Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Pentagon _ What Brought Down The Light Poles?

Posted by: GaryR55 May 26 2008, 02:12 PM

I have no issues or quarrel with the evidence showing the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, but by a missile delivered by a plane that overflew the Pentagon. However, I'm still confused as to what downed the five light poles if it wasn't the plane or, I assume, the missile, either. Obviously, something brought those light poles down. What was it?

Gary

Posted by: Oceans Flow May 26 2008, 02:42 PM

Welcome to the forum, GaryR55.

Though is is pretty clear that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, the missile theory is quite inconclusive.

For the latest on the light poles, refer to this thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

Posted by: Killtown May 26 2008, 03:28 PM

QUOTE (GaryR55 @ May 26 2008, 01:12 PM) *
what downed the five light poles if it wasn't the plane or, I assume, the missile, either. Obviously, something brought those light poles down. What was it?

These:


Posted by: SPreston May 26 2008, 03:50 PM

QUOTE (GaryR55)
What Brought Down The Light Poles?

A few FBI agents and/or Secret Service agents working under cover of darkness the night before. Since the Secret Service had the Pentagon area all wrapped up for the Presidential visits, they had to know about it, since the light poles were within their security area and jurisdiction. Nobody could possibly be working within their secured area without their permission; not even the FBI.

The FBI under Director Robert Mueller
\

Posted by: GaryR55 May 26 2008, 05:49 PM

Thanks, guys. That's pretty much what I suspected. Either that, or small charges planted in the pole bases to knock them down on cue.

Gary

Posted by: Killtown May 26 2008, 05:56 PM

QUOTE (GaryR55 @ May 26 2008, 04:49 PM) *
or small charges planted in the pole bases to knock them down on cue.

I think if that happened, blast residue would be seen on the base of the poles.

What did it for me to think the poles were simply laid down by hand was we are told they were knocked down from a plane going a whopping 530mph. Imagine what the grass would look like from the force of these pole knocked down by a 530mph object. You would think you'd see noticeable indentations in the soft grass/ground from when the heavy metal light poles struck it.

Posted by: Leslie Landry May 26 2008, 08:36 PM

Heres my question...why would they want to ripe out 5 light poles for no reason...and make people believe that the "plane" didnt go exactly from the flight path mentioned? what do you believe their reasoning behind this is?

Posted by: SPreston May 26 2008, 10:43 PM

QUOTE (Leslie Landry)
Heres my question...why would they want to ripe out 5 light poles for no reason...and make people believe that the "plane" didnt go exactly from the flight path mentioned? what do you believe their reasoning behind this is?

What plane? The light poles were removed the night before and replaced with prepared light poles to set the stage and convince the suspicious and unwary and foolish that an aircraft actually flew down the hill and actually hit the light poles and actually hit the Pentagon. But the 9-11 planners dared not use a real aircraft because it might crash and burn before it reached its target or miss its target entirely or fail to create enough damage and destruction to eliminate the targeted Pentagon personnel and records. Why would a hijacker attempt a difficult 535 mph crash through the light poles and into the 1st floor at a reinforced area, when he could easily crash the aircraft into the unreinforced roof and accomplish 10 times the damage and deaths?

But the actual decoy aircraft is now proven over the Navy Annex and this official Flight 77 FDR flight path is proven impossible and could not have happened. All the damage and destruction and deaths inside the Pentagon were accomplished with planted explosives and planted evidence and planted witnesses with scripts and the American people were conned.

The Decoy Aircraft flight path that does work, assembled from all the CIT eyewitnesses. (click photo)
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/pentwlpuw9JFK3big.jpg

Edward Paik sloppily drew the flight path on a clipboard outside in the A-One Auto lot same as my flight path


Edward Paik starts at 68:10
http://www.megavideo.com/v/EYQHPMS80c9868978f1904f8c5d74f07ff5cbba8.5599820962.0

Sorry. From over the Navy Annex, this official flight path is just downright IMPOSSIBLE.


All Arlington County eyewitnesses please come forward and describe to the American people what you saw.

Posted by: Leslie Landry May 26 2008, 11:30 PM

QUOTE (SPreston @ May 26 2008, 10:43 PM) *
What plane?


I understand the plane used is in question, that is why i wrote it like this "plane" tongue.gif. Thank you for giving me your thought on my question. I have my own thoughts...i just wanted to hear what people had to say about it.

I really believe that a plane did fly by the pentagon. Do i believe it hit it? no. with the damaged that was caused, it is impossible...at least not the plane that they claimed to have hit it.

Posted by: dMole May 27 2008, 12:04 AM

QUOTE (Leslie Landry @ May 26 2008, 06:36 PM) *
Heres my question...why would they want to ripe out 5 light poles for no reason...and make people believe that the "plane" didnt go exactly from the flight path mentioned? what do you believe their reasoning behind this is?

Hi Leslie,

Regarding "why" the perps would want to- I believe that would be related to the [WTC, but misdirection works worldwide] post at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=12538

Posted by: KP50 May 27 2008, 05:03 AM

QUOTE (Leslie Landry @ May 27 2008, 12:36 PM) *
Heres my question...why would they want to ripe out 5 light poles for no reason...and make people believe that the "plane" didnt go exactly from the flight path mentioned? what do you believe their reasoning behind this is?


Here are my thoughts. They needed 4 plane crashes but no wreckage - other than in carefully leaked photos. Take a look at the Pentagon and check out where you can crash a jet (or simulate a crash) with no wreckage on view. It has to be the bottom 2 stories as anywhere else will have wreckage showing between the rings. To be low enough to hit the Pentagon there, it has to take out the light poles.

Staging the light poles is so far-fetched an idea as to convince many doubters that there must have been a plane - it even convinces a few who claim it was an inside job.

So why didn't the plane fly right over the staged flightpath? To avoid there being any witnesses who saw it clearly too high to hit the light poles. Everyone still saw a plane and the inconsistencies in tales could be attributed to the trauma of the event.

Just my New Zealand 2 cents worth.

Posted by: Leslie Landry May 27 2008, 08:54 AM

QUOTE (KP50 @ May 27 2008, 04:03 AM) *
Here are my thoughts. They needed 4 plane crashes but no wreckage - other than in carefully leaked photos. Take a look at the Pentagon and check out where you can crash a jet (or simulate a crash) with no wreckage on view. It has to be the bottom 2 stories as anywhere else will have wreckage showing between the rings. To be low enough to hit the Pentagon there, it has to take out the light poles.

Staging the light poles is so far-fetched an idea as to convince many doubters that there must have been a plane - it even convinces a few who claim it was an inside job.

So why didn't the plane fly right over the staged flightpath? To avoid there being any witnesses who saw it clearly too high to hit the light poles. Everyone still saw a plane and the inconsistencies in tales could be attributed to the trauma of the event.

Just my New Zealand 2 cents worth.


Very Interesting Idea. Why do you think they didnt just "set Up" the Poles in the path they were intending to take?
Also...are there any witnesses to seeing these poles out before hand? there Had to of been. I know Where i live..the moment something like is seen..we have every person driving by, calling the police reporting what they seen.

Posted by: Ricochet May 27 2008, 11:54 AM

QUOTE
calling the police reporting what they seen.


People are funny that way. Out of all the "eyewitness" accounts of seeing an airplane crash into a building, not one of them claims to have called 911 on their cellphone or landline to report it.

Posted by: Leslie Landry May 27 2008, 12:53 PM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ May 27 2008, 11:54 AM) *
People are funny that way. Out of all the "eyewitness" accounts of seeing an airplane crash into a building, not one of them claims to have called 911 on their cellphone or landline to report it.


Just a question, how do you know they never called 911? do you mean just from the eyewitness statements you have read?

I as well have not read in statements that they called 911 but this information could have just been left out as in the statements i have read...they seem to edit most of it out and only put in a few lines for each person.

If the poles were knocked out during the night..that means those people who drove past would have saw this. No one reported the poles being damaged from hours before? was the road closed off from the night before?

Posted by: SPreston May 27 2008, 01:02 PM

QUOTE (Leslie Landry)
Very Interesting Idea. Why do you think they didnt just "set Up" the Poles in the path they were intending to take?

Because the staged light poles are set up along the path they prepared inside the Pentagon. At some time, the 9-11 planners had to determine the path their official Flight 77 757 aircraft flown by official patsy Hani Hanjour would take. They had a nice open pathway free of tall buildings between I-395 and Columbia Pike. So they chose that flight path and designed the explosives and damage path on the exterior and interior of the Pentagon to match it. They determined that there would be five light poles within the wingspan of that flight path, so they determined to have them 'knocked down' by the wings to strengthen the psyops CON.

Nice wide open flight path between the Navy Annex and I-395. Perfect place for a CON. (Click photo)
http://911files.info/77/pentagon_911_book/first_floor_areas.jpg

QUOTE (KP50)
To be low enough to hit the Pentagon there, it has to take out the light poles.

Staging the light poles is so far-fetched an idea as to convince many doubters that there must have been a plane - it even convinces a few who claim it was an inside job.

So why didn't the plane fly right over the staged flightpath? To avoid there being any witnesses who saw it clearly too high to hit the light poles. Everyone still saw a plane and the inconsistencies in tales could be attributed to the trauma of the event.


The 9-11 planners faked the official flight path and the official FDR loop southwest of the Pentagon. They also faked the FDR and the 84 RADES data 4 years later. They totally had the MSM under their thumb. No problem. A done deal. Another CON of the American people. They did not expect anybody to start up a private investigation.

Then they flew the actual decoy aircraft over the Navy Annex on a roughly parallel flight path just four hundred or so feet north of the official flight path, so there would be lots of witnesses to an aircraft flying low near the Pentagon. Any actual south-side witnesses would see the actual aircraft flying a little bit higher and a little bit farther away and be fooled. The Hollywood special effects explosions would convince them the aircraft had hit the wall. If any remembered otherwise, then the FBI already on scene could have a stern talk with them or even 'disappear' them if necessary. You don't think OUR government would 'disappear' people for National Security reasons? The 9-11 planners had their FBI prepped and onsite ready to confiscate any evidentiary videos and photos to maintain the CON and of course they had their good old reliable MSM 'witnesses' there with their prepared scripts. No problemo, except for those danged citizens who could not keep their noses in their own business.

Faked FDR loop which never happened. (Click photo for the flight path which really happened)
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/200.jpg


Posted by: SPreston May 27 2008, 01:18 PM

QUOTE (Leslie Landry)
Just a question, how do you know they never called 911? do you mean just from the eyewitness statements you have read?

I as well have not read in statements that they called 911 but this information could have just been left out as in the statements i have read...they seem to edit most of it out and only put in a few lines for each person.

If the poles were knocked out during the night..that means those people who drove past would have saw this. No one reported the poles being damaged from hours before? was the road closed off from the night before?

It does not matter whether witnesses called 9-11 or did not, because the FBI confiscated all Arlington County 9-11 call-ins and transcripts (http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic6.htm) for 9-11 and 9-12-2001 and probably later. Those have never been released to the public. So we will likely never know who called in and did not call in unless CIT accidentally discovers them.

All the light poles


The Pentagon area was under Secret Service security for the Presidential visits on 9-10 and 9-11-2001. As you can see, some of the poles on the grass were not very visible from the road. They could have been covered with a green tarp. Or unloaded from a white van when needed. Or hidden behind a wall. If you were driving through there at night seeing signs warning you not to stop, would you have noticed light poles apparently missing from their positions and called it in in the early dark morning hours? Who would you have called? 911? The Pentagon? The FBI? The Secret Service? The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) who takes care of the light poles? Would there have been somebody there at 4 in the morning? Why would you care? Surely VDOT could handle it without public interference. They are just light poles.

Posted by: JackD May 27 2008, 02:40 PM

All the light poles



three possibilities emerge about the poles

1) they were in fact knocked down by wings or fuselage of a plane....
... arguments against: the bases appear plasma-cut, not jagged and sheared, the tops are bent over oddly, pinched.

2) they were planted on the site.
arguments against... too many people would notice.. takes big conspiracy.. etc.
esp lloyd england cab pole (pole #1) -- which is in the middle of the road.. the other poles were at least off the road where theyd be less visiblie

3) third scenario: called "plane crash simulation drill at west side of pentagon" -- poles and lloyd's cab were part of a high-fidelity crash simulation drill of plane-into-building.. the NRO was running, in fact, a plane-into-building drill that morning at its facilities...
this creates a plausible reason for having props, actors, lloyd, cab, etc at the scene... smoky burning trailer outside... etc.
there is no other direct evidence for "pentagon drill goes live" but it does provide a rationale for the staging of equipment, etc.

Posted by: Leslie Landry May 27 2008, 03:16 PM

QUOTE (SPreston @ May 27 2008, 01:18 PM) *
It does not matter whether witnesses called 9-11 or did not


All i was saying is if there was witnesses to this..you would think there would be reports made.

Posted by: Killtown May 27 2008, 03:26 PM

QUOTE (JackD @ May 27 2008, 01:40 PM) *
All the light poles

They look laid down. If a 530mph object knocked them down, the poles would have make gashes in the grass. But after all, it is the Penta-Lawn!

Posted by: Leslie Landry May 27 2008, 11:42 PM

QUOTE (JackD @ May 27 2008, 02:40 PM) *
3) third scenario: called "plane crash simulation drill at west side of pentagon" -- poles and lloyd's cab were part of a high-fidelity crash simulation drill of plane-into-building.. the NRO was running, in fact, a plane-into-building drill that morning at its facilities...
this creates a plausible reason for having props, actors, lloyd, cab, etc at the scene... smoky burning trailer outside... etc.
there is no other direct evidence for "pentagon drill goes live" but it does provide a rationale for the staging of equipment, etc.


Thats definently a great point and makes alot of sense.

Posted by: SPreston May 28 2008, 09:33 AM

QUOTE (Leslie Landry @ May 27 2008, 03:16 PM) *
All i was saying is if there was witnesses to this..you would think there would be reports made.

It would make no difference if reports were made. The FBI confiscated all the Arlington County 911 call-ins and transcripts and they have never been made public. Who else would they call in to besides 911? The 911 call-ins and transcripts for New York at the WTC on 9-11 were made public.

Posted by: Leslie Landry May 28 2008, 04:16 PM

QUOTE (SPreston @ May 28 2008, 09:33 AM) *
It would make no difference if reports were made. The FBI confiscated all the Arlington County 911 call-ins and transcripts and they have never been made public. Who else would they call in to besides 911? The 911 call-ins and transcripts for New York at the WTC on 9-11 were made public.


again..i was just asking a question...and i got my answer from someone else. I understand that it doesnt make a difference to you...but it does to me...so now we can just agree to disagree.

Posted by: SPreston May 29 2008, 12:46 AM

QUOTE (Leslie Landry @ May 28 2008, 04:16 PM) *
again..i was just asking a question...and i got my answer from someone else. I understand that it doesnt make a difference to you...but it does to me...so now we can just agree to disagree.

You do not understand. If somebody made a report to the Arlington County 911, because the FBI confiscated the Arlington County 911 call-in tapes and transcripts, we cannot see who it was or what they reported. Those 911 call-ins are censored from us by the FBI. We did want to see them and were prevented from doing so. Perhaps CIT will get lucky and find some of those persons who most likely called in to 911 and reported what they saw.

Posted by: CocaineImportAgency May 29 2008, 01:05 AM

...the light poles were just to convince, even further, the myopic sheep that were bleeting... lets go and get em`!

