9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

originally posted by: RubyGray
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.

They're a big piece of the light pole on the opposite side of the car. This piece is what Lloyd removed. That probably 20 inches or more with length.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

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.

This chart is the last 4 minutes of AAL77 showing true heading in degrees, ground speed in knots, altitude and engine RPM in 1 second increments. That's from the commencement of the descending turn up to impact. A knot is about 6060 feet so 460 knots equate to about 530mph.



Edit: More precisely a knot = 6076.12 feet (tiny change in this case)

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Have you seen this video? 

Yes, I have watched all CIT videos many times.

The original video from which this clip was taken, is "NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT".
I will use the timestamps from that video in my quotes.

CIT witness says the plane was near the bridge. 

No, Robert Turcios does not say the plane was "near the bridge"!

He said it flew TO THE SIDE OF THE BRIDGE.

22:38
TURCIOS I tried to follow it, and I saw it LIFT UP A LITTLE BIT to get over TO THE SIDE of the bridge here.
RANKE To the SIDE of the bridge.
TURCIOS Yes, where you see the DO NOT ENTER SIGN.
RANKE Right there. (Zooms in on the sign Turcios indicates.)
So it FLEW UP TO GO OVER THAT?
TURCIOS YES.

Now, what most people avoid doing, is measuring distances on Google earth maps.
Therefore they have false perceptions about the witnesses' locations and evidence.

When you measure the distance between the top of the bridge from Pole #1 to the Do Not Enter sign pointed out by Robert Turcios, you find that it is about 380 feet.
This is 3 plane widths away!

As the plane was 380 feet north of the bridge, clearly it could not have flown across the bridge, nor could it have hit those poles.

As the plane LIFTED UP TO GET OVER THE SIGN, it was obviously too high to hit any lightpoles.

The distance from this sign to the impact hole is about 570 feet.
At the claimed speed of the jet, 780 fps, it would have flown that distance in less than three quarters of a second.
It is absolutely impossible fort the plane to have "dipped back down again" to fly about 6 feet above the lawn, horizontally into the ground floor of the Pentagon, as suggested in the Gatecam videos.
Also, the plane would have been at the wrong angle to make that damage path inside the building.

However, the plane was perfectly placed to continue flying over the Pentagon roofline, which is only about 73 feet high.

Robert Turcios never said anything about the plane "dropping down again" after clearing the sign.

Remember that Arlington Cemetery employee DARIUS PRATHER who saw the plane's left wing fly over their parking lot, said that he also saw the plane START PIVOTING UP as it crossed the highway.

Numerous other eyewitnesses also estimated the plane's height AGL over Route 27 as plenty high enough to clear the Pentagon.

CIT tries to manipulate his evidence.  

In what way? I do not find that at all.

Could you quote where you claim Craig Ranke does this?

On the contrary, I see him using the neutral, passive multiple choice technique employed by e.g, Gallup Poll interviewers.
He carefully avoids leading the witness.
He repeats the witness's own answer to confirm what he said, and avoid errors.
He sometimes asks for clarification, and ensures that he gets locations and directions exactly correct.
This is valid interviewing such as would be used in a court of law.

NOBODY ELSE EVER came remotely close to the quality of interviews that CIT has provided for us.
They personally sought out and interviewed scores of witnesses, many of them on location, on video.

Yes, they got several interviews badly wrong, to their own detriment, because those people were actually valuable Northside eyewitnesses all along.
I refer here to

LLOYDE ENGLAND
FATHER STEPHEN MCGRAW
VIN NARAYANAN
JOEL SUCHERMAN.

However, even though CIT misconstrued the evidence given by those witnesses, CIT still published the witnesses' own honest testimony for us, which we would not have otherwise.

He saw no plane at the cemetery. 
Considering the angle, the plane would be coming in with wing out over the bridge. 

You have not paid attention.
TURCIOS quite clearly refers to the TIP OF THE RIGHT WING flying to THE NORTH OF THE CITGO CANOPY.
Several times.
He points it out physically, and states this verbally.

24:40
RANKE As far as how it came over this corner (northeast corner of Citgo), was it more like the WING, or the BODY?
Was it the LEFT WING, or the RIGHT WING, or the actual BODY?
TURCIOS Oh no, it was more like the RIGHT WING headed THAT WAY.
(He points from his position NORTH of Citgo, to the Pentagon, in the opposite direction it would have taken if crossing 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. 

