The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance...not by a plane, explosives, or vortex.

Original link

Answer: human hands. The simplist and most logical answer. The only answer which does not require altered laws of physics. The only answer which does not require a strong belief in magic and no common sense whatsoever. Since so many other aspects of the entire 9-11 attack on America deal with planted evidence and manufactured evidence and confiscated and censored evidence and lying witnesses with prepared scripts, this answer fits in quite well. We know that there are many people who will lie for reward and when forced to, especially these prostitutes of the mainstream news media. Their lies do not add up nor do they make any sense.

The poles were mechanically crimped on the end and the #1 pole was mechanically bent into its curved shape. The bases were cut off likely the night before, using plasma cutting torches, and the poles and other pieces carefully hidden along the roads for their dramatic presentation the next day, while Dubya hid out in Florida. The entire area was closely contained and guarded for the Dubya's visits by the Secret Service and the FBI. We all know how loyal the FBI is to the American people, with their endless manufacturing and confiscating and censoring of evidence pertinent to 9-11. They can't even charge Osama with 9-11 because they haven't yet manufactured any evidence to do so with. Any honest person can see that a 180 lb 30' long light pole could not possibly land on a 40-45 mph Lincoln automobile without destroying it. There is no possible way that 180 lb light pole hurled 40' to 100' could pierce the windshield, miss the front seats and Lloyd, stop at the back seat, not pierce the gas tank, and not even scratch the roof or hood. This is a fairy tale; a fantasy which would not even fool little children. This is a silly storyline which belongs on Comedy Central. But there are a whole bunch of dishonest suckers who have swallowed this fish tale hook, line, and sinker. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side on the grass. - The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance...not by a plane, explosives, or vortex. - LC Forum duplicate

The light poles were mechanically crimped on the end - an aircraft wing even at 530 mph could not have done this


Wind broken base on left and plasma cut Pentagon light pole #4 base on right

Pentagon light pole base with plasma cut

Wouldn't someone have seen them since they had been planted there since 4 A.M.? Also, can you link me to your proof that the guy with the white shirt who was driving the Saturn is a plane-clothes federal agent?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=6199&st=0

Do you notice light posts laying along the road along your travels, write the locations down in your handy things to report notepad, and later call in the information to the local authorities or the Feds? No? Three of the light posts were laying below the road suface behind guardrails on a sloped surface. Here he is in this Cherokee with government plates. Who else besides a federal agent would be controlling the area in an area already controlled by the Secret Service/FBI for a Presidential visit? They ordinarily cordon off an area days in advance don't they? They had days to plan their evidence planting correctly and these stupid goofballs screwed it up. B)

The guy in the blue shirt with his sleeves rolled up is likely the guy driving the Saturn. The guy in the white shirt and red tie pulled up in the Cherokee...

4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side on the grass behind guardrails

No but if someone saw all these poles on the ground beforehand wouldn't they have remembered and come out with that fact? In fact, pole 1 is right in the middle of the roadway. Poles 4,5, and 3 would also be easily visible from the roadway. How can they have been planted in such places without anyone noticing? The answer is, they couldn't have.

As for the "agent", where's your evidence that he is simply a government employee at an agency which has no connection whatsoever with the CIA/FBI? If you have any physical evidence that he works for the CIA please post it. Also, he doesn't appear to be "controlling" anything. He looks like every other motorist who pulled over to watch the carnage and see wtf was going on.

Did you just fly in from 6 months hanging out in Antarctica? Do you have a reading comprehension difficulty? That #1 pole in the roadway is the pole that was never through the windshield of the Lincoln, but was dragged across the road from its hiding place behind the wall instead. Who said anything about any CIA? The Secret Service controlled the area around the Pentagon for a Presidential visit and the FBI often assists such security efforts. The Secret Service doesn't wear uniforms and the FBI often doesn't either, and both drive government vehicles with government plates. If somebody noticed the light poles sitting there earlier that morning and realized that later after 9-11, who do you think they would report it to, if they even bothered? The corrupt FBI? What do you think the corrupt FBI would do with that information when they were already busy confiscating the 85 or more security videos in the area and the Arlington County 9-11 call-ins and transcripts? Are you shills for the government ever uneasy with your choice of loyalty? :rolleyes:

I see two Federal agents and Lloyd and nobody else at the #1 light pole staging area and the Pentagon roof has not collapsed yet. Poor tired old Lloyd is just standing there waiting for the next staged photo op, and probably wondering how the hell he got stuck in this lying situation. Maybe Lloyd is cursing his FBI wife. In the first photo, the photographer has just come down the hill and probably just missed catching the two inept Feds dragging the 180 lb 30' long light pole across the pavement from its hiding spot behind the wall, and getting the other pieces and the bag of broken glass out of the white government car and planting it in the #1 light pole staging area. Or maybe he did catch them and got those photos confiscated. All the other people and vehicles are way over across two walls in the northbound lanes and watching the fires. Nobody is watching Lloyd except the two Feds and the photographer. :rolleyes:

Did anyone report seeing those poles planted? No.

