9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. Answer the question. What did the north flight post witnesses see hit the pentagon. Why doesn’t CIT release the entirety of their witness videos? Why does CIT only show their edited videos?

Forget the official story. The plane merely has to line up to affect light poles on the bridge and be in the area to reach the west wall.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Really not true!!

The plane has to pass exactly where all the eyewitnesses saw it, and be banking right, as they said.

This image of yours has a black line which you think is most correct.
But it misses many witnesses on the plane's flightpath.
It passes south of the Citgo.
It misses the ANC parking lot.
It misses the bridge.
It misses probably 4 of the lightpoles.
It is a straight line.

Norad video- the airplane passing across the middle of the Navy Annex ( Watch it) And then passing the circle road!

You say that the FAA / NORAD animation is very close to the real flightpath.
I agree.
In it, the plane flies diagonally across the Navy Annex, then banks right as it passes over north of the Citgo station, and the ANC parking lot. It approaches the Pentagon wall perpendicular, not at a steep angle as the Official Flightpath does.



However you have to realise that the flightpath over the ground is only truly shown when the plane is centred in the frame. But below, the vantage point is above and to the left of the plane, which makes the red line appear to be further south than it really is.



Then the plane crosses Route 27 exactly where so many eyewitnesses placed it - much further north than the overpass bridge.



Keep watching this animation, and something else happens ...
the plane (red markings) continues on, across the Pentagon's centre courtyard, and away over the southeast wall, into South Parking.



In fact, that is exactly what was seen by eyewitnesses on the south and east sides of the Pentagon.

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. Answer the question. What did the north flight path witnesses see hit the pentagon?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Official claim or least what maintained the plane was coming in along S Washington Blvd. For me either the black line or green line can be correct ( with a margin of error) the (black line is more accurate if we suppose Norad video is correct!

Either way Ruby- Robert lifted his right hand to show where the plane was and this would be along the black line! He did not switch to his left hand and declare the plane was over by Arlington Cemetery! A plane heading that way would miss all light poles on the bridge but can still strike the west wall.

Well so far, all your flightpath options have missed the poles and everything else as well.

I have lost count of how many times I have quoted VERBATIM what Robert Turcios said, how he carefully explained that the RIGHT WING TIP of the plane was north of the northeast corner of the Citgo canopy, and that ALL THE REST OF THE PLANE WAS EVEN FURTHER NORTH.
But here goes again.

It seems you have a problem with your left and right.
Turcios lifted his LEFT hand to show how the RIGHT wing was north of the Citgo, and then he waved this hand to the NORTH to explain that the WHOLE plane was north of the Citgo.



Turcios also explained how he first saw the plane SWOOP DOWN, well north of the Citgo.



Then he demonstrated, and repeated several times, how he followed the plane as it headed towards the Pentagon, and saw it LIFT UP to clear the overhead sign on the highway.
He said he DID NOT see it hit any poles.
He DID NOT see the plane fly over the bridge, but "TO THE SIDE OF" the bridge, where the overhead sign is.
That overhead sign he pointed to, is about 470 feet NORTH of downed pole #1 on the Bridge.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Look at SGT lagaisse plane diagram again! He actually draws a line through the second circle road near the bridge ( my black line is same) and they're likely to be a tiny error difference.

Yes, what a very good idea!
Let's do that!

In fact, let us look at lots of other peoples' drawn flightpaths, too.

First, here is a photo of the FOB building of the Navy Annex on 9/11/2001, which shows exactly how far north ALBERT HEMPHILL was when he saw the plane fly across him, north of the Citgo, and towards the Heliport.



SERGEANT LAGASSE did not see the plane until it was directly north of him, therefore his flightpath does not show what the plane did before this, i.e. it does not show the significant right bank.



SERGEANT BROOKS saw the plane as it crossed over the Navy Annex, so his flightpath includes some of the right bank.



DARRELL STAFFORD was directly beneath the flightpath as the plane came from the Navy Annex, in a right bank towards the ANC parking lot.



