The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.
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 it could not have hit the poles.
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:
"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 couldn'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.
- Craig Ranke CIT's blog
- Login to post comments
I was wondering
if there is a way to draw 2 lines one through poles 5-4-2 and the other through poles 3-1 and try to get a good estimation of the distance between the poles.
We know the wingspan of a 757 is 124'-10" if the distance between any of these post are more than that then it would be physically impossible to have happened and case closed.
Same goes for a Global Hawk (116' wingspan) and an A3 Sky Warrior (73' Wingspan) one or both of these could be ruled out also.
Maybe if someone already is a member of a service like this http://www.reverseindexlookup.com/magicooll/index.asp?revid=magicooll we can check to see whom the recorded owner of the License Plate is "I-665"
It's a federal plate.
So the "owner" is the government.
The distance between poles fits that of a 757 and barely that of a global hawk.
But the twin engine passenger jet was on the north side of the citgo and NOBODY saw a global hawk or anything at all on the south side.
Good then that
completely rules out even the possibility of an A3 Sky Warrior regardless whether or not anyone saw it is moot.
The more & more things can be scientifically ruled out the better.
At this point it seems likely that a decoy jet made a wrong turn went down the wrong pre planned flight path on the North side while the light post may have been pre arranged on the south side.
The jet went straight at the building and pulled up flying just over the Pentagon right as the explosion went off obscuring the view of onlookers making them think the jet hit the building.
This is not what I would call "proven" by any stretch but does seem to be the most likely possibility given the evidence & eyewitnesses you have uncovered.
Dear Craig.....
I've been a welder fabricator for thirty years. The lower base picture sure looks like it was cut with a torch. If aluminum it could also be plasma cut.
Any more hi def pictures?
unfortunately no...
We were lucky to obtain that one which came from the Ingersoll collection that we obtained from VDOT worker Kit Landis who unfortunately and hopefully coincidentally "committed suicide" shortly after.
The image was taken as the VDOT cleaned up the poles on 9/29 nearly 3 weeks after the event!
Isn't it incredible how most all evidence was quickly swept away never to be seen again but the poles were left laying around for weeks?
The VDOT told us that the FBI never came to recover the poles or ask anything about them and that they went out with their regular quarterly recycling haul.
The bases are "break away" cast aluminum so I imagine they would be quite easily cut with a torch.
Here is a short video of me examining the same style pole and bases at the VDOT.
Thanks Craig....
cast aluminum.........Makes sence...You can't cut aluminum with a torch. However looking more closely at your updated picture....These were cut with a plasma cutter.
Can you provide any links
Can you provide any links documenting the death of Christopher Landis?
Scan of WP obituary?
“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson
yes.
obituary here
So he died 2.5 months after we met him and he gave us the images, and about one week after I was back there, had a tour of the VDOT again, and obtained the citgo witness testimony on camera proving 9/11 an inside job.
Thanks for that. What is the
Thanks for that. What is the source of the "suicide" determination?
“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson
the VDOT
We were in contact with someone regarding an FOIA request we had regarding light pole maintenance prior to 9/11and when we mentioned that we had met Christopher they told us he had died.
We brought it up with another employee who told us it was suicide.
actually.....
I just made this close-up of the back side from that other image:
What do you think?
Is it soot from a torch or simply dirt?
Either way the damage is strangely uniform.
That is pretty clearly
torched, but was this post supposed to be completely knocked down by the alleged plane or was just the top part laying on the ground?
In other words do you know for sure that the VDOT workers didn't cut what was supposedly left down or is this the way they say they found them?
we know for sure.
These images are all from 9/11.
The VDOT guy is cleaning up pole 4 three weeks later.
Gottcha
I see that is clearly pole 4 now and is completely knocked over.
Do you have any pictures of UNdamaged poles surrounding these showing that they look perfectly normal and not like they were cut with a plasma torch on the bottom.
Just in case maybe what looks like a clear cut is a purposeful weak spot designed to give way right there is a car hits it.
If none of the surrounding poles look like that on the bottom then it was clearly cut.
*deleted repeat post*
.....
your wish is my command
;)
excellent
These 3 sets of pictures showing what the poles look like Undamaged, what it looked like close up when they were hauled away and that the whole post was knocked over (supposed to have been) on 9/11 pretty much proves as well as you can that at least that the hit on this post was faked and if this one was then why not all of them.
Although the top 2 in this pic are concrete I believe, not Aluminum at least they look like concrete but they are the same shape as what is without question Aluminum in the picture that shows it cut with a torch.