The IRS doesn't wear uniforms either. Or the bean counters at the Pentagon. How many government employees do wear uniforms? The point is there is NO proof they are law enforcement or intelligence agents, just baseless assertions.

So if nobody reported them it must mean, that they were planted but nobody noticed them and if they did such reports were hushed up? The more logical explanation is that they were NOT there before, and that your story is simply assertions and assumptions strung together to play on a classic G-Man conspiracy.

As for the confiscation of security tapes, I for one am shocked that the FBI would dare actually collect evidence in a criminal investigation. They should be out doing there job. OH WAIT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING. Can you answer me this, how often does the government release all of its evidence in a criminal case to the general public?

I'll tell you what's really strange. One of the eyewitnesses that CIT has spoken with who was alleged to have witnessed this event.....McGraw.......yeah he actually admitted he didn't really see it happen he just deduced that it had.

So I take it you agree that this is bullshit?

that the 757 hit the pentagon?

oh yeah that's absolute bullshit.

I would imagine the more light pole witnesses CIT can interview the less people we will find actually saw this event really take place.

You getting a little bit panicky there, Mr mrn838 shill man?
Are you one of them corrupt FBI agents Mr mrn838 shill man? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

We don't really have an answer to that question do we? Maybe 100 people called in to report seeing those light poles planted. Maybe nobody called in to report seeing those poles planted. Maybe ten people called in to report seeing those poles planted. Maybe 1000 people called in to report seeing those poles planted. We just don't know do we, because the corrupt FBI confiscated and censored all the 9-11 tapes and transcripts from the American people? Maybe a few people saw those light poles being planted and decided it would be very dangerous to call in and leave their names for the corrupt FBI. We don't know, do we? Anyway, the light poles were still planted whether any witnesses saw it or not. B)

The confiscated and permanently sequestered 911 calls

Translation: You haven't been able to find a single shred of evidence beyond your baseless assertions and hatred of the government apparatus. You're done.

The poles, the poles, the poles...
I wanna watch the videos, the videos, THE VIDEOS!!!

Why concentrate on bending the poles over and over again - get them to show the viedeotapes!

Hi Preston:

Terral Logic? Heh . . . Oh yea, we have Preston’s Logic that FBI agents are assisting Lloyd and Steven McGraw stage a “Pole Photo Op” Hoax to fool everybody. :0) The idea that a CIT Chat-Monkey ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Ter...ightPole_TV.jpg ) is going to write commentary on Terral Logic is very amusing to say the least. I noticed you started the fifth “Let’s Bash Lloyd / Light Pole” Thread in this LC Pentagon Forum and none of the mods had any complaint at all that you literally ‘cut and pasted’ Craig’s work ( http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Trut...?showtopic=9632 ) from the PFT Forum, even though he was banned from here. Apparently we have a few PFT/CIT Chat-Monkey members ‘and’ mod-sympathizers helping you ensure that Craig’s Work continues to see the Light of Day on this LC Board. :0) Other Boards ban people for posting the work of banned members to their threads, which undermines the very purpose of kicking those CIT “Lloyd-Bashing” idiots out of here in the first place. THEN, Preston here wants to ramble aimlessly about Terral Logic versus what he cannot even begin to understand about this Pole #1 Topic. :0) Everyone involved should be very proud indeed . . .

Preston begins his nonsense by refusing to actually quote from my comments, to then begin asking stupid questions. :0) The Missile Bow Shockwave ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Ter...LloydsShock.jpg ) uprooted Pole #1 by passing on the ‘south side’ catapulting the pole ‘north.’



Pole #1 was popped up into the air, before the Decoy Flyover Plane struck ‘only’ the upper arm section breaking that part off from the main light pole entirely. That created the debris Lloyd had to maneuver the taxi around, after the main pole section (now decapitated) speared his windshield coming from the north.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/018.html

Lloyd not only turns the taxi to the right to avoid the upper arm section taken off by the Decoy Flyover Plane, but this move created the ‘bend’ along the Pole #1 shaft that took the heavier base section around closer to his driver-side door. This explains how the pole speared the windshield without even scratching the hood in the first place, as the pole wrapped itself around the metal bracing/door support on the left side of his windshield. We know the pole traveled a considerable distance, because Lloyd was traveling at some speed (around 50 MPH). This means the momentum from Lloyd’s stopping taxi actually brought Pole #1 back to the original ‘uprooting’ location. :0) This part of Lloyd’s Pole #1 episode is what the CIT Chat-Monkeys simply cannot visualize or accept, which created the whole “CIT Lloyd Is A LIAR/DoD Inside Job Terrorist” Theory in the first place. The CIT “human hands placed these poles here” nonsense is some of the most hilarious stuff imaginable from a group of guys deluded out of their cotton picking minds! We have too many pole witnesses ( http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/9...ttack-what.html ) seeing the BIG PLANE and poles flying around in connection to the first explosion for ANY of their CIT NONSENSE to be the 911Truth. These guys turn a blind eye to the testimony of MANY Pentagon witnesses to breathe life into their STUPID CIT theories with NO basis in reality whatsoever. :0) And yet, this guy is going to continue asking stupid question after question as if that proves something . . .

