9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Here is a link to my thread where I posted the two images from the Gatecam video which appears to show a watermark-like 757 banking right over the Pentagon.

Compare the faint images with an actual photo of a 757 in the same perspective on a composite pic which was said by Steve Riskus, to be almost exactly what he saw - that is, a plane flying quite high over the highway, on the northside flightpath.

letsrollforums.com...

I see no 757 plane in your images. You see things that nobody else can!

Blue pixelated sky that All I See.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

I see no 757 plane in your images. You see things that nobody else can!

Ruby labels items very nicely...



To bad someone didn’t actually put them there....

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Here is a link to my thread where I posted the two images from the Gatecam video which appears to show a watermark-like 757 banking right over the Pentagon.

Compare the faint images with an actual photo of a 757 in the same perspective on a composite pic which was said by Steve Riskus, to be almost exactly what he saw - that is, a plane flying quite high over the highway, on the northside flightpath.

letsrollforums.com...

I see no 757 plane in your images. You see things that nobody else can!

Blue pixelated sky that All I See.

So, why did you choose the screenshot at 00:17 which shows nothing but blue sky, then?

Why not actually refer to the two frames which DO show the ghost image of a large plane coming into view at the right edge, then broadside on, at 00:18 and 00:19?

letsrollforums.com...

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: RubyGray

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Ruby.
Not correct.
FDR and FAA airport radar plotted the airplane on the southwest side. 
The Hotel video is just confirmation plane was on southwest side.
We even see the object coming in and that tail of the plane- on video that object that appeared  hit the Pentagon 1 to 2 seconds later.
We can see the blast on the hotel video-  time the object appeared and the explosion.

NO, YOU are mistaken here.

Based on the FDR, the FAA long ago produced this official video of the flightpath of "AA77" :

youtu.be...

So the FAA plotted the flightpath :
directly across the Navy Annex as testified by Edward Paik, Terry Morin, Albert Hemphill and others in that building;
it flew north of the Citgo gas station, as testified by Sgt William Lagasse, Sgt Chadwick Brooks, Robert Turcios (all at this station);
It flew across the Arlington National Cemetery parking lot as testified by 7 ANC workers;
It BANKED RIGHT as it approached the Pentagon, as testified by many eyewitnesses.

Your story is plane was flying in the spot marked X ( Red) Northside.
The radar places the plane near the bridge ) spot marked X ( Blue)
The radar places the plane flying in from a southwest direction.

Well firstly, it's not " MY STORY"!!!

I am just quoting the OFFICIAL NTSB, FAA & NORAD stories.

Also, if you care to go into the records which showed that neither AA77 nor AA11 ever left the ground on 9/11, the OFFICIAL BTS story.

Are you using the 9/11 Commission Report for your info on the flightpath to the south side?

Because that Commission for some reason did NOT use the information and animation officially produced by the NTSB from the FDR and radar and RADES data in 2002.

The official NTSB animation shows the plane on the NORTHSIDE PATH, far north of the downed poles, and much higher than a plane on a collision course with the ground floor of the Pentagon could be.

In 2008, the Official FAA/NORAD animation shows the same northern flightpath as the 2002 NTSB animation, and also shows the plane turning in a pronounced right bank as it approaches the Pentagon, as attested by many eyewitnesses.

Why was the 9/11 Commission Hearings animation in such fatal conflict with the two official animations from the relevant departments?
Was the 9/11 Commission trying to prove something which did not really happen?

9/11 - DID FLIGHT 77 REALLY CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON? - 3 CONFLICTING "OFFICIAL" BLACK-BOX ANIMATIONS

youtu.be...

a reply to: RubyGray

You

I am just quoting the OFFICIAL NTSB, FAA & NORAD stories.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No you did not. Above is how you link to and quote a source. What you do is craft a bunch of crap, but words in people’s mouths, provide no context, quote out of context, make no effort to separate your thoughts from what you claim are quotes, you do not clearly provide what is being quoted, and you provide no clear link to the cited source, and if it’s a YouTube video you prove no time stamp.

Your tactics are intellectually dishonest.

You

9/11 - DID FLIGHT 77 REALLY CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON? - 3 CONFLICTING "OFFICIAL" BLACK-BOX ANIMATIONS

Are they real? Or just the truth movement innuendo?

