You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
I don't see how the light poles add anything at all.
You skeptics never bring up the downed light poles as evidence Flight 77 hit?
Quote:
If they were a fabrication then it seems to me to be completely superfluous and risky to boot.
Then what evidence would you have planted?
Quote:
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the planting of damaged poles. Must have taken a little while as you had the undamaged bits to remove first.
When do you think they would have had to have been planted?
Quote:
So far as people talking who were involved is concerned there are lots of reasons why they may talk over years. They may get religion, be tortured by remorse, become terminally ill or die. In my view it is inconceivable that no-one has talked in nearly 8 years.
KenyonG already answered that question; Lloyd England.
I don't see how the light poles add anything at all.
You skeptics never bring up the downed light poles as evidence Flight 77 hit?
Quote:
If they were a fabrication then it seems to me to be completely superfluous and risky to boot.
Then what evidence would you have planted?
Quote:
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the planting of damaged poles. Must have taken a little while as you had the undamaged bits to remove first.
When do you think they would have had to have been planted?
Quote:
So far as people talking who were involved is concerned there are lots of reasons why they may talk over years. They may get religion, be tortured by remorse, become terminally ill or die. In my view it is inconceivable that no-one has talked in nearly 8 years.
KenyonG already answered that question; Lloyd England.
I think AA 77 clipped the poles but, had I never heard anything about the poles, I would still believe it was AA 77 which hit the Pentagon because of other physical evidence and eye-witness testimony. If you believe that it wasn't AA 77 then the conspirators have one hell of a job, an impossible one in my view, of salting the crash site with plane and body parts in a very hostile environment and very short time scale. Did they really need to fuss about with light poles ?
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the planting of damaged poles. Must have taken a little while as you had the undamaged bits to remove first.
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the poles being hit by a large plane while many people witnessed a plane flying on a path which meant it couldn't have hit the poles.
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the planting of damaged poles. Must have taken a little while as you had the undamaged bits to remove first.
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the poles being hit by a large plane while many people witnessed a plane flying on a path which meant it couldn't have hit the poles.
I think there were two witnessses to the plane striking the poles but it wouldn't matter to me if there were none.
Try to put yourself into the position of most of those witnesses, it happens very quickly, there is an impression of noise, a plane hurtling at great speed, a great fireball on impact with the pentagon.
This would undoubtedly have been the most horrific thing they ever saw in their lives. To expect them to recall that the plane may have hit some light poles is being totally unrealistic.
If light poles were damaged then the most logical inference is that the plane did it. Anything else is just uneccessary embellishment and there is not a shred of evidence to support it or even a plausible scenario as to how it could be done.
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the planting of damaged poles. Must have taken a little while as you had the undamaged bits to remove first.
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the poles being hit by a large plane while many people witnessed a plane flying on a path which meant it couldn't have hit the poles.
I think there were two witnessses to the plane striking the poles but it wouldn't matter to me if there were none.
Try to put yourself into the position of most of those witnesses, it happens very quickly, there is an impression of noise, a plane hurtling at great speed, a great fireball on impact with the pentagon.
This would undoubtedly have been the most horrific thing they ever saw in their lives. To expect them to recall that the plane may have hit some light poles is being totally unrealistic.
If light poles were damaged then the most logical inference is that the plane did it. Anything else is just uneccessary embellishment and there is not a shred of evidence to support it or even a plausible scenario as to how it could be done.
But there were multiple witnesses who saw the plane fly north of the Citgo gas station which meant the plane couldn't have hit the poles. Those witnesses have clear memories and have been saying the same thing since 2001. If you haven't watched National Security Alert, you really should before you start theorising.
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the planting of damaged poles. Must have taken a little while as you had the undamaged bits to remove first.
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the poles being hit by a large plane while many people witnessed a plane flying on a path which meant it couldn't have hit the poles.
I think there were two witnessses to the plane striking the poles but it wouldn't matter to me if there were none.
Try to put yourself into the position of most of those witnesses, it happens very quickly, there is an impression of noise, a plane hurtling at great speed, a great fireball on impact with the pentagon.
This would undoubtedly have been the most horrific thing they ever saw in their lives. To expect them to recall that the plane may have hit some light poles is being totally unrealistic.
If light poles were damaged then the most logical inference is that the plane did it. Anything else is just uneccessary embellishment and there is not a shred of evidence to support it or even a plausible scenario as to how it could be done.