DARIUS PRATHER was there too. Like ROBERT TURCIOS, DARIUS PRATHER saw the plane "PIVOT UP" as it crossed Route 27.



DONALD CARTER was also at the ANC parking lot underneath the plane.



STEVE RISKUS was north of the Columbia Pike exit sign.
He drew his own position, and the plane's flightpath as it crossed Route 27 in front of him, on this image (and several others).



MARIA DE LA CERDA was playing in a musical band at a funeral on top of the cemetery.
She was accustomed to flyovers of planes and helicopters during funerals.
But this time she saw something different.

She believed when officially interviewed in June 2002 by the Center of Military History, that the plane she saw had actually flown OVER the Pentagon, and then, after she saw the plane reach the OTHER SIDE, she saw the explosion.
She therefore thought the plane had hit on the EAST side of the Pentagon.

When interviewed by Craig Ranke in 2007, she told him,

"In my mind's eye I SAW IT HIT ON TOP."

She had NO VIEW of the ground floors of the Pentagon behind the trees along the highway, but she had a very good view of the roofline of the Pentagon.

She is definitely a FLYOVER WITNESS, whose mind was deceived by the plane that "DISAPPEARED" about 2 - 3 seconds BEFORE the explosion.
This corroborates the testimonies of several other eyewitnesses, who described a "DELAY" between the plane disappearing, or between seeing it on the EAST side, and the explosion which occurred later.



All these witnesses describe a similar anomaly.
They saw the plane over the EAST side of the Pentagon, BEFORE they heard and saw the fireball on the WEST side.

MICHAEL KELLY
DON SCOTT
KAT GAINES
MESEIDY RODRIGUES
DENNIS SMITH

a reply to: RubyGray

So? All the north flight path witnesses attest to the jet hitting the pentagon. Is that false?

a reply to: RubyGray

You

I have lost count of how many times I have quoted VERBATIM what Robert Turcios said,

That’s the problem. You don’t quote. You post a a bunch of crap with your and CITs words mixed in.

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.]

a reply to: Merc_the_Perp

You 9/11 truthers are so effin silly, it's completely laughable. Like get a life please. It's not an inside job, it's not mossad... like calm down people.

a reply to: WhyDidIJoin

So you haven't bothered to read anything at all here, then?
Merc the Perp vacated the premises nearly 10 years ago.
But the Mystery of the Moved Taxi still remains unresolved.

Your comment seems incongruous with your pic of the folded dead presidents. People who subscribe to this trick generally think there is Something They Are Not Telling Us.

Merc, better known as Aldo Marquis, used as his icon on forums, the frog sitting in a pot of water being slowly heated.
Quite appropriate in your case.
Do you really believe your compassionate government has nothing but your best interests at heart?

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. Answer the questions. What did the north flight path witnesses see hit the pentagon. As many witness, if not more, attest to seeing a large jet knocking over poles on the way to hitting the pentagon. At least eighty people attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon. The north flight path witnesses are contradicted by the flight path damage. Are in the minority. And there are no accounts of people seeing / hearing a jet fly off from the pentagon.

CIT failed because:
One, their well documented shady questioning.
Two, all evidence points to a jet hitting the pentagon.
Three, there are no accounts of people seeing the jet miss the pentagon. There are no accounts of people seeing / hearing the jet fly away from the pentagon.

originally posted by: RubyGray

Forget the official story. The plane merely has to line up to affect light poles on the bridge and be in the area to reach the west wall.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Really not true!!

The plane has to pass exactly where all the eyewitnesses saw it, and be banking right, as they said.

This image of yours has a black line which you think is most correct.
But it misses many witnesses on the plane's flightpath.
It passes south of the Citgo.
It misses the ANC parking lot.
It misses the bridge.
It misses probably 4 of the lightpoles.
It is a straight line.

Norad video- the airplane passing across the middle of the Navy Annex ( Watch it) And then passing the circle road!

