The downed light poles were staged in advance.

Welcome!

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.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
3
4

The downed light poles were staged in advance.; ..not by a plane, explosives, or vortex.
Topic Started: Jan 31 2008, 02:02 PM (2,313 Views)
Craig Ranke CIT	Jan 31 2008, 02:02 PM Post #1
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	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. This is compounded by the fact that it is physically impossible for Lloyd England's story to be true. This may seem like a complex task but it would actually be quite simple for the suspect in question to accomplish. First realize that the area is the literal backyard of the suspect and one of the most highly secured areas in the nation. It's right by the heliport where the President travels from quite often and in fact he had left from there the day before and was scheduled to return there that afternoon! Heliport firefighter Allan Wallace: Quote: Our first helicopter flight was around 10AM. But we were expecting President George W. Bush to land in Marine One around 12 Noon, returning from Jacksonville, Florida. (He had actually left from the Pentagon the day before.) Needless to say, neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day because of the terrorist attacks. source This means that they had all the excuse they needed to "secure" the area in preparation for his arrival and this would even be quite routine and expected for the people in the area since the President travels from there regularly. The poles could have been removed in the middle of the night on any night prior to the event in what could have been made to look like regular late night road work. Then the pre-fabricated damaged poles could be put in place perhaps at 4:00am on 9/11 or even later in the day while they were "securing" the area for the President's scheduled arrival. 4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side on the grass. I'll address pole 1 in a bit. There isn't a reason that any of them would cause a reason for alarm or notice by any of the morning rush hour traffic even if they could be seen. Pole 2 was completely hidden and poles 4 and 5 were down on slopes. They were all on Pentagon property/jurisdiction/control which could have been on serious lock down due to the President's scheduled arrival. But the bottom line is that EVEN IF someone did happen to see a pole on the ground and remember and EVEN IF they put 2 and 2 together after the fact and called the FBI obviously nothing would have happened. But they most likely would NOT put 2 and 2 together because the light poles were an insignificant tiny blip on the most historically tragic day in U.S. history. The average public has absolutely no clue about the light poles at all and even many in the movement aren't aware of them. The poles have not been covered in a single official report either. This seemingly impossible scenario to stage would have been child's play to do in their own backyard for the same perpetrators who pulled off a covert triple controlled demolition in downtown Manhattan. Light pole one was likely staged after the fact and a detailed photographic look into this scene is available here. But as a summary the possibly pre-damaged cab could have been towed or driven to it's spot where they partially blocked traffic and placed it. Minutes later feds rolled up and surrounded the area and completely blocked traffic. These images show you how much control they had of the scene after blocking traffic and surrounding the area as well as how the cars on the other side of the highway going northbound wouldn't see anything because of the HOV lane that was already closed and had two sets of guardrails: These images were all taken within 17 minutes maximum after the event. Traffic was already completely blocked and the entire scene was controlled. They could have done anything they wanted and it wouldn't matter because the Pentagon was burning and nobody would care or notice the feds and the cab and the pole even if they could see them. But they can't. Pole 1 could have been pulled from the shoulder, maybe from behind the bush, over the guardrail from the other side, or even unloaded from a truck all in about 30 seconds. We do know it was moved before all these images were taken due to the scratch on the road: This plain clothed federal agent with the red tie who was likely driving the white Saturn was a central figure in this scene: The notion that the poles were blown with explosives or knocked down by the vortex of a second plane or a missile is simply not possible primarily due to the physical damage of the poles revealing that they were somehow pinched at the top: This could not have happened from explosives or the vortex of anything. But it could have been easily pre-fabricated in advance: Compare the damage to this same style "break-away" base of a pole from the same area that was blown over by wind to pole #4's base: The 9/11 base is perfectly symmetrical and sooty as if it were removed with a torch while the wind blown base is more random like you would expect if it were broken by a sudden force like wind or a 90 ton jet.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Terral	Feb 1 2008, 08:34 AM Post #2
911Truther Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #142 Joined: 01/20/08	Hi Craig: Thank you very much for starting yet another (how many do we need?) light pole thread and for the opportunity to point out the errors in your CIT explanations. Quote: Craig >> The light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance. Your assertion here is very much IMPOSSIBLE, which you should realize by a careful analysis of all the facts from the supporting witnesses. Pentagon Witnesses: Quote: 12. Don Fortunato says >> “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.” 13. Don Mason says >> “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.” 14. Steven McGraw says >> “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.” 15. Mary Ann Owens says >> “On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner’s wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.” 16. Rodney Washington says >> “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.” 17. Rick M says >> “We heard a sound like a missile and the plane flew in front of us.” 18. Tony Terronez says >> “At that point I didn’t know it was a plane… I thought it was a missile strike - how dangerous things were. Pulling away from the Pentagon there was tons of stuff on the ground, big pieces of metal, concrete, everything. Since we have two dozen Pentagon “Pole Witnesses” seeing a Big PLANE and poles flying around, then obviously nobody planted any light poles in advance. We have witnesses that you have already demonized in your own mind that support Lloyd’s testimony TO A TEE: 33 Pentagon Witnesses: Quote: James Keglovich (across the street from the Pentagon) >> "They began exclaiming, "Where's he going? What's he doing?" when suddenly they saw the plane clip a taxi cab on the nearby bridge. The crash was exceptionally loud, he said. It shook the building and knocked people down who were closer to the point of impact." Stephen McGraw (stuck in standstill traffic in the left lane) >> "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.” We can line up a 1000 witnesses that saw the PLANE strike and knock down these light poles and our distinguished CIT guys will continue the Lloyd-bashing until the cows come home. :0) They begin with the WRONG hypothesis to begin drawing “Lloyd is a LIAR” conclusions without having any idea about what they are even talking about, because they have been chasing rabbits down the wrong holes for FAR too long. Craig started off with the wrong conclusion to write, Quote: Craig >> The downed light poles at the Pentagon are arguably the most convincing evidence that a 757 caused the physical damage that day. Wrong! There is no evidence for a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashing anywhere near the Pentagon and you very well know it. Glen Stanish the founder of the PilotsFor911Truth Board makes that fact perfectly clear to open this video. There is no evidence of the massive wing sections, Rolls-Royce engines, seats, cargo, landing gear or almost 50-feet tall tail section crashing anywhere near the Pentagon and ALL the expert witnesses in that 6-minute video draw the same exact conclusions. Thus far Craig here is batting zero for two . . . Quote: Craig >> 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. Craig here fails to realize we have been looking at ‘Two Pentagon Attacks’ in the form of a 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike ‘and’ a 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet Attack (diagram) where only the painted-up A-3 Jet took the North Of Citgo Flight path shown here in blue. There were NO light poles knocked down during the 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet attack (hit the E-Ring wall here in first picture), because all 5 poles were knocked down five minutes earlier when the 9:31:39 AM A-3 passed ‘over’ the E-Ring roof, during the Missile Strike creating only ‘inside-the-building fires.’ Barbara Honegger interviewed Lloyd to gather many important facts overlooked by my CIT debating opponents: Barbara’s Famous 9:32 AM First Explosion Paper: Quote: Barbara Honegger >> He stated that he saw no evidence of a plane having impacted the building nor any visible plane pieces on the lawn at the time he arrived, which was AFTER the first violent event in the building [9:31:39 AM missile strike], as black smoke was streaming up and to the right from inside−the−building fires. Lloyd saw the 9:31:39 AM Large Decoy Flyover Plane that cast a large shadow on Citgo Station Security Camera #7 ( lower right) at exactly 9:31:39 AM, when you realize the system is running exactly 10 minutes fast. The Doubletree Hotel Security Camera caught the initial explosion and smoke plume just after 9:32 AM when the ‘A-3 Jet’ knocked down these light poles ‘and’ sent Pole #1 hurling towards Lloyd’s taxi cab. Read Barbara Honegger’s entire paper to realize the first explosion at the Pentagon took place just before 9:32 AM and not the reported 9:38 AM most people have been deluded into believing. The LibertyPost.org article provides more evidence that Lloyd is telling ‘the’ 911Truth, because he and his helper were wrestling with Pole #1 when the “Big Boom” took place just 5 minutes after the 9:32 AM first explosion. Lloyd’s Liberty Post Article: Quote: Lloyd, 69, began the morning of September 11, 2001 like most days, driving his taxi cab. A passenger in Rosslyn told him what had happened at the World Trade Center so he turned on his radio and headed home. As he approached the Navy Annex, he saw a PLANE flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the PLANE [the 9:31:39 AM painted-up A-3] struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole [five minutes have passed], they heard a BIG BOOM and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened. Lloyd was not forthcoming with ‘all’ the story for the CIT boys, because they were interrogating him like a band of Nazi’s out to demonize him to discredit his testimony. Lloyd England is a 9/11 Pentagon “Survivor” these guys are trying to demonize, because their theories do NOT even begin to match the ‘evidence’ for this Pentagon Case. THAT is why they start off discrediting Lloyd at the very beginning of making their presence known on these 911Truth Boards in the first place. :0) We have another witness corroborating Lloyd’s story TO A TEE. Terry Cohen is a construction supervisor sitting in a meeting in one of those construction trailers outside the Pentagon on 9/11, when the first explosion took place at exactly 9:31:39 AM. You must watch this video to see how she supports Lloyd’s story 100 percent: Channel 4 News Report On 9/11 Terry’s “Boom” to start the video is the 9:31:39 AM missile strike taking place under the cover of the low-flying A-3 Jet that finds Lloyd standing out in the middle of Washington Blvd with the light pole jabbed into his windshield. Terry Cohen testifies right off the bat to seeing “Just Smoke” (00:21). Terry’s witnesses saw a “Big Airplane” that was the 9:31:39 AM A-3 Flyover Jet that knocked down the light poles. Her “Terrible Explosion” is the 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet explosion taking place just five minutes later coinciding with Lloyd’s “Big Boom,” even though Terry believed that took place fifteen minutes later. Therefore, Craig is right that the 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet took the North Of Citgo Flight Path, but Lloyd’s taxi cab was already damaged from Pole #1 five minutes earlier in the original attack taking place just before 9:32 AM. Quote: Craig >> This is compounded by the fact that it is physically impossible for Lloyd England's story to be true. No sir. All of the CIT guys have the Pentagon Timeline of events so screwed up, then you believe Lloyd is lying; when in fact he and his corroborating witnesses are all telling the 911Truth. You guys have the 9:31:39 AM Big Plane witnesses mixed in with the 9:36:27 AM A-3 smaller plane witnesses ( Michael Kelly , Don Wright) without knowing the difference. :0) Lloyd is telling the truth from what he saw out in front of the Pentagon on 9/11, but he does not know what happened. The famous taxi driver was heading ‘south’ looking away from the Pentagon when the 9:31:39 AM Decoy Plane approached from his right on the South of Citgo Flight Path, so he never saw the Missile strike Column Line (CL) 14. Lloyd and his helper were wrestling with Pole #1 with their backs turned to the Pentagon, when the same A-3 Jet took the North of Citgo Flight Path ‘behind them’ to strike between CL 9 and 15 (diagram) just five minutes later to create the “Big Boom” explosion they had to turn around to witness. To this day Lloyd has no clue as to what actually hit the Pentagon, because of a freaky series of events that propelled Pole #1 over 100 feet into his taxi windshield for him to put on the brakes and bring the light pole right back to the very spot where it was uprooted in the first place. :0) The CIT boys cannot understand the series of events surrounding these light poles that started the sequence of Pentagon events at 9:31:39 AM some six minutes ‘before’ they think Flight 77 hit the Pentagon; which never even happened. :0) Quote: Craig >> This may seem like a complex task but it would actually be quite simple for the suspect in question to accomplish. No sir. The entire CIT “The Light Poles Were Staged” argument represents too many years of chasing rabbits down the wrong holes. Anyone telling you the 911Truth is thrown into the “LIAR” dungeon with Lloyd and all his supporting witnesses, because you cannot let the “Lloyd Is A Liar” nonsense go. :0) Quote: Craig >> First realize that the area is the literal backyard of the suspect and one of the most highly secured areas in the nation. This is where Craig starts setting you up for his Grand Delusion, as if the FBI, CIA and Secret Service can ‘control’ the entire area visible to ALL THESE WITNESSES. :0) No sir. We have witnesses driving down Washington Blvd (Route 27) and witnesses standing across the street and others over at the Citgo station and others in their apartment buildings looking on from a distance. There are way too many people seeing the 9:31:39 AM Flyover Plane ‘and’ light poles flying around for one word of your “The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance” Theory to have any basis in reality whatsoever. Quote: Craig >> It's right by the heliport where the President travels from quite often and in fact he had left from there the day before and was scheduled to return there that afternoon! So what! This was 9:30 AM in the morning and we have plenty of witnesses standing around watching the Big Plane coming through knocking down the same light poles you say were staged the night before by FBI agents. :0) GL, Terral Edited by Terral, Feb 1 2008, 08:38 AM.