It would have to dip a lot to get down level with the ground, and also pull the plane up out of this dive. Not possible.

According to aviator Terry Morin, and Albert Hemphill, and pilot Sgt William Lagasse, and eyewitness William Middleton, the plane was travelling much slower than 530 mph.

According to charter boat operator Steve Chaconas, eyewitness William Middleton, ATC Sean Boger, heliport staff Jacqueline Kidd, and numerous other witnesses, the plane did NOT make that fabled 270 or 330 degree loop to the southwest of the Pentagon.

These are among many other witnesses who saw and heard the plane flying on a loop that took it south down the river, past the Pentagon, across to the east side of the Potomac River, over the White House, down across Reagan National Airport, then looping back and towards the Pentagon.

The pilot of the C-130, Colonel Steve O'Brien, and his crew Major Robert Schumacher, first saw the jet when they were flying east to west at about the area of the USA TODAY building in Rosslyn about 2 miles north of the Pentagon. The jet was in a 30 - 45 degree steep right bank, heading to the east of the river towards the White House.

Some others who reported this flightpath are:

FAA DEPUTY DIRECTOR MONTE BELGER
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION NORMAN MINETA
ATC COLIN SCOGGINS
TOM HOVIS (repeating what he was told)
JOE HURST in Lafayette Square
GENERAL CLYDE VAUGHAN
JOSEPH CANDELARIO
STUART ARTMAN near Washington Monument
SCOTT COOK

These facts are revealed in CIT's video "THE PENTAGON FLYOVER - HOW THEY PULLED IT OFF."

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
They're a big piece of the light pole on the opposite side of the car. This piece is what Lloyd removed. That probably 20 inches or more with length.

This piece of pole is what I have always stated was in Lloyde's windshield, as I clearly explained above.

As I said, for several reasons, this pole is NOT any part of a lightpole.

It cannot be one of the support arms, which are much thinner, very tapered, and flattened.

This piece of pole has a constant diameter throughout its length.
It is NOT TAPERED like lightpoles.

It is much THINNER than any part of a lightpole mast, which are 10 inches at the base and inches diameter at the top.

This pole is only about 4 inches diameter from end to end.

The entry hole in the windscreen, specifically indicated by Lloyde England, is about 4 inches diameter.

The 2 impact marks on the rear seat upholstery are perfectly round, not jagged, and about 4 inches diameter, as seen in "THE EYE OF THE STORM".

This pole PERFECTLY MATCHES the damage to Lloyde's cab, and also his descriptions.

It is also the diagonal dark shape inside the car and extending out over the hood, that can be seen in the 7 seconds of video taken of Lloyde England's cab beside the cemetery wall at 4 minutes post impact.

It is NOT DEFORMED as though hit by a speeding jet.

It is NOT JAGGED at the end like that lightpole mast.

It DOES NOT MATCH THE END OF THE LIGHTPOLE.

When anything is cut into 2 pieces, the cut surfaces must match, and these do not.

This pole was also POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED BY LLOYDE ENGLAND, who placed his finger right on it in a photo, and said,

"THIS SHOWS THE POLE HERE".

Although the smaller pole is considerably foreshortened in these photos by the angle of the cameras, it was actually about 12 feet long.

Lloyde England DREW this pole to scale on a sketch of his cab.
It extended from the back seat, to level with the front of the hood.

Lloyde England physically indicated with his hand, THREE TIMES, the outer extremity of this pole, on both CIT videos, THE FIRST KNOWN ACCOMPLICE and THE EYE OF THE STORM.
He said very clearly that it extended only as far as the front of the hood.

Since this was not a light pole, it is obvious that it was no random event like a plane hitting a lightpole, that sent this projectile "Driven down like a javelin" into Lloyde's car.

The pole through the windshield was a premeditated event, a cynical military operation that targeted, set up and victimised an honest, elderly working man for the purpose of creating a deception about the claimed flightpath of "AA77".

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. Even your north flight path witnesses attest to a jet hitting the pentagon.

Still waiting on you to quote an actual account by a pentagon witness the large passenger jet maneuver missing the pentagon and they saw / heard the jet fly off.

There are many reasons why CIT failed to make their case and were discredited.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
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.

You should be ashamed of yourself for making this claim.

I thought you had more integrity than this!