Posted by: Leslie Landry May 29 2008, 01:56 AM

QUOTE (SPreston @ May 28 2008, 11:46 PM) *
You do not understand. If somebody made a report to the Arlington County 911, because the FBI confiscated the Arlington County 911 call-in tapes and transcripts, we cannot see who it was or what they reported. Those 911 call-ins are censored from us by the FBI. We did want to see them and were prevented from doing so. Perhaps CIT will get lucky and find some of those persons who most likely called in to 911 and reported what they saw.


I understood most of it..but i thought you were implying as you did say.."it wouldnt matter"..so im sorry for that. I know from what i have seen so far, there isnt any 911 calls about the poles (of course)...but i had also wondered if there were any other reports..not exactly calls made to 911. Hopefully there are people who did see them if they were there ahead of time and i hope that CIT or someone does get a hold of these people.

Posted by: newton Jun 13 2008, 12:04 AM

i've said this before, and i'll say it again.

when one object impacts another, there are two extreme conditions, and a whole bunch of more or less conditions between.

one extreme is the pole doesn't move. the other extreme is the pole offers virtually no resistance.

if the pole doesn't move, the plane gets either stopped dead in it's tracks(not 'real world' possible, but from a pure physics math argument, possible), or starts doing donuts in mid air where a decrease in forward velocity is inversely proportional to the rate of spin, or the plane is split open like a gutted fish.

if the pole offers only negligible resistance(a real possibility with 'breakaway' poles, which are designed to break off at the base easily, i can't remember why that's a good idea for light poles), then the pole speeds away from the plane at about the same speed as the plane, minus the energy spent deforming the pole.

in other words, either the plane is ripped to shreds by the poles, or the poles are knocked into instant 500 mile an hour trajectories.

so, if the poles offered significant resistance, the plane would have had an extra hard time hitting the pentagon(think pinball, with the jet as the ball, and the poles as the bumpers), and if they offered little resistance, they should have tore righteous paths of destructions for several hundred yards, perhaps also hitting the pentagon.

there is no 'happy middle ground' that makes it possible for the poles to 'sort of' nudge and tear the plane, while the plane 'gently' lays the poles down without so much as a frickin' divot in the AMAZING PENTALAWN.


i do think that the incredible momentum of a big bird like that would make quick work of the poles, IF they actually were hit, but not without the poles becoming instant near mach velocity spinning staffs of destruction. transfers of kinetic(moving) energy have a quantity and a direction(vector). when you hit a baseball, it speeds away in the direction of your swing at the velocity of the velocity of the pitch plus the velocity of the swing. it doesn't simply fall at home plate when the batter swings as hard as he can.
the plane would have been like a bat, and the poles like baseballs. they should have gone speeding forward, ripping up everything in their path.

Posted by: SPreston Jun 13 2008, 09:22 AM

QUOTE (newton)
i do think that the incredible momentum of a big bird like that would make quick work of the poles, IF they actually were hit, but not without the poles becoming instant near mach velocity spinning staffs of destruction. transfers of kinetic(moving) energy have a quantity and a direction(vector). when you hit a baseball, it speeds away in the direction of your swing at the velocity of the velocity of the pitch plus the velocity of the swing. it doesn't simply fall at home plate when the batter swings as hard as he can.
the plane would have been like a bat, and the poles like baseballs. they should have gone speeding forward, ripping up everything in their path.

Perhaps a more accurate analogy might be a golf ball (light pole) versus a golf club (aircraft wing). The golf ball (light pole) sits on the tee (breakaway base) until the golf club (aircraft wing) strikes it. If struck squarely, the golf ball (light pole) takes off at a great speed for a long distance. If struck a glancing blow (topped), the golf ball (light pole) drives into the ground with great force and then bounces high into the air, and still goes a good distance away. To just roll a few inches off the tee requires a complete miss by the golf club with air compression rolling the ball off the tee. But the breakaway base should counteract a complete miss by the aircraft wing and hold the light pole in place.

Some skeptics would say the high speed aircraft turbulence and fuselage and wingtip vortexes would knock the poles over. Wouldn't that also bowl cars and pedestrians over and tear the limbs off of trees? How would the turbulence tear the poles in two and drive several poles (#1 and #2) in the wrong direction?

For the golf ball (light pole) to go between the legs of the golfer (go under the fuselage to strike the windshield up the street on the opposite side) requires a strike with the heel of the golf club (aircraft wing). But an aircraft wing has no heel to knock the lightpole under the fuselage. It is firmly attached to the fuselage. The angled back leading edge of the golf club (aircraft wing) should strike the golf ball (light pole) and force it to the right somewhat.

It should not resemble these photos of a famous disinformation video done by Defense Department contractor Integrated Consultants.




They dare not show the golf ball (light pole) flying past the engine and under the fuselage
because then the simulation would look like a comedy flick.


More 9-11 rewriting of physics laws and pretending to be fact


Government propagandist Mike Wilson actually admits here that this was a psyops mind blowing mission


Pole 3 and 4 gently lay down at the command of the 535 mph golf club (aircraft wing).


Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 13 2008, 11:03 AM

You are exactly right SPreston. Mike Wilsons attempt to demonstrate "the physics of a dynamic [collision]" is based on the speed he animated the aircraft. Its a false portrayal of what was reported and borderline deceptive. (some may prefer to say deliberate deception on the part of Mike Wilson, but i'll be polite at this time wink.gif)

When i turned on dynamic collisions in my current software program, and animated the 757 based on real time speed, the poles were sent flying to Jupiter!

We will do our best with the limited resources we have to model the dynamic collision(s) of a 100 ton jet traveling 530 mph into 200lb poles.


You guys are going to love this upcoming presentation. biggrin.gif

Posted by: lunk Jun 13 2008, 11:43 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 13 2008, 08:03 AM) *
200lb poles.


You guys are going to love this upcoming presentation. biggrin.gif


And I thought they were light poles.
(not heavy)

lol, lunk

Posted by: dMole Jun 13 2008, 03:16 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 13 2008, 09:03 AM) *
When i turned on dynamic collisions in my current software program, and animated the 757 based on real time speed, the poles were sent flying to Jupiter!

We will do our best with the limited resources we have to model the dynamic collision(s) of a 100 ton jet traveling 530 mph into 200lb poles.

Looking at the momentum (p) in this alleged inelastic collision:

p = mass * velocity

530 mph ~= 777.3333333333 fps [or approx. 460.5574082073434 knots]

Since the amount of fuel or passenger load in AA77 can be disputed, let's use the operating empty weight for a 757-200 for a "light" estimate:

Operating empty with P&W engines 57,840kg (127,520lb), with RB211s 57,975kg (127,810lb). Basic max takeoff 99,790kg (220,000lb), medium range MTOW 108,860kg (240,000lb), extended range MTOW 115,665kg (255,000lb) or 115,895kg (255,550lb).

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=101

127,810lb * 777.3333333333 fps = 99350973.3333334 ft-lb/sec [of B757-200 momentum]

Let's "guess" a 1% momentum transfer in this inelastic collision (a quite conservative estimate):

99350973.3333334 ft-lb/sec * 0.01 = 993509.733333334 ft-lb/sec [of light pole momentum]

Now dividing by the assumed 200 lb. light pole mass,

993509.733333334 ft-lb/sec / 200 lb = 4967.5486666667 ft /sec [of light pole velocity]


Just for comparison, most rifles fire a bullet at 2000-4000 ft/sec.

Is a broken windshield all that we would expect to see happen to Lloyd's? cab?

Posted by: lunk Jun 13 2008, 06:31 PM

Who would have had access to the "Jaws of Life" and a portable cutting torch.

Light poles were staged to justify the story of a plane coming in, hitting the building.
When they did this, they didn't know the exact angle it was supposed to fly in at.

The fact that they didn't get the angle of approach right, shows for-knowledge and preparatory pre-staging prior to the event.
Pre-planted evidence.

imo, lunk

Posted by: lunk Jun 13 2008, 06:42 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Jun 13 2008, 03:31 PM) *
Light poles were staged to justify the story of a plane coming in, hitting the building.
When they did this, they didn't know the exact angle it was supposed to fly in at.



imo, lunk


They probably made this mistake because they knew there was no plane coming in, so they figured they only had to make it look like a plane came in on the side where the explosion was planned to happen.

I figure.

Posted by: SPreston Jun 14 2008, 12:28 AM

QUOTE (dMole)
Now dividing by the assumed 200 lb. light pole mass,

993509.733333334 ft-lb/sec / 200 lb = 4967.5486666667 ft /sec [of light pole velocity]


Just for comparison, most rifles fire a bullet at 2000-4000 ft/sec.

Is a broken windshield all that we would expect to see happen to Lloyd's? cab?

The Winchester 220 Swift firing a 50 grain bullet has a muzzle velocity of 3,947 ft/s (1,203 m/s). One pound = 7000 grains. The assumed 200 pound bullet (light pole) in dMole's equation would weigh 1,400,000 grains or 28,000 times as heavy as the 220 Swift bullet. The 50 grain Swift .220 round hits its target with 1,730 ft-lbf or 2,350 J.

QUOTE
the heavier the bullet, after it leaves the barrel, the more energy transferred to the target. The heavier bullets hit harder...this is also dependent upon range to target

By contrast, a M1-A1 armor piercing depleted uranium penetrator weighs 10.141 pounds (4.6 Kg) with a muzzle velocity (5,496 ft/s) only about 11% greater than our light pole (4967.54 ft/s). (1 kilogram = 2.20462262 pounds) Therefore the 200 lb bullet (light pole), which weighs 19.7 times as much as the M1-A1 DU penetrator, and fired at the Lincoln taxicab at a muzzle velocity of 4967.54 ft/s should be expected to totally obliterate the entire taxicab and the poor helpless driver inside and any FBI or Secret Service agents hanging around waiting to get into action and Lloyd's book on the seat.

<<<>>>

QUOTE (M1-A1 Battle tank)
The next generation ammunition, called 120mm APFSDS-T M829A2, entered service in 1994, and is the current armor penetrator ammunition being produced by by the General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems for the 120mm M256 gun of tanks M1A1 and M1A2. It is a technology improvement over the M829A1, the "Silver Bullet" of Desert Storm fame. The new ammunition's performance gains, while classified, result from several new features. These include the use of a special manufacturing process to improve the structural quality of the depleted uranium penetrator. This, plus the use of new composites for the sabot, which, together with a new propellant, provide superior penetrator performance. Combined, these features increase the muzzle velocity of the M829A2 approximately 100 m/sec greater than the M829A1 (up to something around 1,675 m/sec (5,496 ft/s)), while operating at slightly lower pressure. Projectile length: 780 mm; weight: 4.6 Kg. Estimated penetration performance: 730 mm at 2,000 meters.
http://fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm


PS: If that 200 lb bullet (light pole) had hit either RB-211 engine at 4967.54 ft/s, then that fantasy Flight 77 would have crashed on the lawn and burned and Hani Hanjour the Ace Pilot could have kissed his sorry butt and his 72 virgins goodbye.


Posted by: dMole Aug 18 2008, 10:56 PM

Related threads are at:

Light Pole Was Never Through Windshield, the entire Lloyd scenario was staged
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9779

The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance., ..not by a plane, explosives, or vortex.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9632

Strange Response To Lloyd's Cab Situation, why did they leave Lloyd & cab on Rt 27?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10024

***
The Pole2 Loyal Cab, Brought to you by LCFC
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9905

Video Of A Plane Hitting Light Poles
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9737

How Many Wintesses Claim They...., ...saw a plane hit light poles?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9680

Those Damn Poles, just asking
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=5628

Light Pole Analysis
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=68

A Missing Pole?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=2436

Could someone give me a overview, Of the lightpoles and flightpath
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=942

Flight Path Stills from youtube video, light poles
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=747

New Youtube video based on flight path, uploaded 10/20/06
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=375

Posted by: SPreston Oct 12 2008, 09:22 PM

QUOTE
The Winchester 220 Swift firing a 50 grain bullet has a muzzle velocity of 3,947 ft/s (1,203 m/s). One pound = 7000 grains. The assumed 200 pound bullet (light pole) in dMole's equation would weigh 1,400,000 grains or 28,000 times as heavy as the 220 Swift bullet. The 50 grain Swift .220 round hits its target with 1,730 ft-lbf or 2,350 J.

Where light poles fell - Red dots are original position of bases


The standard VDOT light poles for the Pentagon area actually weigh 247 lbs each, and that is not counting the weight of the truss arms (20 lbs) and light head (70 lbs) and the bolted down breakaway base. So the impact forces upon the wings or conversely the impact forces upon the light poles from the wings, would be much greater than that shown in dMoles's equation. An aircraft knocking those poles down as scripted by the 9-11 planners is simply ludicrous.

Standard dimensions for VDOT light poles in Pentagon area

Posted by: dMole Oct 12 2008, 09:33 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Jun 13 2008, 01:16 PM) *
Looking at the momentum (p) in this alleged inelastic collision:

p = mass * velocity
...
Now dividing by the assumed 200 lb. light pole mass,

993509.733333334 ft-lb/sec / 200 lb = 4967.5486666667 ft /sec [of light pole velocity]

993509.733333334 ft-lb/sec / 247 lb = 4022.3066126856 ft /sec [of light pole velocity]

That's getting a little closer to that 220 Swift projectile now. wink.gif

EDIT: Thanks to about 30 posts' worth of Smrekar semantics and 3 threads of TrollSpam over in Debate, my 1% momentum transfer "guess" looks to be somewhat excessive in my initial estimate from back in June, although I don't trust the troll's "proof" either. I've done another analysis already, but there are a few missing variables in the inelastic collision equation(s). Does anyone really still believe that there was any "AA77 B757-200" to light pole "impact" on Tues. 9/11/2001? HINT: The momentum transfer would need to fall in the interval [0.0%, 1.0%).

EDIT2: Plotting various values for Coefficient of Restitution (C_R) gives a range of theorerical "lightpole velocities" v2f, for a hypothetical "impact" (that I personally don't believe ever occurred BTW). No C_R value (or v2f "lightpole velocity" value for that matter) has/have been determined in 7 years that I'm aware of. For comparison, the blue rectangle in the chart is the typical range of muzzle velocities for a .357 Magnum handgun (according to Federal via Wikipedia). Regarding C_R parameter, the Wikipedia tells us:

"The coefficient of restitution or COR of an object is a fractional value representing the ratio of velocities before and after an impact. An object with a COR of 1 collides elastically, while an object with a COR of 0 will collide inelastically, effectively "sticking" to the object it collides with, not bouncing at all.
...
The USGA (America's governing golfing body) has started testing drivers for COR and has placed the upper limit at 0.83. Golf balls also have a COR of about 0.78.[1] According to one article (addressing COR in tennis racquets), "[f]or the Benchmark Conditions, the coefficient of restitution used is 0.85 for all racquets, eliminating the variables of string tension and frame stiffness which could add or subtract from the coefficient of restitution."[2]

The International Table Tennis Federation specifies that the ball must have a coefficient of restitution of 0.94."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_restitution

http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image=v2fchartgm7.jpghttp://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php

In a hypothetical "perfectly inelastic collision" case, v2f would be 775.85 feet/sec, and the lightpole(s) would have stuck in a hypothetical "B757-200" wing.

EDIT3: Here is a link to that chart at a better server:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/19426

Posted by: aristo Oct 13 2008, 01:29 PM

@dMole

This means the wings would be destroyed ?

Posted by: SPreston Oct 13 2008, 09:28 PM

Ask yourself why those five 247 lb light poles impacting those wings at the official speed of 535 mph did not rupture the wing tanks and cause the fuel to leak all over the lawn. Yet there was no sign of fuel nor fires on the lawn between the #1 light pole and the Pentagon wall.