But there were multiple witnesses who saw the plane fly north of the Citgo gas station which meant the plane couldn't have hit the poles. Those witnesses have clear memories and have been saying the same thing since 2001. If you haven't watched National Security Alert, you really should before you start theorising.
I doubt that many witnesses at the time had a clue where the Citgo gas station was. You get impressions from people for whom this all happened very fast and was terrifying. It doesn't surprise me at all if peoples' placing of the plane are all over the place.
In my view, if there was a conspiracy, the damage to the light poles does nothing to further it and should have been left out if the conspirators had any sense. As the conspirators have been so brilliant in so many respects at covering their tracks why would they risk this little bit of icing on the cake ?
The simplest explanation is that AA 77 clipped the poles.
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the planting of damaged poles. Must have taken a little while as you had the undamaged bits to remove first.
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the poles being hit by a large plane while many people witnessed a plane flying on a path which meant it couldn't have hit the poles.
I think there were two witnessses to the plane striking the poles but it wouldn't matter to me if there were none.
Try to put yourself into the position of most of those witnesses, it happens very quickly, there is an impression of noise, a plane hurtling at great speed, a great fireball on impact with the pentagon.
This would undoubtedly have been the most horrific thing they ever saw in their lives. To expect them to recall that the plane may have hit some light poles is being totally unrealistic.
If light poles were damaged then the most logical inference is that the plane did it. Anything else is just uneccessary embellishment and there is not a shred of evidence to support it or even a plausible scenario as to how it could be done.
But there were multiple witnesses who saw the plane fly north of the Citgo gas station which meant the plane couldn't have hit the poles. Those witnesses have clear memories and have been saying the same thing since 2001. If you haven't watched National Security Alert, you really should before you start theorising.
I doubt that many witnesses at the time had a clue where the Citgo gas station was. You get impressions from people for whom this all happened very fast and was terrifying. It doesn't surprise me at all if peoples' placing of the plane are all over the place.
In my view, if there was a conspiracy, the damage to the light poles does nothing to further it and should have been left out if the conspirators had any sense. As the conspirators have been so brilliant in so many respects at covering their tracks why would they risk this little bit of icing on the cake ?
The simplest explanation is that AA 77 clipped the poles.
So you are actually choosing to ignore the huge amount of evidence - all of the evidence that the plane wasn't moving so fast and that some of the eye-witnesses were actually located in the gas station that apparently they didn't know existed. I sense our discussion will prove to be fruitless given the amount of denial you have crammed into such a short time on the forum.
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the planting of damaged poles. Must have taken a little while as you had the undamaged bits to remove first.
You don't address the fact that nobody witnessed the poles being hit by a large plane while many people witnessed a plane flying on a path which meant it couldn't have hit the poles.
I think there were two witnessses to the plane striking the poles but it wouldn't matter to me if there were none.
Try to put yourself into the position of most of those witnesses, it happens very quickly, there is an impression of noise, a plane hurtling at great speed, a great fireball on impact with the pentagon.
This would undoubtedly have been the most horrific thing they ever saw in their lives. To expect them to recall that the plane may have hit some light poles is being totally unrealistic.
If light poles were damaged then the most logical inference is that the plane did it. Anything else is just uneccessary embellishment and there is not a shred of evidence to support it or even a plausible scenario as to how it could be done.
But there were multiple witnesses who saw the plane fly north of the Citgo gas station which meant the plane couldn't have hit the poles. Those witnesses have clear memories and have been saying the same thing since 2001. If you haven't watched National Security Alert, you really should before you start theorising.
I doubt that many witnesses at the time had a clue where the Citgo gas station was. You get impressions from people for whom this all happened very fast and was terrifying. It doesn't surprise me at all if peoples' placing of the plane are all over the place.
In my view, if there was a conspiracy, the damage to the light poles does nothing to further it and should have been left out if the conspirators had any sense. As the conspirators have been so brilliant in so many respects at covering their tracks why would they risk this little bit of icing on the cake ?
The simplest explanation is that AA 77 clipped the poles.
So you are actually choosing to ignore the huge amount of evidence - all of the evidence that the plane wasn't moving so fast and that some of the eye-witnesses were actually located in the gas station that apparently they didn't know existed. I sense our discussion will prove to be fruitless given the amount of denial you have crammed into such a short time on the forum.
What huge amount of evidence ? You ignore the witnesses who reported seeing the poles struck.
What evidence is there that the plane was not going fast ? Does that seem likely ?
You cannot come up with a sensible reason as to why the conspirators would indulge in this risky and pointless exercise.