There is nothing "horrible" about Craig Ranke's video interview with Robert Turcios.

The only thing that should concern people, is Robert's shocking revelation that not only did the plane fly hundreds of feet to the NORTH of the required Official Flightpath, but that it LIFTED UP TO CLEAR THE ROAD SIGNS, putting it into the attitude consistent with FLYING OVER THE PENTAGON.

Turcios is NOT "looking to the south" here.
He is looking west.

As anyone can tell from watching this video, Robert Turcios does indeed lift his left arm to indicate the northwest corner of the Citgo canopy, then motions TOWARDS the NORTH with this arm, and says,

"I am 100% CERTAIN that the plane came 0UT FROM THIS CORNER of the canopy. Over THIS [NORTH] SIDE of the canopy."

And it was not the WHOLE PLANE, but only the RIGHT WING which he said passed above the north side of the canopy.

So the rest of the plane was far away to the NORTH, towards the cemetery parking lot.

In fact, Turcios makes this arm gesture twice, reinforcing that the whole plane was to the NORTH OF THE CITGO.

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. Please do tell what actually hit the pentagon that caused the murders of the pentagon personnel, the murders of the crew and passengers of flight 77, left the jet wreckage, and how the crew and passengers of flight 77 ended dead at the pentagon.

Please quote one person that saw / heard a jet fly off from the pentagon after the explosion.

a reply to: RubyGray

Witnesses Refute CIT
Independent Video Interviews Attesting to Plane Impact at the Pentagon on 9/11

911speakout.org...

11. Robert Turcios. [At 4:00, Turcios looks very surprised when Craig Ranke asks him if he saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.] “Fly over the Pentagon? No. The only thing I saw was … direct line to go into the Pentagon.”

[This video is chopped off there. In other videos you hear Turcios say, after an interruption by Craig, “ …[it] collided.” CIT claim him as a north path witness and hence assert the plane must have flown over, but clearly Turcios knows the plane hit the Pentagon.]

There is a reason CIT failed to make their case and are discredited.....

originally posted by: RubyGray

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
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.

You should be ashamed of yourself for making this claim.

I thought you had more integrity than this!

There is nothing "horrible" about Craig Ranke's video interview with Robert Turcios.

The only thing that should concern people, is Robert's shocking revelation that not only did the plane fly hundreds of feet to the NORTH of the required Official Flightpath, but that it LIFTED UP TO CLEAR THE ROAD SIGNS, putting it into the attitude consistent with FLYING OVER THE PENTAGON.

Turcios is NOT "looking to the south" here.
He is looking west.

As anyone can tell from watching this video, Robert Turcios does indeed lift his left arm to indicate the northwest corner of the Citgo canopy, then motions TOWARDS the NORTH with this arm, and says,

"I am 100% CERTAIN that the plane came 0UT FROM THIS CORNER of the canopy. Over THIS [NORTH] SIDE of the canopy."

And it was not the WHOLE PLANE, but only the RIGHT WING which he said passed above the north side of the canopy.

So the rest of the plane was far away to the NORTH, towards the cemetery parking lot.

In fact, Turcios makes this arm gesture twice, reinforcing that the whole plane was to the NORTH OF THE CITGO.

The bridge is noticeable and this is where the taxicab was. His facing in a direction that absolutely contrary to where you believe the plane was. Even his hand is pointing southwest. How can the airplane be at the cementry if he looking southwest?
Canopy is irrelevant. The official account is the airplane struck a light pole at the bridge. And you can see the bridge in the photo I posted! So the airplane was coming in from southwest direction.

If you refuse and don't accept this I am out.  

Ruby I flipped the google map make it easier for you see. It's the direction he would be facing looking at the pentagon.

Robert was standing somewhere in black spot area on 9/11 ( basing it off the CIT video)
The plane came in along the green line.
Navy Annex used to be where the blue dots are.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

The bridge is noticeable and this is where the taxicab was. His facing in a direction that absolutely contrary to where you believe the plane was. Even his hand is pointing southwest. How can the airplane be at the cementry if he looking southwest? 
Canopy is irrelevant. The official account is the airplane struck a light pole at the bridge. And you can see the bridge in the photo I posted! So the airplane was coming in from southwest direction. 

If you refuse and don't accept this I am out.  

