9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

a reply to: Hulseyreport

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. 

You speciously claim that because the video of Lloyde's cab beside the cemetery wall is blurry, it cannot prove that LLOYDE was there where he absolutely claimed he was.

You claim that "ALL THE EVIDENCE" proves that AA77 flew across the bridge, hit 5 lightpoles, knocked one of those through Lloyde England's windshield, then hit the Pentagon.

Yet you cannot quote a single eyewitness to the plane flying across the bridge, nor to actually having seen the plane hit any lightpoles.
And you have just ONE VERY BLURRY IMAGE of what is claimed to be "AA77", and ONE VERY BLURRY IMAGE of what is supposed to be AA77's tail, flying very low and level across the Pentagon lawn.
That is your only "PROOF"! And this footage was in the possession of the FBI for years!
It would be a very simple matter to superimpose these two tiny, VERY BLURRY IMAGES on the CCTV footage.
That is what the FBI MUST HAVE DONE, as there is not a single eyewitness who saw the plane in that location and altitude and attitude.
But there are many eyewitnesses who saw the plane banking RIGHT, at much HIGHER altitude, and much further NORTH.

However, I can guarantee that the FBI DID NOT superimpose the 7 seconds of footage of LLOYDE'S CAB on the amateur video!
They also had the various videos incriminating the real orchestrators of 9/11 in their possession for years, before being forced to release them.
They NEVER even realised the cab was there!
If they had realised, they would certainly have removed it.
So it is fortunate that the video is so blurry, or we would not have this valuable evidence at all.

For all we know, the FBI confiscated many other photos and videos which showed the cab clearly, and destroyed them.

There are scores of individual frames in this 7 seconds of video, showing the cab as the camera operator walks south towards it.
So there are many features that positively identify this car as a BLACK 1990 LINCOLN CONTINENTAL TOWN CAR CAPITOL CAB, belonging to LLOYDE ENGLAND.

1. LLOYDE ENGLAND testifies that this is where he was when he skidded to a halt after the pole smashed through his windscreen.
2. STEVE RISKUS' second photo, taken at 1 minute post impact, shows black skid marks and smashed windscreen glass on the road about 50 yards north of where the cab came to halt.
3. TONY TERRONEZ was driving about 50 yards north of the Heliport when the plane flew across just behind his car. He ducked down on his seat and heard a terrific noise of some glass being smashed. When he got up to check, he saw that the car next to him had something smash through its windscreen. He describes a conversation with the driver that corroborates Lloyde's own account.
4. FATHER STEPHEN MCGRAW was opposite the HELIPORT when the plane flew directly across his car. He stated that he was "just a few feet away from" Lloyde's taxi, and that HE SAW THE EVIDENCE OF A PIECE OF POLE through the cab, but DID NOT SEE ANY POLES HIT BY THE PLANE.
5. VIN NARAYANAN was just south of the Columbia Pike overhead sign when the plane flew across in front of him. He thought the plane "clipped" the exit sign. What he actually saw, was most likely a pole being fired towards Lloyde's cab - there was more than one - that just clipped the sign. Narayanan said NO LIGHTPOLES WERE HIT BY THE PLANE.
6. ATC SEAN BOGER, from inside the Heliport, also thought the plane "clipped" the sign. Likewise, what he really saw, was a pole hitting the sign as it was fired towards the cab. Sean Boger DID NOT SEE THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE, and he DID NOT SEE THE PLANE HIT ANY LIGHT POLES.
7. LLOYDE ENGLAND is seen in several frames, walking north to stand in front of the hood of this cab by the cemetery wall, from the direction of the WHITE VAN parked south of the cab. This is the position he later demonstrated on both of CIT's videos, where he stood as he was removing the pole with the driver of the WHITE VAN.
8. There is a LONG DIAGONAL OBJECT extending from the rear seat of this black car, through the windshield and out across the hood, at 9:41 a.m., 4 minutes post impact.
9. The driver's door is open, and the features of the interior of the door and side dashboard are identical to those shown of Lloyde's cab in the CIT video "Eye of the Storm", and also promotional photos of the 1990 Lincoln Continental Town Car.
10. The details of the front of the hood and bumper are likewise identical with both Lloyde's cab and Lincoln promo photos.
11. There is a faint orange stripe running lengthwise along the car below the rear window, over the rear door handle.
12. There is a distinctively shaped white logo on the rear door, compatible with the CAPITOL CAB logo.
13. The distinctive WHITE CAPITOL CAB ROOF LIGHT shines prominently on top of this cab in numerous frames.
14. There is a dark rectangular shape on the rear window, identified on Lloyde's cab as the Fares Label.
15. The distinctive quarter glass of the 1990 Lincoln Continental is clearly seen.
16. Coincidentally, there is a BLACK TOWTRUCK waiting behind this cab already, at 9:41 a.m.
17. The silver sedan driven by DETECTIVE DON FORTUNATO is parked across the concrete lane divider, behind this cab. This is exactly how Fortunato testified that he parked when he arrived close to the scene. This same car was parked in a similar position relative to Lloyde's cab later, on the bridge. However, the bridge is HUNDREDS OF YARDS SOUTH of the impact site. Fortunato would NOT have driven from his office NORTH of the Pentagon, HUNDREDS OF YARDS PAST the impact site, before stopping.