Dear Craig.
good info....On the aluminum bases pictured on the bottom. The aluminum casted ones. These bases are for access to elect. connections. The strength of the light poles lie in the J bolts that protrude up from the concrete (in sona tube) through the open slotted ends. It does'nt make sense to cut the aluminum bases when the strength lies in the cemented Jbolts.
However the round corners in the casted base show these were cut! 100% POSITIVE about that. And they were cut with a plasma cutter.
P.S. For those not familar with sona tube and J bolts Sona tube is a heavy wax coated cardboard tube. Diameter ,and depth is usually determined by what your anchoring. Rebar is tied in a cage like manner. The J bolts which look like a threaded rod,and bent on a 90degree are held in place by a template then the cement is poured. By the looks of the slots on these bases i would say the J bolts were 1 1/4" diameter.,and i am guessing they went down at least two feet deep.
Or a pre-planted incendiary or explosive, perhaps?
?
I believe you are right.
I believe that the light poles were staged in advance and that a plane went north of the Citgo station.
But I still don't know what happened at the Pentagon.
well you just said it.
The evidence indicating this proves a military deception.
Since there is no hard evidence for anything at all on the south side of the citgo station the only logical conclusion for what happened at the Pentagon is that the damage was caused with pre-planted explsoives just like at the WTC.
It was the same M.O.
Real planes used as psychological weapons of deception while the actual destruction was implemented covertly with pre-planted explosives.
Yep. this is the
most plausible explanation. As it follows the same pattern of the WTC event.
What do you say about the video with the flying object hitting the Pentagon? Is it a complete fake or did something hit the Pentagon?
manipulated for sure.
1. We can not accept any government controlled data as valid.
2. The thick squiggly "smoke plume" in one frame of one view doesn't even cast a shadow:
3. There is no visible descent angle in the smoke plume or the object which is not only reported by the FDR but required due to the steep decline in the topography after the Navy Annex.
4. Not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence mentions the smoke plume.
Perhaps the fireball is real but the object and smoke plume is not.
Great photos and analysis...
However, you really believe that there were pre-planted explosives?
It looks more like a job of a missile to me. If it was explosives, you would think that the damage would be engineered to look more like a 757 crash -- witness the size of the entry hole. Yes, I know, the damage on the first floor was wide enough, but can anyone really believe 757 hitting a building at the first floor? (Considering the ground effect, the size of the plane.)
Also, against the demolition speaks the 20-minute delay of wall collapse. You would think that if it was demolished, it would have collapsed right away, the collapse would have been more efficient, just like the WTC (unless the job was trusted to the same hacks that worked on Oklahoma building.)
there is no evidence for a missile.
We believe it is deliberate disinfo.
We have talked with dozens of eyewitnesses and nobody saw a missile while everyone saw a twin engine passenger jet.
We need to stick to things we have direct evidence for that was obtained independently.
No government provided data should be accepted.
The time for speculation has passed because we now have direct evidence proving 9/11 an inside job.
Can we really trust "witnesses" who were in & around the
pentagon that day? Many shills weren't planted?
that is why....
all accounts must be heavily analyzed, scrutinized, their location plotted, and confirmed or refuted first hand with direct contact with the witness while we should also seek out previously unknown witnesses as well.
This is exactly what CIT has been doing.
I recall that one witness was Eberle, owner of Talon News...
Don't know where the story is, but he is the owner of the media outlet that employed Jeff Gannon-Guckert, formerly Johnny Gosh of Bush Sr. pedophilia scandal fame.
yep
Him, PNAC signer Gary Bauer, right wing publisher Alfred Regnery, corrupt republican congressman Rick Renzi, and many other suspect "witnesses".
The PentaCon Researcher's Edition will go into all of that.
Wow...really?....
I didn't know that.
Does anyone have a link to his testimony? I couldn't imagine a bigger suspect as a "plant". (OK, Gannon :)
9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars
.
.
Right! How could a B-757 make a 16-foot initial impact hole?
That airliner has a 125-foot wingspan?
No plane or missile hit the building.
Please read the entire post.
Thanks.
Sorry, I'm still open to something like an A3 Sky Warrior,
a missile, and/or pre-planted explosives as for what blew-up the Pentagon.
I WAS also
however an A3 Sky Warrior only has a 73' wingspan thus making it absolutely impossible to have hit those light post.
Also, it's possible that the light poles had explosives planted
in them, & were detonated at the same time as whatever blew-up the Pentagon. This seems like a very easy method to make the poles come crashing down.
I think it would've been too difficult & risky to set-up the light-poles situation in advance.
Huh?
To stage the light poles in advance would be no risk at all.
It was on their own backyard. A place in which they had total control. Before, during and after the event.
Remember this was a planned psyop.
