9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

The airplane is 124 feet wide. It not as a small object crossing the bridge. My guess is right wing hit the lighpole near the sign and left wing hit the other one?




The bridge is about 80 feet wide, maybe or lot less?

Ruby see Robert position.. You can see the right light pole in the background with the bridge!

Lifts his hand and claims the plane was on right side, which perfectly lines up with the Norad video.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
files.abovetopsecret.com...
RubyGray said :
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
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 NORTH of the bridge?"

HULSEYREPORT said :
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?

*****
Seems that you do not even READ what I post!
Try again please!

You KNOW that Robert Turcios, and all the other witnesses, saw the plane flying NORTH of the Citgo.
Yet with every post, you place the flightpath further SOUTH of the Citgo.
You KNOW that the FAA/NORAD flightpath has the plane flying NORTH of the Citgo.

Yet for some inexplicable reason, you continue to claim that from there, the plane could still fly across the bridge and hit all those lightpoles, then the Pentagon.

So I drew the above map, with YOUR LINE in PURPLE, to show you how absurd that idea is.
Of course no plane could ever fly that way!
But this is what it would have had to do according to YOUR flightpath!

HERE is the true FAA/NORAD Flightpath, taken directly from that animation, which unfortunately is a poor quality video, but you can clearly see how the plane flew DIAGONALLY across the Navy Annex from the southwest to the northeast, then BANKED RIGHT as it flew NORTH of the Citgo and CROSSED the ANC parking lot.


The NNORAD flightpath is in red, and the southside official flightpath here is in yellow.

You continue to draw your flightpath dead straight, but the FAA says the plane BANKED RIGHT.
It flew on a CURVE, as I have shown in the following image.

I went to Google Maps and got the accurate distances for you.
No good guessing.
And it is no good standing maps on their ends, or cutting off the crucial points to disguise how you have invented a flightpath to suit yourself.
You need to measure accurately, use the proper orientation with NORTH at the top, and with all the relevant points included, as I have done here.
Your black line is way SOUTH of the Citgo. It is absolutely wrong!


Now, you can see exactly how far away from the bridge the plane actually flew, according to the OFFICIAL FAA/NORAD animation.
The plane was 375 feet NORTH of the LEFT WINGTIP on the official flightpath across the bridge.
There is NO WAY the plane could have flown across the bridge.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Ruby see Robert position.. You can see the right light pole in the background with the bridge!

Oh for crying out loud!
You cannot be serious!!
Have you not even noticed the GREEN FLIGHTPATH on this image, of the plane which Robert Turcios witnessed?
Just what exactly do you think that green line is???

This must be the 6th time I have explained this to you.
You are being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to make me lose my patience with you.
NOBODY could possibly have watched that video, and continue to make the false claims that you are doing here.

Robert Turcios lifts his LEFT HAND, then points FROM the NORTH SIDE OF THE CANOPY, TOWARDS the NORTH, and shows us that the WHOLE PLANE FLEW ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO.



Standing in the same place, Robert shows us how the plane SWOOPED DOWN to his NORTH, way NORTH of him, towards the Pentagon, then it LIFTED UP to clear the road sign, which was 470 FEET NORTH of the Bridge.

Please think about this!

Please explain to me, how the plane could hit the poles when it flew at least 470 feet NORTH of the bridge!
Then as I have asked many times, kindly quote all those witnesses you imagine there are, who said the plane flew on the SOUTHSIDE PATH, over the bridge.

Then, carefully examine the image below, and see the flightpath that Robert Turcios described.
Tell me - HOW the plane which came from his NORTH, and LIFTED UP over that "Do Not Enter" sign, could possibly have hit the Pentagon!

Then look at the RED LINE of the Southside flightpath, and explain how the plane could possibly have flown in two directions at the same time!



It just cannot be done.
A plane which flew UP to get over a road sign, CANNOT have then swooped down again to hit the Pentagon.



