsfeld claimed to be on the Pentagon lawn, and real-time video proves it.

Lloyde England claimed to be beside the cemetery wall, and the very same video showing Rumsfeld with his entourage arriving on the lawn, also shows 7 seconds of Lloyde's cab with pole inside it, the black towtruck waiting behind it, the white van parked in front of it, the Silent Stranger walking back from the white van to stand in front of the cab,  Steve Riskus' red sedan, Detective Fortunato's silver sedan, and Cheryl Ryefield running down the highway, right there at the cemetery wall.

Also shown in the same video is Father Stephen McGraw standing beside the lawn, waiting for the first victims to be brought out. We see two helmeted motorcycle cops (who spoke with Lloyde as they rode up), near the heliport assisting in the rescue effort. In the far distance, on top of the bridge in the southbound lanes, we can see another black cab, with TWO occupants, parked across the lanes. A short time after the footage of Lloyde's cab, we see the white van, just as he claimed, driving south to the bridge.

Significantly, as Rumsfeld ran about ferrying victims on a backboard from the lawn to triage, it is obvious that his eyes were not on the job, but trained on the bridge. As were those of his triumphantly and inappropriately grinning bodyguard, talking on his radio as he too watched the bridge area rather than the burning Pentagon. Scrutiny of this segment shows that black towtruck, with now empty trailer, driving north in the southbound lanes, and exiting off the northwest cloverleaf. This was at 9:45 a.m., 3 minutes before Corporal Jason Ingersoll's photo series first showed Lloyde's cab an top of the bridge.

Other videos show this event from other viewpoints. They show the moment when the white van drove south under the Columbia Pike exit overhead sign and past Lloyde's cab. They show this van, a couple of minutes later, departing the cemetery wall. They show the towtruck and black-covered trailer leaving the cemetery wall and driving south towards the bridge.. They show the decoy cab with TWO OCCUPANTS speeding south off the bridge as the towtruck with loaded, covered trailer, arrived on the bridge and commenced a U-turn across it. They show eyewitnesses USA TODAY editor Joel Sucherman and APTN journalist Eugenio Hernandez on the bridge, from where, they testified, they saw the plane flying NOT ACROSS THE BRIDGE, but perpendicular to the wall, on the Northside flightpath.

Since there is such a bank of evidence contained on numerous videos, and confirmed also by various high definition photos, the claims that Lloyde could have been mistaken, lying, forgetful or demented, are specious. Lloyde was telling the truth, which makes the government story a lie. This of course is an unpalatable concept to many, but no amount of incredulism and denial is going to make this evidence go away. These videos have been in the public domain now for many years, yet nobody has ever previously cared enough about Lloyde England's testimony to analyse them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

Pentagon Police officer Sergeant William Lagasse was adamant that "NOTHING HAPPENED ON THE BRIDGE".

He vehemently claimed that LLoyde England's taxi cab was hit by a pole at the cemetery location, NOT at the bridge.

Lagasse was the first officer to radio the news in to the Pentagon that the plane was flying towards it. He had seen it flying across the north side of the Citgo gas station while he was filling his car, on the northside apron of the station.He jumped into his car, backed out and sped off to the Pentagon, as is seen in the FOIA-released CCTV footage from the gas station.

Lagasse was interviewed by Craig Ranke, and he drew in his view of the plane's flightpath on an overhead map, on the video. There is no doubt about where he was, and that he could not possibly have seen the plane flying past the Citgo if it had been on the south side, because the building and roof would have obstructed his view.

20 hours ago, Peter B said:

There are people who witnessed England's taxi by the cemetery wall: Have these people verified it was England's taxi as opposed to someone else's?

Therefore, Sgt Lagasse definitely verified that Lloyde England's taxi was at the cemetery site.

1367940212_LagassesaysTAXIHITatCEMETERYWALL.jpg.66e272500eb4dc50d38305b7225ff17e.jpg

The Pentacon - Smoking Gun Version  

00:48:18

CRAIG RANKE  Well first off, let me ask you, Did you see the plane hit the building?

