If An Aircraft Hit The Pentagon, Why Was Light Pole #4 Cutdown And Staged?

Question: Why was the #4 light pole deliberately cut down and staged at a crime scene as if an aircraft had knocked it down, if we are to believe that Flight 77 actually flew down the hill, through the 5 light poles, and low and level across the lawn into the Pentagon? Why the deception if it was not necessary?



Original image

The break-away base is cast in aluminum with strengthened areas at its lower end. Obviously it is designed to shear or tear off higher up on the base as shown on this example seen lying along the Henry B Shirley Hwy near the Pentagon. You can view this light pole yourself in the Google maps street view.

That's the Naval Annex and Sheraton Hotel off in the distance and VDOT's depot and office is located across the street from there - larger image



Larger image




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




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?

Light Pole #4 from 9-11


Which base looks broken off and which base looks sawn or cut off?

Random abandoned Light Pole broken off and laying along highway


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 to have knocked them down. Light pole #4 was deliberately cut down and deliberately staged as false evidence at a crime scene.

How much do those poles weigh? The reason I ask is because the Taxi driver said that he and one other person had lifted a pole out of the windshield of his taxi.

I get the impression that those are quite heavy......

posted by anonymousATS
How much do those poles weigh? The reason I ask is because the Taxi driver said that he and one other person had lifted a pole out of the windshield of his taxi.

I get the impression that those are quite heavy......

Standard dimensions for VDOT light poles in Pentagon area

Yes they are. With lamp head and truss arm attached, they weigh 337 lbs. But the shorter length broken-in-two main pole which Lloyde England and his mysterious friend allegedly lifted, probably weighed between 210 and 240 pounds. Quite a bit of weight for an elderly man to have to carefully lift out of a windshield without scratching the polished hood.

I think Lloyd is a con man... who saw an opportunity to make some quick bucks...

in addition, we know the aircraft didnt hit the poles... maybe the missle did on its way in from one of our submarines.


[edit on 10-12-2008 by BornPatriot]

posted by BornPatriot
I think Lloyd is a con man... who saw an opportunity to make some quick bucks...

And who would be paying Lloyde the quick bucks?

The 9-11 perps for helping them simulate an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon? If Lloyde was a con man for quick bucks, then he had a lot of help from the agents on site and the Mainstream News Media and the Bush Regime and the FBI and their parking lot security video alterations, and a whole bunch of paid shills and pseudoskeptics and disinfo artists flooding all the forums.

Originally posted by anonymousATS

I get the impression that those are quite heavy......

Here is a short video of me physically inspecting the same style poles at the VDOT. I had to do a squat lift!

Star and flag this is a good post, I do not think we will see to many debunkers trying to railroad this thread. I agree it does look like the poles where cut and probably placed in their location.

reply to post by cashlink


For the record....

No doubt they were removed in advance normally and then the damage pre-fabricated in a garage somewhere sometime before the attack.

So while fabricating the damage, somebody simply used a torch to remove this bottom part of the base that the bolts go in:


Obviously they weren't too worried about making the damage look random.

Realize that the close-up shots of pole #4 being collected by the VDOT 3 weeks after the attack were never seen until we got the entire Ingersoll photo collection from former VDOT worker Christopher Landis in Aug 2006 who committed suicide a couple of months later.

Details here.

Not to say the incidents are related but Christopher was in charge of light pole maintenance and he was notably nervous when we talked to him and we even mentioned it at the time. It certainly is possible he may have known something he wasn't supposed to.







[edit on 10-12-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Here are the breakaway bases. I have marked the bottoms, which when compared to the breakaway base still attached to the bottom of the 9-11 #4 pole, proves that it was sawn or cut off with a plasma torch on a straight cut across the entire breakaway base, just above where the base mounting bolts clamp it to the concrete base in the ground.



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?

Light Pole #4 from 9-11


Since it appears that the remainder of the cut-off breakaway base with its mounting bolts cannot be seen on the concrete mounting base, it is most likely that the breakaway base was cut with a plasma torch in a shop, and then transported to the crime scene.



Therefore the 5 light poles were taken down by the crane truck in the dark on the morning of 9-11 under Secret Service security, and replaced with the pre-fabbed light poles brought to the crime scene on the crane truck, and placed on the ground or hidden behind the wall until time for the scripted Flight 77 simulation. Nobody would have noticed them laying there in the few hours of daylight before the explosions at the Pentagon when the #1 light pole was dragged across the road and placed into the crime scene as evidence of a light pole through a windshield. But no photo of the light pole through the windshield has ever existed nor any witnesses to that effect.



At the same time the #4 light pole was moved into place (perhaps from under a green tarp) and its lamphead placed outside the guardrail next to the road. Presto; instant planted evidence to NeoCON the American people.

