Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Location Video Of Pentagon Streets And Highways
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Location > Pentagon
Pages: 1, 2
Craig Ranke CIT
A big part of the Pentagon attack misconception is that "thousands" in the area would be able to see the entire event go down.

Nothing could be farther from the truth primarily due to the complex topography.

In fact there are very few areas at all where you would be able to see the alleged "impact" and most who would be able to see the plane at all would only see it for about a split second.

The flyover would be concealed by the massive fireball and smoke plume as it cranked and banked upriver disguised as normal flight traffic out of Reagan that you can see regularly in the area as well as in the following footage.

CIT brings you to all of the surrounding areas to show you what it looks like for real.

The following series of location shots are invaluable for people trying to get familiar with the area in order to understand how this deception was carried out.


CIT Jettin' Crosstown

Cruise down Columbia Pike to Route 27 northbound and then back south on Route 27 again.
Part 1


Here we bring you on 395 to 27 northbound regular and HOV lanes, 395 to DC via 14th Street Bridge, and 110 south to Crystal City in front of the DoubleTree Hotel.
Part 2


Take a look at the view on 395 south on the 14th St. Bridge from DC, GW Pkwy south to the Pentagon lagoon, GW Pkwy north to Rosslyn, around the Navy Annex, and some amazing footage from the Air Force Memorial.
Part 3

(admins feel free to embed)
Aldo Marquis CIT
We see what's happenin'
We might start bustin'
We spell it out for you
If you talk it live it.


Too perfect.
Aldo Marquis CIT
My camera work around the area was shaky at times and had to be inconspicuous, that's why I tried to keep it low.

Remember also, that this is supposed to simulate people looking straight ahead and then being attracted to a fireball with the possibility of seeing a plane flying away.

If you noticed at the air force memorial, the do not enter sign and the light poles were visible. Imagine that thing pulling up over that into an ascent and still hitting the first floor. thumbdown.gif
behind
When I look at the videos, location of the Pentagon and the area around, then it is astonishing how low Pentagon sits. It is so absurd for a huge plane to hit the first floor travelling 530 mph, that to me that alone rules out the official story.
georgie101






Interesting view points. Thanks for making these.
SPreston
Very enlightening videos. Thank you Aldo and Craig.

QUOTE
CIT brings you to all of the surrounding areas to show you what it looks like for real.

The following series of location shots are invaluable for people trying to get familiar with the area in order to understand how this deception was carried out.


CIT Jettin' Crosstown

Cruise down Columbia Pike to Route 27 northbound and then back south on Route 27 again.
Part 1


Here we bring you on 395 to 27 northbound regular and HOV lanes, 395 to DC via 14th Street Bridge, and 110 south to Crystal City in front of the DoubleTree Hotel.
Part 2


Take a look at the view on 395 south on the 14th St. Bridge from DC, GW Pkwy south to the Pentagon lagoon, GW Pkwy north to Rosslyn, around the Navy Annex, and some amazing footage from the Air Force Memorial. 
Part 3
QUOTE (behind)
When I look at the videos, location of the Pentagon and the area around, then it is astonishing how low Pentagon sits. It is so absurd for a huge plane to hit the first floor travelling 530 mph, that to me that alone rules out the official story.


Yes I agree. A preposterous fantasy tale for people who think for themselves.
Craig Ranke CIT
Here are a bunch of rather relevant location images.


Best view of Pentagon and flight path from Arlington Cemetery. (where Keith Wheelhouse claims he was)








It would be impossible to see the alleged impact at all, doubtful he could see the plane on the official flight path at all, and he would have only seen the plane on the north side flight path for about a second as it banked over the navy annex.

He claims he saw the plane for about 60 seconds with a C-130 shadowing it and that the C-130 banked away just after the Sheraton (which you can only see the very top of).
Craig Ranke CIT
I snuck around behind he storage buildings at Arlington Cemetery and got these awesome shots of the CITGO, Pentagon, and bridge.











Craig Ranke CIT
And here are some shots from up on the Air Force memorial:






CITGO is behind the trees:



Craig Ranke CIT
Some great bridge shots:










Pole 1 and 2 approaching on right:


Pole 2:


Pole 1:
JackD
all of those light poles seem to have straight vertical base-to-tops.

why is the pole next to lloyd's cab curved -- if only a few degrees of curvature?>

did it come from a different area?
was the Virginia DOT using a different model in 2001?