Stundie	Feb 1 2008, 09:42 AM Post #3
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Hi Terral, You say it was impossible, but I think it could be possible and was more than likely the case. Lets look at the witnesses you say saw the plane..... Terral 12. Don Fortunato says >> “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.” He is not describing a plane here, he is describing that a cab next to him had it's window screen smashed. This is not evidence that he saw the plane clip these poles. Terral 13. Don Mason says >> “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.” What is that bit in brackets? Is that the reporter suggesting the he watched it? If this is from a news article?? Also he is suggesting that the plane clipped an antenna of the vehicle behind him?? Please watch this, here is a jet at full throttle showing you what happens to car when it passes a jets stream. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24iZDl-U8es How did this car not get flipped like the ones in this video? terral 14. Steven McGraw says >> “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.” This sounds like he is recounting the story what he has been told. Terral 15. Mary Ann Owens says >> “On either side of him, three street lights had been sheared in half by the airliner’s wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.” Again, she is not witnessing this is she? It sounds like she is describing the aftermath. Terral 16. Rodney Washington says >> “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.” Didn't CIT speak with him and he confirmed that he never actually saw this? Terral 17. Rick M says >> “We heard a sound like a missile and the plane flew in front of us.” Witness states he saw a plane, he does not mention anything about the light poles. Terral 18. Tony Terronez says >> “At that point I didn’t know it was a plane… I thought it was a missile strike - how dangerous things were. Pulling away from the Pentagon there was tons of stuff on the ground, big pieces of metal, concrete, everything. He didn't know it was a plane?? So he didn't know because he never saw one, he thought it was a missile strike. To use this as evidence to suggest that these are witnesses to what Floyd is saying is not quite true. Instead of promoting this theory that it could not be staged, when there is plenty of strange anomalies which suggest that it was staged. i.e. Traffic stopped, no damage to Lloyd's car bonnet from the removal of the light pole, the fact that this plane flew so low at full speed and didn't so much as blow a car over is quite shocking. I'm sitting on the fence on this issue as I do not know enough about it, but the CIT claims seem to be standing up to scrutiny.
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Terral	Feb 1 2008, 12:05 PM Post #4
911Truther Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #142 Joined: 01/20/08	Hi Stundie: I am a little bit Stunned that you have chosen to write defending arguments for Craig, as if he cannot answer Post #2 on this thread apart from your assistance. Hopefully our gracious moderators will check the IP’s to see if this is yet another CIT sock puppet. Quote: Stundie >> You say it was impossible, but I think it could be possible and was more than likely the case. Lets look at the witnesses you say saw the plane..... Now Stundie is taking his turn at discrediting the testimony of over two dozen Pentagon Lamp Pole witnesses. :0) Here we have a picture of Washington Blvd traffic stopped in the northbound lane that extends all the way back over the Route 27 Cloverleaf Overpass ‘and’ the single smoke plume rising up from the Pentagon entry hole, but Stundie thinks NONE of the witnesses are in position to see the PLANE and the Light Poles flying around. :0) Here is a big FAT clue for you, Stundie: If the light poles were STAGED by FBI officers (heh) at 4:30 AM, then we would have NO light pole witnesses connected to the sighting of any PLANE at all. How can ANYONE in eyeshot distance of the Pentagon mistake five light poles laying on the ground, since 4:30 AM (heh), with any PLANE on final approach to crashing into the Pentagon?? :0) The whole idea that the light poles were staged in advance is refuted by the evidence of ‘one’ eyewitness seeing the PLANE ‘and’ the LIGHT POLES flying around, even if they were not in position to see anything hit the Pentagon. Quote: Stundie >> How did this car not get flipped like the ones in this video? No 100-Ton Jetliner was ever anywhere near the Pentagon (my A-3 explanation), so your little video has nothing to do with anything. Quote: Stundie >> Again, she is not witnessing this is she? It sounds like she is describing the aftermath. Please forgive, but your ‘sounds like’ one-sentence drivel sounds like Bullony to me. Quote: Stundie >> I'm sitting on the fence on this issue as I do not know enough about it, but the CIT claims seem to be standing up to scrutiny. Bullony. Stundie is a CIT-loyalist running diversion for their Light Pole Fantasies. Anyone sitting on the fence is an ‘unbiased’ third party reader, but your CIT mind is already made up . . . GL, Terral



