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

Only when Australian men avoid engaging with the topic, and resort to snide criticisms.

Discuss away, and we're good.

I don't mind being disagreed with, and if I am mistaken, I welcome the opportunity to learn something. But so far, all you have done is post Eric Bart's witness testimonies compilation in one indigestible chunk as though that proves something, and mock.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

@RubyGray, you've presented a lot of information. Most of it has been debunked long ago. I don't know what the point was for you to re-engage this topic. What was/is your goal?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

"Debunking" requires much more than "disagreeing with" or "ridiculing".

Yes, I have presented a lot of information, and NO, most of it has NOT been "debunked long ago".

Most of it is brand new evidence.

Imagine you had been wrongly accused, charged and convicted, on circumstantial photographic evidence, of a high profile murder, languishing on death row, longing for somebody to exonerate you.

Then, 18 years later, along came somebody with not just one, but several independent realtime, concurrent datestamped or chronologically-identifiable videos from numerous vantage points, proving that you were nowhere near the scene of the crime, and also showing the actual criminals in the act of setting you up for the murder. 

Would you reject that new evidence vindicating yourself, as glibly as you reject newly discovered evidence that proves Lloyde England's cab was 400 yards north of the bridge when a pole was "driven down like a javelin" through his windscreen, after a large plane flew over his cab?

Evidence that shows the arrival and progress of the white van Lloyde described, whose driver helped him pull out the pole, then drove on down to the bridge until after Lloyde's cab had been relocated there?

Evidence that proves a towtruck was waiting at the cemetery wall to transport his cab to the bridge?

Evidence that proves the Secretary of Defense had foreknowledge of this seemingly minor traffic accident, such that within 9 minutes of the impact, he had seconded his own bodyguard to personally collect supposedly unknown and random cab driver Lloyde England, deliver him to the bridge, and supervise him while a series of photos was belatedly taken by a military photographer, to fraudulently imply that Lloyde and his cab had been hit by a lightpole downed by a plane as it flew across the bridge?

That, at the very least, amounts to perverting the course of justice. Setting up an innocent victim, and using this circumstantial evidence against his personal testimony to shift the blame for their own crime onto a group of 19 people who were, conveniently, supposed to be dead.

9/11 was the crime of the century, and the perpetrators have gotten away with it. They imagine it was the perfect crime, with all evidence so tigjhtly controlled by themselves, but they reckoned without these videos that incriminate them.

Edited by RubyGray
Typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bknight
23 hours ago, RubyGray said:

"Debunking" requires much more than "disagreeing with" or "ridiculing".

Yes, I have presented a lot of information, and NO, most of it has NOT been "debunked long ago".

Most of it is brand new evidence.

Imagine you had been wrongly accused, charged and convicted, on circumstantial photographic evidence, of a high profile murder, languishing on death row, longing for somebody to exonerate you.

Then, 18 years later, along came somebody with not just one, but several independent realtime, concurrent datestamped or chronologically-identifiable videos from numerous vantage points, proving that you were nowhere near the scene of the crime, and also showing the actual criminals in the act of setting you up for the murder. 

Would you reject that new evidence vindicating yourself, as glibly as you reject newly discovered evidence that proves Lloyde England's cab was 400 yards north of the bridge when a pole was "driven down like a javelin" through his windscreen, after a large plane flew over his cab?

Evidence that shows the arrival and progress of the white van Lloyde described, whose driver helped him pull out the pole, then drove on down to the bridge until after Lloyde's cab had been relocated there?

Evidence that proves a towtruck was waiting at the cemetery wall to transport his cab to the bridge?

Evidence that proves the Secretary of Defense had foreknowledge of this seemingly minor traffic accident, such that within 9 minutes of the impact, he had seconded his own bodyguard to personally collect supposedly unknown and random cab driver Lloyde England, deliver him to the bridge, and supervise him while a series of photos was belatedly taken by a military photographer, to fraudulently imply that Lloyde and his cab had been hit by a lightpole downed by a plane as it flew across the bridge?

That, at the very least, amounts to perverting the course of justice. Setting up an innocent victim, and using this circumstantial evidence against his personal testimony to shift the blame for their own crime onto a group of 19 people who were, conveniently, supposed to be dead.

9/11 was the crime of the century, and the perpetrators have gotten away with it. They imagine it was the perfect crime, with all evidence so tigjhtly controlled by themselves, but they reckoned without these videos that incriminate them.

You forgot to include evidence of your allegations, just stating them does not prove their validity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

Have you not read my previous posts, then! For instance, the ones with the video screenshots of Rumsfeld and his bodyguard on the Pentagon lawn, then a few minutes later, that same bodyguard appears on the bridge, after having collected Lloyde from down the highway. Nobody seems to want to address this. How could Rumsfeld have sent his bodyguard to do this, without foreknowledge? Lloyde stated that he did not know this black man, or any of the 3 men in the bridge photos. So how did this guy recognise and find Lloyde?

The image posting facility here is severely limiting. I can only post images when in town on a PC.which is 2 or 3 times per week at best. And then, I am only permitted to post one image. It's impossible to lay out a coherent post in full chronological sequence, with appropriate proofs, under these restrictions. Any clues? I really am trying to make my point as comprehensively as possible, which of course loses the attention of those raised on one-liners.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bknight
3 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

Have you not read my previous posts, then! For instance, the ones with the video screenshots of Rumsfeld and his bodyguard on the Pentagon lawn, then a few minutes later, that same bodyguard appears on the bridge, after having collected Lloyde from down the highway. Nobody seems to want to address this. How could Rumsfeld have sent his bodyguard to do this, without foreknowledge? Lloyde stated that he did not know this black man, or any of the 3 men in the bridge photos. So how did this guy recognise and find Lloyde?

