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

bknight
1 minute ago, RubyGray said:

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.

Actually that was a fat finger post I would not believe Mr. England.  He was scared to death during the incident.  You can post all you want about what eye witness saw or didn't see, but their testimony is secondary, ask any police force.  If it is the only piece of evidence they will go with it but if physical evidence contradicts they will discard eye witness versions.  Believe what you want but you can't ignore the physical evidence, which you have done.

One more time.

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
6 minutes ago, bknight said:

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.

You are again jumping to conclusions, which was of course the intention of that damage path on a trajectory over which nobody ever saw the plane flying.

Yes, 5 light poles were "taken down", but NO, they were NOT "all in line with the path of the jet", because nobody saw the jet fly over those poles.

The fact that Lloyde England, Steve Riskus, ATC Sean Boger, Penny Elgas, Albert Hemphill, Vin Narayanan, Eugenio Hernandez, Russell Roy, Darrell Stafford, William Middleton, George Aman, Darius Prather, Mary Ann Owens, Father Stephen McGraw, Donald Carter, Captain Lincoln Liebner, Cheryl Ryefield, Maria de la Cerda, Joel Sucherman, Sergeant Chadwick Brooks, Sergeant William Lagasse, Robert Turcios,  etc etc saw the plane flying on the Northside route and NOT over the bridge, gives sufficient cause to question the official story.

Share this post


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

You can post all you want about what eye witness saw or didn't see, but their testimony is secondary, ask any police force. 

That is an absurd comment, given that Sergeant Chadwick Brooks and Sergeant William Lagasse both gave testimony on video interviews, on location from which they viewed the plane, which in Lagasse's case is confirmed both by the Citgo CCTV footage of him, and his logged, recorded radio call to the Pentagon.

Their testimony, in which they both independently drew the very same Northside flightpath they witnessed on overhead maps, and adamantly denied that the plane could have flown across the bridge, is therefore valid and primary.

I have indeed answered your question about my not speculating as to how the damage was caused on a bogus flightpath.

The topic of this thread is, again ... ??

But you have refused to even consider the question of how so many people were in a position to see a 757 jet flying across the bridge ... Yet NOBODY DID!!!

Share this post


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

Believe what you want but you can't ignore the physical evidence, which you have done.

Lloyde England's cab IS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

His cab was captured on 4 independent videos, during the few minutes between impact at 9:37:46 a.m. and 9:48 a.m. when his cab was first photographed on the bridge.

This series of videos confirms every single detail in Lloyde England's comprehensive video and phone testimonies.

Lloyde England's testimony is at irreconcilable odds with the Official Story.

You believe what YOU like, but I know Lloyde England told the truth.

 

Share this post


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

You are again jumping to conclusions, which was of course the intention of that damage path on a trajectory over which nobody ever saw the plane flying.

There is no intent, just a conclusion based on physical evidence

Yes, 5 light poles were "taken down", but NO, they were NOT "all in line with the path of the jet", because nobody saw the jet fly over those poles.

You don't get it do you?  It doesn't make any difference whether anyone saw them knocked over, they were.

The fact that Lloyde England, Steve Riskus, ATC Sean Boger, Penny Elgas, Albert Hemphill, Vin Narayanan, Eugenio Hernandez, Russell Roy, Darrell Stafford, William Middleton, George Aman, Darius Prather, Mary Ann Owens, Father Stephen McGraw, Donald Carter, Captain Lincoln Liebner, Cheryl Ryefield, Maria de la Cerda, Joel Sucherman, Sergeant Chadwick Brooks, Sergeant William Lagasse, Robert Turcios,  etc etc saw the plane flying on the Northside route and NOT over the bridge, gives sufficient cause to question the official story.

Only to CTs does it make a difference especially when they ignore physical evidence.

Finally you did not answer my question, What do you really believe happened at the pentagon in a concise paragraph.  Why will you not give your belief?  Are you afraid to let everyone know what you believe?