You say that the FAA / NORAD animation is very close to the real flightpath.
I agree.
In it, the plane flies diagonally across the Navy Annex, then banks right as it passes over north of the Citgo station, and the ANC parking lot. It approaches the Pentagon wall perpendicular, not at a steep angle as the Official Flightpath does.

However you have to realise that the flightpath over the ground is only truly shown when the plane is centred in the frame. But below, the vantage point is above and to the left of the plane, which makes the red line appear to be further south than it really is.

Then the plane crosses Route 27 exactly where so many eyewitnesses placed it - much further north than the overpass bridge.

Keep watching this animation, and something else happens ...
the plane (red markings) continues on, across the Pentagon's centre courtyard, and away over the southeast wall, into South Parking.

In fact, that is exactly what was seen by eyewitnesses on the south and east sides of the Pentagon.

Not correct. The airplane just has to be in the correct location. All the observers saw the plane at the Navy Annex and the Fuel station.  Once the plane there it can hit light poles on the bridge. My google maps show it. Can witnesses all recall specific heights and distances, the same, I don't believe that.
You don't like the evidence because it contradicts your theory. Your false-flag requires more moving parts that nobody ever saw!

They're not even one witness who saw this fake cab. If there was a fake cab there Lloyd would have to be associated with the conspiracy? They would have to paint it, the same colors and it looks similar. Then they would have to plant light pole pieces on the bridge. And you even claimed a police officer sedated Lloyd and moved to the scene in one post. Your story very wild and all happening out in the open in front of people who have stopped in traffic. There have to be dozens of people planted there with fake stories to tell. There nobody who's claimed the saw an airplane fly over the Pentagon. Your evidence for this claim is a pixelled picture with no aircraft.

Ruby the FAA ( Norad animation clip) has the plane coming in along the red line path. You can see it travels past the fuel station and near the bridge. The plane has 124 feet wing span. I think the left wing hit the light pole on the bridge and right wing hit the other one on the bridge.



The distance isn't that far apart for two wings to hit lightpoles on the bridge.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Nope, the FAA/NORAD animation has the plane flying diagonally across the Navy Annex from southwest corner to almost northeast corner, which is exactly where the two eyewitnesses EDWARD PAIK and ALBERT HEMPHILL place it.

This animation also has the pkane banking right, as all the witnesses state. Maybe you just can't draw curved lines on your images, but the animation flightpath is distinctly curved right.

Then it has the plane flying totally NORTH of the Citgo, but you have it flying across the top.

Therefore you have the plane flying much closer to the bridge than the animation does, but still it is not enough to hit any poles on the bridge.

In your lower image, your 3 black lines are much more than 124 feet apart. The downed pole #1 is right In front of that tree on the left (south) edge of the bridge.

No way can the plane fly across the Annex, then hit the poles on the bridge, and the Pentagon, unless it performs a sharp left turn, which is impossible.

I have drawn this impossible route for you, but you just don't want to admit this.

a reply to: RubyGray

You referring to the the improperly corrected simulation for heading?

William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) | |
The NTSB animation of Flight AA77

www.democraticunderground.com...

Notice the guage in the lower righthand corner; it's the compass, showing a "magnetic" heading of "070" (i.e. relative to magnetic north). In the DC area, magnetic north is 10.5o west of true north.

It appears that whoever prepared the NTSB animation tried to adjust the magnetic heading to be a true heading in order to orient the map on which the flight path is superimposed. However, it appears that they simply made a mistake by adjusting the wrong way, 10.5o east instead of west, making the 70o magnetic heading to be 80.5o instead of the correct 59.5o. The following shows the correct heading passing directly over the Washington Blvd. bridge where the light poles were hit, compared to the incorrect heading as seen in the NTSB animation:



With the correct heading adjustment, the flight data recorder confirms what about a dozen withnesses said they saw: Flight AA77 hit the light poles.

