New CIT video with Lloyde England

[JSanderO]

You have to wonder about the conspiracy guys with their misguided conceptions about what happened on 9/11. There are several sites which have assembled accurate observations and sensible explanations for them. You would think they would have at least read this material before spewing nonsense.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by JSanderO

You have to wonder about the conspiracy guys with their misguided conceptions about what happened on 9/11. There are several sites which have assembled accurate observations and sensible explanations for them. You would think they would have at least read this material before spewing nonsense.

It's like a guy whose knowledge of martial arts comes only from watching Bruce Lee movies, and has never set foot inside a Dojo...and then decides to wander into a biker bar.

[rubygray]

In fact, the position of the eye witnesses relative to the flight path is crucial.

While it is conceivable that a single FDR or Radar record can be falsified, it is impossible to force scores of independent witnesses to collaborate with each other and tell the same story.

Apart from the many witnesses CIT interviewed, who testified that the plane flew north of the Citgo station, there are many more who confirm this. Some of them were witnesses dismissed as "liars" by CIT, because they had erroneously located them beneath the official Flightpath, rather than in their true positions.

Here is a sample of valid eye witnesses, very close to the scene, who describe, or whose testimony requires, a flightpath much further north, and perpendicular to the Pentagon's western wall.

14 EYE WITNESSES SAID THE PLANE DID NOT FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.



1. Lloyde England saw the plane for a fraction of a second as it appeared from behind the tree-topped bank and flew very close over him when he was next to the cemetery.

2. Steve Riskus was behind Lloyde England, north of the Columbia Pike exit sign, when he saw the plane very close to him and on a path perpendcular to the western wall.

3. Tony Terronez was about 100 yards north of the Heliport when the plane flew across just behind him. He heard the pole smash through Lloyde’s windscreen, spoke with him, and described the damage. He did not see any lightpoles knocked down.

4. Stephen McGraw was opposite the heliport and a few feet away from Lloyde’s cab when he sensed the plane flying directly overhead. He witnessed Lloyde's cab and the piece of pole that hit it. He did not see any lightpoles knocked down.

5. ATC Sean Boger was about 150 feet north of the impact hole in the Heliport tower when he saw the plane flying across the Navy Annex, to the north of the Citgo Station, and coming directly towards him. He believed that “the plane clipped" the overhead sign in front of him.

6. Mary Ann Owens was between the 2 trees opposite the Helipad, north of the impact hole, when the plane flew across her car. The photograph she published determines her position.

7. Captain Lincoln Liebner was less than 100 yards from the impact hole (he later paced this out) when he saw the plane flying across, perpendicular to the wall. He saw the last 3 – 4 seconds of its flight, in front of him as he faced the Pentagon, not from behind him across the bridge. He initially believed he saw a collision between the plane and a helicopter, on the helipad.

8. Eugenio Hernandez Rodriguez, APTN journalist, was in his Jeep just south of the bridge overhead sign. He saw the plane coming down, but it did not cross the bridge in front of him.

9. Joel Sucherman, USATODAY editor, was in his car just behind Eugenio Hernandex, when he witnessed the plane on a path perpendicular to the Pentagon wall, flying directly from left to right across his windshield. It did not fly on a diagonal path from behind him across the bridge.

10. Camera Guy, his wife and son were about 6 – 8 cars south of the bridge overhead sign. None of them was even certain that they had seen a plane. The plane did not fly from behind them and a few yards diagonally in front of them across the bridge.

11. Yvette Buzard was driving towards the bridge overhead sign when she saw an explosion. She did not see a plane at all. It did not fly diagonally across the bridge or she would have seen it. She first believed a helicopter had crashed on the helipad.

12. Vin Narayanan, USATODAY journalist, was behind an overhead sign – well north of the bridge – when he saw the plane cross in front of him. He turned to his right, and saw the explosion. He stated that no light poles were knocked down, but like Sean Boger, believed that “the plane” clipped the overhead sign.


NONE of these 14 eye witnesses saw the plane fly across the bridge, although all of them were in the perfect positions to have seen this, had it occurred.