The image posting facility here is severely limiting. I can only post images when in town on a PC.which is 2 or 3 times per week at best. And then, I am only permitted to post one image. It's impossible to lay out a coherent post in full chronological sequence, with appropriate proofs, under these restrictions. Any clues? I really am trying to make my point as comprehensively as possible, which of course loses the attention of those raised on one-liners.

Perhaps you are able to post time stamps in whatever video you refer.  No I didn't go back any when looking for comments.  Please make sure that the time stamp indicates exactly what you claim, not just what you think he/she says.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
On 10/14/2019 at 9:29 AM, RubyGray said:

Nobody seems to want to address this.

Nobody wants to address Epstein's alleged death either.  LOL I can only laugh now, as this is the age we're living in sadly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

Well they wouldn't be wanting to address that on this thread, would they?

But thanks for pointing out the common denominator in these discussions. It's hard to discuss something when others ignore it.

Edited by RubyGray
add
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

 

On 10/14/2019 at 9:35 AM, bknight said:

Perhaps you are able to post time stamps in whatever video you refer.  No I didn't go back any when looking for comments.  Please make sure that the time stamp indicates exactly what you claim, not just what you think he/she says.

I am doing my best here to provide coherent posts with full documentation and screenshots, but with the draconian site rule (which I cannot find anywhere) that allows me to post only 0.24 Mb (even when I have deleted one and tried to upload a better image), it is simply impossible. I am attempting to post a comparative image with Rumsfeld's bodyguard on the lawn at 9:42 a.m, then guarding Lloyde England 350 yards away on the bridge, at 9:55 a.m. But this is not permitted. I have no idea how long this ridiculous image posting ban lasts, nor am I able to find out, and nobody else is giving me any clues.

All I can say is, without being able to post more than a single image here to illustrate what I say, I have done many hundreds of hours of frame - by - frame analysis of the numerous videos which show what happened at the Pentagon after impact at 9:37:46 a.m., and up to almost 10 a.m. I have meticulously compared and timestamped every pertinent event on all these videos to the best of my ability, which nobody else has done. Don't grizzle about it until you have done a better job, in which case I would be very interested to see your versions. I have hundreds of screenshots from these videos, timestamped and arranged in chronological order, which tell the story for themselves. I didn't have to make up anything. I just kept studying the evidence, and followed the sequence of events.

The YouTube channel Onesliceshort has a list of 23 mostly Pentagon compilation videos which are very useful. He has tried to asseemble these in chronological order, but this is not always correct.

Most of the videos are not timestamped, but times have been determined by comparison of each video with others taken of the same scene from a different vantage point.

 

There is only one video which is timestamped, the FOX5NEWS footage. That turns out to be a "Rosetta Stone" for the Pentagon videos, as there are features in it which are also seen in others. Craig Ranke's YouTube channel, Lytetrip, has this video here:

1st report of plane hitting Pentagon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOflyabs0_w&t=20s

 

There are also the extended Gatecam footages, which help to determine the timestamps in other videos. We can see from them when the first firetrucks arrived, for instance. Assuming the impact time of 9:37:36 a.m. is correct, and that the Gatecam videos ran at precisely 1 frame per second (which I cannot be certain of), numerous other videos can be timestamped. YouTube channel cjnewson88 has these videos,

9/11 Pentagon Attack Video Gate Camera 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P92iSdqsBgo

9/11 Pentagon Attack Video Gate Camera 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHHWa8coZOk&t=25s

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am doing my best here to provide coherent posts with full documentation and screenshots

I'll try to wear my polite hat, but I have to say, you aren't succeeding on the 'coherent' bit.  I'll use this post as an example and you may wish to consider why you aren't getting a very good reception....

Quote

but with the draconian site rule (which I cannot find anywhere) that allows me to post only 0.24 Mb

It is stated on the screen where you upload the image... so why would you go hunting in the rules..?  0.24Mb, also known as 240Kb, should be plenty for all but the biggest, highly detailed images, provided they are in JPEG (filename.jpg) format.

Here's a quite large image (click to view at full-res) containing lots of detail:
Calibration_Print_Adobe_RGB_HD_crop.thumb.jpg.e50dc852a6ab1c49aad562f3a84d16b6.jpg
That is a 220Kb (0.22Mb) jpeg file.  It comes from Digital Masters Australasia, and in its original form is commonly used as a printer test image.

I'd suggest you get some assistance from someone who knows imaging - they can reduce the image size (you should not post anything larger than about 1000 pixels along any edge) and also choose a compression level to get the file size down without compromising image quality noticeably.

Quote

I have no idea how long this ridiculous image posting ban lasts, nor am I able to find out, and nobody else is giving me any clues.

Image ban? - if you were banned/restricted, then a moderator would have told you why.  Post a request for help in the appropriate forum.  

And of course there is nothing stopping you from getting the images hosted somewhere, even on Dropbox (make them public) and then provide links.  This is pretty basic stuff - discussion forums are NOT places to host large images.

Quote

All I can say is, without being able to post more than a single image here to illustrate what I say, I have done many hundreds of hours of frame - by - frame analysis of the numerous videos which show what happened at the Pentagon after impact at 9:37:46 a.m., and up to almost 10 a.m. I have meticulously compared and timestamped every pertinent event on all these videos to the best of my ability, which nobody else has done. Don't grizzle about it until you have done a better job, in which case I would be very interested to see your versions. I have hundreds of screenshots from these videos, timestamped and arranged in chronological order, which tell the story for themselves. I didn't have to make up anything. I just kept studying the evidence, and followed the sequence of events.

