9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

You

I have never seen any evidence of plane passengers ending up inside the Pentagon.

Why do you still argue in absolutions, just makes you less credible?

Because I have never seen any evidence of any dead plane passengers or crew inside the Pentagon.

And nobody has ever been able to produce that evidence for me.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. Someone played with the exposure and changed it to a negative image/setting. And the damn thing still shows no pole. Your only enforcing that you have a fabricated delusion.

Nobody changed this to a negative image!

Had I done that,

the BLACK CAPITOL CAB would have been WHITE,

and the

WHITE CONCRETE WALL would have been BLACK.


Which they are not, right?

So that makes you ... wrong!!

And the flaring produced by the bright background of the concrete wall, fades out certain light-coloured objects, and objects of a small dimension.

This is why the pole is not clearer.

But it IS THERE.

There is nothing else in the interior of a Lincoln Continental Town Car which can possibly explain that diagonal shadow inside the cab, as consistently seen in many frames that show the open driver's door.

Also, the exterior part of the pole can be seen in many of the frames.

And a man dressed in dark pants and a light shirt, is standing at the front bumper, preparatory to pulling out the pole.

This man is also seen walking north to that position, in at least 2 frames, prior to this on the video.
In fact, the person looks very much like Lloyde himself, who was wearing dark brown pants, a pale blue shirt and cap that morning.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

This is how quoting works.

Use a bracket, quote, bracket

Link and cite to a source.

Paste quote

Bracket, use a /, quote, close bracket.

Example blah blah ...

What interview and what was the interview date for what your referring too?

Never mind trying to tell me how to quote and cite references a la neutronflux.
I have no desire for my posts to degenerate into the type of quoting bingefest you indulge in, imagining this passes for original "debate".

Jeffrey Hill did a phone interview with Penny Elgas, apparently on 29th October 2010.

You can find the audio recording at www.checktheevidence.com/audio/jeffHillsPhoneCalls.

Or you can follow this link.

www.dailymotion.com...

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby there is no pole in the manipulated picture you posted. Your delusional.

a reply to: RubyGray

Again, how long was the interview after her original statement by a biased interviewer that is shady in their practice with no questioning from a person with an opposing line of questioning.

What did she see hit the pentagon.

a reply to: RubyGray

And your still not off the hook for misrepresenting what I post.

You posted that I claimed the north flight path witnesses were lying. Now quote where I posted such a thing.

Why would I find what you post credible when you purposefully misrepresent what I post?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby there is no pole in the manipulated picture you posted. Your delusional.

Again, kudos for keeping this image at the forefront of this discussion yet again.

You need to do as I have, watch that 7 seconds of video over and over, zoomed in, frame by frame, to see all the OTHER images showing many identifiable details of the Lincoln Continental Town Car Capitol Cab with the pole diagonally through the windshield, exactly as Lloyde England testified. right there beside the cemetery wall

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

Again, how long was the interview after her original statement by a biased interviewer that is shady in their practice with no questioning from a person with an opposing line of questioning.

Yes, it is common knowledge that Jeff Hill left much to be desired as an impartial interviewer.

He played both sides of the field, to wheedle people into talking to him.

He avoided asking appropriate, specific questions that would give him specific, confronting answers he did not want to hear.

However, he was fearless, persistent, and he did contact many eyewitnesses, true and false.
Trouble is, Jeff could not discern true from false.
So he attached just as much weight to the lying testimonies of obvious froot loops as he did to valid testimony from credible witnesses.

Penny Elgas is one of the good ones.
Unfortunately, that interview has several edits in it. Potentially interesting and significant segments have been cut out of it.