QUOTE
Fuel on the Boeing 757 is contained in a sealed wing box structure. The fuel system supplies fuel for the engines and APU. Fuel suction feed is available only from the left and right main tanks. The wing structure contains left and right main tanks and a centre tank section. Fuel picked up in the vent system and fuel in the refuelling manifold drains into the centre tank.

The boxes below show the useable fuel in each tank with the 757 aircraft at a level attitude, followed by a fuel tank location diagram.

LEFT 6,600 kgs (2129 gals)_
CENTRE 20,800 kgs (6710 gals)
RIGHT 6,600 kgs (2129 gals)
TOTAL
34,000 kgs (10968 gals)


Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Oct 14 2008, 02:38 PM

Recap for people:


(Poles in May 2000)

The light poles had to have been removed sometime between May 2000 and 9/11/01. The 2 highway poles on the bridge(one of which was involved in the staging with the cab) were under the jurisdiction of the VDOT. We spoke with VDOT Road Safety manager Chris Landis in person and asked about road closures or maintenance around the light poles-he cited nothing to support this. Yet he seemed awkward and nervous in our meeting. After we had obtained the evidence that the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo, we knew the plane did not take down the light poles so I went back to Chris Landis to confront him with this evidence. But apparently the very week we obtained interviews proving this fact, Chris Landis committed suicide and all FOIA requests have gone unanswered about the poles.

The other 3 poles were Pentagon property. George Bush flew out from the Pentagon heliport on 9/10/01 and was scheduled back 9/11/01 around noon. This means that all night from 9/10 to 9/11 "security detail", "secret service", vans/trucks were on the Pentagon lawn and highway area. This gave the perfect opportunity to plant the light poles. Pole 1 at the cab is the only one that needs to be staged real time-it could have been laying in the very narrow shoulder by the bridge., the others were laying off in inconspicuous areas in the lawn. Some of which you can't even see from the highway due to the slope of the lawn and the guardrail. We have photos of 3 men at the scene with the cab and cab driver and the pole has clearly been moved due to the scratch in the ground. This could have been accomplished during the chaos. Even if they were moving things real time in front of people it would be the last thing people would notice now that we are under attack and there is a buring Pentagon in the background.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=77&hl=

People usually look forward when they drive or talk on their cell phone about the attacks or listen to the radio about the attacks. Do you stare on the side of the road and look for light poles? If and that is a big IF someone saw the poles on the ground pre-event they would convince themselves it must have been from an car accident and not the poles the plane allegedly hit. And what if they did convince themselves they were planted who in the hell would they tell??? The police? The FBI? Would they be believed? Of course not.

THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE PLANE FLEW ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FORMER CITGO AND COULD NOT AND DID NOT HIT ANY LIGHT POLES. THEREFORE THEY WERE FABRICATED AND STAGED.

Posted by: SwingDangler Oct 15 2008, 11:22 AM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Oct 12 2008, 01:45 AM) *


Predictions?


The lightpoles catapult 100's of feet away from its original position instead of only a few feet from its foundation....if it gets lucky enough to get hit by the alleged jets engines.

If there were multiple hits not on the engine I would predict ignited jet fuel all over the place after puncturing the wings and we would have seen a fireball passenger plane entering the Pentagon video instead of "it".

Do I get a prize? thumbsup.gif

Posted by: Leslie Landry Oct 17 2008, 08:20 AM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Oct 17 2008, 12:47 AM) *
Here's another one to ponder:





P.S. Lloyd drew the photo incorrectly. The picture indicates the pole made it into the rear seat, but the interior taxi pictures tell otherwise.



Lloyd also states that the pole was bent...well that pole is looking pretty damn straight to me. I don't know if that should matter or not, but if you ask me, i think it should..as every remembered detail should. just thought i would point that out.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Oct 17 2008, 10:19 AM

Stopping distance is definitely an issue as is the notion that all the poles would be laying so close to their bases after being hit by a 90 ton Boeing traveling 535 mph.

But of course the biggest issue is that we have hard proof the plane was nowhere near those poles anyway, particularly pole 1.

Which most certainly was bent on top Leslie.


Posted by: Leslie Landry Oct 17 2008, 02:10 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 17 2008, 10:19 AM) *
Which most certainly was bent on top Leslie.


Hi Craig...in case there was any misunderstanding, i was referring to the drawing which appears pretty straight..not the actual light pole smile.gif

Posted by: dMole Oct 30 2008, 04:08 AM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Oct 13 2008, 09:45 PM) *
Predictions?

To finally answer aristo, SPreston, and TF's collection of posts, let's take a look at the NASA Dryden [1984 remote B720] Controlled Impact Demonstration (from the pinned UA175 drone feasibility thread):

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10700

Be sure to notice the "wing cutter" caption and check several photos there:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/index.html

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/Medium/EC84-31806.jpg

"Moments after hitting and sliding through the wing openers the aircraft burst into flame, with a spectacular fireball seen emanating from the right inboard engine area."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration

No, it's not a B757-200, but yes it was a modified commercial Boeing 720 transport drone. Yes it was deliberately "crashed" into steel "wing cutters [or openers]" by NASA. Cost economy and the 247 lb "not light" [for lunk wink.gif ] weight would suggest steel light pole construction. Furthermore, aren't the OGCT-loyalist trolls the only ones who believe that any "collision" took place at the I-395 on 9/11/2001 ("perfectly inelastic" or otherwise rolleyes.gif )?

EDIT: Spreston's graphic above has the VDOT lightpoles at 1/8" thick aluminum of unknown alloy (0.125")

Posted by: Omega892R09 Oct 30 2008, 12:30 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 28 2008, 07:08 AM) *
To finally answer aristo, SPreson, and TF's collection of posts, let's take a look at the NASA Dryden [1984 remote B720] Controlled Impact Demonstration (from the pinned UA175 drone feasibility thread):

Interesting.

I have seen the like before with a 707.


You would have thought that after practicing with 707s they would have been able to manage a head on strike the wing/tank cutters are the prominent fixed structures on the crash area:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIgCcdCq78w&feature=related


There were cameras inside that thing to record events inside as shown in longer versions of that video.

If somebody would care to embed that then please do.

Edit: tpyo

Posted by: dMole Nov 8 2008, 05:49 PM

If anyone really wants to calculate pole load limit, deflection, etc. we would need some physical dimensions at the "breaks." The one photo above has the thickness at 0.125" and unspecified aluminum alloy. We would need the poles' Moments of Inertia first:

http://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/section_square_case_12.htm

More resources on round tube and poles:

http://www.abirdshome.com/pm/structrl.htm

"'Modulus of Elasticity' (E) is usually a good indicator of how strong a material is... The higher a material's modulus number, the stronger it is. This number is usually constant for a given material.

(E) for Aluminum is 10.3x10 to the 6th power (10,300,000psi)"

http://www.mnhpva.org/tech/frame_tubes.html

http://www.mnhpva.org/tech/tubes_mark.html

The Structure Engineering Handbooks (8) Aluminium Structures
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3608015/The-Structure-Engineering-Handbooks-8-Aluminium-Structures

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 8 2008, 06:18 PM

alright, so who has Finite Element Analysis software and is proficient in it's use?

Posted by: dMole Nov 8 2008, 06:28 PM

OK, so I've got the CAD and FAE software (not installed now), but I usually was more interested in the thermal and fluid flow aspects. I'd go with passable rather than "proficient" personally, too. We would still need the applicable pole dimensions before I really wanted to jump into all that business, since we'd need a pole model constructed first.

For up to 1300 nodes, LISA is free (or $50 CAD full-version):

http://www.lisa-fet.com/download.htm

CAE Linux is open-source and will run from a Live DVD Linux system also:

http://caelinux.com/CMS/index.php

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 8 2008, 07:18 PM

we can probably guesstimate a good deal of the pole specifics from the photographs.

given the weight, thickness, material density, whether there were any welds in the aluminum (eliminates some alloys).

of course design specs would be nice ( what kind of wind resistance were the fasteners supposed to withstand etc)

i downloaded 'lisa' and 'impact' as well ( not sure what one gets for free). lisa is supposed to be able to import dxf files which would be helpful. would probably simplify the task to 'rough' the base mount instead of trying model what i would guess is the standard 4 bolt connection

this could be fun!


addenda: links to various light pole

http://www.hapco.com/Faq.aspx

http://www.unionmetal.com/toolbox/materials.asp

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/rd/rtds/06/17515.pdf

http://eplan.dot.state.il.us/desenv/073004/83701-038/Plans/073004-83701-038-252-170-11x17.pdf

Posted by: dMole Nov 8 2008, 07:34 PM

LISA didn't like the .DXF and .DWG that my supposedly AutoCAD compatible software output when I tried modeling the WTC core and perimeter columns thermally. I tried several export formats and never got a LISA import that worked. Then my computer crashed...

Here are a bunch more FEA choices though:

http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Technology/Software_for_Engineering/Finite_Element_Analysis/

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 8 2008, 07:56 PM

i've had import problems w/ some home design sw like that.

diggin through an old statics and dynamics book, it looks like we are dealing w/ 'application of the principle of impulse and momnetum to the three dimensional motion of a rigid body'

Posted by: dMole Nov 8 2008, 08:30 PM

We have a winner with impulse- GP found the low-dangling fruit I left that one of our trolls missed so many times. My bet is still on no actual impact though.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Momentum/ImpulseMomTheorem.html

The Wiki actually looked fairly good on this apolitical page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse

EDIT: Well this was interesting from GP's link "one" above:

http://www.hapco.com/Faq.aspx

"WHY ALUMINUM INSTEAD OF STEEL, CONCRETE OR FIBERGLASS?
Benefits of Aluminum: Aluminum is rust/corrosion free. Has better breakaway performance. Can be direct buried. Proven longer life (50+ years). Lower life cycle costing. Recyclable with financial return. Lighter in weight making it easier to install. Easy removal from accident sites. More and more decorator styles are being introduced and there is an unlimited spectrum of colors. "

EDIT: The problem with impulse though- "dt" for the alleged impact is what interval?

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 9 2008, 07:19 PM

my reasoning for dt proceeds as follows:

assuming 500mph (since i don't remember the actual speed) for the aircraft, the lower bound for the impulse is the time it takes the aircraft to travel one inch (probably enough distance to de-couple the pole from the base) ~.00014 seconds

i'm going to assume the wing hits above its c.o.g of the light pole. not necessarily a bad assumption, otherwise the engines probably would have plowed the highway. while i'm assuming, i'll say it hits midwing (why not, since the plane didn't hit the poles anyway).

at midwing the chord should be ~16ft. there should be deformation in the light pole producing some loose coupling with the leading edge of the wing. in addition, since the pole was hit above its cog, the pole's base would rotate upward toward the trailing edge of the wing.

the upper bound is tougher. my first thoughts were along the lines of time to traverse the chord length. ~.02 seconds. however, it may be an order (maybe several) of magnitude greater still if the pole doesn't fall away.

of course the closer to the cog, the less rotation and the more coupling. and what happens if the pole melds itself to the damaged leading edge?...maybe gets carried across the amazing pentalawn...

Posted by: Omega892R09 Nov 10 2008, 07:28 AM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 7 2008, 10:19 PM) *
...and what happens if the pole melds itself to the damaged leading edge?...maybe gets carried across the amazing pentalawn...

I figure this is where I was going with my #35 and #38 posts in page 2 of this thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15410&st=20

Posted by: dMole Nov 10 2008, 07:24 PM

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Nov 9 2008, 04:19 PM) *
assuming 500mph (since i don't remember the actual speed) for the aircraft, the lower bound for the impulse is the time it takes the aircraft to travel one inch (probably enough distance to de-couple the pole from the base) ~.00014 seconds

Here you go GP, from my post #30 above:

"p = mass * velocity

530 mph ~= 777.3333333333 fps [or approx. 460.5574082073434 knots]"

Yes I know, my calculator pastes many digits- feel free to round or truncate (but unlike the IRS instructions, I usually never do that until the very last steps for accuracy reasons rolleyes.gif )

I'd also like to point out that for the light pole, delta_p = p_linear + p_rotational +p_unknown

Now at what point did the "lamp" boom separate from the veritical "pole" and how? Is it getting messy yet? Also, does anyone know where that "lamp" boom allegedly ended up? I haven't seen it.

That is the SSFDR "lightpole velocity" that Rob, I, and the GL's used for argument's sake, I believe.

EDIT: The Coefficient of Restitution is covered at post #36:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=13034&view=findpost&p=10755951

Posted by: GroundPounder Nov 10 2008, 08:20 PM

been messy smile.gif it's a total swag regardless....a futile exercise since the plane didn't hit the poles

while we're speculating, however, momentum must be conserved. the pole or its parts could achieve 529.xxxxxxxx mph base on your 530 speed

sure, the pole fracture causes an insignificant momentum loss in the plane (~ 1/10000), but the more interesting point (imho) is that the KE of the plane is concentrated in a tiny area hitting the pole.....i would love to see a slow motion close-up video of something like that actually occuring!

edit: not sure the restitution coefficient is really needed since it's probably very very close to unity

Posted by: SPreston Nov 11 2008, 12:18 AM

QUOTE (dMole)
Now at what point did the "lamp" boom separate from the veritical "pole" and how? Is it getting messy yet? Also, does anyone know where that "lamp" boom allegedly ended up? I haven't seen it.

Half of the #1 pole truss arm is right here on the left side in line with the main pole and the lamp head.




Posted by: aristo Dec 3 2008, 02:58 PM

A Boeing 757 did not hit the light-poles.

The 757 wingspan is 38,05 meters.

The distance between Light-Pole 1 and 2 is
more than 40 meters, i think.


http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/5w2h-42-jpg.html

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 3 2008, 04:29 PM

The effective distance changes due to the angle of trajectory.



So the wingspan is sufficient but you are correct that the plane did not hit the poles.

We know this because it was on the north side of the citgo.


Posted by: aristo Dec 3 2008, 07:21 PM

Craig Ranke CIT wrote....

QUOTE
The effective distance changes due to the angle of trajectory.


Hi Craig,

yes, that correct. But, please look on the photo again, please.

[/url]

The position of pole 3 is different to your photo.

I think, the position in my photo is correct. So, the "Boeing" could only one hit, pole 2 or pole 3

The pole 3 in your photo, is pole 4 in my photo.

QUOTE
We know this because it was on the north side of the citgo.


Right, i think so too.

If my photo correct, than it shows crystal clear, no Boeing hit the poles.

Please, verfy the pole position, may bei i am wrong.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 4 2008, 06:48 PM

You have pole 3 mislabeled. As you can see that pole was still standing on 9/11.




Here is a close-up of the base:

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 4 2008, 06:56 PM

Looks like you have pole 4 mislabeled as well.



Posted by: JackD Dec 5 2008, 01:40 AM

Here is a close-up of the base:




Holy S---t, Craig. That base is still anchored in the ground, acording to the slightly blurry photograph.

So how did the light pole get sort of kind of "unbolted" from the breakaway base? After all, that grey pyramid base is the part that "snaps off" -- your photo looks like a dismantled light pole base, with detached pole next to it.

for all we know, that pole didnt even come from that particular base.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Dec 5 2008, 11:00 AM

QUOTE (JackD @ Dec 5 2008, 06:40 AM) *
for all we know, that pole didnt even come from that particular base.


Bingo.

Posted by: rob balsamo Dec 5 2008, 11:31 AM

Wow, i never seen that picture before. It looks like the pole was just set down there, not hit by a 90 ton aircraft at 500 mph. There isnt even one divot in the grass. Even if the pole itself just fell over, you would expect at least some sort of lawn damage from a 200lb metal pole. None of these poles caused any lawn damage. But supposedly broke a windshield on a cab? (without damage to the hood of course... rolleyes.gif )

So much for the "breakaway" base argument....huh guys?