No, planting small explosives in the bases of the poles
would be basically no risk at all. Staging the event, getting objects & people pre-positioned, would be riskier, IMO.
What am I missing?
Why would it have been necessary to "fake" the flightpath of what hit the Pentagon?....with the light poles and the fake testimony... What do they gain from that? Or what does it hide?
9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars
it establishes the flight path of a plane that did not hit....
...and creates evidence that is very difficult to believe was "staged" and Lloyd brings a human element to the story that clinches the deal emotionally.
The fact that you are incredulous is a testament to the effectiveness of this staged scene and therefore to what they had to gain.
Craig.....
i have to agree with you on that.
I'm not "incredulous", ....
about your theories...just a little confused about understanding what you are saying here....Are you saying a plane didn't hit the Pentagon (but flew over it from the north side of the Citgo station) and that the damage was instead created by pre-planted explosives?
And that the lightpoles make it look like a plane was there and hit?
9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars
Some questions for you
Craig
First thank you for your hard work. Let me tell you where I am coming from regarding the Pentagon and your research.
I admire your work and trust that all of the results you have presented are authentic. You have gone to great lengths to corroborate your eyewitness accounts and have constructed a valid hypothesis that is worth pursuit.
However I am not convinced by your arguments. I have read all the theories from all sides and I still haven't found one I am willing to support. Other than that, I do not believe the official story and I wish they would release those videos!! Ofcourse if your theory is correct they don't have any videos!!
Here is my question to you. Why would the perpetrators be willing to use planes on the WTC but not the Pentagon? It seems to introduce an unecessary level of complexity into the attack. You could still plant bombs and crash the plane. The only possible explanation I can come up with would be to control the actual damage. (especially if the perps work in the Pentagon)
There is also the disinfo aspect which I know has been explored. The perps purposely left false evidence and one day they will release the video evidence to debunk the truth movement.
I guess what I am saying is that it is still a stretch for me. The basic problem I have with your arguments is that you have witnesses and the OCT has witnesses. Your witnesses say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Regardless you have done great work so far and I wish you the best of luck for the future. You have surely picked the toughest nut to crack!
One more thing ...there is an overused expression..".let's get the low hanging fruit first". I honestly wish you would use your investigative skills on WTC 7. Remember the firefighters in the video telling everyone to back up the building is coming down.
Who told him that?? Some follow up video with emergency workers and eyewitnesses would be great. I am on the left coast or I would do it myself.
Good points Leo...
I agree that we have to watch out for speculation,however kicking the evidence around still is usefull. Sometimes something is missed or a what if not answered.
The two things that seemed odd to me is the it was the civilian accounting department was the section that was hit ( Could'nt have been cuz Rummy said the day before they somehow lost 2.3 TRILLION?
And second ....Why perform a complex manuver when Hanni could barely fly a cessna? One would think it would be point the nose down and let'er rip?
you answered the question yourself.
>>>>>.The only possible explanation I can come up with would be to control the actual damage. (especially if the perps work in the Pentagon)
Obviously they did not plan to completely demolish their own headquarters as they did the WTC.
Surgical precision control of the damage would be of utmost importance.
It is no coincidence that the only part of the building that was damaged had been under "renovation" for years, (scheduled to be complete 9/12 but was about a week late) and was relatively unoccupied.
There were only about 130 people inside the building killed and If any other portion of the building had been "hit" potentially thousands would have died.
You see the reverse of your question is more poignant because since we KNOW that this was a psychological operation and that media footage of the attack was critical to the entire purpose of the operation it makes more sense to suggest that if they HAD physically carried out the operation just as reported in Arlington that they would have made sure to get video footage in order to take full advantage of their goal.
There is no logic in suggesting that they really flew an AA 757 into the building but defeated the entire purpose of the operation by not having the media catch it and sequestering all security footage.
The evidence we provide proves the "honey pot" theories false.
I would focus on WTC 7 except that it is gone and the video footage of the event alone is enough to convince people of controlled demo.
You don't need me there.
Also......the citgo witnesses all had an infinitely better vantage point of the plane as it passed by the gas station as opposed to what really happened when it reached the Pentagon. In fact they all admit what they really saw was a "fireball" and not the plane physically enter the building. We address this angle of skepticism on our website so I will copy it for you here:
*Special note: Many detractors to the information we present suggest we are wrong because the witnesses at the CITGO station believe the plane hit the building. This is what true critical thinkers call circular logic. We claim the fact that the witnesses place the plane on the north side of the station proves it was used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion because it is impossible for a plane in that location to have created the physical damage. In other words; the intended goal was to fool witnesses into believing the plane hit the building. The fact that the witnesses were successfully deceived exactly as the perpetrators intended does not prove that they are incorrect in their placement of the plane. Quite the opposite is true. Their placement of the plane proves that they were deceived in regards to the impact.