The 9:31:39 AM Decoy Flyover Plane and the Missile shared the same Citgo/Pentagon airspace for a brief period, when Pole #1 was uprooted and thrown ‘north’ by the missile on the way to striking the E-Ring Wall. Another look at the “ForceSideDemo” picture ( http://s29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Ter...rceSideDemo.jpg ) shows the overpass is raised higher than the slopping hill running down to a lower elevation. That means the Missile was flying on an ascending flight path at the moment Pole #1 was uprooted for the bow shockwave to send the pole ‘north.’ Preston is surmising that Pole #1 was then struck by the Decoy Flyover Plane Starboard Wing without considering the left side of the starboard engine actually struck the upper arm section of the light pole sending it even farther north. Remember most of the weigh in these light poles is in the ‘base’ with the upper arm section being much thinner and lighter. This means the upper arm section was literally ripped off by the Decoy Plane Starboard Engine, so Pole #1 was thrown north ‘and’ very much resembled a spear or javelin hurled into the air with the pointy end heading straight for Lloyd’s approaching taxi cab. This explains why the Pole #1 shaft has no damage at all, while the upper arm section was damaged from impact. Anyone seeing a cheerleader’s baton go up into the air knows there is plenty of time for a low-flying plane to strike this pole near the apex where the pole reached maximum height. And yet, Preston will continue asking stupid questions. :0)

Heh . . . Preston goes on about the FBI and Lloyd placing poles for Photo Ops (lol), as if we do not have over a dozen witnesses seeing the PLANE and POLES flying around through the air. How these CIT guys can be so BLIND to miss the obvious evidence standing against their NONSENSE simply boggles the mind. The upper Pole 1 arm section was completely intact, when the pole was uprooted by the missile bow shockwave. The upper arm section was torn off by the Decoy Flyover Plane ‘after’ the pole was uprooted and already propelled ‘north’ in Lloyd’s direction. We are looking at a freaky series of events that allowed Pole #1 to travel a hundred feet or more ‘north,’ to be carried right back to the starting spot dangling from Lloyd’s taxi cab windshield. :0) The funny thing is that if Lloyd stayed home sick that day, then Pole #1 would be found 100 to 200 feet ‘north’ of the original Pole #1 location and these CIT TV Chat-Monkeys would have nobody to blame for their stupidity. :0) Speaking of which – here is yet another question from a CIT guy without a clue . . .

What about it? A glass light pole lens tends to get broken from actively engaging in this kind of flying pole activity. :0)

The light pole lens was being a light pole lens like from the time it was born at the mommy light pole lens factory. Surely you realize the light pole lens is attached to the upper arm section clipped by the Decoy Flyover plane. The lens was detached at first impact and remained at the original Pole #1 location, until Lloyd and his taxi brought the main pole section right back to where the Pole Adventure began. :0) The light poles gods are playing a big fat joke on the CIT Chat-Monkeys with this series of coincidental Pole #1 events. :0)

We have a 911Truth Pole #1 Explanation that matches ‘all’ the evidence without creating a single contradiction or demonizing a single Pentagon witness. We also have Preston asking me a ton of his foolish questions rather than making an “FBI/Lloyd Human Hands Did It” argument for ANYTHING. The CIT TV crew is the laughingstock of this LC Board and they are too dim to even know it. :0) The PentaCon Job is the nonsense from their deluded Pentagon explanations . . .

Preston pastes the same old CIT nonsense over and over and over to all these threads and nobody cares. The guy asks everyone a million questions, because he simply hasn't a clue . . .

GL,

Terral

Sorry Terral. Your missile was travelling subsonic. This has been proven using simple high school physics.

Hence, there was no shockwave. No shockwave, no explanation for damaged lamp posts.

The missile could not have been going supersonic, otherwise the explosion would occur while the plane was still over the highway. This contradicts everything.

You are lying yet again.

Please stop lying.

Desist from using these two claims, until you have evidence of missile speeds and and an explanation for the damage to the poles that does not use a bow shockwave.