They all saw a flight path perpendicular to the western wall of the Pentagon …

except for the lady on the bridge who did not see a plane at all,
and the family of 3 who were not sure whether they had even seen a plane;
some claimed the plane hit 2 floors higher than the impact hole;
some believed a helicopter was involved in the crash;
none of them saw any poles being knocked down;
two claimed that an overhead sign north of the bridge was “clipped”;
some saw a piece of a pole but stated that an entire light pole was NOT knocked down;
2 described Lloyde’s cab that had been damaged by a piece of pole while beside the cemetery;
2 said "the plane clipped” an overhead sign opposite the Heliport, well north of the bridge;
some could not believe the plane had hit the building due to lack of debris and size of the hole.

[Myriad]

1. Why would anyone describe a plane in flight as "crossing a bridge?" Planes fly up in the air. They don't cross bridges. Also, for drivers on highway overpasses, the overpass is not a major feature that they'd use as a visual landmark. From the road, it just looks like more road. Take a look on Google Street View from any of the Washington Blvd. witnesses' positions. There's barely a "bridge" in view.

2. The yellow arc you've drawn on the map represents a nearly 4G turn for an aircraft traveling at 530 mph. If such a turn were possible at all, the plane would have to be banked with the wings nearly vertical to make it. How many of the witnesses described the plane as being banked nearly vertical?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by rubygray

In fact, the position of the eye witnesses relative to the flight path is crucial.

... ]

FDR proves you are now officially spreading lies based on failed interpretation of witnesses. Humans have limitation, and you have no idea you are spreading a lie because you ignore science, like Radar, and FDR. Why do you insist on presenting lies about the flight path.

The yellow flight path you posted is impossible to fly at the speed Flight 77, which you claim was did not hit the Pentagon, hit the building at.

Did you do the physics of flight before you posted a failed flight path? No.

It is sad you try to present witnesses to support impossible flight paths, paths witnesses can't draw or describe from the ground for a plane flying 500 mph and they have no clue how far away it is. There are many errors you ignore in how humans perceive this event, and it makes your conclusions lies.

FDR and Radar make your post a lie. Why do you ignore hard evidence and prefer failed interpretations of witnesses and your zero skills at interpreting those perceptions.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by beachnut

FDR proves you are now officially spreading lies based on failed interpretation of witnesses. Humans have limitation, and you have no idea you are spreading a lie because you ignore science, like Radar, and FDR. Why do you insist on presenting lies about the flight path.

The yellow flight path you posted is impossible to fly at the speed Flight 77, which you claim was did not hit the Pentagon, hit the building at.

Did you do the physics of flight before you posted a failed flight path? No.

It is sad you try to present witnesses to support impossible flight paths, paths witnesses can't draw or describe from the ground for a plane flying 500 mph and they have no clue how far away it is. There are many errors you ignore in how humans perceive this event, and it makes your conclusions lies.

FDR and Radar make your post a lie. Why do you ignore hard evidence and prefer failed interpretations of witnesses and your zero skills at interpreting those perceptions.

Its pretty hard to ignore real time data concerning the aircraft.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Myriad

1. Why would anyone describe a plane in flight as "crossing a bridge?" Planes fly up in the air. They don't cross bridges. Also, for drivers on highway overpasses, the overpass is not a major feature that they'd use as a visual landmark. From the road, it just looks like more road. Take a look on Google Street View from any of the Washington Blvd. witnesses' positions. There's barely a "bridge" in view.

2. The yellow arc you've drawn on the map represents a nearly 4G turn for an aircraft traveling at 530 mph. If such a turn were possible at all, the plane would have to be banked with the wings nearly vertical to make it. How many of the witnesses described the plane as being banked nearly vertical?

http://krepelka.com/fsweb/lessons/pr...elessons02.htm He has to ignore flight physics to have a fantasy lie.

I have no idea why he presents witnesses which saw Flight 77, and he says 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Essentially self-debunking, spreading lies about the flight path because he can't comprehend human limitations in witnessing a flight event. From experience and being taught flight investigation, to use evidence from eyewitnesses you need to take them exactly where they stood and have them describe what they saw, and use a yard stick like prop to line up the vector to the aircraft. This kind of field work could help line up if needed. For Flight 77 the FDR has the path along with Radar, no need for witnesses at all. Witnesses come in handy for broke wings when a pilot tries to enter a Split-S at high speed and pulls off the wings, and there is no FDR, only witnesses. Our new CTer ignores Radar and FDR and goes for witnesses who he never took to the field on 9/11, or the next day.

