9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

a reply to: RubyGray

He said the plane BANKED LEFT.
NO it did not!
It banked RIGHT.

Are using blatant falsehoods

The Pentagon Event:
The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted


www.scientistsfor911truth.com...

The plane was rolled to the left, and the left engine hit the low concrete wall almost at ground level there, which was higher than the level of the lawn in the foreground. Given these facts, there is no mystery as to the absence of a gouge in the pristine lawn.

a reply to: RubyGray

Just to remind you have zero credibility...

You

He said the plane BANKED LEFT.
NO it did not!
It banked RIGHT.

He said he SAW the plane "drug its left wing along the ground".
Obviously this DID NOT HAPPEN!
There was no evidence of any part of the plane hitting the ground before impact.

The plane hit the Pentagon at the first-floor level,[42] and at the moment of impact, the airplane was rolled slightly to the left, with the right wing elevated.[43]

Mlakar, Paul F.; Dusenberry, Donald O.; Harris, James R.; Haynes, Gerald; Phan, Long T.; Sozen, Mete A. (January 2003). The Pentagon Building Performance Report (PDF). American Society of Civil Engineers. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 24, 2008. Retrieved June 19, 2008.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

According to witnesses and the FDR data, the plane had rolled about 5 degrees counterclockwise when it hit the wall. Façade markings, such as a long gash made by a wing,

The Pentagon Event:
The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted


www.scientistsfor911truth.com...

The plane was rolled to the left, and the left engine hit the low concrete wall almost at ground level there, which was higher than the level of the lawn in the foreground. Given these facts, there is no mystery as to the absence of a gouge in the pristine lawn.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

According to witnesses and the FDR data, the plane had rolled about 5 degrees counterclockwise when it hit the wall. Façade markings, such as a long gash made by a wing, confirm these observations

a reply to: neutronflux

Keep reading down to the bottom of that page where I wrote another response yesterday to "Bringing Closure to the Pentagon Debate".
Also read the previous responses by Barry Jones re the CCTV cameras on the Pentagon.

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: neutronflux

Keep reading down to the bottom of that page where I wrote another response yesterday to "Bringing Closure to the Pentagon Debate".
Also read the previous responses by Barry Jones re the CCTV cameras on the Pentagon.

You got something to debate. Cite a source and back it up.

Now.

What caused the flight path damage. What clipped the vegetation. What clipped the low concrete wall. What smashed into construction equipment. What downed 5 light poles.

What made the entrance hole and damaged the pentagon.

What killed the people in the pentagon.

How did passenger jet wreckage end up at the pentagon.

Why did the passengers and crew of flight 77 not returned to their homes and families.

How did the crew and passengers of flight 77 end up dead at the pentagon.

What remains where identified by DNA testing and returned to families for interment?

Why does radar log the flight path of flight 77 to the pentagon.

Why does RubyGray have to use blatant falsehoods.

Why does RubyGray fabricate a false mythology that completely ignores how the saga of the pentagon staff, the crew of flight 77, the passengers of flight 77, and their families end on 9/11?

RubyGrey blatantly ignores the destruction and the deaths at the pentagon because it’s not conclusive to their fabricated mythology.

neutronflux Ruby theory is not that crazy. In this official document provided to me on here, it states poles were taken down on the roadway during the construction. Question is what poles along the roadway were taken down and could the poles on the grass be a prearranged thing?

history.defense.gov...

originally posted by: RubyGray
a reply to: neutronflux

Keep reading down to the bottom of that page where I wrote another response yesterday to "Bringing Closure to the Pentagon Debate".
Also read the previous responses by Barry Jones re the CCTV cameras on the Pentagon.

If you read the document. There were two cameras on the heliport that had a field of view of the impact site. The guy in document turned up the next day there was nothing no information there on the camera. I find that suspicious since the cameras would likely only be hit when the plane crashed. Why it did not capture least a few frames of the plane or the object hitting the wall, I find odd.

a reply to: Jesushere

Really?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

List of accounts for you to prove wrong

Light Pole Witnesses

aneta.org...

D. S. Khavkin, from the eighth floor of a high-rise building:
"... knocked down a number of street lamp poles"
news.bbc.co.uk...

Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co. was on the exit of Interstate 395.
"... saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles."
a188.g.akamaitech.net...