Well I hope you don't run off just because I don't agree with the Official Flightpath, whereas I do agree with all the eyewitnesses who say the plane flew somewhere else entirely! That is what this thread was originally based on after all, when Aldo Marquis started it about 13 years ago. The taxi was moved, because the plane did not actually fly across the bridge and knock a lightpole through Lloyde's windscreen, for so many reasons!

Therefore it is appropriate that here we discuss the topic, the TAXI BEING MOVED.

Do you believe Robert Turcios is a liar? I think you must, because the position of the plane which he describes, is totally incompatible with the Official Flightpath.

Again, Turcios is NOT "pointing to the southwest". As you can clearly see on the video, he is making a gesture, indicating from south towards the north, that the end of tthe RIGHT WING was nearer the northern edge of the Citgo canopy, with the rest of the plane's wings being 124 ft 6 inches NORTH of that.

As Turcios said,

"I am 100% CERTAIN that the plane came 0UT FROM THIS CORNER of the canopy. Over THIS [NORTH] SIDE of the canopy." 

In the longer version of this interview in the CIT video "The Pentacon", he reinforced that fact.

26:00
TURCIOS Oh no, it was more like the RIGHT WING headed THAT WAY.
(Points from his position NORTH OF Citgo, towards Pentagon.)
Ranke it was the RIGHT WING. So you'd say that MOST OF THE PLANE WAS EVEN FURTHER TOWARDS THE NORTH OF THE STATION?
Turcios Ah yes, I would say maybe over the tree here behind me.

Then, a couple of minutes later, at about 28:00 :

Ranke But without a doubt it was on THIS SIDE of the station? On the NORTH SIDE of the station?
Turcios Yes, I am sure, I am certain that it was on THIS SIDE of the station.

The canopy cannot be "IRRELEVANT" ! The canopy is the fixed point which defines the flightpath seen by Robert Turcios! The entire width, all 124 feet, of the plane's wingspan, was NORTH OF this canopy!

Yes, the taxi was photographed on the bridge, but not until 11 minutes after the impact.
That is circumstantial evidence only!
How can you prove the taxi was there on the bridge at 9:37:46 a.m.?

There are 2 videos which show a few frames each of a black car there on top of the bridge, at 9:42 - 9:43 a.m., very far away and blurry.
Are you prepared to swear that these show Lloyde England's cab? On what basis? Using whati dentification?

Meanwhile, there is 7 seconds of video shot from much closer, showing a black LINCOLN CONTINENTAL TOWN CAR CAPITOL CAB with a POLE diagonally through it from the back seat and out over the hood, next to the cemetery wall opposite the heliport, at 9:41 a.m.

There are many identifying features which prove that this is a 1990 Lincoln Town Car, and a CAPITOL CAB.

That there is a towtruck waiting behind it, is also highly significant.

This location is exactly where Lloyde said his cab was.
Lloyde's testimony is verified by Father Stephen McGraw, by Tony Terronez, and by Sergeant William Lagasse, who all placed him there opposite the heliport.

The very same silver sedan which was later parked beside Lloyde's cab on the bridge, driven by Detective Don Fortunato, was first parked beside this Capitol Cab next to the cemetery.
Detective Fortunato himself stated that after driving down from Arlington Police station, he stopped next to the cab that had been hit by "pieces of pole".
Therefore he is also a witness to Lloyde England's original location.

There is a man on this video, walking towards this cab to stand in front of the hood, in exactly the same position that Lloyde England demonstrated he stood to remove the pole, in both CIT's videos.
This walking man looks very much like LLOYDE ENGLAND. He is wearing dark pants, a light coloured shirt (which cannot be seen against the bright concrete wall), and his head is dark.

There is a WHITE VAN parked a few yards in front of this cab. Exactly as Lloyde described. A man in a white van drove past, stopped and helped him to remove the pole, then drove on down the road.
Nobody else believed Lloyde's account of the silent stranger in the white van,, but I cared enough to bother to study all the videos and photos, and found this white van arriving, parked at the cemetery for 90 seconds, departing, driving down the road, then parked on the bridge until 9:47 a.m.

Whether or not you care to watch the videos which show it, or to believe what they show, there are 4 independent videos which demonstrate the process of the towtruck and low loader trailer transporting Lloyde's cab from the cemetery to the bridge, between 9:43 - 9:45 a.m.