Or (*cough) was that PentaPole never actually part of the Rt 27 infrastructure?

I am brainstorming here, people....
SPreston
Great photos Craig. This is my favorite photo. Just imagine a 757 swooping down at 530 mph and clipping the tops of those bridge light poles and the other three further down and somehow miraculously preserving its wings and engines, and pulling up and leveling off just above ground level in order to match the almost level flight of the poorly faked security videos, and then smacking into the Pentagon 1st floor somehow between the undamaged cable spools and the 2nd story floor slab. Somehow, this official Hani Hanjour super-pilot is handling the 757 like a stunt plane, easily countering the tremendous ground effects of the large aircraft at 530 official mph just a few feet off the ground. Amazing. Preposterous. Impossible. laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Since your shot was taken from above the Pentagon roof in elevation, it appears those 40' bridge light pole lamps are above the 4th story windows in elevation. So the 757 Flight 77 which never happened had to drop down about 40' after hitting the bridge light poles #1 and #2 before leveling off to match the flight path shown in the much maligned security videos. Ridiculous. rolleyes.gif

SPreston
QUOTE (JackD)
all of those light poles seem to have straight vertical base-to-tops.

why is the pole next to lloyd's cab curved -- if only a few degrees of curvature?>

did it come from a different area?
was the Virginia DOT using a different model in 2001?

Or (*cough) was that PentaPole never actually part of the Rt 27 infrastructure?

I am brainstorming here, people....

It is obvious from the photos that they used the exact same style of light poles as replacements, and likely in exactly the same spots to maintain the engineered lighting effects. The old bases were probably dug up out of the ground and new ones installed. The main poles look perfectly straight. But Lloyd's pole is perfectly curved and not straight at all.

That beautifully curved #1 light pole seen by Lloyd's taxi was obviously planted there and the entire scene staged to NeoCON the American people into accepting the LIE that a 757 Flight 77 piloted by commercial aircraft superpilot but abject Cessna failure Hani Hanjour actually flew into the Pentagon. Unfortunately most boob tube addicted Americans are easily fooled.

Pole 1 and 2 approaching on right. Pole 2 this side of the bridge overpass and pole 1 on the other side:

Pole 1 on south side of bridge overpass with standard truss arm and light fixture and main pole perfectly straight

Alleged #1 light pole which allegedly went through the windshield, which looks to be bent in a large mechanical tube bender

Mechanical hydraulic tubing and pipe benders - It would be a simple matter to bend a straight 1/8" wall thickness
10"/6" diameter aluminum light pole into the shape of Lloyd's pole in a hydraulic bending press
Just wrap it in cloth to prevent marring and scratching and bend it slightly to no certain specs
No big deal - the American people are easily CONned

Pipe bending presses
JackD
If the Lloyd PentaPole was indeed curved, it happened (IMHO) as an intentional
result of manufacture process.

As outrageous as it sounds, I don't think that pole was of the same design as
the other ones shown standing along Rt 27.

Here's one pole not struck:



here's a downed pole (don't know which pole#)



compare to lloyd's curved PentaPole.

Why do the downed poles not match the upright poles?
was lloyd's pole in fact provided from some other source?
Omega892R09
QUOTE (SPreston @ Nov 17 2007, 10:03 AM)
Mechanical hydraulic tubing and pipe benders - It would be a simple matter to bend a straight 1/8" wall thickness
10"/6" diameter aluminum light pole into the shape of Lloyd's pole in a hydraulic bending press
Just wrap it in cloth to prevent marring and scratching and bend it slightly to no certain specs

Except that to avoid necking, or crimping, one needs to fill the tube with something. I have bent tube work for aircraft systems; fuel, oil, air, oxygen, hydraulics and pitot-static lines. We had a number of methods including filling with sand, inserting a metal coil which could be extracted afterwards or use a metal alloy which had a melting point below that of boiling water – Cerabend – which was run out after bending by re-heating in boiling water.

This of course rules out the bend being the result of damage from an aircraft collision where it would have necked as it bent. Or have I missed the point.

