I apologize about cluttering up the forum with a trivial question but couldn't find a good thread to ask it.

Since it certainly appears that the Pentagon light poles were staged would the power to the poles have to be turned off while they were disassembled? And if so, who would be the ones tasked with that? The power company? DOT? Also, would those records still exist and be subject to a FOI request?

Thanks

Probably speculation at this point as to whether or not they absolutely had to be turned off, and if so, whether or not it absolutely had to have been done from a central location. It's possible that there is some way to turn them off on the spot in case of emergency. If it did have to be turned off at a central location my guess is that it would be the Virginia DOT. As far as I know they have denied having any records pertaining to these light poles, including their locations (which are nevertheless documented by the photographic evidence).





More here:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa..._plane_hit.html

See also:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa...ight_poles.html
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa..._real_time.html
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=464

Perhaps someone else knows some details that I don't on this.

Back when I owned and built Corvettes, I would go to Daytona, Sebring, Indy and the Gator Nationals.

I saw a lot of “Far Out” wrecks and accidents…even helped clean them up…

Whoever pre-bent them thar “light pole”…sure knew what they were doing…

You don’t think the Virginia DOT gave them some old poles?

Thanks elreb. Been all over the CIT site...powerful stuff. Appreciate your 2cts.

I was thinking about light pole #4...when I saw this…and wondered how you might remove it from its base.



And this one and how one might put glass on the road way…

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/3392114.bin?size=620x400

These are good too...

another point to add to the poles and noise of "jet" etc is
does anyone know if there was one car accident that day?

with traffic going 50+ and a screaming jet and poles
boomeranging about wouldnt there have been hundreds
of rear ending and deaths going on????

One very unusual, unacknowledged and totally ignored image is this one.


Source.

The car was allegedly driving Northbound beside the Pentagon, so it couldn't have been a "lightpole".
Just what the hell could have caused that particular type of damage? Downward, from a steep angle and height?

It certainly wasn't a "plane part" and the rubble dispersed on the roadway were described as "pebble size".
So what "caused" it?

It looks more like the work of a firefighter "jaws of life". To me.

I personally believe that this was meant to be a Lloyd England Mark 2 event that had to be abandoned.
Nothing else makes sense.




eta by admin (paranoia) - link to original source for the pic:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/courtneyplatt...57605942072722/

OSS this is outstanding...

Pole #4 north bound, passenger side…

Are you trying to say pole 4 made that damage to the steel of the car, but didnt make a mark on the lawn? Away from the Northbound lane?



Looks to me rather like a piece of concrete from the building wall shot like a cannon from the explosion.

I’m not drawing any conclusion…just yet.

I do wonder how these poles were pre-damaged so well…

In the following images, I see pole #4 in two pieces and missing the lamp, indicating parts went flying.

On the base I wonder about the “Unistrut” and what they were used for. The bottom appears to have been torched off. Is it possible that the “Service Patrol” cut this base down?

And pole #5 appears to have hit something with a lot of force. Pole #5 appears to have had a secondary impact…compared to its top .

On any account…the poles were moved from their original location because an official investigation was never going to happen…

Not a chance Elreb as Rob has pointed out.
Passenger side, Northbound is in fact a complete contradiction to the lightpole "damage".
That cardoor has been subject to an exceptional downward force.

The fact that the car was "swept under the rug" and not spammed by both government and loyalists alike speaks volumes. The same guy who allegedly photographed it was allegedly responsible for this image which is claimed to be an "actuator" from "Flight 77" and used to point to an "impact" on every loyalist site/blog.:



Why not the car? Why was the driver not interviewed? Why didn't he make a claim as Lloyd England has?

Only one pole "flew" from it's original spot. Pole 3.

QUOTE

On the base I wonder about the “Unistrut” and what they were used for. The bottom appears to have been torched off. Is it possible that the “Service Patrol” cut this base down?

It appears to be soldered around the entire length. I don't see the point in the "service patrol" cutting the base down.

QUOTE

And pole #5 appears to have hit something with a lot of force. Pole #5 appears to have had a secondary impact…compared to its top

Given the apparent force with which they were "struck", to the point of being physically ripped apart, how could the poles have remained within a few feet of their original positions? Particularly lightpoles 1 and 3 which, according to the official path were "struck" by the [b]wingtip?





Lightpole 4's base can be seen. Lightpole 1 was caught on camera within minutes of the explosion, as was lightpole 5.

Even if you look at the height at which the poles were allegedly struck, the aircraft would have had to descend a few feet over two-thirds of the distance between lightpoles 1 and 2 to lightpoles 3 and 4, THEN drop immediately to just above the lawn before it appeared on the "5 frames" (0.1-0.2 seconds) and line up with the alleged "point of imact" through the first floor.

1) The aircraft was seen entering Route 27 in a different area and from a different trajectory.

2) That area along Route 27 was like a worksite that morning. Mounds of dirt and concrete.



More at this site:

http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2006/11/t...re-erected.html

3) (i)The driver of the cab that was allegedly "speared" by lightpole 1 denies he was where he was photographed.

(ii) Lightpole 2, of which there are no images except obscure glimpses would have been no problem to stage:



(iii) lightpoles 4 and 5 were allegedly struck and lay behind the roadside barriers.

