9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: neutronflux

Being here is like working in a dementia ward.

Then it should be easy to answer to
Again...

Answer the F’n questions

Is the below true or not?
It should be a simple true or false.

In the interview with Hill, England volunteers the size of the pole that he says entered his cab:

England: “I think the pole was about 40 foot long.”
truthandshadows.com...
England/Hill interview in 2010.
truthandshadows.com...

Remember, this is your statement

LLOYDE ENGLAND NEVER LIED.
HE NEVER CHANGED HIS STORY.

Is that the piece of light pole you said

THE POLE WHICH HIT LLOYDE ENGLAND'S CAB, WAS NO PART OF A LIGHTPOLE.

And you still haven’t addressed

Pilgrum said it best:

None of that adds up to the cab being relocated for whatever imaginary nefarious purpose though or even the cab, all pieces of pole, broken glass and road damage being moved while we're at it.

How did all the damage associated with the cab and light pole get moved as questioned by Pilgrum?

If flight 77 didn’t crash into the pentagon, then you cite a more credible explanation what caused the damage at the pentagon. And how the passengers and crew of flight 77 ended up dead at the pentagon.

a reply to: RubyGray

I was never convinced that a full length pole speared through the cab so the shorter piece of pole, presumably the outreach bracket holding the luminaire, seemed more likely to be the culprit for a number of logical reasons.

What is your supposed value in all the frantic activity you're suggesting took place to move a damaged cab?
I see no concise proof that it happened so all we have is a damaged cab that has no bearing on the event apart from maybe obstructing the roadway for emergency vehicle access. IE just collateral damage though I can imagine the sort of trauma Lloyde went through that day and after.

Remove the cab from the equation completely and the Pentagon is still hit just the same isn't it?

a reply to: Pilgrum

Yes, it is obvious that a 250 lb, 40 foot x 10 inch pole did not hit the cab.
But the trouble is that the Official Story says it did. So we need to consider that angle.

Then Lloyde England himself says that huge lightpole did not hit the cab.
He said his pole did not have a base on it, but that THAT end of the pole "was not cut off ... it was in the ground, in concrete, standing up".
He says he was 400 yards further north when it happened, and that a 12 foot x 4 inch diameter pole came through his windshield.
So we also need to consider the testimony of this eyewitness and victim.

But the photos show the cab beside the 40 foot pole, 11 minutes after the impact.
Then Lloyde is there 18 minutes after impact.

Lloyde is being guarded by three officials during the photo shoot.
Why???

One guy is from the Arlington Fire Dept, according to the number plate on his white car.

The guy in the blue shirt is Detective Don Fortunato, who drove the silver sedan across the barricade.
He spoke on TV news later that day, saying that this is what he did. He parked beside Lloyde England whose windshield was knocked out by pieces of pole.

The tall black guy arrived in the brown Jeep, which seems to be another fleet vehicle. There were several of them about that day.

Lloyde was standing way off in the middle of the highway for about 10 minutes before the Jeep arrived on the bridge.
In previous Jason Ingersoll photos, we can see Lloyde out there, talking with another man as they watch the Pentagon fire.
He is also seen on the amateur video taken from the bridge, walking north in the HOV lane, towards the Pentagon, at 9:44 a.m., before those photos were taken.

Then, there are 2 photos which show a brown Jeep driving north towards Lloyde, with a black-uniformed Pentagon police officer outside each front window. Possibly helping it get through the traffic.
After this, the Jeep arrives on the bridge, and the black man and Lloyde are seen in the photographs after this.

It turns out that this black guy is Aubrey Davis, who was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's personal bodyguard that day.
We know this, because there are videos of this same man with Rumsfeld taken prior to his appearance on the bridge.

We first see Rumsfeld and his Security Detail of about 6 men (some of whom appear in later photos, picking up wreckage from the lawn), arriving on the scene less than 4 minutes post impact.
Then we see them all running from the highway, over to a victim lying on the grass, and Rumsfeld helps carry the backboard over to the ambulance, while the other guys trot along beside, doing nothing.
They then stood casually at the side of the highway, hands in pockets, while Rumsfeld stripped off his jacket and ran off to help carry more victims.

There is abundant clear footage identifying Rumsfeld's tall black bodyguard, Aubrey Davis.
He was interviewed for the first chapter of political journalist Andrew Cockburn's book, "Rumsfeld : An American Disaster".

Davis told a few fibs there.