His conspiracy has to include someone faking the FDR with hours of previous flights recorded, and Radar data saved from the event, faking the DNA, and faking the damage to the Pentagon. Faking the exact size and shape of a jet fuel fireball for a high speed impact from a 757.

No body reported a 76 degree bank turn on 9/11 from Flight 77, which our new CTer claims never hit the Pentagon. No one reported a high bank wing digging in when it got too close to the ground. He has the turn right up to the Pentagon.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by bknight

Its pretty hard to ignore real time data concerning the aircraft.

I think this thread proves it's actually quite easy.

Now, it;s pretty hard to ignore real-time data and still make any sense, but you didn't have that qualifier in there

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

I think this thread proves it's actually quite easy.

Now, it;s pretty hard to ignore real-time data and still make any sense, but you didn't have that qualifier in there

OK, I'll give you one.

[Oystein]

Has ruby yet posted the several videos that show the taxi at some location(s) other than next to the overpass? I have been waiting for that for a couple of days.

[carlitos]

Here's one.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Has ruby yet posted the several videos that show the taxi at some location(s) other than next to the overpass? I have been waiting for that for a couple of days.

No. The one video he named and, as I'm sure you saw, I posted for him in the other thread before he had 15 posts shows the cab where we've seen it before and Lloyde claims wasn't where it happened. Now he was informed by me about the image hosting situation and I also hope that the delivery will start soon. This thread would be a better fit than the other, I think.

[GlennB]

I'm still trying to work out rubygray's position here. North of Citgo plus flyover?

[Reheat]

Holy Neocropsy Batman! I though this idiocy had disappeared with the demise of CIT. They are in hiding due to the embarrassment of promoting something so stupid it defies comprehension even for idiots.

To even entertain this crap as remotely plausible evidence to refute what is well established about an aircraft plowing into the Pentagon killing and injuring a bunch of folks and causing extensive damage to the building is totally beyond the pale for sensible thought.

Quite frankly I don't think it's worth more than a nano second of thought to even give it the time of day. It was conceived by idiots for idiots and deserves to reside in the dust bin of history forever.

[Childlike Empress]

^ hahaha he still has that offensively deceptive "debunking" in his signature. In 2019!

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

^ hahaha he still has that offensively deceptive "debunking" in his signature. In 2019!

Obviously, you don't understand it, so of course it's offensively deceptive. That precisely why you buy this stupidity as proof of anything except more stupidity.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

^ hahaha he still has that offensively deceptive "debunking" in his signature. In 2019!

Prove me wrong. You don't understand anything about all of those numbers, do you? You continue to make disparaging remarks about the charts, yet for many years now you've indicated nothing wrong with the conclusion of all of those numbers. In fact, no one has. One jerk at pfffft nit picked the radius of some of the turns illustrated by a degree or two as if that proved anything at all.

Otherwise, all you do is what you're doing now, which proves that you have no clue regarding the aerodynamics involved.

[Elagabalus]

So a plane DID hit the Pentagon?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Reheat

Prove me wrong. You don't understand anything about all of those numbers, do you? You continue to make disparaging remarks about the charts, yet for many years now you've indicated nothing wrong with the conclusion of all of those numbers. In fact, no one has. One jerk at pfffft nit picked the radius of some of the turns illustrated by a degree or two as if that proved anything at all.

Otherwise, all you do is what you're doing now, which proves that you have no clue regarding the aerodynamics involved.

I've done that several times, Reheat. CIT asked their witnesses to draw the flight path they've witnessed onto a map, a piece of paper with a printout of a map. Which resulted in a bunch of quite similar paths totally contradicting the official flight path that went on at the back of where they were pointing at. Nobody claimed that any of those flight paths was technically correct. But what "you" did, is taking the data points most contradicting each other on the hand-drawn paths, and doing serious math on it. And then you "proved" that the flight path over those most contradicting points isn't physically possible at the official speed of AA77. It's so laughable.

And I have called you out on it several times over at least a decade. So you know exactly what you are doing as we all know since the first time I called you out.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I've done that several times, Reheat. CIT asked their witnesses to draw the flight path they've witnessed onto a map, a piece of paper with a printout of a map. Which resulted in a bunch of quite similar paths totally contradicting the official flight path that went on at the back of where they were pointing at. Nobody claimed that any of those flight paths was technically correct. But what "you" did, is taking the data points most contradicting each other on the hand-drawn paths, and doing serious math on it. And then you "proved" that the flight path over those most contradicting points isn't physically possible at the official speed of AA77. It's so laughable.

