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

Originally posted by weedwhacker


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???

The assertion is that ALL the light poles were removed in advance, damage pre-fabricated, and they were all staged at the scene on 9/11, not just light pole #4.

This is 100% proven by the scientifically validated eyewitness evidence demonstrating how everyone in the immediate vicinity unanimously agree that the plane was on the north side of the citgo station far from the light poles.



We just happen to have obtained these really great high resolution close-up images of pole 4 being collected which is the only reason it gets special attention.

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?

Well since this post is based on my research you can say the answer to that is yes, by proxy!

On-site research is what CIT is all about and why this evidence exists to begin with.

Go up a few posts and check out the 2 minute youtube clip I posted with me physically examining the same style light poles at the VDOT which is right up the street from the Pentagon, across the Navy Annex, directly underneath the official flight path that has been proven false by all the witnesses.

Better question in my opinion is: Why would anyone staging something this massive, need to fake light poles being knocked over? What's the point? So that there would be a possibility to discredit their attempt? When creating a fabrication, the fewer loopholes or things that can be questioned, the better.

Ask yourself this: If there were not lightpoles knocked down whatever, would all those who do believe it was a plane, for some reason, then believe that it didn't? "Um.. no LIGHTPOLES were knocked down, this is obviously a fake!" Why would they add an element that is not needed, and would only cause possible further issues with the story.

When an agency can supposedly pull of a the biggest fraud and misdirection ever, it's sort of baffling they would add an element that not only is not needed, but could only cast doubt on the whole thing.

As far as how it would be cut down, when you can point out previous tests done with 757s against light poles, to disprove that it would happen like that, I'm all ears. Or in other words, there is nothing to compare this to. You are guessing when you say it wouldn't happen like that.

reply to post by DarrylGalasso

The EA6B Prowler is a stretch version of the A6 Intruder. It does not look anything like a 727 other than that it has wings. It is old and either out of service or going out soon. It is used to lead a formation of attack aircraft and jam enemy radars.
The common Navy EW aircraft is based on a P6 Orion asw patrol aircraft which looks a lot like a Lockheed Electra with a MAD stinger aft. The C130Q may or may not really exist.
Cruise missiles do not use terminal guidance from aircraft. No one saw a cruise missile approaching the Pentagon, they saw an airplane.
Cruise missile explosions have a high brisance explosive and would have done more shattering and less burning to the Pentagon.
If you were ever in the Navy doing what you said you did, you would have never made the last post. Whomever told you that sea story was having a lot of fun with you, Darryl. I'll bet you were on forward lookout for the mail buoy when you heard it the first time.

Originally posted by BornPatriot
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]

That is the most PATHETIC and ludicrous statement I have EVER heard. Missiles DO NOT randomly bounce between objects then hit their objective. You jumped to an amazing amount of assumptions, given no facts nor knowledge of what you speak.

Originally posted by fleabit
Better question in my opinion is: Why would anyone staging something this massive, need to fake light poles being knocked over? What's the point? So that there would be a possibility to discredit their attempt? When creating a fabrication, the fewer loopholes or things that can be questioned, the better.

Ask yourself this: If there were not lightpoles knocked down whatever, would all those who do believe it was a plane, for some reason, then believe that it didn't? "Um.. no LIGHTPOLES were knocked down, this is obviously a fake!" Why would they add an element that is not needed, and would only cause possible further issues with the story.

If you were going to hit a building with a missile and sell it as a plane, and understanding there would be no evidence of a plane such as wing sections, tail sections, landing gear, engines. Wouldn't you HAVE to do something to lend some credence to your story? They could not likely bring in aircraft debris, so that's out although they did have some very small pieces, there was no drudging of the lawn that would indicate a plane hit the deck just before the building, so that's out. But you would need something, wouldn't you?

[edit on 12/10/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

reply to post by DarrylGalasso


Thanks for the info Darryl.

We have been in contact with the pilot of the C-130 you are talking about.

His name is Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien.

He was en route from Andrews Air force Base to his home state, Minnesota.

He says he saw the plane as it was banking around from a northerly to an eastbound heading over DC skies which contradicts the government data.

They lost site of it and 3 radio calls later were oddly asked by ATC to turn around and see if they can locate it.

But the time they turned around it was too late, they saw an explosion off in the distance...however they were too far away at first to even be able to tell that the explosion was coming from the Pentagon.