Excellent point!
"You see the reverse of your question is more poignant because since we KNOW that this was a psychological operation and that media footage of the attack was critical to the entire purpose of the operation it makes more sense to suggest that if they HAD physically carried out the operation just as reported in Arlington that they would have made sure to get video footage in order to take full advantage of their goal.
There is no logic in suggesting that they really flew an AA 757 into the building but defeated the entire purpose of the operation by not having the media catch it and sequestering all security footage."
Never thought of that argument. It is an excellent point.
Hopefully I can help too...
Hi Leo, my name is Aldo Marquis-I am the other half of CIT's research.
I am sure Craig will handle this question the same way I will.
I think this answer can never definitively given.
The only thing we can account for is:
-The physical evidence/damage IS the crime. It is what we've been questioning since shortly after 9/11.
-Lack of transparency with gov't data. We received the 5 frames when we clamoured for them and those showed nothing and were heralded as dubious. 5 years later we get more dubious, unconclusive video.
-The plane did not look like an AA
-Most importantly it was on the north side of the Citgo and pulled up.
The north side cannot be refuted. You can not move a plane. We have two more published witnesses who confirm i the placement of the plane being there.
We cannot account for WHY they did it. We simply know that they DID. The evidence and lack of transparency is overwhelming.
Why did they choose that flight path? It makes no sense and is actually debunks the impact itself due to the required descent angle. You are right, they could have just crashed a plane.
Perhaps they were targeting a specific area and specific targets placed deep inside Wedge One. Perhaps they didn't want an empty drone plane to be exposed as one. Perhaps they wanted to control the damage.
Frankly, it is easier to NOT crash a plane, than it is to crash one successfully itno that side of pentagon.
Round Peg, Square Hole
And you are having to use WAY too much force to make it fit.
Extreme speculation like this is not valid, imo. (and hurts and reflects on your other analysis negatively)
Plus, comments like, "First realize that the area is the literal backyard of the suspect and one of the most highly secured areas in the nation." do not help your argument — this was alongside a public roadway!
You are (most probably) wrong about this.
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein
you have never been there and you are wrong.
Arlington Police do not have jurisdiction of this area and even the Citgo station is 100% government property.
The entire area is jurisdiction of the Pentagon police which is the only police force with federal authority.
The President travels from there regularly and was scheduled to return to the heliport at noon on 9/11.
Did you even read my post?
The plane could not have hit the poles and Lloyd's account is physically impossible. This is ALL hard evidence that requires a hypothesis as to how the poles were downed.
I have provided a very plausible scenario supported with photographic evidence that has been agreed upon by at least one professional in this forum with 30 years experience.
In light of all of the bad speculation about "explosives" knocking down the poles or missile vortices I found it necessary to publicize this hypothesis based on the evidence we have obtained.
I'm sorry that you do not agree but it appears you are the minority.
"Nice" Non-Reply
This was alongside a public roadway!
Typical "you have never been there and you are wrong" comment. Pulling stuff like that "out of your ass" seems to be typical of your research and analysis methods. (lately) Jumping to conclusions, random baseless comments, skewed logic, a lack of critical thinking. This does not bode well.
If you are not careful, you are going to start being viewed like no-planers, mini-nukers, and space beamers. And I do not want to see that happen.
So I suggest you take a step back and work on less speculative "research".
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein
It is no more a "public roadway"
than a road that goes through a military base is.
That is absolutely incorrect
As far as I know.
It's been awhile since I've been there, but anyone who has been there, like the pentacon researchers, should be able to acknowledge whether I am right or not.
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein
yes it is a public highway.
But it happens to run through federal property that is under jurisdiction of the Pentagon police who have federal authority.
It happened to run right in front of the heliport that the POTUS regularly traveled from and did the day before and was scheduled to arrive to that very day a couple of hours later.
It happens to be right in front of the headquarters of military control of our nation and the largest low rise structure in the world.
If you don't think the suspect in question has control of this area than you simply are not thinking.
Craig......
Wow alot of pic's! Got any of the cement bases these were supposedly ripped from? They would have had to cut the J bolts or they would have shattered those cast aluminum bases to pieces.
I wish.
I've never seen images of the bases that were left.
Although.....Sgt. Lagasse told us after our interview that he went over to the bridge and that the base of pole 2 is still there without a pole on it and that they created an entire new base for it.
I'd love to get images of that but you can't pull over and it is not easy taking random pictures in that area!
If you tried walking up to it with a camera I'd give you about 12 seconds before you were detained.
