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

i just saw something arcane and new.

the license plate on the saturn(chronos)....I-665....I looks like 1, in other words, it's a six six six plate. neighbor of the beast?

posted by LaBTop
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.

Original image crop was taken from

How staged light poles were finally removed from scene weeks after 9-11




Isn't that a beautiful straight cut on the break-away base of the #4 pole?
Common sense would indicate it was cut off with a saw or torch.



Isn't it interesting how the #4 pole managed to come down next to it's own base, with the truss arm still bolted to the top broken-off main pole piece? Another 9-11 miracle with the lamphead also sitting there, after allegedly being struck by a 535 mph aircraft wing?



Original #4 pole image



[edit on 12/9/08 by SPreston]

I do believe 9/11 was an inside job, but how do you account for cars that suddenly stopped because a broken lamp post was now blocking their path?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT



Did you put together all those pictures? I am impressed, nice presentation.

I don't understand how people buy the "plane in the pentagon" story anymore. The supposive video released doesn't show a plane, the fact is, it was a missle. I only hope one day, someone will come out about it. Due to the fact, there must have been many many people involved in911.

Someone has got to come out with the truth one day, unless all of them have gotten sick or cancer or something random like that and are not with us anymore.

Great thread very nice work done, you have convinced me.

reply to post by questioningall


Awww thank you.

What a sweet post.

But PLEASE if I convince of anything let me convince you that there is zero evidence for a missile.

So far the evidence points to a north side flyover with pre-planted explosives causing the damage to the building.

Nothing "hit" the light poles or the Pentagon.

If you like this thread you'll find our presentations extremely compelling.

Please visit our website and view some of the massive body of independent verifiable evidence we provide.

Thanks and peace!

posted by questioningall
I don't understand how people buy the "plane in the pentagon" story anymore. The supposive video released doesn't show a plane, the fact is, it was a missle. I only hope one day, someone will come out about it. Due to the fact, there must have been many many people involved in911.

No, not the slightest evidence of a missile. The short stubby wings of a missile could not have reached all of the 5 light poles, nor could they have survived impact with even one 337 pound light pole. A missile would have destructed its high explosive warhead against the outer wall with little destruction deep into the Pentagon interior where it was needed. The high explosive initial fireball before the wall rules out a bunker-buster penetrator taking its high explosive yield deep into the interior.



The Pentagon parking security videos were deliberately altered to give the appearance of a missile, to start wild missile and A-3 stories which would be easily debunked. The alleged aircraft image was much too small to be a 757 commercial aircraft. The smoke trail is an obvious fake, and there was not one single eyewitness to the smoke trail.

As can be easily seen in this blowup of the #4 light pole base, the break-away base would never have broken off at the strengthened bottom end of the base. It is absolutely certain that it was cut off by a man with a saw or torch, and was not broken off by a 90 ton 535 mph aircraft. The straight cuts are easily discernable. Anybody disagree?



The light poles were staged and no aircraft impacted the Pentagon. The actual aircraft flew over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, and was much too far away from these 5 light poles.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


There is not a single witness statement from anyone who experienced such a thing.

In fact nobody can be confirmed specifically claiming they "saw" the plane hit the poles.

(most admit they simply saw the poles on the road after the fact if at all)


Nobody claims they saw the pole spear the cab.



Nobody claims they saw the cab spin out sideways on the road with the pole still sticking out of the windshield as reported by the cab driver.



Nobody claims they saw the pole inside the cab.



And nobody claims they saw the cab driver remove the pole.



They likely dragged it from the side of the road AFTER the explosion during all the chaos when they had control of the scene and had at least partially blocked traffic and put the cab in place.

It's really not that complex and certainly even if someone noticed them moving around poles during all the chaos would they really suspect anything?

Even if they DID suspect something what do you think would have happened if they would have reported it?

I'd also like to add that I don't think the yellow flat bed trailer has anything to do with the operation.

It doesn't make sense to me that they would use something so conspicuous and just leave it there.

As shown earlier poles on the side of the road do not garner much attention.

They could have been removed weeks in advance, damage pre-fabricated, and then placed in the middle of the night before.

It doesn't matter what truck they used to deliver them.

