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

2,199 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Peter B
3 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

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  ;) 

Without wishing to put words into RubyGray's keyboard, her issue with Lloyde England is that she believes there's evidence his car suffered damage from a knocked-over lightpole a few hundred metres north of the official flightpath of AA77 (the plane that hit the Pentagon), and then a few minutes later the car was moved to the place where the lightpoles were knocked over. If England's car was indeed hit by a lightpole knocked over by a plane a few hundred metres north of the official flightpath, then the official account of what happened at the Pentagon is questionable.

Supporting evidence is that England places himself and his car at this northerly location, that video apparently shows the car in the northerly location, and that supposedly many witnesses corroborate the idea of the plane taking a path which corresponds to this northerly location.

My problems with this are: England is not necessarily a reliable witness; the video is extremely hard to interpret and I don't think RubyGray has eliminated the possibility the car she claims is England's is actually another car; and the alleged northern location of these witnesses has been challenged at another forum when she discussed it there.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
On 10/8/2019 at 12:45 AM, RubyGray said:

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.

Here's Terronez's account (starting just over halfway down the page): https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/amazing1001.htm

Sorry, but there's absolutely no reason to assume that Terronez was talking about England in this account.

You say that Terronez's description "perfectly fits" England's account. But to do that you have to (a) have Terronez mean front windscreen when he says rear windscreen, (b) ignore the fact that Terronez describes the debris hitting his own car as "the pitter-patter of pebbles and concrete" (not lightpoles), and (c) ignore that Terronez talks about the smashed windscreen being in "the car next to me", rather than a car travelling the other direction in the adjacent carriageway.

As for the driver being in shock, I would imagine there would have been dozens of shocked drivers in that time and place, so that doesn't mean Terronez was talking about England either.

To me, Terronez is describing the cars around him - that is, the close-packed cars heading north. All of the cars were hit from behind by debris from the impact, and the car next to him happened to be hit by a larger piece than nearby cars were.

So no, that isn't proof that the shellshocked driver could only be Lloyde England, so it isn't proof that Englande was in Terronez's location at the time of the impact.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
On 10/8/2019 at 1:06 AM, RubyGray said:

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

Fortunato's account on the news: This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImJ0NxZX2wI (it's just that it's date-stamped 13 September - not a big issue)

Ambiguous about location, probably because he parked in two different locations: I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from that premise. There's absolutely no evidence in what he says that he parked, then moved, then parked again. Here's what he says (as near as I can make it), "...came down Washington Boulevarde and ended up next to a cab that was struck by one of the street lamps, apparently it was knocked down by the aircraft as it was making its descent into the Pentagon." This isn't ambiguous - he simply says he parked next to the cab.

He must have been opposite the impact hole and not on the bridge, as the bridge is about 350 yards from the impact site: What sort of ruler are you using? By my estimate the distance from the bridge to the impact site is about 200 metres. In any case he said he ran to the triage area on the South Lawn (not the impact site), much closer to the bridge than the northerly location you have for him.

So, no, Fortunato's testimony merely places him next to the cab, without giving any firm indication about where the cab was. And the conclusion I draw from where he ran to is that he was far more likely to have been on the bridge than anywhere further north.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
On 10/8/2019 at 6:03 PM, RubyGray said:

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.

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.

My main concern with Lagasse's evidence in the Pentacon video is that I think the roof of the Citgo would have blocked the line of sight he had to where he said he saw the jet. In other words, I don't think he can be certain the jet passed to the north of the Citgo because I don't think he could have seen it until it was well past the Citgo.

Here is the Citgo CCTV video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5gvU_rZbbE

Look at the top right part of the screen from 4:40 onwards. Lagasse's car is the light-coloured one in the centre of the image. The car is pointed pretty much at the impact point in the Pentagon, and Lagasse appears to be between the car and the pump. Could he have seen the jet come over his left shoulder (to his north)? I don't think so, but I accept others might think otherwise. He also says he didn't hear the jet until after he saw it, so I get the impression he would have had barely a second of vision before the jet hit the Pentagon. Personally, I think the first time he saw the jet, it was already past him and between him and the Pentagon, and he saw it crash only a fraction of a second later.

Therefore I don't think he's in a strong position to place England near the cemetery.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
On 10/8/2019 at 6:53 PM, RubyGray said:

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.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how McGraw's evidence plays any role in determining the location of England's cab.

McGraw saw no lightpoles hit: True. Now, McGraw said he felt something pass overhead and said he later heard that a toppled light pole had hit a taxi, so the logical conclusion to draw is that he was roughly level with England's cab. But he provides no other information about his location.

McGraw appears at 3:25 in the video, near the heliport: Yes, that appears to be him, and yes, near the heliport, perhaps 200 metres from the bridge. What of it? Given that point in the video must be at least four minutes after impact, moving 200 metres to where victims were being brought doesn't seem to be a major problem.

McGraw didn't mention running 350 yards: Once again, what ruler are you using? I'd suggest the distance is a lot closer to 200 metres. In any case, who said he had to run? Either distance can be covered in four minutes by walking. And why the suspicion that he didn't mention how far he went to reach the injured and dying? He wasn't specifically asked for locations throughout the interview, so why criticise him for not providing information he wasn't asked for?

A single frame at 1:50 shows McGraw in the same location: Well, I'll take your word for it. Even so, that's still at least two and a half minutes after the impact. Still plenty of time to walk 200 metres.

In other words, McGraw appears to have stopped somewhere on the bridge, later finding out it was near England's cab. He got out of his car, and walked north to where injured people were being brought.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
On 10/10/2019 at 1:12 AM, RubyGray said:

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.

The witnesses were deceived into seeing something incompatible with known facts: The problem with this is that you want to believe the witnesses when they say they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo, but disbelieve them when they say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Lagasse couldn't have seen the plane it it had been on the south side of the Citgo: True only for the flightpath before it reached the Citgo. But I also suspect his position meant he couldn't have seen the plane to the north of the Citgo until after it passed the Citgo, either. So while Lagasse's claim is probably true it isn't particularly helpful.

Not constructing an alternative narrative but pointing out anomalies: The problem is that the only anomalies you can point to are eyewitness testimonies, which are inherently less reliable than physical evidence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gwynbleidd
4 hours ago, Peter B said:

Here's Terronez's account (starting just over halfway down the page): https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/amazing1001.htm

Sorry, but there's absolutely no reason to assume that Terronez was talking about England in this account.

You say that Terronez's description "perfectly fits" England's account. But to do that you have to (a) have Terronez mean front windscreen when he says rear windscreen, (b) ignore the fact that Terronez describes the debris hitting his own car as "the pitter-patter of pebbles and concrete" (not lightpoles), and (c) ignore that Terronez talks about the smashed windscreen being in "the car next to me", rather than a car travelling the other direction in the adjacent carriageway.

As for the driver being in shock, I would imagine there would have been dozens of shocked drivers in that time and place, so that doesn't mean Terronez was talking about England either.

