911 Pentagon

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Eastman posted this 911 video at his Vimeo channel in ~2017. The blurb to the video states:

This is a clip of James Fetzer talking about a truck driver who witnessed the Boeing fly over the Pentagon instead of crashing as official accounts claim. Dave Ball was reluctant to tell his story, but he had shared it with Roy Schafer who broke confidence and told James Fetzer. Here is Fetzer himself establishing that the murder of Don Ball occurred soon after. The murder of Don Ball remains unsolved.

Fetzer himself mentions this story here:

https://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-science-and-politics-of-9-11-the-toronto-hearings

That a plane was used to create the misleading impression that it had actually hit the Pentagon (by setting off explosives as it passed over it) has also been confirmed by the report of Dave Ball, the trucker buddy of a friend of mine from JFK research, Roy Schaeffer, who told Roy that he had been in front of the Pentagon at the time and watched a large plane fly toward the building and then swerve over it.
However, a comment at Fetzer's podcast (here) questions whether this trucker named Dave Ball ever even existed. The entire story turns on Roy Schaeffer's credibility -- it's possible that Dave Ball was a pseudonym, if indeed (as the commenter claimed) there are no records of Ball's murder.

Roy Schaeffer was a roommate of Lee Harvey Oswald at El Toro Marine Base in ~1960, who later became a JFK assassination researcher.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Here's the tape of Eastman's debate with Fetzer "Big Planes Hit World Trade Center 9/11/2001".

Unless there are any objections, I'm going to split the posts on the WTC planes (or lack thereof) out to another thread.


In the comment to the video, Eastman says:

Youtube, now owned by Google, has taken down all of my Youtubes -- many on literature and history and most on economics -- because of my posting so many comments on Tsarnaev -- so my YouTubes are gon and I am not able to comment on any Youtube. Thank god for vimeo.
Although this particular video has survived at Youtube, at Abel Danger's channel. At least for now! But, I'm noticing increasing numbers of dead links to purged Youtube videos, both at this website and elsewhere.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Jerry,
Thanks for the links to info on Dave Ball. I have been searching for it with little success. I had seen a video of Fetzer talking briefly about it at a conference.
I note there is no mutual admiration society between Eastman and Fetzer. Rather great acrimony. The deeper you investigate stuff on this topic of course, the more opaque it becomes. Fetzer used to support Judy Wood but now claims she is the high priestess of a cultish group. He mocks her "raygun" theory yet with his mininuke theory, he uses almost the same M.O. - that molecular dissociation was involved in the pyroclastic flow-like effect at the towers.
However as Judy Wood points out, the clouds of dust were if anything, cool, and victims as well as escapees were not flash-fried, whereas Fetzer's mininukes theory requires millions of degrees of heat. All sides seem to have a modicum of truth to justify their claims, but enough ridicule can be lobbed against each one in some context to discredit them generally in most people's eyes. So the recent debacle of Jim Fetzer having had his book publisher apologise to the father of an infant whom Fetzer had claimed did not die or even exist, is concerning and certainly ammunition for his detractors.

Yet Fetzer did seem quite believable about the Dave Ball incident. It sounds as though he did speak with him. I note that his name has also been spelled 'Dave Bawl' which may or may not have any significance. And then, Eastman also referred to him as "Don Ball". People do get murdered of course. Sometimes those murders go unsolved. It would be foolish to think that perpetrators of a mass murder on 9/11 and subsequent megaslaughter on foreign soils, would baulk at terminating a possible leak of damaging publicity.

The fact that those Pentagon witnesses I mentioned, recorded within 20 minutes to a few days post impact, never apparently gave another interview, is disturbing. Why did journalists and investigators not see the obvious dichotomy there? Their positions east of the impact, their view of a low, banking plane over the building or highway succeeded by the explosion - and never seek them out for further information? How would we ever know whether or not this happened? We would not. No media outlet would publish this in the cold light of day.

