9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

a reply to: RubyGray

A large passenger hit the pentagon, there was no large jet to fly away after crashing.

What is this plane you keep referring to.

originally posted by: RubyGray
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.

One of the points of including these helicopter screenshots here, is to provide some perspective as to the size of aircraft we are looking at from the Double Tree Hotel, about 3,000 feet away.

This helicopter is 100 feet long.
A 757 jet is 155 feet long.

The helicopter flying round the Pentagon looks tiny from this distance.
So would the 757. It would only be 50% bigger than the blurry shapes in this video.

And because it was moving so fast, of course it would be even more blurry than this helicopter.

So there is no way that the "tail" of 757 could be seen above the I-395, looking as sharp and large as the white shape in the Doubletree hotel video.

That white shape truly is nothing but the front of a truck, travelling quite slowly, and very much closer to the Pentagon than the plane was.

a reply to: RubyGray

It’s bird

a reply to: RubyGray

Yeap. Definitely a bird

Your UFO Photo May Just Be A Bird

m.youtube.com...

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Hi, you mentioned previously about people not having been prevented from taking films or video or having cameras confiscated. I replied that this was not true, but did not have a reference to hand at that stage.

Here is one article which refers to the arrest of reporters etc.
It is from a 2010 LetsRollForums thread in the forum, "The Pentagon - What Really Happened".

Rebuttal To ACFD Chief Edward Plaugher 911Commission Testimony

Post #2

"You can watch Plaugher speaking here - "lessons learned"
stocky white haired guy with specs
www.c-span.org...
Mr. Plaugher spoke about the lessons learned from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon. The presentation was part of a day-long conference for local emergency response personnel.
July 28 2003

Quote:
Name: Edward P. (Ed) Plaugher
Title (At the time of 9/11): Fire Chief, Arlington County, Virginia
Incriminating evidence : On September 12, 2001, Mr. Plaugher, with the world's news
media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon
by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — "American
Airlines", "Flight 77", "Boeing 757" were not considered important enough to mention at
the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack.”

At the Department of Defense news briefing with Victoria Clarke, Plaugher stated, "there are some small pieces of aircraft ... there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." When asked, "Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel", Plaugher reponded, "You know, I'd rather not comment on that."

The transcript reveals that reporters were being "threatened or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged away" from the “Flight 77” crash site, and I (Enver Masud) showed in my presentation at the 911 Vancouver Hearings, there’s no hard evidence of a Boeing 757 having struck the Pentagon.

Mr. Plaugher, knowing that there were “no fuselage sections and that sort of thing” at the Pentagon, remained silent while the U.S. launched the October 7, 2001 attack on Afghanistan. He has not challenged the false account of 9/11 contained in the
Arlington County After-Action Report
.
Source: Enver Masud, August 15 2012
www.twf.org... "

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Hi, you mentioned previously about people not having been prevented from taking photos or video or having cameras confiscated. I replied that this was not true, but did not have a reference to hand at that stage.

Here is one article which refers to the arrest of reporters etc.
It is from a 2010 LetsRollForums thread in the forum, "The Pentagon - What Really Happened".

Rebuttal To ACFD Chief Edward Plaugher 911Commission Testimony

Post #2

"You can watch Plaugher speaking here - "lessons learned"
stocky white haired guy with specs
www.c-span.org...
Mr. Plaugher spoke about the lessons learned from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon. The presentation was part of a day-long conference for local emergency response personnel.
July 28 2003

Quote:
Name: Edward P. (Ed) Plaugher
Title (At the time of 9/11): Fire Chief, Arlington County, Virginia
Incriminating evidence : On September 12, 2001, Mr. Plaugher, with the world's news
media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon
by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — "American
Airlines", "Flight 77", "Boeing 757" were not considered important enough to mention at
the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack.”

At the Department of Defense news briefing with Victoria Clarke, Plaugher stated, "there are some small pieces of aircraft ... there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." When asked, "Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel", Plaugher reponded, "You know, I'd rather not comment on that."