But she does give us much vital information, such as that :

* the plane flew across the Citgo on the Northside flightpath
* straight across the highway in front of her, therefore not on the Official Flightpath.
* It was about 50 feet AGL (in 2001 she wrote "not more than 80 feet"), therefore much too high to have skimmed the lawn in the Gatecam images,
* and better positioned to fly over the 73 foot Pentagon roof than swoop down to hit the ground floor.
* She was "under a lamp post" that was allegedly hit by the plane, presumably Pole # 2, which was on the western side of the north end of the bridge,
* but although she was looking west at the approaching plane, she DID NOT SEE THE PLANE HIT ANY POLES.
* She was TOLD by the Smithsonian that the fragment she handed in was from the TAIL of the plane.
* The claim in her 2001 original statement about this fragment having fallen into her car via the sunroof, was "WHAT THEY SAID, but THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED", suggesting that authorities manipulated her written testimony.
* She said, " There was a lot of stuff about that day that didn't make a lot of sense".

Consider her final statement in light of the Jason Ingersoll photographs of her staring at Lloyde's taxi on the bridge over several minutes, and wonder whether there was anything about that scene which "didn't make a lot of sense" to her.

www.thepentacon.com...

DSC_0415, 9:52 a.m.
DSC_0416, 9:54 a.m.

So she was clearly on the bridge until at least 17 minutes post impact, by which time the traffic had actually moved northwards. Although she claimed she got back in her car, and was "ready ... before anybody else was moving", in fact she was standing outside on the bridge near Mike Walter, and stayed until everybody else had moved on, looking towards Lloyde England's cab for possibly 3 minutes.

I have to wonder wonder what she found so intriguing that she was staring in this direction rather than fleeing this terrifying site.

a reply to: RubyGray

I assume you know what 'Cherry picking' data is - suppressing what you don't like and accentuating the points that fit an agenda or pre-conceived notion in order to alter what the overall data tends to indicate.

Doesn't the fact that you cannot fit a flight path that crosses the highway at a right angle a short distance ahead of Penny's car and hits the Pentagon at the known impact point suggest there's a problem with that idea?
IE it's just not a little wrong, it's impossible as the plane is less than 1 second from impact at that point and such an extreme turn at over 200m/S is just not going to happen, even at a 90 degree roll to the left.

The best witnesses to the approach trajectory are Morin and Elgas as they were the nearest to it with the plane's belly being almost directly over Morin and crossing S Washington Blvd 'about 5 car lengths' ahead of Elgas (it's a snap estimate/guess on her behalf but wouldn't be out by 100's of feet). The best evidence of the impact trajectory is the damage path through the building. If I join those points with straight lines, it all fits together nicely, pretty much perfectly, and note I haven't thrown anything out to force it to fit. The DFDR data also fits that trajectory without altering or ignoring any data.

The height above the road in front of Elgas is best estimated by the light poles which were 40' above the road surface so a little less than 40' is about as good as we can manage with any certainty there.

And how does Lloyd fit into the supposed grand conspiracy? (straying back onto the topic briefly )
Can't see his cab being anything other than collateral damage and he was very fortunate to get out uninjured. Had he not been there it would make no difference at all so just a case of wrong place, wrong time, fate perhaps.

a reply to: RubyGray



Ruby. There is no pole in this picture. Your “evidence” is a scam.

This a game to you. The only “pole” in that picture is the world pole. So, is that how you justify to yourself there is a”pole” in the picture?

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. What did Penny see hit the pentagon.

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. You claimed I posted the north flight path witnesses were lying.

Now quote where I posted such a statement, or do you blatantly lie about what people post? Why would I find you credible at this point?

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: RubyGray

I assume you know what 'Cherry picking' data is - suppressing what you don't like and accentuating the points that fit an agenda or pre-conceived notion in order to alter what the overall data tends to indicate.

Of course I am familiar with the concept of cherrypicking.

What I asked for, but have never seen from anybody, is actual examples of CIT having done this.

originally posted by: RubyGray

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: RubyGray

I assume you know what 'Cherry picking' data is - suppressing what you don't like and accentuating the points that fit an agenda or pre-conceived notion in order to alter what the overall data tends to indicate.

Of course I am familiar with the concept of cherrypicking.