Thank you

You're done. The shill man has spoken. Mindless defense of the status quo. Even though the entire 30' light pole through the windshield is impossible as presented by the OCT, and even though the evidence shows that the 757 into the Pentagon wall through the undamaged polyethelene cable spools and under the 2nd story floor slab is also impossible as presented by the OCT, Mr shill man has spoken. You're done. Even though the light poles needed an aircraft to knock them over and one of them into Lloyd's windshield, since there was no such aircraft, and the real aircraft flew the North of Citgo flight path and pulled up and apparently over the Pentagon roof, Mr shill man sticks to his Karl Rove training. You're done. Even though the 9-11 call-in tapes and transcripts have been confiscated by the corrupt FBI and any light pole planting or aircraft flyover witnesses effectively silenced, Mr shill man still speaks. You're done. But don't you worry Mr shill man. The CIT Team will keep on digging, and more and more real witnesses will be found, and eventually light pole planting witnesses and flyover witnesses will be found and then we are going to hang those traitors you are shilling for Mr shill man. :D

Even though the evidence shows that the Feds totally controlled the 757 aircraft staging scene and even though the evidence shows that the light pole was dragged across the road from its wall hiding place by the two inept Feds, You're done. No witness to report it? Of course there were no witnesses to report it, Mr shill man. All the witnesses in the immediate area were planted USA Today paid shills and other paid media shills and shills with no last name and NeoCON shills all just like you, Mr shill man. The CIT Investigating Team had to go outside that immediate area to find real witnesses who were not paid liars. Doesn't it just anger you, Mr shill man that the CIT Team has exposed so many lies and so many liars, just like you, Mr shill man? More real witnesses to come soon. Nobody is done. We have traitors to hang; justice to serve. :D

The USA Today Parade - - Ingersoll images reveal the staging of light pole 1 - - Proof The Citgo Security Video Was Manipulated
The confiscated and permanently sequestered 911 calls - - The USA Today Parade(featuring Mike Walter and Joel Sucherman)
The First Accomplice (featuring Lloyd England) - - From the Law to the Lord (featuring Stephen McGraw) - - The 2nd plane cover story
Route 27 witnesses actual Point of View - - Taxicab driver Lloyd England's critical account - - Simple explanation of our findings

My, my, did I strike a cord or did you realize you have no proof those poles were staged and no proof whatsoever that those government employees were agents of any law enforcement or intelligence agency?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Terral this is really good comedy. We can now use broken windshields to put a smooth bend in 1/8" wall thickness 6" to 10" diameter aluminum light poles? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: The 247 lb pole wrapped itself around the metal bracing/door support on the left side? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Terral how come the windshield isn't broken over on that left side by that 247 lb 30' long light pole? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Terral, the top end of that 30' long pole was in the back seat and did not damage the front seat nor rip any Lincoln leather. Terral that 247 lb light pole allegedly hit a car going 40-45 mph, so the speed of the impact between the light pole and the windshield and the back seat was 40-45 mph plus the speed the light pole would have been hurled 100 feet or so up the road. Terral it is not possible that a windshield and a leather seat stopped a 40 to 45 mph+ light pole hurled like a javelin. Terral the seat wasn't even torn. Can't you even spot a bullshit fable when you see one? Come on Terral. Admit the Lloyd England tale is just a disinformation fable.
It is not possible. Impossible :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The windshield which bent Terral's 1/8" wall thickness light pole

The 30' light pole with the smooth bend and no other damage. Oh yeah, I forgot.
Also the gouge across the road to the far wall on the left where the light pole was hidden.

Here are the dimensions:

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT) How Many Witnesses Claim They.......saw a plane hit light poles?
757 impact proponents are quite fond of regurgitating mainstream media reports with zero research, analysis, confirmation, or investigation.

Considering that 9/11 was a psychological attack with the media being the weapon of choice this is inherently suicide in the pursuit of truth.

Typically the same lists are published over and over by people like Jim Hoffman, Eric Bart, and most recently Arabasque.

CIT has shown you why we can't trust a lot of these suspect witnesses and why it's so important to seek out previously unknown witnesses if we want to find the real truth.

Due to the north of the citgo evidence we focus a lot of attention on the light poles and see them as the key physical evidence proving an outright deception on 9/11.

So this thread is meant to examine all known witnesses who allegedly saw the light poles get hit.

Of the known alleged light pole witnesses Stephen McGraw, Joel Sucherman, Chad Brooks, and Mike Walter have all personally confirmed with us that they did NOT see the light poles get hit and only deduced it from seeing them on the road.

Arabasque has the most comprehensive list of alleged light pole witnesses with a total of 22. Scroll down to the part that says "Witnesses described the plane hitting lamp poles and objects". (he says "and objects" because a few describe things that were not hit at all.)

CIT has pointed out errors to him in the past that he has refused to correct and we have always maintained that there is only ONE previously published account where the witness is quoted specifically claiming that she literally "saw" the light poles get hit by the plane.

I will now address each of the witnesses he presents in order to explain how the information Arabasque asserts is false and downright deceptive in how it is presented.