There is also the strange case of the Double Tree car park witness, and the blatantly mutilated CCTV footage. I shall post images here sometime revealing how "They" cut and pasted the timestamps on this footage that was so mysteriously paused for some seconds while that witness stood immobile in the parking lot, ignoring the raging spectacle at the Pentagon behind him, while looking up into the sky to the east - in fact, in the direction of Reagan National Airport. A little triangulation of the solar angles, shadows, geographical location and the witness's focus of attention, suggests that he was watching a real object in the sky headed towards the airport to the east, which was much more interesting than a column of smoke to the west.

I even surmise that the footage was paused at this point to avoid revealing a telltale large shadow which may have been cast across the hotel forecourt.

I used to think that only I had seen this as a possibility, that this guy was filmed in the act of observing the flyover, but apparently Aldo was there before me, many years previously. I don't think anybody ever followed up on it then, nor even twigged to his comment.

But nor do I think Aldo blew up the frames of that sequence of video, which shows what appears to be a whistleblower attempt to point viewers to this conclusion. The timestamp is very crudely cut from a frame where this guy is standing, then superimposed on a frame after he has left the scene - but parts of his hand and legs behind the timestamp were not removed.

So I suggest that this Double Tree witness is also a Flyover witness, filmed in the very act.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Here are some of the images from the Double Tree Hotel CCTV footage of the explosion at the Pentagon, which was watched by this man who was standing at the entry to the parking lot when the impact occurred.

He walked into the forecourt, looking in the opposite direction to the billowing smoke, when suddenly the frames were frozen. For many seconds, although the timestamps advanced (and then went backwards 2 minutes, then advanced again), the image of this man was frozen in time.

He was ignoring the once-in-a-lifetime spectacle of the burning Pentagon behind him, and staring up into the sky in the opposite direction.
Did he watch the plane flying across the Pentagon and heading to Reagan National Airport?

https://flic.kr/p/2gmQirE
Suddenly, the man disappeared, although the timestamp still read the same as the previous frame which included him.

https://flic.kr/p/2gmQiAh
When this frame is blown up, we can see that somebody has doctored this video frame.
They have cut the timestamp from the frame with the man in it, and then pasted this timestamp onto a frame where the forecourt was empty.

We can see the parts of the man's hands and legs in the background of the timestamp.

https://flic.kr/p/2gmQKAe
The next frame switches to a regular timestamp over the background of the parking lot minus the eyewitness.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Yet Fetzer did seem quite believable about the Dave Ball incident. It sounds as though he did speak with him. I note that his name has also been spelled 'Dave Bawl' which may or may not have any significance. And then, Eastman also referred to him as "Don Ball". People do get murdered of course. Sometimes those murders go unsolved.
But if someone is murdered, generally there's some sort of mention in the press. At least an obituary. I don't know if anyone has searched for this.

I didn't have the impression that Fetzer had spoken directly to Dave Ball, but only that he heard about it through Roy Schaeffer. Mr. Schaeffer might have more information to verify the existence & circumstances of death of Dave Ball, if we were able to find him.

we can see that somebody has doctored this video frame.
It does seem to be a remarkably sloppy job.

Who released this video?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Well that is interesting, the Flickr watermarks that have been superimposed on my images. What's that about?
???
But if someone is murdered, generally there's some sort of mention in the press. At least an obituary.
Doesn't that depend on who's done the murdering?
It does seem to be a remarkably sloppy job.
Yet, they seemed to take some decent effort to fix the converged shadows (of the man and the pole).

This reminds me of the parking cam frames showing a plane hitting the building. Back in the day, I don't remember anyone talking about how much motion blur should be expected. Typically those cameras aren't the greatest.
 
Last edited:

Ruby Gray

Member
I didn't have the impression that Fetzer had spoken directly to Dave Ball, but only that he heard about it through Roy Schaeffer. Mr. Schaeffer might have more information to verify the existence & circumstances of death of Dave Ball, if we were able to find him.

It does seem to be a remarkably sloppy job.

Who released this video?
Hi Jerry,
On the video of the conference where Fetzer was talking about Dave Ball I thought he said that he had spoken to him to invite him on his radio show. I will have to look this up again. But I would like to ask Fetzer more about this.

This Double Tree video was a FOIA release. There are numerous YT channels that have different versions of it in various quality renditions.

