9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

a reply to: RubyGray

You

Well it must be so invonvenient for you, to discover that the plane seen by ALL THE WITNESSES was flying on a trajectory which proves it could not possibly have hit those lightpoles, nor caused that directional damage in the Pentagon.

No. You discount the accounts of people attesting to a large jet knocking over crap on the way to the pentagon, then crashing into the pentagon.

The north flight path witnesses are in a minority that still attest to a large passenger jet hitting the pentagon with nobody giving an account of the jet flying off. With the north side witnesses having no explanation for all the flight path damage you ignore.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

These elements all confirm a flight path that is supported by eyewitness accounts, the radar data and the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data, which was released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). There are over 62 documented eyewitnesses who saw the plane impact. Fourteen (14) witnesses saw one or more of the light poles struck. Four witnesses saw the right engine/wing hit the generator-trailer, while one witness saw the left engine hit the low concrete wall and break apart. Multiple witnesses traced the passage of the plane as it flew from the Sheraton Hotel (last radar reading) to impact at the Pentagon. There were some initial problems reading the last frame of the FDR data, but the properly decoded FDR data traces the plane’s path all the way from take-off at Dulles Airport to impact at the Pentagon.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...


Further Analysis of Corroborating Physical Evidence: Several items of physical evidence can be further analyzed to see if they comport with a large plane hitting the Pentagon.
Clipped Tree: One witness described the plane as “picking off trees and light poles.” Photographs show that the starboard (right) engine of the plane did clip a tree. Jon Cole has shown experimentally that it is possible for the leading edge of an engine to cut the tree. Cole compared this action with similar-looking ragged branches cut with a heavy brush cutter with heavy, thick dull blades rotating at a lesser speed than the airplane that cut the woody branches of the Pentagon tree (See Figure 6). Branches ingested by the right engine can explain the smoke trail from the right engine from that point on, as seen in the security camera videos and in this simulation.

Downed Light Poles: Many witnesses saw the plane hit light poles. In all, five light poles were torn from their bases and broken into pieces. Pole pieces had considerable curvature as if hit by a blunt force at high speed, such as the moving wing of a plane. One pole piece pierced the windshield of a taxi driven by Lloyde England. The back seat of the taxi was pierced indicating how the pole piece was supported at that end and stuck out through the windshield. The separation and positions of the downed light poles indicate a plane wingspan of more than 100 feet, but less than 130 feet. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 124 feet 10 inches.
Rotated Generator-Trailer: Several witnesses saw the right plane engine and/or wing strike one end of a very heavy generator-trailer. The trailer was found to have rotated about the other end toward the building. In addition to the damaged end, there was a gash in the trailer top corresponding to the position of the first flap “canoe” beyond the right engine of a Boeing 757. The location and direction of the gash was consistent with the canoe’s position on the wing and the plane’s flight path.

Gouge in Low Concrete Wall: One witness saw the left engine hit a low concrete wall and break apart. The wall shows a curved gouge consistent with impact by an engine. The distance between the wall and the struck end of the generator-trailer is approximately 43 feet, matching the engines’ separation of a Boeing 757 of 42.5 feet. When the left engine hit the wall it was a few inches above ground level at that point. The wall sits on a high point, and this explains why the engine did not gouge the surrounding lawn as it traveled over the lawn. Some nearby, upright wooden spools were not struck as they were positioned between the plane fuselage and the low-slung left engine.

Debris by the Heliport Area: There was a noticeable amount of plane debris, mostly small pieces, at the Heliport area north of the impact hole. This is in accord with the plane’s path which made a 52-degree angle with the Pentagon west wall as it approached from the southwest. This distribution of debris is entirely to be expected since, after fragmentation, debris that remained outside the building would have a significant velocity component causing it to travel in a northerly direction.

The Impact Hole and Façade Damage: Many claims have been made that the impact hole was too small for a plane the size of a Boeing 757 to have entered the building. None of these claims have merit. The fuselage of a Boeing 757 is 12.33 feet wide and 13.5 feet high and the corresponding hole was about 18 feet wide. Early photographs were obscured by spray from fire hoses and hid a long gash of about 96 feet in the first floor façade. There were many missing outer support columns. Thus the plane’s fuselage, both engines, and the heavier, inner parts of the wings had sufficient room to penetrate the building.

