New CIT video with Lloyde England

[rubygray]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

I've read it again, no change in opinion. His testimony is compatible with him being south of the sign at the bridge, and your interpretation is not proof for any other location, as you are taking certain things too literally (e.g. "to the right" - did you expect him to specify "to the northeast" or what?).

Take a look at this image: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam....outh-citgo.jpg - his testimony is compatible with a location a few cars behind the bus that is under the sign at the bridge.

And no one saw a plane banking at the angle required for the turn you propose, therefore that trajectory is just impossible.

I'll ask again, since you haven't replied: where does Narayanan state that he was "on the other side of the Pentagon" from Joel Sucherman, and when was he?

Please be aware that I am on the other side of the planet from most here. My home computer with access to all my images and records has no internet connection. This tablet does internet but has no connection to my images etc. It involves a 30 mile trip to get the best of both worlds.

I am happy to provide whatever proofs I have, but I cannot post everything on so many threads all over the place. Especially when the topic of the threads is constantly hijacked with other concerns to deflect attention from whatever I write.

You are welcome to peruse my abundantly illustrated thread at LRF, "LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED WITH NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOTOS AND VIDEO". This is still a work in progress but contains much more info than I can post here. Please do not jump to the conclusion that I subscribe to any particular theory popular on LRF.

It is not I who has proposed a turn which would necessitate an extreme bank angle. The false Flight Path which would require an extreme bank is the dog-legged invention of scoffers. The northside witnesses, which includes many more than CIT ever interviewed, did describe the plane banking right after it cleared the Navy Annex, and also described it as flying slower than the official speed - which has also been quoted as between the 300s to 550 mph.

Narayanan and Sucherman were interviewed together some time after 9/11, and Narayanan there referred to Sucherman as being "on the other side of the Pentagon" from him.

Because Sucherman, like almost all the locals apparently, had used the designation "highway 110" interchangeably for Route 27 as his location, CIT decided that Sucherman was a liar when he described being somewhat south of the overhead sign on the bridge, as he witnessed the plane fly straight across his windscreen from left to right. Not diagonally from behind him.

CIT thus decided that Sucherman was actually on the 110 which runs down the east side of the Pentagon, and that as Narayanan was "on the other side of the Pentagon," and claimed to be somewhat south of an overhead sign, that Narayanan must have been on the bridge.

But Sucherman also clearly stated that he was driving on Route 27, and his description bears this out.

CIT falsely concluded also that, as Narayanan categorically denied that any poles were knocked down, and they wrongly assumed that he was on the bridge from where he would have been able to see all 5 downed poles, he must also have been lying.

What they failed to consider is the obvious conclusion that both these guys were telling the truth.
Many, many witnesses use "110", "Route 27" and "I-395" interchangeably, throwing the interpretation of eyewitness testimony into confusion.

CIT also failed to understand that "On the other side of the Pentagon" refers to someone being on the NORTH side of Route 27, while another person is on the SOUTH SIDE of this same stretch of road.

Narayanan's testimony is thus totally incompatible with him being on the bridge, south of the overhead sign - because that is exactly where Sucherman was. This is proven in the amateur video shot from this location beginning at 9:40 a.m., where Joel Sucherman features prominently for several minutes, in his car, standing outside of his car on his cellphone as he watches the C-130, manoeuvring his car through the stalled traffic.

9_11 Pentagon Attack Video - Aftermath. On cjnewson88's channel.

Sucherman first appears at 00:47, after Camera Guy says, "Oh Jesus just look up in that sky. There's something else coming down."

Thus since Joel sucherman was exactly where he claimed to be - on the bridge several car lengths south of the overhead sign - and as Narayanan was "On the other side of the Pentagon" - then Narayanan must have been at the NORTH end of this stretch of Route 27, approaching the overhead sign between heliport and cemetery wall.

He could not have meant the overhead sign on the southbound lanes, as that too, is well to the south end of the Pentagon.