Cjnewson88 channel hosts the 28 minute version, which has the advantage of showing a helicopter flying from east to west in the sky west of the Pentagon, about 10 minutes prior to the explosion as per the timestamps. Just one of many videos showing a helicopter flying in this area within minutes both sides of the impact.

Honegger is one of the only researchers to comment much on the helicopter angle, but she is convinced by the falsified reports of it being a dinky little Huey. The several witnesses beside the Pentagon who testify to the presence of the helicopter/s generally don't identify it, except for one person whose testimony I have misplaced, who wrote, "The helicopter looked important enough," which surely does not apply to a cute blue and white Park Police rescue chopper.

There were 3 CCTV cameras at the Double Tree Hotel. This video is from Camera 3. The strange paused segments and chopping backwards and forwards of the time stamps, are synched in all 3 videos, to give the illusion of being genuine footage from old or faulty cameras I guess. I read a complex explanation of why these effects supposedly occur with old cameras in YT comments. The helpful commenter had no explanation of how a faulty camera can cut and paste part of one frame onto the next, however.

Some versions of this video show ghosting of the man from one frame to the next. I think this is a function of the copying process. Those versions do not show the amputated body parts of the parking lot witness.

The version where I found this is from the shoestring911 channel, and it is a 17 second segment. He posted this in 2007. Watch it frame by frame at about 15 seconds for this fleeting anomaly to appear.

Doubletree Hotel Video of 9_11 Pentagon Strike

I don't know who Shoestring is, but he posted much useful stuff on 911blogger. In particular, an article on the presence of helicopters, and the testimony of the pilots who flew them that day. But even he did not know what type of helicopter was actually involved in the staging of the Pentagon event.
 
Last edited:

Ruby Gray

Member
Yet, they seemed to take some decent effort to fix the converged shadows (of the man and the pole).

This reminds me of the parking cam frames showing a plane hitting the building. Back in the day, I don't remember anyone talking about how much motion blur should be expected. Typically those cameras aren't the greatest.
Yes Richard, the presence of a single frame clearly showing the clumsy cut & paste of the timestamp with telltale man parts included, when the sequential frames were neatly tidied up, suggests a deliberate inclusion of this damning evidence against the FBI who released the video.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
To be entirely fair to Ruby Gray, furthermore, it was another poster at the Let's Roll forum, gl69m, who suggested that they used "some sort of a pressure cannon, (like those used to hurl 2"x4" wooden beams as projectiles into brick walls for tornado storm shelter research)". To which Gray replied: "No, not the gadget you describe. Think PENTAGON. What kind of arsenal did they have at their fingertips? The sky is the limit, really. Literally. (That's a clue.) Right there beside the Heliport. (That's another clue.)" None of those clues are doing me any good at all, because I seriously doubt that any kind of light pole cannon is deployed as a part of the Pentagon's standard arsenal. But based on these "clues" it seems that Ruby Gray might have some answer up her sleeve.
Hi Jerry,
Have you had a chance to ponder and research the information I recently sent you, on how Lloyde England's cab was impaled with precision by a prefabricated pole?

Admittedly, I did not include the helpful context of the many eyewitness testimonies which led to this conclusion, nor the numerous videos from the Pentagon area reinforcing it, though I recall sending 2 photos of the military vehicle involved.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Ruby,

It's very nice to hear from you. I did see the email you sent me, and I appreciate the information. I am severely bogged down with litigation woes and other personal issues, and have had very little time to reflect on the broader world. I hope for better times soon!

Would you consider posting your information here? Your input is very welcome. (And, Richard: Behave Yourself!!)

Regards,

-Jerry
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Oh dear! "Woes" is such an expressive word. And not in a good way. I was hoping that had been sorted by now. Commiserations.

Thank you, yes, I will post here next week.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
For starters, as a refresher and introduction I will post the link to a webpage by Citizen Investigation Team after they released their second video on the taxi cab driver LLOYDE ENGLAND who was driving by the Pentagon when the plane (allegedly AA77) flew over him, and a pole crashed through his windshield.