LAGASSE    Yes. Did I see what the plane did? NO, because there was a big fireball. When the plane hit, it just kind of disappeared. ...

CRAIG   Did you see it hit any lightpoles?

LAGASSE    I did not see them hit any lightpoles, but obviously when I got to the scene, the lightpoles were down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

Father Stephen McGraw was interviewed by Aldo Marquis, the second interview he did after Lloyde England, way back in 2006. McGraw's testimony was recorded many times. Aldo is scathing about what McGraw told him, but he was being overly harsh, and not really listening.

Because he was deceived by the photo series of Lloyde England's cab on the bridge beside the downed light poles, Aldo thought that Lloyde was there on the bridge at impact, and that if McGraw had seen Lloyde as he claimed, then he too must have been on the bridge, and therefore ought to have seen the plane flying across the bridge in front of him, and hitting the lightpoles.

McGraw said he did not see any lughpoles being hit, and therefore Aldo and Craig dismissed his testimony, and wandered off into conjecture about McGraw's associations with the Opus Dei sect, and complicity in 9/11. He stated that he thought McGraw had been "bussed in" about 15 minutes after the impact, when he was famously photographed by Navy Times journalist Mark Faram, stepping across the guard rail onto the Pentagon lawn north of the heliport.

But that is not how it happened.

Lloyde England was north of the heliport when the pole hit his cab, and so was Father Stephen McGraw. Not only does McGraw's testimony corroborate Lloyde England's statement as to his location at imopact, but the same video taken by an amateur pedestrian on the lawn north of the heliport, shows Stephen McGraw standing there, waiting for victims to be brought out, at 3 minutes 25 seconds post impact, exactly as he testified. If he "crossed the guardrail in one fluid movement" 15 minutes later, as Mark Faram wrote, and as he captured on film, this does not mean that he had not stepped over the guardrail previously or that he was elsewhere at impact. McGraw stated that he gathered his paraphernalia and got out of his car, crossed over the lanes, and waited there at the lawn. He did not mention running 350 yards down the road from the bridge, to get to that area. He was right there. And there is a single frame at 01:50 on this video, found only by watching frame-by-frame, that shows Father Stphen McGraw right there, as he said.

From the Law to the Lord (Featuring Stephen McGraw)

 

Here is the infamous interview by Aldo Marquis, where he totally gets it wrong:

03:07

McGRAW :

It SEEMS the plane was so low that it hit a light pole that was just on the edge of the highway on the far side there. Before it came over the highway it clipped this pole which I HEARD ended up being knocked over and hitting a TAXI which WAS NEAR MY CAR.

ALDO :
Now do you remember which pole it was, or was it the entire pole itself? The large part, or was it a piece?

McGRAW :

That's a good question. Um, my recollection is vague on that point, but um …

ALDO :

So you just saw it bounce over?

McGraw :

I DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE THE LIGHT POLE GO OVER OR ANYTHING, NO.

I believe I LATER SAW THE EVIDENCE of the pole having been knocked over, and I think that was just that AFTER THE FACT I SAW THE EVIDENCE ...

 

ALDO :
You deduced it.

McGraw :

a PIECE of, a PIECE of the light pole.

I think I may have only recalled SEEING THE TOP PART OF THE POLE.

So maybe THAT WAS THE ONLY PART OF THE POLE THAT ACTUALLY GOT KNOCKED OFF.

And it may NOT HAVE BEEN THE ENTIRE POLE getting knocked down.

Aldo falsely DEDUCED that McGraw was telling him he had seen a downed pole ON THE BRIDGE. But Aldo was wrong.

McGraw never said he was on the bridge, but on the highway. He got out of his car and crossed the road to the lawn within about a minute.

McGraw said he was opposite the Heliport, a few feet away from the cab which was therefore also opposite the Heliport … and that ONLY A “PIECE” OF POLE was “knocked down” … and that HE SAW THIS PIECE OF POLE, the EVIDENCE THAT THE TAXI WAS HIT THERE BESIDE THE CEMETERY WALL.