Just look at the height of that road sign.
The plane flew ABOVE that sign.
Therefore the plane was already high enough to fly OVER the Pentagon.
It could not possibly have hit the ground floor from that location.

I reading your post correctly. You are overlooking the flaws with your theory.

Robert informed the CIT person, where the plane was and he even lifted his hand to point to the southwest side. Open your eyes seriously!! You have an awful grasp of awareness too.
How can the jet be flying northeast- it be flying the incorrect way?
How would the airplane rise over the traffic sign at the bridge,  since by your account the plane was at Arlington graveyard Please show that?
How tall are the light poles again? How tall is the sign? The plane was descending to a lower height after it passed the bridge.
Your own pictures even endorse what I said

.Robert looking at the bridge, not where you claim the plane flew.
You have not figured out yet the plane 124 feet wide!  
Even studying the image time 24.52 ( Robert in) He even endorses my view the left wing of the plane was on that side of the canopy! You are confused. He says (right wing) but obvious it left-wing)based on where he points to.

You believe the whole plane emerged from this side ( it did not) only the left-wing was on that side of the fuel station and Robert supported by opinion,. 
The body of the plane and right-wing is located more to the southwest side. 
You can lose patience, but your theory is nonsense. 
Robert an eyewitnesses, has confirmed i am correct!

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You have absolutely no idea how to tell left from right.

You cannot read and understand a simple map.

You cannot watch a video and comprehend what the eyewitness is telling you.

You cannot produce one single witness who supports your false claim.

You cannot discuss a single one of all the many eyewitnesses who saw the plane fly on the same North-of-Citgo flightpath that the FAA & NORAD show.

You cannot read and understand the significance of the accurate distances on the images I draw for you.

You are unable to see that Robert Turcios said the WHOLE PLANE flew NORTH OF THE CITGO.

You keep pretending you cannot see that the flightpath Turcios saw, was the BLUE CURVE on my image, certainly NOT THE RED LINE.

You tell me to check Lagasse's testimony about his position, which I did for your benefit. Then you ignore what that proves.

Why do you ignore and twist the evidence?

POLES lying on the ground are not evidence.
They were never forensically tested.
They were props on a stage set to fool people.

The witnesses who were ON THE BRIDGE,
DID NOT SEE THE PLANE fly ACROSS THE BRIDGE.

But you think you know better than them!

a reply to: Hulseyreport

I reading your post correctly. You are overlooking the flaws with your theory. 

Robert informed the CIT person, where the plane was and he even lifted his hand to point to the southwest side. Open your eyes seriously!! You have an awful grasp of awareness too. 
How can the jet be flying northeast- it be flying the incorrect way? 
How would the airplane rise over the traffic sign at the bridge,  since by your account the plane was at Arlington graveyard Please show that? 
How tall are the light poles again? How tall is the sign? The plane was descending to a lower height after it passed the bridge. 
Your own pictures even endorse what I said 

This is NOT "My theory"!
I am merely repeating what Robert Turcios, and all the other witnesses said.

My images show exactly how WRONG you are.
I have shown you many times, how your imagined flightpath is way off that described by the witnesses, and the Official FAA/NORAD animation.

Turcios said the tip of the RIGHT WING was on the NORTH SIDE of the NORTHERN END of the Citgo canopy.

But YOU say you know better than the witness himself who was actually there, and you imagine it is "obvious" that he meant the LEFT WING.

Even though he was standing on the NORTHEAST side of the station, you claim he "points to the southwest" when what he was clearly saying is, that the WHOLE PLANE extended FROM the NORTH side of the canopy, more towards the NORTH.

You need to watch the videos properly, listen to the witnesses, and quit making up your own rules for misrepresenting eyewitness testimony and misreading annotated maps.

The plane cannot be flying "The incorrect way" if it is where the eyewitnesses ALL SAW IT.
That must clearly be the CORRECT way.
NORTH of the Citgo, across the ANC parking lot, lifting up over the highway, and then ... it cannot hit the ground floor of the Pentagon.
Therefore, it is the SOUTHSIDE flightpath that must be incorrect.
I have drawn this for you many times, but you never acknowledge it.
I have shown you how this Northside flightpath is exactly the same as the FAA/NORAD flightpath, but you pretend not to notice.