What I asked for, but have never seen from anybody, is actual examples of CIT having done this.

The shady dealings of CIT have been cited for you in this thread. Is that false?

Again, I would think you would have learned not to post in absolutes, it makes you less credible.

a reply to: RubyGray

Just for you Ruby do you don’t post in absolutes....

911speakout.org...

Critique of CIT’s Fundamentally Flawed Methodology
By David Chandler

I have often been asked why I reject the research of CIT (Citizen Investigation Team), which proposes that a large plane approached the Pentagon from a northerly angle incompatible with the external and internal damage path. The plane, they say, flew over the Pentagon, masked by the explosion and smoke cloud, and all the damage was faked. There is much that is wrong with their theory and conclusions, but here I am looking at what is wrong with their methods.

CIT’s analysis is based on interviews with a number of eyewitnesses using a fundamentally flawed methodology that invalidates the entire process. I have spelled out my critique here.

Why the CIT Analysis of the Pentagon Event on 9/11 Should Be Rejected Outright
911speakout.org...


The critique is based on three telephone interviews of Albert Hemphill, one by Craig Ranke of CIT, the other two by Jeff Hill, an independent researcher living in Canada

Craig Ranke – Hemphill Phone Interview,
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Jeff Hill – Hemphill Phone Interview,

Jeff Hill – Second Hemphill Phone Interview.
Attempted transcripts of these recorded interviews
(When in doubt, refer to the interviews themselves.)

Craig Ranke – Hemphill Phone Interview (pdf),
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Jeff Hill – Hemphill Phone Interview (pdf),
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Jeff Hill – Second Hemphill Phone Interview (pdf).

911speakout.org...

In the article I make reference to the Asch Conformity Experiment. Here is a video of the experiment itself with an explanatory introduction.

Asch Conformity Experiment
m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: RubyGray

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: RubyGray

I assume you know what 'Cherry picking' data is - suppressing what you don't like and accentuating the points that fit an agenda or pre-conceived notion in order to alter what the overall data tends to indicate.

Of course I am familiar with the concept of cherrypicking.

What I asked for, but have never seen from anybody, is actual examples of CIT having done this.

Again. Just for you.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

To Con a Movement:
Exposing CIT's PentaCon
'Magic Show'
by
Victoria Ashley

911review.com...

Researcher Arabesque, after spending some time in debate with CIT, put together a summary of his observations:

The CIT researchers frequently and falsely interpret criticism of their theory as a personal attack along with accusations of government sponsored “neutralization". As the flyover theory is clearly unsupported by any credible evidence, the CIT theorists frequently rely on vicious, slanderous, and libelous ad hominem attacks and antagonism to those who dare to question their flyover theory. Any disagreement with the “smoking gun" evidence is derided with hostility on internet forums, while any criticism of the theory is largely interpreted as an “attack" or “spook operation". Pentagon researchers in particular, are highlighted for accusations including “treason", “supporting the official story", “COINTELPRO", and “brainwashed". Similarly, any witnesses who contradict the north claim are called “propaganda", “agents", and in the case of a taxi cab driver, “the devil". Aside from the weakly supported flyover hypothesis, whether intentional or not, the ridiculous antics and outrageous behavior of the CIT researchers are damaging and destructive to the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy Arabesque: 9/11 Truth; November 24, 2007
arabesque911.blogspot.com...

a reply to: RubyGray

People like you Ruby are the truth movement’s worst enemy. And you wonder why the truth movement foundered. It was its inability to root out charlatans like CIT.



Just keep telling yourself there is a pole in this picture, and your fabricated mythology around the property damage concerning a single light pole matters.

a reply to: RubyGray

How about some blasts from the past...

originally posted by: beachnut
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

77 degrees of bank?

Your witnesses all support less than 10 degrees of bank. Your non-paths did not happen, NoC did not happen. You can not even do some numbers for us. You make up planes flown by the military to commit murder without even thinking about it.