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011

www.journalof911studies.com...

Summary and Conclusion
In response to FOIA requests the NTSB provided a CSV file and a coded FDR file. All contradictions between the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and these files appear to be traceable to missing data. In the case of the CSV file the data stopped about four seconds short of the impact. In the case of the FDR file the final frame was not initially decoded. Some researchers recognized that data was missing, while others claimed that the files proved the official account was false, as it appeared the flight terminated at a point too high to have created the observed damage trail on the ground.
Previous analyses were further confounded by uncertainty of the position of the last data point; failure to consider possible calibration errors in the pressure altimeter data, caused by high speed and low altitude; and false information in the NTSB flight animation.
The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.

The deaths of those aboard flight 77, the wreckage, the remains returned to loved missing family members attest to flight 77 sitting the pentagon.

The irony. Your using the same tactics that killed CIT’s credibility. And that it would be physically impossible for the witnessed jet hitting the pentagon to maneuver and miss, that nobody attests to a jet missing and flying off, and the only credible explanation for the damage at the pentagon is a large passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. Why would any government employ your ridiculous convoluted fantasy of a conspiracy that would require even staging the broken glass of a taxi and light pole by a top government official? Which you have no evidence ever occurring by the way. When there are scores of people in the world that can be manipulated into suicide missions by their own will. A mission that would require no staging of light poles, decay taxis, staging of broken glass, guns to shoot light poles into windshield, removing and taking down the existing light poles, the staging of wreckage and bodies, the staging of explosives in the pentagon that could never replicate the actual 9/11 damage, getting corners to lie about causes of death.

originally posted by: RubyGray

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Here is a link to my thread where I posted the two images from the Gatecam video which appears to show a watermark-like 757 banking right over the Pentagon.

Compare the faint images with an actual photo of a 757 in the same perspective on a composite pic which was said by Steve Riskus, to be almost exactly what he saw - that is, a plane flying quite high over the highway, on the northside flightpath.

letsrollforums.com...

I see no 757 plane in your images. You see things that nobody else can!

Blue pixelated sky that All I See.

So, why did you choose the screenshot at 00:17 which shows nothing but blue sky, then?

Why not actually refer to the two frames which DO show the ghost image of a large plane coming into view at the right edge, then broadside on, at 00:18 and 00:19?

letsrollforums.com...

I see no plane. You suffer from pareidolia en.wikipedia.org...
All the evidence suggests a plane hit the Pentagon.
It curious alright the plane was able to fly that low, but some pilots say it's possible and others say it not. I don't know enough to dispute it.
Right now your evidence weak the plane flew past the Pentagon.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

I see no plane. You suffer from pareidolia en.wikipedia.org...

Right now your evidence weak the plane flew past the Pentagon.

Yes her theory is wacko, but then again, when you look at a paint chip you see nanothermite.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

I see no plane. You suffer from pareidolia en.wikipedia.org...

Right now your evidence weak the plane flew past the Pentagon.

Yes her theory is wacko, but then again, when you look at a paint chip you see nanothermite.

The paint chip explantation make zero sense.
Fact the debunkers have established the ingredients for Lecelde paint for years and still have done any experiments hurt their case.
Nobody in the truth going to tune in to debunkers who don't do experiments.
Unfortunte the mainstream believes the nonsense fire brought down the buildings. 
 The problem isWhoever did this got away with this and that organisation still out there.  So i feeling someday something else will occur and maybe even worse.. 
It hard for some imagine that there be rogue elements inside the United State would be enthusiastic to kill Americans. The problem is that naive way of thinking because American security state cares about generating money and manipulating the direction of states that are hostile to them. We are all just pawns in this global game of chess.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

 The problem isWhoever did this got away with this and that organisation still out there.  

Well that would be the Religion of Peace (AKA - ISLAM).

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

 The problem isWhoever did this got away with this and that organisation still out there.  

Well that would be the Religion of Peace (AKA - ISLAM).