Yes, its left wing flew across the cemetery parking lot, and from there across Route 27 towards the Pentagon. None of those 40 foot high poles was hit in that area, therefore the plane was flying above that height, as many witnesses stated.

Why don't you start addressing the testimony of ALL THOSE WITNESSES who said the plane flew directly overhead of them, on the right-banking path I have drawn?

You are unable to produce a single witness on the bridge who said the plane flew overhead.

The claim that the plane flew across the bridge, came years after the fact from the 9/11 Commission, not from any witnesses.

Robert Turcios, and every other witness, proves you wrong.

How can you possibly claim what you do, when Sgt Lagasse was on the NORTH side of the Citgo, and said, and demonstrated physically, that he saw the plane fly NORTH of him, across the stone wall of the cemetery parking lot?

And all the cemetery witnesses, who were even further NORTH of Sgt Lagasse, said the plane flew across the ANC parking lot?

How do you explain all the flightpaths drawn on overhead photos by all those witnesses?

a reply to: RubyGray

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

A recently updated spreadsheet analysing witness testimony can be found here.

CIT claims that their 13 witnesses, who describe the path of the plane approaching the Pentagon as being to the north of the former Citgo service station, provide irrefutable proof that the plane could not have hit and damaged the Pentagon in the manner described in official accounts and must therefore have flown over. They claim these witnesses are irrefutable on no other grounds than that they were recorded on video and corroborate one another. They gloss over the fact that all their witnesses who were in a position to see the Pentagon say they saw the plane hit[1] and they gloss over the fact that every witness to impact is a witness to a straight path south of the service station, and there are many of them.

It is worth noting that these witnesses interviewed by CIT who reported seeing the plane hit the Pentagon made the statement during the same interview where they said the plane was on the north path. Thus CIT knew right from the start that their flyover theory was contradicted by their own witnesses, yet they presented the north path flyover theory as though it was unchallenged. A proper journalistic investigation would have widened the scope of the inquiry to cover the testimony of those who witnessed the impact, so that the reader could compare and make a judgment about the probability of flyover versus impact.

CIT challenge us to provide video interviews of people who contradict the north path. It turns out that there are several convincing video interviews of impact and the south path approach.

The damaged light poles provide a strong indication of the direction of the approach. This direction is confirmed by the shape of the damage inside the Pentagon and supported by the new decoding of the FDR file, which shows a straight south path. The radar data from four separate installations show the approach path of the plane, which runs directly toward the impact site. The last radar position is the earliest point from which a deviation around the Citgo service station would have to commence. A deviation commencing there, by the laws of physics, would have to produce exceptionally steep left and right bank angles to turn and hit the Pentagon. No witness described more than a slight bank. Some said the plane was level. This requires that the plane flew virtually straight. As the plane flew virtually straight, it follows that any person who saw the impact is a witness to the south path. South path witnesses therefore outnumber north path witnesses by a factor of about 8 to 1. Why then would anyone consider giving any weight at all to the north path witnesses? Is it because the south path witnesses have not all been interviewed on video? Why should video be so much stronger than an email or a note taken by a reporter? If that is regarded as a problem, consider the 13 video interviews listed below which report impact and hence contradict CIT. Have I missed any?

Snip

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...

Ruby your flight path makes zero sense.
According to Robert, he alleges the right-wing went over the traffic sign!


This is your flight plan. The further north you go the plane right-wing can't be lifting over the sign? Even the closet line (green line) the right-wing even was lifting over the sign. The left-wing would be much closer to the bridge?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Ruby your flight path makes zero sense. 
According to Robert, he alleges the right-wing went over the traffic sign! 