Afework Hagos, 26, of Arlington, stuck in a traffic jam on Columbia Pike,
"It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lamp posts .."
www.guardian.co.uk...

Kat Gaines, a Fairfax County Fire & Rescue technician was heading south on Route 110, by the parking lots to the south when she saw a "low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles." She "then heard the plane power up" and plunge into the Pentagon.
www.fccc.org...

Vin Narayanan, a reporter for USA TODAY was driving near the Pentagon
www.usatoday.com...
"The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me"
www.usatoday.com...

Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in the traffic a few hundred yards away:
"... knocking over light poles "
www.boston.com...

Steve Riskus took pictures less then 1 minute after the impact
www.criticalthrash.com...
"It knocked over a few light poles on its way..."
www.humanunderground.com...

Father Stephen McGraw was waiting on the northbound side of Washington Boulevard. driving to a graveside service at Arlington
"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.
www.dcmilitary.com...
www.mdw.army.mil...

Jim R. Cissell, a former photojournalist, drives past the Pentagon every day on his way to work at the Newseum in Arlington, Va.
enquirer.com...
.".. taking out telephone and power lines on its way in, hit the building."
www.cincypost.com...

Noel Sepulveda, a Master Sgt. was walking back to his motorcycle in the Pentagon South Car Park
It "The plane’s right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle.".", he said.
The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle. "You could hear the engines being revved up even higher,"
www.af.mil...

Colonel Bruce Elliott, a World War II and Korean War Chemical Mortar Battalion veteran and a former commander of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant wasalso in the Parking Lot
"... the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire, which may have slowed it down a bit"
www.thehawkeye.com...

Air Force Honor Guard members were at the end of the cemetery directly across the highway from the Pentagon.
" They had heard, some had seen a plane coming in skimming trees and light poles."
www.bgcworld.org...

Mark Bright, 32, a traffic patrol officer was the first to arrive at the scene after seeing the plane from his guard booth by the Mall Entrance.
"-- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down."
He also said he heard the plane "power-up"
www.dcmilitary.com...
206.181.245.163...

Wanda Ramey, a DPS master patrol office watched from the Mall plaza booth.
"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up."
www.mdw.army.mil...

Michael Anthony K (aka 'Mimi Angelica') a 42-year-old firefighter-paramedic saw
"...poles lying on the ground that had apparently been knocked over by the plane as it headed for the building."
www.angelfire.com...

Mike Walter, 46, a USA Today reporter, said
"...It turned and then it went around ..it clipped one of these light poles."
Recorded interview - quick load Recorded interview - best quality

Richard Benedetto, another USA TODAY reporter said,
The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a ... the tail of a lamp post.
Recorded interview - quick load / May 2002. Recorded interview - best quality / May 2002.

A Pentagon Navy Admiral said,
"It was a good size jet aircraft. I saw it clip a light pole but keep coming ..."
Houston Chronicle, 9/11/01 - Michael Hedges
(mirror) www2.hawaii.edu...

Don Fortunato, a plainclothes detective with the Arlington (Va.) Police Department, was walking into his office when he heard a muffled explosion. He dashed to the scene.
“Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think.”

LaVern L Schueller, a Military Chaplain surveyed the scene after the event.
"The top of a light pole was knocked off on an overpass. The FBI had marked it as evidence. The top of a light pole had been knocked off on the street that goes by the Pentagon. It too was marked as evidence. And finally, it took out the entire light pole near the sidewalk.
www.aapc.org...
www.nwfdailynews.com...

Frank Probst, dove to the ground to avoid a passing jet engine.
"On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away."
www.militarycity.com...

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux Ruby theory is not that crazy. In this official document provided to me on here, it states poles were taken down on the roadway during the construction. Question is what poles along the roadway were taken down and could the poles on the grass be a prearranged thing?

history.defense.gov...

Thanks for the link to that interesting document! I look forward to studying it properly.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Really?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

List of accounts for you to prove wrong

Have you still not read my very detailed, cited posts which proved you wrong on many of these witness testimonies, long since?
Rest assured that I will also prove you wrong on all the others. Don't worry about it though, because you won't even notice.

"Frank Probst, dove to the ground to avoid a passing jet engine.
On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.
www.militarycity.com..."