Is there anybody who believes that the #4 light pole after being struck by a 90 ton 535 mph aircraft, would end up laying mere inches from its mounting base?




[edit on 12/10/08 by SPreston]

Have you considered the possibility that the pole was damaged by the aircraft and cut down for safety reasons. In the picture of the pole in the truck, it appears that the crossarm was bent where struck by the aircraft. Breakaway poles are meant to break away when struck by ground vehicles, not aircraft.
What you are saying is that a group of masterminds clever enough to make an aircraft loaded with passengers disappear, ruthless enough to kill off part of its staff with a secret missile filled with kerosine, and quick enough to plant aircraft parts in and around the Pentagon, would then blow the whole thing by allowing you to see that someone had used a torch on a light pole. Do you believe that the light pole is some key evidence and the entire plot depends on a light pole test? I think that if you need a believable conspiracy, a better one would be a remote controlled twin of the aircraft that disappeared. This will eliminate all of the problems associated with the evidence at hand and observations of an aircraft flying in and none leaving. Of course, the people on the aircraft would have to be hidden or maybe they were already dead, including the terrorists. Even though it would disappoint those with a desire to see photos of light pole bases, it would be more believable.

looking at this stuff for the first time i would never say the poles were taken out by an aircraft
you would imagine that the pole would wrap around the leading edge of the wing and be dragged a distance
even if it only shered off the top part of the pole it would have landed a fair distance away
the pole pictured looks like it was only hit with a truck
it would be interisting to be able to see if the bends in the poles are facing in the correct direction if they were put back on their mounts
the bottom of the pole looks stright also iwould think that point would have the largest leverage on it from the impact and would have bent

My question is: exactly when was that picture taken?
Is it not possible that an early response crew cut down the remaining part of the pole that was standing to prevent further hazard? The picture that shows the concrete mounting block is too blurry to make anything out for certain. It isn't a useless picture, though. Is it not possible that the rest of the pole basing was also removed? When a pole is taken down, what is defined procedure? Could they possibly have diverted from this protocol because of the situation?

As for why it behaved the way it did: Are any of us experts on the dynamics of aircraft and metal lightpole collisions at high speeds? Who are we to say anything? Saying that it is common sense that it wouldn't fall far from its base is utterly garbage because common sense can be SO wrong when it comes to something this complex.

How can anyone know what is 'most likely'? For the sake of good arguing, people should use 'possibly' instead of certainly, probably, definitely, or must have been.

I totally see this as happening.

I lived outside of Washington DC during 911. See, there is this 1 mile long bypass that circles right outside pentagon- connecting two major highways outside of Washington DC. In times of national security, military police block off the bypass with guns, and missiles in the back of their jeeps. It is truly, a terrifying site to see. After 911, those MPs with their missiles and rifles in hand-- lined all along the bypass, and did so for a year.

My thoughts are, after the tower was struck, the bypass was blocked off with MP's- and that is when these lighpoles were taken down and place at the "crime scene". Sad, truly. I remember passing by the Pentagon after 911. The huge hole was so black, and so dismal, and it stood for months after.

It never looked like a plane hit to me.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by xynephadyn]

The poles were there after the impact. Since the Pentagon was never before struck with a missile or an aircraft, it would be difficult to say what the damage would look like, even for a missile engineer.
All the evidence points to an aircraft laden with fuel; the amount of damage, the type of damage, the initial fireball, and the amount and color of the smoke from the fire all say jet fuel range hydrocarbons.

"All the evidence points to an aircraft laden with fuel; the amount of damage, the type of damage, the initial fireball, and the amount and color of the smoke from the fire all say jet fuel range hydrocarbons."

My...how ill informed you are....

NO evidence points to aircraft damaged Pentagon!!
Nil...Zip..nada...nothing...

If you believe a boeing slamming into the Pentacon would cause a hole approx 20ft across, with NO wreckage relative to every other plane crash site ever recorded by Man in aviation history( other than Shanksville which also had NO wreckage to speak of, regardless of what they will argue after my post)....then you are correct, and i thank you for your time taken to comment....

HOWEVER...back here on Planet Reality things are a little more complicated...
...and the 20ft initial hole in the wall certainly smells rotten....

You say its difficult to say what the damage would be if a missile or plane hit??
One thing i know for sure...planes dont cause 20ft holes...its proposterous to even consider it~!!

And preston,, buddy, nice one again...

Originally posted by BornPatriot
maybe the missle did on its way in from one of our submarines.

Maybe the missle did on its way in from their submarines? Just a thought. But, IMO, it's probably some kind of combination of the two. Always remember the FBI was involved in the first bombing of the WTC. This little tid bit shouldn't go unnoticed.