To me, Terronez is describing the cars around him - that is, the close-packed cars heading north. All of the cars were hit from behind by debris from the impact, and the car next to him happened to be hit by a larger piece than nearby cars were.

So no, that isn't proof that the shellshocked driver could only be Lloyde England, so it isn't proof that Englande was in Terronez's location at the time of the impact.

So are you saying that Terronez could've been talking about some random guy that had damage to his car, the driver was in shock (yes, I imagine most would've been) and it wasn't necessarily Lloyd England.  

Do the photos of Lloyd England's vehicle (which iirc was a cab?) match up to the one that Terronez describes, just out of curiosity?

Share this post


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

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

It would be helpful to know exactly what speed they were taken at. Do you have a figure for that?

Share this post


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

Fortunato's account on the news: This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImJ0NxZX2wI (it's just that it's date-stamped 13 September - not a big issue)

Ambiguous about location, probably because he parked in two different locations: I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from that premise. There's absolutely no evidence in what he says that he parked, then moved, then parked again. Here's what he says (as near as I can make it), "...came down Washington Boulevarde and ended up next to a cab that was struck by one of the street lamps, apparently it was knocked down by the aircraft as it was making its descent into the Pentagon." This isn't ambiguous - he simply says he parked next to the cab.

He must have been opposite the impact hole and not on the bridge, as the bridge is about 350 yards from the impact site: What sort of ruler are you using? By my estimate the distance from the bridge to the impact site is about 200 metres. In any case he said he ran to the triage area on the South Lawn (not the impact site), much closer to the bridge than the northerly location you have for him.

So, no, Fortunato's testimony merely places him next to the cab, without giving any firm indication about where the cab was. And the conclusion I draw from where he ran to is that he was far more likely to have been on the bridge than anywhere further north.

 

The reason I draw the conclusion about Detective Fortunato is manifold.

1. Lloyde England stated that a police officer came up to him and told him to leave the cab and go home. He tried to stay with his cab (which had been immobilized by the jolt from the pole hitting it) and the police officer pushed him to the ground.

2. There are 2 separate testimonies by Fortunato. He does not mention being on the bridge, although that is where Jason Ingersoll's photos show him. He says he parked then "ran to the site". Actually, I have never seen any evidence on video, of Fortunato "running to the site" or of even being there.. Other people are identifiable, but never him. He also said he put on his bulletproof vest before leaving the police station, but he is not wearing one in the Ingersoll photos. It seems he does not always tell the whole truth.

3. Clearly he would have parked as close to the site as possible. The ruler I use is the one on Google maps. It doesn't get more accurate than this. From downed pole #1 on the bridge to the impact site is 340 - 350 yards. From Lloyde's position next to the cemetery wall, to the impact site, is about 175 yards, that is, only half the distance. The bridge is actually about 145 yards way south of a line extended out from the southwest face of the Pentagon, which is even further south of the impact site. Fortunato said he parked "NOT FAR FROM THE SCENE". Parking 145 metres beyond the south face is definitely "far from the scene" compared to being at the cemetery wall, opposite the heliport.

4. Fortunato said he was parked next to Lloyde's cab. Yes he was. On the bridge, there is a silver sedan parked across the divider, not far from Lloyde's cab. It stayed there for hours, as seen in many photos. But this same silver sedan was first seen, parked across the divider, close to Lloyde's cab, at the cemetery wall site, where Lloyde's cab was hit by a pole. This was captured in the video which also shows the towtruck, the white van, etc near Lloyde's cab.

5. The Arlington Police Station was about 2 miles north of the Pentagon. Fortunato was in his office when he got news of a plane crash at the Pentagon. He drove south down Route 27 to the site. He obviously would not overshoot the site of impact by 200 yards. He would park where he first saw the crash site and rescue activity. That was between the cemetery wall and heliport.

6. He stated in that video, that he "ran to what was quickly being established as a triage area on the lawn". This is the site opposite the heliport, even though he incorrectly says the "south lawn". The only thing south of the Pentagon was car park.

Edited by RubyGray
Extra

Share this post


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

Without wishing to put words into RubyGray's keyboard, her issue with Lloyde England is that she believes there's evidence his car suffered damage from a knocked-over lightpole a few hundred metres north of the official flightpath of AA77 (the plane that hit the Pentagon), and then a few minutes later the car was moved to the place where the lightpoles were knocked over. If England's car was indeed hit by a lightpole knocked over by a plane a few hundred metres north of the official flightpath, then the official account of what happened at the Pentagon is questionable.

Supporting evidence is that England places himself and his car at this northerly location, that video apparently shows the car in the northerly location, and that supposedly many witnesses corroborate the idea of the plane taking a path which corresponds to this northerly location.

My problems with this are: England is not necessarily a reliable witness; the video is extremely hard to interpret and I don't think RubyGray has eliminated the possibility the car she claims is England's is actually another car; and the alleged northern location of these witnesses has been challenged at another forum when she discussed it there.

You have misinterpreted what I believe.

I have always stated that the pole which speared Lloyde's windshield was NOT ANY PART OF A LIGHTPOLE,  and that NOR WAS IT HIT BY ANY PLANE.

The dimensions of the entry hole in the windscreen (about 4 inches), and the neat circular imprints of the end of this pole on the rear seatback (again about 4 inches), mean the pole was perfectly round, cut off as though with a circular blade, not flattened, of a uniform diameter from end to end, not jagged, torn, sharp and deformed as we see the downed poles were.

I have never said that a lightpole was knocked down at the cemetery site, although others have claimed this. I cannot find any evidence of that, although there is a lamp from a lightpole lying on the grass in a Steve Riskus photo near the Columbia Pike exit road.

Father Stephen McGraw stated in his interview with Aldo Marquis that he actually

"recalled SEEING THE TOP PART OF THE POLE. So maybe that was the ONLY PART of the pole that got knocked off. And it MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE ENTIRE POLE GETTING KNOCKED DOWN."

He said that he did not see the pole hit, but that he had heard about this later. 

Lloyde England also stated that he did not see a lightpole get hit. He did not know where the pole came from. But he was TOLD that the plane's wing carried a PIECE of lightpole and dropped it onto his car. Obviously this cannot have happened, no matter where he was driving. Drawing some diagrams, including the alleged path and positions of car and plane, and height of the plane wing, shows this cannot be true.

"England is not necessarily a reliable witness"

On what basis do you make this allegation? This is a libellous accusation. Everyone deserves the assumption of innocence, and respect of his testimony. I chose to approach his story on this basis, though almost the entire world disagreed with me. Lloyde freely and consistently related many details of his experience, which were ridiculed by all. But I have found video evidence supporting each one of those many details which others claimed were impossible.

the video is extremely hard to interpret

Yes it is, which is why I have spent hundreds of hours studying these videos, something the FBI budget did not extend to. They missed all these details, but I found them, and the corroboration from so many videos is very high validation of what I found.