 

Share this post


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

That is an absurd comment, given that Sergeant Chadwick Brooks and Sergeant William Lagasse both gave testimony on video interviews, on location from which they viewed the plane, which in Lagasse's case is confirmed both by the Citgo CCTV footage of him, and his logged, recorded radio call to the Pentagon.

Their testimony, in which they both independently drew the very same Northside flightpath they witnessed on overhead maps, and adamantly denied that the plane could have flown across the bridge, is therefore valid and primary.

I have indeed answered your question about my not speculating as to how the damage was caused on a bogus flightpath.

The topic of this thread is, again ... ??

But you have refused to even consider the question of how so many people were in a position to see a 757 jet flying across the bridge ... Yet NOBODY DID!!!

Yes that is what the thread was started, but that does not negate their fallibility.

Share this post


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

Lloyde England's cab IS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

His cab was captured on 4 independent videos, during the few minutes between impact at 9:37:46 a.m. and 9:48 a.m. when his cab was first photographed on the bridge.

This series of videos confirms every single detail in Lloyde England's comprehensive video and phone testimonies.

Lloyde England's testimony is at irreconcilable odds with the Official Story.

You believe what YOU like, but I know Lloyde England told the truth.

 

His cab may be imaged by four different cameras, after the fact, but none during the incident.  Mr. England probably told everyone what he thought, but that doesn't mena that the incident happened the way a dazed and more than likely confused individual believes.  Let's see was he a witness to AA77?

 

Finally you did not answer my question, What do you really believe happened at the pentagon in a concise paragraph.  Why will you not give your belief?  Are you afraid to let everyone know what you believe?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray

The "intention" to which I referred is that of those who created the fab,e of 5 downed lightpoles on a fictitious flightpath, with a damaged cab inserted into the tableau for emotive effect,  not your intent. "THEY" needed the public to believe the plane flew across those poles, and I do not know why.

I do not have a secret theory to divulge. I do not have a "belief" about "what really happened".

All I am concentrating on is eyewitness evidence, comparing and analysing it. Some is valid, some has been misconstrued, some cannot be what it claims because the person was not actually where they said, or it was in third person therefore not actual witness testimony, etc.

Video and photo evidence taken within less than 15 minutes of the impact is especially valuable, and there is much which has never previously been cross-referenced and investigated. I am finding this very interesting.

The video showing Lloyde walking down the highway in the HOV lane, looking at the fire, at 9:43 a.m., shows he was not on the bridge near his cab for some minutes prior to Jason Ingersoll's photos after 9:52 a.m. Other videos show his cab was at the cemetery site at 9:41 a.m., and until 9:43:12 a.m. when it was moved to the bridge, which process is also recorded on 4 videos.

How can you ignore this evidence that Lloyde England's cab was not on the bridge when it was hit by a pole? That there is no video of this occurring (I am sure there is, but that will never see the light of day) is not a problem. Where is the video of the pole hitting the cab on top of the bridge, then? There is none. It never happened. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aaron2016

Has anyone thought about a possible vibration or shockwave of sound, heat, and air pressure which might have echoed across and shaken or dislodged various stationary objects which created the misconception that the plane came from a different direction?

 

Potential shockwave of a jet crashing at high speed?

Image result for shockwave explosion gif

 

 

Edited by Aaron2016

Share this post


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

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.

How is this relevant to eyewitness testimony? Or how does it relate to anything I have written? You seem to be insinuating that I am discrediting the work done by real first responders, which would be a mistake. I have the highest respect for such people. 

Not so much respect for police officers who attend an MVA and push the victim to the ground, nor for grandstanding politicians who play-act in public to score brownie points while neglecting the unfortunate patient as they go about their own nefarious scheme, nor for bodyguards who avoid touching or assisting the wounded, but instead step over them as they lay on the ground, and grin unfeelingly as they hold a radio discussion while their compatriots are suffering and dying a few yards away.