According to witnesses and the FDR data, the plane had rolled about 5 degrees counterclockwise when it hit the wall. Façade markings, such as a long gash made by a wing, confirm these observations. Critics frequently point to the absence of a clear vertical gash that they contend should have been made by the vertical portion of the tail. There are, as shown by Jim Hoffman, markings in the area where the tail might have hit. It is possible that the tail was blown off and fragmented, and did not reach the wall intact. One witness described seeing the fuel explosion while the tail was still visible. Many witnesses saw the tail, and this criticism cannot overturn the other evidence of plane approach and impact.

a reply to: RubyGray

You

I stand by my statement that Lloyde England never lied.

Then the forty foot pole was the one in the car’s windshield?

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...

So, then a forty foot pole was sticking out of Lloyde’s taxi?

a reply to: RubyGray

ratical.org...

Probst, Frank
Frank Probst . . . [a] Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer, . . . stopped by the renovation workers' trailer just south of the Pentagon heliport. . . .
Probst took a sidewalk alongside Route 27, which runs near the Pentagon's western face. . . .
"He has lights off, wheels up, nose down," Probst recalled. The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He froze.
"I knew I was dead," he said later. "The only thing I thought was, `Damn, my wife has to go to another funeral, and I'm not going to see my two boys again.'."
He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away.
The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart. . . .
He still can't remember the sound of the explosion. . . .
"It was pretty horrible," he said of the noiseless images he carries inside him, of the jet vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust, and bits of metal and concrete drifting down like confetti.
On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.
"Fortress Reborn," by Vince Crawley, Military.com, 9/11/02
. . . I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this beautiful airplane just vaporize . . . It looked like a huge fireball, pieces were flying out everywhere."
"Pentagon hit by terrorist attack," by Sgt. Jamelle A. Colbert, Pentagram / dcmilitary.com, 9/21/01

originally posted by: RubyGray

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
I can't identify if that's Rumsfield. Can you add video or captures of Rumsfield without his coat on? You providing time stamps- with no video.

Your flick links don't show up anything- you may need to upload again.

Lloyd does believe the light pol broke through the window and got wedged in the back seat. In the shot on the bridge you can view two pieces one large pole and another portion of a light pol on the opposite of the cab. Clearly that shorter piece is what impacted the window? There no conspiracy then. People just assumed he was talking about larger pole and maintained that's absurd?

Clearly the plane just knocked down a large light pol and the smaller piece just came through the window when he approached the bridge?

There no evidence someone fired a pole through the cab window when he approached.

I know the Flickr links didn't work. They should have, and i went to a lot of trouble to try to include them to make sense of all this, but somehow this site messes them up. But you re welcome to go to my FLICKR album and view images there.

You are correct that there is no evidence that someone fired a pole through Lloyde England's windshield as he approached the bridge.

That is because he did not approach the bridge.

The circumstantial evidence that he approached the bridge, is those photos of him and his cab next to a lightpole on the bridge.

But he was not there when the pole hit.

Now there are several videos showing what really happened.
As Lloyde always said, he was not on the bridge when it happened. He was beside the cemetery.
The videos which prove this to be true after 18 years, are the proof that someone MUST HAVE fired a pole through his windshield.
There are no lightpoles downed near the cemetery (although there is a lamp lying on the grass near the Columbia Pike exit road).

The logistics of a lightpole being hit by a plane wing, then travelling under the plane, up the highway, and hitting a moving vehicle about 100 yards north, which then stopped and left this pole lying right at its own footprint, are just too absurd for consideration anyway.

Lloyde said he did not know where the pole came from; he never saw it coming.
He was driving along by the cemetery, about 50 metres north of the Columbia Pike exit sign.
But the plane flew across the highway right there in front of him.
Therefore the plane was about 300 yards north of the bridge. It was nowhere near those lightpoles.

It was nowhere near any lightpoles. Sure, the plane was low. But not that low. The poles were downed to convince people the plane flew so low, its wings just 30 feet above the ground.

But numerous witnesses claimed it was much higher than that, about 50, 70, 80 feet high, even 75 yards above the road.
Since the plane flew on the Northside flight path, just south of the tree-topped cemetery bank, without hitting anything there, it must have been much higher than the lightpoles. It must have been high enough to sail right over the building.

There is the testimony of Citgo gas station employee Robert Turcios, who said,
"The plane LIFTED UP a llittle bit to get over the exit sign".

And there is the testimony of ANC worker Darius Prather, who said that as the plane flew avross the exit road, it BANKED RIGHT, and it "started PIVOTING UP".