*sigh*
This thread is so much more misdirection of our energy.
If something crashed into the Pentagon from the north side of the gas station as you're claiming, why does all the interior damage to the Pentagon align with an impact from the other side (and line up with the damaged light poles?)
The answer to 1984 is 1776!
http://www.fightingforgod.com
(Gold, Oil, and Drugs)
*sigh*
Nothing hit the Pentagon, the plane flew over it and it was explosives that did the damage.
apparently you haven't read anything here at all.
Not that this is a positively proven theory like Controlled demolition of the 3 buildings but there is quite a bit of evidence that is pretty damning and certainly blows the Official conspiracy theory away.
the fact that the plane was on the north side of citgo....
....proves it can not be what caused the physical damage.
Thanks for demonstrating that for everyone.
This is the point......all confirmed accounts corroborate that the plane was in the wrong place that it needed to be.
Zero accounts directly refute the north side claim.
This is hard evidence proving a military deception beyond a reasonable doubt.
One eyewitness is unreliable.
2 independently corroborated accounts become strong evidence.
3 independently corroborated accounts become evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have released 4 and have 2 more that we will eventually present for a total of 6.
There is no refuting it any longer. You can not move the plane.
The presence or absence of any plane near the Pentagon does
not eliminate the possibility that a missile, small drone, (and/or explosives) were used.
Dear operator kos.....
Misdirection???.... To speculate as fact in public is damning to the truth. To hash out the possibilities here at 911blogger is no crime. I have seen all the 9/11 related video's,and spent hundreds of hours on the computer, and this is the first time i seen some of these light pole pictures.
I agree WTC #7 is the achilies heel of the official fairy tale, but researching the possiblities ,and disscusing them here is not time wasted.
All of us here can agree the Pentagon was not hit by a 757......PERIOD!
Argument from incredulity.
Why are you ignoring all of the details discussed in this thread and resorting to a logical fallacy?
Please adhere to true critical thinking principles and address this evidence directly or else refrain from participating in the discussion.
Thanks.
I am pretty convinced that
I am pretty convinced that the generator trailer/fence was accomplished through explosives and staging.
Remember, the Pentagon "renovation" was scheduled to end 9/12/01, subsequently the week of. So logically people would not think ANYTHING of fences being "taken down" and trailers being moved.
They DID actually move the fence back, I believe in preparation for the event:
(Red is the fence on 9/11, Green represents the generator trailer)
That is the leading hypothesis for me. The "engine fence hole" was staged by snipping links, pulling down the fence and bending/removing/replacing two fence posts. You can see the yellow pole is bent and the red pole is kinked in TWO places, uprooted, and blown AWAY from the trailer. You can also see a barbed wire holder, simply knocked off and hanging..after a 757 right engine supposed went through it.
The problem is the measurements for 757 and the quick, right wing up and left wing down, maneuver do not make sense with the damage. Remember, the plane supposedly tilted the right wing up to hit the fence/generator trailer and the left wing down for the engine to hit the ground/vent structure. In the nano second that this would have needed to happen, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to hit the fence and trailer AND hit the vent structure...
To boot, the FDR raw data trends show the descent angle PREVENTING the right engine from even touching the generator:
The damage from the trailer is two fold, explosives blowing the front end OFF and the diesel fuel, black smoke-producing fire MELTED or WARPED the thin trailer shell into an EVEN BEND (watch video of this, you can see the fire raging):
The gouge they claim came from flap track of the wing, was more than likely cut with a welding torch:
Could this black marking be the gouge pre-cut, pre-9/11:
You can see that if the right engine/wing went through the fence/generator it certainly left these poles on the other side of the generator (btw, it was enclosed with it's own fence...hmmm)
You can see pieces blown away from the trailer...
But no forward moving bend in the trailers, just looks like it was blown up using one big firecracker:
Great Antidote for This Thread's Nonsense Disinfo Attempt
Emailed to 2500 opinion-shapers weekly
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
S O M E O F T H E A B O V E N E W S
====================::::::::::::::::::::::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::::::::::::
===================================:::::::
Please post and forward as appropriate
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
There are no secrets better kept than the
secrets that everybody guesses. ~G.B.Shaw
======================================================
======================================================
NONSENSE AS A WEAPON AGAINST 9/11 TRUTH
From 911review.com:
TROJAN HORSES
The 9/11/01 attack was a complex psychological operation carefully designed to conceal the truth, in spite of numerous obvious red flags in the fraudulent official story. As such it relies on the dissemination of memes that overpower rational consideration of the evidence. One of the most important memes is the idea that all people who question the basic tenets of the official story are loony conspiracy theorists, whose ideas are not worthy of consideration. Part of the construction of this meme was to make the attack so audacious that even a straightforward accounting of the basic facts sounds too outrageous to possibly be true.
