9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

a reply to: Pilgrum

No, I disagree about this being cherrypicking. When someone makes many statements which cannot all be simultaneously true, then it is valid to say, "Yes, I am sure she saw something extraordinary, and this is her best attempt to describe it, but there was clearly something else going on".

You are doing exactly the same selective thing yourself.

Penny said the plane was 80 feet above the highway, plenty high enough to clear the Pentagon one second later, and far to high to have been the "plane" in the Gatecam vids, but you still insist she saw the plane hit the ground floor.

She said the plane wing came over the Citgo, and that it crossed the highway quite far in front of her. This means the plane cannot have flown on the Southside flightpath, therefore she is a NORTHSIDE witness.

She saw the underside of both wings, and assumed it was because the lLEFT wing dipped down. But it could have been because the plane was sufficiently far above her, as it was banking RIGHT.

PENNY ELGAS' testimony is compatible with those of all the other Northside eyewitnesses, and therefore mutually exclusive with whatever made the damage path inside the Pentagon.

originally posted by: RubyGray

Penny said the plane was 80 feet above the highway, plenty high enough to clear the Pentagon one second later, and far to high to have been the "plane" in the Gatecam vids, but you still insist she saw the plane hit the ground floor.

She said the plane wing came over the Citgo, and that it crossed the highway quite far in front of her. This means the plane cannot have flown on the Southside flightpath, therefore she is a NORTHSIDE witness.

She saw the underside of both wings, and assumed it was because the lLEFT wing dipped down. But it could have been because the plane was sufficiently far above her, as it was banking RIGHT.

She actually said it hit the Pentagon so it's not me insisting, it's simply her testimony saying that and I accept her word (she's not alone on that point).

She also said "the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me". Did she over-estimate that distance massively?

As for the banking left, the wingspan is 125' so the distance from wingtip to centre fuselage is about 62' and give a little for the right wingtip to be ahead of her vehicle gives us roughly 80' to the centre fuselage which amounts to about 5 car lengths at 5m/car including the gaps between them at a standstill. If she was mistaken about the left bank then it must have been very near to level to make such a mistake, not the extreme right bank that some want to claim. She was quite clear about it being left though.

All the pieces of her account fit unlike the scenario you're proposing where details require removal or alteration to fit the puzzle together (like solving a jigsaw puzzle with a mallet).

a reply to: Pilgrum

All the pieces of her account DO NOT FIT!!!

She saw the plane come "over the Citgo," and since a plane on the Southside path passes about 100 yards SOUTH of the Citgo, this makes her a NORTHSIDE WITNESS.

She said the plane passed TO THE SIDE OF THE CITGO. Since she is a NORTHSIDE witness, it is valid to suggest that she saw the plane on the NORTH SIDE of the Citgo, where it was witnessed by many people, particularly Sgt William Lagasse, whose position at the north side of the Citgo is 100% verified by the CCTV footage from the Citgo, and by his radio call logged by the Pentagon.

Since she said the plane came "straight over Columbia Pike," a tortuous road, it is valid to suppose that she meant the "Pike" in Columbia Pike, the sharp curve in the road, NORTH of the Citgo.

She said she looked LEFT to see the plane, and the Citgo was due west of her.

But the Southside flightpath has the plane flying from BEHIND her. She does not say she craned her neck around behind her to see it far from the Citgo.

The Southside flightpath passes directly OVERHEAD of her position on the road. But as she saw the entire underside of the wings from right wingtip to left, the plane CANNOT have flown on the Southside path, in which case she could only have seen the far end of the left wing.

Since the plane she saw did not fly over the bridge, it CANNOT have hit the 2 poles on the western edge of the bridge.

Elgas, like others, gives a high altitude for the plane flying across Route 27. She estimated "from 40 to 50 feet" (to Jeff Hill in 2009), to "Not more than 80 feet" (immediately after the event in 2001). Each of these 3 estimates is TOO HIGH for the plane to have hit any 40 FOOT lightpoles.

She stated that she DID NOT SEE THE PLANE HIT ANY LIGHTPOLES, even though she was directly west of downed pole #3 on the edge of the highway, and downed poles #4 and 5 were a little in front and to her right.

The Gatecam video shows a plane in horizontal aspect, skimming the Pentagon lawn by mere INCHES. If Penny saw the plane at 50 to 80 feet above the highway, then it CANNOT have been the plane in those videos, because it would have been at a considerable angle to hit the ground floor.

80 feet AGL crossing Route 27 is plenty high enough for the plane to have cleared the Pentagon roof, but far too high to have hit the ground floor low and level, in the next fractional second.

You are an intelligent, educated, rational person.
How can you possibly claim that her account supports the Official Story!

a reply to: RubyGray

If I were smart I'd go back to staying out of these circular arguments that go nowhere and achieve nothing.
That's a shortcoming I'll shortly be addressing.

Summing up the NOC theory:
The plane came in NOC at high speed and missed the building intentionally but managed to avoid being seen flying over the roof.
All the physical damage (like light poles, wreckage debris etc) that occurred between the navy annex and the Pentagon was staged (without being seen or noticed prior to the crash) to match the cleverly forged DFDR that was at some point planted in the building along with the remains of a 757 and its occupants.
The Pentagon damage was actually caused intentionally by unknown means other than an a 757 impact but the cone of damage was cleverly tailored to fit with all the other physical evidence.
Donald Rumsfeld in person supervised the driving of a pole through a cab and the subsequent rapid secret relocation of the cab in order to fit in with everything else in the faked flight path.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic btw. That's just the way it reads to me (always did)