I once used some Cerabend to copy spoons used in the ‘coffee boat’, rest room to you guys perhaps, and then watch the astonished look on faces as folk stirred their coffee and found themselves holding only the tip of the handle the rest having vanished, well melted to the bottom of the mug. :ph43r:
Omega892R09
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 11 2007, 02:17 PM)
The flyover would be concealed by the massive fireball and smoke plume as it cranked and banked upriver disguised as normal flight traffic out of Reagan that you can see regularly in the area as well as in the following footage.

CIT Jettin' Crosstown

Cruise down Columbia Pike to Route 27 northbound and then back south on Route 27 again.
Part 1

Very interesting, but as I have never been there I will have to look up a road map of the area.

But it certainly looks like the Germans seen in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts9lSnghLgA&feature=related

a link to which is currently on the same page as your first video sequence,

have missed out considerations of the area's topography.

They also indicate that a damaged turbofan would create white smoke, as seen in one the few Official released shots. It would not as clearly described in Eric Huffsmidt's Painfull Deceptions - Addendum.

See:

http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

for download links to that and much more.
UnderTow
QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Nov 19 2007, 01:05 PM)
They also indicate that a damaged turbofan would create white smoke

I see people say this but can not find evidence for such.

What say you?
Craig Ranke CIT
Omega892R09,

It's not our fault that LC put out inaccurate information.

In fact we warned them before they released 2nd edition about the bunk Karl Schwartz JT8D claims but they included it anyway.

That german video does not address the light poles or the impossibility of Lloyd's account or the north side claim.

I can guarantee you that they could not fly the plane on the north side of of the gas station and still line up with the physical damage.

This proves a deception and is valid, accurate evidence.

We do not base any of our claims on the bunk info put out by LC.
Craig Ranke CIT
Nobody has claimed that it's impossible to hit the Pentagon in general.

The flight simulation they did is completely irrelevant.

They would need to simulate the plane perfectly matching up with the physical damage and hit the light poles for it to support the official story.

They did nothing of the sort.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 19 2007, 01:27 PM)
The flight simulation they did is completely irrelevant.

They would need to simulate the plane perfectly matching up with the physical damage and hit the light poles for it to support the official story.

They did nothing of the sort.

Not to mention they did not specify speed. They would have to disable the crash logic in the sim to produce the speeds reported in the FDR. Crash logic kicks in a few knots above Vmo and the screen goes red while the sim freezes. Imagine that, disabling the crash logic in a sim which is telling you that the aircraft cannot fly above those speeds without tearing itself apart. If they didnt disable the crash logic, then they werent flying at the reported speeds which makes it alot easier to hit the building.

A good interview regarding sim reproduction of the hits on the WTC is here for those interested...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78
UnderTow
I like how they use a map showing the down river north approach, but X it out and draw in some other flight path.

And I think he was too high for the light poles on all 3 trys. tongue.gif
Omega892R09
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 19 2007, 01:44 PM)
Not to mention they did not specify speed. They would have to disable the crash logic in the sim to produce the speeds reported in the FDR. Crash logic kicks in a few knots above Vmo and the screen goes red while the sim freezes. Imagine that, disabling the crash logic in a sim which is telling you that the aircraft cannot fly above those speeds without tearing itself apart.

Although I am not a pilot I know where you are coming from having been in the RN's FAA and worked with F4 Phantoms amongst other heavy metal (and flown in a few so am aware of flight envelope limits). Besides I know about turning off crash logic in a sim' 'cause in MS Flight Sim I can throw an F4 all over the place in that state but can make it fall apart very quickly once above 600 knots with CL on.

BTW I am not attempting to throw a spanner in the works here I was only trying to gauge thoughts about LC and JT8D and I guess I have those now. Thanks.

As I suspected JT8D paid no attention to topography and infrastructure.
Omega892R09
QUOTE (UnderTow @ Nov 19 2007, 01:13 PM)
QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Nov 19 2007, 01:05 PM)
They also indicate that a damaged turbofan would create white smoke

I see people say this but can not find evidence for such.

What say you?

I say no, white smoke could be symptomatic of combustion chamber carbon burn off, say from the burner nozzles, but would not be expected from a catastrophically damaged turbofan which would have been the result of such impact with a generator as depicted. Black smoke from improperly combusting fuel being fed through a broken fuel system would be expected.