Lin Kuei	Feb 1 2008, 01:07 PM Post #5
Posts: 1,298 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	Terral Feb 1 2008, 12:05 PM Hopefully our gracious moderators will check the IP’s to see if this is yet another CIT sock puppet Terral please leave admin matters for admins, and for terral & all members, please keep post size down...
Posts: 1,298 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 1 2008, 01:43 PM Post #6
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Terral claims an A3 skywarrior clipped an antenna, refuses to acknowledge that any witnesses were plants, yet somehow completely skirts over the fact that all witnesses describe a large passenger jet and how NOBODY describes anything like an A3 skywarrior. Never mind the evidence....Terral has it all figured out for us. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 1 2008, 01:43 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Terral	Feb 1 2008, 02:05 PM Post #7
911Truther Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #142 Joined: 01/20/08	Hi Craig: Quote: Craig >> Terral claims an A3 skywarrior clipped an antenna, refuses to acknowledge that any witnesses were plants, yet somehow completely skirts over the fact that all witnesses describe a large passenger jet and how NOBODY describes anything like an A3 skywarrior. Never mind the evidence....Terral has it all figured out for us. And this represents defending arguments to Post #2? :0) No sir. Terral makes no claim that any A-3 Skywarrior clipped anything. The DoD retrofitted a retired A-3 Skywarrior, or something very similar, to create ‘their’ Fake 757 Flying BOMB what went BOOM (lower pic) against the E-Ring wall at 9:36:27 AM. The PLANE seen at 9:31 and 9:36 looked very much like a real 757 to the people looking up at it from nearby locations. The eyewitness testimony says MANY people saw a PLANE ‘and’ LIGHT POLES flying around. Period. Just how many witnesses do you have saying even one light pole was laying on the ground BEFORE 9:30 AM? :0) Good Luck . . . GL, Terral



Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 1 2008, 02:14 PM Post #8
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	There is not a single quote of ANY witness who says they saw "light poles flying around". Why are you misrepresenting the evidence? There is nobody who reports two violent events either. Your "theory" is so convoluted, unsupported, and over the top that it's laughable. Nobody buys it Terral. Why is this a game to you?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Feb 1 2008, 03:21 PM Post #9
Posts: 1,980 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Terral Feb 1 2008, 08:34 AM Pentagon Witnesses: Quote: 12. Don Fortunato says >> “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.” 13. Don Mason says >> “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.” 14. Steven McGraw says >> “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.” 15. Mary Ann Owens says >> “On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner’s wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.” 16. Rodney Washington says >> “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.” 17. Rick M says >> “We heard a sound like a missile and the plane flew in front of us.” 18. Tony Terronez says >> “At that point I didn’t know it was a plane… I thought it was a missile strike - how dangerous things were. Pulling away from the Pentagon there was tons of stuff on the ground, big pieces of metal, concrete, everything. Since we have two dozen Pentagon “Pole Witnesses” seeing a Big PLANE and poles flying around, then obviously nobody planted any light poles in advance. We have witnesses that you have already demonized in your own mind that support Lloyd’s testimony TO A TEE: DEBUNKED DEBUNKED DEBUNKED DEBUNKED DEBUNKED Terral claims to be a researcher but what he is in reality is a fantasizing conspiracy theorists who obviously does no reading of anyone else's research with the exception of Karl Schwarz's group. In the last 3 months he had gone from no plane at the pentagon to 1 plane and 1 mach12 cruise missile with a vortex that crumpled light poles to 2 planes...... You don't read others research and it is apparent. There's nothing left to debate in this regard. NO ONE SAW THIS EVENT TAKE PLACE. Can we please put this issue to rest? I believe it is time for the Administration to get together and make a decision based on the evidence presented to date and perhaps present some of their own if they have something so we can lay this issue to rest and move on to the next aspect.[b/] Are we actually trying to accomplish something this time or are we all going to sit around and jerk each other off some more over the same old tired topics? Because if latter is the case I need to move on. I'm sick of being stuck inside some 9/11 quagmire that never accomplishes anything.
Posts: 1,980 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Terral	Feb 2 2008, 07:47 AM Post #10
911Truther Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #142 Joined: 01/20/08	Hi Craig and Lin Kuei: Here is the common pattern we have all seen before: I quote your every word to offer evidence-supported rebuttals and CIT boys drag out a blank sheet of paper to talk, talk, talk and without any evidence for anything. This thread is where Craig is defending ‘his’ “The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance” Opening Post hypothesis. Right? Post #2 contains my ‘rebuttal’ for which Craig has not one defending argument. Therefore, Craig now wants to divert attention elsewhere rather than address my standing arguments. Fine. BTW, Lin Kuei wrote, Quote: Lin Kuei >> Terral please leave admin matters for admins, and for terral & all members, please keep post size down... My first rebuttal to the Opening Post tends to be a bit longer than defenses to that presentation, but I will do everything to keep post sizes down. I have no choice but to leave admin matters for the admins, because Terral has no admin authority and lacks the temperament to do your job. :0) However, my distinguished debating adversary here is grandstanding to these readers without defending his OP thesis and without addressing one thing from my Post #2 rebuttal. He thinks chucking stones at Terral is going to make his “The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance” case, when in reality he has no case at all. One aspect of my duty to serve ‘the’ 911Truth is highlighting the underhanded trickery of my debating opponents, when they run out of arguments and begin playing these games. Quote: Craig >> There is not a single quote of ANY witness who says they saw "light poles flying around". We have about two dozen witnesses seeing the PLANE ‘and’ light poles flying around. Period. Nothing you say will change that simple fact. “You” say all of these poles were taken down manually by human hands ‘and’ staged in advance of the First 9:31:39 AM Explosion. Okay, so where is your evidence that anyone approached any light pole at 4:30 AM in the morning ‘and’ that these poles were already scattered around from sunrise to 9:30 AM? :0) Are we aware of the locations of these light poles in proximity to traffic driving by at stop-and-go speeds? Your claim is that a 69-year old taxi driver of 40 cotton picking years damaged his own windshield and fabricated his entire story to what end? :0) Lloyd has NEVER been a supporter of the Official Bushie Cover Story! Read Russell's interview evidence again to realize he did not care about any plane and did not have an AA77 story prepared in advance. Russell said, http://www.pentagonresearch.com/018.html Quote: Russell >> After describing that he told me, "That hole was too small for the plane". He reiterated that even though he was "standing right there" he couldn't explain what happened to the plane. If Lloyd is a DoD inside-job bad guy, then he already has his story prepared in advance and he says, "Flight 77 crashed right into the Pentagon!" You say he supposedly drove up next to the planted light pole (heh) and his helper jumped over the Washington Blvd lane divider for what reason? :0) If the light pole is on the ground, then nobody would even think about jumping over into the southbound lane to help anyone with anything. In that case people would be claiming the light pole was already laying in the road, BEFORE Lloyd even showed up. We would have a classification of Pentagon witnesses claiming that the light poles were already down on this website, but nothing like that appears anywhere in the testimony of ANYONE; except the PentaCon CIT boys with their “Light Poles Were Staged In Advance” Agenda. Four of these five light poles (#1-#4) were originally positioned directly on either side of Washington Blvd, with #5 down on the service road clearly visible to northbound traffic and yet you have zero witnesses testifying to any downed light poles before 9:30 AM. Quote: Craig >> Why are you misrepresenting the evidence? Me? :0) Lord-Have-Mercy . . . Mark Bright’s testimony says, “It was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down.”, but Craig represents THAT as, “The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance.” :0) My interpretation says Mark Bright saw the PLANE and a couple of light poles were knocked down. The evidence says, “Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her.”,but Craig interprets that to say, “The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance.” My representation says the Plane was flying ‘dangerously low’ (like Lloyd here) and the thing clipped a light pole near Penny Elgas. I can go all the way down the line and connect the dots between the PLANE seen by ALL these witnesses and the “light poles” THEY say were clipped in the process. And yet, you sit there in the stench of your CIT misrepresentations to claim ALL of these Plane/Pole witnesses are saying, “The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance.” Give me a fricking break! Quote: Craig >> There is nobody who reports two violent events either. Nobody? Lord-Have-Mercy . . . When your head is buried that deep in the sand, then your assertions about “Nobody” really mean nothing at all. Lloyd’s Pole #1 experience began with Terry Cohen’s first ‘boom,’ when all the ceiling tiles came tumbling down on everyone in the construction trailer just 100 feet from the Column Line 14 impact hole. Her subsequent “Terrible Explosion” is the ‘second’ explosion and Lloyd’s “Big Boom” that took place ‘behind him,’ when he and his helper were wrestling with Pole #1 stuck through his windshield. Craig is running around shouting “Staged Light Poles” without even connecting these events to any BOOM at all. The ‘two explosions’ are seen very clearly just five minutes apart in Colonel Jonathan Fruendt’s testimony beginning on Page #73 here. I highlighted that information here on Honway’s Old LC Board thread in Post #2 and Point #8. Quote: Craig >> Your "theory" is so convoluted, unsupported, and over the top that it's laughable. Laughable? :0) That is the reason none of the CIT boys has offered a single rebuttal to either of my Opening Post thesis papers here and here. And yet, every argument from my “too long” (I'm trying to make them shorter) Post #2 rebuttal to your “The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance” OP nonsense remains standing ‘and’ you still have no reply. :0) Quote: Craig >> Nobody buys it Terral. Why is this a game to you? Oh, now Craig speaks for everybody. :0) We are debating these topics in a ‘War of Words’ and your side appears to be outgunned on every side. This “Staged In Advance” Light Pole fiasco is about the most ridiculous absurdity these eyes have ever seen, but I still take the time to debate the topic with ‘all’ of the CIT boys while respecting your right to paste anything to these threads you wish. I have no video’s, CD’s or anything else for sale, but have plenty of the ‘911Truth’ that ‘does’ agree with the testimony of all these Pentagon Plane/Pole witnesses. GL in the debates, Terral