There was the reported testimony of ANC employees, told to their colleague ERIK DIEHLE, that "A bomb exploded and a plane kept on going".

In his phone interview with Jeff Hill in 2011, Lloyde England repeated what he had been told by others. Since he never saw the pole coming himself, this must have been the line that was fed to him.
He said that the plane hit a lightpole, and cut off the top part of it which got hung up on a wing, and then dropped through his windshield as it flew over his car.

Well, consult a map of Lloyde's location beside the cemetery.
If the pole dropped off the plane wing, then the plane must have been fling right over the cemetery, for its wing to have been above Lloyde's cab and dropped the pole onto it.
That means the plane would have been even further north, and much higher.
In that case, which pole was high enough for the plane to have hit it?
Where was the rest of the pole which was, as Lloyde insisted, "NOT CUT OFF", but still standing up in the ground?

That is what is impossible, any variation of the story that was given to Lloyde.

Lloyde's story is perfectly possible though, given the multi-trillion dollar budget and star wars capabilities of the building beside which he was driving when a 12 foot pole speared through his window.

The lamp support arms of lightpoles cannot be what hit Lloyde's cab, because they are of different dimensions and flattened in cross-section, to the pole on the road behind Lloyde's cab.

That fact alone proves prefabrication of this pole, in a premeditated plot to target this particular taxi driver for the purpose of deceiving the world into believing that a plane flew on a particular trajectory, low enough to create the diagonal damage path inside the Pentagon.

Lloyde was not near the bridge when his cab was hit by a pole.

Therefore the pole that hit his cab, was not any part of any lightpole.

I did give the link to the video which shows Rumsfeld (and also Lloyde's cab and the towtruck beside the cemetery wall),. You need to watch that and check the timestamps I gave.

It is true that the smaller pole shown on the bridge behind the cab, is the one that went through the cab.
Lloyde himself pointed this out on the video "LLOYDE ENGLAND AND HIS TAXICAB - THE EYE OF THE STORM".

But if he was on the bridge when this happened, then why would he have pulled that pole out of the windshield, and carted it all the way around to the back of the cab, to leave it far from his cab there in the middle of the road?

None of the official explanations makes sense.
Only Lloyde's own story rings true, and the videos prove he was telling the truth.

I viewed the interview last night.
Lloyd even told CIT people there was a male up on the bridge who captured pictures of the light pole that he took out from the cab.
That right there rules out a light pole hitting his taxicab at the cemetery. 
Lloyd even suggests an airplane moved over his cab- the glass of the window shattered and suddenly there was a blast at the Pentagon. Even Loyd declares it was an airplane. 
Plus the shorter piece is about 8 to 10 feet in height. Lloyd said the dashboard to the backseat is about 5 feet in length- so the shorter section is likely what broke the window. It again twisted and bend.
Lloyd was shown a picture of the smoke and Pentagon and he said that's where I was. He was becoming confused by the pictures shown to him that's all. If he was there then he was witnessing the smoke from the southside.
Not one time did Lloyd believe he traveled from one space to the next. How could he miss his taxicab switched from one area to another? Did he run, walk from the cemetery to this area near the bridge?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Dude. Don’t get sucked in. Run. Save yourself......

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Dude. Don’t get sucked in. Run. Save yourself......

I looked at the evidence. Ruby sees a new theory and examining it but I am not here to belittle his point of view though. But still, it needs to be said Ruby can watch the video Lloyd definitely revealed a guy took photographs of the light pole removed from the cab. How can there be two distinct related incidents? 

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Dude. Don’t get sucked in. Run. Save yourself......

I looked at the evidence. Ruby sees a new theory and examining it but I am not here to belittle his point of view though. But still, it needs to be said Ruby can watch the video Lloyd definitely revealed a guy took photographs of the light pole removed from the cab. How can there be two distinct related incidents? 

And what does that have to do with the actual damage to pentagon, the other inconvenient witnessed flight path damage, the north flight path witnesses that attest to a jet hitting the pentagon, there are no witnesses from the pentagon that saw a jet miss and fly off, flight 77 crashed at the pentagon, and the crew and passengers of flight 77 did not return home. With the coroner documenting their remains ending up at the pentagon. And those remains were released to next of kin.