William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) | |
3. The animation was done by NTSB


Pilotsfor911truth has simply added notes on the NTSB animation, such as the notes to show where the light poles would be. Without verifying that the flight path had been correctly oriented on the map, pilotsfor911truth claimed that the flight data recorder "proves" that AA77 couldn't have hit the light poles. With the correct

William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) | |
8. JDX knows about it now
Maybe he just hasn't had time to remove it from his site; we'll see, but I predict he will ignore it. Why? Because he's also thumping on several other boards about having two witnesses who will say that the plane passed north of the Citgo, as shown in the animation. He's making another for-sale DVD about that, so admitting that the animation is wrong would make that scam much harder to sell. To sell that scam, he already has to claim that the poles being knocked over -- not to mention the path of damage inside the Pentagon! -- was faked and (as if that wasn't ridiculous enough) that several dozen witnesses who say the plane passed over the bridge (many of which specifically saw the poles knocked over) are all either mistaken or lying. If he has to add to that a claim that the FDR heading is off by over 20 degrees, I'd say "game over."

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Nope, the FAA/NORAD animation has the plane flying diagonally across the Navy Annex from southwest corner to almost northeast corner, which is exactly where the two eyewitnesses EDWARD PAIK and ALBERT HEMPHILL place it.

This animation also has the pkane banking right, as all the witnesses state. Maybe you just can't draw curved lines on your images, but the animation flightpath is distinctly curved right.

Then it has the plane flying totally NORTH of the Citgo, but you have it flying across the top.

Therefore you have the plane flying much closer to the bridge than the animation does, but still it is not enough to hit any poles on the bridge.

In your lower image, your 3 black lines are much more than 124 feet apart. The downed pole #1 is right In front of that tree on the left (south) edge of the bridge.

No way can the plane fly across the Annex, then hit the poles on the bridge, and the Pentagon, unless it performs a sharp left turn, which is impossible.

I have drawn this impossible route for you, but you just don't want to admit this.

All the radar does is identify the area the plane is. Obviously the plane was not that high on approach.
We get rough placement- the plane was crossing near the two circles near the bridge.
For me since plane flying between the two circle roads it can slap against light poles and knock them down. 
Your specific claim it kept flying and did not crash?
All the eyewitnesses testify to seeing a plane at the Annex and was seen by witnesses at the fuel station!
The official story works based on the google maps and position of the plane in the NORAD ( FAA) video.
The wings are what struck the light poles. on each side of the airplane, the wing spreads out for 60 plus feet ( left to right side of the fuselage)

a reply to: Hulseyreport

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Here again is the image where I plotted your own flightpath for you, with the plane flying from the north of the Annex, north of the Citgo, then making a sharp dogleg turn to get back to the bridge.
Then, according to Robert Turcios, it had to fly up and over that road sign 470 feet north of the bridge, before turning right again to hit the pentagon.

The PURPLE LINE shows this flightpath of yours.

The many problems here include :

No plane could possibly fly this path
The damage trajectory would still be wrong even if the plane could hit the Pentagon FROM this path
Absolutely nobody (except known liar Mike Walter, who later contradicted himself many times) claimed that the plane flew over the bridge
Absolutely nobody is recorded as confirming, in first person, that they WITNESSED the plane hitting any poles
The plane flew in a RIGHT BANK as confirmed by MANY witnesses
The FAA/NORAD data has the plane flying in a RIGHT BANK
That official animation shows the red line CONTINUING OVER AND BEYOND THE PENTAGON.
Dozens of eyewitnesses were directly beneath the plane as it flew on the NORTHSIDE FLIGHTPATH.

Why do you keep claiming the "evidence" proves the plane flew over the bridge and hit lightpoles, but never produce any of this "evidence" you believe in?

Why do you not address any of this GENUINE EVIDENCE that proves the plane flew hundreds of yards N9RTH of the bridge?

a reply to: RubyGray

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

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.]

911speakout.org...