Hetware	Feb 2 2008, 08:33 AM Post #11
Posts: 74 Group: Members Member #114 Joined: 01/17/08	A 757 was electronically hijacked by some means of pre-flight tampering. The passengers and crew were neutralized by some kind of nerve gas or other fast acting poison. The plane flew "like a cruise missile with wings" into the first floor of the Pentagon, hitting specifically targeted offices. There may have been explosives planted in the Pentagon prior to the attack. The phone calls were either faked by the caller, or completely fabricated by the people reporting them (e.g., Ted Olson). Basically the same scenario with each plane. Flight 93 was probably an aborted attack on WTC 7. "al Qaeda" had nothing to do with the attacks.
Posts: 74 Group: Members Member #114 Joined: 01/17/08


SPreston	Feb 2 2008, 09:39 AM Post #12
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Hetware Feb 2 2008, 08:33 AM A 757 was electronically hijacked by some means of pre-flight tampering. The passengers and crew were neutralized by some kind of nerve gas or other fast acting poison. The plane flew "like a cruise missile with wings" into the first floor of the Pentagon, hitting specifically targeted offices. There may have been explosives planted in the Pentagon prior to the attack. The phone calls were either faked by the caller, or completely fabricated by the people reporting them (e.g., Ted Olson). Basically the same scenario with each plane. Flight 93 was probably an aborted attack on WTC 7. "al Qaeda" had nothing to do with the attacks. An excellent synopsis of the facts, except there was no plane flying into the Pentagon. Explosives did a much better job and eliminated the targeted personnel and records. The 'electronically hijacked' aircraft were replaced by alternate remotely piloted aircraft by crossing one aircraft above another and swapping transponder codes; a simple matter for the US Air Force. Add fabricated witnesses and fabricated evidence and confiscated videos and photos and confiscated 911 call-in tapes and hundreds of gagged witnesses and firemen and police officers and a willing prostitute Mainstream Media and we have the 9-11 INSIDE JOB Attack on America. Welcome to the New World Order.



Hetware	Feb 2 2008, 10:41 AM Post #13
Posts: 74 Group: Members Member #114 Joined: 01/17/08	Other than the physical evidence, the missing airplane, the missing passengers, the existing precedence, and numerous credible eyewitnesses, there is no evidence that an airplane hit the Pentagon. IOW, a plane hit the Pentagon.
Posts: 74 Group: Members Member #114 Joined: 01/17/08


SPreston	Feb 2 2008, 11:03 AM Post #14
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	There is no possible way that any aircraft flew level across that Pentagon lawn as demonstrated in those official released security videos, and impacted into that first floor below the 2nd story floor slab, without striking and destroying the polyethylene cable spools directly in the flight path. Impossible. Thus; no aircraft impact, the actual alternate aircraft used flew the north of the Citgo flight path, and damage and deaths were caused by preplanted explosives within and without the Pentagon. Arrogant Deception - Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up?