Don’t you get what con “conspiracists” play. They don’t want to debate what actually caused the deaths to those aboard flight 77, the actual deaths at the pentagon, and the actual pentagon damage. They want to create a mythology off a single light pole. Is a single light pole part of the flight path. Yes. But there are four other light poles, damage to a concrete wall, damage to vegetation, damage to a trailer. Which in all reality has noting to do with the actual pentagon damage, who’s physical profile fits a jet crash. With a bomb or missile having no credibility in explaining what was witnessed, no credibility explaining the manner in which people died, and no credibility in explaining the actual pentagon damage.


That’s why a gurney is more important to Ruby than the actual jet wreckage wrapped around damaged columns in the pentagon.

What do you understand that Ruby is pushing a no jet fantasy. As in no flight 77. And Ruby is in flat out in denial that people attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon. And that CIT failed because there is physical damage to support the official flight path, there is no explanation for the people that attest to a passenger jet hitting poles before crashing into the pentagon with the north flight path witnesses, the north flight path witnesses attest to a jet hitting the pentagon, and there are no witnesses claiming a jet missed and flew off. Ruby wants to discredit those 14 Individuals that attest to a jet knocking down poles, but wants to push the flyover fantasy that is not supported by a single witness and is totally void of physical evidence. The CIT theory of flyover failed because it had no merits. Ruby is pushing a meritless fantasy.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Dude. Don’t get sucked in. Run. Save yourself......

I looked at the evidence. Ruby sees a new theory and examining it but I am not here to belittle his point of view though. But still, it needs to be said Ruby can watch the video Lloyd definitely revealed a guy took photographs of the light pole removed from the cab. How can there be two distinct related incidents? 

And what does that have to do with the actual damage to pentagon, the other inconvenient witnessed flight path damage, the north flight path witnesses that attest to a jet hitting the pentagon, there are no witnesses from the pentagon that saw a jet miss and fly off, flight 77 crashed at the pentagon, and the crew and passengers of flight 77 did not return home. With the coroner documenting their remains ending up at the pentagon. And those remains were released to next of kin.

Don’t you get what con “conspiracists” play. They don’t want to debate what actually caused the deaths to those aboard flight 77, the actual deaths at the pentagon, and the actual pentagon damage. They want to create a mythology off a single light pole. Is a single light pole part of the flight path. Yes. But there are four other light poles, damage to a concrete wall, damage to vegetation, damage to a trailer. Which in all reality has noting to do with the actual pentagon damage, who’s physical profile fits a jet crash. With a bomb or missile having no credibility in explaining what was witnessed, no credibility explaining the manner in which people died, and no credibility in explaining the actual pentagon damage.


That’s why a gurney is more important to Ruby than the actual jet wreckage wrapped around damaged columns in the pentagon.

What do you understand that Ruby is pushing a no jet fantasy. As in no flight 77. And Ruby is in flat out in denial that people attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon. And that CIT failed because there is physical damage to support the official flight path, there is no explanation for the people that attest to a passenger jet hitting poles before crashing into the pentagon with the north flight path witnesses, the north flight path witnesses attest to a jet hitting the pentagon, and there are no witnesses claiming a jet missed and flew off. Ruby wants to discredit those 14 Individuals that attest to a jet knocking down poles, but wants to push the flyover fantasy that is not supported by a single witness and is totally void of physical evidence. The CIT theory of flyover failed because it had no merits. Ruby is pushing a meritless fantasy.

You are responding to him so I thought it be straightforward?
Since they pulled out the light pole from the taxi on the bridge and Loyld confirms this where the pole was removed. This means the airplane was on this side.
Rest of the story about the airplane apparent location is irrelevant then.
Ruby says he trusts Lloyd account- then he must acknowledge he said this where the pole got removed. 
Lloyd would have to be lying for Ruby's story to be true.
After watching the interview it evident the airplane hit light poles and smashed into the Pentagon west wall.
I find unlikely it kept going past the Pentagon.
Official story about the Pentagon attack- is correct. If someone brings forward evidence that shows a different object hitting the Pentagon ok that new info to look at.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

I am not disagreeing with you...

Ruby just cannot be honesty in that Lloyde is kinda easily manipulated by who ever is doing the interview....

Just remember you are dealing with Ruby, and the individual cannot come to terms with Lloyde’s inconsistencies...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby

I stand by my statement that Lloyde England never lied.

Then the forty foot pole was the one in the car’s windshield?

Ruby, 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...

So, then a forty foot pole was sticking out of Lloyde’s taxi?


And Ruby is a women. It was established at International Skeptics Forum... not sure what different it makes..