The transcript reveals that reporters were being "threatened or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged away" from the “Flight 77” crash site, and I (Enver Masud) showed in my presentation at the 911 Vancouver Hearings, there’s no hard evidence of a Boeing 757 having struck the Pentagon.

Mr. Plaugher, knowing that there were “no fuselage sections and that sort of thing” at the Pentagon, remained silent while the U.S. launched the October 7, 2001 attack on Afghanistan. He has not challenged the false account of 9/11 contained in the
Arlington County After-Action Report
.
Source: Enver Masud, August 15 2012
www.twf.org... "

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. Even the north flight path witnesses attest to seeing a large passenger jet hitting the pentagon. With there being no other credible explanation for what caused the murders of flight 77 passengers and crew, the pentagon personnel, and the wreckage. A high speed crash that would result in a fragmented fuselage. No sections of fuselage.

a reply to: RubyGray

A link to a post on the forum run by two of the very earliest Pentagon 9/11 researchers, Jerry Russell and Richard Stanley.
They were around and commenting years before Aldo Marquis, who stsrted this thread before he went to Arlington on his first visit when he interviewed Lloyde England.

While many other early researchers have changed their minds and even dismantled websites to eliminate evidence of their prior beliefs, Russell and Stanley remain firmly convinced of their initial conviction that 9/11 was a staged event, that explosives simulated the crash of a jet into the building, and that a plane flew over the Pentagon.

Jerry Russell very ably counters the positions held by Craig McKee, Dav8d Chandler, Frank Legge, Wayne Coste, John Wyndham, Chris Sarns, et al.

postflaviana.org.../911-pentagon.2091/page-5

Nb. For some reason, this site mutilates and dissociates links to other sites.
They are full links when I include them, then fail after posting.
You can copy the whole line and paste into a browser rather than just clicking on it.
This forum, Postflaviana.org, has some of the most intelligent, authoritative and civilised discussion on 9/11, which possibly explains its relative obscurity.

originally posted by: RubyGray

postflaviana.org.../911-pentagon.2091/page-5

Nb. For some reason, this site mutilates and dissociates links to other sites.
They are full links when I include them, then fail after posting.

You need to use the 'insert link' button on top of the reply textbox (6th from the left, box with an arrow sticking out) - allows you to give the link any name you like.

Fixed Link

Or you can add the url markers yourself if you like.

I'll peruse that page to see what they're saying.

a reply to: Pilgrum

Nice to see you again!

Thanks for the technical advice.
I think the problems occur when I'm using this tablet. The various insert options are not visible here.

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Hi, you mentioned previously about people not having been prevented from taking films or video or having cameras confiscated. I replied that this was not true, but did not have a reference to hand at that stage.

Here is one article which refers to the arrest of reporters etc.
It is from a 2010 LetsRollForums thread in the forum, "The Pentagon - What Really Happened".

Rebuttal To ACFD Chief Edward Plaugher 911Commission Testimony

Post #2

"You can watch Plaugher speaking here - "lessons learned"
stocky white haired guy with specs
www.c-span.org...
Mr. Plaugher spoke about the lessons learned from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon. The presentation was part of a day-long conference for local emergency response personnel.
July 28 2003

Quote:
Name: Edward P. (Ed) Plaugher
Title (At the time of 9/11): Fire Chief, Arlington County, Virginia
Incriminating evidence : On September 12, 2001, Mr. Plaugher, with the world's news
media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon
by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — "American
Airlines", "Flight 77", "Boeing 757" were not considered important enough to mention at
the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack.”

At the Department of Defense news briefing with Victoria Clarke, Plaugher stated, "there are some small pieces of aircraft ... there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." When asked, "Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel", Plaugher reponded, "You know, I'd rather not comment on that."