And I have called you out on it several times over at least a decade. So you know exactly what you are doing as we all know since the first time I called you out.

You have done no such thing, ever. The paths I depicted are exactly duplicating most of the CIT paths. If the paths I depicted were contradicting each other, that's not my fault as they are paths CIT at various points indicated were the flight paths viewed by their "witnesses". As the charts indicate ALL of them are impossible.

The paths I depict are even annotated with some of the "witness" names. Each of them is a path chosen not by me, but at one time or another by the so called "witnesses".

Your attempt to refute anything I have authored is a total failure. How 'bout you define a path that you think was the one most likely using more than one witness. The path should incorporate the one most probable and include all of the CIT "witnesses". Come on don't be shy. Show me even one path that I've depicted that is not support by one or more CIT witnesses. You don't get to just throw **** on the wall and see if it sticks. Choose a path and show me how that path is aerodynamically possible. I'll wait...

[Axxman300]

So we're all clear; in spite of the fact that:

The aircraft was completely recovered from inside the Pentagon.
The bodies were all recovered and identified from inside the Pentagon.
The FDR was recovered from inside the Pentagon.
The FDR data matches the other radar data from that day.

A taxi cab with windshield damage somehow supersedes the mountain of physical evidence while ignoring many basic facts, such as:

Few people ever saw the pictures of the taxi, and fewer cared.
Traffic was backed up in front of the Pentagon, and there were hundreds of eye witnesses, and the best the morons a CIT could do was 14 or fifteen who disagreed with the facts.

In short, this is comedy gold.

[Reheat]

And BTW, I didn't know that there was an "official speed". What was it? I include all plausible range of speeds in my charts, so what is this crap about me using an official speed. Show me one that's possible on a path specified by "witnesses".

[Childlike Empress]

For the newbies, watch this video which evolves the "map" Reheat has been lying about since more than a decade. Take your time, understand what is going on during the presentation.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

For the newbies, watch this video which evolves the "map" Reheat has been lying about since more than a decade. Take your time, understand what is going on during the presentation.

Yea! Uh huh... More garbage from CIT. By all means take your own advice and understand what is going on. Anyone with half a brain already know what's going on and it's not the hogwash you're propagating from CIT... You lose again.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I've done that several times, Reheat. CIT asked their witnesses to draw the flight path they've witnessed onto a map, a piece of paper with a printout of a map. Which resulted in a bunch of quite similar paths totally contradicting the official flight path that went on at the back of where they were pointing at. Nobody claimed that any of those flight paths was technically correct. But what "you" did, is taking the data points most contradicting each other on the hand-drawn paths, and doing serious math on it. And then you "proved" that the flight path over those most contradicting points isn't physically possible at the official speed of AA77. It's so laughable.

And I have called you out on it several times over at least a decade. So you know exactly what you are doing as we all know since the first time I called you out.

Poor CIT, could not pick any of the impossible fantasy flight paths. It is also impossible for ground witnesses to draw a flight path.

There is no official flight path, there is a real flight path defined by the data in 77's FDR and Radar data.There is only speed at impact, recorded by 77 in the FDR, 483.5 knots.

No one can refute the FDR with evidence.

Sad you failed to do the physics to see the bank angles at any speed your fantasy version has were not seen by any witnesses. The flight path the new conspiracy theorists shows would require over 80 degrees of bank and over 8 Gs. Why can't CIT and you do the physics? Got math? no

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

For the newbies, watch this video which evolves the "map" Reheat has been lying about since more than a decade. Take your time, understand what is going on during the presentation.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

lol, this is cool, witnesses pointing to the official flight path, the real flight path as found in the FDR and Radar data. oops

As seen in the video, no banking demonstrated that was needed to do the fantasy flight paths CIT published, or rubygray yellow fantasy path.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by rubygray

Posting a flight path which takes over 80 degrees of bank, over 8gs, makes your claim bogus. Why can't you do the flight physics to at least make your fantasy possible? Oh, the hundreds of eyewitnesses, the FDR, Radar and hard evidence that make you start from a point where Flight 77 actually was, then you add the impossible turn and bank.