Good find...

Posted by: Sanders Dec 5 2008, 03:22 PM

We all, correctly, come from a place where one is suspicious of the idea that a crew of guys went out there at 4 in the morning and played around setting up the crime scene ... i.e., laying bent-up light poles in the grass.

Yes, one should not jump to such a radical conclusion.

I, ... on the other hand, ... am fully aware and convinced that we as a people are being and have always been rammed up the wazoo in red-white-and-blue fashion by the worst sort of power/money-hungry-grubbing monsters and that farming out the job to go out there and knock down some light-poles so it looked like the Pentagon was hit by flight 77 ... would have been not only plausible, but requisite.

rolleyes.gif

Posted by: zaza Dec 5 2008, 10:20 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Oct 13 2008, 07:45 PM) *


Predictions?


I dont know nuthin about nuthin but check out this story about a military jet colliding with a heavy cable -

http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=1269&display_order=1&mini_id=1278

Posted by: SPreston Dec 5 2008, 11:10 PM

QUOTE (JackD @ Dec 5 2008, 12:40 AM) *
Here is a close-up of the base:




Holy S---t, Craig. That base is still anchored in the ground, acording to the slightly blurry photograph.

So how did the light pole get sort of kind of "unbolted" from the breakaway base? After all, that grey pyramid base is the part that "snaps off" -- your photo looks like a dismantled light pole base, with detached pole next to it.

for all we know, that pole didnt even come from that particular base.


#3


#3


#4 Is that the lamp head laying there next to the road? Are we supposed to believe all the #4 pole parts came straight down after supposedly being hit by a 535 mph wing? It sure looks like the entire truss arm is laying on the guardrail still bolted to the top piece of the main pole. What a crock of BS.


Is the #4 pole bottom almost touching the base?


(click me for original)
http://www.hybrideb.com/images/washington/lightpole_1.jpg


Posted by: dMole Dec 5 2008, 11:45 PM

QUOTE (zaza @ Dec 5 2008, 07:20 PM) *
I dont know nuthin about nuthin but check out this story about a military jet colliding with a heavy cable -

Thanks and from that source zaza:
"EA-6B Grumman Prowler"

I know a little somethin' about DoD and MIL-STD regulations, and a Northrop Grummann EA-6B Prowler would be built to entirely different FAR specifications than a commercial Boeing 757 transport airframe, with that NG EA-6B being a combat airframe.

My $0.02.

Oh, and there is this too:
"Over the course of the trial, it was found that the plane was flying at speeds in excess of 500 miles per hour--faster than military regulations allow--when it hit the cable car wire."

And this:
"Speed: Maximum .99 mach; cruise .72 mach "

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/ea-6b_prowler.htm

Posted by: dMole Dec 6 2008, 01:40 AM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Dec 5 2008, 12:22 PM) *
Yes, one should not jump to such a radical conclusion.

I, ... on the other hand, ... am fully aware and convinced that we as a people are being and have always been rammed up the wazoo in red-white-and-blue fashion by the worst sort of power/money-hungry-grubbing monsters and that farming out the job to go out there and knock down some light-poles so it looked like the Pentagon was hit by flight 77 ... would have been not only plausible, but requisite.

rolleyes.gif

You never worked for the MIIC firsthand did you Sanders? whistle.gif

Posted by: dMole Dec 6 2008, 03:47 AM

Here is a bit about winch "cable" or "wire rope" for those interested parties:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/Recovery/index.html

Posted by: lunk Dec 6 2008, 07:16 AM

What caused the damage to the lamp?



lunk photo analysis:


If one were to hammer away at a cast aluminum lamp holder,
wouldn't this be the results you would expect to see?

...what if the hammer broke?

Did I nail it?

imo, lunk

Posted by: dMole Dec 6 2008, 07:32 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 6 2008, 04:16 AM) *
If one were to hammer away at a cast aluminum lamp holder,
wouldn't this be the results you would expect to see?

...what if the hammer broke?

Did I nail it?

imo, lunk

Spoken like a true-HammerHeadLunk (HHL?), IMHO

Sadly, I think TheyTM required "larger hammers" and "DIRTY political favors" IMHO [but I'm just a dum tax-payin' US cistern.... so what do I do exactly to change the "state" of this mutation, lunk?]

Back "on topic," a "wire rope" could/would bring HELLA light poles down (notso-IMHO) BTW...

Posted by: lunk Dec 6 2008, 12:31 PM

Yes, they must have been brought down by something other than an airplane,
but I don't think that wire rope alone would show enough damage to make it believable.

If these were the same poles that were pulled down. (visible lack of wires?)

Look at the way the poles and lamp and burning pentagon are so perfectly placed in the photo.
Almost like someone said, "put that broken light on that tuft of grass at the side of the road for the picture."

Look at how that lamp holder was broken,
think, of how the pole must have fallen, to do this sort of damage to it.
Impossible.

Once they were down, the light poles must have been damaged
more with "jaws of life", portable welding torches, hammers, whatever, to make them look more like they were hit by the plane.

I don't know if that is the head of a hammer,
but the damage to the cast lamp holder part,
looks like it was done with a hammer
and not caused by it being on a pole that "fell" down.

imo, lunk

Posted by: SPreston Dec 6 2008, 12:45 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 6 2008, 11:31 AM) *
Yes, they must have been brought down by something other than an airplane,
but I don't think that wire rope alone would show enough damage to make it believable.

If these were the same poles that were pulled down. (visible lack of wires?)

Look at the way the poles and lamp and burning pentagon are so perfectly placed in the photo.
Almost like someone said, "put that broken light on that tuft of grass at the side of the road for the picture."

Look at how that lamp holder was broken,
think, of how the pole must have fallen, to do this sort of damage to it.
Impossible.

Once they were down, the light poles must have been damaged
more with "jaws of life", portable welding torches, hammers, whatever, to make them look more like they were hit by the plane.

I don't know if that is the head of a hammer,
but the damage to the cast lamp holder part,
looks like it was done with a hammer
and not caused by it being on a pole that "fell" down.

imo, lunk


I agree with you lunk. That object does not quite look like a hammer head, but it could have been used to hammer the light head regardless.

I think the truss arm still connected to the short main pole piece with 8 flimsy bolts, and just sitting on the guardrail next to the base is highly suspect.

Posted by: lunk Dec 8 2008, 12:34 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Dec 8 2008, 06:55 AM) *
How on earth could it have landed behind the impact point?


It must have bounced.
...rubber poles!

lol, lunk

Posted by: SPreston Dec 9 2008, 11:43 PM



As can be easily seen in this blowup of the #4 light pole base, the break-away base would never have broken off at the strengthened bottom end of the base. It is absolutely certain that it was cut off by a man with a saw or torch, and was not broken off by a 90 ton 535 mph aircraft. The straight cuts are easily discernable. Anybody disagree?



The light poles were staged and no aircraft impacted the Pentagon. The actual aircraft flew over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, and was much too far away from these 5 light poles.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Dec 10 2008, 11:13 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 6 2008, 03:34 PM) *
...rubber poles!

lol, lunk

Careful lunk, you will have a troop of Ulan lancers on you. biggrin.gif

Was it windy that morning, could have been a mini whirlwind.

But then maybe the jet blast did it.

As if!

Posted by: dMole Dec 10 2008, 09:53 PM

QUOTE (SPreston @ Dec 9 2008, 08:43 PM) *
As can be easily seen in this blowup of the #4 light pole base, the break-away base would never have broken off at the strengthened bottom end of the base. It is absolutely certain that it was cut off by a man with a saw or torch, and was not broken off by a 90 ton 535 mph aircraft. The straight cuts are easily discernable. Anybody disagree?

I meant to mention this before SP, but alumin(i)um isn't very conducive to oxy-fuel torch cutting. Saws or plasma cutters would be your best bet there.

http://www.lincolnelectric.com/knowledge/articles/content/plasma.asp

"Oxyfuel cuts by burning, or oxidizing, the metal it is severing. It is therefore limited to steel and other ferrous metals which support the oxidizing process. Metals like aluminum and stainless steel form an oxide that inhibits further oxidization, making conventional oxyfuel cutting impossible. Plasma cutting, however, does not rely on oxidation to work, and thus it can cut aluminum, stainless and any other conductive material. "

There are specialized oxy-fuel torches for aluminum/non-ferrous metals and other materials however (that blow iron and/or aluminum powder into the oxy-fuel flame to "super-heat" the cutting region however- yup, thermite/ate).

http://www.torch.ind.br/news.htm

http://www.em.doe.gov/stakepages/acefiles/DD_Technologies.pdf

"Metal Powder (“Flame”) Cutting -Metal powder cutting, or more commonly flame cutting, oxidizes a suspension of iron oxide and aluminum powder in a stream of oxygen gas to produce a thermite reaction with temperatures up to 16,000 oF. At these temperatures, the flame tip literally disintegrates concrete or masonry materials into a powdered ash. Flame cutting torches can cut 2 feet deeper than wall/floor saws and are also not impeded by reinforcing steel. The cutting torch or lance is not consumed in this process and is thus reusable."

Also those "strengthening areas" in the caption I would call "gussets" or "ribs," but that's more a preference. They could also possibly indicate melted aluminum "slag," but I'm not certain either way. Does not look like saw cut aluminum to me though (and I've seen years of those).

EDIT: I sure would like to examine that "light pole evidence" firsthand though...

Posted by: dMole Dec 10 2008, 10:39 PM

On-thread relevant, but slightly OT, here is the perfect place to mention the little-known [Yull] Brown's Gas, which is reported to oxy-fuel weld aluminum quite well (you usually need to MIG, TIG, or SMAW electric arc weld aluminum). I'm not certain firsthand what a Brown's Gas cutting torch would do on/to aluminum metal though (it might actually kindle and "burn" it with the elevated, focused temperatures).

http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/fabuses/fabuses.html

http://www.pytela.com/int_ene_BrownsGas.html

Posted by: SPreston Dec 10 2008, 10:52 PM

QUOTE (dMole)
I meant to mention this before SP, but alumin(i)um isn't very conducive to oxy-fuel torch cutting. Saws or plasma cutters would be your best bet there.

http://www.lincolnelectric.com/knowledge/articles/content/plasma.asp

"Oxyfuel cuts by burning, or oxidizing, the metal it is severing. It is therefore limited to steel and other ferrous metals which support the oxidizing process. Metals like aluminum and stainless steel form an oxide that inhibits further oxidization, making conventional oxyfuel cutting impossible. Plasma cutting, however, does not rely on oxidation to work, and thus it can cut aluminum, stainless and any other conductive material. "


Yes I know d. JFK has cut aluminum with plasma torches and he says it was a plasma torch.



QUOTE (m0n3yman)
The current lightpole next to the freeway near the Pentagon so ridiculously and absurdly destroys the OCTers statements that someone would have seen the planted ones and chaos would have ensued.

Brilliant.

Yes indeed. Thanks to 22205 for finding that and photographing it. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=445&st=15



Here are the breakaway bases. I have marked the bottoms, which when compared to the breakaway base still attached to the bottom of the 9-11 #4 pole, proves that it was sawn or cut off with a plasma torch on a straight cut across the entire breakaway base, just above where the base mounting bolts clamp it to the concrete base in the ground.



As can be easily seen in this blowup of the #4 light pole base, the break-away base would never have broken off at the strengthened bottom end of the base. It is absolutely certain that it was cut off by a man with a saw or torch, and was not broken off by a 90 ton 535 mph aircraft. The straight cuts are easily discernable. Anybody disagree?

Light Pole #4 from 9-11


Since it appears that the remainder of the cut-off breakaway base with its mounting bolts cannot be seen on the concrete mounting base, it is most likely that the breakaway base was cut with a plasma torch in a shop, and then transported to the crime scene.



Therefore the 5 light poles were taken down by the crane truck in the dark on the morning of 9-11 under Secret Service security, and replaced with the pre-fabbed light poles brought to the crime scene on the crane truck, and placed on the ground or hidden behind the wall until time for the scripted Flight 77 simulation. Nobody would have noticed them laying there in the few hours of daylight before the explosions at the Pentagon when the #1 light pole was dragged across the road and placed into the crime scene as evidence of a light pole through a windshield. But no photo of the light pole through the windshield has ever existed nor any witnesses to that effect.



At the same time the #4 light pole was moved into place (perhaps from under a green tarp) and its lamphead placed outside the guardrail next to the road. Presto; instant planted evidence to NeoCON the American people.

Is there anybody who believes that the #4 light pole after being struck by a 90 ton 535 mph aircraft, would end up laying mere inches from its mounting base?

Posted by: dMole Dec 16 2008, 01:16 AM

Hey SP,

Do you think you could get me the Google Earth coordinates on those 5 light poles (and maybe export the .KMZ Google Earth files for everyone)? I've been putting my location coordinates in the thread at:

Coordinates of Key Locations, Split from RADES M2 TBI Aircraft
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=14832

How about getting an estimate for Lloyde's cab too if it's not too much hassle?

Posted by: lunk Dec 16 2008, 12:30 PM

QUOTE
Therefore the 5 light poles were taken down by the crane truck in the dark on the morning of 9-11 under Secret Service security, and replaced with the pre-fabbed light poles brought to the crime scene on the crane truck, and placed on the ground or hidden behind the wall until time for the scripted Flight 77 simulation.


Curiously enough, I heard an RBN radio host, say that traffic was stopped that morning near the pentagon, and he saw the plane fly in, and then witnessed the explosion, I don't think he was in a position to see the alleged impact. He said the traffic was stopped before this happened, BTW.
...to move the light poles and cab into position, perhaps?

Posted by: SPreston Dec 16 2008, 04:51 PM

QUOTE (dMole)
Hey SP,

Do you think you could get me the Google Earth coordinates on those 5 light poles (and maybe export the .KMZ Google Earth files for everyone)? I've been putting my location coordinates in the thread at:

Coordinates of Key Locations, Split from RADES M2 TBI Aircraft
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=14832

How about getting an estimate for Lloyd's cab too if it's not too much hassle?


Sorry d, I don't have that ability anymore on this new computer for some strange reason. I hate VISTA.

Posted by: dMole Dec 16 2008, 11:03 PM

QUOTE (SPreston @ Dec 16 2008, 01:51 PM) *
Sorry d, I don't have that ability anymore on this new computer for some strange reason. I hate VISTA.

Vista... [quoting Bart Simpson] it both sucks and blows at the same time... [But I still must use it for software "compatibility" reasons. rolleyes.gif ]

Try this if you get time and a blank DVD:

http://ultimateedition.info/Ubuntu_Ultimate_1.6/

EDIT: We just tried to install the above, and found 1 file error on the .ISO in a "DVD check." Grrr...

Posted by: SPreston Dec 17 2008, 12:06 AM

QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 16 2008, 10:03 PM) *
Vista... [quoting Bart Simpson] it both sucks and blows at the same time... [But I still must use it for software "compatibility" reasons. rolleyes.gif ]

Try this if you get time and a blank DVD:

http://ultimateedition.info/Ubuntu_Ultimate_1.6/


Can't use it d as I have a 64 bit quad core. He is not making a 64 bit edition. Thanks for trying d.

Posted by: dMole Dec 17 2008, 12:29 AM

QUOTE (SPreston @ Dec 16 2008, 09:06 PM) *
Can't use it d as I have a 64 bit quad core. He is not making a 64 bit edition. Thanks for trying d.