The transcript reveals that reporters were being "threatened or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged away" from the “Flight 77” crash site, and I (Enver Masud) showed in my presentation at the 911 Vancouver Hearings, there’s no hard evidence of a Boeing 757 having struck the Pentagon.

Mr. Plaugher, knowing that there were “no fuselage sections and that sort of thing” at the Pentagon, remained silent while the U.S. launched the October 7, 2001 attack on Afghanistan. He has not challenged the false account of 9/11 contained in the
Arlington County After-Action Report
.
Source: Enver Masud, August 15 2012
www.twf.org... "

Ruby dozens and dozens of individuals watched the Plane. Even the north side Witnesses show the airplane moved in low over the Navy Annex. So why would the conspirators fly a commercial aircraft all the way to the Pentagon to just pass over it and continue going? None of the witnesses declare to have saw this happen. Northside witnesses are just confused about where the airplane was exactly when it arrived at the Navy Annex. The airliner has a width span of 124 feet I think? My guess it just a simple mistake about location when a  plane that big is flying low to the ground. Reagan Airport tower workers would have to be involved in this conspiracy as they were able to track the primary of flight 77 when it approached the Pentagon. If the airplane climbed again that primary would be still be tracked by FAA radar towers. 

You urging me to believe a conspiracy occurred here with blurry photos of parked vehicles at the cemetery. And Lloyd testimony. You ignore Lloyd even asserted himself the light pole took out from his taxicab was up on the bridge. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Hi there,
There were actually various witnesses who testified to seeing the plane either flying over the Pentagon, or flying beyond it on the east side of the building. Of course, these testimonies have all been explained away, or ridiculed. Most of these people were never contacted and questioned again. The FBI sequestered all 911 calls, which means nobody has any access to any testimony from people who may have called 911 to report having seen the plane flying over the pentagon. So it is not reasonable to state that nobody saw this nor reported it.

One of the very first witnesses to be interviewed by the media, within 20 minutes of impact, was MICHAEL KELLY. He stated that a plane flew low overhead when he was driving east on I-395, almost on the 14th Street Bridge, and he said that THIS plane THEN caused the explosion at the Pentagon, way over on the opposite side of the building. He sounded very confused, as well he might be. There is no record of him ever being interviewed again.

KAT GAINES was also on the east side of the pentagon, driving south on 110 next to South Parking, when she saw a jet flying "at the level of the streetlights" BEFORE the explosion.

DON SCOTT was driving east on I-395, directly south of the Pentagon, when he saw the plane " banking sharply from north of the Pentagon." It then levelled off, and THEN he saw the explosion.

Many witnesses who believed the plane hit the building, testified to a DELAY between the plane "just disappearing" and the explosion.
The above witnesses (there are others) seem to confirm that the plane was well beyond the west wall of the building, when the explosion occurred. Even well beyond the east side.

That is why I suggest that 2 to 3 seconds elapsed between the plane arriving at the west face, and the explosion.
This would have the effect of convincing most witnesses on the east side, that the plane they saw, was not the one that hit the Pentagon.
However, clearly some of them still believed that somehow, the plane that flew over the pentagon, doubled back and caused the explosion.

This would explain the curious testimony of JOEL SUCHERMAN, for instance, who reported that the second plane (C-130) appeared within a few seconds. Yet we see him onv8deo, actually watching that C-130, at 3 - 4 minutes after the impact. Was his mind conflating the 757 flying to the east of the Pentagon within seconds of the explosion (which he could have seen, from his position on the bridge), with the later appearance of the C-130 high in the sky?

Does this perhaps explain the anomalous testimony of KEITH WHEELHOUSE? From his vantage point on top of the cemetery, he could have seen the plane flying over and beyond the Pentagon roof, making a right bank as reported by DON SCOTT, before he saw the fireball.

People were very confused and frightened that morning. Many testimonies contain surreal descriptions that should have been properly investigated after the event.
But there was no such investigation.