He claimed that they were "pushing patients on gurneys". Gurneys are wheeled trolleys, which were not used that morning. Plastic backboards were used. 6 or 8 men carried each backboard.
Davis claimed that he helped. But he did not. All he did was walk alongside. He touched nothing.
He stated that, as soon as they had finished moving a patient, he escorted Rumsfeld back into the Pentagon, where everybody was desperately looking for the Secretary of Defense to lead operations. That is false.
There is footage of Rumsfeld in shirt and braces, orange backboard in hand, beside the Pentagon wall for quite some time afterwards.
Aubrey Davis said, "We were gone for fifteen minutes, tops". That is false. They left Rumsfeld's office immediately after the impact which occurred at 9:37:46 a.m. They allegedly had to walk from the eastern side of the Pentagon, down stairs, along the north side to the west side, but instead of walking close to the wall and heliport, they somehow appeared on the footpath along the highway, in 3 minutes from impact, then ran back across the lawn to the first victim. It seems that in fact, they must have driven around the road, not walked.
According to official documentation, Rumsfeld did not appear at his post until almost 10:30 a.m.
But Davis said they were "gone for 15 minutes, tops", which means Rumsfeld would have spent only about 6 - 7 minutes outside.
He appears on video for much longer than that.
And of course, his bodyguard Aubrey Davis was starring in those photographs on the bridge, until almost 10 a.m.

There is a photograph of Rumsfeld and Aubrey Davis walking back into the Pentagon.
Allowing 4 minutes for them to get back to his office, this must have been no earlier than 10:20 a.m.

This raises serious questions.
Already, everyone inside was angry that Rumsfeld had deserted his post, and wanted to know why.
They dubbed him "RUMSFLED".

WHY did Aubrey Davis lie about what he was doing out there?
WHY did he lie about the length of time they were AWOL?
WHY was Rumsfeld there at all?
WHY did Rumsfeld send his own bodyguard to retrieve Lloyde England?
WHY did the bodyguard have to supervise Lloyde England through the photo session?
HOW did Rumsfeld know that there was a damaged cab on the bridge?
HOW did he know that the taxi driver was wandering along the highway?
WHY did he want the taxi driver transported back to his cab on the bridge?
HOW did Aubrey Davis know to recognise Lloyde?
HOW could he possibly have connected one stranger among all the onlookers, with a taxi parked on a bridge about 350 yards distant from where they had been working at Triage?
WHY would he have hustled this particular man up to the bridge?
WHY did he have to stay for the photos?
HOW did they know that Corporal Jason Ingersoll would be taking photos of Lloyde, his cab and the downed light pole on the bridge, between 9:48 a.m. and 9:57 a.m.?
WHY did they need photos of Lloyde, his damaged cab and a downed lightpole on the bridge?

So Pilgrum, your comments,

"so all we have is a damaged cab that has no bearing on the event apart from maybe obstructing the roadway for emergency vehicle access. IE just collateral damage ... Remove the cab from the equation completely and the Pentagon is still hit just the same isn't it? "

don't quite explain what actually occurred, as confirmed in numerous videos, photos, and personal testimonies of bodyguard Pentagon Police Officer Aubrey Davis ( who was caught out in multiple LIES but was promoted for his participation),
and humble taxi driver and 9/11 victim Lloyde England, who was almost killed, and lost his means of earning his livelihood - but whose every detail was confirmed in those same videos.

It is apparent that this 20-minute drama could not possibly have been a chance event. There had to be premeditation, planning, rehearsal, liaison with the failing Capitol Cab company, choosing a target, surveillance of Lloyde England, military weaponry and personnel involved, decoy cab fares to implant suggestions and have Lloyde in position at the right moment, roadblocks to prevent access to southbound Route 27 except for players while the operation was carried out, and countless other details so things would run faultlessly.

a reply to: Pilgrum

There had to be TWO photographers to record the operation.
One at each site where Lloyde's cab was that morning between 9:37 and 10:00a.m. that day.

One to "prove" that Lloyde England was NOT where he claimed to be,

And the other to "prove" that Lloyde England WAS where he insisted he was NOT.

This caused the widespread accusations of senility, forgetfulness and lies that have been levelled against Lloyde England for 18 years now.

Steve Riskus was one of the very few motorists allowed southbound at that time. Lloyde said that There was "NO traffic" going in that direction, as photos and videos confirm. Exceptions to this, as seen on video, are :

Steve Riskus' red sedan;
the white van driven by the silent stranger who helped remove the pole from the windscreen
The silver sedan driven by Detective Don Fortunato, who pushed Lloyde to the ground when he refused to leave his cab
The black towtruck and trailer immediately behind Lloyde's cab.
Operatives all.

Riskus was driving right behind Lloyde, but he never mentioned this. I wonder why?