Narayanan's testimony corroborates that of ATC Sean Boger. They both claimed that the plane "clipped" an overhead sign. Professional air traffic observer Boger witnessed the plane coming across the Navy Annex, flying north of the Citgo, then coming towards him - so the plane could not possibly have "clipped" the overhead sign on the bridge, which was 400 yards southwest of the heliport, while the other two overhead signs were only 170 yards from him to his left and right.

I contend that Narayanan and Boger witnessed the same incident, and that the overhead sign was "clipped" not by the plane, but by the same mechanism by which Lloyde England's windshield was smashed by a piece of pole as he drove towards the overhead sign beside the cemetery wall.

[TJM]

Originally Posted by rubygray

However the FBI did not scrutinise some of these videos carefully enough before releasing them. When Lloyde England's evidence is taken at face value, and some of those videos are analysed at the time and location where he stated he was prior to the Jason Ingersoll photos, it is revealed that Lloyde was telling the truth. His taxi was videoed there by the cemetery wall, opposite the heliport, at 9:41 - 42 a.m.

And I find that highly unlikely.

We have several posters here who are very astute on the Pentagon facet of the attacks and would've noticed any discrepancy in the location of the cab. One poster in particular, Childlike Empress, would've been all over that information like white on rice. Several others here, myself included, would begrudgingly admit error and accept the new information as fact.

So instead of trying to drive traffic to wherever you've built your funnel, you might want to post your evidence here.

tl;dr?

Evidence?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by rubygray

...
I contend that Narayanan and Boger witnessed the same incident, and that the overhead sign was "clipped" not by the plane, but by the same mechanism by which Lloyde England's windshield was smashed by a piece of pole as he drove towards the overhead sign beside the cemetery wall.

Ignore the big 757, it was a military cannon. Thus you lie about the military, we did not do it, we are US citizen and have an oath. Why do you lie about the US military?

No one is going to read your gish gallop of BS.

Your fantasy has no evidence.

FDR and Radar debunk your sick factless fantasy.

Go ahead prove the 19 terrorists are alive. You are 18 years behind on knowledge about 9/11, and it shows.

STEP BACK FROM THE Google! = What we have here, a massive case of Google Gullible Syndrome (GGS). Or is it Gullible Google Syndrome?

[Mark F]

Why, might I ask, are we talking about CIT still in 2019? Even CIT don't talk about CIT anymore. Talk about flogging long dead horses!

[rubygray]

Originally Posted by Beerina

The single biggest disproof of these CTs is that the "conspirators" couldn't be guaranteed tons of cameras wouldn't capture every incident.
...
At the Pentagon, they couldn't know only one slow-frame camera would happen to be pointing at the area of the crash at that moment. It's the height of incredulity to think they would, what, cross their fingers there weren't a dozen tourist cameras on at that moment?

They did have a lot of control over the site. Traffic southbound on route 27 beside the Pentagon had been blocked off, and northbound traffic was at a standstill.

There are claims that I-395 was also gridlocked, but that is not true. There was very little traffic on it. Washingtonians seem to refer to 110, 27 and I-395 interchangeably. Often, when they said 110 or I-395, they meant Route 27, as their verbal descriptions prove.

Many cameras were confiscated soon after the event by the FBI. Some of these videos have been FOIA-released, which is how we now have more evidence about what happened at the Pentagon during the first few minutes. And this evidence contradicts the official story.

There are films from two Pentagon CCTV gatecams actually, totalling 6 minutes 34 seconds, thus showing some of the action on the lawn after the impact.

And some WTC footage does show several small, fast, bright objects being fired through the smoke and dust from the direction of high up on or behind the Woolworth Building, presumably into WTC7. Witnesses described this as well. Police also warned people to keep away because of this. But it has been suppressed and it is hard to find out more about this.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by rubygray

It is not I who has proposed a turn which would necessitate an extreme bank angle.

Yes it is you. In #83 you posted an image of a map with a path drawn in yellow and clearly labeled "Perpendicular Flightpath." In the text of that post you claim that a perpendicular flight path is consistent with the witness reports. Whether or not you drew the image, you chose to post it in support of your claims.

But that flight path is not aerodynamically possible. Therefore your claims have no credibility. Nothing else you've posted here matters in the slightest, against that fact.

