911 Pentagon

Ruby' and I have been involved in a long debate at the 9/11 Truther's forum on Facebook, where David Chandler is a moderator. Interested readers may judge the debate for themselves, at this link.

While Ruby made many fascinating observations, for me the most interesting moment in the discussion was when Chandler himself jumped in to give a preview of his latest article. Chandler is saying that Lagasse was confused and did not understand the difference between port and starboard, thus rendering his testimony actually consistent with the South of Citgo flight path.

I feel that Chandler's argument about this is problematic at best. Lagasse said that the right wing of the aircraft hit a trailer, which Chandler says would have initiated a clockwise rotation of the aircraft. If the plane had spun over 90 degrees in that clockwise direction, then the left (port) side of the cockpit would have hit the Pentagon first. But, Lagasse said that the starboard (right) side of the cockpit hit first. According to Chandler's reasoning, this means that Lagasse meant 'port' when he said 'starboard', thus proving that Lagasse didn't know left from right.

The problem with this reasoning is, Lagasse explicitly said that he thought the plane was doing a left uncoordinated turn, meaning that it was yawing COUNTERCLOCKWISE about its axis. And furthermore, he said that the right wing hit the trailer at about the same moment that the cockpit hit the building. As I picture this in my own mind, it seems very unlikely that the plane could have suddenly swung around clockwise far enough to strike the left cockpit.

At any rate, the argument relies on a hypothesis about Lagasse's mental process, rather than anything Lagasse specifically said. Perhaps some will find this persuasive enough to create some doubt about CIT's proclaimed "zero percent chance" that Lagasse erroneously described what he saw. But is this enough to flip things the other way, and prove that Lagasse is a South of Citgo witness? I'd say that if Chandler has "moved the needle" at all, it's only a few percent.
I just posted this to the Facebook forum:

So much of the discussion of eyewitnesses such as Lagasse, Hemphill and Probst assumes that they are attempting in good faith to describe what they saw. But this is not necessarily the case! They were government employees and they were deeply invested in backing the Official Story.​
In my opinion, in each of these cases, the detailed investigation of their testimony serves to undermine their credibility as truthful witnesses.​
Hemphill and Lagasse clearly demonstrate that they are confused about the flight path, making claims that cannot possibly all be true.​
The biggest problem with Probst's account is to explain how he even survived, where he stood, if the destruction was as he said. On close examination of his testimony, there are other problems. But I do agree with Chris Sarns: if Frank Probst is found to be a credible, truthful witness, it's RIP for the flyover theory.​
David Chandler is writing under the presumption that the goal of the "911 Truth Movement" is to create a consensus version of TRUTH that will be endorsed by most if not all participants in the so-called "Movement". And when others don't buy into his TRUTH, he resorts to personal attacks. The flyover proponents are also hoping to build as much support as possible, and sometimes enthusiastically fire back with snitch-jacketing accusations. It gets very tiresome.​
For me, the goal of this Movement (if indeed there is one) is something very different: to accumulate evidence that the government-endorsed conspiracy theory is a FRAUD that has wickedly been used as a justification for endless horrific wars in the Mideast.​
It would be nice if we all could agree on exactly what happened at the Pentagon. But it will be more productive if we listen to each other.​
The reason we can't agree (in my opinion) is because this is a complex case, and there's a lot of evidence to sort through. David Chandler is correct that the physical evidence gives the appearance of supporting the official story. It seems almost insane to believe the government could have faked it all, or would have gone to the trouble.​
Thankyou so much JERRY!! It is great to have your balanced input out there in the wide wild world o" web.

I keep looking, and I just keep finding evidence that vindicates Lloyde England's story.

A few days ago I found the identities of the 2 FBI agents who came up and spoke with Lloyde right after the pole smashed through his windshield. Their accounts of this are recorded in a book titled "The Only Plane In The Sky," where they describe Lloyde, the pole in the taxi, and how they called him the luckiest man in the world that day. They loaned him a cellphone to call his family and tell them he was ok.

Lloyde's story has been universally derided for many years, thanks in particular to the outrageous accusations made against him by Citizen Investigation Team.

In their first video, "The First Known Accomplice? (Featuring Lloyde England)", Lloyde tells his story to camera, giving many vital details that explain what really happened.

He said that just after the pole smashed through his windshield, some people came up to him and told him they were FBI agents on their way to work. They told him to stay there with his car, because it was evidence.