It now out in the open that Saudi Arabia financed the 9/11 hijackers ( US friends) Blaming Islam is too simplistic as there different Islamic agendas in the middle east. Someone gains from this and certainly not the shia.
And some people seem uninterested to know how did the intelligence services like the CIA learn about top Saudi ministry representatives were talking and meeting 9/11 hijackers before the event?
The material specific that they saw each other in US hotels and restaurants and plenty of information about saudi agents provided money .That clear evidence of a US surveillance activity was taking place pre 9/11.  Yet the CIA claims they knew nothing about the 19 to stop the attack? That obviously bull#.

How these guys just take flight lessons unhindered and they were established Al Qeada members before 9/11? It doesn't add up one bit.  Malaysia meeting in 2000 two of Pentagon flight 77 attackers appeared and CIA it's alleged was involved in snooping on the meeting. So you don't suddenly drop a track of people identified who are using their real names and flying to America with their names and photographs on their visa and passport. Whatever happened behind the scene truly unknown, but i suspect rogue Saudi, Pakistan officials mostly likely got Al Qeada to do this somehow and promised them something revenue, leadership protection- something in return. There not chance in hell the Saudis and Pakistan would go ahead with an operation like 9/11 if US allies did not give them guarantees and pledges in return.. Unless really dark and this  US rogue outfit and Saudi officials were looking to take out Saudi Arabia Kingdom regime for some reason? Bin laden can't do anything without his Saudi masters consent so i not buying he acted alone to attack America. 

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

 The problem isWhoever did this got away with this and that organisation still out there.  

Well that would be the Religion of Peace (AKA - ISLAM).

It now out in the open that Saudi Arabia financed the 9/11 hijackers ( US friends) Blaming Islam is too simplistic as there different Islamic agendas in the middle east. Someone gains from this and certainly not the shia.
And some people seem uninterested to know how did the intelligence services like the CIA learn about top Saudi ministry representatives were talking and meeting 9/11 hijackers before the event?
The material specific that they saw each other in US hotels and restaurants and plenty of information about saudi agents provided money .That clear evidence of a US surveillance activity was taking place pre 9/11.  Yet the CIA claims they knew nothing about the 19 to stop the attack? That obviously bull#.

How these guys just take flight lessons unhindered and they were established Al Qeada members before 9/11? It doesn't add up one bit.  Malaysia meeting in 2000 two of Pentagon flight 77 attackers appeared and CIA it's alleged was involved in snooping on the meeting. So you don't suddenly drop a track of people identified who are using their real names and flying to America with their names and photographs on their visa and passport. Whatever happened behind the scene truly unknown, but i suspect rogue Saudi, Pakistan officials mostly likely got Al Qeada to do this somehow and promised them something revenue, leadership protection- something in return. There not chance in hell the Saudis and Pakistan would go ahead with an operation like 9/11 if US allies did not give them guarantees and pledges in return.. Unless really dark and this  US rogue outfit and Saudi officials were looking to take out Saudi Arabia Kingdom regime for some reason? Bin laden can't do anything without his Saudi masters consent so i not buying he acted alone to attack America. 

So you don't actually know anything about Islam then.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Al Qeada  

You do know that there are many other Islamic jihad groups besides Al Qeada?