This is your flight plan.
The further north you go the plane right-wing can't be lifting over the sign?
Even the closet line (green line) the right-wing even was lifting over the sign.
The left-wing would be much closer to the bridge? 

I disagree. The flight path I have drawn makes perfect sense, because that is what the eyewitnesses themselves drew.

The lines you have drawn here, are different from mine.
The plane actually approached the west wall almost perpendicular to it, banking right, not in a straight line at that steep angle you have.

Where does Robert Turcios say the "right wing went over the sign"?
What he actually said, several times, was that he saw the back of the plane as it was lifting up over the "DO NOT ENTER" sign.

I see you are confused again about your RIGHT & LEFT.
The RIGHT WING here is closer to the BRIDGE;
The LEFT WING is closer to the CEMETERY.

So I'm really not sure what you are saying here.

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. What did people see knocking over poles on the way to crashing into the pentagon. What caused the damage to the pentagon. What murdered the people in the pentagon. How did the passengers and flight crew of flight 77 end up dead at the pentagon.

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Ruby your flight path makes zero sense. 
According to Robert, he alleges the right-wing went over the traffic sign! 

This is your flight plan.
The further north you go the plane right-wing can't be lifting over the sign?
Even the closet line (green line) the right-wing even was lifting over the sign.
The left-wing would be much closer to the bridge? 

I disagree. The flight path I have drawn makes perfect sense, because that is what the eyewitnesses themselves drew.

The lines you have drawn here, are different from mine.
The plane actually approached the west wall almost perpendicular to it, banking right, not in a straight line at that steep angle you have.

Where does Robert Turcios say the "right wing went over the sign"?
What he actually said, several times, was that he saw the back of the plane as it was lifting up over the "DO NOT ENTER" sign.

I see you are confused again about your RIGHT & LEFT.
The RIGHT WING here is closer to the BRIDGE;
The LEFT WING is closer to the CEMETERY.

So I'm really not sure what you are saying here.

I know you disagree.
Robert clear says the plane lifted a bit


He said the plane lifted a bit at the no enter sign!
That sign on the bridge.


Robert standing on an elevated piece of grass looking towards the bridge. Notice the road?

My black lines are his line of sight- the red line is for me Where I believe roughly the plane was on 9/11
The yellow line is the distance the two poles ae part from each other (120 feet) so the distance also matches up with a plane strike.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

OK, I see where you have made some mistakes now.
This is what happens when you cut off critical pieces of your map then make up lines of your own without any reference to the eyewitnesses.

You have this :

My black lines are his line of sight- the red line is for me Where I believe roughly the plane was on 9/11 The yellow line is the distance the two poles ae part from each other (120 feet) so the distance also matches up with a plane strike.

But you have cut off the Pentagon walls, and invented your own flightpath, again.
Then you have invented what you imagine was Robert Turcios' line of sight.
But since you cannot see the walls, you do not realise that your lines end at the SOUTH wall, not the WEST wall.

Therefore you have mistaken the DO NOT ENTER SIGN on the bridge (which Robert Turcios could not even see), for the one Turcios actually pointed out, 400 feet further north.

So below is the corrected map, with :

* the Official Flightpath across the bridge and ending at the impact site
* The actual DO NOT ENTER sign indicated by Turcios
* Turcios' actual observed flightpath



And BELOW is the DO NOT ENTER sign pointed out by Robert Turcios on the CIT video.
This shows that Turcios' lne of sight was

* from the north end of the Citgo,
* across the Do Not Enter sign,
* to the impact site on the West wall.

Ruby all the evidence corroborates the light poles were knocked down by a plane. 
Robert position on 9/11 lines up with an airplane crossing near the bridge.
You want everybody to believe the planted light poles on the bridge in broad daylight in front of everyone after the blast? And there was a second decoy cab on the bridge that sped off when they moved Lloyd taxicab to the bridge?
We know there was a plane at the fuel station witnessed by all (that places the airplane along a path to cross the two circle roads near the bridge!

