911 Pentagon

But could that explain the missing bits of the man in the superimposed blank frame? And the continual jerkiness of the footage, the time-stamp moving backwards, etc.
No, it could not! On one or two of the forums I've inhabited, the resident mockers loved to invent fanciful technical-sounding explanations for these gross anomalies in the DoubleTree footage.

What I don't understand, is why the many researchers over the years, never noticed their significance and implications before.
 
I see the Edit function duration has been severely limited again.
I just noticed that one of the images in my previous post to Winston has somehow come adrift from its moorings and is languishing at the bottom of the comment.

This is the comparison view from the time-stamped FOX5NEWS and Residence Inn CCTV, which is the key to timestamping several events in other videos.

The smoke plume in these 2 videos resembles the profile of a laughing man. Pareidolia aside, this is a useful marker for matching the two frames so that we can ascertain the time of this moment on the CCTV footage, and then calculate time-stamps for each frame from the beginning.

Screenshot_20240112-091918_Photos~2.jpg
 
I see the Edit function duration has been severely limited again.

That's odd. I tried to set the limit at 8 hours.

I just noticed that one of the images in my previous post to Winston has somehow come adrift from its moorings and is languishing at the bottom of the comment.

Even weirder. I've noticed the editor sometimes moving blocks of text randomly around while I'm trying to post something. This sounds similar. Have you tried editing the post to move the image back where it belongs?
 
At the time it came out, CIT's interview work was quite a breakthrough. Before that, the evidence that the jetliner approached on the north flight path was really sketchy. They made a really persuasive case that the plane was approaching far, far away from the light pole damage. It was certainly equally devastating to the official story, as anything we've ever concluded from Lloyde England's story.
I'm not so sure about this. Despite the curious phenomenon of lightpoles laying on the ground, the early depiction of the flightpath showed the northern approach. There are many examples.

Witnesses were interviewed on location shortly after the event. They pointed out the northside flightpath.
This witness is standing well north of the Citgo, near the row of small conifers, with the ANC buildings behind him.

Screenshot_20240122-100117_Photos~2.jpg

Screenshot_20240122-100112_Photos~2.jpg


This witness was standing by the spindly tree to the northeast of the Citgo. ANC buildings are visible over his shoulder. He looks up to demonstrate the flightpath overhead.

Screenshot_20240122-100056_Photos~2.jpg

Screenshot_20240122-100102_Photos~2.jpg


Lincoln Liebner, the first rescuer to reach the site, had been standing 100 metres south of the hole in the Pentagon, one of the closest witnesses.
But his testimony was anomalous to the official story.
In a TV interview a couple of weeks after 9/11, he said the plane "went into the building like a toy into a birthday cake", between the 2nd and 3rd floors. He could not remember hearing a noise when the plane disappeared.
On a diagram of the Pentagon, he demonstrated a perpendicular approach of the plane, north of the hole.

Screenshot_20240122-095952_Photos~2.jpg

The official FAA/NORAD animation was created on the afternoon of 9/11, from available data, showing the north of Citgo flightpath. This was never rescinded nor corrected to reflect the official flightpath across the bridge.

Screenshot_20240122-101109_Photos~2.jpg

Screenshot_20240122-100420_Photos~2.jpg

The general consensus was that the plane flew on the north side.

This consensus was steered in the direction of the official flightpath by the release of the Gatecam footage and construction of the 9/11 Memorial on the lawn, with its rows of concrete seats rigidly indicating an oblique approach across the overpass bridge.

Certainly, CIT did much to counteract this perception by having eyewitnesses describe the northside path they witnessed.
So how could they have failed to understand that Lloyde England was foremost among those witnesses?
 
Last edited:
Despite the curious phenomenon if lightpoles laying on the ground, the early depiction of the flightpath showed the northern approach. There are many examples.

It did seem reasonably well demonstrated to me. Richard and I wrote up a page about this, last updated 3/12/2004 which was prior to CIT's arrival on the scene. I believe the last edit to the page was the text in red, which I added to point out unresolved questions, and make amends with our doubters and critics.

https://911-strike.com/quantum-path.htm

I think we did a succinct yet comprehensive presentation, if I do say so myself.

Certainly, CIT did much to counteract this perception by having eyewitnesses describe the northside path they witnessed.
So how could they have failed to understand that Lloyde England was foremost among those witnesses?

Doesn't it say somewhere: "... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace ..."?

Maybe if Jesus cuts them a little slack, you could too?

Maybe my Antipodean summer day in the garden exceeded the limit.