Share this post


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

Has anyone thought about a possible vibration or shockwave of sound, heat, and air pressure which might have echoed across and shaken or dislodged various stationary objects which created the misconception that the plane came from a different direction?

 

Potential shockwave of a jet crashing at high speed?

Image result for shockwave explosion gif

I don't know what created this effect, but presumably not a plane crash?

I'm not seeing what you are suggesting. Take Sergeant William Lagasse, who was on the NORTH side of the Citgo gas station, and saw the plane flying NORTH of himself, over the Arlington National Cemetery parking lot, about 3 seconds before the impact. His location is absolutely confirmed on CCTV footage and Pentagon police radio records.

The official flightpath was hundreds of yards SOUTH of the one seen by Lagasse.

How is a shockwave, supposedly dislodging things 3 seconds later, capable of altering the view Lagasse had of the plane? He had no view at all of the alleged Southside trajectory.

Then there are many other witnesses who also saw the plane flying across the cemetery parking lot, including the cemetery staff who were right there, another police officer, a gas station employee, navy staff in the Annex, Lloyde England, Steve Riskus, Cheryl Ryefield, Penny Elgas, Air Traffic Controller Sean Boger, Captain Lincoln Liebner, etc etc etc.

And there are NO witnesses who were on the bridge, who saw the plane fly over it.

HOW is a shock wave going to produce these anomalies?

Share this post


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

Yes that is what the thread was started, but that does not negate their fallibility.

Please explain how Sergeant William Lagasse can be construed as a "fallible" eyewitness.

Do you mean because he claimed to have witnessed the actual impact when he later confirmed that he really could not have because of the terrain, and the explosion?

It is understandable that speeding jet + explosion suggests impact.

But to have any validity, you need to prove that Lagasse did not have a clear view to the north of the gas station, that he instead had a view to the south of the station, that the several minutes of CCTV footage of him was bogus, and that his recorded radio call to the Pentagon was faked.

Please explain how you imagine Sgt Lagasse was a fallible witness, preferably with photos, video interview and overhead maps to prove your point.

Share this post


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

The "intention" to which I referred is that of those who created the fab,e of 5 downed lightpoles on a fictitious flightpath, with a damaged cab inserted into the tableau for emotive effect,  not your intent. "THEY" needed the public to believe the plane flew across those poles, and I do not know why.

I do not have a secret theory to divulge. I do not have a "belief" about "what really happened".

Well after your "exhaustive" analysis surely you have a belief.  So what is it?

All I am concentrating on is eyewitness evidence, comparing and analysing it. Some is valid, some has been misconstrued, some cannot be what it claims because the person was not actually where they said, or it was in third person therefore not actual witness testimony, etc.

Video and photo evidence taken within less than 15 minutes of the impact is especially valuable, and there is much which has never previously been cross-referenced and investigated. I am finding this very interesting.

The video showing Lloyde walking down the highway in the HOV lane, looking at the fire, at 9:43 a.m., shows he was not on the bridge near his cab for some minutes prior to Jason Ingersoll's photos after 9:52 a.m. Other videos show his cab was at the cemetery site at 9:41 a.m., and until 9:43:12 a.m. when it was moved to the bridge, which process is also recorded on 4 videos.

I have asked you to link evidence that precisely shows your allegations

How can you ignore this evidence that Lloyde England's cab was not on the bridge when it was hit by a pole? That there is no video of this occurring (I am sure there is, but that will never see the light of day) is not a problem. Where is the video of the pole hitting the cab on top of the bridge, then? There is none. It never happened. 

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

Again link evidence of your allegation.

You find discrepancies interesting, but ignore hard evidence.  I find that really interesting.

Share this post


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

Please explain how Sergeant William Lagasse can be construed as a "fallible" eyewitness.

Do you mean because he claimed to have witnessed the actual impact when he later confirmed that he really could not have because of the terrain, and the explosion?

It is understandable that speeding jet + explosion suggests impact.