You base the entire case on blurring images, videos and claims Lloyd was somewhere else. Even though he still says on the video, there was a guy up on the bridge who took photos of the light pole removed from the cab!
Lloyd does not claim they moved his taxicab from one location to another location ( big headache for your theory) you even asserted a police officer drugged him in broad daylight with no clear evidence.

You also ignore the FAA (Norad) radar animation places the plane between the two circles roads near the traverse across the bridge. Your plane would totally miss the two circle roads if flew near the middle- no entry sign.
There is plane wreckage found at the Pentagon- which you can't explain?  Your claim is the airplane flew past the Pentagon and kept going.
You have produced nothing concrete to substantiate your theory for me. Yes, I see blurry photographs of cars at the cemetery, but that not going to work because a clearer image could transform the whole aspect of your case and was just a civilian car and not a taxi. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Ruby all the evidence corroborates the light poles were knocked down by a plane.  

WHICH evidence??? I have asked you, many times, to quote the testimony of people who were on the bridge, who saw the plane fly diagonally across the bridge, but you cannot produce a single one.

On the contrary, I have quoted the testimonies of people who were on the overpass - who DID NOT SEE THE PLANE fly across the bridge.

These include :

JOEL SUCHERMAN
EUGENIO HERNANDEZ
CAMERA GUY, HIS WIFE & SON
YVETTE BUZARD
PENNY ELGAS.

I have asked you to consider the testimonies of the many witnesses who were hundreds of yards west, northwest and north of the bridge, who stated that they were directly beneath, or south of, the plane as it flew towards the Pentagon, yet you ignore them.

These highly credible eyewitnesses include :

EDWARD PAIK
TERRY MORIN
ALBERT HEMPHILL
SGT BROOKS
SGT LAGASSE
ROBERT TURCIOS
WILLIAM MIDDLETON
DARRELL STAFFORD
DARIUS PRATHER
GEORGE AMAN
DONALD CARTER
MARY ANN OWENS
VIN NARAYANAN
CHRISTINE PETERSON
CHERYL RYEFIELD
FATHER STEPHEN MCGRAW

These people were just north of the plane as it crossed the highway at about the level of the Columbia Pike exit road, perpendicular to the west wall :

ATC SEAN BOGER
FIREFIGHTER ALAN WALLACE
FIREFIGHTER MARK SKIPPER
LLOYDE ENGLAND
STEVE RISKUS
SGT MARK BRIGHT (GUARD SHACK)
WANDA RAMEY (GUARD SHACK)
TONY TERRONEZ

You are not entitled to disregard the abundant testimony of ALL these eyewitnesses!
They were there, and we were not.
There are also many more of them, and their combined evidence proves that the plane DID NOT FLY OVER THE BRIDGE.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Robert position on 9/11 lines up with an airplane crossing near the bridge. 

How many times have I proved to you, with maps, that this is untrue?

Yet you keep plodding on, claiming the same false thing, posting mutilated images with your constantly-changed imagined flightpath on them, and the crucial locations (such as the Pentagon) cut off, to foster the impression that you are correct.

Robert Turcios saw the WHOLE PLANE FLY NORTH OF THE CITGO.

He then saw the WHOLE PLANE FLY OVER THE OVERHEAD SIGN, which is 400 feet NORTH of the overhead sign on the bridge.

Turcios said the plane flew "TO THE SIDE OF the bridge", not "OVER" it.

Robert Turcios said he DID NOT SEE THE PLANE HIT ANY LIGHT POLES.

Robert Turcios said that due to the embankment, he COULD NOT SEE THE PLANE ACTUALLY HIT THE PENTAGON.