Arabasque KNOWS that we did an interview with opus dei influenced priest Stephen McGraw. He KNOWS that we have posted this entire interview online for the entire world to see. He KNOWS that McGraw specifically told us and the world that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles despite the fact that he was allegedly right in front of them. Therefore Arabasque is once again caught deliberately disseminating disinformation in support of the official story. How can he do something so malicious and harmful to truth?

Terry Morin was at the Navy Annex parking lot where you CAN NOT see route 27 or the light poles. You can't even see the Pentagon due to the steep decline. He does not even claim to have seen the light pole get hit. Arabasque is 0 for 12

Rodney Washington is not claiming that he saw the plane hit the poles. You can not take an unconfirmed statement out of context and assume he is saying what you want him to say. He is simply relaying what he believes the plane to have done.

Uh-huh. Here is the "Unnamed Navy admiral". Real detailed account isn't it? That is not a witness with a name and so this is not valid evidence.

So......just as I stated; there is only ONE witness who states she saw the plane hit a pole.


Out of all these, many have ADMITTED they didn't see the plane hit the poles and many aren't even witnesses to the event at all and only 1 claims she saw the plane hit a pole. It's clear this is NOT evidence strong enough to counter the rock solid north of the citgo testimony that is independently corroborated 6 times and directly refuted by NOBODY proving the plane did not hit the poles.

First-hand confirmation of ALL witness accounts is key.

Never trust the mainstream media but PARTICULARLY in regards to 9/11.

End of QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT)

This poster exchange is a real classic and we have already gone from 22 down to 1.
Soon the number of persons who actually saw an aircraft clip a light pole at the Pentagon will likely be down to zero. :D

Preston did you take your Prozac today?

Mr shill mrn838 did you consult Karl Rove aka Turdblossom yet today and get your soundbites? :lol:

SPreston, I think you are being a little bit over-the-top with a few of these quotes. These witnesses are talking about seeing an aircraft traveling 500+MPH over, striking light poles, from an unknown distance away. Unfortunately, you did not give us the time any of those people said their quotes, or where they were standing, so my answer will be brief. The kind of thing someone is going to say, is more likely to be "It hit some lampposts on the way in..." or something along those lines. What you appear to be looking for is a very clear statement alnog the lines of "I saw a large commercial airliner strike 5 light poles on it's approach to the Pentagon". It's not something people are likely to say so specifically, they imply they saw such a thing. You say "simply mentioning the poles is NOT evidence that they literally saw the plane hit the poles." but neither is it evidence that they did not. The reports were ambiguous because people just witnessed something very shocking, and said most likely what they saw, rather than be interrogated with questions like "Exactly how many poles were struck?". If you look at the quotes with such a critical eye, you could argue they provide no evidence for either arguement.

Your theory on the blowtorched poles is elaborate to the point of pseudoscience. You claim that the night before September 11th, or thereabouts a team of Federal agents snuck onto the highway, blowtorched away five designated light poles, made it appear they had been sliced in two, hid them somewhere, then on September 11th, arranged them on the highway while nobody was watching or photographing, and called it a day. Surely someone must have noticed? And where would they hide the poles? Why do you not trust every witness that saw an aircraft? And what is your explanation for the Pentagon crash? You must have an alternate theory, if you do not believe a Boeing 757 struck the light poles before crashing.

Your first quote that you use, contradicts your theory.

The first quote here. What is Mark Bright reffereing to when he says "it". "It" was flying low, "it" knocked a couple of them down. Sounds to me like he is describing a plane knocking the lamp posts down.

Now this testimony refutes your claims that they were cut down the night before.
I'll agree he doesn't say he saw the impact, but he saw the plane knocking them down, i.e. the poles fell over as the plane flew over. So the poles were upright the moment before the plane was over the highway.

So this testimony contradicts your theory.

I see some of the witnesses were asked to qualify whether or not they saw the actual impact, but some were not. Have they been specifically asked when you mention downed lamp posts, did you specifically see the plane hit the lamp post. Until this is done, you cannot assume that they only saw the lamp post after the fact.

First off, this is the work of the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), not mine. I only posted it to this forum as a learning tool. Invariably when the CIT team contacted a witness, they found out that the mainstream news media had misinterpreted or outright twisted and misquoted what these people had witnessed. Most of these quotes are mainstream media quotes. The CIT Team has only managed to contact a few of these witnesses so far, and a few more are in the works. Having seen the results of the Iraq War and the criminal activities within the current White House, I believe we can all agree that the mainstream news media can no longer be trusted by Americans to give us the truth. Craig set the criteria for his list which was the witness specifically stating he/she saw the aircraft knock the light poles down. Mainstream news media mumbo-jumbo often twists a person's words or adds words never spoken, as we all know. If you wish to create your own list with different criteria, feel free to do so. As you can see, Arabasque has included many fraudulent witnesses among his most comprehensive list.
9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described