Hey my 3000th post here. My 64-bit dual-processor PC runs the 32-bit versions just fine (if a bit slower than the 64-bit optimized ones). I've tried about a dozen LINUces on this 64-bit machine with good luck. The wireless internet part- well that's another story... I can "cable in" with about any of the ones that I tried though.

http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=35&Itemid=70

http://distrowatch.com/

At least the LINUX community still gives a sh*t about the software user [cough * Billg Brother * cough] whistle.gif

EDIT: There is a 64-bit version of Ultimate Unbuntu 2.1 (and 32-bit) available for download at:

http://ultimateedition.info/ultimate-edition-21/

This new one looks gorgeous from the screenshots- downloading now.

http://ultimateedition.info/Ultimate_Edition_2.1/2.1theme.png


http://ultimateedition.info/Ultimate_Edition_2.1/ultamatix1.png

Posted by: dMole Dec 20 2008, 01:58 AM

QUOTE (SPreston @ Dec 16 2008, 01:51 PM) *
Sorry d, I don't have that ability anymore on this new computer for some strange reason.

UPDATE: I just put my results here at post #7:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=14832&view=findpost&p=10760961

EDIT: Re-posting here for everyone's convenience:

...
in Google Earth, I find

Pole 1 "Impact" : N 38.869528°, -77.061425° [W]
Pole 2 "Impact" : N 38.869934°, -77.061123° [W]
Pole 3 "Impact" : N 38.869957°, -77.060393° [W]
Pole 4 "Impact" : N 38.870284°, -77.060234° [W]
Pole 5 "Impact" : N 38.870463°, -77.059824° [W]

Again, I've got that VDOT Tower in Google Earth at:

VDOT Tower : N 38.866565°, -77.069046° [W]

Posted by: dMole Dec 22 2008, 03:04 PM

A few things to ponder:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16409

These lat/lon coordinates were obtained from Google Earth and placed on this map, so they were of +/- "Google Earth accuracy, precision, and/or resolution" whatever that/those is/are... Strangely, I don't recall Those Who Shall Not Be Named Here ever bringing this subject up yet, so I will here today. I generally cross check using several sources and/or methods, and I'm looking for "reasonable" (although very good) approximate values for our purposes here. I'll leave the sig figs and error analysis for those interested parties "downstream-" I honestly find those a little tedious, and I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over a few percentage points. Perhaps the DoD, FEMA, and NIST surveyed the Pentagon area for us sometime within the last 7 years.

I merely placed/pasted the Google Earth coordinates directly into the mapping software for all 9 "surface features" and "tagged" them. From my research, Google Earth uses the WGS84 datum, and I set my map for that one. Those 2 yellow distances should be in US survey feet IIRC (for the benefit of the unitifically-retentive).

http://www.axiomint.com/microstation_tips/survey_vs_international_foot.htm

"National Geodetic Survey also states, "these two conversion factors produce results that differ by 2 parts per million; hence for most practical work it does not make any difference to the average surveyor which one is used since [surveyors rarely] encounter distances [large enough for this to be a factor]"

Posted by: lunk Dec 24 2008, 08:45 AM

There is a simple answer to all these,
obvious and lingering questions.
The lamp poles,
were made
out of baloney.

imo, lunk

Posted by: canuck Feb 4 2009, 07:47 AM

[color="#000000"][/color]Hello All--I Would like to ask why no one has done a test with an wing from a jet from a salvage yard and impacting it with a simular street lamp pole as was supposedly knocked down at the pentagon by the American Airlines flight 77.

I personaly believe that an impact at any speed over 50 miles per hr would have done extreme damage to the wing.I have personaly instaled these street lamps and it takes quite a considerable force to knock one down.I believe that a jet aircraft traveling at between 300 to 500 miles per hr and having a wing impact with one of these street lamps would either rip in to the wing a long ways or possibly shear of a large piece of it'
Another thing I find odd is that if the street light pole was hit at a high speed by a jetliner that the light pole would have been thrown an incredible distance and not just laying a short distance away from the base.
This aircraft supposedly had sheared off four or five of these poles and yet the pictures look as though some of the poles were more or less just knocked over and even the glass is in close proximetry to the pole itself when it is laying on the ground-I think this is absolutly immpossible.
I don't know the specific weight of street light pole in or around the Pentagon but if they are anything like the ones in Canada they would be quite heavily constructed and i'm sure would do extensive damage to an aircraft wing or body.
It would be fairly simple to test an impact with the street light poles and large airgraft wing to guage the damage --even at a consideraly lower speed of impact.

I think after looking at so much information that is out about 9 11-- that for people not to think there was a cospiracy involved,they would have to be low on the IQ scale.
With all the questions the government does not answer makes it even harder to believe thier story.If they can't answer some of these major questions or prove by film or pictures that haven't been doctord then a conspiracy has happend and the people of America should wake up.Don't let another JFK happen make your government reopen an inquiry as to what really happend Sept 11 2001.The whole world knows that Bush has taken your country into a downhill spiral that the American citizens need to make him answer for.

Posted by: lunk Feb 4 2009, 10:39 AM

QUOTE (canuck @ Feb 4 2009, 03:47 AM) *
The whole world knows that Bush has taken your country into a downhill spiral that the American citizens need to make him answer for.

Actually, I think, it was his advisers, acting on advice from lobbyist, who represent interests of big business and non elected governmental organizations, and well established front charities, all acting in unison, with their complicit media, following just part of a single business plan, to concentrate all the wealth and power in the world amongst the, already, uber-rich and powerful.

There was no plane in the area of the light poles.
So they could not have been "hit" by a plane.

welcome to the forums
imo, lunk

Posted by: dMole Feb 4 2009, 10:49 AM

Don't forget the [uber-]psychopaths part above, lunk. wink.gif

Posted by: dMole Mar 10 2009, 03:43 AM

Some newer info on lightpoles and Lloyde's cab, along with some good newer images are on SPreston's post #26 on this thread:

New Pentagon Footage, AP Reporter Using Tourist Camera Tape
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=16523&view=findpost&p=10766618

Posted by: dMole Mar 18 2009, 02:43 PM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 30 2008, 10:30 AM) *
Interesting.

I have seen the like before with a 707.

You would have thought that after practicing with 707s they would have been able to manage a head on strike the wing/tank cutters are the prominent fixed structures on the crash area:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIgCcdCq78w&feature=related

The YouTube kommi-czars have apparently eliminated that video.

Here's another of the B-707 crash (be sure to note the steel "wing cutters" at 1:21 and 1:52):

Boeing 707 terrible impact crash


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T52xLN9luk&feature=related

Posted by: Maha Mantra Mar 1 2010, 12:09 AM

Just getting through this.
The pics of the base show what appears to be melting and heat discoloration as if plasma cut.
If breaking off from the mounting bolts, one would expect the tabs being held down by the bolts to break off from the base and any gussetts to rip holes in the thinner base housing.
Because the poles were torn to one side there should be evidence of metal being bent from the last side to give way.

One would think the piece cut off above the wing would be flown high and far in the direction of the Pentagon. It would be spun as its broken end was lifted by the increasing thickness of the wing. There might be some effect of the airflow of the plane to further fly the top piece of pole and perhaps suck it along with the plane.

Most poles along a road are designed to break away if a car hits the pole, at its base, and then to fly up and over the car. A plane hitting up near the top might not even break the base. Its so quick there may not be enough time for the stress to travel down the pole before the hit part fractures. The mass of the pole itself requires time to move far enough to break the base. At 500 mph, there may not be that amount of time and the hit part shouldn't be strong enough to resist disintegration long enough to bend the pole down to the base.

Somewhat off-topic. Just as Pilots for truth have now looked at the trade center, maybe architects and engineers could look at the Pentagon in a way that uses pictures of the wall thickness as seen in aftermath photos and compare that to the damage at the trade towers in a comparison of the wall loadings between the observable Pentagon wall and what is somewhat known about the 14" box columns of the perimeter of the trade towers and determine if the Pentagon wall should have withstood the pressures which went right through the box columns almost to the tips of the plane wings.
I've looked at the Phantom hitting the 12' wall or whatever and becoming mostly dust, but a thinner wall and larger jet shouldn't leave much of the wall. Even if the plane was made out of aluminum dust and fuel, the mass at that speed should be calculable.
I know most people have from the start figured it was absurd to think a plane would do so little damage, but watching the Phantom makes me wonder.

If scientific calculations and photograhic evidence shows that the Pentagon walls could not have sustained the impact loadings, that would be helpful.

You're on the right track looking at the light poles, also the plane's attitude would be determined by what height the poles were chopped off at the top. If the plane was descending, the pole bottoms would be shorter the closer to the Pentagon.

I don't know if any of the poles were hit by an engine, but they shouldn't be recognizable or on the lawn. Actually by knowing the height the poles were cut, that would determine the height of the engines above the lawn.


Foe me, the holes through the three rings of the Pentagon are far too round and large. It looks unbelievable.

Posted by: lunk Mar 1 2010, 09:48 AM

The light poles were taken/pulled or cut, down,
prior to the plane flying toward and over the pentagon,
and traffic was blocked off,
and the light-poles and Lloyds' taxi,
were moved into position.

From my understanding of things,
airplanes usually crash, immediately after hitting
just one fixed solid metal object.

How many light-poles, did the plane allegedly,
"knock over" before it "flew"
into the side of the pentagon?

Impossible.

Posted by: bobcat46 Mar 2 2010, 10:48 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 27 2010, 12:48 PM) *
The light poles were taken/pulled or cut, down,
prior to the plane flying toward and over the pentagon,
and traffic was blocked off,
and the light-poles and Lloyds' taxi,
were moved into position.

From my understanding of things,
airplanes usually crash, immediately after hitting
just one fixed solid metal object.

How many light-poles, did the plane allegedly,
"knock over" before it "flew"
into the side of the pentagon?

Impossible.



I also have a problem with the fact that not one piece of airplane wing or engine cowling was found on the approach area where the light poles were "knocked over" before it "flew" into the Pentagon. After hitting several poles, there should have been some pieces of the plane left on the ground.

BTW, just where are all those videos of the numerous security cameras that were all around the building? I bet they no longer exist,.,....just like the ATC audio tapes.

Posted by: scott75 Mar 25 2010, 12:39 PM

QUOTE (bobcat46 @ Mar 2 2010, 10:48 AM) *
BTW, just where are all those videos of the numerous security cameras that were all around the building? I bet they no longer exist,.,....just like the ATC audio tapes.


You may wish to take a look at this page from history commons:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a937filmtaken#a937filmtaken

Posted by: elreb Sep 17 2010, 05:24 PM

QUOTE (GaryR55 @ May 26 2008, 08:12 AM) *
I have no issues or quarrel with the evidence showing the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, but by a missile delivered by a plane that overflew the Pentagon. However, I'm still confused as to what downed the five light poles if it wasn't the plane or, I assume, the missile, either. Obviously, something brought those light poles down. What was it?

Gary


What a light pole being hit looks like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUFjy8wQ8mQ&feature=related

Posted by: SanderO Sep 17 2010, 06:29 PM

As far as AE911T looking into the pentagon structural failure issues goes : forget about it. I asked when I was there as a volunteer and board member. Richard Gage said they are not interested in the pentagon structure and AE99T was only interested in the 3 WTC collapses. He didn't say why this was the case only that it would not change.

Posted by: elreb Sep 18 2010, 05:07 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 17 2010, 11:24 AM) *
What a light pole being hit looks like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUFjy8wQ8mQ&feature=related


With little force:

The pole hits the ground, the lamp breaks off.

Next, section 2 breaks off, and at the bottom we see a bent section.

The laborer has no problem moving it. Kid stuff!

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Sep 19 2010, 01:51 AM

Something that intrigues me after a couple of years of digesting Lloyd, his helper and the pole.

Why, when obviously his cab was involved with a national crime or event, would he and a bystander pull the light pole out of his car? Did he have another fare to get to?

Wacky story, no matter how one looks at it.

Posted by: elreb Sep 19 2010, 07:30 PM

QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Sep 18 2010, 07:51 PM) *
Something that intrigues me after a couple of years of digesting Lloyd, his helper and the pole.

Why, when obviously his cab was involved with a national crime or event, would he and a bystander pull the light pole out of his car? Did he have another fare to get to?

Wacky story, no matter how one looks at it.


After looking at all the photos and reading the testimony, I see nothing showing a pre-planned crime scene. If I were Lloyd, I would pull the pole out and try to leave or get off the road.

It is my opinion that a “UFO” hit the poles and the generator.

Posted by: JackD Sep 21 2010, 12:08 AM

QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Sep 17 2010, 04:51 AM) *
Something that intrigues me after a couple of years of digesting Lloyd, his helper and the pole.

Why, when obviously his cab was involved with a national crime or event, would he and a bystander pull the light pole out of his car? Did he have another fare to get to?

Wacky story, no matter how one looks at it.


true, that. plenty of other good stuff about poles elsewhere.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Sep 22 2010, 01:36 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 18 2010, 09:07 PM) *
With little force:

The pole hits the ground, the lamp breaks off.

Next, section 2 breaks off, and at the bottom we see a bent section.

The laborer has no problem moving it. Kid stuff!


Your example is not remotely relevant to Lloyde's story.

Clearly that collapsing wall is not comparable to an airplane as described by Lloyde with a wingspan large enough to hit the poles.




Furthermore nobody denies the pole could be dragged across the road as shown by the laborer in your example. In fact there is physical evidence showing that this is exactly how the pole was put into place on 9/11. Look at the scratch in the pavement coming from the OPPOSITE direction of the location of the pole:



Since we have found no witnesses to a "UFO" on the south side with a http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=621 to hit the light poles (or any sort of south side UFO at all) we feel it is not logical to make excuses to explain away Lloyde's beyond implausible story that resulted in no damage to the hood of his cab.



Posted by: elreb Sep 22 2010, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 18 2010, 07:49 AM) *
Seemed like a busy day, over or near the Pentagon…on or around 09:30 including:

Bobcat 14 and Bobcat 17 = T-2 Buckeyes scheduled flights of the area for a 13 minute period beginning at 9:25

Word 31: B742 [E4B], a NAOC (National Airborne Operations Center) flight, according to the flight strip, that staged at 7:36 hrs. Word 31 was airborne at 9:27.

Venus 22: A Gulfstream 3, airborne at 9:16 on a scheduled flight to West Virginia; it landed back at Andrews at 9:54

Gofer 06: A Minnesota Air National Guard C130H, airborne at 9:33, ultimately an observer to the aftermath of the alleged impacts of AA 77 and UA 93.

Venus 77: B747, airborne under VFR rules at 9:45; it became the “white plane.”

NEXT

Who is to say what % of this file has been tampered with? I think the UFO is real!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8

The cop car in the film is real and here he is after traveling next to the building after the gate opens the second time.

Could the UFO be a U-2.

I hear it has a tendency to float over the runway because the cushion of air provided by the high-lift wings in ground effect is so pronounced that the U-2 will not land unless the wing is fully stalled.

Early U-2 variants were powered by Pratt & Whitney J57 turbojet engine or Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojet

Wingspan: 103 ft (31.4 m)

Maximum speed: 434 knots (500 mph, 805 km/h)



Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Sep 22 2010, 04:59 PM

There is zero evidence that ANY of the alleged aircraft you are referencing were anywhere near the airspace at the Pentagon during the time of the attack, in fact if you accept the official data stating that these aircraft existed at all, you must accept that they were NOT in the airspace at the time of the attack.

More importantly:

Nobody reports seeing the light pole spear the windshield of the cab or the cab spinning out sideways with the light pole still in it.

Nobody reports seeing the light pole inside the cab or sticking out over the hood.

Nobody reports seeing Lloyde remove the pole with or without help.

Lloyde's story is beyond physically implausible.

Many witnesses report seeing one large plane on the north side of the gas station therefore in a position that is impossible to hit the poles.