Abdullah Azzam Brigades
Abu Nidal Organization
Abu Sayyaf
Aden-Abyan Islamic Army
Ajnad Misr
Akhil Bharat Nepali Ekta Samaj
al-Aqsa Foundation
al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades
Al-Badr
al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya
Al Ghurabaa
al-Haramain Foundation
Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya
Al-Mourabitoun
Al-Nusra Front
al-Qaeda
al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent
al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
Al-Shabaab
AL-Umar-Mujahideen
All Tripura Tiger Force
Ansar al-Sharia (Libya)
Ansar al-Sharia (Tunisia)
Ansar al-Islam
Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna
Ansar Bait al-Maqdis
Ansar Dine
Ansarul Islam
Ansaru
Armed Islamic Group of Algeria
Army of Islam
Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order
Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq
Osbat al-Ansar
Aum Shinrikyo
Badr Organization
Babbar Khalsa International
Balochistan Liberation Army
Boko Haram
Caucasus Emirate
Deendar Anjuman
Dukhtaran-e-Millat
East Turkestan Islamic Party
Egyptian Islamic Jihad
Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front
Hamas
Haqqani network
Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba
Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami
Harkat-al-Jihad al-Islami in Bangladesh
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen
Harakat Sham al-Islam
Hams Movement
Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin
Hezbollah
Hilafet Devleti
Hizb ut-Tahrir
Hizbul Mujahideen
Holy Land Foundation
Houthis
Indian Mujahideen
Islamic Jihad
Jamaat Mujahideen
Islamic Jihad Union
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Jaish-e-Mohammed
Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar
Jamaat al Dawa al Quran
Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin
Jamaat Ul-Furquan
Jamaat-ul-Ahrar
Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh
Jamiat al-Islah al-Idzhtimai
Jamiat ul-Ansar
Jemaah Islamiyah
Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid
Jund al-Aqsa
Jund al-Khilafah
Jund al-Sham
Jundallah
Katibat al-Imam al-Bukhari
Kata'ib Hezbollah
Khuddam ul-Islam
Lashkar-e-Taiba
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group
Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa Mujahidin Indonesia Timur
Mujahideen Shura Council in the Environs of Jerusalem
Muslim Brotherhood
Palestine Liberation Front
Palestinian Islamic Jihad
Palestinian Relief Development Fund
Interpal People's Mujahedin of Iran
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Promised Day Brigade
The Saved Sect
Saraya al-Ashtar
Shura Council of Benghazi Revolutionaries
Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan
Society of the Revival of Islamic Heritage
Stichting Al Aqsa
Students Islamic Movement of India
Supreme Military Majlis ul-Shura of the United Mujahideen Forces of Caucasus
Takfir wal-Hijra
Tahrir al-Sham
Taliban
Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan
Tamil Nadu Liberation Army
Tamil National Retrieval Troops
Tanzim
World Uygur Youth Congress
Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: RubyGray

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Here is a link to my thread where I posted the two images from the Gatecam video which appears to show a watermark-like 757 banking right over the Pentagon.

Compare the faint images with an actual photo of a 757 in the same perspective on a composite pic which was said by Steve Riskus, to be almost exactly what he saw - that is, a plane flying quite high over the highway, on the northside flightpath.

letsrollforums.com...

I see no 757 plane in your images. You see things that nobody else can!

Blue pixelated sky that All I See.

So, why did you choose the screenshot at 00:17 which shows nothing but blue sky, then?

Why not actually refer to the two frames which DO show the ghost image of a large plane coming into view at the right edge, then broadside on, at 00:18 and 00:19?

letsrollforums.com...

I see no plane. You suffer from pareidolia en.wikipedia.org...
All the evidence suggests a plane hit the Pentagon.
It curious alright the plane was able to fly that low, but some pilots say it's possible and others say it not. I don't know enough to dispute it.
Right now your evidence weak the plane flew past the Pentagon.

Instead of throwing insults and false accusations about, why did you not answer the question?

So, why did you choose the screenshot at 00:17 which shows nothing but blue sky, then? Why not actually refer to the two frames which DO show the ghost image of a large plane coming into view at the right edge, then broadside on, at 00:18 and 00:19?

You know, the pics with the ARROWS on them? Pointing out the image I mentioned.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

As promised, here are some screenshots of the helicopter that was flying in the sky to the west of the Pentagon, 10 minuutes before the explosion.



You can see this in the video
9/11 Pentagon Double Tree Hotel FOIA Camera 3
www.youtube.com...

from 02:54.

The pictures are blurry, but that does not render them invalid. It is definitely a helicopter.

a reply to: RubyGray

Looks like one of your water marks.....

How about you do one of your zooms and add funky colors edits......

Or you afraid there is noting there?

a reply to: RubyGray

Or more like an out of focus large blackbird.

originally posted by: RubyGray

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: RubyGray

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Here is a link to my thread where I posted the two images from the Gatecam video which appears to show a watermark-like 757 banking right over the Pentagon.

Compare the faint images with an actual photo of a 757 in the same perspective on a composite pic which was said by Steve Riskus, to be almost exactly what he saw - that is, a plane flying quite high over the highway, on the northside flightpath.

letsrollforums.com...

I see no 757 plane in your images. You see things that nobody else can!

Blue pixelated sky that All I See.