Can you give me any remotely believable idea as to how the damaged poles were substituted without anyone noticing anything ?
What huge amount of evidence ? You ignore the witnesses who reported seeing the poles struck.
What evidence is there that the plane was not going fast ? Does that seem likely ?
You cannot come up with a sensible reason as to why the conspirators would indulge in this risky and pointless exercise.
Can you give me any remotely believable idea as to how the damaged poles were substituted without anyone noticing anything ?
If you have read through this thread - it was actually a challenge to people to post witness accounts that support a south of Citgo flight path and the poles being hit. You can post your ideas on this but probably best to read the whole thread first in case you are repeating things. If your next post does not include this information, then I will presume you don't have any and any theories you have are just that - theories.
Evidence plane not going fast = eye-witness accounts. Does that seem likely = what does that have to do with anything? Sensible reason = if the evidence points to it happening, then it happened irrespective of any reasoning I make. Nobody noticing = your current challenge is to post eye-witness accounts of the massive plane striking light poles and impaling a taxi cab, a slightly more memorable sight than routine road maintenance.
What huge amount of evidence ? You ignore the witnesses who reported seeing the poles struck.
What evidence is there that the plane was not going fast ? Does that seem likely ?
You cannot come up with a sensible reason as to why the conspirators would indulge in this risky and pointless exercise.
Can you give me any remotely believable idea as to how the damaged poles were substituted without anyone noticing anything ?
If you have read through this thread - it was actually a challenge to people to post witness accounts that support a south of Citgo flight path and the poles being hit. You can post your ideas on this but probably best to read the whole thread first in case you are repeating things. If your next post does not include this information, then I will presume you don't have any and any theories you have are just that - theories.
Evidence plane not going fast = eye-witness accounts. Does that seem likely = what does that have to do with anything? Sensible reason = if the evidence points to it happening, then it happened irrespective of any reasoning I make. Nobody noticing = your current challenge is to post eye-witness accounts of the massive plane striking light poles and impaling a taxi cab, a slightly more memorable sight than routine road maintenance.
Time to put up or shut up.
OK here are a few witness quotes:-
Steve Riskus : " I could see the American Airlines logo... It knocked over a few light poles in its way"
Mark Bright: " ..at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down "
Mike Walter: "... it clipped one of those light poles... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there. It was an American Airlines jet."
Rodney Washington: " ..knocking over light poles "
Afework Hagos : "It hit some light poles on the way in "
D S Khavkin: " First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles "
Wanda Rameg : " I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post post"
Linda Liebner : " It was probably about thirty feet off the ground, clipping the lamp posts"
A lady called Penny Elgas has donated an aircraft fragment to a museum which she believes fell into her car as a result of collision with a light pole.
So, there is plenty of eye-witness support for collision with light poles.
However, I don't think eye-witness testimony trumps everything; especially at very traumatic events.
The fact is that the broken light poles line up perfectly with the expected and actual damage to the Pentagon.
I think the idea that the broken light poles were added to the conspiracy as icing on the cake is incredible and no-one saw it being done.
As I indicated earlier, I think you have to treat some eye-witness testimony with caution, especially at very traumatic events, and when it contradicts physical evidence.
However, what I get very angry about is where I think witnesses are being browbeaten to amend their testimony.
As I indicated earlier, I think you have to treat some eye-witness testimony with caution, especially at very traumatic events, and when it contradicts physical evidence.
However, what I get very angry about is where I think witnesses are being browbeaten to amend their testimony.
You mean like these people which disagree with your version ?
As I indicated earlier, I think you have to treat some eye-witness testimony with caution, especially at very traumatic events, and when it contradicts physical evidence.
However, what I get very angry about is where I think witnesses are being browbeaten to amend their testimony.
You mean like these people which disagree with your version ?
What about the people who support my version and disagree with yours ?
I think we should accept the evidence of the light poles as being the flight path until you can come up with some evidence of fabrication.
At the end of the day, I just think the light poles are a distraction. I cannot imagine why conspirators would add in this complication, and consequent risk, which seem to me to add nothing either way.
As I indicated earlier, I think you have to treat some eye-witness testimony with caution, especially at very traumatic events, and when it contradicts physical evidence.
However, what I get very angry about is where I think witnesses are being browbeaten to amend their testimony.
You mean like these people which disagree with your version ?
What about the people who support my version and disagree with yours ?
I think we should accept the evidence of the light poles as being the flight path until you can come up with some evidence of fabrication.