That is not my theory on the plasma torch cut-off bases, but also the work of the CIT team. As anyone can see, those even edges on the bottom of the bases do not look like break-offs, but torch cuts. Look at the base at the left, which the manager stated had been broken off by a strong wind. It does not look a bit like those plasma cuts which are seen on these Pentagon 9-11 pole bases. My explanation for the OCT crash? I have only given it on this board about a hundred times. How did you miss it? There was never a Flight 77 757 crash into the Pentagon wall. That OCT crash as fed us would be totally impossible. No aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. No aircraft hit the light poles. No light pole was ever through the windshield of Lloyd England's taxicab. There was a white aircraft overflight of the Pentagon along the North of Citgo flight path for a magician's slight of hand trick to set the stage, but that aircraft flew away. All the destruction inside and outside the Pentagon. and the murders of the Navy Command Center and the ONI and the $2.3 Trillion auditing team personnel and the destruction of their files and recordings was all accomplished with preplanted explosives and Hollywood special effects on the exterior. :D

Wind broken base on left and plasma cut Pentagon light pole #4 base on right

Pentagon light pole base with plasma cut

Pole #2 was completely hidden and #4 and #5 were down on slopes. #1 was likely hidden behind the wall in the direction of the base drag mark on the pavement.
#3 might have been hidden elsewhere. but a nice green tarp over it at its final spot would have worked real well. The other poles could have been placed in their final
spots in the dark of night, and if anybody noticed them, so what? I see light poles laying along the road quite often. If anybody did call-in to report the light poles, well
the FBI confiscated and censored the Arlington County 9-11 call-ins and transcripts. I wonder why?

They were all on Pentagon property/jurisdiction/control which would have been on serious lock down due to the President's scheduled arrival and his previous visit.

This #1 light pole base also looks plasma cut and with no impact marks on the pole, the smooth bend in the pole looks mechanical by human hands
The drag mark in front of the government car goes toward the far wall where the pole was likely hidden

The utility yard - Here are the standard light pole dimensions:

Hi Hombo:

LOL! Do you really think everyone here has not told these CIT goofballs the same thing time and time and time again? We have TONS of witnesses seeing the PLANE knocking down the light poles.

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/9...ttack-what.html

The power of the ‘deluding influence’ forces people to “believe WHAT IS FALSE” (2Thessalonians 2:11), which is exactly what is going on with ALL these 911Truth cases. That is why people see a crashed 100-Ton Jetliner (Flight 93) where there is only and empty hole ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg ). That is why many people think a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed into this standing E-Ring wall ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Ter.../E6A893DC63.jpg ). And that is why these same people will continue believing that NONSENSE to the very end no matter what you say or what you do. Period! Those among us immune to the Deluding Influence helping the ‘god of this world’ (2Corinthians 4:3-4) must sit by and watch the masses stumble around like blind men in the dark without a clue as to what they are even talking about with complete amazement that people can be so blind and foolish. The Apostle Paul saw the same Deluding Influence at work in his day, saying,

Some 911Truthers see ‘the truth’ right off the bat, but MANY deluded people will NEVER see the 911Truth in their lifetime on this earth. That is just the way the ole cookie crumbles and nothing we say can change that simple fact. The visible and invisible universe is much more closely connected than mortal men can begin to realize with the evil powers of ‘this darkness’ (Ephesians 6:12) residing nearer to men than their own breath. These CIT chat monkeys were joined together by forces much stronger than gravity, because of “Word Realm” (“Realm Of The Word” http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/68.jpg ) addresses they share and common karmic bonds binding them all together with chains stronger than any 2800-degree steel. For every Veil Line, Host and Realm you see in that simplified diagram that really looks more like this ( http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/18.jpg ), there is an antithesis shadowy side on an opposing side of the larger equation like this:



The “Man of God” has the sons of God contained “IN Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:6), while the antithesis (666 man = Rev. 13:18) contains the ‘sons of disobedience’ (Ephesians 2:2) being prepared for eternal wrath and condemnation. Those under the power of the ‘Deluding Influence’ reside on the ‘left’ side of this diagram with no chance of ever seeing the truth of God’s Living Word OR the 911Truth looking them square in the face every single day of their human lives. While some of our brothers and sisters are suffering from delusions connected with the activity of the sons of disobedience, they at least have the opportunity to see the Light of our witness and testimony to eventually come around after careful examination of all the facts in these cases. We can eventually figure out which side our debating adversaries occupy in the larger scheme of things, by comparing their testimony to the truth of Scripture AND the 911Truth told by the evidence; but that requires a good deal of practice and experience. The deluded chat monkeys will run to post their replies that Terral is deluded beyond belief. Do you know why? :0) The answer is because that one finger accusing me reveals three witnesses pointing straight back at them, so they are judged by . . . their . . . own . . . words . . . :0)