Why will you never acknowledge these facts?
Why do you continually draw in flightpaths which are totally different from the path that Turcios himself drew?
Why do you imagine you know better than Robert Turcios, who was actually there?
Why do you claim that the plane could fly where Turcios saw it - north of the Citgo - and then hit the poles on the bridge, and then hit the Pentagon - and say that this is a straight line?
You know I have drawn this flightpath OF YOURS for you, that crazy impossible purple dogleg line on the satellite photo. (PAGE 86.)
You know that it shows the plane flying northeast over the Navy Annex, passing north of the Citgo, then it has to turn sharp right towards the bridge to the east, then a sharp left north to get over that Do Not Enter sign up the highway, then (within just 0.75 of a second) it has to veer right then left again to line up with the damage trajectory inside the Pentagon.
Please quit your desperate claims!


Robert Turcios said he saw the plane LIFT UP OVER THE OVERHEAD SIGN.

He NEVER saw the plane "swoop down again" to skim the lawn before hitting the Pentagon just 3/4 of a second later.
Such a manoeuvre would be ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE!
But you gloss right over this witness's valuable testimony!

DARIUS PRATHER was a cemetery worker who was standing in the ANC yard when the plane's left wing flew directly over their parking lot, banking to the RIGHT.
Darius Prather also stated that the PLANE PIVOTED UP as it crossed the highway.

As the plane LIFTED UP, it CANNOT HAVE HIT ANY LIGHTPOLES!

Since it crossed the highway hundreds of yards north of the bridge, it CANNOT HAVE HIT LIGHTPOLES ON THE BRIDGE.

Since it was about 50 to 80 feet ABOVE GROUND LEVEL as it crossed the highway (attested by numerous other witnesses as well), it CANNOT HAVE HIT THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE PENTAGON.

How do you explain these facts?

It doesn't matter where the theoretical airplane was, what happened at the pentagon was not caused by aircraft damage, maybe a missile or drone, but no airliner, not UA77

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You want everybody to believe the planted light poles on the bridge in broad daylight in front of everyone after the blast? 

When have I EVER said this? NEVER!!

So please stop accusing me of saying things that you have imagined.

I am inclined to agree with Craig Ranke, who is the only person to have tried to find the truth here. He went to the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) depot on Columbia Pike, where he interviewed the Operations Manager, CHRISTOPHER LANDIS, about these poles. Craig said Landis was "noticeably nervous" when being questioned, although he gave permission to film inside the depot's monitor room, on top of the roof, and in the yard where the spare lightpoles - and the orange low loader trailer - were stored.

The VDOT refused to answer requests for information about the poles which were allegedly hit by a 757 on 9/11, but they did confirm that some of the poles were in the jurisdiction of the VDOT, and the others were managed by the Pentagon.

Motorists are familiar with road crews working on lightpoles. It would have not aroused any suspicions as they drove by, if a few of them saw a pole being dropped. It would seem perfectly normal on any working day.

Pole #2 was laying upside down on the steep bank of the overpass bridge, under a tree, behind the stone wall qnd guardrail, invisible to passing motorists. It could have been lying there for days and nobody would have suspected anything. If a couple of motorists had complained to the VDOT that it seemed to be darker than usual when they crossed the bridge at night, they would have been reassured that the matter was being attended to, but this would not have been made public.

Pole #1 was photographed on top of the bridge, across the lanes - the only one of the 5 to be lying on the road. All the others were lying on grassy slopes being guardrails. But there is a noticeable scratch in the road surface extending from the sharp corner of this pole's metal base, across the base towards the concrete dividing wall on the EAST SIDE of the southbound lanes. It appears that this pole had been dragged into position from its location alongside the divider, where again, It could have lain overnight, or even for several days, without attracting attention. Or if someone did complain, the VDOT would have reassured that person that all was being sorted, but they would not disclose this complaint to the public.

And there was a second decoy cab on the bridge that sped off when they moved Lloyd taxicab to the bridge? 

There certainly was a second, DECOY CAB.