That sounds so wonderful!! We've just survived an ice storm here. We were fortunate that we only lost power for 2 hours, while many places around town are still in the dark.

Spend as much time as you want enjoying summer days in the garden. I'm so jealous. Will set edit time back to "unlimited" until this gets straightened out.
 
I think we did a succinct yet comprehensive presentation, if I do say so myself.
I'm currently working through your 911-strike material! Excellent value.
Some of your suspicions have been answered since new evidence has come to light.

The general standard of 911 Pentagon discussion has deteriorated lamentably since the early days. Now, you can barely elicit more of a response from anyone than "160 witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon with their own eyes" and a slew of snigger emojis or abuse.

Interesting to note that you and Richard had written about the metal cladding sheets back in 2004!! I've never seen anyone else even comment on them.

One thing they are not is part of Pentagon building fabric. Nothing so anachronous there.

I think my idea is best. They are the walls, floors and roofs of the two construction trailers which had not yet been removed from site behind the helipad, despite protestations to the contrary. They housed the plane debris spread over the site, and the explosives to create the external damage.

The explosion of those trailers explains the otherwise puzzling order of burning vehicles. First the fire truck near the fire house, next Sean Boger's car just south of it, and after some time, Jackie Kidd's vehicle, which was closest to the fireball.

Old Mother Common Sense suggests that, had a jet full of fuel impacted the wall further south, then the fire should have moved the other way, with Kidd's vehicle erupting in flames first, then Boger's, and perhaps the firetruck last.

But if the explosion emanated principally from the trailers, then the mystery is explained.

We've just survived an ice storm here. We were fortunate that we only lost power for 2 hours
I saw the scary temperature maps! Meanwhile, northern parts of Australia are being threatened with >50°C (122°F) although my summer is quite mild here at 41° South.

Only 2 hours without power? Mine went off more than 3 years ago. Apart from a couple of incidents where I was getting electric shocks.

Doesn't it say somewhere: "... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace ..."?
Yes. Romans 3:23,24 as I'm sure you know by having looked it up.
Not quite applicable to CIT's protracted campaign against Lloyde et al, especially after having been shown the error of their ways.
And I do cut them plenty of slack. I give much credit to them for almost everything else they accomplished.
 
Is this the same white van that Lloyd describes? Driving south in the #2 lane.
No, this van has side windows, whereas the van whose driver assisted Lloyde, had solid sides.

This video was taken some time after the fireball. A timestamp would be useful. It took several minutes for the media to arrive with cameras, as shown here.

Lloyde was dealing with the white van's driver at no later than 9:42 a.m., as seen on the amateur video, and the Residence Inn CCTV footage (timestamped by the FOX5NEWS live TV broadcast).

Traffic in the Dave Statter video is moving southbound, but it was blocked off when the explosion occurred. Only Lloyde England and Steve Riskus were allowed through at that time. Then the white van is seen arriving from the north, under the overhead sign, at 9:41 a.m.

Corporal Jason Ingersoll's time stamped photo series shows this white van parked below the Do Not Enter sign on the bridge, in 4 photos, at 9:47 and 9:48 a.m.
After two other identical vans drive up behind it, this first van also moves on.

Screenshot_20240124-023750_Chrome~2.jpg

Southbound traffic was allowed to file past the taxi and pole for a few minutes, then was blocked off again, by 9:54 a.m.

Screenshot_20240124-025818_Chrome~2.jpg
 
I think my idea is best. They are the walls, floors and roofs of the two construction trailers which had not yet been removed from site behind the helipad, despite protestations to the contrary. They housed the plane debris spread over the site, and the explosives to create the external damage.
I also heard that some plane debris was found north of the explosion site...could this implicate the construction trailers too?
 
I also heard that some plane debris was found north of the explosion site...could this implicate the construction trailers too?
I'm sure it does!
However, official story supporters would claim that it also implicates a plane on the diagonal flightpath, causing plane parts to be projected northwards.
 
I was having a Facebook conversation with Wayne Coste some weeks ago, regarding a segment of his work, "Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon."
I challenged his dogmatic claim that the two tiny shadows on South Joyce Street were the shadow of the jumbo jet on the Citgo Security camera video.

I showed that what he claimed was a tree on the far side of that street, was actually a light fitting on the Citgo canopy ceiling.
I've never heard one peep out of Coste since that day.
Even the infernally irritating Simon Falkner has (temporarily) ceased his shilling.

Prior to that, I had messaged David Chandler, sincerely asking for his assistance in calculating the forces involved in the pole impacting the interior of the taxi moving at 40 to 50 mph. He was very insulting and told me to "Go away!!"