The ideas that the Twin Towers were destroyed by explosive demolition and that top-level administration officials were involved in the planning and execution of the attack are so painful that most people reflexively reject them, even if that means ignoring mountains of evidence. Nevertheless the perpetrators run the risk that these ideas will gain currency and begin to be examined with some objectivity if the loony conspiricism meme fails to maintain its hold.
NONSENSE AS A WEAPON
An effective tool for reinforcing the loony conspiricism meme is the introduction of theories that that have no basis in evidence, such as the idea that no planes hit the towers. The association of these ideas with the careful research of investigators in the 9/11 Truth Movement stands to set back the cause of awakening the larger public to the facts of the attack. http://www.911review.com
9/11 Truth Ends War
My name is Aldo Marquis, what is yours?
So I am disinfo?
Is that so "Epochtree"?
So why don't you guys all bring me and Craig in? And Sgt Lagasse, Sgt Brooks, and Robert Turcios while you are at it.
You do know what "disinfo" means don't you?
No, you KNOW the "Twin Towers were destroyed by explosive demolition and that top-level administration officials were involved in the planning and execution of the attack ". You just KNOW that.
Let's see your evidence.
Let's see it.
You should have the evidence we need genius. So please, take us to the promiseland. Make the investigation happen,with this "mountain of evidence" you have.
It couldn't be anything like a plane being nowhere near light poles that were supposed to be hit, witnesses whose minds are now blown, and a cab driver who was part of a staged scene on a highway who is still driving around the streets of Washington DC without so much as even being questioned by federal authorities.
"the entire purpose of the operation"
People have speculated about the "purpose" of the Pentagon attack, but no one has come right out and said it.
"ACT OF WAR." --Dick Cheney, 9/11/01
The purpose was very simple, very straightforward, and was accomplished. Nothing needed to be broadcast on TV. The WTC filled the TV's for years afterward. All they needed was a military target attacked in order to give all the power to those in the white house, so they would respond (sic) in military fashion.
When the pentagon was hit, it was no longer a "crime" that could be addressed in courts. It handed war powers to the leadership. The 1993 WTC attack was treated as a crime. They made sure that the 2001 version would not be categorized as such.
As for all this light pole business.
I don't know. None of it makes much sense. At the end of the day, we have speculation, that comes up a little light in the hard evidence department.
Has one eyewitness anywhere come forward and said the plane flew over the pentagon?
Not even a mental patient?
How about someone from Reagan airport? Some radar operator?
You're attempting to convince us that the most risky deception conceivable went off, and no one saw the true path of the attacking plane. No one.
It would have had to fly over a building complex staffed by tens of thousands of people. This would not have been easy to conceal. Then it would have had to land somewhere before being picked up on radar. Yet there is zero evidence this happened.
I don't know if you're 100% correct or not. But I haven't seen any evidence to corroborate your speculation.
Lastly, this elaborate hoax would require how many people? How many fake "workers" were wiring up how many expolosives INSIDE THE US MILITARY HEADQUARTERS, where we presume there is some security. How many treasonous collaborators do you think were operating at the Pentagon? This is a serious negative.
Some might say insurmountable.
I have nothing to gain by pushing your theory. Sorry.
Someone was making a lot of hay about the bases of light poles being cut. So what? They cut them afterward to remove them. Who cares?
The tops of the poles looked to me like it was struck and bent over from a powerful impact. How does that prove a hoax?
The eyewitnesses are pretty powerful testimony, and I can't really explain the discrepancies. But then, neither can you beyond a reasonable doubt.
This remains inconclusive.
for some reason you want it to be inconclusive.
But it is not.
The very first image I posted has pictures of ALL the poles ON the day of 9/11 proving that the pole in question was NOT "cut afterwards to remove it".
That's right.....photographic proof.
Yet you still dismiss the evidence out of hand even though it proves 9/11 was an inside job by supporting the rock solid north side claim from the citgo witnesses.
Why?
Why are you so hell bent on supporting the official story about what happened at the Pentagon in spite of the evidence?
The citgo witness testimony ALONE is proof.
1 first-hand account is evidence.
2 independently corroborated first-hand accounts are strong evidence.
3 independently corroborated first-hand accounts are proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have provided 4 and have 2 more still unreleased for a total of 6.
Not even a single mainstream media previously published account directly refutes them.
Why do you refuse to accept evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job?
Because I don't know who any of those people are, or you...
I have no idea why they say what they say, and I don't know anything about you (or the alleged welder who recently showed up).