The two CCTV videos on which I suspect that the flyover plane can be seen, both show these images of what appears to be the jet above and just to the west of the Pentagon, at 3 seconds prior to impact. Nobody else thought of looking for the plane in the sky at this time. But I contend that it IS THERE.

I am not sure of your references to the plane being witnessed at the Navy Annex, as though you think this proves the plane hit the Pentagon. In fact, it proves it could not have, but that it flew on the North-of-Citgo Flight Path, which is incompatible with the damage trail. Many witnesses referred to seeing the plane flying over the Annex. The plane must therefore have been high enough to miss all the overhead signs, lightpoles and trees on top of the cemetery bank, as none of these on that flightpath, were damaged. This means the plane was flying high enough to clear the Pentagon already, and was much to high, and too faf north, to have been the object skimming the lawn on the gatecam videos.

Lloyde was not confused about his location as the plane flew over him. His testimony of having onlywitnessed the plane for a split second is compatible ONLY with him having been beside the cemetery bank when the plane suddenly appeared dead ahead, crossing the highway, and NOT with him having been approaching the bridge, in which case he could not possibly have avoided seeing the approach of the plane for many seconds across that open area, IF it had been flying on the official flightpath (which is testified to by nobody).

Lloyde denied that the large downed lightpole hit his cab.
He vociferously denied it, with his finger right on it in a photograph, 3 times.
He also positively identified the other pole behind the cab, as the one that hit the cab.
This was NOT A LIGHTPOLE.
It was moved to the bridge on the trailer that brought Lloyde's cab there from the cemetery.

Can you explain to me, why there is several seconds of very clear video of a black CAPITOL CAB speeding south off the bridge, at 9:43 a.m.? Even if you cannot see that the 7 seconds of video of Lloyde's cab beside the cemetery wall is valid evidence, surely you must be curious about why this second cab left the bridge (when there was no other traffic southbound)?

a reply to: RubyGray

You

There were actually various witnesses who testified to seeing the plane either flying over the Pentagon, or flying beyond it on the east side of the building.

Then provide an actual quote from the pentagon witnesses with cited source they saw the large passenger jet maneuver to miss the pentagon and flew off.

And what caused the damage at the pentagon? What murdered the pentagon personnel. How did the remains of the passengers and crew of flight 77 ended up dead at the pentagon with wreckage. What remains were released to the families of flight 77 passengers and crew.

Back to Lloyde again?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

You

Yes, Lloyde England's story is actually very large indeed.

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.

Why isn’t there anyone on your video staging a light pole taxi scene? Laying out damage glass from the light pole and from the windshield?

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: RubyGray

ratical.org...

Gaines, Kat
Gaines was on her way to a part-time job at Reagan National Airport the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, after working a 24-hour shift at Fire Station 16 in Clifton.
Her commute to the airport took her south on Route 110, in front of the parking lots of the Pentagon. As she approached the parking lots, she saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles. She then heard the plane power up and plunge into the Pentagon.
"Valor Awards Recipients, by the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, Great Falls/McLean/Vienna Times Staff, 2/19/02

Kat saw poles being hit? How did the jet miss the pentagon? How many downed poles were there along your supposed north flight path? Where was the strike from the jet engine hitting the low concrete wall? What hit the trailer at the foot of the pentagon? The trailer was moved towards the pentagon? What hit moves the trailer towards the pentagon?

If it was not flight 77, what jet was seen? What jet did people see hitting crap along the “official” flight path?

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Hi there,
There were actually various witnesses who testified to seeing the plane either flying over the Pentagon, or flying beyond it on the east side of the building. Of course, these testimonies have all been explained away, or ridiculed. Most of these people were never contacted and questioned again. The FBI sequestered all 911 calls, which means nobody has any access to any testimony from people who may have called 911 to report having seen the plane flying over the pentagon. So it is not reasonable to state that nobody saw this nor reported it.