How about telling us what it is you discovered, instead of all those words that tell us nothing except how much time you spend on this..  I have no interest in checking out videos if you have no interest in actually discussing and at least summarising what the point of the video is, IN ADVANCE.

Quote

The YouTube channel Onesliceshort has a list of 23 mostly Pentagon compilation videos which are very useful.

Sigh.  WHICH is the best?  What does it show exactly and how does this fit your narrative, or not fit the official one?

Stop being so lazy - make your point and summarise the video content.

 

I've ignored / snipped the rest of your post, and I'd wager that many here would do the same.  You give us no clue what you are on about - what point are you making? - for heaven's sake, just pick ONE (the best) and discuss that in detail.

I have a lot of experience in general image analysis and photogrammetry, and I'd be happy to look at a genuine anomaly or two.

As against what I've seen above, which is a pile of simply misunderstood 'anomalies', and rather worthless anecdotes.

 

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

Thanks, but when I need a load of horse manure, I'll pick it up myself from the paddock at home.

You totally missed my point.

This site will not allow me to post more than one image at a time.

It prevents me from loading a second image for a very long interval, the duration of whuich I am unable to discover.

As I said in the above post, I had uploaded one image, then found a better one before posting, deleted the first image, and tried to load the better one in its place - but even though I currently had no image there, I was still prevented from uploading this image.

Hence NO IMAGE AT ALL.

I have previously posted links to my Flickr album, but of course nobody is interested in going there from a link.

Nobody is interested in reading at all here apparently.

What I write is perfectly clear to anybody who has any interest in this topic. The work done by Citizen Investigation Team is still available for anyone to read and view.

My comments presuppose some familiarity with this database of evidence and (sometimes) conjecture.

It doesn't matter, does it, what I post? How good it is? Your mind is made up, and you do not wish to be confused with facts. I get that.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

265686452_AUBREYDAVIS9_429_52a.m..thumb.jpg.9efc709061167ab0176e1b1d57f9bbcc.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

265686452_AUBREYDAVIS9_429_52a.m..thumb.jpg.9efc709061167ab0176e1b1d57f9bbcc.jpg

Lets see, you are able to identify the guy in the white shirt as who?  You do realize that Lloyd is black?

Share this post


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

 

I am doing my best here to provide coherent posts with full documentation and screenshots, but with the draconian site rule (which I cannot find anywhere) that allows me to post only 0.24 Mb (even when I have deleted one and tried to upload a better image), it is simply impossible. I am attempting to post a comparative image with Rumsfeld's bodyguard on the lawn at 9:42 a.m, then guarding Lloyde England 350 yards away on the bridge, at 9:55 a.m. But this is not permitted. I have no idea how long this ridiculous image posting ban lasts, nor am I able to find out, and nobody else is giving me any clues.

All I can say is, without being able to post more than a single image here to illustrate what I say, I have done many hundreds of hours of frame - by - frame analysis of the numerous videos which show what happened at the Pentagon after impact at 9:37:46 a.m., and up to almost 10 a.m. I have meticulously compared and timestamped every pertinent event on all these videos to the best of my ability, which nobody else has done. Don't grizzle about it until you have done a better job, in which case I would be very interested to see your versions. I have hundreds of screenshots from these videos, timestamped and arranged in chronological order, which tell the story for themselves. I didn't have to make up anything. I just kept studying the evidence, and followed the sequence of events.

The YouTube channel Onesliceshort has a list of 23 mostly Pentagon compilation videos which are very useful. He has tried to asseemble these in chronological order, but this is not always correct.

Most of the videos are not timestamped, but times have been determined by comparison of each video with others taken of the same scene from a different vantage point.

 

There is only one video which is timestamped, the FOX5NEWS footage. That turns out to be a "Rosetta Stone" for the Pentagon videos, as there are features in it which are also seen in others. Craig Ranke's YouTube channel, Lytetrip, has this video here:

1st report of plane hitting Pentagon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOflyabs0_w&t=20s

 

There are also the extended Gatecam footages, which help to determine the timestamps in other videos. We can see from them when the first firetrucks arrived, for instance. Assuming the impact time of 9:37:36 a.m. is correct, and that the Gatecam videos ran at precisely 1 frame per second (which I cannot be certain of), numerous other videos can be timestamped. YouTube channel cjnewson88 has these videos,

9/11 Pentagon Attack Video Gate Camera 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P92iSdqsBgo

9/11 Pentagon Attack Video Gate Camera 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHHWa8coZOk&t=25s

 

I'm not necessarily asking that you post images, links to images videos with descriptive narrative will suffice.  I see no time stamps in the gate camera links you provide.  So what is ominous about these videos?  Tell me what they represent to you.

 

You are suggesting that the video that shows a timestamp of 09:43 in the Fox video contradicts the "timestamp" of the Rumsfeld et al video of 09:42, I wonder if there might be a error in the lawn video?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aaron2016
3 hours ago, bknight said:

Lets see, you are able to identify the guy in the white shirt as who?  You do realize that Lloyd is black?

Jumping onto the topic.  I see that it says Rumsfeld was holding the stretcher at 9:42am but the plane crashed at 9:37am and 46 seconds.  Seems a bit sudden.  Rumsfeld had to be alerted what was happening, and then make his way towards the scene, while servicemen ascertain the situation, and then proceed to locate the body stretchers and make their way towards a wounded person, strap them in place, and proceed to carry them to a safe zone.  Just seems a little quick for all of that to take place just 4 minutes and 14 seconds after the plane struck.  I would have thought it was more like 14 minutes later and not 4.

