9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
I think you guys are looking at this wrong. The cab was moved.

Plus, the photographer would be standing in those bushes circled in the red if this photo was taken of the cab in its original spot on the bridge:

Nope, he would have been standing halfway between the trees and the overhead sign. Note the light pole still standing in the background of the earlier shot. you can just barely see those poles behind the overhead sign in the later shot.

Originally posted by Nventual
I don't see how the window can be smashed like that and then nothing on the bumper or hood?

Yes exactly. Or how about the roof? The account is what makes the damage seem so much more suspicious.


"Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyd’s car."

A supposed plane going about 350-400mph clips a "heavy" light pole that "came crashing down onto the *front* of Lloyde’s taxi cab" destroying only the windshield? He "tried to stop the car". That means he was going fast enough to where he had to *try* to stop his car. That means the light pole should have been moving all over the hood of his car. Another car stops and helps move the "heavy pole" *off* Lloyde's car. And yet all we see is the damage to windshield. It's just not right.

If the pole came down light first then it would have only hit the windshield and not touched the car.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If the pole came down light first then it would have only hit the windshield and not touched the car.

Really? So are you proposing that the light pole was sticking straight up and out of the windshield, and never touched the hood?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
I think you guys are looking at this wrong. The cab was moved.

Plus, the photographer would be standing in those bushes circled in the red if this photo was taken of the cab in its original spot on the bridge:

Nope, he would have been standing halfway between the trees and the overhead sign. Note the light pole still standing in the background of the earlier shot. you can just barely see those poles behind the overhead sign in the later shot.

Right, but if the car was in its original position on the bridge, to get that shot he would have to have been behind the stone wall in the red circled bushes/tree.

It hit the side of the windshield in the corner




see the round dent in the glass?


I also see some damage to the hood by the post.

No. I am suggesting that the LIGHT, which is on a CURVED ARM attached to the pole came down pointed at the ground, and hit the windshield, and the pole came down on the fender, or the arm that the windshield attaches to.

Actually, the pole was bent by the impact with the plane.

The light was on a separate arm



you can see it behind the cab in this shot.


Here is another example of the distortion caused by the foreshortening effect.

compare the curve of the post in this photo:



with the exaggerated curve in this photo:








[edit on 17-1-2006 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It hit the side of the windshield in the corner

see the round dent in the glass?


I also see some damage to the hood by the post.

No, I don't see it. Sorry.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Actually, the pole was bent by the impact with the plane.

Here is another example of the distortion caused by the foreshortening effect.

I think that is the natural curve of the pole.

I don't believe "foreshortening" has anything to do with why the cab appears moved. It is clearly moved.

Line up the man's shadow with the stone wall, in the original bridge pic. He is in on the side of the taxi. You can see the taxi is obviously farther down than his shadow.

I am still going to stick with the cab being moved.









[edit on 17-1-2006 by Mister_Narc]

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It hit the side of the windshield in the corner

see the round dent in the glass?


I also see some damage to the hood by the post.

No, I don't see it. Sorry.

The pole struck at an angle like so.

none of the other light poles are curved. Why should that one be?

It was hit by a plane. It bent.

I would also like to note that the white car that "appeared" seems to be a government vehicle (according to the plates on the front) and probably pulled up some time after the accident/plane crash occured, or backed up from somewhere ahead of the cab. But, judging from the photo, he came around the back of the cab and parked there. Additionally, there is no time frame from the video captures or the photos as to which one was first, and which one was last, so there's no way to tell if he pulled up later, or left.

That would be a personally owned vehicle of a volunteer firefighter. Virginia issues special plates to members of volunteer fire depts and rescue squads.

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Actually, the pole was bent by the impact with the plane.

Here is another example of the distortion caused by the foreshortening effect.

I think that is the natural curve of the pole.

I don't believe "foreshortening" has anything to do with why the cab appears moved. It is clearly moved.

Line up the man's shadow with the stone wall, in the original bridge pic. He is in on the side of the taxi. You can see the taxi is obviously farther down than his shadow.

I am still going to stick with the cab being moved.
[edit on 17-1-2006 by Mister_Narc]

Whatever, Merc.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The pole struck at an angle like so.

none of the other light poles are curved. Why should that one be?

It was hit by a plane. It bent.

Well this is purely speculative, and still doesn't make sense to me. You have no proof it bent. You have no idea what direction the pole flew, or even where his car was at. You are just applying your personal belief to have it make sense to you. I don't know how you can make a snap judgement on this without additional information. As a matter of fact if you line everything up with the "moved" pic, you run into even more problems with the "craft's" trajectory, which is probably why they moved the taxi closer to that overhead sign, which I am surprised the craft missed.





[edit on 17-1-2006 by Mister_Narc]

Look at the poles in the background...curved...

Actually they are straight with a straight arm attached at an angle. No curves involved(except for the slight bend where the light attaches).




See straight, not curved.



[edit on 17/1/06 by Skibum]

Strange that every other light pole I've ever seen anywhere are straight, except for the arm that holds the light. That's the only curved part I've EVER seen on any lightpole anywhere. Even in other countries.

As a matter of fact, if you watch Loose Change 2. They have a clip in there where they mention the light poles hit by G HW Bush's pilots who crashed and died on their way to pick up Bush. The poles stayed in the ground, but they only bent/broke back but stayed dangling.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Strange that every other light pole I've ever seen anywhere are straight, except for the arm that holds the light. That's the only curved part I've EVER seen on any lightpole anywhere. Even in other countries.

So now 757's can bend light pole like a "conduit bender"?

The poles stayed in the ground, but they only bent/broke back but stayed dangling.

IIRC light posts and sign posts are set with shear bolts attached to a concrete footer. I'd have to look it up to verify it, but thats what I recall.



Note the bolts sheared off on the base.

[edit on 17/1/06 by Skibum]

Originally posted by Skibum

Look at the poles in the background...curved...

Actually they are straight with a straight arm attached at an angle. No curves involved(except for the slight bend where the light attaches).

See straight, not curved.



[edit on 17/1/06 by Skibum]

Yeah you're right. Thanks.

But the cab was still moved.

[edit on 17-1-2006 by Mister_Narc]