In a post 9/11 world disguised as road construction in the middle of the night near the Pentagon NOBODY would ask questions.

I just want to say thanks to laBTop for correcting my assumption.. and thanks to SPreston.. for providing better pictures.. I had assumed that you were describing a normal big rig flatbed.. and that would have had dual 4 tire axles at the rear.. I don't buy into the staged pole theory.. but I am always willing to look at new evidence and new ideas.. after all we are only looking for the truth right?

cogburn specifically requested a complete theory regarding the light poles so I figured I'd help him out by bumping this thread.

You've backed away from portions of this theory in a variety of different threads.

As a result I am more interested in reading someone else's version, but thank you for the consideration.

reply to post by cogburn


Oh really?

Then why didn't you quote me?

I don't recall "backing away" from any of this.

Although if I did there would be nothing wrong with that since that is the nature of any "theory".

Bottom line you wanted a complete theory and here it is.

Apparently you agree that it is entirely plausible since you are not able to voice a single criticism.

At any rate even if there were any other theories as to how the poles could have been planted this would certainly be the appropriate thread to post them in.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ex #1- Men in suits at 9:45am appearing from all sides on a major traffic artery that cuts around the Pentagon in Washington D.C. is not de facto proof they are "agents" or even suspicious. Judging from the immediate area (Navy Annex, Pentagon, Arlington Cemetery), there's a high probability they are all government, if not military, employees or contractors. Why don't they come forward? It's not impossible to think that some people don't want folks like us harassing them for testimony for the rest of their lives. The only difference between Lloyd England and the others is car damage. Lloyd would then be the "oddity" in respect to everyone else witnessed on the bridge.

So?

How does this change the fact that we provide evidence proving the plane was on the north side nowhere near the poles?

I will concede that the suits in the image could very well be completely innocent.

But they remain suspects who are implicated merely by photographic evidence showing direct association with this proven staged scene.

This is all we have ever claimed when considering them and we stand by it.

Are you now stating that the men in those pictures are indeed black-bag men that staged the poles? If so, will you be disclosing the details of the investigation that led to such a conclusion?

The link for the FOIA drivel may be found in every thread I post in my signature.

As I stated, I'd like to see someone else's research. Thanks again.

Originally posted by cogburn

Are you now stating that the men in those pictures are indeed black-bag men that staged the poles?

Come again?

I never said that they did!

You are putting words in my mouth.

Do I believe they are implicated as being somehow involved?

Yes absolutely. I have never backed off this.

Do I think there is PROOF that they are involved? Nope. And I have never claimed that there was.

But I NEVER claimed that they were the actual people to have physically set the pole on the road. You made that up yourself. It was never a part of my theory.

As I stated, I'd like to see someone else's research. Thanks again.

Sure I'm open to that.

Conveniently the thread is right here waiting for them to do so.

In the mean time it's good to know that you agree that the theory presented in the OP is entirely plausible since you haven't been able to voice a single criticism!

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Obviously, there are problems with Loyds account of things I for one do not think he is realling correctly what happened during his accident. Its been stated by numerous people that traffic was inn near stand still. So I don't see how it is possible to reach enough speed to slide side ways. Besides, from the photos it seems like he stopped almost instantly where the pole was knocked off its base i may be wrong but I sure do recall it that way especially after watching that gif of the jet hitting the pole(s).

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


Traffic was at a stand-still going north, not south.

But the plane was nowhere near the pole.

That's the reason Lloyde's story doesn't add up.



The scene had to have been staged and this thread gives a perfectly plausible theory as to how that could have been done.

Realize that while the hood of his cab shows no damage, they clearly attempted to fabricate the interior damage to reflect the long pole.

None of it makes sense and the witnesses prove why.

san yana talks about it here


video.msn.com... 9c-93a0-a0fbd5fa6dd2

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Nobody claims they saw the pole spear the cab.

Lloyd does

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Nobody claims they saw the pole inside the cab.

Lloyd does

Nothing was "staged" and you have ZERO proof of this other then WILD SPECULATION!
If this were true you would be on the cover of EVERY MAJOR NEWSPAPER, MAGAZINE, ETC in the friggin world!
You would win a Pulizter at the very least and would be set for life.
You may want to try taking all of your wild fantasies and write a novel.