The flew to the scene and after checking it out they just turned around and got out of there.

We don't think O'Brien and his crew were willingly involved. We think they were called into the scene so they would be witnessed and ambiguous accounts of a "2nd plane" could then be used as cover for the flyover.

Watch this presentation to get the details:
The 2nd Plane Cover Story

There is no evidence for a missile and there is no need for them to have used a missile.

There was one plane, all of the witnesses saw it on the north side of the citgo proving it didn't hit the light poles or the building.

The damage was caused internally. Pre-planted explosives.

Nothing hit the Pentagon.

We know because all the independent witnesses saw the plane on the north side.

We went there to get real evidence so people would stop all the unnecessary conjecture.

We HAVE to move on from this missile talk. It only sets us back.

We can prove where the plane flew and it proves a deception. This PROVES that the light poles were staged and why the damage to pole #4 and ALL of the physical damage is so anomalous.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I am not entirely sure if I buy into this. I am definitely not saying you are wrong so please do not take it that way; however, when I watched this video the first time, I saw two planes, and both were painted in Navy style not Air Force style. I have not been around many Air Force aircraft, but all those I have seen are shinny and colorful, our planes are painted to blend in with the sky much more so than any Air Force plane I have ever seen, and as I said, I do not have extensive experience with Air Force aircraft.

I certainly hope you are correct as I always considered our mission to be of the utmost importance and I would hate to think that this philosophy was in any way compromised or exploited for malicious intent.

Thank you for the information and the response.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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?

Well since this post is based on my research you can say the answer to that is yes, by proxy!

On-site research is what CIT is all about and why this evidence exists to begin with.

Go up a few posts and check out the 2 minute youtube clip I posted with me physically examining the same style light poles at the VDOT which is right up the street from the Pentagon, across the Navy Annex, directly underneath the official flight path that has been proven false by all the witnesses.

I not only went to the Pentagon, IN PERSON, I also had close acquaintances in the parking lot who witnessed the flyover (One of them a USAF Officer), and others who witnessed the resulting explosion. It was undoubtedly a large Passenger Jet, and the damage to the Pentagon was exceedingly larger and far more massive than what MANY on here would have you believe.

BTW, I also know that all of these "Pentagon 9/11 Conspiracy" claims were first created, fostered, and spread by an Anti-American French guy about Two Weeks after the attacks. He had NEVER witnessed the attacks or damage first hand, let alone even traveled to the United States. He used nothing more than Published Photographs and SAT Images to "justify" his rumor spreading, and he even went as far as actually purchasing a domain name, and publishing the resulting information on his own web-site.

I vividly recall ALL of the aforementioned, and thus it frustrates individuals such as myself to hear such incompetence, rumor-spreading, and ill-logically founded "conclusions".

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
There is no evidence for a missile and there is no need for them to have used a missile.

There was one plane, all of the witnesses saw it on the north side of the citgo proving it didn't hit the light poles or the building.

One of the witnesses in one video I saw said he saw a missile strike the building, this EXACT same guy was interviewed in a different video and said he saw an American Airlines jumbo jet (I believe the interviews were msnbc and cnn but not sure I also sent the time stamps to these videos to Alex Jones when I e-mailed him approximately 5 years ago, I do not remember both of the videos but one was loose change and the guy was wearing a yellow polo shirt) This guy had not even had a chance to go home and change his shirt and he had already changed his story. Why? I can understand that in some way you could mistake a jumbo jet for a missile (not really but I'll assume he did), but how do you mistake it for a missile one time and then not only know it was an aircraft the next time, but you also know the company who owned it? That to me definitely indicates something is wrong somewhere. I am going to go and see if I can find both videos for you and I will list the time stamps so you can see for yourself. I am not very well versed with how to embed video here so if I cannot figure it out I will just list the videos name's and the time stamps, fair enough?


[edit on 12/11/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

Ever tried torching cast aluminum???? This makes no sense at all. When were these light posts originally installed? Were the REAL lightposts removed and these "props" put there to seal the deal on the whole conspiracy.

The guy who lifted the light post may have been a con, but only to his own auto insurance company. If the post is already propped up and all you have to do is support the weight post while the car backs away from the post. You guys act like he is trying to lift a 18-25 foot piece of lead or something. I have no idea of the length of these posts precisely, but if it were 15 feet in length(which it's not) and weighed 500 lbs(which it doesn't) it would still only weigh 35 lbs a lineal foot if it were the exact same diameter the entire length. These light posts are tapered and the base half would by far out weigh the illuminating half.