This video is called

LLOYDE ENGLAND AND HIS TAXI CAB _ THE EYE OF THE STORM.

For some reason, it seems recently to have been deleted from Craig Ranke's YouTube channel LYTETRIP, although all his other videos are still there.

I will upload this documentary on my channel next week as a historical record of Lloyde England's testimony, and a study resource.

My position here is that CIT did the most significant and comprehensive investigative research on the Pentagon, but that they got a few things terribly wrong.

Lloyde England's case was one of those lamentable instances.
CIT here accuse Lloyde England of now being "infamous" but in fact, every extraordinary detail of his account has now been proven true ... and then some.
It was purely CIT's misrepresentation of Lloyde's eyewitness testimony that caused the problems.

Fortunately, those errors have been rectified at last, thanks to a bank of evidence discovered in the video and photographic record taken within the first few minutes of the impact.

"Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab: The Eye of the Storm
Original release
: 29 Oct 2008
Runtime: 95 min
"This video was released as a follow-up to the presentation to "The First Known Accomplice?" It chronicles our surreal, intense, and disturbing personal experience with the famous (now infamous) taxicab driver Lloyde England who claims that the windshield of his cab was speared by a 40 foot, 247 pound light pole that was allegedly hit by the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11, yet did not even leave a scratch on the hood, even while he was allegedly pulling it out of the car with (according to him) the help of a silent stranger who "didn't say a word".
"There is not a single photograph or eyewitness corroborating Lloyde's claim that the pole was ever in his car.
"In light of the proven fact that the plane approached from the north side of the gas station we now know why Lloyde's story simply doesn't add up: the plane did not fly anywhere near that light pole.
"The impossibility of this account is exposed as we deconstruct the details and take a road trip with Lloyde to physically examine the actual cab that he still has preserved under a tarp on his property in the country.
"This video is a supplement to the video National Security Alert. Please watch that video before watching this one."
https://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos/lloyde-england-eyeofthestorm

This rather obscure little story of one man's experience at the Pentagon on 9/11 actually is the key to proving the layers of premeditation, planning, deception, collusion, rehearsal, and cynical sacrifice of the victims, loyal employees of the perpetrators, as a pretext for ongoing war against a fabricated concept.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
For some reason, it seems recently to have been deleted from Craig Ranke's YouTube channel LYTETRIP
Indeed, it's very odd that YouTube would single this out for deletion. I don't recall it being any more or less controversial than other videos on their channel.

There are other video streaming providers such as Vimeo and BitChute that seem less prone to sudden video disappearance. We can also host video here under the Wordpress site, though I suspect that playback might be slow or halting.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Indeed, it's very odd that YouTube would single this out for deletion. I don't recall it being any more or less controversial than other videos on their channel.

There are other video streaming providers such as Vimeo and BitChute that seem less prone to sudden video disappearance. We can also host video here under the Wordpress site, though I suspect that playback might be slow or halting.
It is curious! I still have it on my computer, so will try uploading to YT again.

When YouTube removes a video, don't they leave the title in the playlist, accompanied by a message, "Deleted video"?

Could Craig Ranke himself have deleted it? Perhaps he has been reading my thread and is having second thoughts about the way he treated Lloyde on that video? That is certainly my hope and intention, to convince CIT that Lloyde England was their very first and most significant Northside flightpath witness, and to have them retract all their egregious accusations against this honest cabbie.

The Pentagon investigation has always been stalled on this very topic. It can move ahead again now that Lloyde England has been VINDICATED, and some of the actual accomplices have been named and shamed.

I have only just gotten used to posting videos on YouTube, so will try that first. "THE EYE OF THE STORM" is 95 minutes long, so would probably not playback well here.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Ruby's thread "Lloyde England Vindicated" is found at Let's Roll Forums at this link:

http://letsrollforums.com//lloyde-england-vindicated-new-t32464.html

If I might attempt an "elevator pitch": Ruby is saying that Lloyde England was driving under the actual flight path of the large airliner that went on to overfly the Pentagon. That is, he was located under the "north" flight path established by many other eyewitnesses, rather than the "south" flight path established by the downed light poles. His car was impaled by a light pole shot from a hovering helicopter, and came to a stop near the cemetery wall. The car was then towed to the underpass, where it became a "photo op" proving that light poles were indeed sent flying by the passing jet.