BTW, I wanted to use this opportunity to say my interpretations of the ‘Pole Evidence’ is leading me towards the 9:31:39 AM Decoy Flyover Plane causing most of the damage to all 5 light poles. I now realize the original Pentagon Security frames have been censored to remove evidence of the Decoy Flyover Plane ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9jW_8ZCUmg = turn down sound), which is allowing more of the pieces to fall into place. We have far too many pole witnesses testifying to ‘multiple’ poles being knocked down by the Large Plane connected to the original 9:32 AM attack. Today I am leaning towards only Pole #1 being uprooted by the Missile Bow Shockwave that propelled the pole far enough ‘north’ for the top arm section to be sheered off by the approaching Decoy Starboard Engine. The Decoy Plane was flying on the same 45-degree angle fight path as the 9:31:39 AM Missile, but then had to make a right-hand turn to fly perpendicular to the E-Ring wall some 200 feet south of the Heliport Building, according to Alan Wallace’s testimony here ( http://web.telia.com/~u43109230/flight77/texts/Wallace.txt ). That means the Decoy Flyover Jet starboard wing was lowered during that maneuver, which created the opportunity for all five light poles to suffer the ‘sheering’ damage we see on all the poles except the Pole #1 primary shaft. Therefore, it could be that Hombo has been pointing out problem in my original theory that requires my attention, because further investigation of the light pole evidence is leading me away from the Missile Bow Shockwave explanation for 4 of the 5 light poles.

If my investigation proves my original hypothesis wrong in any way, then I will be the very first to begin drafting retractions to align my statements with the facts in this Pentagon Case. Any other course of action is a deliberate act 'against' the 911Truth we should all be working to serve in all these debates. The ability to alter course and reconfigure your theories around the 911Truth evidence is a good sign that you are one of the good guys wearing a white hat around here. :0) I certainly appear to be wrong about some aspects of my pole theories that hopefully will be rectified here very shortly and hopefully by the end of the day. Many thanks to everyone helping us to see the 911Truth more clearly through your dedicated efforts.

GL,

Terral

I'll take that as a no.

AhhhHmmm!! Sorry, actually only one witness actually claims she saw the light poles knocked down by an aircraft. Did you know that Arabesque deliberately added people who were nowhere near the Pentagon even though he was notified of his errors long ago? And we have light pole witness #22 the un-named Navy admiral (even after 6 years of persistent mainstream media pursuit of his name) who of course is not a live witness at all as it would be impossible to verify his testimony. Correct? And we have light pole witness #2 Bruce Elliott who saw a utility pole guide wire clipped which never actually happened, and he is not a light pole witness anyway. Correct? And we have light pole witness #4 Lee Evey who was not at the Pentagon, but safe at home and not really a witness at all. Correct? And we have light pole witness #8 Tom Hovis who was safe at his office 8 miles from the Pentagon and not a witness either. Correct? And we have light pole witness #15 Mr nobody with no reference # between 400 and 401 and who is a 3rd person witness and not a witness at all. Correct? And we have light pole witnesses #10, #19, and #20 (Stephen McGraw, Joel Sucherman, Mike Walter) all who were interviewed by CIT and specifically stated they did not see the light posts knocked down by an aircraft. But Mr Arabesque neglected to update that information. Correct? Tons of witnesses? Wouldn't real witnesses be better? Hopefully #16 Wanda Ramey will be interviewed soon by the CIT team and we will soon discover that the lying mainstream media prostitutes have distorted her testimony also. :D

I would imagine that Arabesque's website comprehensive list of 9-11 Pentagon witnesses is equally dishonest and inaccurate in other areas. Wouldn't you? :D
9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described

Hmmm the CIT? Not heard of them. Do they have a website?

Anyway, about your first picture, you say the pole was 'wind broken'? I'm assuming you mean some kind of gale force wind that knocked down a pole? I'm not confident that that can be compared to a pole being struck by a physical object like an aircraft with the velocity to knock it down. The second photo does not honestly show me a 'plasma cut'. Perhaps if you could find a similar material to the pole with a plasma cut for comparison? Also.... no plane whatsoever? Interesting. Well, the link you provided did have several quotes saying that the aircraft was seen, such as these, which state:

50. “Where the plane came in was really at the construction entrance…The plane’s left wing actually came in near the ground and the right wing was tilted up in the air. That right wing went directly over our trailer, so if that wing had not tilted up, it would have hit the trailer.”

43. “I looked idly out my window to the left—and saw a plane flying so low I said, “holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car” (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing.”

Well, at least such a quote would make it clear that they said they saw the lightpoles get knocked down. . . The point appears to be that people can't just bring up these eyewitnesses as proof that the lightpoles were knocked down by the plane. Just because a plane flew by and someone noticed some lightpoles lying on the ground afterwords does not mean the plane knocked them down.

