First things first: What Hit the Lightpoles?!

Whenever I analyze an issues I always go to the source, or I go thru it in a chain of events. With the Pentagon incident there's neverending fascination and doubts about what did the damage, and this focus seems to be set on the building. This is of little surprise, because if we focus on the lightpoles it becomes difficult to have much doubts. The 'new' E4-B "Doomsday Plane" is surely rekindling peoples attention to all of the old remote controlled this's and that's, but perhaps we should cool our jets for a moment...

Here I'm hoping we can focus soley on the lightpoles.
The fact is that something did something to them.
I've yet to see anyone anywhere explain this to satisfaction that has a higher probabilty than what we were told.
Forget the rest, for now. Solve the lightpole 'mystery', otherwise it's irrational and futile to declare anything about the rest.

I can't see what else on earth could have done the damage to them. Remember that this happened in broad daylight during rush hour traffic.

It goes that if you can prove something false then you don't necessarily have to prove what did it for it to be false. Well surely, after all of these years, somebody has at least proven the jet hypothesis false with some sort of mathematical - engineering analysis of the plane being able to do that to them without the wings falling off immediatetly, etc. Unless it can't be proven false?

If it can't be proven false, then it's absolutely futile and counterproductive to proceed much further in attempting to convince anybody that there was a 9/11 "Conspiracy" with the Pentagon damage as the proof.

This isn't a "Debunker" post, in fact I see opportunity for an even more powerful argument against "Them" if it could actually be proven that the plane did hit the building: They intentionally behaved in manners to fuel diversionary divide & conquer conspiracy theories to prevent "Actionable Consensus" issues from gaining and maintaining front and center attention. Perspective (1st & last pages)

Some lightpole photos:






[edit on 22-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

This discussion has a section in the "Pentacon" forums, but keep this one in here so both places can gather info and we can meet in the middle... I too, personally, would love to see this mystery solved. Therefore, we can get REALLY close to knowing how things happened.

I don't know ignotbliss. I just don't know. I have a particular pic burned into my head of a near spherical hole of about 20 by 40 ft with firetruck first responders and no grass rugburn or aircraft debris. My lean is towards a cruise missile still, but what the heck do I know. I can say this with probable certainty it wasn't a 767.

Is it just me, or does the position of the taxi cab look strange to anyone? I'm trying to picture how the cab would end up sideways and still manage to get hit by a pole, hard enough to smash the windshield and the driver-side window...

Originally posted by jpm1602
I don't know ignotbliss. I just don't know. I have a particular pic burned into my head of a near spherical hole of about 20 by 40 ft with firetruck first responders and no grass rugburn or aircraft debris. My lean is towards a cruise missile still, but what the heck do I know. I can say this with probable certainty it wasn't a 767.

Sorry, I just have to... holes cannot be spherical. They can be circular but this one was not - more rectangular, about 90 feet wide on floor 1, and a section on the second floor about 16x16 feet. You don't have to burn anything into anything, but a quick Gogle image search should show you what I mean. The tiny hole thing is a persistent deception.
And it was a 757 that supposedly did this, so I agree there's no good reason to suspect a 767.

But I digress. I second looking at the PentaCon thread on this Big Moser started.
thread
But there's not much there yet. Craig finds evidence they were cut with a welding torch. The same pictures and a few more and some thoughts.

There's a way to map this out if you have proper altitude info, 40-foot pole height, and correct placement. We can deduce a narrow range of headings, and even narrower ranges of altitude, descent angle, and bank. This I started to do... Too much work.It will not match what's in the FDR, as others have shown (best guess - it's old data stored from a few seconds earlier).

The base of pole 1 I've determined to be about 50 feet msl - the prominent curve starts... how far up? How much of the top is missing? Compare that to pole 2's (undeterminable? Any good pics?) impact height and you have altitude and bank of the plane or planne fakery.

I don't think we'll resolve this here. Almost anything that can be done with a 757 can be faked, theoretically. And since "all witnesses" saw the plane north of the Citgo, in some minds anyway, around round we go.

Common sense is commoner than it seems here if not common enough so don't despair! The real world is smarter than this.

[edit on 23-9-2007 by Caustic Logic]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Dear IgnoranceIsntBliss,

Nor is knowledge, which can at times be very dangerous.