Ruby has a series of rather fuzzy images that appear to show Lloyde, his taxicab, the impaling light pole, and a tow truck, all located under the Citgo flight path. There are also eyewitness accounts supporting this version of events. And, Donald Rumsfeld's personal assistant seems to have taken a special interest in Lloyde and his taxicab.

I feel it advances the matter, because Lloyde England has always seemed like a credible eyewitness to events, and his "naming and shaming" has caused considerable cognitive dissonance among pentagon 911 truth researchers. Also, as Ruby says, we now finger some other individuals whose testimony (if any) is not nearly so credible as Lloyde's.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
When YouTube removes a video, don't they leave the title in the playlist, accompanied by a message, "Deleted video"?
When I follow the link to the video from the CIT website, I get a message stating "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Terms of Service". But I was able to right-click and get the original video's URL code, which was <yC3LRdjocmc>. When I use that URL in my browser, I get a different message: "... removed for violating YouTube's policy on hate speech".

"THE EYE OF THE STORM" is 95 minutes long, so would probably not playback well here.
I would need to upload it using the Wordpress admin dashboard. I think it would probably play back OK. But, I agree that it's best to try YouTube first. They get the most traffic.

It's coming up on 2 years since our last post to the Wordpress front page site. This discussion forum is much easier & more convenient to use, and doesn't cause intimidating writer's block like the Wordpress system does. But I think it gives more of a sense of gravity & purpose, when we use Wordpress. And if we were able to get a book written, so much more so.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Thanks for the info, Jerry.
I find it interesting that YouTube has deleted this video from Craig Ranke's Lytetrip channel, yet have allowed numerous others to remain, which are at least equally defamatory, full of errors and unwarranted assumptions.

Over the past 11 years since this video was published, I am almost the only person who has had a good word to say for Lloyde England.

Certainly I am the only one who has defended him unreservedly, purely on the basis of his account making sense to me while Craig's haranguing grated on my sense of logic and fair play, even before I found the eyewitness testimony, the videos and photos that support every detail of Lloyde's much-derided story.

Lloyde England himself never did retaliate against the furore that CIT instigated around him with these video interviews and forum debates. Gracious as he was, he rose above it all and stuck to his story -

"THAT was not where it happened ... You gotta understand, THIS does not show it ... THIS shows the pole HERE."

So what is different about the video "The Eye of the Storm" that it was singled out for deletion by YouTube?

I think it is that in it, Lloyde takes Craig Ranke and cameraman Christopher Taylor driving past the cemetery wall on Route 27, and very lucidly points out exactly where he was driving when the pole hit, and again when the cab came to a halt.

He does this not just once, but twice.

Marry this information from a lifetime career cabbie with :

(a) Steve Riskus' second photo at 1 minute post impact, that shows black skid marks and shattered glass on the highway at the exact spot LLoyde said he was when the pole hit,

(b) the amateur video which was taken at 4 minutes post impact from the Pentagon lawn right across the highway, of the exact spot where Lloyde said his cab stopped,

(c) then connect the many dots from the various other videos taken concurrently from different vantage points,

and you have solid evidence that the government story about the plane's trajectory, long since set in stone as the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial on the southern lawn, is pure fiction.

Poor quality that the amateur video undoubtedly is, 7 seconds X 30 frames of blurry but fairly close-up video of an identifiable black 1990 Lincoln Continental Capitol Cab with strong eye-witness testimony and context of many individual details, vehicles and characters, trumps 1 frame of a teensy blurry long-distance neon tetra swimming across the lawn towards the Pentagonfrom the Gatecam CCTV.

That this video deletion has occurred so recently, during the strong upsurge in views of my thread LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED which compares all these images, suggests to me that people actually involved in perpetrating this crime have influenced the deletion of this particular video.