His were the first photos to be taken of the Pentagon and the highway. But he carefully framed them so that the spot where Lloyde and his cab with the pole through the windscreen were, could not be seen. Everybody disbelieved Lloyde's story about where he actually was when the pole hit, because they said there were no photographs to prove it, whereas there were photos proving he was on the bridge.

However, Riskus slipped up. He first took a photo of the piece of highway in front of him, exactly where Lloyde was when the pole hit. This shows skid marks and shattered glass on the road, confirming Lloyde's story.

Steve Riskus was more than 1,300 feet north of the bridge. So if the Offical Story was true, he would have seen the plane crossing the bridge on a very steep angle, so far away from him that he could not have identified it.

But Riskus stated that he saw the plane broadside on, that he saw the logo on the tail, and that it was very close, "about 100 feet or so" from him.
He confirmed on an Italian website, that a composite image showing the plane flying perpendicular to the wall, on the Northside flightpath, at the level of the heliport, was "almost exactly what I saw that day".

Therefore, whatever else he was doing on that day, Steve Riskus was definitely a Northside Witness.
He did NOT confirm the Official Flightpath over the bridge.

Although he concealed the fact that he was a witness to a 12 foot x 4 inch pole being shot through the windshield of the taxi in front of him, Steve Riskus did perfectly corroborate Lloyde England's testimony of where the plane flew - which was NOT ACROSS THE BRIDGE.

Steve Riskus needs to be subpoenaed and required to give his testimony under oath.

There WERE witnesses to what happened to Lloyde England next to the cemetery wall, and Steve Riskus is one of them.

a reply to: RubyGray

All I can agree on is the size of the pole piece that penetrated the cab as the rest of it is based on very blurry pics and a lot of assumptions that really amount to no absolute proof of anything.

I still ask why do you give such importance to this single cab?

What is its significance in the overall event where the hard physical evidence is conclusive as to what hit the building and its approach path right up to the point inside the building where it all came to a standstill.

You could opt for the only 'real' thing is the cab at your supposed location and everything else being pre-planted (including whatever you suppose damaged the building if the plane did not do it) fake evidence therefore the cab needed to be moved to fit the constructed fake picture. Sounds terribly complicated and the sort of gambit that's doomed to failure at all levels.

After over a decade of looking into all this my conclusions are significantly different.

a reply to: Pilgrum

Of course this is not the only important thing, and it is not the only detaill I discuss.

However, in this thread titled "The Mystery of the MOVED TAXI ", it is appropriate to focus on this topic.

Yes, it was complicated, and clearly fastidiously planned and rehearsed to ensure nothing went wrong. They have thought they got away with it all these years, but the FBI who snatched and hoarded all videos and many still cameras within hours of the impact, failed to analyse certain videos as carefully as I have. They released many videos under FOIA requests, which contain damning evidence. So now the deliberate "mistakes" have been identified and published.

Let us not forget that, even though the videos showing how this played out are not all of the high quality we would like, there are lots of them, taken from many angles by unrelated people, and all covering the same 15 -20 minutes, beginning from 1 to 3 or so minutes after the impact. They can be time-stamped by reference to the FOX5NEWS footage, and correlating known common details in them, plus eyewitness testimony, and comments made by people in the videos (e.g. that man on the bridge who talks about the C-130 flying down, and how he was not sure that he had even seen a plane, etc).

Compare the sheer number of useful frames from all these many videos, showing recognisable objects, events and prominent individuals in the story :

The Capitol Cab beside the cemetery wall;
the second cab simultaneously on top of the bridge;
the second cab speeding away;
the white van described by Lloyde, parked at the cemetery wall for a couple of minutes while the driver helped remove the pole,
then driving off;
the towtruck and car trailer;
The two motorcycle cops mentioned by Lloyde;
The FBI agents who spoke with Lloyde;
Donald Rumsfeld;
Aubrey Davis;
Steve Riskus' car;
firefighters Alan Wallace and Mark Skipper;
APTN journalist Eugenio Hernandez;
USA TODAY journalist Joel Sucherman;
Father Stephen McGraw;
Dr Goff;
Cheryl Ryefield;
possibly Yvette Buzard;
Captain Lincoln Liebner;
Sergeant William Lagasse watching the plane fly north of the Citgo station;
various helicopters;
F-16 jets;
etc etc ...

... with the two gatecam videos, which contain a total of TWO FRAMES ONLY, of the very blurry object alleged to have been hijacked AA77 flying low and level across the lawn, on a Southside flightpath which is denied by scores of credible identified eyewitnesses, and attested to by none ...