Nonetheless, and with respect, great post. Thank you for all the time and work it must have taken. I esspecially like the threads connection :-)

The more that is learned about what actually happened before, during and since 911 is creating a vacuum into which this government's credibility is qucikly disappearing.

To my mind, it can not happen soon enough.

What stood out to me abou the poles in those pictures; they appear to be slighty bent or bowed. They also look like something held them at both ends and then twisted or worried them apart.


cheers...

Very important thread IIB.

Focusing attention on the light poles is key to this crime.

But it's also important to let go of the natural tendency to think that they were really knocked down at the time of the attack.

All the evidence points to them being staged in advance.

1. The plane was on the north side of the station too far to hit the light poles.



2. The cab driver's account has been proven to be a fabrication and is physically impossible anyway.
details regarding cab driver account here.


Some missile proponents have suggested the "shockwave" of the missile could have knocked them down but the damage to the poles is inconsistent with this particularly pole number 5 where you can see the ends are literally pinched:





And then there is the question of how uniform the damage is to the base of pole 4.



These are cast aluminum "breakaway" bases:



I would think the damage from a sudden force would be more random like this pole from the same area that was downed by wind:



Instead it was perfectly uniform and you can even see soot on it as if from a torch:



The only logical conclusion is that the poles were removed in advance (perhaps even days or weeks before the event) and the pre-fabricated damaged ones were placed off to the side the night before.

4 out of the 5 wouldn't have been necessarily noticed by traffic while pole one could have been pulled from the shoulder or dropped from a truck minutes after the event when the Feds got on the scene and blocked traffic.

This image was taken at 9:49. The cab is in place but the Feds haven't surrounded him yet and it looks like the pole has not yet been placed:


closeup:


And then at 9:52 they had the scene surrounded, traffic blocked, and the pole placed:

The Jeep Cherokee and the white car are both FBI so you can see how they were blocking the scene from the view of people on the other side of traffic and how they could pretty much easily do whatever they wanted over there and people would be none the wiser in all the chaos.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Great post. Interesting... the timeline with the cab. I knew right from the OP that the cab looked suspicious.

Star.

I hate to slightly disagree, but I believe that the likley scenario is that the poles were blown, at the moment that the attack took place, and they were felled by charges placed in or on them. Look at where the steel is crimped over, only a charge could do that, not being struck by a planes wing of fuselage.

It is not plausible for the lights to lay on the side on the street for days..someone would notice, highway crews would have noted any obstructions of that type laying on the roadway or close by. No, they were standing until the fake path had to be created so the real attacking craft would be seen at the same time as the large craft that overflew the Pentagon; it was sleight of hand on a grand scale; at those speeds the human eye cannot grasp it all in perspective and hardly any account from that day was reliable.

There were explosive charges placed on those poles and that is apparent to me now. No other way to explain it; not hard to do, a remote sensor tripped at the right moment and you have corroborating evidence to back up your story of a particular flight path. They have already been caught lying about the altitudes and pressure info and now this.

I agree that this is critically important evidence and is another smoking gun if proven. Has there ever been any testing of the poles for explosive reside, and if not, why not? Oh, of course, we all know that a giant airliner knocked them all down before disintegrating in the Pentagon,,,sorry, I forgot..but seriously folks, this needs to be examined and pushed and figured out.If it can be shown that the poles were dropped it all falls apart.

That makes it important.

By the way, the picture above does NOT have the proper perspective to be able to see the pole. It could well be laying just beyond the view we see; it is too far from the cab to be seen in that pic if it is there.

I still think the likeliest scenario is blowing them when it happens. And those pics are not wide enough to show that the poles are not there, it is close but cut off before the area where the poles would be...can't decide based on that pic.

But for sure the poles were NOT hit by anything flying, as that would have resulted in pieces of airplane falling on the spot and that didn't happen. Airplanes going aleged 500 mph shower debris when hit by anything matallic. No way. Poles were dropped by explosives.

Here is one more thing to think about when you look at the light poles:
If they were thrown over with such force that some of them ended up several feet from their mounts, why are none of the poles partially buried? Let me get this straight. Several 500 pound light poles get knocked over at 500mph and the now sharp and jagged ends rest gently on the top of nice lawn with no scarring.

Jon

I think the thing that bothers me mostly about the poles is supposedly the 757 hit them, which would have cause massive damage to wing leading edges, and while also fighting ground effect still managed to hit the pentagon without hitting the ground first.

That is some flying...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Very important thread IIB.