You have no idea your flight path is bogus, and no clue why.

14 eyewitnesses statements cannot be used to prove a flight path did not cross the bridge. How do you fake Radar and FDR data without adding hundreds of more conspirators to your sick fantasy.

FDR, Radar, DNA, and the engineering report on the Pentagon are fake in your sick fantasy. Are all the engineers who did the report in on your fantasy conspiracy? http://www.attivissimo.net/9-11/Pent...anceReport.pdf

Have you read the Pentagon Performance report? no

Have you told the families about their loved ones were not killed at the Pentagon? What did they say.

You lie about 9/11 and don't have evidence, and don't know it. A fantasy world.

You have to keep making up lies, like SecDef had prior knowledge. Then you expose no skill at investigating and making conclusions about witness statements you got as hearsay.

Note: did all 14 witnesses you spin for your fantasy 8 plus G turn see the bridge and able to see 77 not go over the bridge? No, you made up the claim, and can't prove it. Bogus flight path.

[TJM]

Originally Posted by rubygray

14 EYE WITNESSES SAID THE PLANE DID NOT FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.

I don't see a bridge in the image you posted.

[rubygray]

Originally Posted by beachnut

http://krepelka.com/fsweb/lessons/pr...elessons02.htm
I have no idea why he presents witnesses which saw Flight 77, and he says 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Hopefully the posting gremlins did not surreptitiously insert the term "AA77" into any comment I made concerning which plane these eye witnesses saw.

Not one of them testified, of course, that it was AA77.

I have never credited any of them with the assumption that the plane they saw was "AA77".

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by rubygray

Hopefully the posting gremlins did not surreptitiously insert the term "AA77" into any comment I made concerning which plane these eye witnesses saw.

Not one of them testified, of course, that it was AA77.

I have never credited any of them with the assumption that the plane they saw was "AA77".

That is sad, because the only plane near the Pentagon to be seen was 77. End of your fantasy.

Why did no one see the extreme bank angle? 77 impacted the Pentagon at 483.5 knots, and the resulting Kinetic Energy impact is more proof it was 77. But engineering and flying are not included in your fantasy claims, and faulty interpretation of witness statements. All your witnesses agree it was 77. oops

Only aircraft that low and fast at the Pentagon, which impacted the Pentagon was 77.

In your sick fantasy what caused the damage, and how did the DNA from every passenger from 77 (save the small kid) get in the Pentagon. Oops, now you have to add hundreds more in your sick fantasy conspiracy.

You never interviewed the witnesses.

How did "they" fake the Radar and FDR? Why do you lie?

[rubygray]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

I don't see a bridge in the image you posted.

Then I take it you are completely unfamiliar with the subject of this thread?
Anyone who knows anything about this topic, knows what and where the "bridge" is.

It is the overpass bridge across Columbia Pike, at the centre of the cloverleaf formation.
It is the location over which "AA77" allegedly flew, allegedly knocking down 5 light poles in its path.

But there is nobody who actually confirms this myth. Everyone who was there - apart from chameleon Mike Walter and Peter Kopf - saw the plane fly a whole other route.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by rubygray

Hopefully the posting gremlins did not surreptitiously insert the term "AA77" into any comment I made concerning which plane these eye witnesses saw.

Not one of them testified, of course, that it was AA77.

I have never credited any of them with the assumption that the plane they saw was "AA77".

The truth, reality, has more evidence than your failed interpretations.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...videncesummary

Over 100 people saw 77 hit the Pentagon. Darn, you lost.

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

And more stuff you can't refute.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...gonattackpage2

Your lies were debunked on 9/11.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by rubygray

... Everyone who was there - apart from chameleon Mike Walter and Peter Kopf - saw the plane fly a whole other route.

Everyone? Another lie. The truth, everyone saw 77 on the official flight path proved by FDR, Radar, and damage to the Pentagon.

In your fantasy, how did "they" fake the jet fuel fireball?