Clearly, this testimony has nothing to do with any poles on the bridge or Official Flight Path.

07:06

ALDO :

And you immediately after the plane had crashed you got out of your car about 45 seconds later right?

McGraw:

Right, about 45 seconds, yes.

My car was in the left hand lane, and after that initial moment when I seem to remember kind of a gasp around me, the car was going nowhere in the traffic, so it seemed just easy enough to grab my prayer book for the sick and the dying, my holy oils for anointing the sick and the dying, and my purple stole which priests wear when they are ministering to the sick.

So I got out of the car and I just left it there while I WALKED ACROSS THE ONE OR TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC whatever it was.

I was in the left hand lane, WALKED ACROSS THE REST OF THE TRAFFIC and JUST WENT OVER THE GUARDRAIL and JUST WAS ON THE LAWN THERE, in the first, about a minute or so I guess.

 

McGraw SAW this “PIECE OF POLE”, he SAW LLOYDE ENGLAND's CAB, and they were BOTH OPPOSITE THE HELIPORT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman

Don't you think you're kinda fixated with this? Unhealthily? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

"Fixated," obviously. "Unhealthily," no.

I wonder that you are even here, given your level of antipathy to the topic.

But thinking logically, what do you suppose are the implications if Lloyde England's story is true?

Could you lay out for me, from your contrary viewpoint, how the Pentagon 9/11 narrative would go, if ...

a plane flew over Lloyde England's cab

when it was 400 metres north of the bridge,

and a pole, which was not a lightpole,

was "driven down like a javelin" through his windscreen,

and his cab was then relocated

and posed for photographs on the bridge,

within 11 minutes of the impact,

and Lloyde was then retrieved and taken to his cab on the bridge,

to first appear in the photographs another 7 minutes later,

under the personal supervision

of Detective Don Fortunato

(who had pushed Lloyde to the ground just about 12 minutes earlier

to force him to leave his cab)

and of Rumsfeld's own bodyguard, Pentagon police officer Aubrey Davis?

That is a day which has affected us all, as you are aware if you buy insurance or fly anywhere or have a bank account or need ID or apply for a job or live anywhere on this planet under the all-seeing eye of the ISS. I was marched out of Tullamarine with a security guard on each elbow because there was a 10 cm nail file in my handbag, soon after 9/11.

Do you really think this has all been implemented because of a group of hankyheads?

Who did it, if not them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B

G'day RubyGray

With the greatest of respect, it's been pointed out to you, either here or at the International Skeptics Forum, that:

- eyewitnesses are unreliable;

- Flight Data Recorder information was recovered from AA77, and it's consistent with the available radar information, in support of the official account; and

- the North-of-Citgo account you seem to be at least partly endorsing would require the aircraft to bank >60 degrees to make the turn you require at the speed it was travelling, which NO witness reported. (And before you claim inconsistency with point 1, consider what the impact mark on the Pentagon of a banked plane would be.)

You've consistently failed to provide an alternative narrative to the official account, seeming to believe that the plane simultaneously (a) hit the Pentagon on a N-o-C flightpath and (b) flew over the Pentagon to land at the nearby airport.

And now you've decided to add the term "hankyheads" to describe the hijackers of the official account. Do I take this to mean you have questions about the piloting skills of the hijackers?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
5 hours ago, Peter B said:
Spoiler

- the North-of-Citgo account you seem to be at least partly endorsing ...

 

I don't know where you got the idea that I partly endorse the North-of-Citgo flightpath. I totally endorse it, since this is the route seen and attested to by scores of eyewitnesses.

Although I deplore some of the early work done by Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke (which ultimately it seems, led to their demise as CIT) they did incomparable service to the 9/11 cause by seeking out witnesses old and new, personally interviewing them on site, on camera when possible, or at least by phone. Their work cleared up many anomalies, and sorted the wheat from the chaff in many cases.