Focusing attention on the light poles is key to this crime.

Dig.

1. The plane was on the north side of the station too far to hit the light poles.

I'm not trying to poopoo your work, but I find it very alarming having PENTAGON Police being the primary ones throwing out such a staunch contradiction. Also the timing of their coming forward seemed almost too perfect as it seemed that Pentagon discussion in general was fizzling out.

I'm not ruling them out as being part of an intentional diversionary disinfo psyop just yet. Were you guys able to find any background records of them being 'enlisted' prior to 9/11 and that interview? They could be establishment shills in uniform sowing the seeds of confusion + divide & conquer.

2. The cab driver's account has been proven to be a fabrication and is physically impossible anyway.
details regarding cab driver account here.

The main argument seem's to be that it was impossible based on the other witnesses placement of the plane.

Ok, entertaining that thought:
What put the hole in the windshield?
The glass seemed to be deformed in a shape consistent with a pole entering from that side.
Maybe they made sure to elevate the pole as they removed it to not scratch the car and do further damage? His interview didn't contradct that possibility, just left it somewhat fuzzy.
The lamp could have been severed off and happened to land there.

Moving on:
I'm not sure it's an argument, but I'm not too concerned about the way he ended up stopping as I'm sure he would have locked up the breaks with the pole dynamics influencing the cars trajectory.

-"Changing account":
Where did that text quote come from?

-Claims he didnt hear an explosion:
He seemed to have cleared that part up at the end. Remember that memories are physical structures in the brain. Perhaps most importantly we memorize in approximations. If you don't use or "excite" memories/mindsets/etc they tend to fade. Now if you experienced the same exact scenario several days in a row you'd probably never forget a detail. So my point is that if if hardly ever puts any thought into his eperience the raw details are bound to fade away. This is the nature of the human brain. That's why you see him closing his eyes and looking about as his brain is tryng to reactivate these old brain elements. So don't be too hard on him if he's forgotten specific details, details from a moment of his life when he was 'jacked up' on adrenaline (aka "shock").

One more point, for fairness, Willie Rodriguez's story has changed and grown more dramatic over the years: Should we dismiss him too as government disinfo agent?

-Scratch in the ground:
That's interesting. Do you have a nice photo that's in better view than in Google Video?
Have you tried Kneson Imagener? It's HLS/police photo enlargment software. Here's a functioning demo that I think they took down from the site. You can't save but you can printscreen and paste it into paint etc to get your piece:
us.f13.yahoofs.com...

Lloyd England:
"This aerolane flew over the top of my car," ... "and when it did fly over..."
"When I did stop the car, there was no noise."

Hmm.

pole number 5 where you can see the ends are literally pinched:

Ok, so what pinched them? Those are some pretty fancy machines to prefab that sort of damage.

When Lloyd said his wife was FBI I found that interesting: I entertained the idea that perhaps he's disinfo... but then I realized how much more incredible it is to try to explain that it was all a setup... and somehow they timed it with him (a simple taxi driver since the 50's) being there at the 'exact' moment this plane would fly over.

And then there is the question of how uniform the damage is to the base of pole 4.

Instead it was perfectly uniform and you can even see soot on it as if from a torch:

How do we know that the non-9/11 base wasn't hit by a car? Are there good shots of any of the other 9/11 bases?

Now that "soot" is striking. You could have something there, or it could be lighting effects from the metal being bent/stressed. Any other shots of that base from different angles?
Assuming those aren't Kneson Imagener enlargements, can you blow us up some new shots using that software?

Also, does anybody know what happened to these poles (crime scene evidence).

The only logical conclusion is that the poles were removed in advance (perhaps even days or weeks before the event) and the pre-fabricated damaged ones were placed off to the side the night before.

4 out of the 5 wouldn't have been necessarily noticed by traffic while pole one could have been pulled from the shoulder or dropped from a truck minutes after the event when the Feds got on the scene and blocked traffic.

I wouldn't go saying only just yet.

I mean the hole and everything else Pentagon is incredible, but this is heading for the deepend. Probably 1000's of cars would have driven by it that day and that certainly increases the odds that we might have heard something from someone.

In any case, I don't see how it's rock solid enough to go making absolutist statements, but I am a stickler lol

EDIT: So then how many people were involved in planting lightpoles, AND spraying parts all over the lawn, and so on?
911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...
upload.wikimedia.org...
Please nobody derail the thread with these expanding points. I'm just trying to get some probability established.