Unlike yourself, I have provided vast quantities of ACTUAL EVIDENCE which proves that LLOYDE ENGLAND was telling the truth about his location and the flightpath of the plane.

You have not been able to refute a word of Lloyde England's testimony.
Many have ridiculed Lloyde's story about the driver of the WHITE VAN.
But in fact, this WHITE VAN is seen MANY TIMES on several videos and photos, which totally vindicates Lloyde England's story.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

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! 

Pleeeeease check the maps again!!!!!
You admit that the plane was seen by 3 eyewitnesses at the Citgo station.
They ALL state that the ENTIRE PLANE FLEW NORTH OF THE CITGO.
They ALL DREW THIS FLIGHTPATH, which passes FAR NORTH of the bridge.
They ALL stated that they DID NOT SEE THE PLANE HIT ANY LIGHT POLES.
They ALL stated that due to the elevation of the highway, they had no actual view of the impact site, therefore DID NOT SEE THE PLANE impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, even though this is what they logically ASSUMED after the plane disappeared the the explosion occurred.

Yes, the plane flew NORTH of the Citgo.
Many eyewitnesses then saw it fly across the ANC parking lot, and across the top of the northwest cloverleaf loop, which is far NORTH of all 3 lightpoles on top of the bridge.
Flying "near" something, is not compatible with "hitting" that something.
There is no way that a 757 on this flightpath, can possibly have hit any pole on the bridge.
It was many hundreds of feet too far NORTH of those poles.

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! 

Lloyde himself was adamant, for many years, despite criticism, ridicule, slander and libel, that he WAS NOT ON THE BRIDGE WHEN IT HAPPENED.

He stated that the police officer "pushed him down" to force him to leave his cab.
His wife Shirley stated that this police officer "ran him off" from his cab.

Why would ANY police officer do this to a victim?

This is police brutality!

Nobody else blinks an eye at this disgusting behaviour by an officer sworn to uphold the law and protect the innocent victims, but I am calling it for what it is.

WHITE DETECTIVE DON FORTUNATO ASSAULTED 9/11 VICTIM and SENIOR CITIZEN, BLACK CAB DRIVER, LLOYDE ENGLAND, UNPROVOKED and WITHOUT CAUSE.

Perhaps you think this is OK.
Sure, it happens all the time in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
But I do not accept this!
I find it totally compatible with what I know of American policing practices, that this officer would have been equipped and prepared to use a Taser gun, and/or to administer a hypodermic shot of a hypnotic drug, to achieve his objective.

Lloyde England was videoed standing in front of his cab

Just a minute or so later, he appeared on the video shot from the bridge, walking north in the HOV lane, towards the pentagon.
That is 350 yards south of where hi left his cab.
I suggest that a drug was administered to Lloyde intramuscularly when the police officer pushed him down, which rendered him temporarily compliant and suggestive (a hypnotic drug; ROHYPNOL is one; are you saying this drug is never used illegally to get people to comply with requests without resisting, and without clearly recalling what was done to them while under its influence???!!) but did not fully incapacitate him.

I suggest that Lloyde was then put into an official vehicle.
This explains the testimony of FATHER STEPHEN MCGRAW, who was close to Lloyde's cab, who saw the pole that hit the cab, and who said that Lloyde was injured, which he was not.
Anyone who saw Lloyde England being pushed to the ground by a police officer, then bundled into a vehicle, could have been "reassured" that LLOYDE was injured by the impact of the pole, that he fell because of that, and that he was being transported away for medical treatment.