Yes, SOME eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Take for instance that of Noel Sepulveda, who somehow was awarded a medal for his imagined heroics, to the disgust of others, and apparently as some inducement to spruik the party line. His testimony is balderdash.

Similarly, the testimony of Steve Storti is outrageous. From over a mile away, on the east side of the Pentagon, through a forest of tall buildings, he claimed to have seen the flightpath of the plane, and things moving around in the windows, for quite some time.

Aldo and Craig dismissed the testimonies of Lloyde England, Joel Sucherman, Vin Narayanan, Mary Ann Owens, and Father Stephen McGraw as worthless lies. They slandered and libelled these eyewitnesses, and several more associated with Gannett, across the internet on every forum for years. All their derogatory videos are still on YouTube, and all their forum discussions are still available to read, even if the sites are inactive. So their defamation of these individuals continues.

The reason they did this, is that they fell for the sleight of hand trick of those 5 downed poles, and Lloyde's cab posed next to one of them on the bridge. Because of the photos of Lloyde and the cab there, they failed to check for any evidence that what Lloyde was telling them, could have been true.

Although they KNEW that the plane did not hit those light poles,

and they KNEW better than anybody, after their personal inspection of Lloyde's preserved cab, that no 30 foot lightpole did that damage,

and although they strongly suspected that the damage was done to order in a different location,

and although Aldo even wrote on a forum very early on that he believed the orange low loader trailer seen in the top left hand corner of Jason Ingersoll's photo of Lloyde and his cab, DSC_O421, was the very trailer used to relocate Lloyde's cab to the bridge,

and although Craig did a video of the lightpoles lying in the VDOT yard next to an orange trailer of the same distinctive type ...

and although the VDOT manager who permitted him to film there, and was nervous when interviewed, and gave them the complete high definition Jason Ingersoll photo collection showing that trailer behind Lloyde's cab, committed suicide a few days later ...

Craig and Aldo just never connected enough dots about Lloyde's story. They kept insisting he was on the bridge the whole time, and badgered him to "confess" to being an operative in the Pentagon psy-op.

Then, they illogically located other witnesses according to the Southside flightpath, especially if they mentioned being near the cab driver.

So Stephen McGraw, who said he was "just a few feet away" from Lloyde's cab, was assumed to also be on tne bridge, branded a liar and his testimony rubbished.

Joel Sucherman was condemned for saying he was "on 110" when he saw the plane fly from left to right across his windshield. At other times he said he was on Route 27. It is a very common Washingtonian habit to misname the 3 highways around the Pentagon.

Vin Narayanan, who said he was "on the other side of the Pentagon" from Sucherman, was thus assumed by CIT to be on the bridge, south of the overhead sign, as he saw the plane cross right in front of him. 

Mary Ann Owens said the plane flew over her car, therefore CIT placed her on the bridge, north of the overhead sign.

CIT assumed all these eyewitnesses were lying to support the Southside flightpath, and that they were only pretending to have been in those locations.

What they should have done, was check the video and photographic evdence, beside other eyewitness testimony.

Father Stephen McGraw said he was close to Lloyde England's cab, and that he personally saw the evidence of a piece of a pole which had hit the cab. He denied that the plane had knocked down a whole lightpole; he saw only a "piece" of pole.he said he got out of his car, crossed the lanes of traffic, and waited there beside the lawn for the first victims to be brought out. Video confirms that he was standing right there opposite the heliport, at 3 minutes 25 seconds post impact. He did not see the plane approach, but had a sensation of it flying across his car. So Stephen McGraw is a Northside Witness.

Mary Ann Owens was opposite the impact hole, just as she said, which is proven by a photo she took, placing her next to the tree beside the Helipad. The plane flew over her car, which was 250 yards north of the bridge. She said,

"I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet ABOVE THE ROOF OF MY CAR."

So she admits that although she heard the explosion, she DID NOT actually see the plane hit the Pentagon. And if it was 75 feet above her car, it was already high enough to clear the Pentagon roof, but far too high to hit the ground floor on grade. And it was perpendicular to the wall, not at that acute angle required by the Southside flightpath. Therefore Mary Ann Owens is a Northside Witness.