(a) This is NOT eyewitness testimony. These are the journalist's words.
(b) This says the poles were "sheaared in half", not that they were laying down in their full length.
(c) Where is the PROOF about any Jeep Cherokee having had its antenna clipped off? There is none.
(d) Where is the proof that a Jeep Cherokee even has an external antenna??

originally posted by: RubyGray

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Really?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

List of accounts for you to prove wrong

Have you still not read my very detailed, cited posts which proved you wrong on many of these witness testimonies, long since?
Rest assured that I will also prove you wrong on all the others. Don't worry about it though, because you won't even notice.

"Frank Probst, dove to the ground to avoid a passing jet engine.
On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.
www.militarycity.com..."

(a) This is NOT eyewitness testimony. These are the journalist's words.
(b) This says the poles were "sheaared in half", not that they were laying down in their full length.
(c) Where is the PROOF about any Jeep Cherokee having had its antenna clipped off? There is none.
(d) Where is the proof that a Jeep Cherokee even has an external antenna??

Then you explain

You got something to debate. Cite a source and back it up.

Now.

What caused the flight path damage. What clipped the vegetation. What clipped the low concrete wall. What smashed into construction equipment. What downed 5 light poles.

What made the entrance hole and damaged the pentagon.

What killed the people in the pentagon.

How did passenger jet wreckage end up at the pentagon.

Why did the passengers and crew of flight 77 not returned to their homes and families.

How did the crew and passengers of flight 77 end up dead at the pentagon.

What remains where identified by DNA testing and returned to families for interment?

Why does radar log the flight path of flight 77 to the pentagon.

Why does RubyGray have to use blatant falsehoods.

Why does RubyGray fabricate a false mythology that completely ignores how the saga of the pentagon staff, the crew of flight 77, the passengers of flight 77, and their families end on 9/11?

RubyGrey blatantly ignores the destruction and the deaths at the pentagon because it’s not conclusive to their fabricated mythology.


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

I picked the below quote for:

One, the person was in standstill traffic

Two, the person is stated “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles“

Three. It’s a lesson in perspective. We know the jet only hit a low concrete wall with an engine. But, because of perspective, it looked liked it bounced off the ground to the witness

Four. The account is fresh after 9/11.

Boston Globe

By Robert Schlesinger and Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 9/12/2001

archive.boston.com...


Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest.

''It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening,'' Washington said.

The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

a reply to: RubyGray

Again...

What caused the damage at the pentagon. What killed the people in the pentagon. How did the flight crew and passengers end up dead at the pentagon. What remains were released to families?

The above are the heart of the pentagon saga. The real issue is not your false mythology surrounding the property damage to a single lamp post.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray

Again...

What caused the damage at the pentagon. What killed the people in the pentagon. How did the flight crew and passengers end up dead at the pentagon. What remains were released to families?

The above are the heart of the pentagon saga. The real issue is not your false mythology surrounding the property damage to a single lamp post.

Any rational analysis of this post, whatever did the damage observed, it shall not be restricted to only aircraft.

a reply to: Salander


I would like to hear your opinion on the surviving family members that lost loved ones on flight 77.

a reply to: Salander

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There were no dead passengers at the Pentagon, because there was no airliner there. Many dead congressional auditors, but no dead passengers, no landing gear or engines, no airliner, as reported by the soldier who walked through it all on her way out, April Gallop.

originally posted by: neutronflux

I picked the below quote for:

One, the person was in standstill traffic

Two, the person is stated “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles“

Three. It’s a lesson in perspective. We know the jet only hit a low concrete wall with an engine. But, because of perspective, it looked liked it bounced off the ground to the witness

Four. The account is fresh after 9/11.

Boston Globe
By Robert Schlesinger and Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 9/12/2001

archive.boston.com...
Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest.

''It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening,'' Washington said,

knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

DREARY DREARY. We have been through this already. The fault is yours for refusing to read the responses and not applying comprehension.

The first sentence you gave, as far as we can tell, IS A FIRST-PERSON QUOTE FROM RODNEY WASHINGTON, TO THE REPORTER.
We know this because it is punctuated in the convention of QUOTATION MARKS AROUND WHAT HE (is alleged to have) SAID.

The second and third phrases are NOT FIRST PERSON TESTIMONY.
THEY DO NOT HAVE QUOTATION MARKS AROUND THEM.
This means the reporter was following journalistic convention. He KNEW this was not verbatim testimony, so his punctuation confirms that to the reader.