What you have are competing claims. It is not resolved, because the witnesses haven't been investigated. There has been no (trial) process for vetting them. They have not been cross examined. That is normal judicial procedure (in the real world, as opposed to internet reality).
You say it's conclusive.
I don't buy it.
That's called freedom to decide for one's self.
They can vote it down (like a gang of monkeys who vote any criticism down in unthinking knee-jerk idiotic fashion), but if I'm not convinced, I'm not going to say I am.
"Why are you so hell bent on supporting the official story about what happened at the Pentagon in spite of the evidence?"
I believe "inconclusive" is exactly the opposite of "supporting the ofiicial story" which you use as a straw man, and a bludgeon to force acquiesence.
"Why do you refuse to accept evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job?"
I am not convinced by your presentation. Perhaps the burden of proof is on the presenter?
"The very first image I posted has pictures of ALL the poles ON the day of 9/11 proving that the pole in question was NOT "cut afterwards to remove it"."
I don't see what that particular photo "proves," whatsoever. If that's your case, it certainly isn't clear how you can support your chain of arguments.
I'm quite sick of bullshit "proofs," about nearly every topic -- on this website -- and I'm waiting for something more clear and irrefutable. I don't see any proof in your first photo montage. What is it I'm supposed to be seeing?
As for "on the day of 9/11", that certainly doesn't rule out anything. You'd have to narrow the time down, as you seem to have claimed elsewhere. So, is it "on the day of 9/11" or within "17 minutes" of impact, or none of the above? Or is there even anything to that photo that is out of the ordinary? If that's your key piece of evidence, I'll wait for the jury verdict.
I see you ignored my other objections. The fact is that this is a highly improbable scenario. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, and I never said it didn't. I said it was inconclusive. It still is.
Your rebuttal is inconclusive.
Well what are you doing John?
Really?
We know the procedures sir. But you seem to want to keep this in internet debate limbo.
This IS conclusive. The plane was on the north side. This WAS a VERY known and insignificant detail for those who were there.
The rest of the world did not know. Now we do. There is no cross examining. There is no judicial process here. There is finality on a detail that should now allow us the investigation we have been clamoring for.
Get off your ass and go "cross-examine" them, John. Then when you are done, you can go "cross-examine" the other two published witnesses we found who confirmed the north side flight path. Then we can all talk about it again on blogger. Then few more American soldiers can die and a few hundred Iraqi's can do the same. Then we can go back to talking about how fast building 7 fell and how it is the "smoking gun", meanwhile everyone who was there saw the plane on the north side...but it is...inconclusive.
The fact remains, you are anonymous. Your incredulity and disbelief mean NOTHING.
Is it inconclusive because you said so? Because of YOUR gut feeling? Because you feel it in your belly? Who are you again? You weren't there, but it is inconclusive. Ok got it.
Wait, it is inconclusive. An anonymous poster on 9/11 blogger said "I am not convinced by your presentation." and "I don't buy it".
Well, we can all go home now.
The Pentagon is a real mystery
What I'm left with after all this is the feeling that the best evidence can be found at the WTC. No mystery there.
Thanks for your work, however...
Thanks for all the work you do in trying to tackle one of the most difficult aspects of 9/11 -- the Pentagon attack, by gathering rare eyewitness testimony and examining the evidence. I admire it a lot!
However, you seem to be way too quick in reaching conclusions and judging people.
I happened to follow a link to PentaCon website.
http://www.thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm
You call Lloyd England "First known accomplice"? Are you out of your minds? Way to go, Judge Dredd! I wonder how come you haven't condemned him to electric chair yet!
To me he came across as sincere, I didn't detect any evasiveness, the guy just gave his recollection. As to why his testimony contradicts the others -- there can be numerous possibilities besides him just being a complete lying sack of shit which you seem to assume. What was all that questioning about nitty-gritty details of how he removed the pole, which side he stood on, etc., about? Totally irrelevant! You think by doing that you caught him in a lie? Ha!... This is an elderly man, trying to recollect what happened 5 years ago! I don't see anything suspicious here. His wife working for the FBI? -- Yeah, very suspicious! And his reading choice -- what does that have to do with anything? LMAO.
If you want to pretend to be detectives, you should at least consult a real one -- on how to collect evidence, how to interview people and how to avoid premature conslusions.
How can you expect a person like Lloyd England, after how you have treated him, to give any more interviews to anyone, trying to investigate the Pentagon attack?
For god sakes, you are like elephants in a china store!
you are in denial of the evidence.
Lloyd's story is impossible and has been proven to be a fabrication due to the first hand testimony provided by these people:
How is that hard to understand?
This thread presents photographic evidence showing you how the poles were staged in advance.