A grainy ambiguous security video controlled and released by the very suspect you believe to be the perpetrator of this crime is not valid evidence for anything at all let alone for a craft hitting the light poles.

If you want the facts we must only rely on independent verifiable evidence which is mostly limited to eyewitnesses.

They prove a deception on that day and they do not support the notion that a UFO hit the light poles. In fact they fatally contradict it.

It's important to focus on facts and evidence. Conspiracy theories hurt our efforts and only create the impression that we don't have enough facts and evidence proving the official story false.

We do.

Posted by: JackD Sep 23 2010, 07:04 PM

Elreb-- You may wish to investigate Lloyd's story more deeply. At nearly every turn, there's something a bit wrong with it.
Particularly the idea that a 200lb+ heavy light pole could spear through his car, penetrate the windshield (while causing multipe independent 'hits' to the glass) -- but not even scratch the hood -- after which he believes he and a 'Stranger' removed the pole (again without a scratch to the hood -- and then he was unable to start the car up - and therefore left it there on the road -- in a nice photo op position -- hmm.

I'm not accusing Lloyd, his memories are whatever his stored memories are. But the physics of the event in terms of what happned to his cab are quite peculiar, and in light of 50 other 'peculiarities' around the Pentagon, deserve a closer look.

Posted by: elreb Sep 23 2010, 07:47 PM

QUOTE (JackD @ Sep 23 2010, 01:04 PM) *
Elreb-- You may wish to investigate Lloyd's story more deeply. At nearly every turn, there's something a bit wrong with it.
Particularly the idea that a 200lb+ heavy light pole could spear through his car, penetrate the windshield (while causing multipe independent 'hits' to the glass) -- but not even scratch the hood -- after which he believes he and a 'Stranger' removed the pole (again without a scratch to the hood -- and then he was unable to start the car up - and therefore left it there on the road -- in a nice photo op position -- hmm.

I'm not accusing Lloyd, his memories are whatever his stored memories are. But the physics of the event in terms of what happned to his cab are quite peculiar, and in light of 50 other 'peculiarities' around the Pentagon, deserve a closer look.


Look at the movie on full screen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUFjy8wQ8mQ&feature=related

The weight is more like 100 pounds. A boy scout could move one...

Wind rated at 85 mph and gust to 104 mph

Standard mast/truss arms are 6’ to 8’ and project at an angle.

The mast arm hit the car…not the pole. They are designed to break apart for this exact reason. There would be no damage to the hood. Driver's side of windshield is where lamp snapped off.

Most likely, the mast arm bounced or was drug out by the forward momentum of the car.

Weight = 51 pounds. Sheet No. Index No. 2006 FDOT Design Standards. Revision. 17515.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/rd/rtds/06/17515.pdf

http://www.hapco.com/uploads/resources/200908071019564331.pdf

Posted by: KP50 Sep 23 2010, 08:26 PM

elreb,

Why do you feel the need to believe Lloyd England - and if you do believe him, why do you not believe him when he says the whole pole pierced the windshield? Given multiple people believe that there was a plane and that it didn't fly the path to strike the lightpoles photographed on the ground, why do you feel the need to invent a craft that nobody saw in order to carry on believing Lloyd England?

Posted by: elreb Sep 23 2010, 09:30 PM

QUOTE (KP50 @ Sep 23 2010, 02:26 PM) *
elreb,

Why do you feel the need to believe Lloyd England - and if you do believe him, why do you not believe him when he says the whole pole pierced the windshield? Given multiple people believe that there was a plane and that it didn't fly the path to strike the lightpoles photographed on the ground, why do you feel the need to invent a craft that nobody saw in order to carry on believing Lloyd England?


Please keep in mind that we do not have an issue with the fly over “0077” and the use of explosives…that is set in stone.

I could care less about Lloyd…he means nothing to me. He appears to be a hopeless victim.

What I have not seen is anything convincing that the light poles and generator damages were preplanned. I just do not see it…the Pentagon is open 24 hours so why risk it?

100% of the people killed (murdered) worked for the government. Think about that!

I have no problem with planted aircraft parts…say like in the trailers

I have no problem with 98% of the security tape…it took 8 years to see the cop car…which actually…Rob saw.

I do have a problem with the C-130 tracking the UFO and not flight 0077. What was “gofer 06” purpose?

If the security tape is real, then you can take the Pentagon to court because a Boeing 757 cannot fly level at 5 feet off the ground for that distance. (a glider could)

If the security tape is faked, then you can take the Pentagon to court for tampering with evidence of a crime scene.

Why would “0077” take a 360 degree turn, unless “It” was killing time? “It” was waiting…

Apparently we have different definitions of the”Search for Truth”.

Posted by: KP50 Sep 23 2010, 10:35 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 24 2010, 01:30 PM) *
What I have not seen is anything convincing that the light poles and generator damages were preplanned. I just do not see it…the Pentagon is open 24 hours so why risk it?

Illogical Captain.

You are saying it is a risk to preplan/plant stuff before 9/11 in an area that you control but it isn't a risk to fly an extra "UFO" to knock down lightpoles and hope that nobody at all in the general public sees it? Are you actually serious?

Posted by: albertchampion Sep 24 2010, 12:48 AM

way too much maui wowie!

Posted by: onesliceshort Sep 24 2010, 09:48 AM

I'm lost Elreb.
Are you saying that there was a simultaneuous flyover, impact and explosion?

Remember that this second "UFO" would have to have the same wingspan as the supposed 757 to correlate with the pole damage.



That this same model/year 750kw generator that was allegedly containerized..





..was reduced to this...



...despite detractor claims that it was "struck" at mid-point, the extended damage is actually the result of the fierce fire that burned, causing the aluminium to fold..



..having missed these poles....



...that the fence surrounding the generator was allegedly struck yet it was at a height below the alleged generator strike...



...and the fence poles were blown away from the generator..



..etc, etc..

Point is, the "damage path" is riddled with inconsistencies that point more to preplanted "evidence" and explosives and not from any UFO of any kind that matches the entire directional damage as a whole.

The damage path itself raises a whole lot of other questions regarding the "5 frames".

We are better off sticking to what we know as fact mate. Let the government explain all of the anomalies not in our power to answer.

Posted by: elreb Sep 24 2010, 01:49 PM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 23 2010, 06:48 PM) *
way too much maui wowie!


Having lived the first 16 years of my life growing up on Air Force bases all over the world, I have a fair understanding of what it feels like to have an air plane only 50 feet above your head.

The point is to prosecute the Pentagon for conspiracy and murder.

If there were no witnesses that saw any UFO on the official flight path, hitting any light poles, hitting any generator and hitting the building, then there are also no witnesses that saw a 757 doing the same and the case would be closed.

But if the government wanted to stick to its guns, then I would use 100% of the government provided evidence. Show the jury the security film, the pictures of the damaged light poles, fence and generator and the hole in the wall. Show them the engine, landing gear and the bits and pieces of plane parts strewn about.

Show them the voice record and the flight data recorder

Don’t even argue the point.

Next show them the list of dead…189 killed…125 Pentagon employees and 64 people aboard 0077.

Now the fun part…

1. A 757 cannot fly level as shown in the film…it would have nose dived into the ground.

2. The flight data recorder show that the craft was too high to hit the building and that the cockpit door had never been opened.

3. Witnesses point to a different flight path.

4. Of the 64 people on the passenger list, none were the highjackers. On the one hand, they say they identified all 64 people but also say they separated the 5 hijackers who could not be identified. The math does not work out.

5. What happen to the 5 hijacker bodies? Even Saddam Hussein was returned home and given a respectful burial. Heck, these were Saudi Arabians…our allies.

6. Several of the alleged hijackers are still alive but victims of ID thief.

7. What happen to all the air plane leftovers? Are they in a museum…can we get a closer look at them? Where are all the tapes from the other security cameras?

8. Oh, and what about the part where N644AA never landed or took off…in fact it cannot be found anywhere on any day.

9. What about Gofer 06…what was he up to? What was he following.

10. Norman Mineta’s statement?

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'

Posted by: Ricochet Sep 24 2010, 04:23 PM

A quick note here, the container that housed the generator is made of corrugated STEEL not aluminum. This is why an aluminum aircraft striking it would not gouge out a hole in the top and side. Fuel for said gen-set is diesel which burns at a much lower temp than is required to melt steel.

Posted by: elreb Sep 24 2010, 05:47 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Sep 24 2010, 03:48 AM) *
I'm lost Elreb.
Are you saying that there was a simultaneuous flyover, impact and explosion?

Remember that this second "UFO" would have to have the same wingspan as the supposed 757 to correlate with the pole damage.


Chasing the Dragon Lady requires peripheral vision

One flyover (N644AA) plus One UFO…one impact… yet two explosions

Hard to say which one was the diversion?

Wing span requirement is 96.21 feet
Engine requirement: single P & W J57
Fly ability…level…just above the ground
Ability to hit poles

My craft of choose is the U-2 or ER-2

Wing span is 103 feet
Engine is single P & W J57
U-2 has glider like characteristics
Wings are equipped with damage resistant titanium wing skids

Visible for less than one minute

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxFz6ImB8fI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ePs3WAbVkc&feature=related

ER-2 High Altitude Airborne Science Aircraft The aircraft, based at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~2~2~2206~103627:

Posted by: onesliceshort Sep 24 2010, 08:58 PM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Sep 24 2010, 10:23 PM) *
A quick note here, the container that housed the generator is made of corrugated STEEL not aluminum. This is why an aluminum aircraft striking it would not gouge out a hole in the top and side. Fuel for said gen-set is diesel which burns at a much lower temp than is required to melt steel.


I stand corrected. Cheers Ric.

Here are the specs for the generator and container:

http://www.hardydiesel.com/used-diesel-generators/generator-detail-specs/CCAJ00142.html

http://connect.in.com/used-diesel-generators/photos-ccaj00142-trailer-0149abbfa5edf832.html

What caused that uniform fold then??

The main point is, the generator damage is far from straightforward.
If the engine of the plane had struck both of these monsters, how did it not get ripped from the wing?

IMO the generator was used in the op mainly as a massive smoke screen and an explosive device of some sort judging by the area immediately around it.

What is the ignition point of generator diesel that it immediately caught fire due to an alleged "impact"? I mean, it couldn't possibly be started by friction or a spark could it?
There is a fuel line at the front but the diesel is stored in a tank underneath the generator itself (not seen in the above image but on other models.)

Also this:

QUOTE
Fuel Tank with 1250 Gallon Capacity on a double wall integrated fuel tank.....Safety Shutdowns

Posted by: onesliceshort Sep 24 2010, 09:09 PM

Elreb, nobody saw any type of UFO on the SOC path. Nobody.

The lightpole "damage" does not denote a "low level approach" as you are envisaging it.

Two planes crossing Route 27 and the lawn almost simultaneously should have been seen by somebody. It didn't happen.

Posted by: KP50 Sep 25 2010, 01:04 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 25 2010, 09:55 AM) *
Thank you for calling me Captain...I love New Zealand thumbsup.gif

For full effect, you had to say "Illogical Captain" in the voice of Mr Spock .....

Posted by: lunk Sep 25 2010, 08:56 AM

Let's backward engineer this event.
Considering that the pentagon "attack"
was planned long in advance of 9/11.

For a plane to be seen by all,
it must take a low long approach to the pentagon.
For it to hit the pentagon, some light-poles would be in the way,
So as this event was planned, the light-poles would have to be taken down in advance, and hidden, to be revealed after the event.
i think Lloyd and his cab were sort of an after thought, since they were going through all the trouble of taking the poles down in advance anyway.
The thing is, that the plane came in, on a different approach than the already downed light-poles!
(probably an over-site, as false flag planners are obviously not pilots.)

Posted by: lurker Sep 25 2010, 10:41 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 22 2010, 11:25 PM) *
Back in 1976, John Jackson & I ..... As we approached the scene, I jump out of John’s van at about 35 mph and dove into the river. ....


elreb,
how did you manage to a) survive this, b) in such a good shape (physically), that you were able to swim around, dive a little, pull a man out of his car and, moving him up to the street into your van, handing him over to the medics and moving as fast as possible back to the scene where the accident happened just to show up again waiving your hands.

it must be all in a day's work of superelreb aka suneagle7

Posted by: lurker Sep 25 2010, 10:57 AM

and why, elreb,

are you quoting and answering your very own posts

QUOTE
QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 19 2010, 01:30 PM)
After looking at all the photos and reading the testimony, I see nothing showing a pre-planned crime scene. If I were Lloyd, I would pull the pole out and try to leave or get off the road.

It is my opinion that a “UFO” hit the poles and the generator.


by adressing yourself by name

QUOTE
Elreb,

Yes, I agree…the ER-2 would be a good choose for the UFO due to it's wing span and the simple fact that it is connected to the Dryden Flight Research Center and is used by NASA for high-altitude civilian research.

NASA admits that their KC-135 Stratotankers (N931NA or NASA 931) was airborne on 911. The Dryden Flight Research Center has always been involved in remote control operations.


It is refreshing to find someone with a clear unbiased approach to the events of that day.


and trying to pretend that someone else agrees with yourself by signing it with

QUOTE
Suneagle7




http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=13034&view=findpost&p=10789597

Posted by: onesliceshort Sep 25 2010, 12:07 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 25 2010, 03:08 AM) *
Why do I get the funny feeling that you have not looked at anything I have posted?

It would sure be nice if you took the time to back your conclusions.

My opinion is my opinion and your opinion is your opinion. Nothing is fact.

The UFO… was traveling at 733 feet per second! How good is your vision?

I’m a retired Mechanical Engineer…so what do I know?


That's all I see Elreb. An "opinion".

You claimed earlier that the staging of evidence was too risky because the Pentagon is open "24/7" yet you see no problem in staging a simultaneous flyover, impact and "two explosions"??

Everyone interviewed described an NOC path trajectory. Nobody saw a UFO on the directional damage path.

It's okay to have an opinion but you need to back it up mate.
As I said, it's up to the "authorities" to explain this. Anything else is speculation.

Posted by: elreb Sep 25 2010, 12:27 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Sep 25 2010, 02:56 AM) *
Let's backward engineer this event.
Considering that the pentagon "attack"
was planned long in advance of 9/11.

For a plane to be seen by all,
it must take a low long approach to the pentagon.
For it to hit the pentagon, some light-poles would be in the way,
So as this event was planned, the light-poles would have to be taken down in advance, and hidden, to be revealed after the event.
i think Lloyd and his cab were sort of an after thought, since they were going through all the trouble of taking the poles down in advance anyway.
The thing is, that the plane came in, on a different approach than the already downed light-poles!
(probably an over-site, as false flag planners are obviously not pilots.)


I guess your right…who would notice 5 DOT lights totally missing at night.

It’s not like it is a busy place


Posted by: sun7 Sep 25 2010, 01:38 PM

Suneagle7 is me (sun7) and even though I haven't made any posts and log in rarely, I can read most everything on this forum. I didn't expect my email to be copied and pasted on here, geez!

Posted by: lurker Sep 25 2010, 02:43 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 25 2010, 07:47 PM) *
Sorry about that Suneagle7

I didn’t know I was walking into a hornets’ nest



elreb,

this has nothing to do with a hornets' nest but with intellectual dishonesty ...

you bypassed my question (intellectual dishonesty again?): how did you manage to jump out of a car going with 35mph without needing immediate medical treatment yourself?

Posted by: lurker Sep 25 2010, 04:41 PM

elreb,

you are right that this goes a little off topic. but if one in a debate starts telling stories (off topic) in order to, well what? "funding" your credibility? then you at least should tell it the way it actually is believable.

your explanation how you left the car makes sense NOW.

