911 Pentagon

Ruby Gray

Member
I just read the news on Facebook's Pilots for 9/11 Truth page.
Rob Balsamo has died.
Apparently he was in hospital attended by some family and a friend when he died from hepatic and renal failure due to alcoholism.

There are many tributes there for him, the man who did such great work on the alleged hijacked 9/11 planes.

I was a big admirer of all Rob Balsamo did, but he was less admiring of me, indeed he treated me with great suspicion, hostility and rudeness. What a shame. It's not as though he ever solved anything with his open-ended, non-committal research, in fact he shied away from making solid statements. I tried to show him a few clues he and CIT had missed, which would have advanced the investigation, but he didn't want to know. I was sent to the naughty corner for my insolence, and never got the opportunity to personally discuss any of this evidence with him, which I would have liked to do.

Rob Balsamo. A loss, an enigma.
 
Last edited:

Ruby Gray

Member
If this was the case there would have been zero passengers or cargo, and a minimal fuel load, making decellerating even easier. Also, in normal situations, 'approved' runways are provided a wide cushion of safety margin in regards to length, which can be discounted in such a scenario.
Yes, interesting.
But is the report not anachronous?

Is this the passage to which you refer?

Arlington County After Action Report
page 28
"Meanwhile, at the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) Fire Department at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Captain Michael Defina was investigating an incident at Terminal B when he heard the impact and saw the smoke rising in the distance. He called Fire Communications and was advised of a report of a Boeing 757 crash off the end of Runway 1-19. That was quickly amended, identifying the Pentagon as the crash site.
"

Seems that the incident at Terminal B was being investigated prior to the explosion occuring at the Pentagon.
In that case, the plane landing at Reagan National is not ruled out, but it would have been the subject of a different comment.

Something that has puzzled me for years, is the fact that another aircraft entirely played such an integral part in the proceedings at the Pentagon on 9/11, yet it has never previously been identified.

Several eyewitnesses referred to it, and it was even the subject of an official interview, but the information was corrupted and suppressed.

DARYL DONLEY, who captured the opportune photograph of the secondary explosion about 4 - 5 minutes post impact, stated that this aircraft was the first thing he saw.

"SKARLET", the enigmatic anonymous blogger who could not convince herself that the plane did not swoop up at the last second to fly over the building, also stated that she saw this aircraft first - in fact, she saw more than one of them.

Various others made references to this aircraft having been what in fact exploded on the helipad, or crashed into the flying plane, or some curious permutation which implies that many people did see something real, which they could only describe in terms that seemed so unreal as to discredit their testimony.

Inexplicably, the reports of this aircraft were never followed through to a satisfactory conclusion (although several questioned it, such as Shoestring), when in fact it is the unsolved mystery of that day. Knowing what this aircraft was, and what it is capable of, and untangling the many references to it, makes sense of many cryptic eyewitness testimonies and events.

Numerous videos taken that morning show this aircraft. It was hidden in plain sight, something that every regular commuter would expect to see as he was driving along Washington Boulevard beside the Pentagon Helipad. Because it was decked out in military livery, it was deemed to be not merely harmless, but protective.

That was not the case.

ERICA LUSK was a photography student east of the Potomac that morning, whose class was interrupted by the news of the explosion at the Pentagon. The students were encouraged to head out and start recording their own historical images.

Within a few minutes, Lusk had taken this photograph.

748
Some time later, BOB PUGH took this photograph which may or may not be the identical craft, but it is at least the same model.

749

The Sikorsky Superstallion CH-53 helicopter is the second-most expensive helicopter in the world. The US Marines has long maintained a fleet of hundreds of them, their predecessors and descendants. It is the largest and heaviest helicopter in the US military, with current models boasting a payload of over 15 tons within and without its cavernous cabin.

An eyewitness quote which sticks in my memory but cannot now be found, was

"The helicopter looked important enough".

Although eyewitness reports of this helicopter were sanitised and conflated with the dinky little blue and white Park Police Huey rescue helicopters which appeared to ferry victims to hospiptals within about 15 minutes of impact, there is no similarity between them. The Sikorsky Superstallion is a supremely powerful, highly technologically advanced, heavily armed helicopter, capable of facilitating whatever was done in many of the anomalous eyewitness testimonies. Lateral thinking here suggests many possibilities that have never been proposed in the 19 years of research and investigation. Riddles can be solved by factoring in the characteristics of this mighty vehicle.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Yes, interesting.
But is the report not anachronous?

Is this the passage to which you refer?