This image was taken at 9:49. The cab is in place but the Feds haven't surrounded him yet and it looks like the pole has not yet been placed:

And then at 9:52 they had the scene surrounded, traffic blocked, and the pole placed:

Look a the bush to gain the LOS. At that angle the electrial box is blocking the view of the poles 'location' on the guard rail.

One thing I noticed from your fancy flight path image is how the majority of the fire damage is on the side beyond the impact hole, which happens to support the "official angle". I don't have your image but this one is close:


And the damage to those poles is consistent with this image from some other non-9/11 plane clipping (from your forums sister thread):
www.cosmicpenguin.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

I've seen hurricane damage to monster sized poles on the side of the highway in Punta Gorda, from Hurricane Charlie. They probably had different bases but anyways they were bent just above the base but like in that photo above. Bent all the way to the ground they were. I think I may have tried getting photos while driving but I dont recall if they worked and my pc's and hardrives are total chaos from lightning zapping my main MB's (still have my data!!!). Stuck using a coworkers machine limited-style so I can't offer too much choice image etc work.



BTW: Having been down there, did you guys get any photos showing more of these cameras??



[edit on 23-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by eyewitness86
But for sure the poles were NOT hit by anything flying, as that would have resulted in pieces of airplane falling on the spot and that didn't happen. Airplanes going aleged 500 mph shower debris when hit by anything matallic. No way. Poles were dropped by explosives.

That's mainly what I was referring to about "has anybody PROVEN" etc in my OP.

Do we at least have examples of Boeing jets losing their wings from hitting poles? I'm not talking about little GHWB private jets. The speed factors are important too.

I'm guessing that there was about 2-4 seconds between the poles and the Pentagon impact, going by the official flight path/story.

Using Imagener I found smoke trails from the Pentagon security booth cameras:




Now I'm not convinced that those video weren't doctored, but to say they are a total fabrication is another story which only decreases the probability of the "CT" view.

Anyways, here's my complete thread with tons of image analysis on those:
Police Photo Enhancement software reveals Pentagon 'phantom' anomaly, smoketrails & more



[edit on 23-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by eyewitness86
I hate to slightly disagree, but I believe that the likley scenario is that the poles were blown, at the moment that the attack took place, and they were felled by charges placed in or on them. Look at where the steel is crimped over, only a charge could do that, not being struck by a planes wing of fuselage.

Huh?

You think this was caused by explosives?






I can't fathom how you could come to such a conclusion.

And while I will concede that it's not definitive that the pole was not planted yet in that one image.......

The notion that Lloyd's hood remained undamaged in the context of the story he tells is utterly ludicrous.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm not trying to poopoo your work, but I find it very alarming having PENTAGON Police being the primary ones throwing out such a staunch contradiction. Also the timing of their coming forward seemed almost too perfect as it seemed that Pentagon discussion in general was fizzling out.

I'm not ruling them out as being part of an intentional diversionary disinfo psyop just yet. Were you guys able to find any background records of them being 'enlisted' prior to 9/11 and that interview? They could be establishment shills in uniform sowing the seeds of confusion + divide & conquer.

The cops merely corroborate the north side claim. Our first two north side witnesses are good old working class civilians previously unpublished by the media that we found on our own by canvassing the neighborhood.

Edward Paik



Robert Turcios




We were originally suspect of Lagasse and Brooks too because Brooks had said he saw the light poles get clipped (he cleared up that he did NOT see them get hit after all to us on camera) and Lagasse contradicted himself about the "wing vortices".

But after we interviewed them and they ADMITTED they had innocently embellished their accounts and in light of Paik and Turcios' accounts we we have no reason to suggest that this evidence that proves the plane did not hit the building is a hoax.

2. The cab driver's account has been proven to be a fabrication and is physically impossible anyway.
details regarding cab driver account here.

The main argument seem's to be that it was impossible based on the other witnesses placement of the plane.

That is important yes but the main argument is the notion that Lloyd's hood wouldn't have remained unscratched with a pole that long and heavy entering his car like he describes.

Ok, entertaining that thought:
What put the hole in the windshield?
The glass seemed to be deformed in a shape consistent with a pole entering from that side.
Maybe they made sure to elevate the pole as they removed it to not scratch the car and do further damage? His interview didn't contradct that possibility, just left it somewhat fuzzy.
The lamp could have been severed off and happened to land there.