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

Lloyde England himself eliminated this possibility. He stated that his was the only cab involved in 9/11, that he was north of the heliport when the pole hit, and that his car came to rest just south of the overhead sign beside the cemetery wall. This is precisely where we find Steve Riskus' photo of the highway with glass fragments and skid marks, and the black cab in the video.

He said there was no other traffic southbound on Route 27 at that time. Steve Riskus' early photos of the highway show this to be true. Jason Ingersoll's photos show traffic moving south across the bridge, from 9:47 a.m. until 9:52 a.m., when traffic was blocked off again for the rest of the day. Other photos confirm that southbound traffic was blocked off.

The exceptions to this are that there was a decoy cab that drove onto the bridge and parked across the lanes, at the same time Lloyde's cab was hit at the cemetery. The white van, driven by the man who helped remove the pole, also drove south to the bridge. This van can be tracked on several videos, driving from north of the overhead sign at the cemetery at 9:41:05 a.m., past Lloyde's cab, parked in front of Lloyde's cab near the exit road, departing this spot at 9:42:25 a.m., driving south towards the bridge on the highway free of other traffic, then Jason Ingersoll's photos show it parked on the bridge from 9:48 to 9:49 a.m.

If there had been "another car" at the cemetery wall site, then it must have been another black CAPITOL CAB with a pole through its windscreen, which was loaded onto a waiting trailer, covered by a black tarp, and moved down to the bridge by a black towtruck, which did a U-turn across the top of the bridge, and unloaded this "Other car" there, before driving north off the bridge on the southbound lanes.

This is simply far too many absurd coincidences.

The black car at the cemetery wall was, according to identifiable features :

A Capitol Cab, with the white logo on the rear door, the distinctive roof light, and the Cab Fares label on the rear passenger window, plus the orange stripe

A 1990 Lincoln Continental Town Car, whose interior driver's door features, side dash, front bumper, rear side window quarter glass, and door handle match both those in manufacturer's photographs, plus video of all these features on Lloyde's preserved cab

It had a diagonal linear shadow extending from above the hood, over the dash and into the rear of the car

There is the figure of a man's lower body in dark pants, walking north towards this cab, then standing in front of the hood, in the 7 second video sequence. The lighter coloured torso is not seen against the glary concrete wall. This could be either the "Silent Stranger" who walked back from the white van to help Lloyde, or it may be Lloyde himself. It does resemble Lloyde who was dressed in brown pants, pale blue shirt and cap, and the shape strongly resembles Lloyde standing in front of his cab in the 2008 video "The Eye of the Storm" at timestamp 48:19.

Sergeant William Lagasse was adamant that Lloyde's cab was at the cemetery site, and categorically denied that he was hit by a pole on the bridge. This would have been something Lagasse witnessed for himself, or knew from his police colleagues. 

Father Stephen McGraw was clearly at the cemetery site when he saw Lloyde's cab "A few feet away" from him. He stated,

"I got out of the car and I just left it there while I walked across the 1 or 2 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."  CIT video, "From the Law to the Lord".

and the alleged northern location of these witnesses has been challenged at another forum when she discussed it there.

Of course people challenge this, because the Official Story is so different. But this argument has been raging for years since Aldo and Craig personally sought out and interviewed scores of witnesses who unanimously confirmed the Northside flightpath.

They pointed out, over 10 years ago, that nobody else had ever done what they did in getting these witness testimonies. Nor were they ever able to find a single verifiable witness who could state that the plane had flown on the Southside flightpath over the bridge. Nor did anyone else get such unambiguous testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
On 10/17/2019 at 1:37 AM, bknight said:
Quote

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

Page 9 of my thread "LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED WITH NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOTOS AND VIDEO" answers many of your questions.

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

On 10/17/2019 at 1:37 AM, bknight said:

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.

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

Aubrey Davis was Rumsfeld's personal bodyguard that day. Therefore Davis necessarily took his orders from Rumsfeld. His duty was to be at the side of the Secretary of Defense at all times.

There was no possible reason for Rumsfeld's bodyguard to be involved in a minor traffic accident. There is no possible way for him to have known, in the normal course of events, that Lloyde England's cab had been moved to the bridge, that Lloyde was wandering down the highway, and that a military photographer was about to take some photographs which required Lloyde's presence beside his cab.

There is no possible way for Aubrey Davis to have known how to pick out the individual Lloyde England from the mass of traffic and spectators on Route 27.

But Davis did all this, between 9:45 and 9:52 a.m.

WHY?

Why did Lloyde need 3 minders as his photo was taken near his cab?

Aren't you the one who displays the signature "Truth needs no defense"?

After the photo opp was completed, Davis collected Rumsfeld and escorted him back into the Pentagon at about 10:20 a.m., satisfied grin on face.

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

Aubrey Davis lied about what they were doing outside the Pentagon, and about the length of time they were gone.

They are the ones who need to answer the hard questions, and provide proof that what I have written is false.

Share this post


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

Page 9 of my thread "LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED WITH NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOTOS AND VIDEO" answers many of your questions.

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

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

Aubrey Davis was Rumsfeld's personal bodyguard that day. Therefore Davis necessarily took his orders from Rumsfeld. His duty was to be at the side of the Secretary of Defense at all times.

There was no possible reason for Rumsfeld's bodyguard to be involved in a minor traffic accident. There is no possible way for him to have known, in the normal course of events, that Lloyde England's cab had been moved to the bridge, that Lloyde was wandering down the highway, and that a military photographer was about to take some photographs which required Lloyde's presence beside his cab.

There is no possible way for Aubrey Davis to have known how to pick out the individual Lloyde England from the mass of traffic and spectators on Route 27.

But Davis did all this, between 9:45 and 9:52 a.m.

WHY?

Why did Lloyde need 3 minders as his photo was taken near his cab?

Aren't you the one who displays the signature "Truth needs no defense"?

After the photo opp was completed, Davis collected Rumsfeld and escorted him back into the Pentagon at about 10:20 a.m., satisfied grin on face.

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

Aubrey Davis lied about what they were doing outside the Pentagon, and about the length of time they were gone.

They are the ones who need to answer the hard questions, and provide proof that what I have written is false.

You didn't answer my question.  Link testimony/evidence that Rumsfeld told his bodyguard to go and collect/supervise Mr. England.  How hard is that?

Rumsfeld may have been away from his desk, but that does not indicate that he knew of the attack or Mr. England's car had been hit by a pole that was cut off by an airplane.  The FDR and trail of debris gives the path of the jet as it approached the Pentagon.  Eyewitness testimony is at best secondary, ask any police department. So no, the jet hit the pole slamming into Mr. England's car and all the photographic images are so blurry that the shapes could be anything.

Nineteen Arabs picked by KSM and funded by UBL hijacked four airliners and crashed three into buildings, killing thousands, the fourth was crashed into the ground as the passengers attempted to rest control from the hijackers.