[rubygray]

Originally Posted by Mark F

Why, might I ask, are we talking about CIT still in 2019? Even CIT don't talk about CIT anymore. Talk about flogging long dead horses!

Because the truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, even 18 years later.

CIT made many mistakes and slandered lots of genuine witnesses.

So it is time that CIT fronted up, faced their mistakes, and corrected them.

[TJM]

Originally Posted by rubygray

And some WTC footage does show several small, fast, bright objects being fired through the smoke and dust from the direction of high up on or behind the Woolworth Building, presumably into WTC7. Witnesses described this as well. Police also warned people to keep away because of this. But it has been suppressed and it is hard to find out more about this.

Oh dear.

[TJM]

Score Keeping:

1. Mr. England's taxi was somehow transported from a NOC location to where it eventually wound up as a staged prop in a photo-op to the south.

2. AA 77 wasn't involved.

3. We don't care what happened to the passengers and crew.

4. The magical flight characteristics of whatever did hit the Pentagon.

5. Projectiles raining down on WTC 7 from the Woolworth Building.

Have I missed anything?

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by rubygray

There are claims that I-395 was also gridlocked, but that is not true. There was very little traffic on it. Washingtonians seem to refer to 110, 27 and I-395 interchangeably. Often, when they said 110 or I-395, they meant Route 27, as their verbal descriptions prove.

So what you're saying is that not only have you never been to Washington D.C., you've also never met anyone who has had to work there. The traffic was bumper-to-bumper in front of the Pentagon on 9-11. Hence the hundreds of eye witnesses.

Then there is the colossal failure of logic in your claim. Forget the crippling logistics of staging a scene by moving a damaged cab into place on that stretch of road in front of 2,000 people (not to mention the Spec Op's light-pole canon) without being seen - something that nobody saw. Why stage a fake cab THAT FEW AMERICANS EVER SAW? It wasn't front page news, in fact I've still never seen the picture, and yet your sad theory hinges on a fragment of the thousands of things that happened on 9-11.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by rubygray

And some WTC footage does show several small, fast, bright objects being fired through the smoke and dust from the direction of high up on or behind the Woolworth Building, presumably into WTC7. Witnesses described this as well. Police also warned people to keep away because of this.

No it does not show this. Nor has anyone claimed this happened, and there are 100,000 witnesses to the events in NYC.

Quote:

But it has been suppressed and it is hard to find out more about this.

It never happened, which is why there is no information.

[Mark F]

Originally Posted by rubygray

Because the truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, even 18 years later.

CIT made many mistakes and slandered lots of genuine witnesses.

So it is time that CIT fronted up, faced their mistakes, and corrected them.

They ran away into obscurity. That's enough for me.

[rubygray]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

So what you're saying is that not only have you never been to Washington D.C., you've also never met anyone who has had to work there. The traffic was bumper-to-bumper in front of the Pentagon on 9-11. Hence the hundreds of eye witnesses.

That is what I just said.

There was bumper to bumper traffic on northbound Route 27, only a scant few on I-395, and almost zero on southbound Route 27.

This can all be verified on many photos and videos.

Traffic was allowed southbound on Route 27 for just a few minutes after the cab scene was staged, to funnel eyewitnesses past the cab -pole installation, then closed off again for the rest of the day.
Also verified on timestamped photos.

That is how important this scene was to the perpetrators.

You at least are decent enough to admit that YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY OF THE PHOTOS!!!
AND THERE ARE SO MANY OF THEM!
So it would be casting pearls before swine then, to attempt to explain this operation to you, and show you the videos which prove that Lloyde England was not lying,.

Lloyde's story and the government story are mutually exclusive.

The videos of Lloyde's cab at the cemetery are not great, but they are far more detailed, diagnostic and conclusive than the two Gatecam productions.

Kindly quit trying to score points by perverting my words which people with good comprehension skills can read for themselves.

[rubygray]

Originally Posted by Mark F

They ran away into obscurity. That's enough for me.