All your witnesses support a plane impacting the Pentagon, and not one person saw a fly over. No science needed to show that.

You better check your witness statements made in 2001. They support the 61 degree true heading impact, with only a variation of 1 or 2 degrees in the flight path. Your own hard evidence witnesses confirm it. Did you really listen to them? Statements from your witnesses make your story false, and other witnesses you ignore make your story false.

Can you say 77 degrees of bank? Do you know what that looks like? Can you say 4.44 Gs? Why are you absent numbers, and only talk about it?

You blamed the military for the murder of those at the Pentagon without proof; you present a non-path shown to be false with physics. Now you will talk it all away with your hard evidence witness statements now messed up by your new investigation with false non-paths, made from the hard evidence from your witness statements.

77 degrees. Who saw 77 degrees. Did you correct SPreston's timing errors?

Having problems translating my poor writing? That must be indicative of your understanding your own witnesses, who debunk your own work in your presentations, and you missed it.

Please feel free to ask me what I mean. Hint: I mean your NoC is a fantasy.

Paik being a CIA agent; Good example of you not being able to provide meaning to what you read from me the poor writer. Paik being a CIA agent was alluding to you saying he was (in the future), after you figure out he did not see your 77 degree banked turn! And after you see the testimony you got from him, supports a speed of 530 mph (or around that). You now have a hint at why you are messing up the testimony of witnesses and not understanding 9/11. Like my poor writing abilities do you have poor analysis of witness statements? I gave you a statement, and you know my problem, but failed to gain the real meaning. Is this what you do with witness statements? Fail to gain the meaning? We can help you with the numbers to show you the paths you derive do not fit your own witnesses statements. Do you need help?


[edit on 9-4-2008 by beachnut]

a reply to: RubyGray

Another blast from the past

originally posted by: beachnut

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


The NTSB data has been proven fraudulent by the independent witnesses.

We prove it with multiple lines of independent corroborating evidence.

The official data released many years after the event is not backed up with any independent evidence.

The plane came from east of the Potomac and flew north of the former CITGO station proving a military deception on 9/11.

The NTSB data is not proven wrong. You are just saying it is wrong and making up the story. Your own witnesses put 77 on the 61.2 degree true track on 9/11. Proof your statement is wrong. These are you "hard evidence" indisputable witnesses and they prove you wrong. You have taken their words and change them as we watch your video.

Your evidence is manufactured by taking quotes and misinterpreting them from you witness statements which your call "hard evidence". Witness statements? Your proof is made up using faulty logic from your flawed interpretation of witness statement. You have zero physical evidence. The physical evidence lies along a 61.2 degree heading to the impact point at the Pentagon. You use the line up error by the NTSB, but ignore the real data from the FOR, recovered from the Pentagon, showing the previous 25 hours of operation of Flight 77.

No, the Plane did not come from the east, it is clearly found on RADAR data. It is absurd to say the RADAR data is fake. You have zero evidence and it has not been collaborated by a board of experts independent of the truth movement groups. Your boat witness watched the C-130 go over and you now say it is flight 77. Flight 77 was seen by KDCA tower people on the flight path seen on the RADAR data, the same plane they saw with eyes and RADAR in the tower; This testimony you have twisted to your made up flight path over DC. It is unbelievable how you take good witnesses and ruin the data.

So you just say everything is fake, yet your own witnesses do not support your ideas on the Pentagon. You even make up stuff about them. If someone saw 77 impact the Pentagon, you say "they ducked" and missed it. Wow, just change their words to match you fantasy. No evidence, just witness statements you change to fit your story.

And how many paths have you published, and you say you do not have?

a reply to: RubyGray

So. For the fly over fantasy. You take the north flight path witnesses, ignore the majority saw a jet hit the pentagon, and ignore that you cannot quote a single person that a large passenger jet missed the pentagon to fly over the pentagon. With the maneuver required to miss the pentagon would be physical impossible for the actual jet?