Joel Sucherman is seen for several minutes in an amateur video taken on the bridge, immediately after the impact. He is several car lengths south of the overhead sign, and there are trees blocking his view of the impact site, although he claimed to have had a view of it. Yes, he could see the Pentagon, but only the southwest face of it. Yes, he saw the plane flying from left to right across his windshield, and NOT DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE, which makes Sucherman also a Northside witness.

Vin Narayanan was "on the other side of the Pentagon" from Sucherman. As Sucherman was south of the West wall, Narayanan was at the north end of the West wall. He said (on the CIT video, "The USA TODAY Parade") that he was just before an overhead exit sign, which is therefore the Columbia Pike exit sign , and that "the tail of the plane clipped the exit sign but it didn't clip any lightpoles or anything like that." This means Narayanan is also a Northside Witness.

 Lloyde England was north of this same exit sign, when the plane flew over his car, and a pole hit his cab. Therefore Lloyde England is a Northside Witness.

Not only do we have Lloyde's own testimony to his location there, but we have the confirmation of Sergeant William Lagasse, the testimony of Father Stephen  McGraw, and the account of Tony Terronez. Many other people saw him at this location, but they will never admit this on the grounds that it would incriminate them. Steve Riskus, the towtruck driver, Detective Fortunato, the white van driver, Donald Rumsfeld, Aubrey Davis, Rumsfeld's security detail, etc.

There are also the two motorcycle cops, who would probably admit speaking with Lloyde there, if only anyone had ever asked them, but nobody did.

Jerri Davis was driving past that location, when a man tried to flag her down, but she refused to stop. CIT found this witness, but never thought to ask her if the man seeking assistance was black, and standing next to a Capitol Cab.

Cheryl Ryefield is seen running down the road, on the segment of amateur video showing Lloyde England's cab beside the cemetery wall. She possibly witnessed the pole hitting Lloyde's cab, but again, nobody asked her. She saw the plane fly over the Navy Annex, and across the highway in front of her, therefore Cheryl Ryefield is a Northside Witness.

Lloyde England's testimony as to his location and the path of the plane is verified by all these eyewitnesses, whose testimonies have all been independently validated by photos and videos. 

And this bank of proofs also confirms that the black Capitol Cab seen beside the cemetery wall on 7 seconds of amateur video, is Lloyde England's cab. Every testimony confirms and is confirmed by every other, and by the visual record.

So NO, NOT ALL EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS UNRELIABLE.

When eyewitness testimony is validated by photos and videos, and corroborated by testimony from multiple other eyewitnesses, and fortified by physical evidence (that the taxi was speared by a pole which is no component of a 40 foot lightpole), then it constitutes admissible proof, and raises significant questions over other data claimed to prove the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
9 hours ago, Peter B said:

You've consistently failed to provide an alternative narrative to the official account, seeming to believe that the plane simultaneously (a) hit the Pentagon on a N-o-C flightpath and (b) flew over the Pentagon to land at the nearby airport.

Again, where did you get the impression that I believe the plane simultaneously flew into the Pentagon, and flew over it? It obviously did one or the other, and since it cannot have hit the building at the impact hole from the Northside flightpath, then I am forced to conclude that it flew over the building.

I certainly believe that the witnesses were deceived somehow into believing they saw something which is incompatible with certain known facts. They THOUGHT they saw the plane hit, when logically, that cannot have occurred, according to their own testimonies.

For instance. Sergeant William Lagasse was captured in real time, on CCTV video, at the bowser on the north edge of the Citgo gas station when the plane flew over to the north of him. He immediately radioed the news in to the Pentagon. Thus there is no doubt as to his location, and as to his having witnessed the plane. His call was recorded and time-stamped.