Added for the record -
Just revisiting the contentious issue of how far Penny needed to turn left in relation to the attitude of her vehicle aligned to the highway lanes: I measured, from her position, an angle of 125 degrees counter clockwise to the centre of CITGO IE 35 degrees further than a right angle and that's pretty much due West from her stationary location. Just about 15 degrees further left is looking down the SOC path.

a reply to: Pilgrum

You forgot the swapping out of the staged cab with a decoy cab with a pole sticking out of its windshield in heavy / stopped traffic. And nobody seeing or hearing the machine that shot a pole into the cab at the cemetery wall in Ruby’s mythology.

a reply to: Pilgrum

Never mind. You had it in there.

a reply to: Pilgrum

"Just revisiting the contentious issue of how far Penny needed to turn left in relation to the attitude of her vehicle aligned to the highway lanes: I measured, from her position, an angle of 125 degrees counter clockwise to the centre of CITGO IE 35 degrees further than a right angle and that's pretty much due West from her stationary location. Just about 15 degrees further left is looking down the SOC path."

Well you might measure to the centre of the Citgo, but I wouldn't.
She said the plane was "to the side of" the Citgo, and she looked "left".
That would be 90 degrees to the angle of the highway, but I've allowed you a few degrees there.

Your theory has her craning around another 50 degrees past "left".
You have a total of 125 + 15 degrees = 140 degrees, which is a neck-creaking angle to turn round backwards when sitting in a car.

Since she did not see the plane on the Southside path, she must be a Northside witness.

Sgt Lagasse, Sgt Brooks, ATC Sean Boger, Albert Hemphill, Captain Lincoln Liebner, Frank Probst, Mark Bright, Steve Riskus, Cheryl Ryefield, Lloyde England and many others including 7 interviewed ANC workers who were directly beneath the flightpath which went over the ANC complex parking lot, pinned down where the plane flew exactly.

The official NTSB and FAA animations also depict this flightpath.

So since there was only one 757, Penny Elgas must have seen the plane flying on the same path, but from a different perspective.
Allowing for approximations made in the heat of the moment, this is how I read what Penny Elgas said she witnessed :

a reply to: RubyGray

Not by the actual flight path damage...

www.scientistsfor911truth.com...

The Overall Damage Path
As related by most eyewitnesses, a large plane flew low from the highway over the Pentagon lawn and hit the Pentagon West wall. Descriptions from various witnesses, photographs and FDR data fill in details that include:
 The plane knocked down several light poles
 The left wing finally was tilted down
 The right engine struck a generator trailer
 The left engine struck a low concrete wall
 The plane mostly disappeared into the building
 There was a large fireball
 The façade had a hole 18 ft wide where the plane body is presumed to have hit
 There was a gash 96 ft wide where plane wings would have hit
 The lawn was untouched afterwards except for debris
 Windows above the 18 ft wide hole were unbroken
 The internal column damage indicates the path direction of material and debris flow from the exterior
inwards
 There was a hole in the C ring wall that was roughly circular
 The downed light poles, trailer damage, low concrete wall and façade damage, interior columns
damage, and hole in the C ring are in a straight line
 The direction of this line is in accordance with the radar reports and the FDR file.
The overall appearance of the damage trail is consistent with the passage of a large plane.

Penny is also an backed by radar data and the flight recorder data.

a reply to: RubyGray

What did Penny see hit the pentagon?

a reply to: RubyGray

At least 14 witnesses attest to a large jet knocking over light poles / utility poles. With the jet being witnessed low enough to the ground to clip trees.

If the jet approached from the north, there should be a north flight path of damage. But there is no evidence of such a second path of damage.

a reply to: RubyGray

To be more specific. On 9/11, many witnesses saw a large passenger jet hitting crap heading towards the pentagon. There is no evidence a large jet was hitting crap along the north flight path.

It is interesting how quickly the pentagon 'declassified' the video from the raid in Syria recently that supposedly killed Baghdadi. Two weeks or less?

Yet they still refuse after 18 years to declassify the footage taken by the numerous surveillance cameras at the pentagon that would show AA77 across the front yard.

Maybe they don't want to declassify those because they would show that no airliner, no AA77, flew across the yard that day?

originally posted by: Salander
It is interesting how quickly the pentagon 'declassified' the video from the raid in Syria recently that supposedly killed Baghdadi. Two weeks or less?

Yet they still refuse after 18 years to declassify the footage taken by the numerous surveillance cameras at the pentagon that would show AA77 across the front yard.

Maybe they don't want to declassify those because they would show that no airliner, no AA77, flew across the yard that day?

Do you have anything that hasn’t been explained or debunked repeatedly for the last 18 years. What does the video have to with flight 77 physical hit the pentagon.

a reply to: neutronflux

What have you actually explained here? Nothing at all.

You post many pictures that explain what we already know, and you make many false statements, but the only thing you explain is how deeply in denial you are.

In fact, the only reason the pentagon has kept those tapes secret for so long (assuming they even exist) is because they have something to hide. That something is the fact that AA77 did not strike the building that day.

a reply to: Salander

Just do some real research instead of being an echo chamber for truth movement charlatans

therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com...

What of the 85 other videos confiscated?

Check my Youtube channel for all released footage:
www.youtube.com...
Note that very, very few of these videos were actively "confiscated". Most were given to the FBI in the days following the attacks. A lot of them come from New York, not Washington DC. It should also be noted that the highway traffic cameras which conspiracy theorists claim would have a "clear shot" of AAL77 hitting the Pentagon were not installed until early 2003. Summary provided below.

web.archive.org...://www.flight77.info/85videos.html


85 videos

The videos taken from the Pentagon area after the 9/11 attacks were mentioned in the Maguire declaration, where FBI Special Agent, Jacqueline Maguire responded (see below) to a request from Scott Bingham.

In Summary:
She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.