I then suggest that Lloyde was driven south, then put out on top of the bridge, to prevent him from seeing what was done with his cab.
The cab was covered with a black tarp after being loaded on the trailer, to disguise it as it was relocated from the cemetery to the bridge.
In fact, it drove right by Lloyde as he was walking north, on his left, but he was looking forward and to his RIGHT. He would never have known that his own cab was on that trailer. Nor would anyone else have guessed what was happening.

After Lloyde walked about 50 yards further north to watch the fire, he was photographed at 9:47-48 a.m., head to head with another black man, looking down at something between them.
Another part of Lloyde's story is that as he was making his way home, he met another man who "found" a dollar bill on the road. They were talking, and this man got them both to sign the dollar bill, then he tore it in half and gave half to Lloyde as a keepsake. Lloyde showed his half of this dollar bill on CIT video "The First Known Accomplice?".
Again, everybody ridiculed Lloyde over this, as people could find no trace of the man who signed this dollar bill for Lloyde.

That name is MARC VANDEMERE.

Nor can I find anyone by this name, which is apparently fictitious.
I suggest that this guy was an operative, using a made-up name and the ruse of the "found dollar bill" to delay and distract Lloyde while the cab was being set up on the bridge.
The photos and videos corroborating Lloyde's story, and Lloyde's half of the dollar bill, are my evidence for this.

Videos and photos then show the actual, real-time evidence of how Lloyde was reunited with his cab, after wandering about on foot in the HOV lanes for a few minutes.

DONALD RUMSFELD'S BODYGUARD, PENTAGON POLICE OFFICER AUBREY DAVIS, left his boss to prance about on the Pentagon lawn, removed his jacket and tie, and skived off in a brown Jeep. He drove up onto the bridge from the southeast cloverleaf, drove north and collected Lloyde, then drove off the northeast cloverleaf, back up onto the bridge from the northwest cloverleaf, then deposited Lloyde there near his cab, where he stayed for several minutes to guard Lloyde England while the photo series was taken, before they banished him off home again.
AUBREY DAVIS then drove back to the Pentagon, where they both put their jackets on again, and were famously photographed walking back inside the Pentagon after 10 a.m.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

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. 

That is exactly the point of hypnotic drugs. They override natural resistance, and make the person more compliant with suggestions. They also fudge the recollection of what has happened. We used them in the hospital for patients who were undergoing unpleasant procedures, but who needed to remain conscious, yet not have a clear memory of what had been done to them. If you are ever unfortunate enough to need a colonoscopy for example, something like this will be administered to you.

Police officers do stuff all the time in broad daylight and get away with it because they wear a uniform. Nobody thinks twice about it. Anyway, everyone was looking in the opposite direction. It takes about 2 seconds to inject a drug IM. Nobody would ever notice. The only other people nearby at that time were the towtruck operators, and Steve Riskus, operatives all.

Lloyde's wife SHIRLEY knew that LLOYDE is an honest man, and that he was beside the cemetery wall when the pole hit, but was photographed 400 yards away on the bridge.

She sensibly said,
"THEY COULD HAVE MOVED YOUR CAB ... BECAUSE THEY RAN YOU OFF ... THEY WOULDN'T LET YOU GET NEAR IT."

Lloyde said "They didn't", because he genuinely did not know what they had done.
That is what drugs do. They did not want Lloyde remembering too much.

When Lloyde took Craig Ranke and Christopher Taylor driving by the cemetery to show them, TWICE, where he was when the pole hit the cab and then where it came to rest, Craig kept telling LLOYDE that he "had a real problem" if that was where it happened, as the photos were taken on the bridge.

But Lloyde was not bothered. He said, "I GOT NO PROBLEM WITH THAT."
He was about to tell Craig why he had no problem with that, when typically, Craig interrupted him again, and then the video ends.

But Lloyde simply was not interested in finding out what happened.
He knew where he was, and he just ignored people who said otherwise.
He graciously rose above the level of those who slandered him and accused him and disbelieved him.

However, Lloyde did say that there were many things about that day which he had no answer for.
Other witnesses said the same thing.

Lloyde did not know how the cab appeared in the photos on the bridge.
He was obviously confused by these photos when he was shown them on video for the first time.

But he was NOT confused about where he was when it happened, nor about all the things that he did remember.
Every single detail of Lloyde's story checks out on photos, on videos, and in the testimony of other eyewitnesses.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

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! 