There are two independent photos which show the tow truck leaving the area, and the low loader trailer left beside the guardrail, on the northwest cloverleaf, within the next 3 - 10 minutes.

Of course, the most highly suspicious evidence of all is that Lloyde himself does not appear in the bridge photographs until several minutes after the cab.
Where was Lloyde, then?
He was out in the middle of the highway.
You can see him there in some video taken at 9:43 a.m., and photographs at 9:47 a.m.
HOW did he get back to the cab?

DONALD RUMSFELD'S OWN BODYGUARD (who did not know lLoyde, and who surely had no reason to know anything about him, his cab and the pole), collected Lloyde in a Jeep and took him there, then guarded him while the photos were taken.

WHY?????

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Ruby I flipped the google map make it easier for you see. It's the direction he would be facing looking at the pentagon.

Robert was standing somewhere in black spot area on 9/11 ( basing it off the CIT video)
The plane came in along the green line.
Navy Annex used to be where the blue dots are.

Yes indeed, the blue dots show the Navy Annex location, and the green dots show the Official Flightpath.

It is obvious that these two lines of dots are far apart.
So if the plane flew across the NAVY ANNEX as many eyewitnesses said, then it CANNOT have also flown along the Official Flightpath, and across the bridge.
At least, not without making a very sharp dogleg, which it did d not do!

The top left black dot is the location of Sergeant William Lagasse, who was filling his gas tank on the north side of the Citgo. He stated that he saw the plane fly north of him, between the Citgo and the cemetery maintenance buildings on the left of the picture.
Lagasse could not possibly have seen the plane if it was on the Official flight path, because the whole building would have blocked his view of it.
He was adamant that NOTHING HAPPENED ON THE BRIDGE ! He became quite angry about Craig telling him that the Official story said the plane knocked down poles on the bridge. He stated very vehemently that Lloyde's taxi was hit by the pole, next to the cemetery wall opposite the heliport. He marked this location on a map.

One of the lower black dots marks the location of SERGEANT CHADWICK BROOKS, who was across the road from the Citgo, when he saw the plane fly from across the top of the Navy Annex, to the NORTH side of the Citgo, and towards the Pentagon.
It is obvious that this flightpath was nowhere near the bridge.

All the eyewitnesses at the Arlington National Cemetery testified that the plane flew directly across the top of the Navy Annex, the left wing flew over their parking lot, and that it banked right towards the Pentagon.
One of them, Darius Prather, stated that the plane PIVOTED UP as it flew across the highway.

ALBERT HEMPHILL was in an office just to the left of the top blue dot, when the plane flew over the top of him, to the NORTH of the Citgo, and then banked right towards the heliport. This obviously conflicts with the Official Flightpath.
He saw a flash and thought it was the plane hitting a pole, but he DID NOT recall seeing a lightpole hit a cab on the bridge, although he was in the prime position to see this if it had happened.

Some of the MANY EYEWITNESSES who said they saw the plane fly across the Navy Annex :

Edward Paik
Terry Morin
Albert Hemphill
Sgt Chadwick Brooks
Darius Prather
Darryl Stafford
William Middleton
Donald Carter
Levi Stephens
Frank Probst
Major Lincoln Liebner
ATC Sean Boger
Alan Wallace
Cheryl Ryefield
Christopher Munsey
Sgt Mark Bright

A straight line from the impact hole, across the bridge, completely misses the Navy Annex, doesn't it?

Where are all the witnesses who were actually on the bridge, who testify to having seen the plane fly across the bridge, and state in first person, that they SAW the plane hit those lightpoles?

I cannot find ANY, and neither could CIT.

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. What did people see knock over crap on the flight path to the pentagon, and see crash into the pentagon.

a reply to: RubyGray

CIT Fraud Revealed

www.internationalskeptics.com...

It has appeared on forum after forum, time and time again, as a ‘recreation’ of Edward Paik’s observation of AAL77 on September 11, 2001 and we are led to believe that this is also where he was when he made it. This is a location outside of the A-One Auto facility on Columbia Pike, about 50 feet in front of the shop.

However, as revealed a few years ago during my interview with his brother Shinki Paik, Ed was INSIDE the shop when the plane flew by.

Shinki Interview

Now, a follow-up with Ed Paik on location shows that indeed Ed was INSIDE the shop when he saw the plane. He recreates his actual POV and direction of sighting in this image.