The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said,

Is NOT a QUOTE.
It is third-person information.
It is the reporter's IMPRESSION of what Washington stated, possibly even influenced by other testimony or perceived knowledge gained from external sources such as media. It may have been distilled from sentences which were actually quite different. We will never know unless there is an audio or video recording found, or a verbatim transcript of the interview.

This third part,

knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

does not even pretend to be a first person quote, nor any kind of QUOTE at all. It is information the reporter has inserted which he believed he knew.
This pretense of "evidence" would be thrown out of a court of law as "HEARSAY".

The witness needs to be interviewed properly and thoroughly, ascertaining his identity, contact address, exact position, his verified distance from the impact, his line of sight, what he could physically have seen from that vantage point, with every word accurately recorded.

All witnesses should have been interviewed like this, in sworn testimonies.
The bank of "testimony" we have would mostly not stand up in a court of law as it fails to address these criteria.

That is why CIT's body of evidence is so valuable. They spoke with scores of witnesses face to face or by phone, and recorded their words accurately, as well as having many of them draw their location on maps and sign them on camera.
This is valid interview technique which is acceptable in a court of law.

They could not find this "Rodney Washington" to interview him, and neither could anybody else.

That single sentence in QUOTATION MARKS is the only piece of first person testimony (alleged) that we have from him.


How about YOU start addressing some of the GENUINE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY collected by Citizen Investigation Team?

You know, all that actual, factual, accurate first-person testimony from identified witnesses who were interviewed on location, on camera, whose testimony PROVES that the plane never flew across the bridge, and never hit those 5 light poles.

Never mind what their ears and eyes were deceived into thinking they saw, especially as most of them admitted they HAD NO LINE OF SIGHT TO THE IMPACT POINT.

Pentagon Police Sergeant Chadwick Brooks, when presented with the other eyewitnesses' evidence corroborating his own testimony about the plane's North-of-Citgo flightpath which proves the plane COULD NOT have been what caused the directional damage to the Pentagon, stated that "Anything is possible" with regard to him having been deceived by what he thought he saw.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RubyGray
The real issue is not your false mythology surrounding the property damage to a single lamp post.

The REAL Issue is that all the REAL EYEWIITNESS TESTIMONY proves that

*** NO PLANE FLEW ACROSS THE BRIDGE.
*** THE 5 LIGHT POLES WERE NOT HIT BY THE PLANE.
*** THE PLANE FLEW NORTH OF THE CITGO STATION.
*** THE PLANE OVERFLEW THE CEMETERY PARKING LOT.
*** THE PLANE FLEW ON A TRAJECTORY PERPENDICULAR TO THE PENTAGON WALL.
*** THE POLE WHICH HIT LLOYDE ENGLAND'S CAB, WAS NO PART OF A LIGHTPOLE.
*** THAT POLE HAD TO HAVE BEEN VERY ACCURATELY FIRED INTO THE CAB IN A PREMEDITATED, WELL-REHEARSED, PUNCTILIOUSLY TIMED, CO-ORDINATED MILITARY OPERATION UNDER PENTAGON AUTHORITY.
*** LLOYDE ENGLAND WAS 400 YARDS NORTH OF THE BRIDGE WHEN THE POLE HIT HIS CAB.
*** MANY EYEWITNESSES SAW LLOYDE ENGLAND AND HIS DAMAGED CAB, BESIDE THE CEMETERY WALL.
*** THERE IS VIDEO EVIDENCE FROM 4 INDEPENDENT CAMERAS, OF LLOYDE ENGLAND'S CAB BESIDE THE CEMETERY WALL, AND BEING TRANSPORTED TO THE STAGED BRIDGE SITE.

Nobody ever interviewed any of those eyewitnesses to Lloyde England and his taxi beside the cemetery wall, to determine what they saw there, because everybody just ASSUMED either that

1. It was common knowledge that Lloyde England's cab was next to the cemetery wall, or
2. That he was "really on the bridge", or ...

THOSE EYEWITNESSES WERE COMPLICIT OPERATIVES IN THIS SCAM, WHO COULD NOT AFFORD TO INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES.

Every other detail in the 9/11 story then needs to fit in with these FACTS.

a reply to: RubyGray

Ruby. What do you practice blatant intellectually dishonesty?