"back tracking" from what? as can be seen by everybody here you wrote a reply to yourself signing with another poster's name. this together with your "story" grabbed my attention and I don't see why - after the real suneagle7 complained about your really bad behaviour - I should backtrack in this regard a single inch? as if his complaint reversed anything? au contraire!

Posted by: lurker Sep 25 2010, 08:19 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 25 2010, 10:22 PM) *
For the sake of this thread, I am going to make this post for one day, then go back and delete it and all unrelated posts.

The point of the “Lifesaving” story was to show how you can have no witnesses to a traumatic event, if done quickie enough.

It would seem in bad taste to write a book every time you want to make a point.

Unknown to you, I receive a lot of secret emails and here again…if you read what Suneagle7 said,

“I didn't expect my email to be copied and pasted on here, geez!”

How on god’s earth could I “sign with another poster's name.” if his log on is “sun7”?

That is what makes this discussion hopeless! Next you may want to check the IP numbers


elreb,

I did not expect THAT answer.

you show an incredibly twisted mindset with regards to honesty, sincerity and veracity, so to speak truth. first you were caught by trying to boost your point of view (post #110) by writing yourself a supportive reply to one of your own postings. this posting IS signed with "Suneagle7". this is a fact everybody can see and check out. it is there in plain sight, undenieable. at this point (time) nobody here on this forum knew any Suneagle7-poster, since this would have been his very first posting we later learned. but this is irrelevant to the fact that in your desperate need of a supportive voice of your opinion (regarding the ongoing debate) you regressed to such a despicable tactic.

when I pointed the finger to this fact it was not you but sun7 who answered (in his very first posting) when he recognized that the content of your post #110 was from a private email he (obviously) has written to you. and he complained about the PRIVACY BREACH you committed. or how do you translate "I didn't expect my email to be copied and pasted on here, geez!”

so what seemed to be only "fraudulent" in the first place developped into a downward spiral.

now, instead of simply admitting that you made a mistake (or two), (and everything would be fine, issue closed, because what raises a man's moral standing more than admittance of failure) you dare to ask "innocently" "How on god’s earth could I “sign with another poster's name.” if his log on is “sun7”?". as explained above it is irrelevant whether you have signed with "ahmadinejad", "moses" or "mickey mouse" and the real poster's name is elreb (trying to advance the worthiness of his arguments and his own reputation).

I don't know how on earth you could, but you actually DID. the answer is again a question of moral integrity.

it is also a matter of integrity whether one wants to rewrite history by deleting what is written. think twice if such a move serves your interest here on a forum seeking truth, openness and accountability.

to me this dicussion was not pointless, it was very revealing indeed. I would prefer to end it here. enough said.

Posted by: onesliceshort Sep 25 2010, 09:49 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 25 2010, 06:27 PM) *
I guess your right…who would notice 5 DOT lights totally missing at night.

It’s not like it is a busy place



Yeah, this would be much more difficult to spot..


Posted by: lunk Sep 25 2010, 10:02 PM

The poles could have been taken down in advance, in the early hours of the morning.

Posted by: elreb Sep 25 2010, 10:05 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Sep 25 2010, 04:02 PM) *
The poles could have been taken down in advance, in the early hours of the morning.


I respect anyone’s opinion that is relative to light poles…you are a gentleman.

Sunrise was at 6:46 am...so there was time...

Posted by: Ricochet Sep 25 2010, 10:58 PM

Staging the light poles to be down would have been an extra sideshow not required. Think, why bother as it would not be relevant which approach AA77 came in at. Does anyone think of AA11 or UA175? No They just assume you accept the fact it happened.

Posted by: paranoia Sep 26 2010, 02:00 AM

QUOTE (elreb)
The mast arm hit the car…not the pole.


you are changing lloyde's story. he was very specific and adamant that it was the long part of the pole, not the mast. in an in-person interview*, standing near the cab with lloyde, russel pickering scrutinized the issue, trying to give lloyde an out - like exactly what you're suggesting, that it was the mast - but lloyde steadfastly stuck by his claim that this long ass pole was sticking out of his car, in spite of a 40 foot, 40 to 0 mph skid.

*somewhere there is audio of that interview, please find it so you dont have to take my word for it. and have a look at this here drawing, made by lloyde himself:



-does that look like the mast? is it curved? is it short enough to be regarded as the mast?

we didnt disbelieve the cabbie because his story made sense, we didnt believe him cuz the tale he was telling was sooooo tall that it defied logic. and not only was lloyde's story so literally incredible as in NOT to be believed, but the physical aspect of the poles, especially their bases also led to much doubt. have a look at any of these bases and see that they are cut in a uniform manner, and they did not break away like they're supposed to. there are many threads which address the matter, but please have a look at least at these 2 for some relevant background:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/110408/
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=445&st=15


also - here is a vid of a night-time drive on the road in question, going in the same direction as the cabbie:

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=576088

(the vid freezes/pauses twice, once under pole 2 and once under pole 1)

screencap:


i believe it would be easy to overlook or miss any the presence of any would-be downed poles, even if they were simply laying on the side of the road (note how dark the shoulder is), but especially if they were placed behind the guardrail, where they could be down but remain fully out of public view. its not like some regular person driving along keeps count of how many poles there usually are and takes note when a couple are missing, especially if they are out of view.

now, would people notice downed poles at night? personally, i think some people might take note, but most would probably be completely oblivious to them. but even IF they noticed the poles not attached to where they should be, would they remember them the next day? would they connect them to the "terror" incident? would they know enough of the official tale to realize the poles they saw are the same ones alleged to have been hit by "the plane"? i doubt it, especially given the massive shock and awe that overwhelmed most (if not all) of them on the 11th.

one of the 2 threads i linked you to (earlier above), addresses a broken pole laying in the vicinity of the cab area, that was down for 3 years and no one gave it a second thought, EVEN THOUGH it was sitting in plain view of the VDOT depot and offices - the people tasked with repairing and replacing such poles... so a broken pole laying on the ground can indeed go unnoticed enough to remain unresponded to (even by those responsible for it) for years, and thats a fact not speculation.



for the record - the opposite side of the road in the video has completely changed since 9/11, a massive wall/barrier was built where there was once an unobstructed view of the heliport and the area of the 3 other downed poles, so video of it wouldnt necessarily show how noticeable or unnoticeable the poles would be. but those poles, if downed prior to 9:37am on the 11th, would be laying in the grass and not in the roadway, and therefore even less likely to draw any direct attention by any random passers-by.

Posted by: onesliceshort Sep 26 2010, 09:16 AM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Sep 26 2010, 03:58 AM) *
Staging the light poles to be down would have been an extra sideshow not required. Think, why bother as it would not be relevant which approach AA77 came in at. Does anyone think of AA11 or UA175? No They just assume you accept the fact it happened.


All of 9/11 was a series of sideshows with crumbs thrown all over the place to purposely lead to this kind of discussion and speculation as to the mechanics of the operations.
All we really know for sure regarding the Pentagon op is that the aircraft flew on an irrecoverable trajectory to cause the directional damage and that the FDR/RADES data is fraudulent/manipulated/manufactured.

I could say that maybe the poles were downed to allow the aircraft access to strike the Pentagon on the directional damage path and there was a malfunction with the plane.

I could say that maybe http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac269/amadan2/disinfo/courtneyplatt.jpg was to be used á la Lloyd but something went wrong with the staging and it was never used by the government or duhbunkers as proof of anything.

I could say that maybe the "dog and pony show" that Sean Boger in the heliport described in preparation for Bush's alleged scheduled visit to the Pentagon on 9/11 was used to set up part of the op.

All we do know is that "Flight 77" couldn't have caused the damage and that speculation lets detractors and the official narrative pushers off the hook and drag the argument off into ambiguous areas and give a platform to ask impossible questions.

The main point that needs to be addressed is how the aircraft allegedly reached that specific area of Route 27 where lightpoles 1 and 2 are and continue that path right through to the facade given what all of the witnesses are on record as saying. End of story.

Posted by: onesliceshort Sep 26 2010, 07:28 PM

Btw, sorry for the rants lately guys.
It's hard keeping a cool head (as we all know) given the frustration everybody must be feeling.

Posted by: Miragememories Sep 27 2010, 08:42 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Sep 24 2010, 10:28 PM) *
Btw, sorry for the rants lately guys.
It's hard keeping a cool head (as we all know) given the frustration everybody must be feeling.

Yes I just visited the "pump*** forum" and can certainly understand your frustration.

They are really blinded by their hate of CIT over there.

Meanwhile I've been leveraging the light poles case at the govt loyalist site as strongly as I can.
http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=156465&page=17

Keep up the good work. Wish I had more time.

I really do not like the "auto-insert" of different wording here when certain unpopular
keywords are entered. I much prefer to speak for myself. Besides, it makes this forum
look bad to do that kind of shit.

MM

Posted by: onesliceshort Sep 27 2010, 09:34 AM

QUOTE (Miragememories @ Sep 27 2010, 02:42 PM) *
Yes I just visited the "pump*** forum" and can certainly understand your frustration.

They are really blinded by their hate of CIT over there.

Meanwhile I've been leveraging the light poles case at the govt loyalist site as strongly as I can.
http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=156465&page=17

Keep up the good work. Wish I had more time.

I really do not like the "auto-insert" of different wording here when certain unpopular
keywords are entered. I much prefer to speak for myself. Besides, it makes this forum
look bad to do that kind of shit.

MM


Saw your posts over at the cesspit MM. Nice work mate!
I see Mackey ran away from a one on one debate with Dwain Deets.
Dwain is a big gentleman and he really seemed to be taken aback at the vitriole and nastiness of the attacks on him and not the argument.

I post there as "Mudlark" on occasion MM.
I see nothing has changed there. "Bigal" still spouting the 100s of witnesses lie and "7000 witnesses" to the "140 tons" of debris.... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: elreb Sep 27 2010, 12:25 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Sep 25 2010, 08:00 PM) *
you are changing lloyde's story. he was very specific and adamant that it was the long part of the pole, not the mast. in an in-person interview*, standing near the cab with lloyde, russel pickering scrutinized the issue, trying to give lloyde an out - like exactly what you're suggesting, that it was the mast - but lloyde steadfastly stuck by his claim that this long ass pole was sticking out of his car, in spite of a 40 foot, 40 to 0 mph skid.
I am both amazed and perplexed at the hostility in General, that this subject brings about and I would rather stay out of it.

If I didn’t know better, one would believe Lloyde England had “Senile Dementia of the Alzheimer Type”.

I do not get the feeling that he has a clue as to what happen. In layman’s terms, he plays the role of an idiot.

Let’s only hypotheses, that something hit his windshield. It seems apparent that it did not penetrate into the vehicle. The driver’s side appears to indicate the impact/bounce off of the lamp and to the passenger’s side, the impact of the mast. In this case, nothing would hit the hood.

If Lloyde’s cab was pre-staged, I wonder how they really busted the windshield and drove it into position. Didn’t I read somewhere that his car was un-drivable?

We do not seem to have witnesses that saw anything that day

If the scene were indeed pre-staged, then it was done in two stages in order to place down the broken pole, mast, lamp and broken glass which appear to have come from the lamp. If this were not a busy clover leaf I would agree that no one would care about several burnt out lamps.

Again, if the poles were taken down that morning then of course no one would report them. If done any time sooner than that morning, should have caught the eye of the regulars. (they were totally missing)

You get the eerie feeling that if any one saw anything and reported it; bought a free ticket to GITMO for water training.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Sep 27 2010, 02:16 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 25 2010, 04:27 PM) *
I guess your right…who would notice 5 DOT lights totally missing at night.

It’s not like it is a busy place

http://www.recycle.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/motorway-at-night.jpg


That 'busy place' isn't the Pentagon's Rt 27.

You should try using the examples from our documentary. Not a digital recreation. You can watch Craig drive with Lloyde at night and see the light poles and light distribution at night.

Frankly your point fails because on the southbound lane, only two poles would be missing at the bridge and another 3 offset from those in the northbound lanes, there would still be more than enough light from the surrounding light poles, the light poles on the loops and next to the bridge. Most importantly, THERE WOULD BE LIGHT FROM THE HEADLIGHTS OF PASSING CARS OR THE CARS DRIVING THROUGH THE TINY DARK SECTIONS THAT WOULD LAST LESS THAN 2-3 SECONDS. No one would notice. No one would notice the section of lights missing. No one would notice VDOT or VDOT-like, or even Pen-Ren sanctioned trucks removing light poles in the months/weeks leading up to the attack. Use your pre-9/11 mind, not your post 9/11 mind where we know light poles had to have been planted.

Posted by: SanderO Sep 27 2010, 03:21 PM

Unless you regularly drive the same route AND are keenly observant you will not notice "road work" unless it is some sort of lane restriction or detour. Many highways don't even have light and lighting as a rule is something we take for granted when it's there and rarely notice when one or two are missing or out.

Messing with these poles would go unnoticed and if it were it could be passed over as normal highway maintenance work without anything actually sinking in.

However, knocked down poles sure does make for some mighty fine evidence of a flight path.

What was the height an actual elevation of the top of those poles in their locations? Were the all "level" ie almost the same elevation? Embankments could markedly make none pole different from another. No?

Posted by: lunk Sep 28 2010, 04:48 AM

The pentagon itself, is in a low spot, i think.
This should mean that the bases of all(?) the light poles,
are slightly higher than the base of the pentagon.
Though i haven't confirmed this.

Also, the Vancouver demolition crew, accidentally(ugh) knocked over,
what appeared to me, to be a smaller light-pole, than the ones at the pentagon.
Though i haven't confirmed this, either.

Posted by: Miragememories Sep 28 2010, 11:03 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 25 2010, 03:25 PM) *
I am both amazed and perplexed at the hostility in General, that this subject brings about and I would rather stay out of it.

If I didn’t know better, one would believe Lloyde England had “Senile Dementia of the Alzheimer Type”.

I do not get the feeling that he has a clue as to what happen. In layman’s terms, he plays the role of an idiot.

Let’s only hypotheses, that something hit his windshield. It seems apparent that it did not penetrate into the vehicle. The driver’s side appears to indicate the impact/bounce off of the lamp and to the passenger’s side, the impact of the mast. In this case, nothing would hit the hood.

If Lloyde’s cab was pre-staged, I wonder how they really busted the windshield and drove it into position. Didn’t I read somewhere that his car was un-drivable?

We do not seem to have witnesses that saw anything that day

If the scene were indeed pre-staged, then it was done in two stages in order to place down the broken pole, mast, lamp and broken glass which appear to have come from the lamp. If this were not a busy clover leaf I would agree that no one would care about several burnt out lamps.

Again, if the poles were taken down that morning then of course no one would report them. If done any time sooner than that morning, should have caught the eye of the regulars. (they were totally missing)

You get the eerie feeling that if any one saw anything and reported it; bought a free ticket to GITMO for water training.


Regardless of whether or not the subject relates to 9/11, just about every story I read that
relates to whistle-blowing ends up badly for the whistle blower.

MM

Posted by: elreb Sep 28 2010, 07:14 PM

QUOTE (Miragememories @ Sep 28 2010, 05:03 AM) *
Regardless of whether or not the subject relates to 9/11, just about every story I read that
relates to whistle-blowing ends up badly for the whistle blower.

MM


I believe you have hit the nail on the head.

Water training is designed to make you forget…not to remember


Posted by: onesliceshort Sep 29 2010, 11:31 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 27 2010, 06:25 PM) *
I am both amazed and perplexed at the hostility in General, that this subject brings about and I would rather stay out of it.

If I didn’t know better, one would believe Lloyde England had “Senile Dementia of the Alzheimer Type”.