He gave his testimony several times, as being on the starboard side of the plane, before Craig Ranke interviewed him on location, on video. He was adamant about the plane flying on the Northside path. He pointed out that he could not even have seen the plane if it had been on the southside path, from his confirmed position, because the building and roof would have been in the way.

Lagasse BELIEVED that he saw the plane impact the building, although he said "The plane just disappeared," and he admitted he could not see what actually happened because of the fireball. Video from his position showed that the impact site was hidden behind earth banks. Lagasse absolutely denied that the plane had flown across the bridge or hit any poles there. He stated that Lloyde England's cab was hit by a pole beside the cemetery wall. The Flightpath he drew on an overhead map, is incompatible with the Southside path and directional damage inside the Pentagon.

But he still BELIEVED the plane hit the building at that impossible angle.

My job is not to construct an alternative narrative to the official account, which could only be conjecture, but to point out anomalies and present evidence which contradict that account, and hope for others to search for the elusive truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
9 hours ago, Peter B said:

And now you've decided to add the term "hankyheads" to describe the hijackers of the official account. Do I take this to mean you have questions about the piloting skills of the hijackers?

Their flight instructors certainly believed the "hijackers" did not have the skills to pilot small planes, never mind jets which they had never flown at all, and who am I to argue with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
5 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Their flight instructors certainly believed the "hijackers" did not have the skills to pilot small planes, never mind jets which they had never flown at all, and who am I to argue with them?

You probably wouldn't argue with them because - I am presuming - you don't have an aviation background. I do, and the fact remains that all four held FAA licences, including commercial. They must have been good enough to satisfy FAA examiners.

They did training on their aircraft types and besides, flying a commercial airliner essentially straight & level is quite easy; landing it safely is where the challenge lay.

And as for being able to hit a target? Any competent instructor can teach anyone how to do that in five minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

What a shame none of them is here! Then we could interview them and discuss their relevant testimonies on this thread as Flight 77 Eyewitnesses! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
5 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

What a shame none of them is here!

Yes, what a terrible, terrible shame!!!!  What this thread needs is more memories and anecdotes .... now that years have passed and biases and obsessions have increased, and memories have been altered to suit.  That way, we will all be able to get to "The Truth".    :wacko:

{/driveby}

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

Getting back to the series of images of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his bodyguard, Pentagon Police Officer Aubrey Davis, and their curious involvement in the staged scene of Lloyde England and his cab on the bridge, which I left at Post # 1940.

Here is how Rumsfeld occupied himself while his bodyguard was seconded to babysitting duty for Lloyde on the bridge during the photo opportunity.

1111575615_RUMSFELD2MotorcycleCops.jpg.82643c25429f66c8a274e2e5759341d6.jpg

Lloyde England testified, in 2006, that two motorcycle police came past while he was beside the cemetery wall.

10:43     "The First Known Accomplice? _ Featuring Lloyde England"  CIT Video, Interview 2006
"So I looked at the Pentagon, and there was no debris left. I mean, if a plane … I’m wondering, What happened to the airplane? There's a hole in that building, but the hole is not big enough for this airplane. The tail section would be taller than the hole. The wingspread, that would … I mean the wings, man the wings, the big engines underneath each wing. Nothing was left out of the plane! I mean, how is a plane going to completely go into a building, and nothing be left out? I mean, I ... I’m just looking.

"By this time, ARLINGTON COUNTY POLICE arrive on MOTORCYCLES."

These two officers would only have had to cross the road and walk across to the heliport from Lloyde's position.

By comparison with the video "911 First Two Handheld Camera Videos Of Pentagon After 9:38 am" @11:38, and with timestamped photos taken by Keith Wheelhouse, of this same scene, it can be determined that the time of this photo was ~ 9:51 - 9:52 a.m., about 15 minutes post impact.

Edited by RubyGray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, what a terrible, terrible shame!!!!  What this thread needs is more memories and anecdotes .... now that years have passed and biases and obsessions have increased, and memories have been altered to suit.  That way, we will all be able to get to "The Truth".    :wacko:

{/driveby}

 

Or ... we could do as I have done, and scrutinise all available videos and photos taken beside the Pentagon in the first 20 minutes, from several different vantage points, to find irrefutable real-time evidence which either confirms or contradicts peoples' "unreliable" memories of those events.