SPreston	Feb 2 2008, 11:35 AM Post #15
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Hetware Feb 2 2008, 10:41 AM Other than the physical evidence, the missing airplane, the missing passengers, the existing precedence, and numerous credible eyewitnesses, there is no evidence that an airplane hit the Pentagon. IOW, a plane hit the Pentagon. Other than the planted and fabricated physical evidence, the missing airplane which disappeared elsewhere, the missing passengers who disappeared elsewhere, the existing precedence from Operation Northwoods and numerous other events over the past 70 years with the US Government deliberately deceiving and manipulating the American citizenry, (Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, JFK, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, WTC 93, Flight 800, etc. etc. etc.) and numerous unbelievable and lying eyewitnesses from the prostitute mainstream news media, there is no evidence that an airplane hit the Pentagon. IOW, a plane did not hit the Pentagon. The 85+ confiscated area security videos had to be censured and removed from We the People in order to effectively deceive us. The Arlington County 911 call-in tapes had to be confiscated and censored from We the People in order to restrict us from hearing and learning what area witnesses might have called-in reporting. How come there are not hundreds of MSM journalists seeking a Pulitzer, searching out and interviewing Arlington County residents like our CIT team does, to learn what they witnessed and might have called in to the FBI confiscated records? They all know for a fact that 9-11 Truth has a huge and growing following. So where is their journalistic integrity and longing for the truth? It is non-existent; that is where it is. These are gutless wonders, with no sense of patriotism and loyalty to We the People. They dare not delve into 9-11 matters, and it would never get by their editors anyway, because we have a disloyal and selfserving mainstream press owned lock, stock, and barrel by the international elitists, manipulating and deceiving us.



Hetware	Feb 2 2008, 12:14 PM Post #16
Posts: 74 Group: Members Member #114 Joined: 01/17/08	There is a damaged spool in this image. http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/newsphoto%5C2001-09%5C010914-F-8006R-001.jpg
Posts: 74 Group: Members Member #114 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 2 2008, 12:23 PM Post #17
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Craig Ranke CIT Jan 31 2008, 02:02 PM Compare the damage to this same style "break-away" base of a pole from the same area that was blown over by wind to pole #4's base: The 9/11 base is perfectly symmetrical and sooty as if it were removed with a torch while the wind blown base is more random like you would expect if it were broken by a sudden force like wind or a 90 ton jet. Don't forget this last part of my post. How anyone can possibly suggest that this base was naturally removed by a random violent event I will never know. Realize too that this image of the pole base was completely unreleased and unknown until we obtained the entire Ingersoll collection from Christopher Landis (RIP) at the VDOT on our first trip. This is hard physical evidence that the light poles were removed in advance.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Feb 2 2008, 12:29 PM Post #18
Posts: 1,980 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Hetware Feb 2 2008, 08:33 AM A 757 was electronically hijacked by some means of pre-flight tampering. Proof? Quote: The passengers and crew were neutralized by some kind of nerve gas or other fast acting poison. Proof? Quote: The plane flew "like a cruise missile with wings" into the first floor of the Pentagon, hitting specifically targeted offices. Proof? Quote: Basically the same scenario with each plane. Proof? Quote: Flight 93 was probably an aborted attack on WTC 7. LMMFAO!!!! Come on admit you're just making shit up now. How did you decide this? WTC7 blew up without being hit by a plane and a plane was blown to shit here in PA without hitting a building and even though it was heading towards DC WTC7 obviously was it's target.....lol Quote: "al Qaeda" had nothing to do with the attacks. Oh yeah there's no such thing as Al Qaeda, the database. They're definintely not a branch of the CIA and we never gave them billions of dollars.......... You're a parody of a truther, aren't you? I'm calling you Terral#2 from now on. Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Feb 2 2008, 12:31 PM.
Posts: 1,980 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Hetware	Feb 2 2008, 12:30 PM Post #19
Posts: 74 Group: Members Member #114 Joined: 01/17/08	It is ridiculous to suggest that people planned to plant all of this evidence at the Pentagon, and then were able to do it. In order to believe that it was done, you have to both convince me that it was possible to plant it all, and then convince me that someone actually confidently believed they could get away with it. There are typically people walking, jogging, driving, flying, biking, boating, all around that area. On a fine September morning there would likely have been an exceptional amount of such traffic. Trying to convince me that people could have succeeded in planting such evince as broken light poles and plane parts stretches the limits of credulity. Claiming that someone thought they could get away with it, exceeds credulity.
Posts: 74 Group: Members Member #114 Joined: 01/17/08


Hetware	Feb 2 2008, 12:37 PM Post #20
Posts: 74 Group: Members Member #114 Joined: 01/17/08	Domenick DiMaggio CIT Feb 2 2008, 12:29 PM Hetware Feb 2 2008, 08:33 AM A 757 was electronically hijacked by some means of pre-flight tampering. Proof? http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/911-planes-were-electronically.html Domenick DiMaggio CIT Feb 2 2008, 12:29 PM Quote: The passengers and crew were neutralized by some kind of nerve gas or other fast acting poison. Proof? That is reasonable speculation as to how the passengers and crew were prevented from interfering with the plane. It's the easiest means I can thing of. It may also be supported by Ed Felt's 911 call. Domenick DiMaggio CIT Feb 2 2008, 12:29 PM Quote: The plane flew "like a cruise missile with wings" into the first floor of the Pentagon, hitting specifically targeted offices. Proof? This has been amply treated by numerous sources. Hankey does a fairly good job. Domenick DiMaggio CIT Feb 2 2008, 12:29 PM Quote: Basically the same scenario with each plane. Proof? Common sense. Domenick DiMaggio CIT Feb 2 2008, 12:29 PM Quote: Flight 93 was probably an aborted attack on WTC 7. LMMFAO!!!! Come on admit you're just making shit up now. How did you decide this? WTC7 blew up without being hit by a plane and a plane was blown to shit here in PA without hitting a building and even though it was heading towards DC WTC7 obviously was it's target.....lol It is a reasonable assumption. Unless you believe that WTC1 and WTC2 were destroyed by airplane impact. Without being hit by a plane, WTC7 sticks out like a sore thumb. Domenick DiMaggio CIT Feb 2 2008, 12:29 PM Quote: "al Qaeda" had nothing to do with the attacks. Oh yeah there's no such thing as Al Qaeda, the database. They're definintely not a branch of the CIA and we never gave them billions of dollars.......... You're a parody of a truther, aren't you? I'm calling you Terral#2 from now on. If you believe hurling childish insults furthers your cause, feel free to continue. Edited by Hetware, Feb 2 2008, 12:59 PM.
Posts: 74 Group: Members Member #114 Joined: 01/17/08