No Government agency or group of individuals knew or aided in planning the attacks, as some and perhaps you believe. 

Where there slipups and lack of communication between the FBI and CIA, YES but that is the end of any conspiracy nonsense.

So what is your point to all this nonsense that you have spent hundreds of hours perfecting?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The witnesses were deceived into seeing something incompatible with known facts: The problem with this is that you want to believe the witnesses when they say they saw the plane fly north of the Citgo, but disbelieve them when they say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

If the plane was flying at about 750 feet per second (other official estimates have been much lower at times), then all that anybody saw in the final second of its flight - the closer they were - was an indistinguishable blur. The eye simply cannot process anything moving that fast. Marry a blur to an instantaneous explosion, and the obvious conclusion the brain draws, is that the first phenomenon caused the second effect. It is a trick of the eyes, a trompe l'oeuil, long used in the performing magician's trade. We KNOW that what he did, cannot have really happened because it breaks some law of physics, but his cunning has persuaded our brain through our eyes, that it did.

This is why we need high-speed camera footage replayed very slowly, to show us exactly what happens when an object impacts a solid wall at great velocity. But all we have is two blurry, airbrushed Gatecam CCTV frames which are incompatible with eyewitness locations and testimony.

 

Lagasse couldn't have seen the plane if it had been on the south side of the Citgo: True only for the flightpath before it reached the Citgo. But I also suspect his position meant he couldn't have seen the plane to the north of the Citgo until after it passed the Citgo, either. So while Lagasse's claim is probably true it isn't particularly helpful.

Your suspicion is uninformed by facts recorded on Citizen Investigation Team's excellent video interview of Sergeant William Lagasse, filmed on site at the Citgo gas station, showing his perfect view of the plane's flightpath north of him, between the station and the cemetery buildings, all the way to the Pentagon. 

Lagasse's statements about his location at the northwest bowser on the northern edge of the roof canopy, affording him this perfect unimpeded view of the sky to the Pentagon, are also confirmed by the FOIA-released CCTV video footage from the Citgo, showing several minutes of his car parked right there, and Lagasse moving about the apron speaking with others before he returned to fill his tank. Then the plane flew past (not seen from this camera or any of the other views released; their CCTV camera which had been directed towards the Pentagon, which would have shown the plane's flightpath, was never released by the FBI). He then jumped back in his car, reversed out and sped off towards the Pentagon. His radio call, initiated while the plane was still in the air, was logged and recorded by the Pentagon.

This is prima facie evidence of Sergeant Lagasse's location.

Therefore Lagasse's claims about the plane's flightpath are indubitably true, and crucially helpful.

Your problem is that you want to believe Sergeant Lagasse witnessed the moment of physical impact of the plane into the Pentagon (which he himself admitted he COULD NOT SEE), but to disbelieve every other one of the many details he recounted which contradict this theory.

Here are 2 webpages illustrating the truth of what I have written here about Sergeant William Lagasse. Also about Sergeant Chadwick Brooks, who was standing close by but out in the open, and whose view to the north of the Citgo was therefore completely unobstructed. Also I present the testimony of numerous other witnesses, confirming the northside flightpath :

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg50

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg51

 

Not constructing an alternative narrative but pointing out anomalies: The problem is that the only anomalies you can point to are eyewitness testimonies, which are inherently less reliable than physical evidence.

Lloyde England's cab IS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. It is physical evidence that the pole which speared his windshield and impacted his rear seat, twice, was NOT that 30+ foot, jagged-ended 10 inch diameter pole laying on the road beside the taxi as the Official Story claims, nor one of its lamp support arms which are tapered, flattened in cross-section and about 2 1/2 inches diameter; but a hollow circular metal pole of about 4 inches throughout, having been neatly cut across to give smooth ends. Lloyde stated that the pole was heavy. Trying to hold up and balance any horizontal 12 foot pole by one end produces significant moments of force about the held end, but although we can see this pole laying on the road behind the Cab on the passenger side in some photos, we do not know what it was constructed of. Lightpoles are aluminium, but this pole may have been steel, thus much heavier.

Lloyde England's eyewitness testimony has been misrepresented by the Official Story, and also by the Truther camps. His story refutes both the government line, and CIT's assumptions about him. He was not on the bridge when the pole hit, and being a career DC cabbie, he well knew it. He was not senile or forgetful or mistaken or lying. He was not so old that he should not have been driving a cab as so many claimed. He continued driving his cab to earn his living for at least another 10 years, working 7 days a week and getting up at 3 a.m. every day. 2011 phone interview with Jeff Hill. Transcript here. 

http://letsrollforums.com//blog_attachment.php?attachmentid=171&d=1546050608

Lloyde was simply telling the truth, as is confirmed by the numerous videos now analysed, which corroborate every one of the many ridiculed details in his account. LLOYDE ENGLAND WAS NORTH OF THE HELIPORT WHEN THE PLANE FLEW OVER HIS CAR.

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

If Steve Riskus could be located, and if he would tell the truth, he would confirm that he was driving right behind the Capitol Cab when a pole was "driven down ... like a javelin" through its windscreen, causing it to skid to a halt next to the concrete wall ahead. Riskus confirmed to an Italian 9/11 research website that he saw the plane fly extremely close to him, perpendicular to the west wall, across the Columbia Pike exit road, and NOT about 1,300 feet away, NOT on a steep angle to the Pentagon, NOT across the bridge.

Riskus' photographs were the first taken of the scene after the impact. They confirm his own location at impact, which was immediately north of Lloyde's. They confirm stationary traffic northbound, and NO other traffic southbound at the time, as Lloyde said. They show no other vehicle with a damaged "front" windscreen, or even any visible damage at all.

Therefore as far as it goes, Steve Riskus' eyewitness testimony is confirmed by his photographs. It confirms that a vehicle in front of him had its windscreen smashed, and skidded to a halt. It confirms that the plane flew far enough north of the Official Flightpath for him to see the plane's tail logo broadside on. It confirmsthat he did NOT see the plane hit any lightpoles.

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

This page on my thread illustrates all this photographic evidence.

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

Share this post


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

You didn't answer my question.  Link testimony/evidence that Rumsfeld told his bodyguard to go and collect/supervise Mr. England.  How hard is that?

Rumsfeld may have been away from his desk, but that does not indicate that he knew of the attack or Mr. England's car had been hit by a pole that was cut off by an airplane.  The FDR and trail of debris gives the path of the jet as it approached the Pentagon.  Eyewitness testimony is at best secondary, ask any police department. So no, the jet hit the pole slamming into Mr. England's car and all the photographic images are so blurry that the shapes could be anything.

Nineteen Arabs picked by KSM and funded by UBL hijacked four airliners and crashed three into buildings, killing thousands, the fourth was crashed into the ground as the passengers attempted to rest control from the hijackers.