Of course the worker who killed himself seemed nervous, I would terminate an employee immediately if was talking to some nut jobs trying to prove the government would be so diabolical to plant light posts at the scene of a such a historically tragic event such as this.

Show me a fact anywhere in this post, simple as that. John Lear got kicked of this site for not substantiating facts but at least his topics had substance. The posts are re-enforced at the BASE to withstand a collision at the BASE, not the TOP.

Were the new posts that replaced the "designed to fail,props the exact same design and style? Why replace 3 posts and not the 4th. If it were even slightly damaged they would intentionally take it down as there is no way to know the true structural integrity of once damaged, same procedure for telephones. Next thing we'll find out is that Cheney actually launched the rockets from the submarine while Bush was flying around as a decoy in Air Force 1. Anyone who paid attention to the news understood that this attack was bound to happen in some way or form, as the U.S. laughed of any threat from these "terrorists".

I am not saying there wasn't a conspiracy and government officials may have known about or even helped coordinate such an effort, but this whole thread can be summed up in one word, PETTY

Originally posted by Jnewell33John Lear got kicked of this site for not substantiating facts but at least his topics had substance.

That sentence alone shows how little you know and how ill-informed you are. The rest of your post isn't worth reading, based on you skewing facts to suit your own story.

No more off topic nonsense. This isn't about John Lear, it's about the light poles being staged!

The time stamp on the first loose change video is 19 minutes even also at 20:24 there is a picture of the other plane which looks very much like the drawings we were shown of what the new EA6B would look like right after that they talk about the C130 that was also there. I could not find the other video but I did find that someone else has obviously discovered this guy that changed his story and they have both clips on the video they made. I am going to try to embed this now, if it doesn't work I will edit the post and just link the video.

Sorry I could not figure out how to embed video so here's the link.

www.metacafe.com...



edited to correct time stamp times



[edit on 12/11/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Mr. Ranke...

Do you actually live in the Washington, D.C. area. or environs? (Which would include the Arlington, VA region, or even the Maryland Suburbs)

I am NOT, Mr. Ranke, wishing to engage you in a discussion, here online, about the merits of our arguments.

In fact, that is NOT what I want to do, because, as it is well understood, these sorts of arguments are best left to U2U, and therefore 'private' matters.

Will admit, though....by posting this I welcome a spirited (possibly) discussion about the Pentagon, and American 77.

Having said all of the above: I LIVED through the attacks on 9/11....OK, I admit, I lost no loved ones on that day. By 'living' through it, I merely watched on Cable News, as most of us did....UNTIL I felt the tremor, in my home, as the floors of the Pentagon collapsed. It was roughly 10:10 EDT.

I was upstairs, in my two-story house....and felt it shake.

Subsequent to that experience, had occasion to speak with a friend who lived in an apartment on Columbia Pike....who told me he SAW an airplane fly past his balcony, EastBound (because if you look at a map, you will understand), ---- it was NOT a Cruise Missile, it was a freakin' jet, now we know it as American Airlines 77.

I don't know how much revisionist history is required, Lord knows the Bush Administration is attempting it right now....but simply trying to alter facts, AFTER THE FACT, is pathetic.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Having said all of the above: I LIVED through the attacks on 9/11....OK, I admit, I lost no loved ones on that day. By 'living' through it, I merely watched on Cable News, as most of us did....UNTIL I felt the tremor, in my home, as the floors of the Pentagon collapsed. It was roughly 10:10 EDT.

Tim, how does the Earth moving for you, relate to this thread, which is about the light poles?

We can all do a search on your post history, where you inform us that you felt the tremor in many of your posts. BIG DEAL! You still weren't there, were you?

Did you see what happened to the light poles? No.
Did the light poles make the tremor that you felt? No.
Have you spent as much time at the scene examining the light poles that Craig has? Probably no again.

Subsequent to that experience, had occasion to speak with a friend who lived in an apartment on Columbia Pike....who told me he SAW an airplane fly past his balcony,

Did your friend see the alleged plane strike any light poles?
Did your friend see the alleged plane impact the Pentagon?

Let me guess, another two responses of 'No'?

reply to post by DarrylGalasso


Darryl....


If you don't understand the difference between a C-130 and an E-6B....then I will gladly bring down the full-bore all-guns-blazing spite of any Mod who happens to wish a plague on me.