Sure there was a guy "up on the bridge"!
And he took photos!
So what?

This guy was called "Mike" and Craig Ranke met him when they collected 2 photos from him in the CIT video "Eye of the Storm".
Mike only gave Craig 2 images, but Craig thought, as did Mike himself, and as do I, that there were actually more photos taken, which for some reason Mike did not want to share publicly.

On the video taken from the bridge, we see Lloyde's cab in the distance on the overpass after the police and fire officers had left. There is a guy standing south of the cab, with his arms held up in front of him, as though he was taking photos of the cab. This could well be Mike. But there is no fire dept vehicle seen here, which there is in the photos given to Craig by Mike.

Why would Lloyde not be entitled to say that Mike was "up on the bridge"?
Lloyde was at the cemetery wall when he left his cab. To get to his home, he had to walk across the bridge, then several miles southwest. We see him in photos and video, walking on the overpass south of the Pentagon. This was on his route home. You can find his address on a map for yourself.

Jason Ingersoll's photo series shows lots of people "up on the bridge", including someone who looks very much like this Mike.

Lloyde said that photos were taken at the cemetery site, and he thought that Mike had taken photos there.
Did he? Perhaps he did.
If so, then perhaps he had good reason for not making these pictures public, because he also took pictures of the cab on the bridge.

However, pictures WERE taken at the cemetery site.
That amateur video was taken there, showing Lloyde's cab right there, exactly as he described.

Then STEVE RISKUS took photos there, from both the north of Lloyde's cab, and from the south of it.
Apparently his instructions were to EXCLUDE Lloyde and his cab, which he carefully did.
But did he take other photos INCLUDING Lloyde and his cab, that he never made public?
We will probably never know.
However, I suspect that he could not have resisted photographing such an extraordinary sight. A cab with a pole through the windscreen.

Anyway, what Lloyde said is perfectly true, and despite what CIT inferred from these 2 true statements, there is absolutely nothing sinister or incriminating in them.

Photos were taken at the cemetery.

Mike was up on the bridge.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

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. 

I ignore nothing, whereas you ignore everything I say and PROVE.

On the 32-second YouTube video "FAA officially created animation for Flight 77", at the 28 second mark, you see the flightpath from directly above, which shows exactly where the plane went according to the Official FAA data.

It flew NORTH of the Citgo, over the ANC parking lot, across the NORTHERN edge of the NORTHWEST cloverleaf where the Columbia Pike exit road follows it, then across Route 27 ... and then, although you refuse to acknowledge tjis, that red line continues ACROSS THE PENTAGON and OVER THE SOUTHEAST WALL, INTO SOUTH PARKING.

It did not fly across any of the other loops of the cloverleaf, although you may have gained this false impression from the earlier footage which shows a 3-D representation from above and to the side, which is not the same as the plan view over the ground.

Therefore, this FAA /NORAD radar animation does NOT "place the plane between the two circles roads near the traverse across the bridge"!
It is only you who has drawn the flightpath that way. That is incorrect.
You need to watch the CIT video testimony of ALL those cemetery eyewitnesses who described how the plane came over the Navy Annex, headed straight for them, then the left wing flew over their parking lot.

So of course, the plane did "miss those TWO circle roads".
It only flew across the outer edge of one of them.

And therefore of course, it totally missed the bridge and all those lightpoles.

What you are ignoring, is Robert Turcios' testimony that the plane LIFTED UP to get over the sign.
From his vantage point, he saw the plane LIFT UP, and it seemed to him as though this was to clear the overhead sign.
But DARIUS PRATHER also saw the plane PIVOT UP as it crossed the highway, and from his vantage point, he saw the plane fly directly over the Columbia Pike exit road, which is well north of that middle Do Not Enter sign.

Never mind about whether this or that part of the plane flew over the sign.
The point is that the plane LIFTED UP OVER THE HIGHWAY.
Therefore the plane was PLENTY HIGH ENOUGH TO CLEAR THE PENTAGON ROOF.
And as it was less than 500 feet from the Pentagon wall at this point, and allegedly travelling at 780 feet per second, it COULD NOT POSSIBLY SWOOP DOWN TO HIT THE GROUND FLOOR LOW AND LEVEL from here.
There would have only been 2/3 of a second flight time between that point and the wall.

There is only one single conclusion that can be drawn ...

The plane HAD TO HAVE FLOWN OVER THE BUILDING!

And that FAA/NORAD animation even shows this in red!