Robert Turcios saw the jet hit the pentagon.

a reply to: RubyGray

You

The plane flew in a RIGHT BANK as confirmed by MANY witnesses

Ok. Link to, cite, and use actual ATS protocol to quote them. No your usually intellectually dishonest ball of crap of you putting your words in other people’s statements.

The FAA/NORAD data has the plane flying in a RIGHT BANK

Really? Link to, cite, and quote that data?

Or you referring to this?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

You referring to the the improperly corrected simulation for heading?

William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) | |
The NTSB animation of Flight AA77

www.democraticunderground.com...

Notice the guage in the lower righthand corner; it's the compass, showing a "magnetic" heading of "070" (i.e. relative to magnetic north). In the DC area, magnetic north is 10.5o west of true north.

It appears that whoever prepared the NTSB animation tried to adjust the magnetic heading to be a true heading in order to orient the map on which the flight path is superimposed. However, it appears that they simply made a mistake by adjusting the wrong way, 10.5o east instead of west, making the 70o magnetic heading to be 80.5o instead of the correct 59.5o. The following shows the correct heading passing directly over the Washington Blvd. bridge where the light poles were hit, compared to the incorrect heading as seen in the NTSB animation:



With the correct heading adjustment, the flight data recorder confirms what about a dozen withnesses said they saw: Flight AA77 hit the light poles.

William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) | |
3. The animation was done by NTSB


Pilotsfor911truth has simply added notes on the NTSB animation, such as the notes to show where the light poles would be. Without verifying that the flight path had been correctly oriented on the map, pilotsfor911truth claimed that the flight data recorder "proves" that AA77 couldn't have hit the light poles. With the correct

William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) | |
8. JDX knows about it now
Maybe he just hasn't had time to remove it from his site; we'll see, but I predict he will ignore it. Why? Because he's also thumping on several other boards about having two witnesses who will say that the plane passed north of the Citgo, as shown in the animation. He's making another for-sale DVD about that, so admitting that the animation is wrong would make that scam much harder to sell. To sell that scam, he already has to claim that the poles being knocked over -- not to mention the path of damage inside the Pentagon! -- was faked and (as if that wasn't ridiculous enough) that several dozen witnesses who say the plane passed over the bridge (many of which specifically saw the poles knocked over) are all either mistaken or lying. If he has to add to that a claim that the FDR heading is off by over 20 degrees, I'd say "game over."

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: Hulseyreport

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Here again is the image where I plotted your own flightpath for you, with the plane flying from the north of the Annex, north of the Citgo, then making a sharp dogleg turn to get back to the bridge.
Then, according to Robert Turcios, it had to fly up and over that road sign 470 feet north of the bridge, before turning right again to hit the pentagon.

The PURPLE LINE shows this flightpath of yours.

The many problems here include :

No plane could possibly fly this path
The damage trajectory would still be wrong even if the plane could hit the Pentagon FROM this path
Absolutely nobody (except known liar Mike Walter, who later contradicted himself many times) claimed that the plane flew over the bridge
Absolutely nobody is recorded as confirming, in first person, that they WITNESSED the plane hitting any poles
The plane flew in a RIGHT BANK as confirmed by MANY witnesses
The FAA/NORAD data has the plane flying in a RIGHT BANK
That official animation shows the red line CONTINUING OVER AND BEYOND THE PENTAGON.
Dozens of eyewitnesses were directly beneath the plane as it flew on the NORTHSIDE FLIGHTPATH.

Why do you keep claiming the "evidence" proves the plane flew over the bridge and hit lightpoles, but never produce any of this "evidence" you believe in?

Why do you not address any of this GENUINE EVIDENCE that proves the plane flew hundreds of yards N9RTH of the bridge?

Ruby the plane would not curve like that.
Look at the map!

The plane would be coming in straight!

Your map you have a curving for some odd reason?

Flip your map, you see it more clearly. My black line is roughly where the Norad ( FAA animation places the plane) the red line ( official flight path) Based off the evidence the plane was in correct spot to hit light poles on the bridge,