Arlington County After Action Report
page 28
"Meanwhile, at the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) Fire Department at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Captain Michael Defina was investigating an incident at Terminal B when he heard the impact and saw the smoke rising in the distance. He called Fire Communications and was advised of a report of a Boeing 757 crash off the end of Runway 1-19. That was quickly amended, identifying the Pentagon as the crash site.
"
It is not anachronous in my opinion. In fact, the timing of the report of the 757 crash is tied closely to the Pentagon explosion. How can it be an anachronism then?

Who in the world would hear a big kaboom and think that a plane, a 757 specifically, crashed on a runway when the real event, supposedly, was on the far side of a big building? More likely the plane had a problem with the difficult landing and some 'innocent' person called it in to the MWAA. The MWAA had to log a report of the call. This report got redacted, as happened to the Bible a lot of times (for the same general reasons), and now it says that the person couldn't tell where the incident he or she saw really happened. This is generally what police do everyday with their reports.

If one presumes that FAA personnel were intimately involved with various aspects of 9/11 then all traces of a mystery plane landing could be made by them. They would have no control over the Arlington County personnel, and how this 'report' of a runway crash survived into the report is passing strange, unless it is just one of those frequent aspects that one finds in these matters. Frustrating clues to the awake that the perps are saying they have impunity.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Further to the information on the little-known Myrlin Wimbish published in 2011, I found an article in the Washington Times dated 13 September 2001, which mentions him, though it contains very little detail. His name is misspelled, which may explain why this did not show up previously.

Heroism finds its way through rubble

By - The Washington Times - Thursday, September 13, 2001
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/sep/13/20010913-025359-8792r/


Virginia State Trooper Merlin Wimbish was driving by the Pentagon on patrol when he heard the explosion.
He was among the first to see an image now etched in the national consciousness: A commercial airplane in the control of terrorists had crashed into the west side of the Pentagon.

At the scene, he met Trooper Mike Middleton. Trooper Middleton had been in his car doing paperwork at the department's Arlington office on Columbia Pike, less than a half-mile from the Pentagon.

Rescue vehicles had not arrived, and people were trapped inside. The troopers went into the burning building.
Trooper Wimbish said the interior was pitch dark, and they were in water up to their knees. The troopers held on to each other to keep from becoming separated. Every door they tried was locked.

Suddenly, Trooper Wimbish was alone. He continued his search for survivors in vain.
The next time he saw Trooper Middleton, his comrade was unconscious outside on a triage table. He had succumbed to the smoke.

"He's really affected by it," said Virginia State Police spokeswoman Lucy Caldwell, who spoke with Trooper Wimbish yesterday. "He said it's very hard to get it off your mind. Just like everyone else out there, you keep thinking about it."

Trooper Middleton was transported to Inova Alexandria Hospital, where he remained in critical condition last night. Mrs. Caldwell said he is expected to recover.
Trooper Wimbish stayed on the scene, delivering water to rescue workers, checking identification — anything he could do to help.
 
Last edited:

Ruby Gray

Member
Some years ago, Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke as the Citizen Investigation Team, went to Arlington, Virginia several times, looking for eyewitnesses to the Pentagon 9/11 plane. Their missions were extremely successful. They interviewed many witnesses, both those already well known, and others who had never been quoted previously.
The testimony of these eyewitnesses was unanimous : NONE of them saw the plane flying on the official trajectory, diagonally across Route 27 over the Columbia Pike overpass bridge on a direct line with the entry hole in E Ring and the alleged exit hole in C Ring.
CIT just could not find anyone who would corroborate that official flightpath which has now been literally cast in stone since the southwestern Pentagon lawn was paved over with rows of memorial seats marking the alleged flightpath for posterity.
When it is pointed out that there are NO WITNESSES for the government story, there is much vituperative invective cast upon the messenger, but never has a single credible eyewitness been produced who will swear that the plane flew across that overpass bridge.
Unfortunately, CIT missed out on including many eyewitness testimonies in their impressive list. I have found many more witnesses who support the North-of-Citgo flightpath.
The best place to begin looking is on top of the overpass.
If people were there when the plane crossed Route 27, then they must have had the very best view of a plane passing about 20 feet AGL, almost over their heads, IF the government version is true.
Here is a screenshot from an amateur video shot by a tourist whom I know only as "Camera Guy", who happened to be stopped in traffic on that section of the highway with his wife and small son. He began filming within about 2 minutes of the explosion, and his video shows his 360 degree view from there.
Very soon, he was approached by APTN reporter EUGENIO HERNANDEZ, trying to borrow the camera.
They are both heard discussing what they witnessed, in real time.
Nobody can complain that this eyewitness testimony is clouded by poor memory, embellishment, misquoting by overzealous reporters, or the passage of time.
The fact is that neither of these men saw the plane flying across the bridge.
Camera Guy Was not even sure that he saw a plane, which means it must have been far away to the north of the bridge.

https://flic.kr/p/2dXrEd7
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Here is the official trajectory of the Pentagon Plane.
Camera Guy's car was in the left northbound lane, about where the "S" is.