No Government agency or group of individuals knew or aided in planning the attacks, as some and perhaps you believe. 

Where there slipups and lack of communication between the FBI and CIA, YES but that is the end of any conspiracy nonsense.

So what is your point to all this nonsense that you have spent hundreds of hours perfecting?

 

What is your point with all this incredulism and obfuscation?

Oh wait, that is self-explanatory.

You have a fond delusion to protect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

Other forums allow me to post plenty of images to support what I write, so here is a link to further photographic evidence supporting many of my points, such as -

*  EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY to the significant right bank made by the plane as it approached the Pentagon on the Northside flightpath, fatally contradicting the directional damage inside the Pentagon

*  Lloyde England's strident denial that the downed lightpole hit his windshield

*  Lloyde's positive identification of the much smaller pole which was "driven down ... like a javelin" through his windshield

*  Lloyde's own drawing of the dimensions of this pole relative to his cab

*  Lloyde's specific physical demonstrations of the length and 4 inch diameter of this pole

*  Evidence of the physical dimensions of the 4 inch entry hole in the windshield, and the 4 inch imprints on the upholstery

*  The shattered glass and skid marks on the highway at the exact location indicated by Lloyde England where he was when the pole hit, at about 1 minute post impact, 9:38 a.m.

*  From the north : The decoy cab parked across the lanes on top of the bridge, while Lloyde's cab was still beside the cemetery wall at 9:42 a.m.

*  From the south : The decoy cab across the lanes on top of the bridge, as the TOWTRUCK with covered trailer approached the bridge from the cemetery at 9:43 a.m.

*  The decoy cab speeding south off the bridge as the towtruck commenced a U-turn across the lanes at 9:43 a.m.

*  DONALD RUMSFELD and his bodyguard keenly observing the towtruck and empty trailer exiting the bridge northwards (the wrong direction) onto the NW cloverleaf, at 9:45 a.m.

*  DONALD RUMSFELD'S BODYGUARD, INEXPLICABLY SUPERVISING HUMBLE CABBIE LLOYDE, during a photo shoot on the bridge, at 9:55 a.m.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg58#pid24676676

Edited by RubyGray
Corrected predictive text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

Far from being unrecognisable, the black car seen in the 7 seconds of poor quality video footage beside the cemetery wall, is much more identifiable than the paltry TWO FRAMES showing an airbrushed neon tetra blur produced by the Gatecams.

There are 30 frames per second, giving potentially 200 separate frames in 7 seconds of video footage, although not all are useful. But there is such an abundance of frames including this black car, that it is possible to positively identify it as a Capitol Cab, black with an orange sidestripe, a roof light, door logo and DC cab fares label. It is also identifiable as a 1990 Lincoln Continental Town Car, by its distinctive front bumper and overall shape, by the internal features of its driver's door and side dash, its rear door handle, and by its typical rear side window quarter glass.

Video of Lloyde's actual 9/11 cab, taken in 2008 by Christopher Taylor, clearly shows all these features which are seen on the video of the black car facing south beside the cemetery wall, its driver's door ajar.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg56

Share this post


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

What is your point with all this incredulism and obfuscation?

Oh wait, that is self-explanatory.

You have a fond delusion to protect.

It is not my posts that are obfuscating the issue, it is your attempt at red herrings concerning an airplane being flown into the Pentagon.

Share this post


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

Far from being unrecognisable, the black car seen in the 7 seconds of poor quality video footage beside the cemetery wall, is much more identifiable than the paltry TWO FRAMES showing an airbrushed neon tetra blur produced by the Gatecams.

There are 30 frames per second, giving potentially 200 separate frames in 7 seconds of video footage, although not all are useful. But there is such an abundance of frames including this black car, that it is possible to positively identify it as a Capitol Cab, black with an orange sidestripe, a roof light, door logo and DC cab fares label. It is also identifiable as a 1990 Lincoln Continental Town Car, by its distinctive front bumper and overall shape, by the internal features of its driver's door and side dash, its rear door handle, and by its typical rear side window quarter glass.

Video of Lloyde's actual 9/11 cab, taken in 2008 by Christopher Taylor, clearly shows all these features which are seen on the video of the black car facing south beside the cemetery wall, its driver's door ajar.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg56

You of course have evidence that this video has been altered, please show us. 

Instead of directing us to another thread, post a link to this video you refer.

How do you reconcile all the light poles that were cut off by the jet?  Or the damage to the generator outside the pentagon?  Like CIT you seem to have preconceived opinions and discard anything that contradicts your notion, bad research technique.

Share this post


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

You have misinterpreted what I believe.

I have always stated that the pole which speared Lloyde's windshield was NOT ANY PART OF A LIGHTPOLE,  and that NOR WAS IT HIT BY ANY PLANE.

The dimensions of the entry hole in the windscreen (about 4 inches), and the neat circular imprints of the end of this pole on the rear seatback (again about 4 inches), mean the pole was perfectly round, cut off as though with a circular blade, not flattened, of a uniform diameter from end to end, not jagged, torn, sharp and deformed as we see the downed poles were.

I have never said that a lightpole was knocked down at the cemetery site, although others have claimed this. I cannot find any evidence of that, although there is a lamp from a lightpole lying on the grass in a Steve Riskus photo near the Columbia Pike exit road.

Father Stephen McGraw stated in his interview with Aldo Marquis that he actually

"recalled SEEING THE TOP PART OF THE POLE. So maybe that was the ONLY PART of the pole that got knocked off. And it MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE ENTIRE POLE GETTING KNOCKED DOWN."

He said that he did not see the pole hit, but that he had heard about this later. 

Lloyde England also stated that he did not see a lightpole get hit. He did not know where the pole came from. But he was TOLD that the plane's wing carried a PIECE of lightpole and dropped it onto his car. Obviously this cannot have happened, no matter where he was driving. Drawing some diagrams, including the alleged path and positions of car and plane, and height of the plane wing, shows this cannot be true.

"England is not necessarily a reliable witness"

On what basis do you make this allegation? This is a libellous accusation. Everyone deserves the assumption of innocence, and respect of his testimony. I chose to approach his story on this basis, though almost the entire world disagreed with me. Lloyde freely and consistently related many details of his experience, which were ridiculed by all. But I have found video evidence supporting each one of those many details which others claimed were impossible.

the video is extremely hard to interpret

Yes it is, which is why I have spent hundreds of hours studying these videos, something the FBI budget did not extend to. They missed all these details, but I found them, and the corroboration from so many videos is very high validation of what I found.

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

Lloyde England himself eliminated this possibility. He stated that his was the only cab involved in 9/11, that he was north of the heliport when the pole hit, and that his car came to rest just south of the overhead sign beside the cemetery wall. This is precisely where we find Steve Riskus' photo of the highway with glass fragments and skid marks, and the black cab in the video.