I understand that it's difficult to accept the notion that a seemingly nice and simple man like Lloyd could have been involved.
He may have been coerced or manipulated which would make him a victim but he had to have been involved.
We do not blame Lloyd for 9/11 but he is a direct link to the perpetrators and this can not be ignored.
BTW the guy in the video grilling Lloyd in front of the cab is Russell Pickering, the creator of the now defunct pentagonresearch.com.
He believes AA77 hit the building.
how could you fail to understand......
That Lloyd's story of stopping the car sideways on the road with the pole STILL IN IT and the heavier end supposedly "sticking out over the hood" and then removing the pole within 9 minutes of the event with help from a stranger in a van who "didn't say a word" and FELL DOWN in the process but yet the pole never even scratched the hood:
Impossible.
His story is a fabrication.
He sticks to the script at all costs and regardless of how absurd it is but the citgo witnesses PROVE he is not telling the truth.
If you suggest Lloyd is telling the truth you have to suggest that all of the citgo witnesses are government agents lying to contradict the official story.
Do you really think Lloyd's story that supports the government version of the event is more accurate than ALL of the citgo witnesses who prove 9/11 was an inside job?
Why do you insist on supporting the official story in light of this conclusive evidence that proves it false?
I'd also like to point out.....
That there is not even a single mainstream media published witness account of someone who saw the pole spear Lloyd's cab OR saw him remove it afterwards.
Not one.
So while his story is corroborated by nobody the north side claim which proves his story a deliberate fabrication is corroborated by 6 independently confirmed accounts.
Corroboration is the key when it comes to eyewitness testimony.
How can you deny evidence this strong that proves 9/11 was an inside job?
Wow. What does any of that
Wow.
What does any of that have to do with the fact that the plane was over 300 ft away from pole 1, the pole that alegedly hit his cab?
You need to take a step back and take another look.
His account makes no sense, has had changing details, and is IMPOSSIBLE if the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo as we know it did.
NOT ONE person saw the pole hit the cab while he spun out sideways. You know why? Because it didn't happen.
I am sorry if I am coming off as a jerk, but it drives me nuts that we have to keep explaining this.
Ok, let's try it differently. Explain to me how pole 1 or ANY pole hit his cab with the plane approaching from the north side of the Citgo. Remember, he already identified pole 1 as the pole he removed.
The other witnesses
But aren't there a lot other published witness reports who support the official trajectory? What about them?
good question.
And the answer is no.
None of the previously published accounts specify north or south of the cigto.
99% wouldn't be in a position to tell anyway.
Most of the previously published witnesses were not in a position to see the Pentagon at all.
The media did not focus on the flight path.
The most significant witness in support of the official trajectory would be Lloyd and his account is impossible.
What about these?
Evey Walker Lee: "When you get up close -- actually, one of my people happened to be walking on this sidewalk and was right about here as the aircraft approached. It came in. It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in. He happened to hear this terrible noise behind him, looked back, and he actually -- he's a Vietnam veteran -- jumped prone onto the ground so the aircraft would not actually -- he thinks it (would have) hit him; it was that low. On its way in, the wing clipped."
"Kat Gaines, heading south on Route 110, approached the parking lots, saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles. "
Hovis Tom: "Nevertheless, the aircarft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building. It was as if he leveled out at the last minute and put it square into the building. The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft."
There are a couple of other references (not all first-hand) to the light poles as well.
http://www.911review.com/articles/bart/witness.html
Please research, before you post
Evey Walker Lee is not a witness, he was the Pentagon renovation mgr. He was at home when the attack occurred.
Tom Hovis is not a witness, he was in his office...8 miles away from the Pentagon. He was not present during the attack. He was reciting what he believed he learned about flight path of the plane.
Kat Gaines was on 110. You can't see the poles and can barely see the plane from 110. It is on the other side of the Pentagon. Besides it didn't clip any telephone poles. It ALLEGEDLY clipped light poles. Did it clip telephone poles on 110, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PENTAGON?
Thanks...
... for answering my query (although I think the heading was a bit unwarranted).
Sorry...
if you are a genuine truthseeker.
I am so used to "duhbunkers" telling me "how it is".
Again, I apologize if the heading seemed a bit abrasive.
It's ok
I can understand the frustration.
You can judge if I'm a genuine truthseeker from these two pages of mine:
http://tinyurl.com/3xncd9
http://www.wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
Ok yeah my bad.
Great sites.
I guess my impatience stems from the inaction I see everywhere and the lack of real research. Clearly you are very researched.
I am just losing my patience, as fast as I am losing my country.
Peace and much respect.
-Aldo
great stuff Vesa!
Excellent compilation of building 7 info.
Archived to disseminate.