This demonstrates that CIT has been very deceptive and less than honest in regards to the information they have been promoting. That is why many of us have asked to see and/or hear the entire recorded eyewitness accounts recorded by CIT, NOT the edited and staged versions they have released in their productions.

Craig, it is time to release ALL of the recorded interview footage. It is time for a new investigation and a new movement, or should I say the CIT-Truth Now movement. This is a case of "eyewitness speaks, conspiracy revealed", but the conspirators are Crag and Aldo, and the conspiracy is to conceal the truth.
Last edited by BCR; 17th January 2010 at 04:05 AM.
BCR is offline Quote this post in a PM Nominate this post for this month's language award

Pentagon attack witness Terry Morin, September 2001 at the Navy Annex/FoB #2:

frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB).”

The use of ‘essentially’ in conjunction with his otherwise detailed account shows he means it was very nearly over him but not quite. “Parallel” I take as an accurate observation but not necessarily 100% precise. The real path of Flight 77 does in fact run about parallel to the building’s edge, as seen here. Also, parallel is a word describing two different lines. He did not say “along the edge,” so it was probably centered either north or south of that line, and if north, his failing to describe it as over the building is curious.

“I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure.”

Seeing stripes indicates, as he said, that it was not directly over him (unless in a severe sideways bank, which neither he nor anyone mentions). It was either some combination of south and banking left (and he’d see the left/port side), or north and banking right (in which case he’d see the right side). The former seemed to fit his continued line-of-sight, nearly up to impact, and of course also fits with where the plane actually was and where Morin said in 2001 that he was. He describes his continuing view thus:

“Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.”

His lateral line-of-sight would be set by the edge of the 8th wing’s SE corner. This would completely block his view of anything too far north, and this path does have something of a north trend. His approximate line-of-sight then is represented by the yellow line in my second graphic, above. Note that the last stretch of the path and the impact itself would be invisible from his angle, unless he moved significantly south.

He also specifically mentions a vertical line-of-sight, defined by a row of trees running along the crest of the hill east of the FoB. In the analysis below, descent rate again approximated, the point where he’d lose sight of the plane appears to work out to about the same location – that is, it went too far north to see at about the same time it went too low, all at around the yellow line. I'd venture from these rough renderings that it would disappear below the horizon just before passing behind the building.

Ruby
Black tracks and the green tracks separation is about 70 to 80 feet apart, if that. How big is plane again from one wing side to the next ( is not 124 feet?) 
Robert pointing to that path southwest. 
People stopped at the station would have seen the plane flying along the official path towards the bridge.
That you can't see that is fascinating. 
Even the CIT witness refuted their stance the plane was on northside.
This fraud was revealed when the showed the bridge behind and just slightly to the west of this witness. He also standing at left side of the canopy not the right side.

a reply to: RubyGray

An interesting item I just found.

This is eyewitness testimony from an English lady who was working in Washington on 9/11.

We first heard there was a fire at the Pentagon and then there was a really low flying aircraft outside our window that nearly knocked out all the glass. It seemed to be heading straight for congress.
Harriet Anderson, Sheffield, England

The link to the source of this first-person witness quote was already long dead many years ago.

Of course, it is to be expected that if somebody testified to having witnessed the flyover plane, even if they themselves did not recognise this for what it was, then the media would bury all references to the testimony.

They most certainly would not contact such a witness to elucidate more details of the flyover plane.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Ruby
Black tracks and the green tracks separation is about 70 to 80 feet apart, if that. How big is plane again from one wing side to the next ( is not 124 feet?) 
Robert pointing to that path southwest. 
People stopped at the station would have seen the plane flying along the official path towards the bridge.
That you can't see that is fascinating. 
Even the CIT witness refuted their stance the plane was on northside.
This fraud was revealed when the showed the bridge behind and just slightly to the west of this witness.
He also standing at left side of the canopy not the right side.

This is an extremely confused post.

There is absolutely no "FRAUD" here!
You need to qualify that claim of yours with some evidence, or retract it!

Hard to know exactly what you are insinuating with your "left" and "right" side of the canopy, rather than using the proper terminology, "north" and "south".

At the beginning of the interview, Robert Turcios was standing on the EAST SIDE of the station, facing the Pentagon, which he could not see at that time due to the high earth bank that had been raised since 9/11.

Therefore, Craig Ranke got him to walk to th he NORTH SIDE of the Citgo station.