Aldo made an appearance not so long ago on Craig McKee's blog, Truth and Shadows. McKee has just posted a two-part tragic attempt at a defense of his heroes CIT, and libellous misrepresentation of Lloyde England, if you are interested.

[TJM]

Originally Posted by rubygray

That is what I just said.

There was bumper to bumper traffic on northbound Route 27, only a scant few on I-395, and almost zero on southbound Route 27.

This can all be verified on many photos and videos.

Traffic was allowed southbound on Route 27 for just a few minutes after the cab scene was staged, to funnel eyewitnesses past the cab -pole installation, then closed off again for the rest of the day.
Also verified on timestamped photos.

That is how important this scene was to the perpetrators.

You at least are decent enough to admit that YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY OF THE PHOTOS!!!
AND THERE ARE SO MANY OF THEM!
So it would be casting pearls before swine then, to attempt to explain this operation to you, and show you the videos which prove that Lloyde England was not lying,.

Lloyde's story and the government story are mutually exclusive.

The videos of Lloyde's cab at the cemetery are not great, but they are far more detailed, diagnostic and conclusive than the two Gatecam productions.

Kindly quit trying to score points by perverting my words which people with good comprehension skills can read for themselves.

Poe.

We've been had.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by rubygray

Please be aware that I am on the other side of the planet from most here. My home computer with access to all my images and records has no internet connection. This tablet does internet but has no connection to my images etc. It involves a 30 mile trip to get the best of both worlds.

Oh great. You are telling us that not only are you an ill-informed "researcher", you are also ill-equipped.

That's nice. Real nice.

Also convenient for you, no?

Once again the question becomes...

If you are not competent to network your own devices in your home, how on earth can anyone believe that you and you alone are competent to figure out 911? Can you not see the problem there?

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by rubygray

There was bumper to bumper traffic on northbound Route 27, only a scant few on I-395, and almost zero on southbound Route 27.

This can all be verified on many photos and videos.

The same videos that show the road was packed? Okay.

Quote:

Traffic was allowed southbound on Route 27 for just a few minutes after the cab scene was staged, to funnel eyewitnesses past the cab -pole installation, then closed off again for the rest of the day.
Also verified on timestamped photos.

That is how important this scene was to the perpetrators.

First, it didn't happen. Second, there was a plane flaming away inside the Pentagon, so no need to fake or stage anything.

Quote:

You at least are decent enough to admit that YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY OF THE PHOTOS!!!
AND THERE ARE SO MANY OF THEM!
So it would be casting pearls before swine then, to attempt to explain this operation to you, and show you the videos which prove that Lloyde England was not lying,.

Because I DID see all the photos taken INSIDE the Pentagon showing the dead passengers, and airplane parts because they are all that matter.

Quote:

Lloyde's story and the government story are mutually exclusive.

One is real, Lloyde is not.

Quote:

The videos of Lloyde's cab at the cemetery are not great, but they are far more detailed, diagnostic and conclusive than the two Gatecam productions.

One shows a plane crashing into the Pentagon and the other is based on your bad interpretation.

Quote:

Kindly quit trying to score points by perverting my words which people with good comprehension skills can read for themselves.

I can't score points on a case that has been closed for 18 years. Neither can you.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Score Keeping:

1. Mr. England's taxi was somehow transported from a NOC location to where it eventually wound up as a staged prop in a photo-op to the south.

2. AA 77 wasn't involved.

3. We don't care what happened to the passengers and crew.

4. The magical flight characteristics of whatever did hit the Pentagon.

5. Projectiles raining down on WTC 7 from the Woolworth Building.

Have I missed anything?

A military lamp post firing cannon in the back of a pickup truck?

[Captain_Swoop]

No information on the passengers then?

[rubygray]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Because I DID see all the photos taken INSIDE the Pentagon showing the dead passengers, and airplane parts because they are all that matter.

Check my links to the photos of dead victims taken at the WTC at the other thread which demolishes your sorry delusion about there being "dead AA77 passengers still strapped in their seats" in the Pentagon.

[Captain_Swoop]

This is deflection.
Suppose those particular photographs are mis-atributed.
Does that take away from the actual bodies recovered?