That's right. But you cannot claim that an airplane knocked the poles down -- and back it up by saying "many" people saw the lightpoles get knocked down -- and then use these witnesses as proof. That's all.

Hmmm. . . The quote doesn't even use the word 'plane,' though. . . ;) What if it actually sounds like he thinks the plane knocked the poles down because he saw them down afterwords?

Really? Which part of that quote indicates that Mark Bright "saw the plane knocking them [the poles] down"?

How do you know this from the quote?

Ah. . . ok. . . :unsure:

Yes the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) is located at a website. The location is at the end of the OP. Original link

Thanks... care to comment or answer on any of my questions?

I haven't had time to look at those witnesses you have picked out and see if they are even actual witnesses at the Pentagon or not. A very large percentage of Arabesque's witnesses either have no names or are not referenced to verify their identity or were actually sitting at home or at their office far away from the Pentagon at the time of the alleged aircraft impact. A very poorly researched and dishonest listing of 9-11 Pentagon witnesses.

Your #50 is [93] Singleton, Jack. Was Jack actually at the Pentagon or was Jack sitting at home, relating something he saw on the boob tube or was Jack another planted witness? Oddly Jack never mentions the aircraft actually hitting the Pentagon.

Your #43 is [86] Peterson, Christine. Was Christine actually at the Pentagon or was Christine at home or was Christine another planted witness? Since Christine was supposedly in the flight path and driving her car, then she would have idly looked to the rear quarter over her left shoulder, yet still keeping the car on the road. Rather awkward, don't you think? An aircraft flying 530 mph would give her about 1 or 2 seconds to read the numbers under the wing. Very doubtful. We have no idea of Christine's alleged location. She could have been over by Reagan National watching a plane coming in to land. She could have seen the North of Citgo aircraft coming in to overfly the Pentagon. Christine never mentions the aircraft hitting the Pentagon either.
9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described

And the plasma cuts? I'd like more elaboration on them before posting a full reply.

Hi Preston:

Everything Lloyd says is the 911Truth whether you ever wake the hell up or not. All of his testimony checks out with all the other witnesses, which means Preston has to go around discrediting ALL OF THEM. :0) The problem is not with Lloyd, his helper, Steven McGraw or anyone else, but PRESTON and his CIT TV Chat-Monkeys have the problem and haven’t a clue . . . Enjoy your ride on the CIT Train to DelusionVille . . . Heh . . .



You guys crack a 911Truther up better than Pole #1 cracked up Lloyd's windshield . . .

GL,

Terral

Allegedly, these cast aluminum light pole designed-to-break-off bases were broken off when an aircraft wing impacted the 30' poles near the top. The clean straight lines of the break? looked suspicious, not like a fracture at all, but more like a cut. Several posters thought it looked like they were cut-off somehow, perhaps with a cutting torch. Other posters thought it was a plasma cut. Below the light pole photos are some examples of plasma cutting. Of course, it was already obvious that the light poles were staged and planted in their respective spots. No 247 lb 30' long light pole ever entered Lloyd's Lincoln taxicab windshield at 40-45+ mph and got stopped by a windshield and a leather back seat. That is ridiculous and almost impossible, just like so many other elements of this OCT 9-11 fantasy tale. A 757 Flight 77 never crashed into the Pentagon. It seems no other aircraft or missile did either. Just internally and externally planted explosives and incendiaries and hollywood special effects to do the killing and destruction. These bases are just a little more evidence pointing in that direction. :D

Wind broken fractured base on left and apparent plasma cut Pentagon light pole #4 base on right

Another Pentagon light pole base with apparent plasma cut

The utility yard - Here are the standard light pole dimensions:

Although this what looks to be a sheet of perhaps 1/8" aluminum is cut on a plasma cutting table, it could also be cut with a hand-held plasma torch with much less precision.

As anyone can see, in this hi-rez early pre-collapse Ingersoll photo, the light pole is not sticking out through Lloyd's windshield. Are we to believe that this old man, Lloyd England who has just allegedly had a terrifying close call with death, and has narrowly escaped being decapitated by a 247 lb light pole flung at his taxicab like a javelin, has gotten out of his cab within 12 minutes and pulled that pole out of his windshield and laid it on the pavement? Right in the middle of an alleged devastating attack on the Pentagon and the worst attack on America ever at the WTC, this light pole had to be pulled out right away in spite of the explosions and devastation in the distance? Not bloody likely. The white Saturn has not arrived yet, nor has the Jeep Cherokee. Lloyd is just standing there on the pavement in the hot sun behind his car. Shouldn't Lloyd be sitting down, exhausted with the effort of lifting that heavy pole out of his windshield and falling down with it on top of him? :unsure:

DSC_0412 at 9:48