Creating that damage would be quite easy and could have been done many ways. Damage was likely pre-fabbed and the car either driven like that or towed to it's location by a regular car or SUV with a hitch. He specifically says that he fell down while removing the pole so the "being careful" not to scratch it notion goes out the window with that. Plus it doesn't matter. If the car came to a stop with a pole that long and heavy sticking out over the hood that was forced into a vehicle traveling 40mph+ by a 757 that was traveling 500mph+ there would be damage to the hood. The car would have had to skid to a stop with the pole inside of it.

Moving on:
I'm not sure it's an argument, but I'm not too concerned about the way he ended up stopping as I'm sure he would have locked up the breaks with the pole dynamics influencing the cars trajectory.

How about the fact that there are no skid marks?

-"Changing account":
Where did that text quote come from?

I'm not sure what you are talking about here unless you are referring to our assertion that Lloyd no longer referred to an "explosion" as something he heard causing him to fall down while removing the pole.

-Claims he didnt hear an explosion:
He seemed to have cleared that part up at the end. Remember that memories are physical structures in the brain. Perhaps most importantly we memorize in approximations. If you don't use or "excite" memories/mindsets/etc they tend to fade. Now if you experienced the same exact scenario several days in a row you'd probably never forget a detail. So my point is that if if hardly ever puts any thought into his eperience the raw details are bound to fade away. This is the nature of the human brain. That's why you see him closing his eyes and looking about as his brain is tryng to reactivate these old brain elements. So don't be too hard on him if he's forgotten specific details, details from a moment of his life when he was 'jacked up' on adrenaline (aka "shock").

You missed the point. He has stuck to the script since day one other than the notion that it was an explosion that caused him to fall down while removing the pole. He has now changed that to being the bent top part of the pole flipped over causing him to fall. On ALL other accounts he came to a stop, instantly removed the pole from his car with help from a silent stranger, and fell down in the process. These critical details have not changed so there are no "memory" issues because this has been his story since day one. These are rather specific details and it's clear that this is the story that he is sticking to.

One more point, for fairness, Willie Rodriguez's story has changed and grown more dramatic over the years: Should we dismiss him too as government disinfo agent?

Nope. Irrelevant analogy. Lloyd is a KEY witness in support of the official story, with an account that is dubious on many levels, and is NOT supported by other witnesses (NOBODY reports watching his cab get struck by the pole). Willie's account has never supported the official story, is not dubious, and is fully supported by multiple witnesses including Felipe David who is the guy that came up from the basement with skin hanging from him as a result of the explosions. Plus the dubious details in Lloyd's account have NOT changed. He has stuck to his script since day one despite the fact that it is physically ridiculous.

-Scratch in the ground:
That's interesting. Do you have a nice photo that's in better view than in Google Video?
Have you tried Kneson Imagener? It's HLS/police photo enlargment software. Here's a functioning demo that I think they took down from the site. You can't save but you can printscreen and paste it into paint etc to get your piece:
us.f13.yahoofs.com...

That is one of the more famous Ingersoll shots:

Lloyd England:
"This aerolane flew over the top of my car," ... "and when it did fly over..."
"When I did stop the car, there was no noise."

Hmm.

Talking points.

pole number 5 where you can see the ends are literally pinched:

Ok, so what pinched them? Those are some pretty fancy machines to prefab that sort of damage.

Fancy? Too fancy for the Pentagon? How about one of these?




What does it matter what they used or how "fancy" it is? The suspects in question had unlimited time, money, and access to unknown technology so I'm sure they could have handled pre-fabricating the damage to these poles.

When Lloyd said his wife was FBI I found that interesting: I entertained the idea that perhaps he's disinfo... but then I realized how much more incredible it is to try to explain that it was all a setup... and somehow they timed it with him (a simple taxi driver since the 50's) being there at the 'exact' moment this plane would fly over.

You are not paying attention or making sense here.

1. Why would it be difficult for the people involved to synchronize their watches?

2. Lloyd and his cab were likely placed there a couple minutes after the event when they had blocked off traffic and were controlling the situation.

How do we know that the non-9/11 base wasn't hit by a car? Are there good shots of any of the other 9/11 bases?

What does it matter if it was? A sudden force would cause random damage to the breakaway base regardless. Not uniform symmetrical damage with soot. Not all bases have damage like this but this one does.