He gave an interview and said he was in his office and felt the building shake.  

"I went down, down the hall and then downstairs when the smoke got bad and people said you just can't go any farther.  I went outside and there were little pieces of metal spread all over the grass, and the smoke was billowing up, and the flame was very visible and leaping out of the building. There were not a lot of people out there, at that moment, yet."  He then spoke to 'A dazed lieutenant colonel' and told him the attack must be linked to the attacks in New York.  He then said - "The first responders hadn't arrived and the numbers grew fairly rapidly as people came to see what in the world they could do."  He then helped a survivor on a stretcher receive medical attention. "I was trying to get a sense of what had happened, and I confirmed what had happened, and then your immediate reaction is to try to be helpful, and then once there were people there that could be helpful they didn't need me down there and I could get back, and started to pull together my immediate staff and the military people and went into the command center."  Before leaving the scene he said he picked up a piece of Flight 77 wreckage that was several inches long.  It is now mounted in his office.

 

Edited by Aaron2016
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
15 hours ago, bknight said:

Lets see, you are able to identify the guy in the white shirt as who?  You do realize that Lloyd is black?

You do see two black men in this photo, do you not?

One is Lloyde England.

The other is (now)

Captain Aubrey Davis,

Police Captain at Pentagon Force Protection Agency,

Clinton, Maryland 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

‘Rumsfeld, An American Disaster’
By ANDREW COCKBURN

MARCH 25, 2007

Chapter 1.


Just after 9:37 A.M. on the morning of September 11, 2001, Officer Aubrey Davis of the Pentagon police was standing outside Donald Rumsfeld's office on the third floor of the Pentagon's E Ring. Inside, Rumsfeld, though aware that the World Trade Center towers in New York had already been hit, was proceeding with his regularly scheduled CIA briefing. Davis, on the other hand, had concluded from watching the TV news that the country was under attack and the Pentagon might be a target. Assigned to the defense secretary's personal bodyguard, he had come on his own initiative, ready to move Rumsfeld to a better-protected location.

"There was an incredibly loud 'boom,'" says Davis, raising his voice slightly on the last word. Fifteen or twenty seconds later, just as his radio crackled with a message, the door opened and Rumsfeld walked out, looking composed and wearing the jacket he normally discarded while in his office. "Sir," said Davis, quoting what he had heard on his radio, "we're getting a report that an airplane has hit the Mall."

"The Mall?" replied Rumsfeld calmly. Without further word, the secretary of defense turned on his heel and set off at a sharp pace toward the so-called Mall section of the Pentagon. Down the hall, someone ran out of a VIP dining room screaming, "They're bombing the building, they're bombing the building." Davis frantically waved for colleagues to catch up as the stocky, 5' 8" defense secretary marched ahead of his lanky escort.

The group, which grew to include several more police officers as well as Rumsfeld's personal communications aide, turned into the wide passageway running along the Mall face of the building. Thick crowds of Pentagon staff, in and out of uniform, were hurrying past in the opposite direction. They could smell smoke, but there was no sign of any damage here. "I thought you said the Mall," said Rumsfeld.

"Sir," responded Davis, holding his radio, "now we're hearing it's by the heliport." This meant the next side of the building farther along from the Mall. Rumsfeld set off again without a word, ignoring Davis's protestations that they should turn back. "At the end of the Mall corridor, we dropped down a stairway to the second floor, and then a little farther we dropped down to the first. It was dark and there was a lot of smoke. Then we saw daylight through a door that was hanging open." Groping through the darkness to the door, the group emerged outside. In front of them, just thirty yards away, roared a "wall of flame."

"There were the flames, and bits of metal all around," Davis remembers, as well as injured people. He noticed the white legs of a woman lying on the ground, then realized with a shock that she was African-American, horribly burned. "The secretary picked up one of the pieces of metal. I was telling him he shouldn't be interfering with a crime scene when he looked at some inscription on it and said, 'American Airlines.' Then someone shouted, 'Help, over here,' and we ran over and helped push an injured person on a gurney over to the road."

While the secretary of defense was pushing a gurney, Davis's radio was crackling with frantic pleas from his control room regarding Rumsfeld's whereabouts. "It was 'Dr. Cambone [Rumsfeld's closest aide] is asking, Dr. Cambone wants to find the secretary.' I kept saying, 'We've got him,' but the system was overloaded, everyone on the frequency was talking, everything jumbled, so I couldn't get through and they went on asking."

An emergency worker approached, saying that equipment and medical supplies were needed. "Tell this man what you need," said Rumsfeld, gesturing to the communications aide, apparently oblivious of the fact that there were no communications.

Once they had pushed the wounded man on the gurney over to the road, the bodyguard was finally able to lead his charge back inside the building. "I'd say we were gone fifteen minutes, max," he told me in his account of what happened that morning. Given the time it took to make their way down those Pentagon corridors – each side of the enormous building is the length of three football fields – Rumsfeld was actually at the crash site for only a fraction of that period.

Yet those few minutes made Rumsfeld famous, changed him from a half-forgotten twentieth-century political figure to America's twenty-first-century warlord. On a day when the president was intermittently visible, only Rumsfeld, along with New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, gave the country an image of decisive, courageous leadership. According to his spokesman, the sixty-nine-year-old defense secretary's "first instinct was to go out through the building to the crash site and help." Over time, the legend grew. One of the staffers in the office later assured me that Rumsfeld had "torn his shirt into strips" to make bandages for the wounded.