At the end of the day, I just think the light poles are a distraction. I cannot imagine why conspirators would add in this complication, and consequent risk, which seem to me to add nothing either way.
As I indicated earlier, I think you have to treat some eye-witness testimony with caution, especially at very traumatic events, and when it contradicts physical evidence.
However, what I get very angry about is where I think witnesses are being browbeaten to amend their testimony.
You mean like these people which disagree with your version ?
What about the people who support my version and disagree with yours ?
I think we should accept the evidence of the light poles as being the flight path until you can come up with some evidence of fabrication.
At the end of the day, I just think the light poles are a distraction. I cannot imagine why conspirators would add in this complication, and consequent risk, which seem to me to add nothing either way.
Show me one on tape.
One tape about what ? I provided a list of witnesses to a plane striking the light poles.
What about the people who support my version and disagree with yours ?
I think we should accept the evidence of the light poles as being the flight path until you can come up with some evidence of fabrication.
At the end of the day, I just think the light poles are a distraction. I cannot imagine why conspirators would add in this complication, and consequent risk, which seem to me to add nothing either way.
Show me one on tape.
One tape about what ? I provided a list of witnesses to a plane striking the light poles.
One on tape stating such with him/her stating his/her location and occupation.
What about the people who support my version and disagree with yours ?
I think we should accept the evidence of the light poles as being the flight path until you can come up with some evidence of fabrication.
At the end of the day, I just think the light poles are a distraction. I cannot imagine why conspirators would add in this complication, and consequent risk, which seem to me to add nothing either way.
Show me one on tape.
One tape about what ? I provided a list of witnesses to a plane striking the light poles.
One on tape stating such with him/her stating his/her location and occupation.
I have no idea whether a tape fitting your criteria exists. You might be interested in the following though:-
I think the eyewitness and physical evidence for AA 77 striking the Pentagon is overwhelming.
You are bound to find discrepancies between witnesses to such a horrific event.
Unless it can be proved that the light poles are faked I think that is very good evidence for the flight path in. As I have said before, I can see no good reason why conspirators would risk such an unessential add-on.
What about the people who support my version and disagree with yours ?
I think we should accept the evidence of the light poles as being the flight path until you can come up with some evidence of fabrication.
At the end of the day, I just think the light poles are a distraction. I cannot imagine why conspirators would add in this complication, and consequent risk, which seem to me to add nothing either way.
Show me one on tape.
One tape about what ? I provided a list of witnesses to a plane striking the light poles.
One on tape stating such with him/her stating his/her location and occupation.
I have no idea whether a tape fitting your criteria exists. You might be interested in the following though:-
I think the eyewitness and physical evidence for AA 77 striking the Pentagon is overwhelming.
You are bound to find discrepancies between witnesses to such a horrific event.
Unless it can be proved that the light poles are faked I think that is very good evidence for the flight path in. As I have said before, I can see no good reason why conspirators would risk such an unessential add-on.
* yawns *
Yes I am familiar with RKOwens.
No that video does not interest me as I prefer to hear it from the witnesses mouths, not some spun to be politically correct news account.
Again I refer you to the CIT forum and the videos of the eyewitnesses which they have done.
What about the people who support my version and disagree with yours ?
I think we should accept the evidence of the light poles as being the flight path until you can come up with some evidence of fabrication.
At the end of the day, I just think the light poles are a distraction. I cannot imagine why conspirators would add in this complication, and consequent risk, which seem to me to add nothing either way.
Show me one on tape.
One tape about what ? I provided a list of witnesses to a plane striking the light poles.
One on tape stating such with him/her stating his/her location and occupation.
I have no idea whether a tape fitting your criteria exists. You might be interested in the following though:-
I think the eyewitness and physical evidence for AA 77 striking the Pentagon is overwhelming.
You are bound to find discrepancies between witnesses to such a horrific event.
Unless it can be proved that the light poles are faked I think that is very good evidence for the flight path in. As I have said before, I can see no good reason why conspirators would risk such an unessential add-on.
* yawns *
Yes I am familiar with RKOwens.
No that video does not interest me as I prefer to hear it from the witnesses mouths, not some spun to be politically correct news account.
Again I refer you to the CIT forum and the videos of the eyewitnesses which they have done.
Yes, I didn't really think you would like it.
As I said, witnesses will vary, especially I would have thought when it comes to placing something like a plane at high speed.
This is why I think the light poles are good evidence of the flight path
10:11 PM Dec 7