One of the very first witnesses to be interviewed by the media, within 20 minutes of impact, was MICHAEL KELLY. He stated that a plane flew low overhead when he was driving east on I-395, almost on the 14th Street Bridge, and he said that THIS plane THEN caused the explosion at the Pentagon, way over on the opposite side of the building. He sounded very confused, as well he might be. There is no record of him ever being interviewed again.

KAT GAINES was also on the east side of the pentagon, driving south on 110 next to South Parking, when she saw a jet flying "at the level of the streetlights" BEFORE the explosion.

DON SCOTT was driving east on I-395, directly south of the Pentagon, when he saw the plane " banking sharply from north of the Pentagon." It then levelled off, and THEN he saw the explosion.

Many witnesses who believed the plane hit the building, testified to a DELAY between the plane "just disappearing" and the explosion.
The above witnesses (there are others) seem to confirm that the plane was well beyond the west wall of the building, when the explosion occurred. Even well beyond the east side.

That is why I suggest that 2 to 3 seconds elapsed between the plane arriving at the west face, and the explosion.
This would have the effect of convincing most witnesses on the east side, that the plane they saw, was not the one that hit the Pentagon.
However, clearly some of them still believed that somehow, the plane that flew over the pentagon, doubled back and caused the explosion.

This would explain the curious testimony of JOEL SUCHERMAN, for instance, who reported that the second plane (C-130) appeared within a few seconds. Yet we see him onv8deo, actually watching that C-130, at 3 - 4 minutes after the impact. Was his mind conflating the 757 flying to the east of the Pentagon within seconds of the explosion (which he could have seen, from his position on the bridge), with the later appearance of the C-130 high in the sky?

Does this perhaps explain the anomalous testimony of KEITH WHEELHOUSE? From his vantage point on top of the cemetery, he could have seen the plane flying over and beyond the Pentagon roof, making a right bank as reported by DON SCOTT, before he saw the fireball.

People were very confused and frightened that morning. Many testimonies contain surreal descriptions that should have been properly investigated after the event.
But there was no such investigation.

The two CCTV videos on which I suspect that the flyover plane can be seen, both show these images of what appears to be the jet above and just to the west of the Pentagon, at 3 seconds prior to impact. Nobody else thought of looking for the plane in the sky at this time. But I contend that it IS THERE.

I am not sure of your references to the plane being witnessed at the Navy Annex, as though you think this proves the plane hit the Pentagon. In fact, it proves it could not have, but that it flew on the North-of-Citgo Flight Path, which is incompatible with the damage trail. Many witnesses referred to seeing the plane flying over the Annex. The plane must therefore have been high enough to miss all the overhead signs, lightpoles and trees on top of the cemetery bank, as none of these on that flightpath, were damaged. This means the plane was flying high enough to clear the Pentagon already, and was much to high, and too faf north, to have been the object skimming the lawn on the gatecam videos.

Lloyde was not confused about his location as the plane flew over him. His testimony of having onlywitnessed the plane for a split second is compatible ONLY with him having been beside the cemetery bank when the plane suddenly appeared dead ahead, crossing the highway, and NOT with him having been approaching the bridge, in which case he could not possibly have avoided seeing the approach of the plane for many seconds across that open area, IF it had been flying on the official flightpath (which is testified to by nobody).

Lloyde denied that the large downed lightpole hit his cab.
He vociferously denied it, with his finger right on it in a photograph, 3 times.
He also positively identified the other pole behind the cab, as the one that hit the cab.
This was NOT A LIGHTPOLE.
It was moved to the bridge on the trailer that brought Lloyde's cab there from the cemetery.

Can you explain to me, why there is several seconds of very clear video of a black CAPITOL CAB speeding south off the bridge, at 9:43 a.m.? Even if you cannot see that the 7 seconds of video of Lloyde's cab beside the cemetery wall is valid evidence, surely you must be curious about why this second cab left the bridge (when there was no other traffic southbound)?

