The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.

But why bother knocking down a bunch of lightposts to support a phony flightpath that could be contradicted by eyewitnesses so easily? It doesn't make sense. Perhaps a plan that went wrong? Perhaps the lightpoles had to be removed to allow the plane to enter the proximity of the pentagon at that level without making it flip out, but the plane ended up coming in at the wrong angle anyhow? Perhaps this also points toward using some kind of powered tools instead of explosives to clip the outer frame of the wtc to allow the planes to enter.

reply to post by Insolubrious


So they could more readily explain it away to people who saw it fly over the building as a "2nd plane".

The 2nd plane cover story was absolutely critical to the the operation.

Watch this presentation for details:

Google Video Link

In response to the alleged light pole witnesses.....

We have spoken with many of them direct and they all admitted that they only saw the poles on the ground AFTER the fact and put 2 and 2 together.

Simply mentioning the poles does not mean they are actually claiming they SAW the plane hit the poles.

A comprehensive break-down of all previously published witnesses who merely mention the light poles in their account is available in this thread.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

So they could more readily explain it away to people who saw it fly over the building as a "2nd plane".

The 2nd plane cover story was absolutely critical to the the operation.

There is no evidence of any second plane, a cover story, or any other plane other than the one that hit the Pentagon: AA77.

posted by Insolubrious
But why bother knocking down a bunch of lightposts to support a phony flightpath that could be contradicted by eyewitnesses so easily? It doesn't make sense. Perhaps a plan that went wrong? Perhaps the lightpoles had to be removed to allow the plane to enter the proximity of the pentagon at that level without making it flip out, but the plane ended up coming in at the wrong angle anyhow?

You are arguing from incredulity which is a complete waste of time. We cannot read the minds of the 9-11 planners. We cannot explain why they did the things they did. We do not know the intelligence levels of the idiots they chose to stage their frauds.

No, it could not have been a plan that went wrong because the light poles had to be staged in advance before the decoy aircraft reached the Naval Annex. Staging the light poles had to be part of the initial plan. I cannot imagine why Usama bin Laden nor Khalid Sheikh Mohammed nor Mohammed Atta nor the 19 alleged 'hijackers' would decide they needed to stage the light poles. Can you? The five standing light poles had to be removed before the explosion at the Pentagon wall because there would have been too many eyes watching a crane truck taking down five 337 pound light poles in broad daylight.

There is not one single person in the entire world (besides Lloyde England) who saw the light pole knocked towards the taxicab by a 535 mph 90 ton aircraft. There is not one single person in the entire world (besides Lloyde England) who saw the light pole sticking out of the taxicab windshield, nor is there one single person in the entire world (besides Lloyde England) who saw the light pole removed from the taxicab windshield by Lloyde and another person.

There are no videos of the light pole hurtling towards the taxicab windshield, nor sticking out of the windshield, nor being removed from the windshield, or the FBI would have released them. There are no videos nor photos nor eyewitnesses to the light pole through the windshield because it never happened. It is as simple as that.

Never happened

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
In response to the alleged light pole witnesses.....

We have spoken with many of them direct and they all admitted that they only saw the poles on the ground AFTER the fact and put 2 and 2 together.

Simply mentioning the poles does not mean they are actually claiming they SAW the plane hit the poles.

Yes, we have scores of independent eyewitnesses who verified that AA77 hit the Pentagon some seeing it hit the lightpoles down consistent with the verified flightpath of AA77. NO eyewitnesses saw any jet, real or imaginary, fly over and away from the Pentagon, as you well know.

So it's time to start wrapping up CIT's operations since your theory never was supported by positive, verified evidence.

Originally posted by SPreston
We cannot read the minds of the 9-11 planners. We cannot explain why they did the things they did. We do not know the intelligence levels of the idiots they chose to stage their frauds.

Sure you can know, SPreston. It's your fairy tale you've been discussing all along. You can make it do anything you want.

Except when you trip up and contradict yourself over and over.





[edit on 1-12-2008 by jthomas]

posted by jthomas

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The downed light poles at the Pentagon are arguably the most convincing evidence that a 757 caused the physical damage that day.

But now that we know the plane was on the north side of the CITGO station it is clear that they got there somehow else.

posted by jthomas

. . . . . . . . .

posted by SPreston
We cannot read the minds of the 9-11 planners. We cannot explain why they did the things they did. We do not know the intelligence levels of the idiots they chose to stage their frauds.

posted by jthomas

. . . . . . . . .

The light poles were staged beforehand according to plan because they dared not attempt to ram an aircraft into the Pentagon. Pre-planted explosives were much more dependable, and besides the NeoCON 9-11 planners figured the American people were just about the stupidist people on earth (afterall they 'elected' a dry drunk drug addict as pResident didn't they?) and would be easily fooled with the MSM and boob tube assisting.

[edit on 12/1/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston

The light poles were staged beforehand according to plan because they dared not attempt to ram an aircraft into the Pentagon. Pre-planted explosives were much more dependable, and besides the NeoCON 9-11 planners figured the American people were just about the stupidist people on earth (afterall they 'elected' a dry drunk drug addict as pResident didn't they?) and would be easily fooled with the MSM and boob tube assisting.

You see, I was right after all, wasn't I, SPreston? You can make up anything you want since it's your fairy tale.