Quote:

Steve Riskus: "I could see the "American Airlines" logo...It knocked over a few light poles in its way." Mark Bright: "...at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." Mike Walter: "...it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there. It was an American Airlines jet." Rodney Washington: "...knocking over light poles" Kirk Milburn: "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles." Afework Hagos: "It hit some lampposts on the way in." Kat Gaines: "saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles." D.S. Khavkin: "First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles." Wanda Ramey: "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant. Penny Elgas: A piece of American Airlines Flight 77 was torn from the plane as it clipped a light pole. It landed in her car. Now in the Smithsonian Institution's 9/11 collection. Lincoln Liebner: "It was probably about thirty feet off the ground, clipping the lampposts. I could clearly see through the windows of the plane. It was maybe going 500 miles an hour - when it just flew...into the Pentagon ... less than a hundred yards away." - https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...videncesummary

Please explain why you made up a flight path which would have over 80 degrees of bank, not one witness saw (the extreme bank). I assume you know nothing about flying, and engineering based on your lies and you ignoring the hard evidence.

Why do you lie about 9/11?

[rubygray]

Originally Posted by beachnut

The truth, reality, has more evidence than your failed interpretations.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...videncesummary

Over 100 people saw 77 hit the Pentagon. Darn, you lost.

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

And more stuff you can't refute.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...gonattackpage2

Your lies were debunked on 9/11.

As you know, many of the "100 people" who claim to have seen the plane hit the Pentagon, were mistaken, as they were not in a position where they could see this. eg. Joel Sucherman. There was a group of trees blocking his view from the top of the bridge. He could see the south wall of the Pentagon, but there was no explosion there. etc etc etc.

Why don't we discuss every one of those "100 people"? I would be interested to know what they all said they saw.

I never mentioned a missile etc.
But there was indeed a "military aircraft" in the area at the same time as the plane flew. Many videos and a couple of excellent photos, plus testimony from numerous witnesses, prove this to be true.

Actually, many witnesses testified to a plane flying over.

Here are just a few examples :

At least 3 people travelling east on I-395 did make statements which are consistent with having seen a flyover.

Michael Kelly had a plane fly very low over his head as he was about to drive onto the 14th Street Bridge. Immediately he looked back, and heard and saw the explosion at the Pentagon behind him. He gave this testimony 20 minutes post impact, and sounded extremely confused at what he had seen.

Don Scott was a busdriver travelling east on I-395, when after having just passed Macy's store in Crystal City, he witnessed a jet making a sharp turn from the north of the Pentagon. Then as it straightened out, he looked behind him, and saw and heard the explosion at the Pentagon. This testimony was published in the Washington Post on 9/16/2001.

Dennis Smith was a Pentagon employee having a cigarette in the courtyard, when he "saw the tail of the plane" before he heard and saw the explosion. Basic geometry applied to the 75-foot Pentagon roof and the plane's flightpath proves that he could not have seen the tail of the jet on its approach from the west, from any point inside the courtyard. He could only have witnessed the tail if it had flown above him, across the 5-acre courtyard.

David Ball was a truck driver on I-395 who testified to a friend of Jim Fetzer that he saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. When Fetzer heard about this, he tried to arrange for Ball to speak on his radio show. Ball was reluctant to do this. Shortly after, he was found murdered.

CNN claimed during live coverage that, "An eye witness told us the plane didn't crash into the building".

Recently while going through old forums I read an account by a woman on the opposite side of the Pentagon who had a similar story, but I will need to find that again.

The enigmatic "Skarlet" within a matter of hours, wrote up and published her experience in terms which vividly capture what would have been the disbelief of seeing a plane overflying the Pentagon, moulded by media saturation of the fireball and aftermath linked to a "hijacked 757".

“'Buildings don’t eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn’t crash. Where are the parts?' That’s the conversation I had with myself on the way to work. It made sense this morning. I swear that it did ...
"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, but I don’t think that’s going to happen."

[rubygray]

Originally Posted by beachnut

You never interviewed the witnesses.

Does this imply that you did??
Do tell.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by rubygray

As you know, many of the "100 people" who claim to have seen the plane hit the Pentagon, were mistaken, as they were not in a position where they could see this. eg. Joel Sucherman. There was a group of trees blocking his view from the top of the bridge. He could see the south wall of the Pentagon, but there was no explosion there. etc etc etc.

Why don't we discuss every one of those "100 people"? I would be interested to know what they all said they saw.

I never mentioned a missile etc.
But there was indeed a "military aircraft" in the area at the same time as the plane flew. Many videos and a couple of excellent photos, plus testimony from numerous witnesses, prove this to be true.

Actually, many witnesses testified to a plane flying over.