Navy Annex is a tighter distance to the west wall.
The Cementry is further aside to the right.
If the airplane showed up at the cementry- none of the other poles got knocked down.
Who pulled out the other poles?
An airplane near the Navy Annex is heading in appropriate angle to fly over the bridge.
You neglect it was the wing that affected the poles. The airplane did not have to be perfect aligment traveling over the bridge. 
There three portions of fragmented light pole on the bridge. If you look closely.
Your evidence is based off blurry photographs. There nothing you showed establishes an absolute certainty the official Pentagon attack narrative wrong.
Witnesses often recall experiences differently, but they're actually no dispute a plane came in low near the Navy Annex.
You assert it flew over, but you have shown zero evidence for that reality.  I perceive a photograph with no plane, you see something i don't and claim that image of a plane 100 per cent.
There isn't a clear video of decoy cab. There an image of blurry vehicle with a person in it that's it.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You neglect it was the wing that affected the poles. The airplane did not have to be perfect aligment traveling over the bridge.  

No, I am not neglecting anything.

If the plane flew over the Navy Annex as the witnesses said, then it would have had to do a dogleg to also fly across the bridge and into the Pentagon.

The plane flew diagonally across the Annex from the southwest corner (as demonstated by EDWARD PAIK), directly over TERRY MORIN who stated that he was about 10 feet in from the southern edge, between the 4th and 5th wings of the building; and directly over ALBERT HEMPHILL who was standing in one of the windows on the eastern side of the Annex, about 8 windows back from the northeast corner.

Paik and Morin had no view of the plane after it crossed the building, but Hemphill had the ringside seat, and he told Craig Ranke that the plane flew north of the Citgo gas station.

ATC SEAN BOGER was in the heliport tower, looking directly towards the plane. He stated to Aldo Marquis that the plane flew over the northern side of the Navy Annex, and then NORTH OF THE CITGO, then banked (right) towards the Pentagon.
He also thought he saw part of the plane hit the OVERHEAD SIGN on the highway opposite the heliport.

The 7 eyewitnesses at the Arlington National Cemetery stated that the plane crossed the Navy Annex, then flew across their parking lot, which is well north of the Citgo.

SGT WILLIAM LGASSE, SGT CHADWICK BROOKS, and ROBERT TURCIOS were all at the Citgo, and they all testified that the plane flew NORTH OF THE CITGO station.

STEVE RISKUS, VIN NARAYANAN, LLOYDE ENGLAND and CHERYL RYEFIELD etc were all on the highway opposite the heliport, and they all saw the plane fly across the road in front of them, hundreds of yards NORTH OF THE BRIDGE.

There are many more witnesses who confirm this flightpath, but NONE who saw the pkane fly over the bridge.

The 5 downed lightpoles were supposedly hit by both right and left wings of the pkane which are 124 ft 6 inches wide. There is a wide gap between the poles, and it means the plane would have had to be on a very precise path to hit all 5 pklesin this straight line.

There is no way the plane could fly over the Navy Annex, then over the bridge.

You should draw in some lines on an overhead to prove this to yourself.

Then find some testimonies from people who were on the bridge, and plot them in too.

a reply to: RubyGray

Please quote one north flight path witness that said the jet maneuver, missed the pentagon, and stated they saw / heard the jet fly off. What did the north flight path witnesses see hit the pentagon if it wasn’t flight 77?

Again. The CIT narrative falls apart.
One, the north flight witness are out numbered by at least 5 to 1 by witness accounts that supports the flight path that has damage.

Two, the north flight path witnesses attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon.

Three, people saw a jet knocking over / hitting crap on the way to crashing to the pentagon.

Four, there are no accounts of the jet missing. There are no accounts of people seeing or hearing the jet fly away from the pentagon.

Five. The CIT narrative does not explain the damage to the pentagon.

Six. What jet wreckage ended up at the pentagon.

Seven. How did the remains of the passengers and crew of flight 77 ended at the pentagon.