And you have a solid reason to rate those videos very highly indeed, as crucially significant historical documents. They give an internally corroborative, continuous, real-time visual narrative of what happened from 9:37 to about 9:55 a.m. on 9/11 at the Pentagon, which is very much at odds with the Official Story.

I do not pretend to suggest what happened inside the Pentagon.

I am here simply describing events and individuals captured on video and photos, explaining what occurred outside it in the first 20 minutes, which raises serious questions about the Official Story.

a reply to: RubyGray

You

He claimed that they were "pushing patients on gurneys". Gurneys are wheeled trolleys, which were not used that morning.

Really? No Gurneys that are equipment on ambulances and air evacuation units were used at the pentagon?

I guess ambulances just go down the road with the injured bouncing around on the floorboards on just a backboard?

www.history.navy.mil...

Ruby. What is being used in the picture above?

a reply to: RubyGray

You

Compare the sheer number of useful frames from all these many videos, showing recognisable objects, events and prominent individuals in the story :

Blatant falsehood by you. You have imagined video evidence.




That doesn’t show anything you claim.

THE POLE WHICH HIT LLOYDE ENGLAND'S CAB, WAS NO PART OF A LIGHTPOLE.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

You

He claimed that they were "pushing patients on gurneys". Gurneys are wheeled trolleys, which were not used that morning.

Really? No Gurneys that are equipment on ambulances and air evacuation units were used at the pentagon?

I guess ambulances just go down the road with the injured bouncing around on the floorboards on just a backboard?

www.history.navy.mil...

Ruby. What is being used in the picture above?

If you cannot be bothered to watch the videos which show Rumsfeld and the other first responders on the Pentagon lawn, where NO GURNEYS WERE PUSHED, but instead, they ONLY CARRIED BACKBOARDS TO TRANSPORT VICTIMS FROM BUILDING TO AMBULANCES, then do not bother parading your ignorance in yet more nonsense posts like this one.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

You

Compare the sheer number of useful frames from all these many videos, showing recognisable objects, events and prominent individuals in the story :

Blatant falsehood by you. You have imagined video evidence.

That doesn’t show anything you claim.

THE POLE WHICH HIT LLOYDE ENGLAND'S CAB, WAS NO PART OF A LIGHTPOLE.

NO, I have STUDIED THE VIDEOS.

I have watched them all, scores of times.

I have cross-referenced them and identified events occurring in different videos from opposing viewpoints.

I have identified real, known eyewitnesses in them, which has proven their testimonies true, or - in the cases of e.g. Rumsfeld, Fortunato, Riskus and Davis - to be fabrications.

You have not watched the videos.
You are not familiar with them.
You have no idea what they contain.
You do not know what you are looking at.
You have a very poor comprehension of the sequence of events.
You do not pay attention when things are explained to you.
You approach these videos with the rigid mindset of someone determined to be deceived by the government story.

"There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see."

a reply to: RubyGray

And nothing that you claim that is in the videos is there.

You only have a delusional manufactured mythology concerning the property damage to one light pole that’s doesn’t explain the damage to the pentagon, what killed the people in the pentagon, and how the passengers and crew of flight 77 ended dead at the pentagon.

But keep on posting about gurneys, and keep ignoring the radar data, the flight recorder data, ALL THE FLIGHT PATH DAMAGE, the actual damage to the pentagon, and how people of the pentagon and flight 77 died.

a reply to: neutronflux

EVERYTHING I claim is on the videos, IS THERE.

Just you keep on ignoring it.

Rumsfeld did not push any patients down the road on tourneys.
He only carried backboard across the lawn.
Doctors, nurses and paramedics pushed tourneys down the highway on tourneys.
Anyone who watches the videos, can see this.

a reply to: neutronflux

While I do not agree with all that Barbara Honegger writes, she does offer a valid explanation for the radar data of the plane which made a large high-speed loop southwest of the Pentagon, and was therefore assumed by those watching it on radar, to be a friendly fighter jet.
The plane seen approaching the Pentagon, was earlier seen by many witnesses, flying a loop around the White House across the river, which contradicts the radar data of the plane said to be AA77.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth has calculated the elevation of this plane according to the radar data, and found it to be over 400 feet AGL, far too high to have hit poles, trees or lightpoles, but low enough to have gone under the radar.
A very interesting revelation, and worthy of full consideration.