I have found that it is still up on Crag Ranke's Vimeo channel, here :

Lloyde England & His Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm

I have just uploaded it to my channel, with a statement about Lloyde England's evidence being of historical significance despite the interviewer's false assumptions, so hopefully it will survive the censor's wrath.

 

Ruby Gray

Member
Ruby's thread "Lloyde England Vindicated" is found at Let's Roll Forums at this link:

http://letsrollforums.com//lloyde-england-vindicated-new-t32464.html

If I might attempt an "elevator pitch": Ruby is saying that Lloyde England was driving under the actual flight path of the large airliner that went on to overfly the Pentagon. That is, he was located under the "north" flight path established by many other eyewitnesses, rather than the "south" flight path established by the downed light poles. His car was impaled by a light pole shot from a hovering helicopter, and came to a stop near the cemetery wall. The car was then towed to the underpass, where it became a "photo op" proving that light poles were indeed sent flying by the passing jet.

Ruby has a series of rather fuzzy images that appear to show Lloyde, his taxicab, the impaling light pole, and a tow truck, all located under the Citgo flight path. There are also eyewitness accounts supporting this version of events. And, Donald Rumsfeld's personal assistant seems to have taken a special interest in Lloyde and his taxicab.

I feel it advances the matter, because Lloyde England has always seemed like a credible eyewitness to events, and his "naming and shaming" has caused considerable cognitive dissonance among pentagon 911 truth researchers. Also, as Ruby says, we now finger some other individuals whose testimony (if any) is not nearly so credible as Lloyde's.
Thanks for the precis Jerry!

Just one correction. The pole that speared through the cab windscreen cannot have been a lightpole. Those taper from 10'' diameter to 6'' along their 40 foot length.

The entry hole in the windshield was that tiny hole right down at the base, not the gaping hole in the centre, which was probably knocked out either when the pole rebounded as the front seat sprang back up, or when the pole was being removed. No part of a lightpole could have fitted in that entry hole.

There were two circular impressions made on the rear seat by the same pole which impacted then bounced and contacted again as the car continued moving forward. These imprints are about 4'' diameter.

The severed ends of all the downed lightpoles were crushed, deformed and jagged.
But the imprints on Lloyde's rear seat are neat, square-cut and perfectly circular.

Lloyde said, drew and physically demonstrated that the pole extended from the rear seat to the front of the hood, which makes it only about 12 feet long.

Lloyde stated that his pole had no base on it as lightpoles do.
Father Stephen McGraw also said that he saw this pole.
This must have been when the pole was inside the cab windscreen, as there is a single frame of Father McGraw standing on the northern Pentagon lawn watching the fire, in the same amqteur video about one minute previous to the 7 seconds of footage of the cab with the pole diagonally through it at 9:42 a.m.

McGraw stated that this pole appeared to him to be just the "top part" cut off a longer pole, although he did not see any lightpoles being hit by the plane, nor were there any damaged lightpoles in the location where they both were at the moment of impact - opposite the heliport, 350 - 400 yards north of the bridge.

When presented with photos which showed the cab on the bridge beside that huge downed lightpole #1 and also a couple of much smaller poles lying on the highway in the background, Lloyde absolutely rejected the lightpole as the offending instrument, but pointed to and identified the smaller pole on the other side of the cab.

https://flic.kr/p/2gagkk3
https://flic.kr/p/2gagKfS
So, let's avoid calling this a "lightpole". That flawed identification has been a stumbling block in the path to finding the truth.

The pole that speared through Lloyde's cab windscreen "like a javelin" with such precision, was necessarily prefabricated for this purpose.

The 2 smaller poles (Detective Don Fortunato stated that the cab was hit by "PIECES OF POLE") were loaded onto the trailer alongside the cab before it was moved from the cemetery wall, and then pulled off and laid on the road behind the cab on the bridge.
What were these poles? The two lamp support arms are flattened in cross section, so they cannot be support arms.
The cut ends are not crushed, deformed or jagged, and the poles are too narrow and not tapered, so cannot have come from the top of downed lightpole #1.

Poles unrelated to any lightpole laying in the vicinity of the downed lightpoles and Lloyde's cab, are prima facie evidence of premeditation.
 
Top