As we shall see, Rumsfeld was first and foremost a politician, though not always a successful one. The weeks before the attacks had been one of the unsuccessful phases, with rumors spreading in Washington that he would shortly be removed from his post. Only the day before he had lashed out at the Pentagon workforce, denouncing the assembled soldiers and civilians as "a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America." Now, his instinctive dash to the crash site could inspire loyalty and support among those he had derided. An official in the Office of Plans, Analysis and Evaluation, whose office was close to Rumsfeld's, saw him walking swiftly down the hall in the first minutes after the crash. Later, when he heard where Rumsfeld had been, he thought, "very astute, politically."

Hatred and resentment among those in his wake had been a regular feature of Rumsfeld's career, and 9/11 proved no exception. I first realized this while discussing that day with a senior White House official who had been in the Situation Room, desperately trying to coordinate a response to the bewildering disaster of the attacks. As he reminisced, I mentioned that despite the legend, it didn't seem as if Rumsfeld could have had much time for rescue work that morning.

"What was Rumsfeld doing on 9/11?" said the former official with sudden anger. "He deserted his post. He disappeared. The country was under attack. Where was the guy who controls America's defense? Out of touch!"

"He wasn't gone for very long," I observed mildly.

My friend waved his coffee mug in emphatic rebuttal. "How long does it take for something bad to happen? No one knew what was happening. What if this had been the opening shot of a coordinated attack by a hostile power? Outrageous, to abandon your responsibilities and go off and do what you don't need to be doing, grandstanding."

This conversation took place in March 2006, just before it became commonplace in Washington to speak disrespectfully of Rumsfeld, at least in anything louder than a whisper, so I was taken aback by the vehemence of his response. A minute later, this sober bureaucrat burst forth with renewed passion. "He's a megalomaniac who has to be in control at all times," he fumed. "He is the worst secretary of defense there has ever been, worse than [Robert] McNamara. He is playing a major part in destroying this presidency."

Clearly, Rumsfeld was reviled in certain parts of the Bush administration. Yet such antagonisms occur in every presidency. But what did it mean, I wondered, that Rumsfeld had "deserted his post"? Though most people assume that the chain of command runs from the president to the vice president, the cold war bequeathed a significant constitutional readjustment. In an age when an enemy attack might allow only a few minutes for detection and reaction, control of American military power became vested in the National Command Authority, which consists of the president and the secretary of defense. Collectively, the NCA is the ultimate source of military orders, uniquely empowered, among other things, to order the use of nuclear weapons. In time of war, therefore, Rumsfeld was effectively the president's partner, the direct link to the fighting forces, and all orders had to go through him.

Such orders were supposed to be transmitted from a two-story complex at the end of a narrow passageway across the corridor from Rumsfeld's office. This was the National Military Command Center, staffed twenty-four hours a day with as many as two hundred military officers and civilian staff and equipped with arrays of communications systems, including multiple screens for video conferences. "All very Star Trek," recalls an official who formerly served there.

This was the operational center for any and every crisis, from nuclear war to hijacked airliners. The command center organized conference calls enabling key officials around the government to communicate and coordinate. At 9:39 A.M. that morning, just over a minute after the Pentagon was hit, the navy captain in charge of the command center announced on the "air threat conference call" that had just begun that "an air attack on North America may be in progress," and asked that the secretary of defense come to the center. A few minutes later, the secretary's office reported back that he was nowhere to be found. The chain of command was broken.

In fact, Rumsfeld was at the crash site, though eventually it occurred to him that he might perhaps be in the wrong place: "... at some moment I decided I should be in here," he told Parade magazine in his office a month later, "figuring out what to do, because your brain begins to connect things."

Rumsfeld was back in the building by ten o'clock, but despite the anxious pleas from the military, he did not go to the command center. Instead, he headed for his office, where he spoke to President Bush, though afterward neither man could recall what they discussed. Next, in his words, he moved to "a room about 30 yards away here in this building ... that's sealable." That would have been the Executive Support Center, conference rooms "secure" against electronic eavesdropping right next door to the military command center.

Waiting here was a small group, distinguished above all else by their personal loyalty to Rumsfeld. One was Stephen Cambone, the aide who had been inquiring so anxiously for his whereabouts minutes before. Of all in Rumsfeld's court, Cambone cast the longest shadow, energetically accumulating power thanks to the protective embrace of his mentor and his acknowledged intelligence. Also there was Rumsfeld's personal chief of staff, Larry Di Rita, a former naval officer who had moved into Rumsfeld's orbit from the right-wing staff of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Di Rita's defining characteristic was his devotion to the boss. (An Olympic-standard squash player, he would still dutifully lose to Rumsfeld.) The third person in the room was his spokesperson, Victoria (Torie) Clarke, a consummate public relations professional, artful enough to promote Rumsfeld - who was so secretive that he would refuse to tell his own deputy what had happened in White House meetings - as a paragon of openness and transparency.

After a brief discussion with this select group, Rumsfeld finally made his way to the military command center. It was almost 10:30. Only then, as he later explained to the 9/11 Commission, did he begin to gain "situational awareness" of what was going on. After a brief interval he spoke with Vice President Dick Cheney, who was in a bunker under the White House and for the previous forty minutes had been issuing orders to shoot down suspicious airliners.

"There's been at least three instances here where we've had reports of aircraft approaching Washington – a couple were confirmed hijack," Cheney told Rumsfeld in his favored clipped, macho style. "And pursuant to the President's instructions I gave authorization for them to be taken out."

Actually, the presidential authorization cited by Cheney consisted, at best, of the words "You bet" from Bush as Air Force One streaked out of Orlando, Florida. In any event, it was Rumsfeld, not Cheney, who was legally in the chain of command and authorized to give such an order.