I do not get the feeling that he has a clue as to what happen. In layman’s terms, he plays the role of an idiot.

Let’s only hypotheses, that something hit his windshield. It seems apparent that it did not penetrate into the vehicle. The driver’s side appears to indicate the impact/bounce off of the lamp and to the passenger’s side, the impact of the mast. In this case, nothing would hit the hood.

If Lloyde’s cab was pre-staged, I wonder how they really busted the windshield and drove it into position. Didn’t I read somewhere that his car was un-drivable?

We do not seem to have witnesses that saw anything that day

If the scene were indeed pre-staged, then it was done in two stages in order to place down the broken pole, mast, lamp and broken glass which appear to have come from the lamp. If this were not a busy clover leaf I would agree that no one would care about several burnt out lamps.

Again, if the poles were taken down that morning then of course no one would report them. If done any time sooner than that morning, should have caught the eye of the regulars. (they were totally missing)

You get the eerie feeling that if any one saw anything and reported it; bought a free ticket to GITMO for water training.


The following thread..

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9779

provides IMO proof that at a minimum, lightpoles 1 and 2 were manipulated.
And it beggars belief that so many "feds" or security personnel are congregated around Lloyd's "scene" a matter of minutes after the explosion.

Where does the pole shown in the Massaoui trial fit into the equation?



Compared to this...



The curvature is more pronounced and the base is different. (And there's a scrape along the road noticeable in front of the car)

I'ver literally scoured the net looking for images that morning of all obstacles and poles on the NOC path. None are down. So where did what appears to be this "extra" pole come from?



I don't see it in the above mix.

The above thread shows that the poles were moved around. It's also interesting in that it doesn't show the pole through the windscreen. The shots were taken precollapse and before the first fire engines allegedly arrived within "3 minutes" of the explosion.

So within that short timeframe, a 757 allegedly smashed into the Pentagon, yet an exaggerated amount of attention is focussed on the "crime scene" around the bridge and Lloyd's cab?

Not one person saw the pole in Lloyd's cab. Not one person described that specific trajectory to make the damage to the poles possible.

ETA: "Hostility" from whom?

Posted by: elreb Oct 1 2010, 06:59 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Sep 29 2010, 05:31 AM) *
ETA: "Hostility" from whom?


I stated = I am both amazed and perplexed at the hostility” in General”, that this subject brings about and I would rather stay out of it.

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8388&page=22

There can’t be two of you?

I'm sure everyone is in love with Watson?

Posted by: alanj Oct 2 2010, 02:08 AM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Sep 26 2010, 02:58 PM) *
Staging the light poles to be down would have been an extra sideshow not required. Think, why bother as it would not be relevant which approach AA77 came in at.


In answer to your question, CIT quite clearly establish that it was necessary in order to provide evidence of trajectory to corroborate the damage caused internally by the pre-planned explosives. (Sorry Craig and Aldo if I have misrepresented you, but that is what I believe is the conclusion)

One other point, there has been a lot of talk in this thread about who planted the staged light poles, why didn't anybody see them being staged, the physics of plane-meets-pole and so on, but shouldn't the real and most obvious question to answer be "where are all the witnesses who saw one or more of the light poles being hit by the plane?". I would presume if that had actually happened it would have been quite a remarkable and memorable sight but I for one have not heard testimony from a witness. Feel free to put me straight and point me to a link. dunno.gif

Cheers
Alan

Posted by: Ricochet Oct 2 2010, 04:02 AM

Again I say WHY the nessesity to establish a flight path in. The simple answer would be to just have an inpact. Plain and simple. No light poles to explain, no generator impact to explain. Just an impact. Unless they had to quickly come up with implausible answers after the fact. The NORAD tapes show they were not even tracking anything westbound let alone AA77. What impacted came from the east. The tapes clearly show this but no one has looked at this. Question is, at what exact time did the info come in that it was "AA77" that went into the pentagram? How long after 09:30?

Posted by: onesliceshort Oct 2 2010, 05:19 PM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Oct 2 2010, 09:02 AM) *
Again I say WHY the nessesity to establish a flight path in. The simple answer would be to just have an inpact. Plain and simple. No light poles to explain, no generator impact to explain. Just an impact. Unless they had to quickly come up with implausible answers after the fact. The NORAD tapes show they were not even tracking anything westbound let alone AA77. What impacted came from the east. The tapes clearly show this but no one has looked at this. Question is, at what exact time did the info come in that it was "AA77" that went into the pentagram? How long after 09:30?


All we know for sure is that the aircraft didn't fly the directional damage path Ric.

As to the "why", the Pentagon op would have been the riskiest of all the "attacks" that day.
2 towers - collapse - destruction of evidence-
Flight 93 - very isolated location
Pentagon - 5 story structure, very accessible to civilians, surrounded by a complex topography and myriad of obstacles.

I don't think they could risk a real time operation given the gamble and I think it was the easier option to prefabricate the damage.

Would have been a major blow if that aircraft had left a trail of debris (and maybe a lack of passengers) all over Arlington.

2cents

Poster Woody recently made us aware of a report that the so-called "wargame" blips weren't turned off until after 09:30. Doesn't necessarily mean that all "blips" were deactivated.


I think that the first "confirmed report" accepted was that of the C130 pilot. Although he couldn't identify the aircraft tail number, nor did he see the "impact" and was acting on information from Reagan Airport.

QUOTE
At approximately 9:36 A.M., Reagan Airport controllers then vectored an unarmed National Guard C-130H cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to Minnesota, to identify and follow the primary target identified by Dulles TRACON. The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, and attempted to follow its path.

The FAA's Boston Center – which had learned of the unidentified primary radar target tracking eastbound via an FAA conference call line – called NEADS and relayed the report of the aircraft closing in on Washington. The aircraft that still had not been linked with the missing Flight 77. Boston Center told NEADS: "Latest report. Aircraft VFR [Visual Flight Rules] six miles southeast of the White House...Six, southwest. Six, southwest of the White House, deviating away."
http://www.911myths.com/images/3/3b/Staff-report-sept2005.pdf

Posted by: alanj Oct 4 2010, 07:05 PM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Oct 2 2010, 08:02 PM) *
Again I say WHY the nessesity to establish a flight path in.


The release of the "official" black-box data shows a specific flight path at a specific altitude. The damage internally to the Pentagon corroborates that "official" data. In between those two sets of data are light poles that if a plane flew that "official" route it would have to strike.

I see your point that it is to some extent unecessary detail, but maybe the stagers of the event felt it exposed them to too many questions if damage that low to the Pentagon with that trajectory hadn't impacted on the light poles that were obviously in the way. You could argue that Lloyd Englands testimony is also unecssary but it adds another layer of detail on to the "official" narrative to help muddy the waters and turn people away from asking too many awkward questions. Who knows, I'm simply speculating.

What I do see is 5 light poles that were supposed to have been hit by the plane that did the damage, lying neatly on the grass next to the bases that they "fell" off, and I still haven't heard from any witnesses who saw this spectacular event.

But we know why not, because the plane flew an NoC flight path and wasn't anywhere near the light poles,

Cheers,
Alan

Posted by: JackD Oct 4 2010, 07:25 PM

Why stage the light poles and Lloyd's cab?

The crucial element to a psychological operation is to provide an emotional or non-rational reason to believe in whatever the CNN or Pentagon is selling, despite a mountain of factoid evidence to the contrary -- even if its damn good evidence.

Lloyd's cab and the poles were part of that "nonrational reason" and staging -- along with the Priest and Co. -- and Gary Bauer and other PNAC signers who were immediately blogging about their eyewitness experiences and going on TV>

At Pentagon, since there was no plane visible on ground, a reasonable person watching TV might have said "hmm..." but then you show the downed poles, and damaged cab, and the brain says "a HA! there WAS a plane, obviously, it knocked down the poles. Case closed."

even if CIT and others "blow the whole story open" -- it's like proving the Gulf of Tonkin was faked. That doesnt undo the Vietnam war much, does it?

Posted by: SanderO Oct 4 2010, 08:26 PM

Jack,

Turning back the policy initiatives taken in the name of 911 is a mega project and well beyond the scope of investigators.

We don't know that we can even get there, but there are two basic approaches. Fight the policies in place now - which is what the left and peace movements do - they react to policies, or try to get back to the supposed reasons for those policies - which in this case we believe were staged to create fear and define a new enemy, hold those accountable for the "hoax" and then demand that the policies be walked back.

Can we even not have to take our shoes off when boarding a plane? I would hope so, but once these "security measures" are in place it seems too Utopian to remove them as it's a big bad world out there and we need to protect people from them.

Can we end the wars? maybe. Can we bring back the victims of the war? No Maybe pay reparations.

This is a very big project but we need to start by dismantling the hoax and hold those who perpetrated it accountable... first.

Posted by: elreb Oct 4 2010, 08:54 PM

The Gulf of Tonkin is a perfect example of fakery. In this case, only the whales could have done it.

"James Stockdale was one of the U.S. pilots flying overhead during the second alleged attack and wrote I had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets—there were no PT boats there..."

As I originally stated, the poles, generator and cab…are not the issue.

The issue should be…what did not happen.

This alleged War is nothing more than glorified murder and plunder.

Worst yet, our numbers do not seem to be growing…as we go down the drain.

Posted by: KP50 Oct 5 2010, 12:07 AM

QUOTE (JackD @ Oct 5 2010, 12:25 PM) *
Why stage the light poles and Lloyd's cab?

The crucial element to a psychological operation is to provide an emotional or non-rational reason to believe in whatever the CNN or Pentagon is selling, despite a mountain of factoid evidence to the contrary -- even if its damn good evidence.

Lloyd's cab and the poles were part of that "nonrational reason" and staging -- along with the Priest and Co. -- and Gary Bauer and other PNAC signers who were immediately blogging about their eyewitness experiences and going on TV>

At Pentagon, since there was no plane visible on ground, a reasonable person watching TV might have said "hmm..." but then you show the downed poles, and damaged cab, and the brain says "a HA! there WAS a plane, obviously, it knocked down the poles. Case closed."

even if CIT and others "blow the whole story open" -- it's like proving the Gulf of Tonkin was faked. That doesnt undo the Vietnam war much, does it?

Intelligent person hears about "9/11 conspiracies" from friend, friend says "there's no plane wreckage" but intelligent person can quickly Google images of plane wreckage at the Pentagon "So you're telling me that no plane crashed and they faked all the damage and wreckage?". Friend points out CIT's work and the north of Citgo flightpath. Intelligent person finds images of lightpoles downed and maybe taxi cab photos. "So you're telling me they even staged the lightpoles? In broad daylight?" Voila - the truth as we know it becomes so far-fetched to the intelligent person operating under the control of the mass media that he can instantly dismiss it and continue to point and laugh.

Posted by: lunk Oct 6 2010, 11:52 AM

QUOTE (KP50 @ Oct 4 2010, 09:07 PM) *
Intelligent person hears about "9/11 conspiracies" from friend, friend says "there's no plane wreckage" but intelligent person can quickly Google images of plane wreckage at the Pentagon "So you're telling me that no plane crashed and they faked all the damage and wreckage?". Friend points out CIT's work and the north of Citgo flightpath. Intelligent person finds images of lightpoles downed and maybe taxi cab photos. "So you're telling me they even staged the lightpoles? In broad daylight?" Voila - the truth as we know it becomes so far-fetched to the intelligent person operating under the control of the mass media that he can instantly dismiss it and continue to point and laugh.


Exactly.
False flag, planted evidence, misinformation, censorship, etc.

Though, this is only one of their techniques.

Interesting that they used someone with the occupation of a cab driver,
for the human interest part, of the pentagon fable.


Because the scripted minds doing this,
need the apparent support of the many,
to carry out their pre-scripted agenda.

...and, the many, are kept in the dark,
from this prescription...

The revelation, is the remedy.

If everyone could know the agenda,
and see the steps that are being taken,
these elite minded plans, would be railroaded,
and the future will be for the betterment of everybody,
where the non-initiation of force between people,
is fundamental to each.

Posted by: elreb Oct 15 2010, 08:39 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Oct 6 2010, 05:52 AM) *
Because the scripted minds doing this,
need the apparent support of the many,
to carry out their pre-scripted agenda.


Lunk…Is it remotely possible to look at this issue from a fresh perspective or is this a closed minded conversation?

Posted by: JackD Oct 15 2010, 09:36 PM

Fresh perspective is welcome. I cannot say definitively what occurred at the Pentagon -- all I can say definitively is that "if the events at the Pentagon were TRULY limited to actual Flight 77 piloted by a hijacker plunging into building after knocking down light poles"

-- then it would seem very surprising to have to have all these embellishments on the story, to have to hide the video evidence, to not be able to produce plane parts, luggage, etc -- i mean, if the OFFICIAL pentagon OCT is 'true' -- then it shoudl be able to stand on its own.

It doesn't, not even close. Not to say CIT or a NoC is necessarily GOSPEL TRUTH -- but it is not at all surprising that CIT has unearthed a ton of anomalies and contraditions to official account --

one of those Sherlock holmes "after you have eliminated the impossible... " issues.

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 2 2014, 12:21 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Sep 27 2010, 11:25 AM) *
Let’s only hypotheses, that something hit his windshield. It seems apparent that it did not penetrate into the vehicle. The driver’s side appears to indicate the impact/bounce off of the lamp and to the passenger’s side, the impact of the mast. In this case, nothing would hit the hood.



It might seem apparent that it "did not penetrate into the vehicle."
But did you take the time to hear it from the horse's mouth?
Or see it from the horse's car?

CIT paid a visit to Mr. England's house.
Mr. England showed Mr. Ranke his damaged vehicle.
Mr. Ranke saw the torn seat in the back where the pole supposedly penetrated.
The official story and Mr. England's, is that the pole DID penetrate into the vehicle.
That it lodge itself in the back seat!

Of course that is pure bunk.

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 2 2014, 12:30 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Sep 29 2010, 10:31 AM) *
Where does the pole shown in the Massaoui trial fit into the equation?



Compared to this...



The curvature is more pronounced and the base is different. (And there's a scrape along the road noticeable in front of the car)

I'ver literally scoured the net looking for images that morning of all obstacles and poles on the NOC path. None are down. So where did what appears to be this "extra" pole come from?


Oneslice at first that pole did seem rather odd to me too.
If you really put in the time and study the photos really carefully you will notice they all fit perfectly.
There is an optical illusion happening. In the close-up with the white sports car, the pole seems to have a very pronounced curve. That's just because of the photo angle.

It's the same pole as photo showing the pole, cab and Pentagon.

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 2 2014, 12:35 AM

QUOTE (Ricochet @ Sep 25 2010, 09:58 PM) *
Staging the light poles to be down would have been an extra sideshow not required. Think, why bother as it would not be relevant which approach AA77 came in at. Does anyone think of AA11 or UA175? No They just assume you accept the fact it happened.



Very simple answer that no one has mentioned.

The entrance hole and the exit hole in the Pentagon create an angle.
The angle the plane is supposed to have been flying at.
Have you studied geometry?

From the two holes it is possible to work backward, figure out the angle the plane was flying at and the path it had to have flown at to reach the Pentagon.

Think what would have happened if they DIDN'T STAGE THE POLES!!!

Get it?

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 2 2014, 05:22 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 2 2014, 05:30 AM) *
Oneslice at first that pole did seem rather odd to me too.
If you really put in the time and study the photos really carefully you will notice they all fit perfectly.
There is an optical illusion happening. In the close-up with the white sports car, the pole seems to have a very pronounced curve. That's just because of the photo angle.

It's the same pole as photo showing the pole, cab and Pentagon.


Agreed, it's the same pole Mike.


Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)