Well, this is just another in a long line of details that I have been able to verify from his account.

And here is a recent video of those two agents, husband and wife team, Jean and Thomas O'Connor.

Last edited:
It is great to have your balanced input out there in the wide wild world o" web.

I've had trouble coming up with a coherent philosophy for my interactions with Facebook. I seem to have subconsciously adopted a strategy of making occasional appearances, and then withdrawing with the hopes of staying below their radar. I have the feeling that if I posted daily, I'd be hastening the day when they block my account for good. But I'm not sure this strategy makes any sense.

You've been doing a great job of presenting your case on Facebook. You've been presenting an encyclopedic level of knowledge about the Pentagon eyewitnesses. All that knowledge needs to be consolidated and presented somewhere highly accessible.
Yes it does need to be presented somewhere! As we have often discussed.

I am very hopeful of shortly bringing out "Lloyde England Vindicated - The Movie" thanks to a new ally who has the skills to produce it and the good sense to understand the story at last from my progressive and as you have said, rambling observations.

That would make the general outline comprehensible to the masses, none of whom is ever going to bother doing all the study I have done for years. But if they could see the timeline laid out end to end as it is revealed on all the available Pentagon videos (and replayed inside my head), it would instantly make more sense.

Perhaps even Craig and Aldo might take an interest!

I do hope you continue to add your sage comments on FB at least occasionally. You raise the bar over which the resident trolls must leap, in urbane manner.
Our opponents on that forum made some reasonable points. Although it's true that human memory is often correct, it's also true that people often make errors caused by bias, leading questions or simple confabulations.

On that basis, it seems to me that the Mainstream Conspiracy Theory is not that hard on Lloyde England. Yes, he was confused about where his taxi came to rest after it was struck by the light pole. But aside from that relatively minor error, isn't England one of the star witnesses on behalf of the 757 impact theory that Chandler and Coste are pushing? After all...

He said that just after the pole smashed through his windshield, some people came up to him and told him they were FBI agents on their way to work. They told him to stay there with his car, because it was evidence.

But perhaps you have some other leads as to where the O'Conners really were when they spoke to England?

I am very hopeful of shortly bringing out "Lloyde England Vindicated - The Movie"....

Congratulations! Once it becomes a big hit on YouTube or Bitchute, I'm sure publishers will be breaking down our doors for the rights to the book version.

So you want to vindicate Lloyde England even with respect to the faults alleged by Chandler et al, do you think it's sufficient to create a reasonable doubt? Or do you want to go further, and provide a solid case for indicting Rumsfeld and Cheney? If you just want to get Lloyde England acquitted in the court of public opinion, all you have to do is create a reasonable doubt. On the scale where indisputable proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon on 911 would be equal to "100%" (which would necessitate a conviction that Lloyde England was a mixed-up dude), all you need to do is move the needle a few percent ("reasonable doubt") towards an equally indisputable proof of fly-over on the North of Citgo Path.

Whereas, to get a criminal conviction against Rumsfeld/Cheney, you need to swing the scale all the way to "100% certain" for the flyover scam.

Another aspect that this Facebook adventure has made painfully obvious, is that I'm not fully up to speed on everything that's happened in the "911 Truth" world since 2005 or so.

I'm at a loss to say who has been making an effort to defend the physical evidence case for "no 757 at the Pentagon on 911." That is, aside from McKee and friends, at the Truth & Shadows site. Which as you know, I'm not that impressed with. But it's a huge sprawling site, and I probably haven't read more than 10% of the articles.

Has anyone done a better job discussing all aspects of the "no 757" case, including the physical evidence, since our article "The Five Sided Fantasy Island" from 2004? I'm asking in all humility... I certainly hope someone has surpassed this article by now. But to quote from the summary of the article:


A significant problem with the Pentagon crash, as a motif for use in general public outreach, is that such a wide variety of evidence comports with the conclusion that a 757 impacted the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Many eyewitnesses reported seeing a 757 approach the Pentagon, and some claimed to see that same aircraft impact the facade. A C-130 cargo plane is also reported to have been flying close behind, which might account for some of the confusion in other eyewitness testimony, or allow for the spawning of ever more alternative scenarios to cover the tracks. Contrary to much of the Internet analysis, the impact hole is also quite possibly consistent with a 757 -- even though it superficially appears to be too small, and if specific questions about the problematic aspects of the damage can be neglected. The light-pole evidence is consistent with a 757 aircraft (if the poles were rearranged by passers-by within seconds of the attack, or if some other reasonable explanation can be found for the odd distribution of the poles) and the "engine fingerprints" appear to require an impact by a twin-engine aircraft with the exact engine spacing of a 757.
On the other hand, the insufficient debris, the official evasiveness and prevarication and the shifting "official story", the eyewitness inconsistencies, the quantum flight path, the shoddy "movie set" appearance of the Pentagon facade, the missile plume and the appearance of explosives (rather than a kerosene fire) in the "security video", and many other aspects, all point to the likelihood of a hoax. Much of the observed physical evidence in the photographs also comports with full demolition, which would have provided orders of magnitude better operational surety of proper completion without the undue risk associated with an impact plane missing its target, either using terrorist hijackers or domestic agent provocateurs. [.....]
Although we believe the complexities of such a sham are well within the capabilities of our government's intelligence agencies, with their annual budgets of $70 billion or more -- we must also acknowledge that for most people, the idea that a government bureaucracy could conceive and then carry out such a plot is simply beyond hilarious. Politically, there is a possibility that an emphasis on Pentagon questions will simply be taken as evidence of insanity on the part of the "conspiracy theorists". Is it wise to focus more attention on this Pentagon topic, while there are so many clearly proven, indisputable grounds to show that the US government is acting as a criminal enterprise? There's plenty of room for activists to disagree about issues of emphasis, even among those who would argue that the Pentagon attack was definitely a fraud.
Has anything about that conclusion changed, since 2004?

Not that I have any better ideas about what to do about the predicament facing the human race. Maybe talking about 911 Pentagon is just as productive as any other topic.
Last edited:
Has anything about that conclusion changed, since 2004?

It gradually dawned on me, how cynical of me to be asking you this question. I was interested enough in this topic, in May 2019, to have followed an email message from an old friend recommending that I take a look at "Truth and Shadows". So back in 2004, I was concerned that people might think I'm a fringe conspiracy theorist. And now I'm so far from the mainstream, that I'm not even fringe. Trying to take a middle road re: Pentagon 911 hasn't made me any more effective, or popular. Sigh...
There are of course no easy answers, whatever one's conviction.

The only thing Lloyde England was confused about regarding the place where his cab came to rest after a pole hit it, was that anyone could have imagined that place was on top of the bridge.

Also he was honest enough to admit that there were many things he could not explain about that day, but that he was ok with that.

On the series of Jason Ingersoll photos showing the bridge, timed from about 10 minutes after the explosion until 9:56 a.m., there is no sign of these two FBI agents, the O'Connors.
We now know that one of them was a lady. I have never come across a lady in any of the imagery showing Lloyde and the taxi.

The first we see of Lloyde and the cab is 7 seconds of footage in the amateur video taken from the northern lawn, at 9:41/42 a.m.
This is when Lloyde was walking back to his cab from the direction of the white van parked in front of him, and he then stood in front of the hood of his taxi. Just as he demonstrated in the CIT video THE EYE OF THE STORM.

Then a photo was taken from near the Guard Shack on the north side of the Pentagon, showing Wanda Ramey and April Gallop's baby Elisha. In the background, Lloyde's cab is being loaded onto a car trailer pulled by a tow truck. It is higher at the front than the back, indicating that it was being winched up the loading ramps.

The second view of Lloyde was captured on several seconds of the amateur video shot from on top of the bridge. This was at 9:43/44 a.m.
Here, Lloyde is north of the overhead sign, walking north in the HOV lanes, away from the camera. He has his left hand in this pocket and a cellphone to his right ear.
Jean O'Connor stated that her husband had loaned his cellphone to Lloyde to make a call. It would be surprising if a cabbie did not have one of his own, but we can no longer ask Lloyde whether this was his phone or Tom O'Connor's. Perhaps like so many others, Lloyde's phone was not working at the time, and so he borrowed another from O'Connor.

Since the Ingersoll photo series was time stamped, we know that the next time we see Lloyde was at 9:46 a.m., when he was standing in the middle of the highway, further north of the bridge. His cab had by now been relocated from the cemetery to the bridge, replacing the decoy Capitol Cab which occupied that space for the first 8 minutes, where it was seen on the first video, parked across the lanes, and in the second video, speeding away from the top of the bridge as Lloyde's cab was delivered.