You

NO PLANE FLEW ACROSS THE BRIDGE.

Based on what?

A minority of witnesses not backed by the bulk of eyewitness, the radar data, the flight data recorder, flight path damage, and the pentagon damage.

Let’s put the witness accounts in perspective.

Category 1: Category 1 witnesses, those who saw the approach and/or impact of a large plane, are in the great majority. Those who claim to have seen actual plane impact range upwards from about 31,20 considered a reliable figure by some researchers, 21 to as high as around 89 to 100. Many of these witnesses have been interviewed more than once. As a group, these witnesses support the main theory of large plane impact. Because this great majority of witnesses are all actual eyewitnesses, as opposed to witnesses who inferred something, either from a perceived, apparent flight path of a plane, or by way of sound or odor, or other less direct means, category 1 witnesses are by far the most compelling group of witnesses. It is imperative, therefore, that the alternative theories (whose witness numbers are far less, and whose witnesses suffer the disadvantage of having to infer a conclusion) address and explain the existence of the category 1 witnesses rather than simply ignoring them, or suggesting without proof that they are part of a wider conspiracy to defraud.
www.scientistsfor911truth.com...

Vs the north flight path group.

Category 3: The CIT group of witnesses (about 12) is those whose testimony appears to suggest a plane flight path north of the CITGO station. Such a path, if impact were to follow, could not reasonably create the observed damage trail and could not avoid creating damage inside the Pentagon in its direction of travel. Consequently, the proponents of this theory claim the plane flew over the Pentagon. Drawbacks to this theory include: (a) There is thus far only one questionable witness to a plane flying away. (b) The CIT witnesses appear in some instances to have been led by their interviewer (for example, the interview23 of Albert Hemphill by Craig Ranke). (c) Many CIT witnesses also testify to plane impact24. The theory also suffers from the difficulty in assessing the position of the plane by witnesses not immediately underneath, for example those at the cemetery, and the fact that flyover is inferred rather than observed. Legge and Chandler have further pointed out that the proposed deviation from the established approach path would require a strikingly large plane bank angle, which no witness reported.23

Twelve people claim north flight path with “Many CIT witnesses also testify to plane impact”. Vs 30 to a hundred that back the flight path damage, radar data, and flight recorder data.

Individuals like Bob Dubill

Every morning for years Bob Dubill drove past the Pentagon on his way to work at USA Today.
He was passing the building the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when he saw a jetliner fly over the roadway. It filled his field of vision. The jet was 40-feet off the ground speeding toward the Pentagon.
"The wheels were up and I knew that this plane was not heading for National Airport," he said. "This plane was going to slam into the Pentagon. I steeled myself for the explosion."
"St. Bona Pulitzer winners share 9/11 experiences," by John T. Eberth, The Times Herald (Olean, NY), 9/19/02
ratical.org...

Back to you.

THE 5 LIGHT POLES WERE NOT HIT BY THE PLANE.

Well, to bad the light poles where not the only flight path damage.

Further Analysis of Corroborating Physical Evidence: Several items of physical evidence can be further analyzed to see if they comport with a large plane hitting the Pentagon.

Clipped Tree: One witness described the plane as “picking off trees and light poles.” Photographs show that the starboard (right) engine of the plane did clip a tree. Jon Cole has shown experimentally that it is possible for the leading edge of an engine to cut the tree. Cole compared this action with similar-looking ragged branches cut with a heavy brush cutter with heavy, thick dull blades rotating at a lesser speed than the airplane that cut the woody branches of the Pentagon tree (See Figure 6). Branches ingested by the right engine can explain the smoke trail from the right engine from that point on, as seen in the security camera videos and in this simulation.

Downed Light Poles: Many witnesses saw the plane hit light poles. In all, five light poles were torn from their bases and broken into pieces. Pole pieces had considerable curvature as if hit by a blunt force at high speed, such as the moving wing of a plane. One pole piece pierced the windshield of a taxi driven by Lloyde England. The back seat of the taxi was pierced indicating how the pole piece was supported at that end and stuck out through the windshield. The separation and positions of the downed light poles indicate a plane wingspan of more than 100 feet, but less than 130 feet. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 124 feet 10 inches.