THE PENTAGON ATTACK PAPERS
Barbara Honegger, M.S., 2006

In the Air Force’s own account of the events of 9/11, Air War Over America, the North American Aerospace
Defense Command (NORAD) general who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled on 9/11, although too late, Gen. Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack there
that morning, and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building. This
fighter jet−not Flight 77−is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller’s screen
making a steep, high−speed 270−degree descent before disappearing from the radar. [When a plane flies low enough
to go undetected, it is said to be "under the radar."] Military pilots−like the one sent by Gen. Arnold on 9/11 to report
on the Pentagon’s damage−are trained to fly 500 feet above ground in order to evade radar detection. In fact, when
the Air Traffic Controller responsible for the plane and her colleagues watched the extremely difficult 270−degree
maneuver on her screen, they were certain that the plane whose blip they were watching perform this extremely
difficult feat was a US military aircraft, and said so at the time. It almost certainly was.
Thus, the likely reason the Pentagon has refused to lower the current official time for "Flight 77" impact,
9:37, to 9:32 am−the actual time of the first explosions there−is that they decided to pretend the blip represented by
Arnold’s surveillance jet approaching just before 9:37 was "Flight 77."

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: neutronflux

EVERYTHING I claim is on the videos, IS THERE.

Just you keep on ignoring it.

Rumsfeld did not push any patients down the road on tourneys.
He only carried backboard across the lawn.
Doctors, nurses and paramedics pushed tourneys down the highway on tourneys.
Anyone who watches the videos, can see this.

Let's try this without the predictive text.
Of course it should read,

"Doctors, nurses and paramedics pushed patients down the highway on gurneys."

originally posted by: RubyGray

I have cross-referenced them and identified events occurring in different videos from opposing viewpoints.

This is a photo taken by Steve Riskus just minuets after AA77 crossed the bridge and struck the pentagon.




These photos have been pointed out to us many times by you.


So the question is... If your bizarro 911 theory of Rumsfeld's pole is true, why is this trailer sitting here and not attached to the back of a black tow truck.



Please explain.

a reply to: RubyGray

Thank you for taking the time to discover all those tiny facts, and thanks for posting them here.

If the radar track had been a fighter, it made perfect sense. The Hani Maneuver was born.

And that the pilot overhead in the F-15 making his statement, it's icing on the cake.

The official story fails at every turn. Thanks for all that research Ruby!

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: RubyGray

Thank you for taking the time to discover all those tiny facts, and thanks for posting them here.

If the radar track had been a fighter, it made perfect sense. The Hani Maneuver was born.

And that the pilot overhead in the F-15 making his statement, it's icing on the cake.

The official story fails at every turn. Thanks for all that research Ruby!

Except it wasn’t a fighter. It doesn’t explain the pentagon damage. What maneuver exactly couldn’t be made by flight 77? The radar data tracks flight 77 all the way from take off. How many people witnessed a large passenger jet hitting the pentagon vs a fighter. How did the crew and passengers of flight 77 end up dead at the pentagon?

a reply to: neutronflux

You are intellectually bankrupt NF. The quality of your questions reveal that mate.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

You are intellectually bankrupt NF. The quality of your questions reveal that mate.

Care to actually address my statement?

Except it wasn’t a fighter. It doesn’t explain the pentagon damage. What maneuver exactly couldn’t be made by flight 77? The radar data tracks flight 77 all the way from take off. How many people witnessed a large passenger jet hitting the pentagon vs a fighter. How did the crew and passengers of flight 77 end up dead at the pentagon?

Or, because your rants have no credibility, you just going to character assassinate like the main stream media, or a political machine? And not debate actual facts?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: RubyGray

Thank you for taking the time to discover all those tiny facts, and thanks for posting them here.

If the radar track had been a fighter, it made perfect sense. The Hani Maneuver was born.

And that the pilot overhead in the F-15 making his statement, it's icing on the cake.

The official story fails at every turn. Thanks for all that research Ruby!

Thanks! I found this snippet very interesting.
I had always wondered about P4T's video which showed the calculations for the plane, as being 400 + feet AGL, far too high to have hit anything, and probably high enough for the locals, accustomed to planes flying low as they came in to land, to totally ignore.
P4T obviously calculated this accurately from the official data they acquired, but they gave no explanation for how this anomaly may have come about.

But Honegger's gem has solved that problem for us.

When you tie that into the fact that the "AA77 FDR" was "found" in at least 3 places on 3 separate dates by numerous rescue workers, and that it, like every other piece of plane wreckage found, had no serial number identifying it as having come from N644AA, especially considering that according to the NTSB data, AA77 never left the ground that morning - and that the cockpit door of the plane at the Pentagon never opened - and that N644AA was not deregistered for many months - it is all just too fishy for words.

Then there is the official animation (FAA is it?) showing the loop and the trajectory of this plane, which takes the Northside flightpath and appears to overfly the Pentagon despite the simulated explosion ... and it becomes even more fun.