[edit on 1-12-2008 by jthomas]

This photo shows a yellow flatbed trailer of considerable length, about 8 to 10 meters long, parked quite slovenly perpendicular to the safety rails, to be seen at the middle far left side of this photo, just above the white deck-stones of the stone bridge wall :



A possible assistance vehicle to run around with a stack of staged, pre-cut poles?

Originally posted by LaBTop
This photo shows a yellow flatbed trailer of considerable length, about 8 to 10 meters long, parked quite slovenly perpendicular to the safety rails, to be seen at the middle far left side of this photo, just above the white deck-stones of the stone bridge wall :

If you think that's what the white car is, who are 9/11 Truthers to argue with you?

Originally posted by LaBTop
This photo shows a yellow flatbed trailer of considerable length, about 8 to 10 meters long, parked quite slovenly perpendicular to the safety rails, to be seen at the middle far left side of this photo, just above the white deck-stones of the stone bridge wall :

A possible assistance vehicle to run around with a stack of staged, pre-cut poles?

Hi LaBTop, I think you are over estimating the size there, looks more like 8 to 10 feet, not meters.. note the length of side rail directly behind.. also whether or not its perpendicular would effect the size impression, its very hard to discern from the angle of the view.. but I would say its no flatbed trailer.. notice the height of the side rails, about two feet.. the bed of the trailer would be at least 3 1/2 to 4 feet high..
also trailers have wheels

Thank you "jthomas" for some sanity in all this.

The online armchair investigator brigade is seeking their Truth, not facts.

If anyone is uncertain about what witnesses saw, some took personal videos and posted them online. You can even call these people up and ask them about it.


MF

I would have to question the veracity of a source that was supposedly expecting President Bush to fly from Jacksonville, Florida to the Pentagon.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Really?

Even if that source was heliport air traffic controller at the time Sean Boger, who made the claim on record to the Center for Military History weeks after the event and the claim was corroborated by heliport firefighter Alan Wallace?

Just checking.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

 

Really?

Even if that source was heliport air traffic controller at the time Sean Boger, who made the claim on record to the Center for Military History weeks after the event and the claim was corroborated by heliport firefighter Alan Wallace?

Just checking.

You mean this Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief who saw AA77 hit the Pentagon:

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head."

Originally posted by jthomas


There is no evidence of any second plane, a cover story, or any other plane other than the one that hit the Pentagon: AA77.

oh come on, anyone with half a brain cell will soon realise a passenger plane cannot punch through 3 re-enforced concrete and steel walls, the military needs to spend millions, if not billions of $$$ researching, designing, building and testing armor penetrating missiles to do just that.



[edit on 9-12-2008 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by jthomas


You mean this Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief

Yes that one.

The one who blatantly states he saw the plane bank on the north side of the citgo like all the other witnesses proving he was incorrect about the impact.

IF a plane hit lightpoles it would have shredded parts off the plane and altered the flight path radically. If a plane hit the poles there would be plain and clear evidence of such, and there is none. Pieces of aircraft would be scattered around if a plane hit the poles, yet there is NO evidence of that. To belive that a pole could slam intoa cab and not leave ONE scratch on the hood is nonsense. No way. You are asking us to believe that the pole ended up on edge, balanced perfectly so the hood was untouched...yeah, sure.

There is SO MUCH evidence of this being an inside job that it staggers the sound mind to imagine that people still cling to the official lie...in spite of HUNDREDS of ' inexplicable anomalies' still unexplained. How can anyone with a brain still believe that odds so staggering could be correct..no way. Only the stubborn or uneducated could believe that this is all coincidence. Or those with an agenda to stop the truth from coming out.

When they cannot explain all of the amazing facts, they simply ignore them and claim that ' conspiracies' are unfounded! What nerve! Official story drones cannot intellectually defend their views, so they just insist that we are wrong...so sad.

reply to post by pccat


I believe you did not notice that I am describing only the visible back-half of the yellow flatbed trailer which is visible in this photo, which is resized from its original bigger photo to fit the ATS rules for maximum posting size.
The left wheel and its casing is visible in the middle of the trailer, the front part of the trailer is not visible in this cropped photo, the wheel can be seen touching the left side of the picture.
In the original size picture the trailer and its wheel is even better visible.

What you see is half of its total length.
It could be a trailer to transport broken vehicles on, but in fact it looks more like a special type of less wider trailer, used to haul road signs or such, and long light-poles parts from the road repairing docks to the repair spots.

The wheel-casing is the highest part of the vehicle, the flatbed lays a few inches lower. It's about as high above the road as the top of the wheels.

I suppose you guessed the length based on what is visible, and thought that was the whole length. But in fact it is twice as long.

It is also a strange position to leave it like that, beside a busy road, a careful driver would park it parallel to the guard rails.
Looks like it's left in a hurry.
This picture was taken shortly, a few minutes after the impact/explosion.

Craig has a better, tidbit bigger picture in his collection of Jason Ingersoll pictures, I forgot the link to his online collection, can you help out, Craig?
And do you know if the responsible firm for maintenance of the roads around the Pentagon has yellow colored maintenance vehicles in use?

If not, it could be a rented one from a firm witch uses this yellow color scheme for its fleet of vehicles.
Due to the distorted perspective, it looks much smaller than it actually is.