Now that "soot" is striking. You could have something there, or it could be lighting effects from the metal being bent/stressed. Any other shots of that base from different angles?
Assuming those aren't Kneson Imagener enlargements, can you blow us up some new shots using that software?

Also, does anybody know what happened to these poles (crime scene evidence).

Give me your email and I'll send you the high resolution original so you can blow it up yourself but here is the series of images taken 9/29/2001 by Jason Ingersoll.






So while all plane debris and video of the event was quickly swept away never to be seen again this "crime scene evidence" was laying around for 3 weeks for plenty of photo ops.

We were told by people at the VDOT that after being collected, the poles sat in their yard and unceremoniously went out with the regular quarterly recycle pick-up and that the the FBI did not not bother ask for them or come and inspect them even once.

Here is the VDOT yard and my examination of the same style poles in 2006:
www.youtube.com...

The only logical conclusion is that the poles were removed in advance (perhaps even days or weeks before the event) and the pre-fabricated damaged ones were placed off to the side the night before.

4 out of the 5 wouldn't have been necessarily noticed by traffic while pole one could have been pulled from the shoulder or dropped from a truck minutes after the event when the Feds got on the scene and blocked traffic.

I wouldn't go saying only just yet.

I mean the hole and everything else Pentagon is incredible, but this is heading for the deepend. Probably 1000's of cars would have driven by it that day and that certainly increases the odds that we might have heard something from someone.

In any case, I don't see how it's rock solid enough to go making absolutist statements, but I am a stickler lol

In light of the total body of evidence it is.

Nobody would notice poles hidden off to on the side of the road and even if they did they would think nothing of it. Even if they WERE suspicious about poles on the side of the road what do you think would happen if they called it in to the police or FBI?

Obviously nothing.

In all the chaos of that day the light poles weren't even considered.

Even most people in the truth movement aren't aware of the light poles TODAY!

Noticing a pole on the side of a busy highway pre-9/11 would not have caused a single bit of alarm and the chances that anyone would put it together after the fact are slim to none.

EDIT: So then how many people were involved in planting lightpoles, AND spraying parts all over the lawn, and so on?
911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...
upload.wikimedia.org...
Please nobody derail the thread with these expanding points. I'm just trying to get some probability established.

How many? 5 or 10? Who knows or cares? How many people would it take to rig the WTC for demolition?

Yes there were lots of people involved in this complex psychological operation of deception.

Yes some of them would seem like they are unlikely participants such as Lloyd England. Or would you go so far as to suggest that a priest could be involved?

I know it's hard to put regular faces to this heinous operation but even the most demented serial killers often blend into society.

Look a the bush to gain the LOS. At that angle the electrial box is blocking the view of the poles 'location' on the guard rail.

Perhaps. I don't claim this to be definitive. If the pole was already there then it was planted in the 10 minutes prior.

One thing I noticed from your fancy flight path image is how the majority of the fire damage is on the side beyond the impact hole, which happens to support the "official angle". I don't have your image but this one is close:


And the damage to those poles is consistent with this image from some other non-9/11 plane clipping (from your forums sister thread):
www.cosmicpenguin.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

I've seen hurricane damage to monster sized poles on the side of the highway in Punta Gorda, from Hurricane Charlie. They probably had different bases but anyways they were bent just above the base but like in that photo above. Bent all the way to the ground they were. I think I may have tried getting photos while driving but I dont recall if they worked and my pc's and hardrives are total chaos from lightning zapping my main MB's (still have my data!!!). Stuck using a coworkers machine limited-style so I can't offer too much choice image etc work.

I'm really not following you with any of this. The damage was created to simulate the flight path.

BTW: Having been down there, did you guys get any photos showing more of these cameras??

Check out this thread for all the information we have on the security cameras.

Oh and this one is important too.

Now stop making such long replies!

Now we have an interesting thread indeed. Maybe worth a mod intervention to fix the graphics and over-quoting graphics to get back to workable width?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'm not trying to poopoo your work, but I find it very alarming having PENTAGON Police being the primary ones throwing out such a staunch contradiction. Also the timing of their coming forward seemed almost too perfect as it seemed that Pentagon discussion in general was fizzling out.

I'm not ruling them out as being part of an intentional diversionary disinfo psyop just yet. Were you guys able to find any background records of them being 'enlisted' prior to 9/11 and that interview? They could be establishment shills in uniform sowing the seeds of confusion + divide & conquer.