The amateur video shot from the Triage site on the northern Pentagon lawn, shows TWO BLACK CAPITOL CABS, in TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, at 9:41 beside the cemetery wall, then 37 seconds later on top of the overpass bridge, 350 yards further south.
The FIRST CAB has a pole poking diagonally through it.
It has a WHITE VAN parked in front of it.
(Lloyde England stated that a man drove by in a WHITE VAN, got out and helped him remove the pole, then drove on south down the road. This same white van was shown arriving from the north below the Columbia Pike exit sign a few seconds previously, then driving down the road towards the bridge a few seconds later, on TWO VIDEOS, then there are several photos of it parked on top of the bridge, then driving off again, just before LLOYDE'S CAB was relocated there.)

Motorist YVETTE BUZARD wrote that she was driving north towards the Pentagon on Route 27 when the "concrete truck" in front of her suddenly slammed on his brakes and hit the guardrail. Smoke billowed up, but she had no idea what caused it. She DID NOT SEE A PLANE.

There is no concrete truck on any of the images or videos. The only large vehicle, which could have been mistaken for a concrete truck, is a septic tank service truck, northbound on top of the bridge at about 15 minutes post impact.

But when Yvette Buzard got to the top of the overpass, she saw a "long lightpole laying across the lanes, on top of a TAXI CAB".

This is not what LLOYDE ENGLAND described.

Lloyde England stated, drew and demonstrated that there was a pole about 12 feet long and 4 inches diameter, diagonally through his windscreen, extending from the rear seatback out to the front of the hood.
This obviously was not a lightpole, and it was not "laying on top of the cab", nor was it simultaneously "laying across the lanes".
Lloyde also stated that he WAS NOT ON THE BRIDGE when hit by this pole, but 400 yards further north.
Lloyde had no idea how his cab came to be on the bridge, more than 10 minutes after it was hit by the pole beside the cemetery wall, but that he had "no problem with that".
Lloyde stated that the LONG LIGHTPOLE #1 laying beside his cab in the photos taken on the bridge, WAS NOT THE POLE THAT HIT HIS CAB.
Lloyde positively identified the smaller, shorter pole photographed laying on the road behind his cab on the other side, as the pole which he had removed from his windscreen.

It seems this pole had been dragged from its storage spot by the concrete divider, by the two men inside the DECOY CAB, making that deep scratch in the road. Then they had laid it across the top of the DECOY CAB while all eyes were fixed in the opposite direction, on the explosion at the Pentagon. A few minutes later, nobody would have been surprised to see two men lifting a pole off the top of a cab, and then driving away - even if anyone have been looking in that direction, which is unlikely.

The video shot from the top of the bridge at this time shows everybody looking northeast towards the Pentagon spectacle, not southwest towards the DECOY CAB.

There is no doubt about certain facts, for they are all confirmed on photos and videos.
Lloyde stated that there was NO TRAFFIC SOUTHBOHND at the time that his cab was hit by the pole, although the northbound traffic was bumper to bumper. However, he does mention the WHITE VAN which drove by, then went on down the road.
And this is precisely what the videos and photos show.
A WHITE VAN which arrives from the north, stops beside the cemetery wall for 90 seconds, then drives on down the road.
This WHITE VAN is absolute confirmation that LLOYDE ENGLAND TOLD THE TRUTH about being hit by a pole BESIDE THE CEMETERY.

STEVE RISKUS was driving just behind LLOYDE ENGLAND, and his series of photos shows standstill northbound traffic bumper to bumper, but NO TRAFFIC southbound.
Several videos show there was no traffic driving southbound between the Columbia Pike exit road and the bridge, except for the WHITE VAN, shortly followed by the BLACK TOWTRUCK AND TRAILER at 9:43 a.m.

The video taken from the bridge also shows the BLACK TOWTRUCK arriving on top of the bridge, then the DECOY CAB speeding away south. NO OTHER TRAFFIC SOUTHBOUND until 9:48 a.m., when some cars were allowed to file past the staged scene of Lloyde's cab and the downed pole for only a few minutes.

originally posted by: Salander
It doesn't matter where the theoretical airplane was, what happened at the pentagon was not caused by aircraft damage, maybe a missile or drone, but no airliner, not UA77

Hi Salander, nice to see you again!