Had the plane's right wing tip passed so close to him, he could have been in no doubt about what he saw.

But he only THOUGHT he may have seen a plane.

https://flic.kr/p/2dEvMs2
 

Ruby Gray

Member
This image shows the relative positions of many eyewitnesses to the Pentagon event.
Their accounts are all at odds with the Official Story.
None of them saw the plane on the Official Flightpath.
Most of them saw the plane flying on the North-of-Citgo Flightpath.
Some of them, it can be logically deduced, saw the plane after it flew over the Pentagon.

Click on the image to view it in larger format.

https://flic.kr/p/2jNCsvv
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Citizen Investigation Team made a video deriding the idea that many employees of the USA TODAY based in a building in Rosslyn, 2 miles north of the Pentagon, could have been driving along Route 27 on their way to work after 9:30 on the morning of 9/11/2001. This video is called "The USA TODAY Parade".

One of the USA TODAY editors who had claimed to be on the overpass bridge was JOEL SUCHERMAN.
CIT disbelieved him, largely because he had once mistakenly said he was on "Route 110" which is the highway on the east side of the Pentagon, and because his colleague VIN NARAYANAN had said that he was "on the other side of the Pentagon" from Sucherman.

But the amateur video taken from on top of the bridge, shows several minutes of Joel Sucherman there, in and out of his car, from about 3 minutes post explosion.

https://flic.kr/p/2jNyZCv
Joel Sucherman imagined that he had witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon, but all he really saw was the approaching plane on the North-of-Citgo Flightpath, and the subsequent fireball and smoke plume rising from the Pentagon wall obscured from his field of vision behind the trees to his right. Sucherman could indeed see the Pentagon wall on his right side as he claimed - but this was only the southern wall, not the western wall facing Route 27.

https://flic.kr/p/2jNze9o
 

Ruby Gray

Member
A quick update on a couple of issues. I haven't been here as much as I would like lately due to spring junglification of my garden, death throes of my old banger (vehicle), impending band concert, and now the wiring in my house has failed.

I note that as well as deleting the "Lloyde England and his Taxicab - The Eye of the Storm" video from Craig Ranke's channel, YouTube have since also banned "National Security Alert". I have been copying some of his videos on my channel because although Ranke made some big blunders, CIT did the most significant research on the Pentagon 9/11, and I believe these historical records need to be preserved and readily available to everyone.

I posted 2 more CIT videos on Monday, but within an hour, I had received a YouTube strike for "hate speech" on the "Over the Navy Annex with Terry Morin" video. Censorship is getting savage when the truth is published.

Also. Re the views on my thread at Letsrollforums.com. I haven't updated that thread since July, but I have been keeping an eye on the views count, which has been stable at about 56,700 until about 10 days ago. I checked it again a few days back and it had rocketed to 105,000. 2 days later it was 126,000. Last night it was 142,000 and it is now over 157,000.

Membership has been opened again at LRF for some months with many suspicious sounding names joining, but still not a soul is commenting on my very confronting Pentagon evidence, though I get viciously attacked for it on other forums.

Other threads at LRF with similar themes are not seeing increases in views. My thread appears to have been singled out.

Any more thoughts on this, Jerry?
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Censorship is getting savage when the truth is published
As someone who was a convinced conspiracy theorist, I know that when something is censored, it looks true just because being censored. But that is not necessarily the case. The freedom of speech which is widely permitted in Western countries has two sides: it allows both the truth being spoken but it also allows for anybody to say any kind of nonsense. And when that nonsense becomes dangerous for national security or for the safety of certain people or categories being targeted, it is just in our own interest that that material be removed. A lot of damage is being done by the followers of the Qanon conspiracies, for example. And as for 9/11 just think for a moment if it was not true that it was an inside job what kind of damage can arise by convincing people that it was...
You might tell me that the material on 9/11 is not nonsense. I know. I spent a lot of time to ponder it, so it means that it makes one wonder, that it makes it look possible that it was an inside job. But making it look possible doesn't mean that it was. A lot of conspiracy theories are born just because a certain convergence of facts and situations makes them appear possible. Personally, after confronting all points of view and arguments, after listening to all interviews with personnel, witnesses, after watching, again and again, videos and photos, I have come to the conclusion that 9/11 was not an inside job. So has the commission that had to ascertain facts examining all evidence available.
Again, you might tell me that such a commission could never affirm that it was an inside job, or the people doing it would be sacked and convicted. Yet at the time of the Nixon scandal, with the Mkultra project, it was ascertained and he was condemned.
I just wish people could regain more trust in institutions as I did. I am not saying full trust, just a little more. There are good people out there too, and the bad ones do not have all the power we believe them to have.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I haven't been here as much as I would like lately due to spring junglification of my garden, death throes of my old banger (vehicle), impending band concert, and now the wiring in my house has failed.
Sorry you've been having trouble. I was thinking maybe you weren't around much because of my views about Christian fundamentalism. Perhaps we can put that disagreement aside, and focus on Pentagon and other relevant topics.