But what has been going on here? I have just revisited that ‘Pentagon Attack Analysis (Zembla)' video sequence and the discussion about this has vanished. I must be going nuts here.
rivers
Craig, I sent you a PM about it 3 days ago: is there any chance to look at this picture set in native resolution?
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (rivers @ Nov 22 2007, 12:47 PM)
Craig, I sent you a PM about it 3 days ago: is there any chance to look at this picture set in native resolution?

Really?

I never got it.

I would have to email them to you.

Send me an email at lytetrip@yahoo.com with links to the images you want the most and I'll send you the high resolution versions.

Right click for "copy link location" or the links for the images are displayed in this thread:

http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread314576/pg1
Craig Ranke CIT
Hey Ashoka,

How about getting me approved to post over at Farmer's 84 RADES forum?
rivers
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 22 2007, 01:22 PM)
QUOTE (rivers @ Nov 22 2007, 12:47 PM)
Craig, I sent you a PM about it 3 days ago: is there any chance to look at this picture set in native resolution?

Really?

I never got it.

I would have to email them to you.

Send me an email at lytetrip@yahoo.com with links to the images you want the most and I'll send you the high resolution versions.

Right click for "copy link location" or the links for the images are displayed in this thread:

http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread314576/pg1

I sent the mail 2 days ago whistle.gif
Craig Ranke CIT
Ok done.

Sorry man I got back from out of town late Monday.
rivers
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 29 2007, 12:22 AM)
Ok done.

Sorry man I got back from out of town late Monday.

Thanks for pics Craig!
Destinova
Watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QgUdMCZ5ik
SPreston
QUOTE (Destinova)

What a crock of crap!!!!! This video shows no such thing. You need special Bush OCT goggles and a warped NeoCON imagination to see that. Where is the other hotel video which the hotel employees were watching? Where are the rest of the FBI confiscated 85+ videos around the Pentagon which most assuredly show them and the Secret Service staging the light pole and Lloyd England Lincoln taxicab fiasco and the explosions at and inside the Pentagon and the planting of other pieces of faked evidence at the crime scene? laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

OCT goggles provided by Halliburton at maximum cost to taxpayer suckers
..
Destinova
It's right, you can't see a airplane on the video.
You also didn't see it on all other released tapes.

But still it's a good different view on this tape and should leave you thoughtfully. While everyone talks about a spot from the upper right fly to the left and missing people and all other anomalies caused by the bad quality of this video or because the video is edit and so on and so on...
Many of us getting to much focused on those things.

But obvious we're all looking for something that hit the Pentagon on ground level.

Then wouldn't it make sense to watch the ground level too if something hit a building on the ground?

IMO this is a substantial contribution.

to_keep_order.gif
Craig Ranke CIT
The analysis is incorrect because the "opening" he is referring to has no view of the flight path.

We drive right up to that area at the end of CIT Jettin' Crosstown Part 2.



As you can see there are actually 3 overpasses:


It's impossible to see the flight path or the plane at all from the ground level of the DoubleTree which is where the released camera view is.

Here is the actual camera:



This is the problem when people who have never been to the area try to analyze things without enough data to be accurate.
Destinova
And that's why I love the efforts you exhibit here.

handsdown.gif
Craig Ranke CIT
QUOTE (Destinova @ Dec 2 2007, 08:58 PM)
And that's why I love the efforts you exhibit here.

handsdown.gif

Cool thanks!

If nothing else we want to get people to understand the importance of on site investigation.

Scrutinizing actual points of view is key particularly in regards to the Pentagon attack.
kaz
When is the Interstate Freeway Camera which had a clear of whatever flew over it going to be released?
nonflier
And why no followup on the bent (rounded) style light pole? That wasn't even mentioned as far as I remember in even the updated (2008, 2010) CIT videos dealing with Lloyd and his cab. That pole style mismatch looks like a really good lead to revive if no one ever followed through on it. (unless it's covered in another thread I haven't seen yet) Are there any of the rounded/bent style on the Pentagon property or some other government site nearby?
Aldo Marquis CIT
It is the same pole in all the pictures.
nonflier
So if I have this correct, it was just a regular straight pole that was supposedly bent into that gentle arc by the impact rather than being cut or pinched off like the others that were supposedly knocked down. I just don't see a wing causing that nice smooth arcing bend with no visible crushing of the pole at the impact point. But I guess this little detail doesn't matter anyway, since overall it seems to have been a staged scene. Thanks for replying.
NP1Mike
QUOTE (nonflier @ Jan 23 2014, 03:50 PM) *
So if I have this correct, it was just a regular straight pole that was supposedly bent into that gentle arc by the impact rather than being cut or pinched off like the others that were supposedly knocked down. I just don't see a wing causing that nice smooth arcing bend with no visible crushing of the pole at the impact point. But I guess this little detail doesn't matter anyway, since overall it seems to have been a staged scene. Thanks for replying.