There is plane wreckage found at the Pentagon- which you can't explain?

 

Well really, on a thread titled "The Mystery of the Moved Taxi", I don't have to explain airplane wreckage at all.
Nor should I even try to, as that is off-topic, and off-topic discussion is against the rules of this Forum.

There is extraordinarily little wreckage found at the Pentagon, to account for what should be 90 tons of 757.
There was absolutely ZERO LUGGAGE, ZERO MAIL found on the lawn or elsewhere.
These things, being lightweight, are fairly resistant to crash impacts. Clothes and paper should have been littered everywhere.

How serendipitous that the only sizeable but still very small piece of plane skin also happened to have a few letters of the American Airlines logo on its fairly undamaged surface!
That must be proof that American Airlines Flight AA77, tail number N644AA, crashed into the Pentagon!!

No, wait!
What that actually PROVES, is that a relatively undamaged, very small piece of plane skin, conveniently painted with a few letters, fell onto the lawn.
Nothing more than that.

Plane graveyards are full of plane wreckage.
How hard would it be to deposit some of this on the lawn?
Very simple.
It could have been blown out of a container situated on the lawn.
It could have been dropped from the air.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Your claim is the airplane flew past the Pentagon and kept going. 
You have produced nothing concrete to substantiate your theory for me. 

Yes, indeed I have.

I have pointed out the red line of the plane's flightpath on the FAA/ NORAD radar animation, which continues in a RIGHT BANK across the Pentagon, and out over the southeast face and into South Parking.

I have given you the testimony of many eyewitnesses whose accounts imply or are compatible with the plane flying over the Pentagon, even if they were fooled into believing the plane HIT the west wall at ground level.

WANDA RAMEY from on top of the cemetery, believed that the plane flew OVER the roof and either hit ON TOP or ON THE OTHER SIDE of the Pentagon. She could see the roof, but not the ground floor from her position.
She saw the plane flying OVER THE ROOF, BEFORE THE EXPLOSION.

"SKARLET" wrote on her blog that afternoon,
"I want to make it make sense. I want to know why there's this gap in my memory, this gap that makes it seem as though the plane simply became invisible and BANKED UP AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE."

DARIUS PRATHER saw the plane PIVOT UP.

ROBERT TURCIOS saw the plane LIFT UP.

MARY ANN OWENS said the plane was about 80 feet AGL.

PENNY ELGAS said the plane was up to 80 feet AGL.

AZIZ ELHALLAN said the plane was about 50 yards AGL.

ATC SEAN BOGER said the plane "hit the 3rd floor", which is much higher than the impact hole.

So did CAPTAIN LINCOLN LEIBNER.

So did MARY ANN OWENS.

DR BRANDON GOFF was at the Triage site talking to Rumsfeld's security detail on video, when he made a swooping gesture towards and over the Pentagon with his arm, just like Robert Turcios did when describing how he saw the plane LIFT UP OVER THE SIGN.

SGT ROOSEVELT ROBERTS was inside East Loading Dock, east of the building, when he heard the explosion. He ran a few steps outside, and saw a jet flying away over South Parking, very low over the street lights.

DEWITT ROSEBOROUGH was in South Parking, when he heard a "lion's roar" over his head. He looked up, heard another 'lion's roar", and saw a low flying airplane which he thought was going to crash onto the highway.
He THEN SAW A FIREBALL come FROM OVER THE PENTAGON.
This means he was on the other side of the Pentagon when he saw this low-flying plane, BEFORE the explosion occurred.

LEVI STEPHENS was driving in South Parking when he said the plane FLEW OVER HIS VAN, and THEN he looked back and saw the explosion.

DENNIS SMITH was standing at the at the 1 and 2 Corridor Apex, inside the internal courtyard, when he "had a clear view" of the upright part of the plane's tail, seconds before the explosion. Some basic geometry proves that the only possible way he could have seen the tail from that location, is if it was flying over the courtyard, a few seconds before the impact.

DAVE BALL was a truck driver who stated that he saw the plane fly across the Pentagon. He was reluctant to discuss this, and was found murdered.

ANC EMPLOYEES told ANC employee ERIK DIHLE that a bomb hit the building, but a jet kept on going.

MANY WITNESSES claimed that the plane "SKIPPED UP" or "BOUNCED ON THE LAWN" etc.