Then, the bridge and the Pentagon were to the EAST of Turcios, not as you claim, to the west.

For the 3rd time, I will point out that Turcios is NOT "POINTING TO THE SOUTHWEST FLIGHTPATH".

You are deliberately avoiding the complete context of this video, and focusing on a single, misleading still frame.
In the video, Turcios makes a MOVING GESTURE TOWARDS HIMSELF, FROM THE NORTHERN CANOPY, TO THE DIRECTION FURTHER NORTH, to show how the entire width of the plane FLEW NORTH OF THE NORTHERN EDGE OF THE CITGO STATION.

People stopped at the station would have seen the plane flying along the official path towards the bridge.

So what are the names of all these people stopped at the Citgo station, who saw the plane fly on the southside flightpath?
Can you quote their eyewitness testimonies for us?

You have put a lot of black dots on your map.
Does each black dot represent one of those eyewitness quotes?

I would love to read them.

Or maybe you just imagined there must have been many such eyewitnesses, and added black dots randomly?

According to the published record, there are exactly THREE eyewitnesses at the Citgo station, and each of them was video interviewed by CIT, in the exact spot they were at when they watched the plane fly on the NORTHSIDE FLIGHTPATH.

There are NO MORE RECORDED WITNESSES FROM THE CITGO.
There is NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS AT THE CITGO, WHO SAW THE PLANE ON THE SOUTHSIDE PATH.

Every one of these witnesses repeatedly stated, and confirmed that they were 100% CERTAIN, that they saw the plane flying NORTH OF THE CITGO.

The canopy is on the NORTH side of the station. It seems you do not realise this.
The customers filling their tanks at that time, were of course beneath this canopy.
They had no view of the southside path, because the building was to the south of them, and the canopy was over their heads.
The only way they could see the plane, was to the west, north and east.

As Sergeant Lagasse pointed out, if the plane had flown on the southside path, he would have been unable to see it at all.

But as it is, he is recorded on the Citgo's CCTV video, on the north side of the canopy, from where he watched the plane flying north of him to the east, towards the Pentagon. That proves he was where he said he was.

We can prove that he did see the plane, because he immediately used his radio to call the Pentagon and tell them he had seen the plane heading towards it. This call was officially recorded and logged.

There is just no getting around the fact that the plane flew right over the Pentagon in a diagonal track from the southwest corner to about 10 windows south of the northeast corner, then banked right as it continued on north of the Citgo station, across the cemetery parking lot, and crossed Route 27 at about where the Columbia Pike exit road joined it.

Thus it went NOWHERE NEAR THE BRIDGE.

Steve Riskus and Lloyde England were the only TWO motorists travelling south on Route 27 at this time, and they were both NORTH of the Columbia Pike exit sign opposite the heliport.
They both testified that they saw the plane suddenly appear from behind the tree-topped cemetery bank.
Neither of them saw the plane hit any lightpoles.

Father Stephen McGraw was driving north, very close to Lloyde England's cab, just opposite the heliport.
The plane flew right over his head.
Neither did he see the plane hit any lightpoles, although he said that he did see the evidence that a PIECE OF POLE, NOT A WHOLE LIGHTPOLE, had gone through the cab.

Sergeant Chadwick Brooks was just WEST of the Citgo canopy, over the road. He saw the plane flying from over the top of the Navy Annex to his west, and followed it to his NORTH, as it flew close to the cemetery parking lot, and then towards the Pentagon.

Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios all drew the NORTHSIDE FLIGHTPATH on maps.

So did all the cemetery workers.

It is disappointing to see that, although you claim you are not a believer in the Official Story and you are open to new ideas, yet you cling rigidly to some very erroneous beliefs, and you deny and avoid the evidence given by these most significant, credible witnesses.

Ruby. The angles must be confusing you?
It not misleading at all. If you just looked at the map of the area.
Robert position is marked x in red.
Bridge is is marked x in blue.
Robert raised his hand towards the southwest to point towards where he saw the plane. 

Ruby the maps reveal all. Trace it back.

I have a higher awareness now why witnesses are confused. Where I show the arrow - the petrol station is behind the blocking bushes. The bridge is still to your left of it in this picture. I understand it just angle issue now. Pentagon officer did see a plane on left side but still would still locate the plane near the bridge not far off in the distance near the cemetery.