"So we've got a couple of [military] aircraft up there that have those instructions at this present time?" asked Rumsfeld, still catching up.

"That is correct," replied Cheney. "And it's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out."

Together, these two men dominated the U.S. government for six years. They must have had thousands of conversations, but this snatch of dialogue, as released by the 9/11 Commission, is the only known publicly available sample of a private conversation between them. Though brief, it is instructive. Not for the last time, they were reacting to information that was wholly inaccurate - there were no more hijacked airliners in the sky. One of the planes Cheney had ordered "taken out" was United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania ten minutes before he issued the command. 

The other was a low-flying medevac helicopter on its way to the Pentagon. Neither man seemed concerned that the president was not involved. Cheney was usurping his authority, since he was not in the chain of command. Lacking any experience in the military, the vice president may not have realized that military commanders like precise orders, and will not proceed without them, which was why the fighter commanders chose not to pass on his aggressive instructions to the pilots.

Rumsfeld, once he had finally settled into his place at the command center, got to work on the "rules of engagement" for the fighter pilots. This was an irrelevant exercise for he did not complete and issue them until 1:00 P.M., hours after the last hijacker had died.

Later, when asked why he had taken no part in military operations that morning, Rumsfeld blithely insisted that it was not his job. "The Department of Defense," he told the 9/11 Commission in 2004, "did not have responsibility for the borders. It did not have responsibility for the airports ... a civilian aircraft was a law enforcement matter to be handled by law enforcement authorities and aviation authorities." 

Expanding on this theme, he explained that the Defense Department's only responsibility when a civilian plane was hijacked was to "send up an aircraft and monitor the flight, but certainly in a hijack situation [the military] did not have authority to shoot down a plane that was being hijacked." This statement was flat out untrue, but none of the commissioners dared call him to account.

Having absented himself from military involvement while the al Qaeda attacks were actually in progress on the morning of 9/11, Rumsfeld began the afternoon with the first fateful steps toward the war that would secure his historical reputation. At 12:05 P.M., CIA director George Tenet called to report that just fifteen minutes after the Pentagon had been hit, the National Security Agency (NSA) had intercepted a phone call between a known associate of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and someone in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. The bin Laden associate announced that he had heard "good news," and that another target was still to be hit (presumably the intended target of Flight 93). Tenet also reported that one of the hijackers on the Pentagon plane had been linked to someone involved in the suicide attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Here was clear confirmation that the millionaire Saudi leader of al Qaeda was behind that day's attacks.

Rumsfeld was having none of it. According to Cambone's cryptic notes, the secretary felt this intelligence was "'vague,' that it might not mean something, and that there was 'no good basis for hanging hat.'" So whatever the terrorists might be saying on the phone, the secretary of defense was reserving judgment. The moment was a textbook example of Rumsfeld's standard reaction to information that did not suit his preconceptions. It would recur in the years to come.

In a brief televised press conference at 6:40 that evening, in which Rumsfeld's calm demeanor much impressed viewers, veteran Reuters Pentagon correspondent Charlie Aldinger asked, "Mr. Secretary, did you have any inkling at all, in any way, that something of this nature and something of this scope might be planned?"

"Charlie," responded Rumsfeld quickly, "we don't discuss intelligence matters." The response appeared to reflect his tough-minded prudence in times of crisis. Yet in retrospect, it is easy to understand his reluctance to pursue the subject. Two months before, an intelligence report prepared for the National Security Council (NSC) had concluded "we believe that UBL [Usama bin Laden (sic)] will launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
12 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

Jumping onto the topic.  I see that it says Rumsfeld was holding the stretcher at 9:42am but the plane crashed at 9:37am and 46 seconds.  Seems a bit sudden.  Rumsfeld had to be alerted what was happening, and then make his way towards the scene, while servicemen ascertain the situation, and then proceed to locate the body stretchers and make their way towards a wounded person, strap them in place, and proceed to carry them to a safe zone.  Just seems a little quick for all of that to take place just 4 minutes and 14 seconds after the plane struck.  I would have thought it was more like 14 minutes later and not 4.

Yes, I would have thought it should have taken much more than 4 minutes for Rumsfeld to be alerted to the problem, gather his entourage and walk from his second floor office on the east side, to the side of the highway on the west side. Rumsfeld was 69 at the time, albeit very fit. However, others who believe the Official Story scoff at me for thinking he made the journey with unlikely alacrity.

But this video

https://youtu.be/W3aiHI21ILk

at 02:21 shows Rumsfeld and Aubrey Davis walking south along the lawn next to the highway, followed by the rest of his security detail.

The camera turns to the southbound lanes at 02:39 - 45, where we see 7 seconds of shaky footage of Lloyde England's cab, the black towtruck waiting behind it, Detective Fortunato's silver car across the concrete barrier, Steve Riskus' red car, the white van, the "silent stranger" walking back up the road to stand in front of the hood of Lloyde's cab, and eyewitness Cheryl Ryefield running up the road, against the glary backdrop of the concrete retaining wall below the cemetery.. This needs to be watched frame by frame, over and over, but the information is all there.

At 02:48, the camera suddenly turns back towards the Pentagon, to catch Rumsfeld and his security detail running across the lawn to a victim on a backboard. Rumsfeld helps carry this across to an ambulance. This same sequence was simultaneously captured on professional video, from a different angle.

Rumsfeld later returns to carry another victim, and then waits beside the Pentagon wall for quite some time, holding a  backboard.

By a painstaking process of comparison of several videos, I estimate that this one began at very close to 90 seconds post impact. That makes Rumsfeld's first appearance close to Route 27, approx. 1:30 + 02:20 = 3 minutes 50 seconds post impact.