DON SCOTT was driving a bus on I-395, south of the Pentagon just east of Macy's, when he saw a plane "MAKING A SHARP RIGHT TURN FROM NORTH OF THE PENTAGON". The plane then levelled off.
He looked back to the road, THEN looked back behind him to hear and see a terrible explosion.

MICHAEL KELLY was driving east, almost onto the 11th Street Bridge on the EAST side of the Pentagon, when a plane flew VERY LOW, VERY SLOW, over his car.
He THEN looked behind him, and saw the explosion on the opposite side of the Pentagon.
He believed the plane which flew over him, was the same one that caused the explosion behind him.

The MAN IN DOUBLETREE HOTEL FORECOURT looked up into the sky to the east of the Pentagon, rather than at the fire behind him.

HARRIETT ANDERSON was working in Washington EAST of the river, when they were told there was a fire at the Pentagon. THEN a plane flew VERY LOW outside their window which "nearly knocked out all the glass", heading towards Congress.

MESEIDY RODRIGUEZ was at Reagan National Airport subway station on a train. A passenger yelled when he saw the explosion the other side of the Pentagon, over 3 miles away. She then looked up, and saw a plane. Her testimony is confused, but if she saw the plane, it can only have been AFTER the explosion, as Allan Cleveland said she DID NOT look up til after the impact.

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: Hulseyreport

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. 

I ignore nothing, whereas you ignore everything I say and PROVE.

On the 32-second YouTube video "FAA officially created animation for Flight 77", at the 28 second mark, you see the flightpath from directly above, which shows exactly where the plane went according to the Official FAA data.

It flew NORTH of the Citgo, over the ANC parking lot, across the NORTHERN edge of the NORTHWEST cloverleaf where the Columbia Pike exit road follows it, then across Route 27 ... and then, although you refuse to acknowledge tjis, that red line continues ACROSS THE PENTAGON and OVER THE SOUTHEAST WALL, INTO SOUTH PARKING.

It did not fly across any of the other loops of the cloverleaf, although you may have gained this false impression from the earlier footage which shows a 3-D representation from above and to the side, which is not the same as the plan view over the ground.

Therefore, this FAA /NORAD radar animation does NOT "place the plane between the two circles roads near the traverse across the bridge"!
It is only you who has drawn the flightpath that way. That is incorrect.
You need to watch the CIT video testimony of ALL those cemetery eyewitnesses who described how the plane came over the Navy Annex, headed straight for them, then the left wing flew over their parking lot.

I will support the FAA/Norad animation matches the sketches of the north side witnesses! 
Yes, the FAA/ Norad animation their plane not hitting light poles on the bridge!

Where I differ with you. 
I don't find the distance between north side and south south of the fuel station to be that far apart that was inconceivable for a plane to" back right" and smack those light poles on the bridge with its right wing! 

Yes, the official account the plane flying along Washington BLVD and doesn't cross over the Navy Annex.
Most of Northside witnesses declare it came over the top of it.
FAA/ Animation shows this! 

Turn to your theory.
You have presented me nothing to persuade me a plane did not hit lightpoles on the bridge.
I see plenty of evidence ( a plane) hit the Pentagon wall. I see no evidence it kept going.
There no witnesses who saw this. You can not dismiss the plane wreckage because of its evidence of an impact! 
Could there be a conspiracy at the Pentagon, of course? But I not convinced yet. your theory is right.

Distances are so marginal it can easily be just a memory recall error? The black line is where the FAA/animation has the plane flying on 9/11.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Where I differ with you.  
I don't find the distance between north side and south south of the fuel station to be that far apart that was inconceivable for a plane to" back right" and smack those light poles on the bridge with its right wing!  

You are just not paying attention!!

NOBODY SAW THE PLANE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CITGO!!!

So you need to quit drawing flightpaths that cross anywhere except NORTH OF THE CITGO, unless you can find at least ONE EYEWITNESS who supports your false belief.

I have spent hours constructing images with very accurate flightpath according to the FAA/NORAD animation, plus all the eyewitness testimony, with precise measurements, for you.
You simply cannot be reading anything here.

You keep going back to your own false, inaccurate, witness-denying images with the crucial markers cut off them.

It would be good for you to learn how to draw curved lines, because both the animation and the witnesses prove that the plane BANKED TO THE RIGHT as it approached the Pentagon, yet you continually draw dead straight lines.

What do you mean, that the plane could " back right" to hit the poles on the bridge?