[Jack by the hedge]

"This can all be verified on many photos and videos."

Excellent. That should quickly settle the matter.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by rubygray

Check my links to the photos of dead victims taken at the WTC at the other thread which demolishes your sorry delusion about there being "dead AA77 passengers still strapped in their seats" in the Pentagon.

Have you summarised your position on the evidence for AA77 at The Pentagon? Explanations for such things as:

The smashed and burning building
The bodies and human DNA found inside the building
The identifiable plane parts found in and around the building
The vast amount of small debris spread around the lawn

etc?

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

"This can all be verified on many photos and videos."

Excellent. That should quickly settle the matter.

Not in the CT's mind, unfortunately.

[Reheat]

The level of sheer stupidity it takes to believe all of this crap to the exclusion of irrefutable hard evidence continues to astound me. More so now approaching 20 years after the fact. To focus on one rather insignificant event such as the Cab and driver to the exclusion of the all of the other evidence takes what amounts to an exception level of stupidity.

I too am beginning to wonder if this is not just a POE....

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by rubygray

Please be aware that I am on the other side of the planet from most here. My home computer with access to all my images and records has no internet connection. This tablet does internet but has no connection to my images etc. It involves a 30 mile trip to get the best of both worlds.

Please be aware that your posts here read like works of fiction and I don't believe anything you wrote, including the words that I'm quoting above.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by rubygray

No, not yet, or at least not here. I am laying it all out elsewhere in my thread "LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED WITH NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOTOS AND VIDEO".

Well, and I have all the evidence to prove that Elvis is having tea with Bigfoot and Hitler im a mansion on the far side of the moon as we speak, all neatly layed out here on my kitchen table. I think that should convince you and shut you up!

(Translation: Unless you actually show me the evidence - hint: a link might do the trick! - you don't actually lay out any evidence as far as I am concerned)


You are wasting everybody's time and losing us as interested audience - but perhaps that was your plan all along?

[bknight]

And to interview him 7-8 years FTER THE FACT? The memory loses clarity with time passage.

[CompusMentus]

I recommend that rubygray (and/or anyone else interested) studies this document:-

Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident

From the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace
Volume 1 | Issue 4 Article 9 11-14-2014


The document is too long to reproduce here but the following is the concluding paragraph:-

Originally Posted by ERAU

Combining the high variances, the lack of any preferred observational perspective and the law of small numbers, a conclusion of eyewitness unreliability for aviation crashes is unavoidable. Although they sound compelling — “I saw the crash with my own eyes” — a small group of witnesses to an aviation accident giving reports several days after the event may well not produce reliable information. This is demonstrated to be true for a crash as seemingly perceptible as a wide-body transport jet at low altitude in clear daylight conditions. Dr. Percy Walker’s claim that eyewitnesses to aviation accidents are almost always wrong is certainly not proven. But the current reported practice by accident investigators of placing low value to eyewitness accounts of aircraft crashes is supported by the empirical evidence.

In light of the information/findings discussed in the document above, does rubygray wish to review her reliance on witness testimony in relation to the events on 9/11?

Compus

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Reheat

The level of sheer stupidity it takes to believe all of this crap to the exclusion of irrefutable hard evidence continues to astound me. More so now approaching 20 years after the fact. To focus on one rather insignificant event such as the Cab and driver to the exclusion of the all of the other evidence takes what amounts to an exception level of stupidity.

I too am beginning to wonder if this is not just a POE....

It appears he has been a fantasy 9/11 truther since 2016. 3 years of practice for the great Gish Gallop attack.

He thinks the 19 terrorists did not exist or are still alive.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/148165...0572/lightbox/

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by rubygray

Check my links to the photos of dead victims taken at the WTC at the other thread which demolishes your sorry delusion about there being "dead AA77 passengers still strapped in their seats" in the Pentagon.

In the real world most if not all the Passengers on Flight 77 were strapped into their seats when they died in a Kinetic Energy impact of 77 at the Pentagon. Thus it does not matter if you can't comprehend you have a sick failed fantasy.

[CompusMentus]

Originally Posted by beachnut

He thinks the 19 terrorists did not exist or are still alive.