Rotated Generator-Trailer: Several witnesses saw the right plane engine and/or wing strike one end of a very heavy generator-trailer. The trailer was found to have rotated about the other end toward the building. In addition to the damaged end, there was a gash in the trailer top corresponding to the position of the first flap “canoe” beyond the right engine of a Boeing 757. The location and direction of the gash was consistent with the canoe’s position on the wing and the plane’s flight path.

Gouge in Low Concrete Wall: One witness saw the left engine hit a low concrete wall and break apart. The wall shows a curved gouge consistent with impact by an engine. The distance between the wall and the struck end of the generator-trailer is approximately 43 feet, matching the engines’ separation of a Boeing 757 of 42.5 feet. When the left engine hit the wall it was a few inches above ground level at that point. The wall sits on a high point, and this explains why the engine did not gouge the surrounding lawn as it traveled over the lawn. Some nearby, upright wooden spools were not struck as they were positioned between the plane fuselage and the low-slung left engine.

Debris by the Heliport Area: There was a noticeable amount of plane debris, mostly small pieces, at the Heliport area north of the impact hole. This is in accord with the plane’s path which made a 52-degree angle with the Pentagon west wall as it approached from the southwest. This distribution of debris is entirely to be expected since, after fragmentation, debris that remained outside the building would have a significant velocity component causing it to travel in a northerly direction.

The Impact Hole and Façade Damage:
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

a reply to: RubyGray

With eyewitness seeing the jet hit the light poles.

Boston Globe

By Robert Schlesinger and Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 9/12/2001

archive.boston.com...
archive.boston.com...

Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest.

''It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening,'' Washington said.

The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

You

THE PLANE FLEW NORTH OF THE CITGO STATION.

Not by Radar, the flight path damage, the bulk of eyewitness. Then how did the wreckage and dead of flight 77 end up in the pentagon?


You

THE POLE WHICH HIT LLOYDE ENGLAND'S CAB, WAS NO PART OF A LIGHTPOLE.

Then what was it. Where did it come from. How did it get in the cab. Where did the downed light pole go? There was no other parts of the light pole around the cab?


You

THAT POLE HAD TO HAVE BEEN VERY ACCURATELY FIRED INTO THE CAB IN A PREMEDITATED, WELL-REHEARSED, PUNCTILIOUSLY TIMED, CO-ORDINATED MILITARY OPERATION UNDER PENTAGON AUTHORITY.

What machine would do that? Powered by compressed air or gun power? No witnesses to such a machine doing such an act with no noise? Your silly.

You

LLOYDE ENGLAND WAS 400 YARDS NORTH OF THE BRIDGE WHEN THE POLE HIT HIS CAB.

Did the light pole have a rocket motor? Your delusional.

You

MANY EYEWITNESSES SAW LLOYDE ENGLAND AND HIS DAMAGED CAB, BESIDE THE CEMETERY WALL.
*** THERE IS VIDEO EVIDENCE FROM 4 INDEPENDENT CAMERAS, OF LLOYDE ENGLAND'S CAB BESIDE THE CEMETERY WALL, AND BEING TRANSPORTED TO THE STAGED BRIDGE SITE.

The link to the quotes and cite the people that saw the light pole sticking out of his cab by the wall. And link to the video that shows your claims.

It’s not this BS again?


You

Nobody ever interviewed any of those eyewitnesses to Lloyde England and his taxi beside the cemetery wall, to determine what they saw there, because everybody just ASSUMED either that

So how do you know “MANY EYEWITNESSES SAW LLOYDE ENGLAND AND HIS DAMAGED CAB, BESIDE THE CEMETERY WALL.” When “Nobody ever interviewed any of those eyewitnesses to Lloyde England and his taxi beside the cemetery wall”
Sounds like your contradicting yourself. So these eyewitness don’t exist?

You

1. It was common knowledge that Lloyde England's cab was next to the cemetery wall, or
2. That he was "really on the bridge", or .

But you said nobody was interviewed? Can you cite a link to a source?

You

THOSE EYEWITNESSES WERE COMPLICIT OPERATIVES IN THIS SCAM, WHO COULD NOT AFFORD TO INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES

Again. You have your manufactured mythology around ONE light pole. While you ignore the rest of the flight path damage. And you have no explanation what hit the pentagon. Individuals that attest to a jet hitting the pentagon that you parade around as proof of the the north flight path, with you having no explanation what these people saw damage the pentagon.