Dig. This isn't the place to delve, but this type of observation doesn't get anough air. It's really distressing how much weight CIT is putting on all this without much deep thought about underlying motives of their witnesses. No problem calling dozens of others liars. Maybe not dozens yet, but if they keep paning for northnuggets with video interviews, you'll keep finding more and more "lliars."

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The cops merely corroborate the north side claim. Our first two north side witnesses are good old working class civilians previously unpublished by the media that we found on our own by canvassing the neighborhood.

I thought Turcios was nudged your may by someone while you were over there with Dylan and Russ et al?

And anyway Lagasse was first. Whether you knew or not at the time, he was saying northside since 2003, as you now point out. This was a side-point to his wrangles with Dick Eastman over... passionately denying flyover theories. Now, his testimony is being pushed as PROOF of an Eastman-connected flyover. And he's silent. No lawsuits or retraction videos. Is the PentaCon simply that good that he's seen the light and his balls have dropped so he's standig by the truth now? He seemed half-there already in the interview, debunking your route 27 witnesses already, etc. He just hadn't done the math yet, I guess?

Sorry nothing to add on the light poles other than this "why are we even looking at this?" moment.


[edit on 24-9-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Dig. This isn't the place to delve, but this type of observation doesn't get anough air. It's really distressing how much weight CIT is putting on all this without much deep thought about underlying motives of their witnesses. No problem calling dozens of others liars. Maybe not dozens yet, but if they keep paning for northnuggets with video interviews, you'll keep finding more and more "lliars."

Oh that's it Adam Larson. You should know better than to challenge me. The gloves are now off. I will address this frivolous attack sentence by sentence since it is so intellectually dishonest.

>>>>>It's really distressing how much weight CIT is putting on all this without much deep thought about underlying motives of their witnesses.

Who are YOU to tell ME how much "deep thought" I have put into their "underlying motives"? Why are you ignoring my reply to IIB? ALL previously published accounts are suspect until confirmed or refuted. This is our approach. We fully suspected Lagasse and Brooks before we interviewed them and I already explained why to IIB so re-read my reply. But listen to your hypocritical charge. What witness accounts do YOU consider suspect Adam Larson? Out with it. As far as I can tell the only ones you question are the Citgo witnesses because they fatally contradict the official story. What does that say about YOU? To you all witnesses are assumed valid unless they prove the official story incorrect. How is that the least bit logical for ANYONE who believes 9/11 was an inside job? Yet you have the GALL to suggest that my approach is "distressing"?

Outrageous.


>>>>>>>No problem calling dozens of others liars. Maybe not dozens yet, but if they keep paning for northnuggets with video interviews, you'll keep finding more and more "lliars."


Listen to you blatantly correct yourself AS you spew this garbage! What are you even talking about? This is a completely baseless and flat out attack. What do you think you are doing here? What are you talking about? We lay out heavily researched facts and back them up with evidence and let the chips fall where they may. If it exposes people so be it but we leave that to the viewer to decide. We believe that most witnesses are honest people who were genuinely fooled but refrain from final determination until we can confirm their accounts first-hand. Only a handful of them were likely plants. What's "distressing" is you FAKING like you are fighting for 9/11 truth while primarily attacking people in the movement and publishing convoluted, ignorant, inaccurate, complex blogs to neutralize and obfuscate the questions.

You are becoming more and more transparent and your blogs are less and less effective.

I thought Turcios was nudged your may by someone while you were over there with Dylan and Russ et al?

Huh? Your sentence doesn't even make sense. Turcios was not present when Dylan, Russ, Aldo, and I first heard about his account from his manager. What this means is that Turcios' account is CONFIRMED by his own manager who was also present on 9/11. Do you really think he would have been mistaken about where the plane flew on the day of the event or lied to his own manager with no motive whatsoever? The fact that Edward Paik and the police officers and the two NEW north side witnesses back them up speaks to all of their honesty.

What is this "nudging" you are referring to? Why are you continuously throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick?

We followed up over the phone with Turcios and confirmed with him direct what his manager had told us about his account in person. He saw the plane on the north side. This is when he VOLUNTEERED the information about the "pull up" over route 27. So I started booking the return trip and made some calls to all other known citgo witnesses so I could confirm or refute Turcios' claim and get it all on video. The rest is literally world history.