I am astonished that this far along....in the year 2008, nearly 2009, these sorts of baloney threads, and their theories, still continue to infest the Internet.

Not to impugn those who write and contribute to this thread, of course...but, when a 'viral' piece of something gets some legs on the Internet, well....that's why they coined the term "viral"...

(you see....psssst!!!! .... In case you didn't notice yet, we have anti-bacterials, for those pesky bacteria. We have not yet mastered the anti-viral to the same extent. Yes, of course, we know about the 'flu-shots', and we realize the work done to combat Polio....but when you consider the daunting task of protecting Humans from all sorts of nasty viruses and bacteria, you can begin to comprehend the problem...)

Back to topic --- when a claim is made that a particular Light Pole (#4, in this case) was 'Cutdown and Staged', according to the OP...who ever does the fact checking???

I'm not in the business of fact-checking....just using my own two eyes to visually look at the scene. Am wondering if the OP has ever actually been to the Washington, DC, area and seen the scene with his or her own two eyes?

ALSO, since I have some experience (about 10 years, at least) of flying the B-757 and B-767 I'd invite anyone to attempt to question my knowledge.

I'll admit the allegations of possible 'cutting torches' (pardon my lack of knowledge in THAT paradigm) could torpedo my entire post, here....

It's just.....I see the Bush Administration attempting to 're-write' HISTORY in an attempt to 'polish' his legacy.

Seven years after 9/11, isn't this a familiar tactic??????

reply to post by benoni


benoni.....

I tire of this argument.....but, I must....MUST....disabuse casual readers of a piece of your post, about the "20-foot" hole in the Pentagon.

First and foremost.....the OUTER RING of the Pentagon was a complete disaster area!!! EVERYONE who lives in the area could see it, firsthand, from I-395!!!!!!!

MY home, in Arlington, were I was that morning, actually FELT the collapse of the upper floors of the Pentagon....felt like a tremor...

Please remember the victims as you ponder.....the building was impacted by a Boeing 757 at very high speed, and since the Pentagon is mostly concrete, when the upper levels collapsed, it was quite a collapse. (Remember? I actually FELT it happen, a few miles away!!!)

Anyone who wishes to believe in that 'photo' of the hole in the wall, and then 'conclude' that an airplane could not have made that hole is being deluded.

IT IS NOT AN 'ENTRY' HOLE!!!!

The iconic 'hole in the wall' that seems to be a viral 'sensation' is NOT the point of entry!!!

Anyone who wishes to investigate how the Pentagon is constructed will understand that there are five 'rings'...this is not hard to find on the Interent!!!

The intent of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon obviously was not intended to level the building --- it was simply to inspire fear, and create as much damage as possible.

To ReCap: The attack on the Pentagon, by the Terrorists, even though it caused a tragic loss of life, was only meant as a psychological attempt to strike at the heart, as THEY saw it, of the USA.

Perhaps Mohammed Atta wasn't as smart as we've been told....he MIGHT have thought that hitting the WTC Towers high up would have caused them to topple over, thusly causing far greater damage and mayhem....I'm guessing this was their plan. Ironically, IF they had flown the airplanes closer to the BASE of each building, they might have accomplished their objectives. The objective being, of course, more collateral damage.

However, this is a topic for discussion, and unlikely to find a resolution since the perpetrators of this heinous act died in the process, and therefore are unavailable for comment.

Well, when I join them in HELL I'll have a long time to chat with them...AND with George W. Bush!!!

I am going to add some more info here for you.

When I was in the Navy I served in a top secrete squadron based out of NATC Patuxent River Md. This base is approximately 40 miles from D.C. We flew the C-130Q Aircraft that was specially modified with t.c.a.m.o. radio equipment. You had to have a minimal clearance of secret just to work on the fuel team from our fuel farm on the base to be around these aircraft.This aircraft has so much radio equipment on it there is a walkway approximately 32" wide on both sides of the aircraft, it is 28,000 pounds over the max gross weight at takeoff and anyone who knows anything about the C-130 knows it can carry a lot of weight, a tank for example. The plane is designed to transmit guidance and targeting information to ballistic and sub based nuclear ballistic missiles. When I was about to get out of the Navy they were preparing to introduce a pure turbofan plane to replace the C-130Q, I do not remember for sure as this was in 1991, but I believe it was named the EA6B and bore a resemblance to a Boeing 727.

If you watch the video carefully, there is a C-130 (unknown mission designation by sight) and what looked like a 727 with classic Navy painting on them flying over and around the pentagon on 9-11. These planes would have absolutely NO MISSION and no business to be in that area PERIOD. The only Navy base within 450 miles of D.C. that flies C-130's of any kind is NATC Patuxent River Md. 40 miles away. And the ONLY C-130's on that base belong to VQ-4 (Squadron). And this squadron only has T.C.A.M.O. aircraft.