(iv) Sean Boger, in the heliport, described a "dog and pony show" of secret service guys taking over that area the day before and that very morning for the arrival of George Bush.

It was a totally controlled scene both before and after the explosion. What's incredible is that certain people cry incredulity at the staging of this scene given all of the events of 9/11!

They certainly weren't struck by the aircraft given that it was nowhere near them.

Elreb, the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, so it did not hit any of the poles including pole#4:

I’m starting to see the confusion and that is…we are speaking two different languages.

This is not about decoy 77, flight paths or even airplanes at that rate…it is about pre-bending and pre-staging downed light poles.

Say for example, we hired Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage and took them to the operationally closed…23,000 acre NAS Cecil Field in Jacksonville Florida. Their mission is to investigate possible methods of damaging light pole to make them appear to be real.

Part of that mission is to hit and destroy actual light poles in order to determine how parts and pieces would fly and land so that our crew in DC would have creditable data to duplicate. They could go so far as to even set up a test Taxi cab or car to bash.

I would “Hypothesis” that the Pentagon light poles were the actual light poles that belonged there…

Or were they some other pre-bent “test” poles brought in.?

Maybe Jamie and Adam invented some wild “Batman” Boomerang toy…that was quickly picked up by the agents after the fact.

I'd have to search for the images but it's a bit late here.



Lightpole 1 (the alleged "cab pole") is a weird shape. It is bent at the top, but beyond that bend, it has been ripped off. I can't understand the "physics" of it. We can see lightpoles 3 and 4 for example are "snapped" (looking like the damage the "jaws of life" would inflict on metal.
Yet lightpole 1, if it had been struck, is ripped beyond the point it was allegedly struck, but not like 3 and 4. It is barely indented like an "open wound" and separated beyond the "stress point".

It is totally amazing at the things you find on Google image search.

Where do they get these ideas from?

http://exodus2006.com/missile2.htm

Some researchers have thought that the two videos released by the U.S. Department of Defense in May 2006 confirmed the hypothesis of a missile strike on the pentagon.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/videos

For example:

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/index.html

But the only really important question is whether these videos show Flight 77. If what the U.S. government says is the truth the two images below show the same object. Is this really the case?

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/rocketlight.jpg

http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displayp...r=1&kind=PC

In my opinion, it is very likely that technical means of image analysis could prove that these two images do not show the same object.

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

I notice that this image contained in the first of two videos released in May 2006 has not been communicated to "the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)" which was commissioned by the U.S. government to make an investigation concerning the attack on the pentagon. Both videos have not been communicated to ASCE. Only some images of the second video. In particular this image for which the "ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report" says:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/fli...bpr_fig3pt3.jpg

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

« A Pentagon security camera located near the northwest corner of the building recorded the aircraft as it approached the building. Five photographs (figures 3.3 through 3.7), taken approximately one second apart, show the approaching aircraft and the ensuing fireball associated with the initial impact.The first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image of the aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon.Two photographs (figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken »

The dimensions of a Boeing 757 - 200. See:

http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family...pf_200tech.html

The length notably is 155 ft 3 in. There are some questions that arise :

First question: If a Boeing 757-223 is in the image, the fuselage of the plane should be more visible? For example, as in this picture:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8081/sbdcctvplanebs3.gif

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/video.html

Second question. Is the tail of the plane seen in the image is that of a Boeing 757?

http://clintjcl.files.wordpress.com/2006/0...video.gif?w=510

I read in this link:

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/index.html

« It is impossible that the triangular shape seen protruding above the yellow box in the Pentagon security video could be the tail fin of an airplane. For a start, no genuine airplane tail fin is pointed in that manner ­­­— all have an upper edge which is parallel to the principal axis and which is several feet long. Moreover, for an object travelling at, say, 500mph (800km/h), the fin would have moved about 12 feet in the duration of a single video frame (1/60th second exposure), hence would appear to be some 15 feet long. It must be remembered that the camera was static and was not tracking the object. At Mach 2 the fin would appear to be 40 feet long in any one frame of video. Whatever its appearance, it would not display a sharp point at the top such as we see in the Pentagon security video frame. »

Third question. According to the study "Integrated Consultants, Inc.." The large plume of white smoke visible in the picture would have appeared after the plane hit the Lamp pole 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

"Lamp pole 3 is struck, causing luminary to enter starboard engine intake

lamp pole 4 is struck, smoke begins to billow from damaged engine. »

« there is less that 800 feet of distance between the #3 light pole and the Pentagon wall. »

http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread420711/pg3

Therefore the distance between the lamp pole 3 and the aircraft position in the image is approximately 480 feet. ( The plane is at approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon):

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/fr...ntagon1_big.jpg

The speed of the aircraft: Officially 781 feet per second.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

The large plume of white smoke would have appeared in only 0.61 seconds after the plane had hit the lamp pole 3. Is this possible?

Another anomaly reported by "SPreston"would be the fact that the white smoke disappears too quickly after the plane had struck the pentagon. See: “Why Did The Alleged Heavy Smoke Trail From Flt 77, Immediately Disappear From Both Videos and Stills? »

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15585

Tit2 France