But to have any validity, you need to prove that Lagasse did not have a clear view to the north of the gas station, that he instead had a view to the south of the station, that the several minutes of CCTV footage of him was bogus, and that his recorded radio call to the Pentagon was faked.

Please explain how you imagine Sgt Lagasse was a fallible witness, preferably with photos, video interview and overhead maps to prove your point.

You ask me to explain an eye witness fallibility and then you present the exact reason that human observations/memory are fallible and therefore secondary in investigation.  You are really bad at this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bknight

Please share your beliefs of the events at the Pentagon that your extensive research has led you.

Share this post


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

How is this relevant to eyewitness testimony? Or how does it relate to anything I have written? You seem to be insinuating that I am discrediting the work done by real first responders, which would be a mistake. I have the highest respect for such people. 

Not so much respect for police officers who attend an MVA and push the victim to the ground, nor for grandstanding politicians who play-act in public to score brownie points while neglecting the unfortunate patient as they go about their own nefarious scheme, nor for bodyguards who avoid touching or assisting the wounded, but instead step over them as they lay on the ground, and grin unfeelingly as they hold a radio discussion while their compatriots are suffering and dying a few yards away.

It is relevant because they were witnesses too. Active duty Army and Air Force officers who worked in the Pentagon that day. Not some ancillary characters that have never had their stories entered as testimony. Those whom I've spoken to were there, were active participants. They were on scene and verified that the building was hit by an aircraft. That's how they are relevant to me.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
1 minute ago, Trelane said:

It is relevant because they were witnesses too. Active duty Army and Air Force officers who worked in the Pentagon that day. Not some ancillary characters that have never had their stories entered as testimony. Those whom I've spoken to were there, were active participants. They were on scene and verified that the building was hit by an aircraft. That's how they are relevant to me.

Now just watch how RubyGray will hand wave that little issue away.

As one of our friends says:

"Facts are stubborn things"

 

Share this post


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

Now just watch how RubyGray will hand wave that little issue away.

As one of our friends says:

"Facts are stubborn things"

 

Real-time videos are facts.

They are hard evidence.

Hand-wave THEM away.

Share this post


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

It is relevant because they were witnesses too. Active duty Army and Air Force officers who worked in the Pentagon that day. Not some ancillary characters that have never had their stories entered as testimony. Those whom I've spoken to were there, were active participants. They were on scene and verified that the building was hit by an aircraft. That's how they are relevant to me.

 

You know I have not demeaned your friend's experiences, rather I have expressed interest in them.

But you say they have never shared their testimonies publicly, and would not.

So for the purposes of THIS discussion, there's nothing else to say about them.

We will never know exactly where they were, what they saw and heard. If they wish to maintain their privacy, fine. But there is no proof of anything either way there.

Share this post


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

You know I have not demeaned your friend's experiences, rather I have expressed interest in them.

But you say they have never shared their testimonies publicly, and would not.

So for the purposes of THIS discussion, there's nothing else to say about them.

We will never know exactly where they were, what they saw and heard. If they wish to maintain their privacy, fine. But there is no proof of anything either way there.

I don't have access to what they swore to their statements to the DIA .I will never make them try to make anything other than what they are allowed to. bOTH of these gentlemen were honorable and principle lead persons. I have no reason to doubt them. I have seen the scars. Lloyd English  is another phantom that can't be corroborated

 

Edited by Trelane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
11 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I don't have access to what they swore to their statements to the DIA .I will never make them try to make anything other than what they are allowed to. bOTH of these gentlemen were honorable and principle lead persons. I have no reason to doubt them. I have seen the scars. Lloyd English  is another phantom that can't be corroborated

 

I just said I respect their right to say nothing. And yes, people did get burned and injured, for which I have be at empathy. But as they have not given their evidence, they cannot be called upon or referred to as eyewitnesses for the purposes of THIS thread.

Please at least get LLOYDE ENGLAND'S name correct!

He is certainly no "phantom". He is a very real man, and a victim of the horrible crime of 9/11. 