No, you are quite right nonflier. This is huge!

I was going to address this in the Lloyd England thread but since it was brought up in this thread as early as 2007 it makes sense to post it right here.

People can talk and argue, go in circles until they are blue in the face about whether this or that witness's testimony is credible etc. (NOC vs. SOC etc.)

However, people can not dispute rock solid hard evidence.

The perps made two fatal errors with the light poles that blow the official story right out of the water.
These were absolute blunders that never should have seen the light of day, they are two smoking guns that reveal the attempted cover-up by the perps.

One was the scratch in the road made by dragging the pole from its hiding place into its position.

Lloyd does not say they removed the pole, carried it to the side of the road, then changed their mind and decided to drag it back in front of the car.
He says they removed the pole and it was so heavy that he fell down under the pole (the lightest part too)
on the ground. He says the man then left in his van.
There would have been no scratch on the ground at this point.

Are we to believe that Lloyd subsequently lifted the 247 lb pole by himself, carried it to the side of the road, put the base down and then dragged it back in front of his car???

The second and probably most important fatal error was planting the wrong style of light poles!

All of the standing poles' main arm on 9/11 and after, were completely straight as an arrow.
The poles that were planted had main arms with arches in them!

This was either an oversight that the perps missed entirely or something they figured no one would notice and make an issue of.
paranoia
the curvature (i.e. "arch") seen in this pic (taken by jason ingersoll):


(see: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa...ight_poles.html )

-is very likely a visual distortion due to the camera. the actual pole did not have such a defined and long curve in it:





that is not to say that it wasnt staged, but the curved appearance in that one photo can not be cited as evidence of it. there are multiple physical clues in the photos of the poles and bases that indicate they were manipulated and not damaged by impact with a plane at 500+ mph, but the best evidence is the confirmed eyewitness testimony that places the plane elsewhere.

NP1Mike
QUOTE (paranoia @ Mar 24 2014, 05:07 PM) *
the curvature (i.e. "arch") seen in this pic (taken by jason ingersoll):

-is very likely a visual distortion due to the camera. the actual pole did not have such a defined and long curve in it:

that is not to say that it wasnt staged, but the curved appearance in that one photo can not be cited as evidence of it. there are multiple physical clues in the photos of the poles and bases that indicate they were manipulated and not damaged by impact with a plane at 500+ mph, but the best evidence is the confirmed eyewitness testimony that places the plane elsewhere.



Paranoia I am not making my statement that the poles were curved based on that first photo you point to.
I know that the angle and perspective is exaggerating the curve in that photo.

However in the other photos you posted and the photos of the other poles that were 'knocked down', we can see the similar curvature.

The poles should not have had any curvature!

A plane traveling at 5 mph, 50 mph or 500 mph will not cause a straight pole to have such curvature.
The pole might bend, snap/break, pinch slightly etc. but it won't take on a perfectly smooth gradual curve that we see in multiple photos.

They either planted the 'wrong' poles or did a job on them thinking that curves would make it look like they were hit.

I agree that there are many other clues in the photos that show the poles were manipulated etc. .
And I agree that the NOC eyewitness testimony is rock solid powerful evidence.
That testimony also forms the bedrock of the flyover posit.

However I still maintain that genuine photos of physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimonies in terms of 'best possible evidence' to convince a potential jury etc.

For every NOC witness I believe there is (or the government could get) at least one SOC witness.









WhisperingWnd
QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Mar 24 2014, 07:30 PM) *
However in the other photos you posted and the photos of the other poles that were 'knocked down', we can see the similar curvature.

The poles should not have had any curvature!


highway light poles have a long curved arm extending out from a very tall pole needed to adequately light the area. I haven't checked his other photos but here is a quick example of the poles around the pentagon. obviously the pole impaled through the cab window wasn't the tall pole itself, it was the arm of that pole.