He said there was no other traffic southbound on Route 27 at that time. Steve Riskus' early photos of the highway show this to be true. Jason Ingersoll's photos show traffic moving south across the bridge, from 9:47 a.m. until 9:52 a.m., when traffic was blocked off again for the rest of the day. Other photos confirm that southbound traffic was blocked off.

The exceptions to this are that there was a decoy cab that drove onto the bridge and parked across the lanes, at the same time Lloyde's cab was hit at the cemetery. The white van, driven by the man who helped remove the pole, also drove south to the bridge. This van can be tracked on several videos, driving from north of the overhead sign at the cemetery at 9:41:05 a.m., past Lloyde's cab, parked in front of Lloyde's cab near the exit road, departing this spot at 9:42:25 a.m., driving south towards the bridge on the highway free of other traffic, then Jason Ingersoll's photos show it parked on the bridge from 9:48 to 9:49 a.m.

If there had been "another car" at the cemetery wall site, then it must have been another black CAPITOL CAB with a pole through its windscreen, which was loaded onto a waiting trailer, covered by a black tarp, and moved down to the bridge by a black towtruck, which did a U-turn across the top of the bridge, and unloaded this "Other car" there, before driving north off the bridge on the southbound lanes.

This is simply far too many absurd coincidences.

The black car at the cemetery wall was, according to identifiable features :

A Capitol Cab, with the white logo on the rear door, the distinctive roof light, and the Cab Fares label on the rear passenger window, plus the orange stripe

A 1990 Lincoln Continental Town Car, whose interior driver's door features, side dash, front bumper, rear side window quarter glass, and door handle match both those in manufacturer's photographs, plus video of all these features on Lloyde's preserved cab

It had a diagonal linear shadow extending from above the hood, over the dash and into the rear of the car

There is the figure of a man's lower body in dark pants, walking north towards this cab, then standing in front of the hood, in the 7 second video sequence. The lighter coloured torso is not seen against the glary concrete wall. This could be either the "Silent Stranger" who walked back from the white van to help Lloyde, or it may be Lloyde himself. It does resemble Lloyde who was dressed in brown pants, pale blue shirt and cap, and the shape strongly resembles Lloyde standing in front of his cab in the 2008 video "The Eye of the Storm" at timestamp 48:19.

Sergeant William Lagasse was adamant that Lloyde's cab was at the cemetery site, and categorically denied that he was hit by a pole on the bridge. This would have been something Lagasse witnessed for himself, or knew from his police colleagues. 

Father Stephen McGraw was clearly at the cemetery site when he saw Lloyde's cab "A few feet away" from him. He stated,

"I got out of the car and I just left it there while I walked across the 1 or 2 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."  CIT video, "From the Law to the Lord".

and the alleged northern location of these witnesses has been challenged at another forum when she discussed it there.

Of course people challenge this, because the Official Story is so different. But this argument has been raging for years since Aldo and Craig personally sought out and interviewed scores of witnesses who unanimously confirmed the Northside flightpath.

They pointed out, over 10 years ago, that nobody else had ever done what they did in getting these witness testimonies. Nor were they ever able to find a single verifiable witness who could state that the plane had flown on the Southside flightpath over the bridge. Nor did anyone else get such unambiguous testimony.

You know I was curious where you arrived at the "The dimensions of the entry hole in the windscreen (about 4 inches)"?  I did a little searching and came up with a much better and cloaser image of the cab.

https://www.google.com/search?q=image+of+lloyd+england's+taxi+windshield&newwindow=1&biw=1412&bih=690&sxsrf=ACYBGNSeO-8XX8MkSVAcG4RibzdOjHPBdQ:1571407527737&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ph_XZujZB3mf2M%3A%2C2w6G6YYNZgi84M%2C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kS_6_ZecSrLL4Fv2Zo-nyTopB7NpQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimtfOb_aXlAhUEsJ4KHZN5CpYQ9QEwAHoECAkQBg#imgdii=79DgP7y24HtSIM:&imgrc=pyYE5725K6001M:&vet=1

It shows the cab, with a amazing larger hole in the windshield than 4", Lloyd and part of the bent light pole laying in front of the cab and another piece lying just beyond the cab.

So where do you come up with 4"? 

Share this post


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

You know I was curious where you arrived at the "The dimensions of the entry hole in the windscreen (about 4 inches)"?  I did a little searching and came up with a much better and cloaser image of the cab.

https://www.google.com/search?q=image+of+lloyd+england's+taxi+windshield&newwindow=1&biw=1412&bih=690&sxsrf=ACYBGNSeO-8XX8MkSVAcG4RibzdOjHPBdQ:1571407527737&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ph_XZujZB3mf2M%3A%2C2w6G6YYNZgi84M%2C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kS_6_ZecSrLL4Fv2Zo-nyTopB7NpQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimtfOb_aXlAhUEsJ4KHZN5CpYQ9QEwAHoECAkQBg#imgdii=79DgP7y24HtSIM:&imgrc=pyYE5725K6001M:&vet=1

It shows the cab, with a amazing larger hole in the windshield than 4", Lloyd and part of the bent light pole laying in front of the cab and another piece lying just beyond the cab.

So where do you come up with 4"? 

You, like so many, have been misled by the large hole in the centre of the windshield. You have not done your homework on the subject.

I did not "come up with" the idea of a 4" hole. That is exactly what Lloyde England stated. The entry hole is the very small, ~4 inch diameter hole at the very base of the windshield. The pole hit at the very bottom of the glass. It did not dent any of the exterior metal of the hood, but it made a dent in the dash where it joined the glass, and speared right through the dashboard, completely wrecking it.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg58#pid24682497

On page 58 of this thread about 2/3 of the way down the page, one of my posts contains numerous images of Lloyde pointing out this small entry hole to Craig Ranke, when he took Craig and Christopher Taylor to inspect the preserved cab in 2008.

You can find Lloyde and Craig both pointing to this very small entry hole at 48:31 in the CIT video

"LLOYDE ENGLAND AND HIS TAXI CAB _THE EYE OF THE STORM".

If you have not watched this video, and their earlier one,

"THE FIRST KNOWN ACCONPLICE? FEATURING LLOYDE ENGLAND"

several times, then you are operating purely on guesswork and innuendo. Craig and Aldo were way off in their interpretation of what Lloyde stated in these films, although camera operator Christopher Taylor in the second one, was getting it. But here we have a treasure trove of factual eyewitness testimony from Lloyde England himself, corroborated by the physical evidence of his cab, preserved by him since 9/11/2001, in the fervent hope that people would care enough to come see it for themselves, so they could understand his story of what happened on 9/11.

Lloyde's evidence about that 4 inch entry hole is one of the major reasons for believing that TONY TERRONEZ was indeed describing Lloyde England and his cab, even though he mistakenly said it was the rear windshield rather than the front one.

Terronez wrote, 

"I heard this big crash come from somewhere. It sounded like glass being shattered and I thought maybe, at first, it was one of my windows so I popped up to look but everything was fine. But when I looked to the car next to me I realised 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. ... It 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.' ...