Avenger	Feb 2 2008, 12:39 PM Post #21
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: It is ridiculous to suggest that people planned to plant all of this evidence at the Pentagon, and then were able to do it. In order to believe that it was done, you have to both convince me that it was possible to plant it all, and then convince me that someone actually confidently believed they could get away with it. There are typically people walking, jogging, driving, flying, biking, boating, all around that area. On a fine September morning there would likely have been an exceptional amount of such traffic. You wouldn't bring in planted parts in crates that say PLANTED PARTS. Quote: Trying to convince me that people could have succeeded in planting such evince as broken light poles and plane parts stretches the limits of credulity. Claiming that someone thought they could get away with it, exceeds credulity. Personally, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm pretty sure you will continue to cling to a story that makes no sense. Do you believe Lloyd England's story?
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


SPreston	Feb 2 2008, 12:50 PM Post #22
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Hetware Feb 2 2008, 12:14 PM There is a damaged spool in this image. http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/newsphoto%5C2001-09%5C010914-F-8006R-001.jpg One would think that a 757 allegedly flying at 530 mph would pulverize polyethelene (plastic) cable spools into the tiniest unrecognizable pieces. Besides, why were they not melted in the white hot heat of the alleged explosions shown in the FBI doctored security videos?



Hetware	Feb 2 2008, 01:06 PM Post #23
Posts: 74 Group: Members Member #114 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 2 2008, 12:23 PM Craig Ranke CIT Jan 31 2008, 02:02 PM Compare the damage to this same style "break-away" base of a pole from the same area that was blown over by wind to pole #4's base: The 9/11 base is perfectly symmetrical and sooty as if it were removed with a torch while the wind blown base is more random like you would expect if it were broken by a sudden force like wind or a 90 ton jet. Don't forget this last part of my post. How anyone can possibly suggest that this base was naturally removed by a random violent event I will never know. Realize too that this image of the pole base was completely unreleased and unknown until we obtained the entire Ingersoll collection from Christopher Landis (RIP) at the VDOT on our first trip. This is hard physical evidence that the light poles were removed in advance. I called my father and asked if he would take a look. When he calls back, I will provide you with the opinion of the man who wrote the acceptance specification for roadside fixtures for the US DoT. Since he is the person who taught me how such things work, I trust I got a pretty good education in the area. The damage pattern looks quite plausible to me if I assume it was caused by a plane clipping the top of the pole.
Posts: 74 Group: Members Member #114 Joined: 01/17/08


Terral	Feb 2 2008, 01:16 PM Post #24
911Truther Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #142 Joined: 01/20/08	Hi Craig and Hetware with Preston and TerrorCell mentioned: Quote: Craig >> Your "theory" is so convoluted, unsupported, and over the top that it's laughable. Nobody buys it Terral. Hetware >> It is ridiculous to suggest that people planned to plant all of this evidence at the Pentagon, and then were able to do it. In order to believe that it was done, you have to both convince me that it was possible to plant it all, and then convince me that someone actually confidently believed they could get away with it. There are typically people walking, jogging, driving, flying, biking, boating, all around that area. On a fine September morning there would likely have been an exceptional amount of such traffic. Trying to convince me that people could have succeeded in planting such evince as broken light poles and plane parts stretches the limits of credulity. Claiming that someone thought they could get away with it, exceeds credulity. Hetware is just as ‘right’ as he can be. We have all kinds of people in the area to catch any potential ‘Light Pole’ Banditos manually taking down light poles, bending and breaking light poles and moving light poles too and fro for the big 9:30 AM show. :0) Obviously these light poles are very heavy and very difficult for a one or two man crew to bend, break and move around without having a single witness testifying about people hijacking and moving light poles around. In case you do not realize it, Hetware, Preston is yet another CIT guy from the Old Loose Change Board. So do not be surprised if he and TerrorCell and the rest of their gang come and park here at the new Board. :0) A year will pass and these guys will all be stomping around in the middle of Washington Blvd starting another 250 threads about light poles and bashing poor old Lloyd’s head in without any theory about what actually hit the Pentagon. Watch and see . . . :0) Kind of sad actually . . . GL, Terral



Terral	Feb 2 2008, 01:21 PM Post #25
911Truther Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #142 Joined: 01/20/08	Delete me please. TY. Edited by Terral, Feb 2 2008, 01:25 PM.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4