In the case of Lloyde England, everything I have found in the video and photo record, only confirms every word he said.

Other Northside eyewitnesses are also confirmed likewise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
2 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Getting back to the series of images of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his bodyguard, Pentagon Police Officer Aubrey Davis, and their curious involvement in the staged scene of Lloyde England and his cab on the bridge, which I left at Post # 1940.

Here is how Rumsfeld occupied himself while his bodyguard was seconded to babysitting duty for Lloyde on the bridge during the photo opportunity.

1111575615_RUMSFELD2MotorcycleCops.jpg.82643c25429f66c8a274e2e5759341d6.jpg

Lloyde England testified, in 2006, that two motorcycle police came past while he was beside the cemetery wall.

10:43     "The First Known Accomplice? _ Featuring Lloyde England"  CIT Video, Interview 2006
"So I looked at the Pentagon, and there was no debris left. I mean, if a plane … I’m wondering, What happened to the airplane? There's a hole in that building, but the hole is not big enough for this airplane. The tail section would be taller than the hole. The wingspread, that would … I mean the wings, man the wings, the big engines underneath each wing. Nothing was left out of the plane! I mean, how is a plane going to completely go into a building, and nothing be left out? I mean, I ... I’m just looking.

"By this time, ARLINGTON COUNTY POLICE arrive on MOTORCYCLES."

These two officers would only have had to cross the road and walk across to the heliport from Lloyde's position.

By comparison with the video "911 First Two Handheld Camera Videos Of Pentagon After 9:38 am" @11:38, and with timestamped photos taken by Keith Wheelhouse, of this same scene, it can be determined that the time of this photo was ~ 9:51 - 9:52 a.m., about 15 minutes post impact.

Was he strapped to the board??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
On 10/7/2019 at 8:10 AM, RubyGray said:

The erudite reply I would expect from an ocker knocker who believes Gene Cernan walked on the moon.

Because the Earth is flat right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
Quote

The erudite reply I would expect from an ocker knocker who believes Gene Cernan walked on the moon.

C'mon over to the thread linked below, Ruby, and you can explain exactly why you said that...

And next time STAY ON TOPIC and answer the criticisms being posted - you are NOT discussing.  WTH do you think this forum is for - your personal tinfoil blog?

 

 

 

Edited by ChrLzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

C'mon over to the thread linked below, Ruby, and you can explain exactly why you said that...

And next time STAY ON TOPIC and answer the criticisms being posted - you are NOT discussing.  WTH do you think this forum is for - your personal tinfoil blog?

 

 

 

If you go back to Post #1975, which contains NO DISCUSSION, and NO ON-TOPIC MATERIAL, you may see the relevance of my uncharacteristically brief post. 

In fact, I WAS ANSWERING THAT OFF-TOPIC CRITICISM.

I believe you will find that I have created the preponderance of on-topic posts discussing the topic of this thread, since I resurrected it, in fact, since it was derailed many years ago by others who sabotaged the thread with off-topic posts.

And you will also find that though I have posted lots of referenced, confronting information on the Pentagon eyewitnesses, almost nobody else is actually discussing this. Making personal derogatory remarks, yes. But not engaging with the subject matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
13 hours ago, RubyGray said:

....of my uncharacteristically brief post....

I believe that is the first correct thing you have said in the entire thread.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

Why bother to post at all, since you have nothing to say for yourself about the topic?

Let me guess. Ridicule, diversion, mockery. The great Australian way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
1 hour ago, RubyGray said:

Let me guess. Ridicule, diversion, mockery. The great Australian way.

15 hours ago, RubyGray said:

... all of which (except maybe Peter B's) are exercises in testosterone-fuelled ridicule and baseless false accusations.....

Statements like that make it seem that you have issues with men and issues with Australia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.