I've heard many different theories about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. Though there is a lot of speculation about what happened, i think all the theories need to answer the critical question... what knocked down the light poles? I've never really heard a good answer to this question.

my opinion is that explosives were used to knock down the light poles and slice them up to give the appearance that a large aircraft knocked them down. What are some other opinions? What do you think knocked down the light poles?

A PLANE!

See http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=14638

Mothra or Godzilla!

Yup, the same thing that knocked each of the towers. A Plane.

me?

:ph43r:

I knew it. :lol:

even if you believe a plane hit the pentagon... you believe it traveled along the official flight path too?

i would have to say that there is very little evidence to suggest that a plane traveled along the official flight path. i think that most people who believe a plane was involved at the Pentagon, believe in the alternative flight path presented in the Pentacon and Pandora's black box ch. 2.

Since these were probably 'breakaway light posts', that are designed to break and fall away from the road in the event of a crash, it probably was relatively easy to knock these light posts down by setting small explosive charges in them before the attack. Especially, if someone wanted to create 'proof' for the path that a plane had flown in.

I'm sorry was David Copperfield in town?

Break-away light posts? when were these installed? what in the world makes you think of this? Do you think these small explosive charges might call some attention - being that we were under attack and everyone was freaked out?

Common sense sucks huh?

Break away light posts are to lessen damage and injury in auto accidents. ;)

welli hit one once and it definately didnt break away...

who do I sue?

The town or county you were in........ maybe??

You were in a car when you hit it, right?? :lol:

Careful with this topic. When Craig and Aldo were banned a couple of days ago, the mod said that any talk of Lloyd England being a co-conspirator would not be tolerated.

And, you can't have sabotaged light poles without Lloyd being involved in the conspiracy.

DC in a 2.2 ton SUV. it bent over but never broke away.

I am suing GWB!!!

Sue him and DoT. :lol:

There was someone showing here on the forum photos that prove the light posts were planted on the highway way after the Pentagon got damaged. So whatever it was, it was not a plane or whatever that hit the Pentagon.

Yeah, it was likely the plane that did that.

So what would be the purpose of faking the light poles? To make people think the plane took a different path?

While I will admit that i have my questions about the official flight path, I think there is actually some very good evidence that suggests a plane hit the Pentagon.

Of course that proof would be the lightpoles knocked down as 77 made it's final descent. :D

Don't even bother asking this question. The answers you get will frustrate you to no end. There is absolutely NO reason to plant broken lightpoles.

If the government felt the need to do this, I'm sure they would have also applied that logic to the War In Iraq and planted WMDs by now.

holy shit!!!!

Common sense.


seriously. ;)

So does military indoctrination!

MM

i love you too! ;)

Sounds like you should have been arrested for DUI.

MM

Lemme see if I got this right. Something hits the Pentagon and causes a lot of noise, smoke, and damage. But nobody sees a crew of people toting lightpoles out into the roadway to plant them as having been knocked down. Does no one see them do this because they are staring at the smoky Pentagon and not paying attention to the crew planting the lightpoles?

SLANDER -I'll sue you too!!!

actually i was swerving to avoid a dog in the highway - a 2.2 ton Tahoe doesn't handle like a sports car.

I do not know ... all I know the light post were planted after the Pentagon on fire. There is a hard prove for this - photos.

If you are not able to find it now (it was mentioned week or two ago in the Lounge) I will find it for you once I back home. I will not dig for it now as I am working, sorry. Do not want to get fired ;)

Please do.

As a former army brat, I'd love to meet you.

Oh, they let dogs run free in the D.C. area? After a few tequilas some people actually think those light poles look like dogs.

MM

I figured the poor doggy was just fleeing from a over amorous Congressman (possibly tequila intoxicated)

You have photos of people planting the lightposts??? Why didn't you say so?! Can you post them then????

Really I see no evidence to support that. Other than the evidence that we have been questioning since day one.

Is there anybody here who can definitively show a 757 can clip 5 250lb breakaway light poles without damaging the wings and still allowing a successful impact or an additional 200 ft of successful flight?

I think it's pretty obvious that the plane is off that official flight path based on the Citizen Investigation Team witnesses and the fishy FDR data from the Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

There isn't?

What if you didn't want to crash a plane into the Pentagon, but you wanted to simulate that you did?

Again, if light poles would have compromised the wings, then they would not want to crash the plane into them.

Well I think the CIT guys explained it pretty well.

Poles were planted before the event. In the night time or early AM hours. No one would notice light poles in the grass. Especially since they said the highway is elevated and people look straight ahead. I think the point about people being on their cell and listening to the radio was a good one too. People would not notice it. Plus, they said Bush was supposed to land there at the helipad, so Secret Service and security would keep bikes and pedestrians from that sidewalk there or it would at least be blocked off.

The pole by the cab is a tough one. But I think if it was on the shoulder like they suggested, that too could be moved out to the middle of the road after the attack in the chaos.

What if it is was just off course and corrected itself? I think that part is irrelevant either way. The why is not important. The who is.

That's silly. I don't think the mods meant that. I think they just don't endorse it.

Frankly, imo, I think it is disingenuous to give Aldo and Craig a hard time over it. When most everybody, including Dylan Avery and Alex Jones, accuse Larry Silverstein being involved in the demolition of building 7, when they have NO evidence to support that. I think there is way more evidence to support that possibility of involvment with the cab driver.

Great.

Please tell me we aren't going to have to suffer through CIT plants coming back again and again only to post and run before getting banned again?

P.S. to the Admins.

Is it possible when you ban someone to automatically delete their posts or is that a manual and more time consuming task?

Discussion is obviously OK.

But accusation WITHOUT ANY PROOF is not Ok.

My guess is small shaped charges. After testing, the correct amount of explosive to use could have been found.

You don't call the witnesses who all place the plane on the north side of the gas station "PROOF" enough to propose direct involvement?

What PROOF do you have that Mr. Silverstein actually meant "Pull it" as in meaning demolition? Aren't you accusing Mr. Silverstein of involvement in 9/11?

And what chopped the pole into pieces pinching the ends?