So, why did you choose the screenshot at 00:17 which shows nothing but blue sky, then?

Why not actually refer to the two frames which DO show the ghost image of a large plane coming into view at the right edge, then broadside on, at 00:18 and 00:19?

letsrollforums.com...

I see no plane. You suffer from pareidolia en.wikipedia.org...
All the evidence suggests a plane hit the Pentagon.
It curious alright the plane was able to fly that low, but some pilots say it's possible and others say it not. I don't know enough to dispute it.
Right now your evidence weak the plane flew past the Pentagon.

Instead of throwing insults and false accusations about, why did you not answer the question?

So, why did you choose the screenshot at 00:17 which shows nothing but blue sky, then? Why not actually refer to the two frames which DO show the ghost image of a large plane coming into view at the right edge, then broadside on, at 00:18 and 00:19?

You know, the pics with the ARROWS on them? Pointing out the image I mentioned.

I apologise if you felt i was unpleasant.
I just highlighting you see planes in the sky that nobody else can see!
It's a well known some people suffer more than others from pareidolia.
By the way i distrust the official story about 9/11, so i not opposed to new evidence that people find.
I see no evidence Lolyd was at cemetery. I do acknowledge their vehicles parked at the cemetery, but i don't see the taxi. It way to blurry the images to claim that 100 per cent Lolyd and his taxi are there. Even Lloyd says that's the light pole removed from the window. It only on the road beside his taxi up on the bridge. There no evidence of downed lightpole at the cementry.  It very big of operation in broad daylight to pull of. I can perceive why Lolyd puzzled because there overhead traffic signs near the bridge and at the cemetery. If they took him by the day to the area he may have recalled more clearly the events on the day. 

Why would you not see the plane?, it's a solid object in the background. Are you claiming the plane was edited out and the photo just capturing a ghostly image of it?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Yes, that is exactly what I am claiming!
If there had been a plane seen clearly, flying across the Pentagon in those 2 Gatecam videos, then of course the FBI would have edited it out!
They would have inserted their own representation of a plane, close to the ground, and much further away from the cameras.
This would have been very easy. They only had to insert one full length plane in the Gatecam1 footage, and the likeness of a tail and nose of a plane in Gatecam 2 footage.

I cannot see any sign of the "ghost plane" in Gatecam 1. So if it was there, it has been edited out.

But in Gatecam 2, this identical faint image of a banking 757 plane is there in 2 successive frames.
That is interesting in itself. If the camera was set to 1 frame per second, and if the plane was flying at 780 fps, then these images sshould be much further apart.
It seems that somehow, for whatever reason, these 2 images have been deliberately left there, and/or one has been inserted, by a whistleblower, to reinforce the fact that the plane did actually fly over.
Perhaps the partial image from the right hand edge of Gatecam 1, was removed from there and inserted in the Gatecam 2 footage.
These 2 cameras were offset by a fraction of a second, so the distance between the 2 plane images in Gatecam 2 more closely fits this scenario.

If there was a plane flying across the original footage, and I was an honest FBI employee who had been instructed to remove the real plane's (flying on the path witnessed by so many) and to replace them with 2 other images (on a flightpath witnessed by nobody), then I would have become a whistleblower.
I would have done exactly this.
I would have left a trail of crumbs that could only be spotted by those who were doggedly determined to discover why the eyewitness testimony is so at odds with the official story.
I would have left those very faint, but sharply defined images of the banking plane in the sky, hoping that somebody, sometime, would discover them.

You say I see things that nobody else sees.
That is not because I suffer from some imagined disease.
It is because I have a healthy scepticism of discordant information, and a strong determination to investigate the facts.

It is also because I was professionally trained to scrutinise images, to spot tiny, faint out-of-place objects amd anomalies, because people's lives depended on this.

If you had been one of the many patients I encountered over 4 decades who complained of some ailment or injury which a doctor had told them was not there, then I am the radiographer you would have wanted to do your repeat X-rays, because I would take your complaint very seriously and perform a thorough series of images, and examine them painstakingly, to ensure that you received the correct diagnosis.

In that case, if you told me that I "see things that others cannot see", then it would be a real compliment!
And it would be true.
I see things that others miss, because I look for them, whereas they do not.