He is a she, according to this.

Ruby Gray's Page - 9/11 Scholars Forum

Compus

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by rubygray

...This tablet does internet...

Obviously, or else you wouldn't have posted here, right?

Originally Posted by rubygray

...I cannot post everything on so many threads all over the place.

The simple solution would then be to post a comprehensive essay in one place - assumptions, evidence, theory, discussion, conclusions, evidence.... Did I mention evidence? - and link to that elsewhere, with a concise summary and perhaps the top 3 bits of evidence.

Originally Posted by rubygray

Especially when the topic of the threads is constantly hijacked with other concerns to deflect attention from whatever I write.

Well, lots of the defelctions go towards a thing I like to call "evidence" - which incidentally is a thing you are not keen on doing.

Originally Posted by rubygray

You are welcome to peruse my abundantly illustrated thread at LRF, "LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED WITH NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOTOS AND VIDEO".

Ah! Is that on the internet? Can you link it? Can your tablet do LRF? What is LRF?

Originally Posted by rubygray

The northside witnesses ... described [the plane] as flying slower than the official speed...

How accurate are these, or any witnesses, at guesstimating the ground speed of a plane? Ah tell you what - earlier this afternoon, I sat in an outside area of my favourite bistro, sipping coffee and alc-free beer, when a military version of the Boeing 707 flew "low" and "slow" almost directly over my head. How fast did it go, and at what altitude? To tell you the truth, I have no confidence that my guesstimates are any good. I'd say perhaps 750 meters high (2500 ft), and hmmm... 350 km/h (220 mph) fast? I actually made a conscious, reasoned effort to arrive at those estimates. I asked myself if it could hit the WTC towers if they stood next to my trusty bistro (no) and how large the plane would appear if I spotted it on an airfield 1 km away (smaller, I think), so it would be more than 450 m, but less than 1000 m, somewhere in between there.
But I measured the height - roughly! By extending my arm, and comparing the width of my thumb with the wingspan of the plane: Plane was 1.5 to 2 times as wide as my thumb. And now I am going to measure my arm lenggth, thumb width, and do the math:
* Distance from eye to thumb: 0.56 m
* Width of thumb: 0.025 m
* Wingspan of 707-320B: 44.42 m
* Virtual width of my thumb: between 22 m and 30 m
* Thumb Width Factor: Between (22/0.025) m and (30/0.025) m
* Distance: Between (22*0.56/0.025) m and (30*0.56/0.025) m = between 493 and 672.

So I overestimated the distance by a factor of between 12% and 52%. And that when doing a conscious, live, and reasoned effort at estimating, with a plane I am actually relatively familiar with (I have flown on this exact type during my own military service time). If I were some random guest of the bistro, and you asked them some time after the event, you'd surely get quite a spread of extimates.

As for speed, my handle is even weaker than with altitude: I know of no way I could measure this ad hoc with things like thumbs, eyes or ears.

Why would you give much weight to witnesses for such physical data if you have actual direct measurements of the data you are interested in? We have radar, and we have the FDR, and we even have a couple of videos - and all that physical data converges on high speeds.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by CompusMentus

He is a she, according to this.

Ruby Gray's Page - 9/11 Scholars Forum

Compus

To start off the Profile Information with this bit of failed knowledge is indicative of the massive fantasy Gish Gallop attack now in progress.

Quote:

Profile Information

What is the maximum indicated airspeed of a Boeing 767 below 10,000'?
200 knots

It is true in the USA there is a "speed limit" for jets below 10,000 feet, not of 200 knot (KIAS), but it is 250 KIAS (knots). Why? One reason is so slower aircraft and jets can safely fly together in the low altitude structure.

Some USAF use to have waver due to design, the T-38 was 300 KIAS, and we rarely spent time below 10,000 feet, and were able to make 10,000 feet quickly. When not in USA airspace with the KC-135 (like a B-707), and not breaking rules in other countries or over the ocean, I would climb out at 320 KIAS, and the limit for airframe integrity was ~350 KCAS, and at altitude, .9 MACH.