Davis claimed that they exited the building through a doorway at the northwest corner. Why then, would they have crossed the lawn to the highway side, hundreds of feet further away, rather than going directly down the building side?

The appearance of these 8 officials beside the highway in such a short time, suggests to me that they arrived in a vehicle, not on foot as Davis and Rumsfeld both claimed in interviews. There is a brown Jeep (apparently a fleet car) parked, lights on, behind the ambulance, which seems to me a likely conveyance.

Foreknowledge also suggests itself. Rumsfeld had, after all, just a few minutes earlier, said in a meeting that the attacks on New York would not be the last, and that they (the Pentagon) would be next.

As to estimating the time that Rumsfeld began carrying backboard victims about, the time-stamped FOX5NEWS footage helps here. It happens to catch the moment when the black towtruck with loaded trailer, draped in black, suddenly departs the cemetery wall, travelling south. This sequence was also captured by the 1 fps CCTV footage from the Residence Inn in Crystal City, which then allows this footage to be time-stamped.

The time that the towtruck and trailer left the cemetery wall was 9:43:12 a.m.

The video linked above shows Rumsfeld delivering his second victim to the ambulance, his gaze fixed far away towards the bridge. Aubrey Davis is standing beside the highway, also looking in that direction, and speaking on his radio. This made me suspicious, so I enlarged this footage, which shows the towtruck, with trailer now unloaded, travelling north from the bridge, and exiting via the northwest cloverleaf, at 9:45 a.m.

The time-stamped Jason Ingersoll photos first show Lloyde's cab on the bridge at 9:48 a.m.

A Mark Faram photograph, taken from near the Citgo gas station at about 9:50 a.m., shows the black tow truck exiting the NW cloverleaf, onto the Columbia Pike exit road. Many photos show the low loader trailer parked on the NW cloverleaf for the rest of the day. And Yes, there is also evidence that it was parked here prior to 9/11, which only reinforces how convenient this location was for the towtruck to collect it and use it for about 15 minutes. Nobody else at the towing company needed to know anything about this little job.

This amateur video, shot from on top of the bridge,

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

at 02:34 shows 2 frames of the decoy cab on the bridge, and between 02:36 - 02:50, shows the towtruck and covered trailer driving south up to the top of the bridge, then commencing a U-turn across it.

At 02:40, Lloyde England is seen, walking away from the camera, in the HOV lane. He is at the very left edge of the video, about halfway up, wearing the pale blue shirt and cap, with brown pants, his left hand in his pocket, and holding a cellphone to his right ear. Jason Ingersoll photos also show him here on the north side of the bridge, at about 9:44 a.m. He had been pushed to the ground, then banished from his cab beside the cemetery, by the police officer who showed up - and Detective Don Fortunato is the very officer who twice testified that he is the one who "ended up next to a cab from D.C. whose windshield had been knocked out by pieces of pole".

The camera then spins around, and at ~ 02:54, shows the decoy cab speeding south off the bridge.

That video sequence fills in the gap from the departure of the towtruck from the cemetery wall at 9:43:12 a.m., til almost when Rumsfeld and Davis were watching the towtruck depart the bridge northwards.

There are many more details revealed in this collection of videos, confirming various eyewitness testimonies.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
17 hours ago, bknight said:

 I see no time stamps in the gate camera links you provide.  So what is ominous about these videos?  Tell me what they represent to you.

You are suggesting that the video that shows a timestamp of 09:43 in the Fox video contradicts the "timestamp" of the Rumsfeld et al video of 09:42, I wonder if there might be a error in the lawn video?

I don't think there is anything ominous about the Gatecam videos. Some people differ on time of impact, but I work on the accepted time of 9:37:46 a.m., and take it that the explosions in these 2 videos occurred at that time. This allows us to work backwards and forwards to identify the time of other details in them, assuming that they were set at 1 fps. I assume this to be correct, but I may be wrong.

I don't suggest that the FOX5NEWS video contradicts the timing in the video of Rumsfeld, but confirms it. See explanation above for more detail.

RUMSFELD appeared on the lawn at 9:41 a.m.; 

7 seconds of footage of Lloyde's cab,  etc etc  beside cemetery wall;

Rumsfeld carries first patient;

decoy cab seen across lanes on bridge beyond Rumsfeld;

Residence Inn CCTV captures departure of white van from cemetery wall towards bridge;

first video shows security guard watching the White Van travel south from cemetery to bridge;

FOX5NEWS & Residence Inn footage both show towtruck & trailer departing cemetery wall, travelling south to bridge;

bridge video shows decoy cab on bridge,

Then towtruck & trailer approaching bridge;

Then decoy cab speeding off bridge;

First video shows Rumsfeld carrying 2nd patient while watching towtruck and empty trailer driving north from bridge onto NW cloverleaf.

Etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman

Can I suggest some words for you? Succinct. Brevity. Concise. Even precis.

I think there is something in that for all of us.....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

That would be fine if your posts actually had any content.

Short attention span?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bknight
On 10/12/2019 at 5:36 PM, RubyGray said:

"Debunking" requires much more than "disagreeing with" or "ridiculing".

Yes, I have presented a lot of information, and NO, most of it has NOT been "debunked long ago".

Most of it is brand new evidence.

Imagine you had been wrongly accused, charged and convicted, on circumstantial photographic evidence, of a high profile murder, languishing on death row, longing for somebody to exonerate you.

Then, 18 years later, along came somebody with not just one, but several independent realtime, concurrent datestamped or chronologically-identifiable videos from numerous vantage points, proving that you were nowhere near the scene of the crime, and also showing the actual criminals in the act of setting you up for the murder. 