Here are just a few examples :

At least 3 people travelling east on I-395 did make statements which are consistent with having seen a flyover.

Michael Kelly had a plane fly very low over his head as he was about to drive onto the 14th Street Bridge. Immediately he looked back, and heard and saw the explosion at the Pentagon behind him. He gave this testimony 20 minutes post impact, and sounded extremely confused at what he had seen.

Don Scott was a busdriver travelling east on I-395, when after having just passed Macy's store in Crystal City, he witnessed a jet making a sharp turn from the north of the Pentagon. Then as it straightened out, he looked behind him, and saw and heard the explosion at the Pentagon. This testimony was published in the Washington Post on 9/16/2001.

Dennis Smith was a Pentagon employee having a cigarette in the courtyard, when he "saw the tail of the plane" before he heard and saw the explosion. Basic geometry applied to the 75-foot Pentagon roof and the plane's flightpath proves that he could not have seen the tail of the jet on its approach from the west, from any point inside the courtyard. He could only have witnessed the tail if it had flown above him, across the 5-acre courtyard.

David Ball was a truck driver on I-395 who testified to a friend of Jim Fetzer that he saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. When Fetzer heard about this, he tried to arrange for Ball to speak on his radio show. Ball was reluctant to do this. Shortly after, he was found murdered.

CNN claimed during live coverage that, "An eye witness told us the plane didn't crash into the building".

Recently while going through old forums I read an account by a woman on the opposite side of the Pentagon who had a similar story, but I will need to find that again.

The enigmatic "Skarlet" within a matter of hours, wrote up and published her experience in terms which vividly capture what would have been the disbelief of seeing a plane overflying the Pentagon, moulded by media saturation of the fireball and aftermath linked to a "hijacked 757".

“'Buildings don’t eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn’t crash. Where are the parts?' That’s the conversation I had with myself on the way to work. It made sense this morning. I swear that it did ...
"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, but I don’t think that’s going to happen."

I haven't got time to go through all if this in detail. However, it is quite obvious that you have assembled a collection of quotemined snippets, that appear to support your case, whilst actually showing the dishonesty needed to make such claims.
Here is a list of the eyewitnesses and their testimony, for anyone who wishes to check.

BTW, I can't find a reference to the murder of David Ball. Do you have a link?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by rubygray

SHIRLEY ENGLAND confirmed this by consistently backing Lloyde's account. The only story she knew was the same one he had told her from 9/11/2001, how he was driving beside the cemetery when a pole hit his cab. She always defended Lloyde's account against those who claimed he had been on the bridge at impact.

Have a long hard think about how flawed that is.

[GlennB]

rubygray - could you just summarise what your position is on this event? NoC and flyover, for example?

Then we can get somewhere (if anyone has the heart to revisit all the old arguments).

[TJM]

Originally Posted by rubygray

But there was indeed a "military aircraft" in the area at the same time as the plane flew. Many videos and a couple of excellent photos, plus testimony from numerous witnesses, prove this to be true.

Military aircraft? Over our Nation's Capital? With a great ******* air force base operating from across the river?

Do tell.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by rubygray

In fact, the position of the eye witnesses relative to the flight path is crucial.

Indeed it is.

Originally Posted by rubygray

14 EYE WITNESSES SAID THE PLANE DID NOT FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.


[snip]
12. Vin Narayanan, USATODAY journalist, was behind an overhead sign – well north of the bridge – when he saw the plane cross in front of him. He turned to his right, and saw the explosion. He stated that no light poles were knocked down, but like Sean Boger, believed that “the plane” clipped the overhead sign.

This eyewitness actually refutes your nonsense. The location you've set is wrong:

Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon.

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...rst-person.htm

If he was heading North and he was under an exit sign, he could not have been in the location you've drawn him. He was either on the bridge or slightly south of it.

Also, guess what sign had damage from the plane?

The location of most of the others does not permit them having an accurate perception of distance to the plane, therefore their statement of the plane's location with respect to the bridge can't be taken as accurate.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by rubygray

Hopefully the posting gremlins did not surreptitiously insert the term "AA77" into any comment I made concerning which plane these eye witnesses saw.

Not one of them testified, of course, that it was AA77.

I have never credited any of them with the assumption that the plane they saw was "AA77".

What happened to AA77 if it didn't crash in to the Pentagon?