No a 767/757 is not limited to 200 knots below 10,000 feet. The 250 knot limit is like a Speed Limit Sign, the sign says 25 mph, your Porsche can do much more than 100 mph.

That is funny, a false claim out of the box.

Then goes from failure to fantasy quickly.

Quote:

These photos were used to "prove" the Official Fairy Tale that Flight AA77 flew across the bridge, knocking down a corridor of 5 light poles before crashing into the Pentagon. ...

That is sad, the proof of the flight path of Flight 77 is the FDR, Radar (from 4 independant radars), and DNA. Real evidence is not used. A fake fantasy fraud is presented. The sub-forum under a conspiracy theorist's relentless Gish Gallop of lies, exposing failed comprehension.

She signed up for woo, and has no clue she tripped into the deep pit of ignorance, ironically created by "© 2019 Created by James H. Fetzer".


It is a perfect fit for gullible people looking for positive reinforcement of their sick fantasy lies. Idiots at the 9/11 Scholars Forum praise the new cult members ideas.

Quote:

Comment by Shallel Octavia on April 18, 2019 at 10:14pm
Thanks Ruby! If a 757 were flying at the speed stated (532 mph) in the FEMA report, it wouldn't be able to get low enough to hit those light poles, and would undergo stresses that would tear it apart without hitting anything.

Your information is an important corroborating account! Could you please link us to Jason Ingersoll's photos?

Thanks for helping expose these treasonous acts.

Another cult member of 9/11 truth in Fetzer's failed group has no clue how fast planes can go. The speed off the last entry of Flight 77 was 483.5 knots. They have no clue aircraft are built with a safety margin and flight tested beyond Vmo.


The 200 knots must of come from another ATC/FAA limit for aircraft...

Quote:

(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.).

Failed research and ignorance are behind 9/11 truth lies and fantasy.

[bknight]

Quote:

(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.).

As if some terrorists are interested in abiding by any law. They were out to crash for planes for KSM and UBL.

[rubygray]

No wonder this place is known as the snakepit.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by rubygray

No wonder this place is known as the snakepit.

Is it unreasonable to ask you to enlarge on your beliefs about AA77 at the Pentagon? For example, the little list I posted above? So far all you've offered is criticism of analyses of England's location and made assertions about the flight path.

What caused the observed damage and debris?
What happened to the plane and its passengers?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by rubygray

No wonder this place is known as the snakepit.

Do you expect people who've been following this for over a decade and a half just to fall swooning because you've come up with yet another half-baked theory based on some blatant cherry-picking of the evidence and proof by assertion? This is a skeptic's discussion site, not a gullible idiot's discussion site.

Now, some of the main criticisms of your argument, so far as I can see, are:
(1) You're not making any positive claim about what happened at the Pentagon; you're simply trying to highlight anomalies. You have offered no proposed alternative narrative of events?.
(2) You have arbitrarily chosen to elevate witness testimony, recorded years after the event, to the status of irreproachable evidence, when in fact this is well known to be a hgihly unreliable form of evidence.
(3) You have dismissed contrary evidence on the grounds that you personally believe it to be false, but have advanced no reliable evidence supporting this belief.
(4) You have fabricated additional elements (for example, the hypothettical light pole cannon) unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
(5) You have cherry-picked documentary evidence, claiming that minor details must be correct but major claims are false.
(6) You have handwaved away the demonstrated fact that the flight path you claim and the flying attitude reported by witnesses cannot be reconciled within the existing laws of aerodynamics.
(7) You have conflated regulations on aircraft speed with the physical capabilities of the aircraft.

Rather than name calling, would it not be a little more productive to address some or all of these criticisms?

Dave

[pgimeno]

If I may add to that list...

(8) In most cases you have not provided evidence on support of your claims when requested.

I'm still wondering what is LRF. It might be a Land Rover forum (not sure which of them), the LifeRay forum, the Legal Rights forum or who knows what. I presume it's not a local resilience forum.

[CompusMentus]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

I'm still wondering what is LRF.

That Great Bastion of investigation and rationality.....

<drumroll>

Let's Roll Forum


Compus