NP1Mike
QUOTE (WhisperingWnd @ Mar 24 2014, 11:58 PM) *
...highway light poles have a long curved arm extending out from a very tall pole needed to adequately light the area. I haven't checked his other photos but here is a quick example of the poles around the pentagon. obviously the pole impaled through the cab window wasn't the tall pole itself, it was the arm of that pole.



Good of you to join the discussion WW.
You will need to do just a bit more homework though.

The pole that supposedly impaled the cab window WAS the tall pole!
Look at the photos more carefully.
You will see the base still attached to it.
WhisperingWnd
ok well what do we have here http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=9918&view=findpost&p=10326461
this appears to show poles 1 and 2 on a two lane highway - 3 if you count the oncoming lane .

this photo shows the cab next to the stones on the bridge
of this 2 lane highway.



this location of the cab is totally different with a definitive lane next top the cab and a totally different base on the light pole

at least one of these photos is undoubtedly staged.

so mike I guess we are both right.





NP1Mike
I don't know what you've been smokin' WW, but whatever it is, it doesn't help you think straight.


QUOTE (WhisperingWnd @ Mar 25 2014, 01:20 PM) *
ok well what do we have here http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=9918&view=findpost&p=10326461
this appears to show poles 1 and 2 on a two lane highway - 3 if you count the oncoming lane .


What do we have here?
We have photos that were taken five or six years after the fact, of poles that could have been imported from Mars!

QUOTE
this photo shows the cab next to the stones on the bridge[/font] of this 2 lane highway.



this location of the cab is totally different with a definitive lane next top the cab and a totally different base on the light pole

at least one of these photos is undoubtedly staged.


You need to get out of the house a bit WW and look at the world from different perspectives. smile.gif
Then you would be able to see that the two photos above were taken of the same cab, the same pole and the same highway. Just from different perspectives.

QUOTE
so mike I guess we are both right.


No, you guessed wrong. whistle.gif


WhisperingWnd
QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Mar 25 2014, 04:06 PM) *
I don't know what you've been smokin' WW, but whatever it is, it doesn't help you think straight.




What do we have here?
We have photos that were taken five or six years after the fact, of poles that could have been imported from Mars!



You need to get out of the house a bit WW and look at the world from different perspectives. smile.gif
Then you would be able to see that the two photos above were taken of the same cab, the same pole and the same highway. Just from different perspectives.



No, you guessed wrong. whistle.gif



Obviously in your quest to make me look foolish mike, you have totally misread my post.

pay attention, I put in a link of a particular post in this thread. Follow that link and you will perhaps begin to connect the dots mike. Additionally get over yourself.
maybe some prescription eyeglasses will help your vision as well.
NP1Mike
QUOTE (WhisperingWnd @ Mar 25 2014, 08:24 PM) *
Obviously in your quest to make me look foolish mike, you have totally misread my post.

pay attention, I put in a link of a particular post in this thread. Follow that link and you will perhaps begin to connect the dots mike. Additionally get over yourself.
maybe some prescription eyeglasses will help your vision as well.


Oh I followed that link alright WW, and I connected the dots.
You still must be smokin' some heavy duty stuff!

If you've got something to say, then come right out and say it so everyone can try to understand what's going on in your head.

WhisperingWnd
QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Mar 25 2014, 09:30 PM) *
Oh I followed that link alright WW, and I connected the dots.
You still must be smokin' some heavy duty stuff!

If you've got something to say, then come right out and say it so everyone can try to understand what's going on in your head.


mike one of these poles has a very ornate base, the other pole's base is plain and boxy.

You are saying its the same pole, ok. I won't believe my lying eyes.
handsdown.gif
NP1Mike
QUOTE (WhisperingWnd @ Mar 25 2014, 08:40 PM) *
mike one of these poles has a very ornate base, the other pole's base is plain and boxy.

You are saying its the same pole, ok. I won't believe my lying eyes.
handsdown.gif


The "plain and boxy" base has shadow covering most of it!

You can't see the "ornate" stuff inside because of the shadow!

It's the same pole. Different angle. Different shadows.
Trust me WW.
Or better still, get the opinion of others at the site.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.