The first photo of the cab on the bridge was taken at 9:48 a.m., but Lloyde was still far away watching the fire.

Lloyde did not appear on the bridge until 18 minutes after the explosion, at 9:55 a.m.
3 photos of him near the taxi were then taken by Ingersoll in the next minute or two.
None of the 3 officers shown in these photos is an O'Connor.

Another photographer took a final photo of Lloyde farewelling his cab on the now deserted bridge, his brown jacket slung over his shoulder.

The only conclusion I can reach is that the O'Connors did speak with Lloyde within the first 4 minutes after the explosion, before he removed the pole.

Obviously this needs to be confirmed with them.

But Lloyde was somehow speedily transported from the cemetery site, 350 yards south, very soon after the pole was removed, and before his taxi was moved to the bridge.

So if the O'Connors saw the pole inside the cab, they will be the first witnesses to ever confirm this in 20 years. Everybody claimed that nobody had ever seen this, but obviously nobody asked the right people before.

Two more witnesses who could settle the issue of the location of Lloyde and his taxi, and the size of the pole in his cab, are the 2 motorcycle cops who rode by. Lloyde mentioned them in his story. They feature in numerous photos and videos for several minutes, distinguished by their uniforms and helmets, beside the Pentagon door where rescuers were helping victims out.

So Yes, lots of evidence has come to light since 2004.
Yes, lots of evidence has come to light since 2004.

I know there's been a lot of work on the eyewitnesses. I'm referring to the so-called, alleged "physical evidence".

Also a lot of debate about the "Flight Data Recorder" file. Chandler et al say the FDR data is completely consistent with a 757 striking the Pentagon, while the PF911T people were just as insistent that it pointed to an overflight by a military craft. But of course if the FDR device itself (with its correct serial number matched to AA 77) had really been found inside the Pentagon among the wreckage of the aircraft, that would conclusively settle the matter, don't you agree?

There were photos allegedly taken inside the Pentagon, showing the engines of a 757. The only possible reply to this evidence, is that there's no provenance for these photos, which could have been taken from another crash somewhere else.

Does anybody have a comprehensive set of photos of the downed lightpoles? Maybe some of them were indeed severely bent, or severed, at the point of contact of the alleged aircraft?

Has anyone done a better job discussing all aspects of the "no 757" case, including the physical evidence, since our article "The Five Sided Fantasy Island" from 2004?

What I'm asking, is whether anyone has written a book, or a major blog post, or made a film from the "no 757" point of view, that honestly confronts the massive volume of so-called, alleged "physical evidence"? I've seen a lot of material that dishonestly skates past this problem, pretending that it doesn't exist.
Last edited:
No, i don't think anyone has done major work as you specify, recently. But I can't be certain about that. The topic seems to have lost its impetus in the past decade, beneath a crippling load of vitriol from the official story crowd, and crushing suppression from Coste, Chandler & co, who persistently argue for the government side under the guise of consensus and truth.

I think Truth and Shadows is as you say, the most active presence out there. I have been blackballed by them, for pointing out evidence which supersedes the erroneous conclusions made by CIT in their early days, but they refuse to consider it. So they will continue spinning their wheels.

Nothing can move forward while the foundation of T&S is the flawed work of CIT.
Craig McKee perpetually pushes the CIT line, with a religious fervour that insists they can do no wrong.
He has never done any new research apparently.
It is high time somebody spoke with more witnesses while there are still many of them about, this time with reference to some of that physical evidence.
McKee is a journalist who claims to have done thousands of interviews, so it is disappointing that he has never interviewed any Pentagon witnesses himself.

One other researcher who puts together excellent videos is Leigh Apted of the 9/11 Blacklist channel which I cannot find now. Seems he has gone over to Vimeo. Again, he is a staunch supporter of CIT, posts all their videos and uses their arguments.

It seems to be either love CIT or hate them, everyone stuck in one of two ruts.

The only way forward is to incorporate new evidence, but I don't see that happening.

Perhaps you could suggest to McKee that the 20th anniversary year is a great opportunity to dig up something new?