"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."

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

There is no image or video of any other car with this identical windscreen damage, anywhere. There are numerous videos and photos taken right there in the location Terronez describes, "about 100 yards or so past the heliport". But not one shows a rear windshield damaged like this.

Lloyde England was in exactly the same location as Terronez, and his windshield DOES show the identical damage described by Terronez.

Terronez' account of the man's actions is also a match for Lloyde's own account of what happened when he got out of the car. He was unresponsive to questions. Lloyde had stated that everything was "QUIET" after the loud noise of the plane, the explosion and the pole crashing through his windshield. He could have been suffering from transient hearing loss, also reported by some other witnesses. 

So there is every reason to think that Terronez was describing Lloyde's cab, with its 4 inch hole in the windscreen where something went through it.

Share this post


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

You, like so many, have been misled by the large hole in the centre of the windshield. You have not done your homework on the subject.

I did not "come up with" the idea of a 4" hole. That is exactly what Lloyde England stated. The entry hole is the very small, ~4 inch diameter hole at the very base of the windshield. The pole hit at the very bottom of the glass. It did not dent any of the exterior metal of the hood, but it made a dent in the dash where it joined the glass, and speared right through the dashboard, completely wrecking it.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg58#pid24682497

On page 58 of this thread about 2/3 of the way down the page, one of my posts contains numerous images of Lloyde pointing out this small entry hole to Craig Ranke, when he took Craig and Christopher Taylor to inspect the preserved cab in 2008.

You can find Lloyde and Craig both pointing to this very small entry hole at 48:31 in the CIT video

"LLOYDE ENGLAND AND HIS TAXI CAB _THE EYE OF THE STORM".

If you have not watched this video, and their earlier one,

"THE FIRST KNOWN ACCONPLICE? FEATURING LLOYDE ENGLAND"

several times, then you are operating purely on guesswork and innuendo. Craig and Aldo were way off in their interpretation of what Lloyde stated in these films, although camera operator Christopher Taylor in the second one, was getting it. But here we have a treasure trove of factual eyewitness testimony from Lloyde England himself, corroborated by the physical evidence of his cab, preserved by him since 9/11/2001, in the fervent hope that people would care enough to come see it for themselves, so they could understand his story of what happened on 9/11.

Lloyde's evidence about that 4 inch entry hole is one of the major reasons for believing that TONY TERRONEZ was indeed describing Lloyde England and his cab, even though he mistakenly said it was the rear windshield rather than the front one.

Terronez wrote, 

"I heard this big crash come from somewhere. It sounded like glass being shattered and I thought maybe, at first, it was one of my windows so I popped up to look but everything was fine. But when I looked to the car next to me I realised 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. ... It 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.' ...

"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."

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

There is no image or video of any other car with this identical windscreen damage, anywhere. There are numerous videos and photos taken right there in the location Terronez describes, "about 100 yards or so past the heliport". But not one shows a rear windshield damaged like this.

Lloyde England was in exactly the same location as Terronez, and his windshield DOES show the identical damage described by Terronez.

Terronez' account of the man's actions is also a match for Lloyde's own account of what happened when he got out of the car. He was unresponsive to questions. Lloyde had stated that everything was "QUIET" after the loud noise of the plane, the explosion and the pole crashing through his windshield. He could have been suffering from transient hearing loss, also reported by some other witnesses. 

So there is every reason to think that Terronez was describing Lloyde's cab, with its 4 inch hole in the windscreen where something went through it.

First off the hole is not 4" in diameter, look closely and you will see that the is also a portion running horizontal to the one CIT circled.  and then connected to the upper portion.  I would believe Mr. Lloyd's description of how the pole acted during the incident.  He was driving and having the hell scared out of him.  A few inches to the right and he wouldn't be talking about it.

So no, you haven't nor has CIT proved that there was anything but a pole doing the damage.

I've stated before that CIT can't be believed as they start with the same premise as you that this was "set up" by the evil Government officials.  You still haven't answered how you reconcile the other broken light pole leading to the Pentagon or the generator damage just outside.  You can't ignore them nor the physical damage to the building.

What do you really believe happened at the pentagon in a concise paragraph, not the Gish Gallop you have been posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

All I know is people whom I've worked with ran to the scene that day from their offices to assist as first responders. Their accounts, scars from moving wreckage, associated burns from touching hot metal and genuine emotional responses are more than enough for me. Far more credible to me than chasing taxis and a strangely named driver's accounts for validity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You of course have evidence that this video has been altered, please show us. 

Instead of directing us to another thread, post a link to this video you refer.

How do you reconcile all the light poles that were cut off by the jet?  Or the damage to the generator outside the pentagon?  Like CIT you seem to have preconceived opinions and discard anything that contradicts your notion, bad research technique.

Isn't it suspicious to you that in the case of "most secure building on earth", which had scores of CCTVs on its perimeter, the ONLY TWO FRAMES WE HAVE are extremely poor, blurry images said to be AA77? This paltry footage was in the possession of the FBI for 3 years before being released.

Do you imagine that it is beyond the capabilities of this entity, to "airbrush" in a couple of tiny blurry streaks with a resemblance to an AA jet?

Because the eyewitness testimony is that the plane DID NOT FLY ON THAT FLIGHTPATH.

The only witness who states in the first person that it flew on that path across the lawn, is Frank Probst.

Don Mason's story corroborates Probst's, but that is purely a third person account.

CIT attempted to do an interview with Probst, but he refused.

Therefore, out of the scores of people they did interview, they were unable to find a single one who would say they had seen the plane flying on the official flightpath.

This is the diametric opposite of "having preconceived opinions". CIT asked people to tell their own stories, which they did. Not one of their interviewees described the plane flying across the bridge then low and level across the lawn as seen in the Gatecam footage.

In the video, 

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

The two guys who operated the camera, including APTN reporter Eugenio Hernandez, had a discussion about what had happened. They were both located a few cars south of the overhead sign on the bridge, so should have had a perfect view of a massive jet flying almost over their heads, if it had crossed the bridge and hit those poles.

04:35  Camera Guy : Was it a plane?

Hernandez: Yep, I saw it coming down.

Camera Guy: I THOUGHT we seen it back here too.

So the camera owner, his wife, his son, Hernandez, and Joel Sucherman who also appears for several minutes there on the bridge in this video, DID NOT SEE THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.

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

As for "bad research technique", as well as "preconceived opinions", this question of yours certainly qualifies :

How do you reconcile all the light poles THAT WERE CUT OFF BY THE JET?

That there were 5 lightpoles laying on the ground, does NOT automatically equate to them having been "cut off by the jet".