In fact, there is more physical evidence, other eyewitness testimony, and recorded video and audio by numerous interviewers from Lloyde England, to corroborate his story, than from any other eyewitness or victim at the Pentagon.

Clearly, you have not bothered to study this.

Share this post


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

I just said I respect their right to say nothing. And yes, people did get burned and injured, for which I have be at empathy. But as they have not given their evidence, they cannot be called upon or referred to as eyewitnesses for the purposes of THIS thread.

Please at least get LLOYDE ENGLAND'S name correct!

He is certainly no "phantom". He is a very real man, and a victim of the horrible crime of 9/11. 

In fact, there is more physical evidence, other eyewitness testimony, and recorded video and audio by numerous interviewers from Lloyde England, to corroborate his story, than from any other eyewitness or victim at the Pentagon.

Clearly, you have not bothered to study this.

I have studied it and find it nebulous and not creditable. If his case is so believable why has no one tried to help get his story out? No reporters, lawyers, authors? I'm not buying it. Clearly others have found no credibility with his story either. Trying to create something to validate a CT is not a good look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RubyGray
49 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I have studied it and find it nebulous and not creditable. If his case is so believable why has no one tried to help get his story out? No reporters, lawyers, authors? I'm not buying it. Clearly others have found no credibility with his story either. Trying to create something to validate a CT is not a good look.

Which part have you studied? There have been many interviews done with Lloyde England over the years  by the 9/11 Survivor's Fund, TV news stations, Loose Change, Russell Pickering, Aldo Marquis, Craig Ranke and Jeff Hill. His story is more widely documented than that of any other victim. His cab is the physical proof of what happened to him.

Lloyde always told the same extraordinary story, but because many photos and some good video of him and/or his cab were taken of them on top of the bridge next to an unbelievable lightpole, people either did believe that lightpole was what hit the cab, or they decided there is no way it could have happened like that, so Lloyde must have been lying, and complicit in the plot.

When Lloyde was interviewed 2 or 3 times for TV, they tried to film near where he was when the pole hit. But Pentagon security rushed out and ran them away.

Debate over this raged on the internet for years. Lloyde was pretty much unaware of the things being said about him, as he was not following this. He is not computer savvy. He always assumed that people knew he was beside the cemetery wall when the pole speared his cab, because he did not actually know that the cab had been moved.

There are, he said, many things about that day that he "did not have an answer for". Such as why the attending police officer pushed him to the ground like a criminal, instead of assisting him. He found himself getting up off the ground twice before his cab was relocated. Tazers? Drugs?

He had never seen the photos showing his cab on top of the bridge, and when CIT showed them to him, he was confused, because he knew it did not happen there.

But everyone had been so deceived by the bridge pictures, that they never tried to find any proof that Lloyde had been where he claimed to be. Until I came along, and found that there are actually many videos that have been released by the FBI from the first few minutes after impact. 

So I knew that, if Lloyde's story was correct, then it was possible that some of these videos may have recorded footage of Lloyde and his cab at the cemetery location, and in transit, during the 11 minutes before the first photo was taken of the cab on the bridge.

I began studying these videos frame by frame, and hit the jackpot. Proof of every single detail told by Lloyde, which had been ridiculed by everyone all these years, is found on these videos and photos, more than I could have imagined.  From many different angles, we can see the whole drama played out in a timed sequence.

This is anything but "NEBULOUS!!

This proves Lloyde's story is entirely CREDITABLE!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 10/19/2019 at 6:15 AM, bknight said:

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

This.

Never have I seen a worse trainwreck thread with so many walls-o-text, without a single trace of a concise summary of the claim along with links to the (one or two ONLY) critical videos.  And I probably missed it as my eyes glazed over, but did we ever hear how the time stamps were verified?  Both dashcams and security systems are notorious for having clocks that 'drift'.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bknight

Please share your beliefs of the events at the Pentagon that your extensive research has led you.

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.