Or perhaps even your good self might be interested in contacting some of those witnesses and asking the questions that we now realise we need answers to?
Of course if all else fails, there is the ponderous slideshow presentation by Wayne Coste, narrated by David Chandler, purporting to do as its title suggests,
"Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon",
which I find to be nothing more than a wildly inaccurate and desperate snow job for the government's involvement.

Chris Sarns has just broached this topic with me on the Facebook site.

I recently had an absurd exchange with one of the resident trolls there over Chapter 9 of this presentation, wherein he was pathologically unable to correctly identify a piece of familiar everyday material, siding with the presenters who initially made the outrageous claims.

You asked about any research on the lightpoles. I think CIT's treatment of this subject is the best. They of course believe the poles were removed and planted prior to the event, and showed what is to me convincing evidence.

This image gives an overview of the layout of all 5 poles, and there are numerous close-up photos of individual poles available too, contrasted with poles which fell due to other causes at different times.

Have you read the CIT article on the downed lightpoles?

For some reason I cannot get this image to display. Chinese phone?
Last edited:
Have you read the CIT article on the downed lightpoles?

I found these two articles. Are these the ones you mean?



What I see is a description of what might have happened. I don't see an argument that the visible damage to the poles couldn't possibly have been caused by aircraft impact, other than that the bases look like they were cut rather than broken. The tops of those poles do look like they were snapped as if by a passing aircraft.

Of course if all else fails, there is the ponderous slideshow presentation by Wayne Coste, narrated by David Chandler, purporting to do as its title suggests,
"Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon",
which I find to be nothing more than a wildly inaccurate and desperate snow job for the government's involvement.

I hadn't watched these up until now. But I just watched Chapter 12, on the distribution of aircraft debris at the Pentagon. I hadn't seen some of the images and video footage before. At least superficially, this seems pretty convincing. There are images showing various fuselage parts, wing parts, landing gear, and engines. Not that all this couldn't be faked.

But it's easy to see how even a perfectly reasonable person (not in any way a troll or spook) would look at this and think it must be real.
Last edited:
Yes, those are some of the lightpole articles.

They also link to this forum thread


I wonder what "a lightpole that has been snapped by a passing aircraft" looks like.

I wonder what a plane wing that has snapped 3 lightpoles looks like.

The aluminium skin is so thin that a bird can penetrate it.
But the solid aluminium wing spars are 4 inches thick x 36 inches deep in places.

I cannot see how that blunt force would cause an effect that looks more as though it was pinched off by a giant Jaws of Life contraption. I would certainly expect a significant area of abrasion on each side of the break.

I would also expect to see indentations in the ground and road surface. But they seem to have fluttered gently to the ground within their own shadows.

Pole #1 is particularly interesting. It uniquely of the 5, landed on the opposite side of the guardrail, without its heavy base making a mark on the rail. Since the plane was allegedly descending, there would have been no upward force vector to pick the pole up over the rail. I would expect such a heavy pole, with its large angular base, to have ripped up a section of the guardrail.

Then there is also the deep scratch in the road surface from one sharp corner of its base, across the road. It has been suggested that this is because the pole had been laid alongside the concrete barricade previously, then dragged across the road after the explosion.

I tend to believe this especially because of my research of Lloyde England's taxi. I have found only one first-person account of anyone having seen a taxi and lightpole on the bridge.

This is by YVETTE BUZARD, who was driving north from beneath the I-395 towards the bridge, when she suddenly saw the fireball. She did not see a plane, and thought this must have been caused by a gas station explosion, or by a helicopter crash (yet another oblique helicopter reference).

When she got to the bridge, she saw a taxi with a large lightpole laying across the top of it. That is not the orientation given by Lloyde. He drew, and physically demonstrated, a much smaller pole which had speared through his windshield. It extended from the rear seat to the front bumper, about 12 feet long, and it was only about 4 inches diameter, to fit through the small hole in the base of the windshield, and make the indentations on the rear seat upholstery.

Also of course, Lloyde was not even on the bridge at that time. he believed that his was the only taxi involved in 9/11, but that was notbtrue. There was another black taxi there on the bridge until 9:44 a.m., when Lloyde's taxi was towed up there to replace it.

This other taxi had two occupants, who would have been able to lift the lighter end of the waiting pole, drag it on its base across the lane, and lay it across the hood of their car, in case anyone happened to be looking, which Yvette Buzard apparently was.