Ruby tried the same old CIT arguments at this link: New CIT video with Lloyde England
www.internationalskeptics.com...

Then the Ruby show starts here: www.internationalskeptics.com...

Ruby took quiet a beating.. but seems the individual is on a mission....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Dude. Don’t get sucked in. Run. Save yourself......

I AM PUTTING YOU ON IGNORE.

YOU CAN MASH YOUR GUMS TO YOURSELF BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE CARES ABOUT YOUR OFF-TOPIC REPETITIVE CUT-AND-PASTE EYEWITNESS-DENYING MARATHON.

originally posted by: RubyGray

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Dude. Don’t get sucked in. Run. Save yourself......

I AM PUTTING YOU ON IGNORE.

YOU CAN MASH YOUR GUMS TO YOURSELF BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE CARES ABOUT YOUR OFF-TOPIC REPETITIVE CUT-AND-PASTE EYEWITNESS-DENYING MARATHON.

You didn’t answer....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

You

I stand by my statement that Lloyde England never lied.

Then the forty foot pole was the one in the car’s windshield?

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...

So, then a forty foot pole was sticking out of Lloyde’s taxi?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

You

None of those backboard had straps.

The whole point of a backboard is to immobilize a person.

You

Clearly you have not bothered to watch that video.
NOBODY WAS "WRITHING IN PAIN"!!!!!!

How would a severely burnt person not be in pain? Your the one claiming backboards were used on a severely burnt victims and that a gurney cannot be carried? You think a gurney can only be wheeled about?

You

NOBODY carries gurneys!!!!

They do if they encounter an object that cannot be rolled over, or a wheel fails.

You

That white thing is NOT A GURNEY.

Look below. I have never seen a thick backboard with a white sheet and mattress.




You

Find a single video or photo of a gurney on the north lawn.
There is none.

Isn’t the below picture of a gurney on the north lawn?



Your heart is revealed by what you will not address.....

originally posted by: RubyGray


Pathetic attempt.
Go watch the video properly, several times.

You cannot possibly imagine that the person glimpsed for a fraction of a second from the rear,
BESIDE DONALD RUMSFELD,
WHO HAS A STARRING ROLE THROUGHOUT THAT VIDEO,
can be ...
Donald Rumsfeld???

My Donald rumsfeld is wearing a suit just like the one we saw him wearing a minute before.

Your Donald Rumsfeld is wearing suspenders a shirt and a 2' long ID badge around his neck. I don't think Donald would need a ID badge.

My Donald Rumsfeld is flanked by two Secret Service Agents. The same two we saw with Donald Rumsfeld earlier in the video.

Your Donald Rumsfeld is running about willy nilly with no security.

At 10:15 in your video Your Donald Rumsfeld is standing here with a backboard.



12 seconds later at 10:27 my Donald Rumsfeld would be here walking with his security team. I can tell by matching up what is happening in the background.




After finding a higher resolution video of your Donald Rumsfeld my suspicions were confirmed.




Your Donald Rumsfeld is really Australian Prime minister John Howard Disguised as Donald Rumsfeld.




Just like I have been saying all along.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
I viewed the interview last night.
Lloyd even told CIT people there was a male up on the bridge who captured pictures of the light pole that he took out from the cab.
That right there rules out a light pole hitting his taxicab at the cemetery. 

Let's get it right.
According to the excellent photos taken of the windshield and interior of Lloyde's taxi by Craig Ranke and Christopher Taylor in 2008, and according to Lloyde's own detailed descriptions, the pole that hit the cab cannot have been any part of a lightpole, no matter what anyone told Lloyde and everybody else.

The pole fitted through a small 4 inch hole in the windscreen, and it made very neat circular 4 inch impressions on the rear seat.
It extended from the back seat to the front bumper, a distance of about 12 feet.
These measurements do not fit any part of a lightpole.

This pole was not hit by a plane.
It was not propelled through Lloyde's windshield by a plane.

The guy "up on the bridge" was called Mike. We don't know his other name, and unfortunately Craig didn't interview him for his eyewitness testimony when they met.

Lloyde did not know this guy before 9/11. He just happened to be there, taking photos. In fact, it seems he appears on one of the Jason Ingersoll photos on top of the bridge. And in the amateur video shot from the bridge, you can see Lloyde's cab far across the lanes, and two guys in front of it, with one looking as though he is taking photos. This could be Mike and Lloyde.