While using the t.c.a.m.o. equipment the plane deploys two communications wires from the back, one is called a short trailing wire and the other a long trailing wire, the long trailing wire is used when communicating with the boomer subs and is for incoming communications the reason it is much longer is because so it can receive information from the subs while deeply submerged before they close gap to fire the ballistic missiles. The short trailing wire is for outgoing communication to either the sub, or the missile's guidance system itself. I cannot remember the video I first noticed this in, I believe it was loose change, but I am uncertain as it was a few years ago, but, I am almost certain it was the first release of loose change. In this video I actually saw the short trailing wire (it has a cone shaped end on it shaped like a sub woofer.

The instant I saw this short wire deployed, I knew exactly what had transpired as we also deployed C130-Q's in Bosnia, although that was a different squadron, there are 4 VQ squadrons in the Navy each consisting of 5 planes; and it is a very tight knit group, we all know what each other are doing. The pentagon was hit with a ballistic cruise missile that was launched from a frigate located in either the gulf of Mexico or off the Eastern coast of Florida. These frigates typically do not travel in the standard Navy formation. They are accompanied by one destroyer and 2 fast attack subs with a very very advanced sonar system (the same thing that is killing the whales).

If you look at the damage to the pentagon before the roof collapsed it is very consistent with the damage caused by a cruise missile. I believe this C130Q was accompanied by the new EA6B and either it was a backup as at that time the EA6B had not been battle proven or else it was in observance and the aircraft that was responsible for reporting progress reports to whomever ordered the strike. If you do a search on these planes, you may find the C130Q as it would most likely be obsolete by now; however, I very seriously doubt you will find anything on the EA6B and very likely not the C130Q either. This is one of the highest clearance squadrons in all of the military, we had a direct line to the pentagon and the White House, which we jokingly referred to as the bat phones. Our clearance and priority was so high that we could go to any base of any branch of the service that used C130 aircraft and remove any part we wanted from it for our own planes if the part was not in our supply system. And I have taken part in exactly that on two occasions on a base in Mayport Florida.

I had sent this information to Alex Jones as well as Dr. Griffen, although I do not if they used it for anything. I have not heard anything about it in the 5 years that has passed since I e-mailed it to them and they have never returned my e-mails.

When I left the Navy in February if 1991 after 8 years of honorable service, I was debriefed rather well by both the Navy as well as N.I.S. I have probably said more than I should have; however, if I can answer any questions that I have knowledge for or will not get me into severe trouble, I will be happy to attempt to do so to the best of my ability. But, the first strange phone call I get or see black S.U.V.'s in my neighborhood, my mouth will shut and I will not respond on this thread any further. So if you got questions, I would ask them relatively quickly as I have no clue how long I will be able to answer them if I can in fact answer them at all. To the best of my knowledge I have not said anything that I was briefed against discussing so I am going to assume that I am OK talking about this to the extent I already have. I am on this site every day and usually leave my computer logged on to it and a window opened; although, I do not post much, until very recently (In November, I still only had 200 points), I have been an active reader here for just over four years.

edited to correct spelling

[edit on 12/11/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

reply to post by benoni


You said: “NO evidence points to aircraft damaged Pentagon!!
Nil...Zip..nada...nothing...”
No aircraft ever hit the Pentagon before so you have no way of knowing how a one-of-a-kind building constructed in the 1940’s would be damaged by an aircraft.
You then said: “One thing i know for sure...planes dont cause 20ft holes...its proposterous to even consider it~!!” Unpreposterously speaking, how big are the holes that planes make in 60 year old steel and masonry buildings? Again you have no way of knowing how big any hole would be from any aircraft at any speed or approach angle.
The video of the aircraft coming in and striking the Pentagon probably does not meet your standard of evidence but eyewitness accounts are of a big airplane arriving followed by a bang and fireball and no airplane leaving. This may be really tough for you to explain. What happened to the airplane and all those people? Logic suggests that it hit the Pentagon.
After the bang, there was a big smoky fire. The fire was from a large amount of hydrocarbon fuel burning rich. You'd need to deliver about a tanker truck worth of fuel, unobtrusively, and rig it to go off just as the plane arrived and flew over. What to do with the passengers, though?
The evidence is all on the side of an aircraft striking the buildiing and killing our people. There is no evidence for a missile hit at all. There is no evidence of an aircraft flying over and dropping anything on the Pentagon. Indeed, if the PTB wanted to strike the Pentagon with a destructive device and look innocent, they would use a remote controlled passenger aircraft laden with fuel; bigger and nastier than any cruise missile.

As a 911 theorist once said, “My...how ill informed you are....”