It is true that within about an hour of impact, Mike Walter was being interviewed on camera, pointing out how he watched the jet hit pole #1. But when the interviewer said they had heard this pole hit a taxi cab, Walter then stammered that he had NOT seen this happen. He changed his story many times over the years. The following morning, he backtracked on his previous claim to have witnessed the plane hitting the building, by correctly stating that he could not see that, as there were trees blocking his view. Yet years later, he said that he saw the "wings fold back" as the plane squeezed itself into that tiny hole. He told CIT that he DID NOT SEE THE PLANE HIT POLES.

NOBODY at all saw the curling white cloud trailing the plane in the Gatecam frames. Steve Riskus, who saw the plane fly very close to him on the Northside flightpath, stated in an email interview conducted on 02/03/2011,

"I DID NOT SEE ANY SMOKE OR DEBRIS COMING FROM THE PLANE." 

The only inference possible from the bank of eyewitness testimony, is that the TWO FRAMES showing what is claimed to be AA77 flying low and level across the southwest lawn of the Pentagon ... had to have benefited from interference after the fact, since NOBODY was ever prepared to confirm on camera, that this was what they saw.

Edited by RubyGray
Typo

Share this post


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

Isn't it suspicious to you that in the case of "most secure building on earth", which had scores of CCTVs on its perimeter, the ONLY TWO FRAMES WE HAVE are extremely poor, blurry images said to be AA77? This paltry footage was in the possession of the FBI for 3 years before being released.

Who has identified the Pentagon as the most secure building on earth?  I would surmise that the CIA headquarters is more secure, but I may be wrong.

Do you imagine that it is beyond the capabilities of this entity, to "airbrush" in a couple of tiny blurry streaks with a resemblance to an AA jet?

It is possible to airbrush stills, but you need something more sophisticated to alter CCTV images

Because the eyewitness testimony is that the plane DID NOT FLY ON THAT FLIGHTPATH.

The only witness who states in the first person that it flew on that path across the lawn, is Frank Probst.

Don Mason's story corroborates Probst's, but that is purely a third person account.

CIT attempted to do an interview with Probst, but he refused.

Therefore, out of the scores of people they did interview, they were unable to find a single one who would say theygadseen the plane flying on the official flightpath.

This is the diametric opposite of "having preconceived opinions". CIT asked people to tell their own stories, which they did. Not one of their interviewees described the plane flying across the bridge then low and level across the lawn as seen in the Gatecam footage.

In the video, 

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

The two guys who operated the camera, including APTN reporter Eugenio Hernandez, had a discussion about what had happened. They were both located a few cars south of the overhead sign on the bridge, so should have had a perfect view of a massive jet flying almost over their heads, if it had crossed the bridge and hit those poles.

04:35  Camera Guy : Was it a plane?

Hernandez: Yep, I saw it coming down.

Camera Guy: I THOUGHT we seen it back here too.

So the camera owner, his wife, his son, Hernandez, and Joel Sucherman who also appears for several minutes there on the bridge in this video, DID NOT SEE THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.

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

As for "bad research technique", as well as "preconceived opinions", this question of yours certainly qualifies :

How do you reconcile all the light poles THAT WERE CUT OFF BY THE JET?

That there were 5 lightpoles laying on the ground, does NOT automatically equate to them having been "cut off by the jet".

It is true that within about an hour of impact, Mike Walter was being interviewed on camera, pointing out how he watched the jet hit pole #1. But when the interviewer said they had heard this pole hit a taxi cab, Walter then stammered that he had NOT seen this happen. He changed his story many times over the years. The following morning, he backtracked on his previous claim to have witnessed the plane hitting the building, by correctly stating that he could not see that, as there were trees blocking his view. Yet years later, he said that he saw the "wings fold back" as the plane squeezed itself into that tiny hole. He told CIT that he DID NOT SEE THE PLANE HIT POLES.

NOBODY at all saw the curling white cloud trailing the plane in the Gatecam frames. Steve Riskus, who saw the plane fly very close to him on the Northside flightpath, stated in an email interview conducted on 02/03/2011,

"I DID NOT SEE ANY SMOKE OR DEBRIS COMING FROM THE PLANE." 

The only inference possible from the bank of eyewitness testimony, is that the TWO FRAMES showing what is claimed to be AA77 flying low and level across the southwest lawn of the Pentagon ... had to have benefited from interference after the fact, since NOBODY was ever prepared to confirm on camera, that this was what they saw.

The rest o your evidence contains eye witness accounts, and as I stated before they are really secondary to events.   You will no doubt continue this MO, ignoring hard forensic data of the crash.

There were five light poles (IIRC) taken down all in line with the path of the jet.  You can't refuse that evidence even though it contradict eye witness accounts of the flight path.  You didn't address the damage to the generator outside, I guess gremlins did that.

Finally you did not answer my question, What do you really believe happened at the pentagon in a concise paragraph.

Share this post


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

First off the hole is not 4" in diameter, look closely and you will see that the is also a portion running horizontal to the one CIT circled.  and then connected to the upper portion.  I would believe Mr. Lloyd's description of how the pole acted during the incident.  He was driving and having the hell scared out of him.  A few inches to the right and he wouldn't be talking about it.

So no, you haven't nor has CIT proved that there was anything but a pole doing the damage.

I've stated before that CIT can't be believed as they start with the same premise as you that this was "set up" by the evil Government officials.  You still haven't answered how you reconcile the other broken light pole leading to the Pentagon or the generator damage just outside.  You can't ignore them nor the physical damage to the building.

What do you really believe happened at the pentagon in a concise paragraph, not the Gish Gallop you have been posting.

The hole most certainly IS 4 INCHES IN DIAMETER.

That the rest of the glass was shattered by the impact, and dislodged by the action of removing the 4 INCH DIAMETER POLE, is perfectly understandable.

The fact that this 4 INCH DIAMETER POLE then left TWO 4 INCH DIAMETER IMPRINTS ON THE REAR SEAT UPHOLSTERY, is yet more confirmation that this could have been NOTHING LARGER THAN A 4 INCH DIAMETER POLE.

You are displaying great lack of attention to the evidence here. You are unfamiliar with Lloyde England's story, which is probably the most frequently reported one of the day. You are making many false accusations against me as a consequence of your own lack of familiarity with this subject. You jump in and respond when it is obvious you could not possibly have already absorbed all that I have just posted.

This thread deals with the testimony of the Pentagon flight eyewitnesses. I am not interested in speculating about how any of the damage on the Official Flightpath, which nobody witnessed happening, was caused. I do not owe you any such theory.

What do you mean, 

" I would believe Mr. Lloyd's description of how the pole acted during the incident."

I don't believe you know everything Lloyde stated about how the pole acted. He certainly DENIED that it was a long lightpole which hit his cab. He DENIED that it was downed pole #1. He DENIED BEING ANYWHERE NEAR THE BRIDGE. His drawing and his THREE physical demonstrations on video, proved that the pole extended from the rear seat out to the front of the hood, a distance of only abput 12 feet.

Therefore it WAS NOT POLE #1 that hit his cab.

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   3 members

    • Obviousman
    • RubyGray
    • Trelane