(should that have been "upon me"???)

No matter...as 'Homer Simpson' would have said, because he never really understood any question posed to him, anyway.

I've decided to pose a more pertinent question, based on the OP's title:

...'Why Was Light Pole #4 Cutdown And Staged'...

I'd profer an alternate question: IF a vehicle, such as a Boeing 757 was being operated in a manner that was outside its design and mandated parameters, who are YOU to tell US anything????

reply to post by weedwhacker


No I live in California but besides studying the area extensively online on a daily basis I have made multiple trips to the Arlington, spoken with dozens of witnesses direct, confirmed and documented the various POV's of the previously published witnesses, and canvassed the neighborhoods on foot to find new ones.

I have driven all over the place and studied the landscape and topography closely. I am quite familiar with the roads. We have a series of videos of us driving around documenting the views of the Pentagon from the highways here.

I KNOW there was no missile and that it was a jet.

But the jet was on the north side of the citgo proving it not hit the light poles or the building.

It was not flight 77 either.

Watch this presentation:
"Flight 77" The White Plane

reply to post by tezzajw


tezza, thanks for the clearly personal touch....by using my name.

YES, everyone!!!! That is, indeed, my real name....I am TIM!!!!

But, back to point, tezza....you claim to live in Melbourne, yet have such A VISCERAL and personal touch with 9/11....almost as if you actually LIVED IN THE AREA when it happened???

DID YOU?????

Oh...wait...I DID!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DarrylGalasso

 

Darryl....


If you don't understand the difference between a C-130 and an E-6B....

First I stated that it has been 17 years since I got out of the Navy.

Second I also stated that I was not sure of the designation of the replacement for the C130Q but that I "believe" it was called an EA6B

Third I know exactly the differences between the planes I am referring to, one is an old 4 prop modified cargo plane which employs 4 Pratt and Whitney turbo prop engines that are mounted on the tops of the wings, this plane is almost identical to a P-3 (both made by Lockheed) except that the P-3 has the engines on the bottom of the wing and has a protrusion on the tail that is used to house sub locating electronics and the C-130's wings are located at the top of the fuselage and the P-3'a is on the bottom, (it's almost like they just rolled the fuselage over and mounted the stabilizers). (they have also modified the C130 to be a refueler, but that is irrelevant for this topic). The replacement plane was not a turbo prop but a true turbo fan just like all other modern aircraft.

If you wish to question my credentials, my name is right before your eyes, do a background check on me and find out where on this planet I was located from February 1987- February 1991. If that is not enough for you, perhaps you may know someone in an intelligence agency or inside the department of the Navy that can easily verify not only my whereabouts, but also my security clearance which was in fact top secret.

I posted what I did for two reasons;

1) because I thought it was very pertinent to the thread, and

2) because I thought that some people might like to know it and if there was further questions I could answer I would do so.

So if your post is an attempt to belittle me or try to disprove my credentials, you have an open invitation to do a background check for yourself. As I said my name is right before your eyes, if you need the extra information my middle initial is E. If you seek the rest of my life's story since I got out of the Navy I will also be happy to provide this to you as well. All you have to do is ask, but be forewarned it is pretty boring, I am a psychologist now and that is pretty much it.

[edit on 12/11/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
tezza, thanks for the clearly personal touch....by using my name.
YES, everyone!!!! That is, indeed, my real name....I am TIM!!!!

You told all of us your name not long after you registered. It might have been in your first twenty or so posts. I forget the actual post, but I remember your name. You told all of us that we could call you TJ as well. It might have been in one of John Lear's threads.

But, back to point, tezza....you claim to live in Melbourne, yet have such A VISCERAL and personal touch with 9/11....almost as if you actually LIVED IN THE AREA when it happened???
DID YOU?????
Oh...wait...I DID!!!!!!!!!

I do live in Melbourne, Tim. It's not a claim, it's a fact. Temperature in my house right now is around 24 degree celcius. There's a clear, blue sky with very few clouds. Channel 10 news will almost confirm that about now, it's time for the weather segment.

Like you, I watched 911 on TV. You watched it on TV from Arlington, while I watched it on TV from Melbourne. We shared the same experience. Granted, my TV time should have been sleep time due to the time differences. I was probably also a few moments behind with the satellite feeds as well.

Now, what does any of that have to do with the light poles?