I have been copying some of his videos on my channel because although Ranke made some big blunders, CIT did the most significant research on the Pentagon 9/11, and I believe these historical records need to be preserved and readily available to everyone.
Have you thought about also copying to one of the less censored sites, like Bitchute or lbry.tv? Although censorship seems to be potentially going to a new level. The US Gov't has been seizing entire domains, such as recently happened to ahtribune.com.

I had received a YouTube strike for "hate speech"
"hate speech"?? How could that video possibly be construed as "hate speech"? Wasn't it just talking about Terry Morin's perception of the flight path?

Re the views on my thread at Letsrollforums.com... My thread appears to have been singled out.

Any more thoughts on this, Jerry?
I'm stumped. I did a Google search for links in to your thread, and I didn't turn anything up that we don't already know about. There's the link from Truth and Shadows, and a link from your post to John Wyndham's article at Foreign Policy Journal, and the link from here. None of those links would be generating much traffic. This thread only has 9K views, so it's certainly not responsible for many referrals. I also looked at the Alexa site rank page for letsrollforums.com. No clues there.

If you're on speaking terms with Phil Jayhan, he might be able to access LRF's web host traffic monitoring and SEO tools to find out where that traffic is coming from.

The freedom of speech which is widely permitted in Western countries has two sides: it allows both the truth being spoken but it also allows for anybody to say any kind of nonsense. And when that nonsense becomes dangerous for national security or for the safety of certain people or categories being targeted, it is just in our own interest that that material is removed. A lot of damage is being done by the followers of the Qanon conspiracies, for example.
I accept a personal responsibility to try to avoid initiating or propagating dangerous nonsense. To a lesser degree, I also try to prevent posters at my site from posting dangerous nonsense. Or at least, I feel that dangerous nonsense needs to be challenged.

Is that all you're asking for? Or are you recommending that billionaire corporations and the US government should be relied on to determine what we can say and what we can't??

I have come to the conclusion that 9/11 was not an inside job.
Now, this is what I call dangerous nonsense.

And let's start by addressing the evidence that Ruby Gray has assembled in this thread. Don't you see that she's produced conclusive proof, from one eyewitness after another, that the aircraft that flew over the Pentagon on 9/11 was not on the "official" flight path, and could not have struck the light poles or the Pentagon?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Personally, after confronting all points of view and arguments, after listening to all interviews with personnel, witnesses, after watching, again and again, videos and photos, I have come to the conclusion that 9/11 was not an inside job.
In reaching this conclusion, Emma, I'm curious if you've seen the following:

(1) This article from 2003 by Chaim Kupferberg that shows that the alleged 911 hijackers (patsies, actually) were organized and funded by means of a $100,000 wire from Pakistan's General Mahmud Ahmad, who was intimate with US congressmen, the Pentagon and National Security Council. The money trail was exposed by an article in the Times of India dated Oct. 9, 2001. Kupferberg shows how an entire alternative reality was invented in the months following, to hide this revelation.

(2) Daniel Hopsicker's investigations of Mohamed Atta and other alleged 911 hijackers who trained at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, which has also been connected to CIA drug-running operations. As summed up in a review of Hopsicker's book "Welcome to Terrorland":

Probably the first thing to say is that Daniel Hopsicker is not a secondary sources sort of writer. He has spent a lot of time down in Florida tracking down everyone who had contact with the 9/11 pilots, interviewing witnesses and cross checking their stories.
In reality this is a genuine investigation where he lets the facts of the case emerge and speak for themselves.
The official story goes that Islamic fundamentalist trainee pilots sneaked unseen into Florida flight training schools where they learnt to fly the jets used on 9/11, which in itself immediately causes a problem since: 1) they were not Islamic fundamentalists – a lot of their time in Florida was spent seriously partying 2) they didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to visas etc. 3) they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on the trajectories seen on the day.
There's no doubt about this. Hopsicker has spoken to the flight trainers, mechanics, flight school administrators, accountants, other students, Atta's girlfriend, the other girls, the bar owners, apartment owners where they lived, neighbours, police, local journalists, in fact anyone they had contact with and the story comes out the same every time, despite FBI visits and threats.
(3) Mike Ruppert's investigations into 9/11/2001 war games, as he discussed in his 2004 book "Crossing the Rubicon"? James Corbett has an updated take on this research, posted at https://www.corbettreport.com/911wargames/.