I have shown you how your flightpath needs several sharp, impossible doglegs in it to fly over the points that Robert Turcios gives, yet you just go right on drawing those false straight lines that don't take any evidence or testimony into account.

It is impossible to know what you really are saying when you claim to be representing Turcios' flightpath yet draw something completely different.

Yes, the official account the plane flying along Washington BLVD and doesn't cross over the Navy Annex. 
Most of Northside witnesses declare it came over the top of it. 
FAA/ Animation shows this!  

You also keep getting your names wrong.

"Washington Boulevard" is the alternative name for "ROUTE 27" which runs north-south down the west side of the Pentagon.

You meant to say the official flightpath is south of the Navy Annex which ran along COLUMBIA PIKE.

So why do you not believe either of these?
For the plane to have hit those 5 poles, it HAD TO FLY THE OFFICIAL ROUTE.

Simple geometry shows that it HAD TO FLY PRECISELY BETWEEN POLES 1 & 2 ON THE BRIDGE if it was going to hit them.
But you imagine that somehow, even though it flew hundreds of yards away from the bridge, its right wing could reach out and "smack those lightpoles"!

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Distances are so marginal it can easily be just a memory recall error? The black line is where the FAA/animation has the plane flying on 9/11.

These distances are not "MARGINAL" at all!

Over and over, I have drawn images with the distances accurately plotted for you, but you refuse to acknowledge these, or to calculate the distances on your own images.

How about, from now on, you use Google maps and PLOT IN THE DISTANCES?

The image above was taken from an early CIT production, where they did not realise themselves, just how far north the plane flew, and how it BANKED RIGHT as it flew across the ANC parking lot.
Therefore they have a straight blue line that does not represent the eyewitness testimony.

See that blacktop area on the left of the photo?
That is the ANC parking lot, and the witnesses state that the left wing flew directly above that, with the plane in a significant RIGHT BANK, which means, the plane was TURNING IN A CURVE TO THE RIGHT.

As I have shown you many times, and carefully explained, YOUR STRAIGHT BLACK LINE IS NOT THE FAA ANIMATION FLIGHTPATH.
Please quit misrepresenting both the witnesses and the radar animation!

The FAA/NORAD flightpath, which is identical with that seen by all the witnesses I have named, curves to the right, with its right wing tip NORTH OF THE CITGO, and its LEFT WING OVER THAT PARKING LOT.
Then it flies over the NORTHERN SIDE of the NORTHWEST LOOP of the cloverleaf, where it is bounded by the Columbia Pike exit road.

Your black line is a desperate work of fiction.
You say you believe there was a conspiracy, yet you refuse to believe the testimony of scores of eyewitnesses who prove the conspiracy.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You have presented me nothing to persuade me a plane did not hit lightpoles on the bridge. 
I see plenty of evidence ( a plane) hit the Pentagon wall. I see no evidence it kept going. 
There no witnesses who saw this. You can not dismiss the plane wreckage because of its evidence of an impact!  

Excuse me???!!!

HOW MANY EYEWITNESSES have I presented for you, whose testimonies support a flyover!
I counted OVER 21 on that list I provided for you.
Yet you blithely dismiss each of them without even acknowledging a single one of them.

In fact, I could name some more people who believed that the plane flew over.

LLOYDE ENGLAND did not believe the plane hit the Pentagon.
SHIRLEY ENGLAND believed the plane flew over.
MIKE also believed that.
One of the very first TV reporters quoted someone who said that the plane had tried to avoid hitting the Pentagon.

Then there was also KAT GAINES, driving south on Route 110 on the EAST SIDE of the Pentagon. She was near South Parking when she saw a low-flying plane, which she thought "hit telephone poles". Well, she was 950 yards away from the lightpoles on the bridge, and she could not have seen these from Route 110. And there were no "telephone poles" hit. But her testimony corroborates those of ROOSEVELT ROBERTS, DEWITT ROSEBOROUGH, LEVI STEPHENS, DON SCOTT & MICHAEL KELLY, who all saw a low-flying plane EAST of the impact site, BEFORE THE EXPLOSION.

Instead of just cursorily nay-saying every point I make, it is high time you researched the abundant evidence I have painstakingly presented, and addressed every one of these eyewitness accounts individually.