Craig Ranke made a huge deal out of Lloyde saying that Mike was "up on the bridge". He claimed this was proof that Lloyde knew he was on the bridge the whole time. But that is not true.

When Lloyde was beside the cemetery, he tried to start his car, but the pole impact had cut off the fuel supply, a safety feature of the Lincoln Town Car. So Lloyde tried to remain with his car as the FBI agents had told him to do.

After the pole was pulled out (with assistance from the driver of the white van which nobody believed, but which appears many times on photos and videos), a police officer arrived, and bullied Lloyde into leaving his car behind. As Shirley England said, "THEY RAN YOU OFF - THEY WOULDN'T LET YOU GET NEAR [THE CAB]".

So Lloyde was forced to go home. He was possibly moved several hundred yards down the highway in a vehicle while not fully conscious, as he appeared on video in the middle of the highway, north of the bridge, while the cab was being transported (9:44 a.m.), very shortly after he was seen on a different video in front of his cab beside the cemetery wall just before they removed the pole from the windshield (9:41 a.m.).

He is also seen in several Jason Ingersoll photos after the cab had been relocated (9:47 a.m. onwards), standing there in the middle of the highway. He was quite far from his cab from about 9:42 a.m. until he was taken back to it for the photos, where he appeared at 9:55 a.m.

Anyway, his route home took him across the bridge. It should not be surprising that he remembered Mike was "up onthe bridge", because Lloyde also knew that he had to cross this bridge to get home.

Lloyde stated that this police officer pushed him to the ground to force him to leave the cab.
That rings alarm bells for me!! Apparently everybody else is okay with this appalling story of police brutality against a black man who has just been the victim of a vicious attack!!
We know the identity of this officer.
I suggest that some conscious-altering substance or technology was applied as this officer was pushing Lloyde to the ground.

This explains why Lloyde genuinely had no knowledge of his cab being relocated to the bridge, and no recollection of having been photographed there himself.

It explains why he said there were many things about that day for which he had no explanation.

It also explains why Lloyde was seen on photos and videos taken prior to the cab arriving at the bridge, wandering along the highway.

It explains why an agent in a brown Jeep had to be sent from the Pentagon, by Donald Rumsfeld himself, to retrieve Lloyde and transport him to the bridge, where his cab now was.

Finally, it explains why Lloyde had to be surrounded by 3 senior officials from Arlington Police, Pentagon Police and Virginia Fire Dept, during the few minutes that the photos were taken. They could not afford to have him regaining full awareness of what was going on, and causing a commotion.

Lloyde was then sent off home again.
His taxi was left there for some hours then collected by another tow truck, and returned to his house the following morning.


I don't know whether you have viewed both the videos made by CIT of their interviews with Lloyde England.
The 2006 video was the first ever eyewitness interview done by Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke, long before they became "CIT".
Being familiar with both videos is essential to really understand what happened.

But it is important not to be persuaded by Aldo and Craig's editorialising of Lloyde's story.

After all, as Lloyde said many times, he was there.
It did not happen to them.
It happened to him.
They did not know.
He knew.
They were trying to put him somewhere he wasn't, and he could not understand why.

When you watch Lloyde's natural body language as he tells his own story to camera on the first video, and draw this on an overhead map, you see exactly where he was. He was showing them physically, the direction from which he was looking towards the Pentagon immediately after his cab was hit by the pole.

He said he was "Right there at the Pentagon", and his body language shows him looking southeast towards the fire, and him pointing towards the northbound traffic on his left.

This is all wrong if he was on the bridge! That is why Lloyde was so confused by the photos that Craig showed him on the second video, which he had not seen before.

When Craig showed Lloyde a long distance shot of the cab on the bridge with the Pentagon fire behind it, Lloyde's immediate reaction was,
"IT'S FACING THE WRONG WAY!!"

Craig insisted that Lloyde was "at the Pentagon" in this photo, because the telephoto lens creates an optical illusion. It reduces the apparent depth of field. It makes distant objects seem much closer and larger than they really are.

So the fire appeared close to the cab in the bridge photos, but was actually about 160 yards away. This can be measured accurately on Google Maps. The bridge is in fact, far beyond the southwest face of the Pentagon.
As a career cab driver, Lloyde England knew that the bridge was far south of the Pentagon.

And because he was an eyewitness, he knew that from where he looked towards the fire, beside the cemetery wall, he had to look SOUTH and to his LEFT to see it.
The impact site is only about 100 yards from the cemetery wall, which is right across the road from the heliport on the west side.