Hopsicker and Ruppert always felt that the 9/11 research community focus on "controlled demolition" at the WTC and the Pentagon was misguided. They felt that their approaches to proving US government complicity were far more direct & convincing, albeit perhaps less glamorous.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Sorry you've been having trouble. I was thinking maybe you weren't around much because of my views about Christian fundamentalism. Perhaps we can put that disagreement aside, and focus on Pentagon and other relevant topics.
Absolutely would not avoid you because of a difference of opinion! I hope you know that.

Have you thought about also copying to one of the less censored sites, like Bitchute or lbry.tv? Although censorship seems to be potentially going to a new level. The US Gov't has been seizing entire domains, such as recently happened to ahtribune.com.
Yes, I must look into starting another channel on a more user-friendly host. Craig Ranke also has his videos posted on VImeo. Apparently BrandNewTube is an excellent platform which repudiates censorship.

"hate speech"?? How could that video possibly be construed as "hate speech"? Wasn't it just talking about Terry Morin's perception of the flight path?
There's no way it contains "hate speech" that I can tell. As I point out, these eyewitness testimonies are historical records, and as such should be in the public domain. And they have not removed this same video from the other channels. It has been on Craig's LyteTrip for 12 years. I guess some viewer with a bee in his bonnet has complained. But he must have my channel flagged, for this to have happened so soon after posting the video. My appeal was met with a bland stock reply that said precisely nothing.

I'm stumped. I did a Google search for links in to your thread, and I didn't turn anything up that we don't already know about. There's the link from Truth and Shadows, and a link from your post to John Wyndham's article at Foreign Policy Journal, and the link from here. None of those links would be generating much traffic. This thread only has 9K views, so it's certainly not responsible for many referrals. I also looked at the Alexa site rank page for letsrollforums.com. No clues there.

If you're on speaking terms with Phil Jayhan, he might be able to access LRF's web host traffic monitoring and SEO tools to find out where that traffic is coming from.
I have messaged Phil, but there is no response. I asked my local computer nerd about this, and he can see no reason for this phenomenon to have been caused by bots. He thinks it is just the fact that I have linked my thread on several websites with an exponential follow on effect.
But the views are now currently 187,000 and still climbing rapidly. Over 130,000 extra views in about 10 days! And not a single comment!

About 2 weeks ago, before this happened, there were two people who contacted me. One was an unknown guy on YouTube who messaged that he had been following my comments there for some years, and would like to "hear more from" me. I pointed him to the forum.
The other was a new poster on International Skeptics forum, who is pro-CIT and the flyover idea, but says she is just beginning to look into all this. A v ery smart lady and a worthy match for the resident piranhas there. (I also suggested she come here as she was disgusted with the level of dishonesty at Skeptics.) She has family military connections. I also referred her to my thread.
But they are the only two I have directed there in the past few months.

I take screenshots of the views at LRF. In 6 days, my thread LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED has climbed by 81,000, whereas the two threads on either side have increased by 23 and 1 view respectively, even though I was the last poster on all of them.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Well, I was able to register a new account today. This was impossible a year ago. And, I was able to post a comment! Maybe this will open the floodgates.
Thanks Jerry! I noticed that! What a clever disguise. Thanks for the kudos.

I have been thinking about those views (almost 199,000 right now; they seem to have slowed down a little over the weekend).
Bearing in mind that resident computer nerd thinks these have to be genuine people viewing and causing it to go viral.
What demographic is large enough, with a vested interest in the fact that America did 9/11 to itself?
And since Lloyde England is the lynchpin that proves this fact to be true, which is quite an obscure approach to the whole 9/11 conundrum ...
I'm thinking it would have to be the Saudis specifically, and Muslims generally.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
And also Jerry, Thank you for those links to some excellent early research. We latecomers to the 9/11 scene have been bombarded with every lunatic fringe opinion and have missed out on these solid discussions. Maybe all those papers should be reprinted here for reference.
 
Top