And anyway Lagasse was first. Whether you knew or not at the time, he was saying northside since 2003, as you now point out. This was a side-point to his wrangles with Dick Eastman over... passionately denying flyover theories. Now, his testimony is being pushed as PROOF of an Eastman-connected flyover. And he's silent. No lawsuits or retraction videos. Is the PentaCon simply that good that he's seen the light and his balls have dropped so he's standig by the truth now? He seemed half-there already in the interview, debunking your route 27 witnesses already, etc. He just hadn't done the math yet, I guess?

Done the math? What are you talking about? Your condescending tone and disgusting baseless insinuations are enraging me and I am doing my best to make sure I don't get banned here.

Yes we knew about Lagasse's emails with Eastman but we had personally TALKED with Turcios first. This is what put US on the north side path and inspired US to get a hold of Lagasse and Brooks. Unlike you we only present information that we have personally confirmed. We do not automatically trust reports from media OR other researchers so as far as we were concerned Lagasse's previous claim of being on the "starboard" side of the craft was worthless until confirmed direct. Well we got the direct confirmation and brought it back for you and the rest of the world.

And you better clean up your cowardly insinuations about Lagasse. Either come right out with your accusations like a man or back off. Lagasse was talking about witnesses traveling SOUTHBOUND on 27 being blocked by the trees. There are only a few witnesses reported traveling that direction including Lloyd and Steve Riskis. Clearly Lagasse and Brooks were UNAWARE of the implications of what they saw which is the only reason they talked to us in the first place. They thought they were supporting the official story.

Lagasse has not posted any retractions because he stands by his claim and he has said that we were honest in our presentation. We have had some dialog with him privately since the release of The PentaCon where he has told us this. No doubt he is quite nervous now that he understands the implications of what he witnessed as is Brooks.

We do not claim that THEY believe in a "flyover theory" and we did not edit out where they talk about the alleged impact so why would they post retractions?

The fact they are cops is hardly enough to indict them as disinfo agents and the fact the north side claim is corroborated by ALL confirmed witnesses and directly refuted by none (confirmed or not) works strongly in their favor.

The fact that the ONLY witnesses you are willing to imply are "in on it" happen to prove the official story false speaks VOLUMES as to your intentions and motives.

Sorry nothing to add on the light poles other than this "why are we even looking at this?" moment.

Uh huh. Then stay out of thread all together unless you plan to post more concessions, retractions, and apologies as you should. However you are certainly welcome to come to the PentaCon forum with your weaselly attacks any time where I will instantly put you in your place as usual.

To bring the thread back on topic after CL's sad attempt to derail.....

They had the perfect excuse for securing the area so they could plant the poles. They could have easily blocked the bike path/sidewalk that allows people past where the poles would be laid out in advance...

Heliport Firefighter Alan Wallace:

“Our first helicopter flight was around 10 AM. But we were expecting President George W. Bush to land in Marine One around 12 Noon, returning from Jacksonville, Florida. (He had actually left from the Pentagon the day before.) Needless to say, neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day because of the terrorist attacks.”

That means Bush left on 9/10 and was supposed to return on 9/11. That means SS/"Security" would be on the lawn the night/day before "securing" the area. That means they would put up blockades and cones, blocking the walkway leading up to the area where the poles were planted.

This would be quite normal behavior for this area since it is the Pentagon and would cause no reason for concern or suspicion.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
But for sure the poles were NOT hit by anything flying, as that would have resulted in pieces of airplane falling on the spot and that didn't happen. Airplanes going aleged 500 mph shower debris when hit by anything matallic. No way. Poles were dropped by explosives.

Well here's one piece that supposedly came off after hitting a pole, and it's in the Smithsonian! You can read the official story here



A problem for me arose when I inquired with Mr. Yeingst of the Smithsonian as to what they did to actually verify that it was indeed a piece of flight 77. . . THEY ONLY TOOK HER WORD FOR IT! They actually got a bit belligerant when I questioned their methods of authentication & asked if I was suggesting that NO-PLANE hit the Pentagon!

They did not check with Boeing, they did not check out anything to verify it's authenticity!!! They just put it proudly on display.

AND- If you didn't read the Penny Elgas account of how she got it & feel it to be a bit suspect on the official webpage, then check this out!

If it is really a piece of flight 77 then I believe it is a small part of the wing faring. This would be located on the lower part of the wing, and the rivet holes seem to line up.



Believe it, or not. . .

2PacSade-