I am not interested in your mere knee-jerk opinion, but in a considered and rational discussion of their testimonies.

a reply to: RubyGray

You

HOW MANY EYEWITNESSES have I presented for you, whose testimonies support a flyover

False statement by you. You presented witnessed that attest to a jet hitting the pentagon. With none of the witnesses attesting to seeing or hearing a jet fly away from the pentagon. With you citing evidence from the discredited CIT. With no explanation from you on what 14 witnesses saw knocking over poles on the way to crashing into the pentagon. With no explanation from you what caused the damage at the pentagon, what murdered the people in the pentagon, how jet wreckage ended up from flight 77 at the pentagon, with no explanation from yiu how the passengers and crew of flight 77 ended up murdered at the pentagon.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Here is a helpful guide to the sequence of events captured on the first video taken at the Pentagon on 9/11.

This video commenced on the north side of the Pentagon, and then continued south along Route 27.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: RubyGray

You mean these Rorschach test imagines from the video where you see what you want to see. In reality they are not there.




Your delusional

a reply to: RubyGray

You complain that all the (MANY) images of Lloyde's Taxi Cab beside the cemetery wall are "blurry" therefore of no use.

True, they are of poor quality.
But they contain many identifying features that prove this to be LLOYDE's CAB.
Including Lloyde himself!

However, if this was just another black car across the road about 75 feet from the camera, then we ought to expect to see Lloyde's black cab on top of the bridge, if there was any video taken of that location.

As it happens, the very bad videographer on the northern Pentagon lawn did turn around after taking those 7 seconds of footage beside the cemetery wall, and caoptured a few frames of the top of the bridge in the far distance, about 1,200 feet to the south.

So, you must make a choice, and positively identify ONE of these very blurry images as being LLOYDE's CAB.
Which will you choose, and what are your reasons for your choice?

9.42 a.m.
Lloyde walks from WHITE VAN back to cab at cemetery


9.42 a.m.
Blurry Lloyde stands in front of cab at cemetery


COMPARISON : Lloyde was wearing dark brown bike leathers, a pale blue shirt, and a pale blue cap on 9/11.
Here are 2 images of him, taken within 13 minutes :

Lloyde walking at cemetery 9.42 a.m., on Bridge 9.55 a.m.



Now, here is the SINGLE full image that exists, of what is alleged to be the plane which flew into the Pentagon.

How blurry is that?



How can you argue that this is more convincing than the many videos and photographs taken of Lloyde, his cab, and the various vehicles and details in his story?

a reply to: RubyGray

You just posted proof of your own delusions.

Hilarious 😆

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? And there was a second decoy cab on the bridge that sped off when they moved Lloyd taxicab to the bridge?
... You base the entire case on blurring images, videos and claims Lloyd was somewhere else.

Lloyde stands in front of his Cab in 2007, to demonstrate how he stood when removiong the pole on 9/11.

He looks exactly like the figure standing in front of the hood like this, next to the cemetery wa,,. on 9/11/01.


Lloyde's cab identified 1


Lloyde's cab identified 2


Lloyde's cab identified 3


Lloyde's cab identified 4


Lloyde's cab identified 5

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
Distances are so marginal it can easily be just a memory recall error? The black line is where the FAA/animation has the plane flying on 9/11.

Bunkum.

You are just making up these fake flightpaths.

Here, again, is what YOUR flightpath should look like, in purple, if the plane flew where Turcios said it did, then hit the poles on the bridge, then luifted up over the sign, then turned a quick right-left into the Pentagon :




Here, yet again, is the TRUE FAA / NORAD animation flightpath as it is shown on the video, not as you pretend it was.


And here is that long list of eyewitnesses again, which you NEVER address, who prove that the plane flew nowhere near the bridge :

a reply to: RubyGray

Your literally seeing things that are not there.

There is no logo




There is no pole


This is not a decoy cab stuck in standstill traffic making it impossible to swap


This is not Lloyde’s cab. It’s grey with no striping.

a reply to: RubyGray

Shame on you Ruby, you didn’t answer to the below....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

You

HOW MANY EYEWITNESSES have I presented for you, whose testimonies support a flyover

False statement by you. You presented witnessed that attest to a jet hitting the pentagon. With none of the witnesses attesting to seeing or hearing a jet fly away from the pentagon. With you citing evidence from the discredited CIT. With no explanation from you on what 14 witnesses saw knocking over poles on the way to crashing into the pentagon. With no explanation from you what caused the damage at the pentagon, what murdered the people in the pentagon, how jet wreckage ended up from flight 77 at the pentagon, with no explanation from yiu how the passengers and crew of flight 77 ended up murdered at the pentagon.