It's very curious how a physics teacher passionately concerned with the truth of 9/11, cannot provide at least a back-of-envelope calculation.
And how a Registered Engineer (Coste's YouTube channel) cannot explain how he mistook a light fitting for a large tree.

These Leviathans of the "international truth movement" they recently created, are perennially shy of any challenges to their dictum.
But they live in a glass house, which is begging to have rocks thrown at it.

So this morning I posted the following comment on Chandler's Bitchute channel, under the section of Wayne Coste's presentation which claims that the scene of Lloyde England and his taxi on the bridge could not possibly have been staged, thereby proving the official flightpath.

I doubt Chandler will allow my comment to remain there for long. So to keep him honest, I post it here.
 
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ySTzq3JkRERH/

Lloyde England stated repeatedly and categorically that he was not on or near the overpass bridge when a pole speared his cab.

He pointed out his true location on an aerial photograph.

He took CIT driving by the locations where he was when the pole hit, about 150 feet North of the Columbia Pike exit road overhead sign north of the heliport, and then where his cab came to rest, beside the cemetery's concrete retaining wall, just north of the small green Exit sign.

Lloyde had Craig Ranke drive past twice, and he repeated his explicit statements of where he was.

Long after CIT ceased their investigation, an amateur video was released, which had been taken from the northern end of the Pentagon lawn.

This video shows Lloyde England and his taxi cab exactly where he had pointed out to CIT, beside the concrete wall.
Many unique identifying features of a Capitol Cab, and a 1990 Lincoln Continental Town Car, can be determined in this poor quality video, by zooming and enhancing the individual frames.

The black colour, vehicle shape, features of the interior of the driver's door and side of the dashboard, the white Capitol Cabs logo on the rear door, the white roof light, the orange stripe down the side, door handle, etc.

Lloyde is seen walking back to the front of his car from the direction of a white van, and then standing in front of the hood.
In the final frame of the 7 seconds of footage, the diagonal pole is seen through the open driver's door, lifted up off the dashboard where it had rested, and creating a large hole in the front windshield, which shows as a brightly lit area against the reflective wall.

There is a photo of rescuers bringing April Gallop's baby to officer Wanda Ramey, who was working in the North Parking Guard Shack.
In the background, Lloyde's taxi (which had been immobilized by the impact of the pole against the rear firewall, setting off a safety device in the trunk) is being winched up the loading ramps of the orange low loader trailer behind the black Ford F450 towtruck which was waiting behind the taxi in the video.

There are two long distance videos showing this towtruck and trailer departing the cemetery wall, the FOX5NEWS live time-stamped TV footage, and the CCTV from the Residence Inn. This was at 9:43 a.m.

There is another amateur video shot from the overpass bridge looking north up Route 27, which shows several seconds of the towtruck and loaded trailer travelling from the cemetery wall to the overpass bridge.

The first amateur video then shows the towtruck and unloaded trailer exiting the bridge onto the northwest cloverleaf at 9:45 a.m., where the trailer was unhitched behind the guardrail. It was seen there on many images for the rest of the day.

The trailer was also captured there on satellite images, dated 9/6 and 9/12/2001, having been subtly reoriented in the interim.

Mark Faram the Navy Times journalist then took a photo showing the black towtruck returning from the unhitched trailer towards the Citgo station, where it had been captured on their CCTV, parked at the Southside pump for about 5 minutes facing the Pentagon, until it departed at about 60 seconds after the fireball.

This abundant evidence proves that the photos of Lloyde and his taxi next to the downed lightpole on the bridge were necessarily staged, and shows the means used to relocate the taxi.

The Jason Ingersoll photos are time-stamped.

The first one showing the cab on top of the bridge was taken at 9:48 a.m., 11 minutes after the fireball, and 6 to 7 minutes after the video of Lloyde and the cab beside the cemetery wall.

The first photo of Lloyde on the bridge was taken at 9:55 a.m., 18 minutes after the fireball, and 13 to 14 minutes after the video showing Lloyde removing the pole.

The video and photo evidence proves that the 12 foot pole inside Lloyde's cab, about 1,200 feet North of the bridge, was not a lightpole.
It proves that the plane, which flew close to Lloyde as it crossed the highway, was nowhere near the bridge or lightpoles.
It proves that the plane never hit any lightpoles.

As this circumstantial evidence was so demonstrably staged, it falsifies the official flightpath of the plane, including the Gatecam footage.
This, and more, implicates the Pentagon and the U.S. military in the Pentagon 9/11 event.
 