Eight.

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.

Why isn’t there anyone on your video staging a light pole taxi scene? Laying out damage glass from the light pole and from the windshield?

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? You stated Lloyde never lied or changed his story?

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You neglect it was the wing that affected the poles. The airplane did not have to be perfect aligment traveling over the bridge.  

No, I am not neglecting anything.

If the plane flew over the Navy Annex as the witnesses said, then it would have had to do a dogleg to also fly across the bridge and into the Pentagon.

The plane flew diagonally across the Annex from the southwest corner (as demonstated by EDWARD PAIK), directly over TERRY MORIN who stated that he was about 10 feet in from the southern edge, between the 4th and 5th wings of the building; and directly over ALBERT HEMPHILL who was standing in one of the windows on the eastern side of the Annex, about 8 windows back from the northeast corner.

Paik and Morin had no view of the plane after it crossed the building, but Hemphill had the ringside seat, and he told Craig Ranke that the plane flew north of the Citgo gas station.

ATC SEAN BOGER was in the heliport tower, looking directly towards the plane. He stated to Aldo Marquis that the plane flew over the northern side of the Navy Annex, and then NORTH OF THE CITGO, then banked (right) towards the Pentagon.
He also thought he saw part of the plane hit the OVERHEAD SIGN on the highway opposite the heliport.

The 7 eyewitnesses at the Arlington National Cemetery stated that the plane crossed the Navy Annex, then flew across their parking lot, which is well north of the Citgo.

SGT WILLIAM LGASSE, SGT CHADWICK BROOKS, and ROBERT TURCIOS were all at the Citgo, and they all testified that the plane flew NORTH OF THE CITGO station.

STEVE RISKUS, VIN NARAYANAN, LLOYDE ENGLAND and CHERYL RYEFIELD etc were all on the highway opposite the heliport, and they all saw the plane fly across the road in front of them, hundreds of yards NORTH OF THE BRIDGE.

There are many more witnesses who confirm this flightpath, but NONE who saw the pkane fly over the bridge.

The 5 downed lightpoles were supposedly hit by both right and left wings of the pkane which are 124 ft 6 inches wide. There is a wide gap between the poles, and it means the plane would have had to be on a very precise path to hit all 5 pklesin this straight line.

There is no way the plane could fly over the Navy Annex, then over the bridge.

You should draw in some lines on an overhead to prove this to yourself.

Then find some testimonies from people who were on the bridge, and plot them in too.

Have you seen this video?
CIT witness says the plane was near the bridge.
CIT tries to manipulate his evidence.
He saw no plane at the cemetery.
Considering the angle, the plane would be coming in with wing out over the bridge.
The plane was traveling 530mph for only 1 or 2 seconds. it would have to dip a bit to hit the Pentagon.
I think people are confused the plane was traveling much slower than 530mph- it was only going 300mph or 400mph an hour when the pilot did a 330-degree loop.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

There three portions of fragmented light pole on the bridge. If you look closely. 

Not actually true!

There is a large piece missing, which seems not to have occurred to anyone.

The large 10 inch diameter lower end of the mast is therein front of Lloyde's taxi.
In front 9f the mast, there 8s the smashed lamp, one of the two support arms, and the length of electrical flex which Camelot of the pole.
Note how the support arm (in Jason Ingersoll's photo DSC_0420) is flattened in cross section, much smaller than the mast, and tapers from base to top.

Look at the splayed, jagged end of the mast. There is no other piece of pole which matches the torn deformed metal of this mast. But there must be a piece which exactly fits this mast, somewhere.
And there must be another lamp support arm.

Behind the taxi, on the other side, are two pieces of pole.
But these do not belong to any lightpole,

They are only about 4 inches diameter, they are not tapered, and their ends are circular and neatly sawn across.

Horrible from CIT Robert is looking to the south not north in this video. He even lifts his hand to south to show where the plane was.