Lloyde knew that from the bridge, he would have had to look NORTH and to his RIGHT to see the fire.

That is why he said,
"IT'S FACING THE WRONG WAY!!"

This is why he was so confused. He knew that he was beside the cemetery when the pole hit, and that somehow, without his knowledge, these photos were taken of his cab in a different place.

You should read my thread here, especially pages 3, 4 and 5, which explain many points you have made in your post.

letsrollforums.com...

a reply to: waypastvne

Your Donald Rumsfeld is really Australian Prime minister John Howard Disguised as Donald Rumsfeld. 

Oh hardy har har.

You do tend to descend into these pitiful excuses for humour when you are trying to deflect attention from the fact that you have lost an argument.

a reply to: RubyGray

And again...

Your fabricated mythology total ignores the below....

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.

Then how did a decoy taxi get swapped out with a taxi pulled by a tow truck in stand still traffic.

And....

Ruby

I stand by my statement that Lloyde England never lied.

Then the forty foot pole was the one in the car’s windshield?

Ruby, 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...

So, then a forty foot pole was sticking out of Lloyde’s taxi?

a reply to: waypastvne

At 10:15 in your video Your Donald Rumsfeld is standing here with a backboard. 

12 seconds later at 10:27 my Donald Rumsfeld would be here walking with his security team. I can tell by matching up what is happening in the background.

How wrong you are.

"10:15" is not the time of that event (Rumsfeld in shirt and braces attending a victim) but the TIME STAMP of the video.

The video began about 1 minute 35 seconds post impact.
IMPACT = 9:37:46 a.m.
ADD 01:35 + 10:15
TIME = 9:49:36 a.m.

Plenty of time remaining for Rumsfeld's bodyguard Aubrey Davis (lanky black guy on radio) to dash off in the fleet jeep, retrieve the wandering shellshocked Lloyde England from the highway (even though he did not know the man; how did he pick him out of the crowd???), drive him to the cab on the bridge, babysit him while the photos were taken, then return to collect his boss, make sure he put his jacket on again, and have him back in his office where he belonged, by 10:30 a.m.

Rumsfeld's staff stated that he was missing until 10:30 a.m., and that he came into the office "sweaty, grimy and with his jacket over his shoulder".

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. What does your fabricated mythology around one light pole have to do with people seeing a large passenger jet hitting crap on the way to crashing into the pentagon, then at least 80 people seeing a large passenger jet hitting the pentagon? And you cannot quote any witnesses attesting to the jet missing and flying off.

Ruby that not what Lolyd said.
He told Craig Ranke a guy up on the bridge stood and snapped photographs of the lightpole taken out from the window of his taxi.
That means thats the exact lightpole pole that touched his car.
There two pieces beside the taxicab- one on left hand side of the cab- another much larger piece on the right hand side. 
Dimensions of the smaller piece match the description of the pole taken out.  The pole was on the dashboard and stretching back to back seat- it was measured at 5 feet. The shorter fragment is about 8 to 10 feet.
That not accurate either there was a shred in back seat. The car was in dump for years and there no way to tell if that was indeed caused by the pole. 
You now saying he was drugged? Story too much for me to handle i let others debate with you. 

a reply to: RubyGray

Hi Ruby. Your participation here is appreciated, and you are doing a fine job of not getting banned ! LoL !
Have seen a few get banned here in these 911 threads.
Don't let them get under your skin.

I suggest that some conscious-altering substance or technology was applied as this officer was pushing Lloyde to the ground.

Where does this come from ?
Creating some kind of 'fog', around false-flag staged events ?
Do you have any examples of where these sorts of things may have otherwise been deployed ?

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: RubyGray

Hi Ruby. Your participation here is appreciated, and you are doing a fine job of not getting banned ! LoL !
Have seen a few get banned here in these 911 threads.
Don't let them get under your skin.

I suggest that some conscious-altering substance or technology was applied as this officer was pushing Lloyde to the ground.

Where does this come from ?
Creating some kind of 'fog', around false-flag staged events ?
Do you have any examples of where these sorts of things may have otherwise been deployed ?

There video evidence that does show the object approaching from the south side
Hotel video- see the object coming in near the bridge though it is blurry it the object that hit the Pentagon. The track is correct. There no sign of a plane in the sky after the smoke rises in the air.

www.youtube.com...