Last edited:
The blurb on Chandler's video above:

Lloyd England’s taxicab is evidence that the downing of the light poles was a real-time event that could not have been staged ahead of time. This single piece of evidence therefore discredits any theory that eliminates a large plane flying along the path of the downed light poles. CIT responded by interviewing Lloyd England and accusing him of being an accomplice to the staging of the scene based on supposed contradictions in his story. This section examines all the fragments of the first two light poles and determines which piece actually hit the taxi, providing in a factual basis for evaluating Lloyd England’s story.
 
The old forums are often goldmines of information about Pentagon 9/11 details which we may have wondered at but b upeen unable to verify.

I just came across this single page thread on AboveTopSecret, a forum which once encouraged and protected genuine debate and intelligent exchange of factual evidence, but has long since deteriorated into a morass of partisan acrimony and vilification against sincere research into the alternative story.

https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread291168/pg1

I had often wondered about the guardrails next to the downed lightpoles.

Three of the poles were on the eastern side of the guardrail, and therefore one would not expect any damage to the rail when the poles were somehow felled, allegedly by a force applied in a southwesterly to northeasterly vector.

But downed poles #1 & #2 were located on the western side of the overpass bridge guardrail. One would expect that these poles would have either been sheared across at the level of alleged impact with a 550 mph jet wing (as an astute commenter describes in that thread), or to have been torn off their bases and dragged forward through the guardrail, ripping it out of the ground.

However pole #1 was laying quite neatly in its own shadow, on the eastern side of the undamaged guardrail.

And pole #2 fell backwards downhill on the western side of the guardrail, concealed by the trees growing on the northwestern embankment, with only its lamp having fallen onto the highway to mark its original location.

There is a rare photograph of a crumpled section of guardrail, with its 3 posts having been cleanly ripped out of their concrete foundations, laying on the eastern side of an intact guardrail on the Pentagon lawn, about 120 feet north of downed pole #5.

Screenshot_20240125-102812.png
 
Where did this guardrail come from?
It is what the guardrail next to pole #1  should have looked like.

Craig Ranke suggests it was a section missing from the western side of pole #3.

Screenshot_20240125-103608.png

If that is the case, then how did it find its way so far north?

And what mystical force tore it out of the ground?

And why did no motorists mention a length of heavy metal guardrail flying past their cars?

Why were there never any divots in the road surface and lawn from all these toppled poles? The surfaces are all pristine, as though the poles had been lifted up and gently laid down close by their plinths.

Except for pole #1, which had obviously been dragged across the road from east to west, leaving a telltale excoriation from the corner of its sharp base.
 
Daryl Donley was sitting right there, between poles #3, 4 & 5.
He took a long series of excellent photos.

Now that I know where that piece of guardrail was in relation to pole #5, I can see it in several of Donley's images.

He mentioned in his testimony that poles fell around where he was, but this was not a claim to having seen them toppled in real time by AA77.

He never mentioned this section of guardrail whizzing by him like a monstrous metal magic carpet.

Screenshot_20240125-120339_Chrome~3.jpg
 
Blue_Windows
I wonder whether you can tell me, what is the significance of these symbols on my Facebook post?

Screenshot_20240126-114540~2.png

I addressed this post to Coste and Chandler, hoping for some honest and open discussion on their presentation "Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon".

So I tagged them from my tablet, which is perilously close to freezing forever at 15.9 GB of its 16GB full. It is not functioning well.
When I checked the post on my phone, which is also behaving erratically and no longer tags anyone on FB, these symbols appeared next to their grey bolded names, instead of blue highlighting.

So I'm wondering whether this coward and his bullying buddy have "snoozed" me on FB? So that it appears to me as though they have been tagged, but they have blocked me from their end, so they cannot see anything I address to them?

Strange how they have for many years indulged in the most vehement hateful no-holds-barred public slanging matches with McKee, totally devoid of any discussion of the evidence from either side!

Yet when I attempt to address their strident claims to having demonstrated the truth of the (official) flightpath, I am treated with total disdain, ridicule and ignore.

They imagine they are The Last Word on the truth of the Pentagon event.
But they cannot, and will not, support their dogma when challenged.

Even more strangely, McKee allows me to post this on his group page, but never puts in an appearance. He has accused me many times of being "exactly like Chandler," when what I post proves there is no similarity.

Frauds, all of them.
 
I don't know what the symbol means. I wouldn't be surprised if they "snoozed" notifications on your replies though.

That Chandler's willing to argue back and forth with McKee but not you kind of proves that he's not interested in debate as an evenue to arrive at truth. It's more like a spectacle.
 
Back
Top