IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
What Brought Down The Light Poles?, merged

SPreston
post May 28 2008, 09:33 AM
Post #21


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leslie Landry
post May 28 2008, 04:16 PM
Post #22





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post May 29 2008, 12:46 AM
Post #23


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post May 29 2008, 01:05 AM
Post #24





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



...the light poles were just to convince, even further, the myopic sheep that were bleeting... lets go and get em`!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leslie Landry
post May 29 2008, 01:56 AM
Post #25





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



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.

This post has been edited by Leslie Landry: May 29 2008, 01:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newton
post Jun 13 2008, 12:04 AM
Post #26





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 10-March 08
Member No.: 2,904



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Jun 13 2008, 09:22 AM
Post #27


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



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).



This post has been edited by SPreston: Jun 13 2008, 09:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 13 2008, 11:03 AM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jun 13 2008, 11:43 AM
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jun 13 2008, 03:16 PM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jun 13 2008, 06:31 PM
Post #31



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jun 13 2008, 06:42 PM
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Jun 14 2008, 12:28 AM
Post #33


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



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.



This post has been edited by SPreston: Jun 14 2008, 12:52 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 18 2008, 10:56 PM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



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....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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Oct 12 2008, 09:22 PM
Post #35


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 12 2008, 09:33 PM
Post #36



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



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



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
Reason for edit: Improved server link
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aristo
post Oct 13 2008, 01:29 PM
Post #37





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 22-September 08
From: Germany near Munich
Member No.: 3,840



@dMole

This means the wings would be destroyed ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Oct 13 2008, 09:28 PM
Post #38


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



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)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Oct 14 2008, 02:38 PM
Post #39


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



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?s...opic=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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Oct 15 2008, 11:22 AM
Post #40





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



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

This post has been edited by SwingDangler: Oct 15 2008, 11:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd October 2019 - 10:43 AM