Would you reject that new evidence vindicating yourself, as glibly as you reject newly discovered evidence that proves Lloyde England's cab was 400 yards north of the bridge when a pole was "driven down like a javelin" through his windscreen, after a large plane flew over his cab? [/quote]"Please provide this "new" evidence of this allegation"

Evidence that shows the arrival and progress of the white van Lloyde described, whose driver helped him pull out the pole, then drove on down to the bridge until after Lloyde's cab had been relocated there?

Evidence that proves a towtruck was waiting at the cemetery wall to transport his cab to the bridge?

Please provide evidence of this allegation

Evidence that proves the Secretary of Defense had foreknowledge of this seemingly minor traffic accident, such that within 9 minutes of the impact, he had seconded his own bodyguard to personally collect supposedly unknown and random cab driver Lloyde England, deliver him to the bridge, and supervise him while a series of photos was belatedly taken by a military photographer, to fraudulently imply that Lloyde and his cab had been hit by a lightpole downed by a plane as it flew across the bridge?

Please provide evidence that Rumsfeld had prior knowledge of the accident, further provide evidence that Rumsfeld told his bodyguard to leave his side and collect/supervise Mr. England.

That, at the very least, amounts to perverting the course of justice. Setting up an innocent victim, and using this circumstantial evidence against his personal testimony to shift the blame for their own crime onto a group of 19 people who were, conveniently, supposed to be dead.

9/11 was the crime of the century, and the perpetrators have gotten away with it. They imagine it was the perfect crime, with all evidence so tigjhtly controlled by themselves, but they reckoned without these videos that incriminate them.

No the perpetrators died on that day, the planner is still waiting trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bknight
On 10/14/2019 at 11:28 PM, RubyGray said:

 

I am doing my best here to provide coherent posts with full documentation and screenshots, but with the draconian site rule (which I cannot find anywhere) that allows me to post only 0.24 Mb (even when I have deleted one and tried to upload a better image), it is simply impossible. I am attempting to post a comparative image with Rumsfeld's bodyguard on the lawn at 9:42 a.m, then guarding Lloyde England 350 yards away on the bridge, at 9:55 a.m. But this is not permitted. I have no idea how long this ridiculous image posting ban lasts, nor am I able to find out, and nobody else is giving me any clues.

All I can say is, without being able to post more than a single image here to illustrate what I say, I have done many hundreds of hours of frame - by - frame analysis of the numerous videos which show what happened at the Pentagon after impact at 9:37:46 a.m., and up to almost 10 a.m. I have meticulously compared and timestamped every pertinent event on all these videos to the best of my ability, which nobody else has done. Don't grizzle about it until you have done a better job, in which case I would be very interested to see your versions. I have hundreds of screenshots from these videos, timestamped and arranged in chronological order, which tell the story for themselves. I didn't have to make up anything. I just kept studying the evidence, and followed the sequence of events.

The YouTube channel Onesliceshort has a list of 23 mostly Pentagon compilation videos which are very useful. He has tried to asseemble these in chronological order, but this is not always correct.

Most of the videos are not timestamped, but times have been determined by comparison of each video with others taken of the same scene from a different vantage point.

 

There is only one video which is timestamped, the FOX5NEWS footage. That turns out to be a "Rosetta Stone" for the Pentagon videos, as there are features in it which are also seen in others. Craig Ranke's YouTube channel, Lytetrip, has this video here:

1st report of plane hitting Pentagon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOflyabs0_w&t=20s

 

There are also the extended Gatecam footages, which help to determine the timestamps in other videos. We can see from them when the first firetrucks arrived, for instance. Assuming the impact time of 9:37:36 a.m. is correct, and that the Gatecam videos ran at precisely 1 frame per second (which I cannot be certain of), numerous other videos can be timestamped. YouTube channel cjnewson88 has these videos,

9/11 Pentagon Attack Video Gate Camera 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P92iSdqsBgo

9/11 Pentagon Attack Video Gate Camera 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHHWa8coZOk&t=25s

 

The videos are presented at 1 fps. but are taken much faster rate than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Does *anyone* here actually know what is the major point being made in this trainwreck, and what is the very best evidence for that point?  At the moment I'm seeing an opinion, based on nothing other than personal incredulity, that someone didn't have enough time to get from one place to another....  :wacko:

A *decent* researcher would succinctly state, in step by step fashion, the logical premise, and also address all the issues and potential error ranges, like *actual* distances, running versus walking speeds, whether a lift or stairs was involved, how they verified the timestamps (security systems often use internal clocks that will, like all non-chronometer or internet connected clock mechanisms, drift substantially).  Persons doing analysis will then use other corroborating footage to correct the time stamps as necessary.  They do NOT guess, eg as Ruby has with her assumptions about 1 second per frame, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

 

Ruby, I am mostly retired but sometimes still teach systems analysis and problem solving.  I hope you don't mind if I use all this in my sessions, in order to show all the things that you can do wrong.  Too bad if you don't - you posted it on a public forum

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd

Forgive me for asking what probably sounds like such a stupid question - what does the fellow named Lloyd have to do with this and his cab.  

I know you've put a lot of info into this thread and I thank you again Ruby, therefore, is there a simple answer as to why Lloyd is mentioned?  

Again, I'm not at all familiar with this case - afaik a plane hit the Pentagon and that was it.  I never looked into it any further tbh.  Same with 9/11 planes.  I just believed what I was told.  I had my head firmly buried in the sand you could say, back in those days.  LOL  ;) 

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.