This decoy cab was captured on two videos, concurrently with Lloyde's taxi being filmed elsewhere. One was taken at 9:42 am from north of the heliport, and the other at 9:45 a.m. from south of the overhead sign on the bridge.

I wonder what "a lightpole that has been snapped by a passing aircraft" looks like.

I wonder what a plane wing that has snapped 3 lightpoles looks like.

These are very good questions. If Richard Stanley were here, he would be setting up a GoFundMe to buy a 757 and some light poles, and stage the experiment at Burning Man. Or if we can't raise enough funds for that, maybe at least we could rent a Jaws of Life and get some poles, and see if we can replicate that nice curved effect with the Jaws? This is what Rick would have called "an imponderable".

I would still criticize the light pole damage as fake-looking, but it's not so easy to prove anything.

This decoy cab was captured on two videos, concurrently with Lloyde's taxi being filmed elsewhere. One was taken at 9:42 am from north of the heliport, and the other at 9:45 a.m. from south of the overhead sign on the bridge.

I want to believe! But the 9:42 am shot shows a black blob that could just as easily be a UFO from Mars. The 9:43 am shot definitely does show a black vehicle, but I don't see much motion in those three frames.
Last edited:
Yes, we do miss Richard's incisive observations don't we?

As ever of course, you make perfectly reasonable comments.

But the point is that, if that black blob from Mars at 9:42 supported the official story, then it absolutely had to be Lloyde England's own Capitol Cab parked on top of the bridge.
And in theory, those in the Chandler camp ought to be falling over themselves to assure me this is so.
Yet curiously, not a single one of them will even admit I have posted this image or asked the question. Indeed, two trolls have blocked me rather than address this conundrum.

Either it is Lloyde England's taxi, in which case why are there two people seated in the front - or it is the cab seen leaving the location about 2 minutes later.

Have you watched the "movement" of this second taxi on the video?
Since a Capitol Cab definitely left the top of the bridge at about 9:44 a.m., and there was no traffic travelling southbound until about 9:46 as seen on Ingersoll's images, and Lloyde's cab was definitely there at 9:48 a.m. onwards in Ingersoll's photo series, the cab astride the southbound lanes at 9:42 cannot be Lloyde's.

The departing cab is seen from 02:55 to 03:04 on this video.

The departing cab is seen from 02:55 to 03:04 on this video.

I see a black car headed south on an exit from Washington Blvd from about 2:55 to 2:58. Then the camera swings wildly for about 2 seconds and comes back to view the south bound lanes again from 3:00 to 3:04, but I can't find the black car again in those frames.

You're saying that Yvette Buzard saw a taxi with a light pole sitting on it immediately after the fireball, on the bridge? And that the light pole was lifted off that taxi, which then drove away? And that England's taxi was hit by a 2nd pole section near the cemetery? And that after both poles were removed each from there respective taxis, England's taxi was removed from the cemetery and re-parked next to the first light pole which had been earlier seen sitting on the first taxi?

Again I say, I want to believe! But at this point, do you see that Occam's razor is starting to cut? Isn't it simpler to think there was just one taxicab? Lloyd could've been confused about where he was when his cab was hit. And that other black car could be just another black car driving by.
Yep, that pretty much explains it, in a sceptical kind of way.

But have you tried to logically figure out how, on the southbound lanes where there was no traffic, the black car which departed the bridge (It is way underneath the I-395 after 03:00), could have been Lloyde's cab?

Because it was there on top of the bridge about 30 seconds earlier, and also 2 minutes earlier, on two different videos.

Yet the Capitol Cab with the distinctive roof light was beside the cemetery simultaneously with the black car crosswise on top of the bridge at 942 a.m.

Just wondering what is happening here with the segmented box I am typing in.
Which button did I inadvertently press to get this effect?
On the snakepit forum where I was posting for some time, when I explained about the yellow trailer which was used to move Lloyde's taxi, one of the resident vipers posted a satellite image from 9/6/2001, showing the yellow trailer was already parked behind the guardrail on the northwest cloverleaf 5 days earlier.

He thought this would disprove my point about the towtruck leaving it there after his job was completed, but actually it supported my point.

Here is the Jason Ingersoll image of Lloyde's taxi on top of the bridge, with half of the yellow-orange trailer visible way up on the left side of the photo, at the top of the cloverleaf.
This was taken at 9:56 a.m.

Well I tried several times to post the image, but no joy!