Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Oh that's it Adam Larson. You should know better than to challenge me. The gloves are now off. I will address this frivolous attack sentence by sentence since it is so intellectually dishonest.

Like you're going to admit how much sense this makes. "This ain't Jujitsu." "We ain't playin'" When were the gloves ever on? Or are you just noting that mine are off too. Ooh, I'm outed. My anonymity shields are down!

Who are YOU to tell ME how much "deep thought" I have put into their "underlying motives"?

I'm Adam Larson. Hello?

What is this "nudging" you are referring to? Why are you continuously throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick?[...]Dylan, Russ, Aldo, and I first heard about his account from his manager.

That was it. You don't think a Pentagon gas station manager mentioning a north witness to you (with or without prodding on your part?) constitutes a witness being nudged towards you? Is it not possible someone set this up and got some people to tell you these things? That they "voluneteered" info does othing to ease this suspicion in my mind.

Done the math? What are you talking about? Your condescending tone and disgusting baseless insinuations are enraging me and I am doing my best to make sure I don't get banned here.

It gets tougher the more untenable your position I imagine.



And you better clean up your cowardly insinuations about Lagasse. Either come right out with your accusations like a man or back off.

Not sure what clean up means, but since I was OT to begin with, I'll back off for here and now.

Sorry nothing to add on the light poles other than this "why are we even looking at this?" moment.

Uh huh. Then stay out of thread all together unless you plan to post more concessions, retractions, and apologies as you should. However you are certainly welcome to come to the PentaCon forum with your weaselly attacks any time where I will instantly put you in your place as usual.

Fair enough. No aplogies for the moment and nothing new on the poles. So back on topic...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

That was it. You don't think a Pentagon gas station manager mentioning a north witness to you (with or without prodding on your part?) constitutes a witness being nudged towards you? Is it not possible someone set this up and got some people to tell you these things? That they "voluneteered" info does othing to ease this suspicion in my mind.

They? Barbara is a civilian. Robert is a civilian. "They" did not "volunteer" the info out of the blue. We were there specifically LOOKING for witnesses to the plane and asking very pointed questions about 9/11. She merely graciously answered during her cigarette break.

It sure is NOT surprising to me how your empty response refused to address my assertion that you accept all witness accounts as valid EXCEPT for the ones that contradict the official story.

Now that there is evidence PROVING 9/11 an inside job all of the sudden the calm, rational, logical blogger who thinks he is appealing to "intelligent skeptics" has no problem throwing out accusations like there is no tomorrow.

Obviously you and the readers of this post will understand the extreme irony in this fact.

So now not only are the cops "in on it" but the gas station attendant Robert and his manager Barbara are as well.

Naturally this means they all conspired with Edward Paik (as well as our 2 new witnesses) and they all sat back just waiting for the day that we would show up at the citgo station and hoped that we would randomly run into Paik and the others.

Look how fast you become a paranoid conspiracy theorist now that the official story is so clearly threatened.

Keep on crashing and burning Adam Larson. You might as well go out with a bang because your usefulness has clearly ran it's course.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It sure is NOT surprising to me how your empty response refused to address my assertion that you accept all witness accounts as valid EXCEPT for the ones that contradict the official story.

I actually wrote a long post but deleted it since we're far off topic now to begin with. It deserves a better thought out response elsewhere.

Now that there is evidence PROVING 9/11 an inside job all of the sudden the calm, rational, logical blogger who thinks he is appealing to "intelligent skeptics" has no problem throwing out accusations like there is no tomorrow.

We're all throwing out possibilities to hash over. Why so defensive? I'm sure you'll be doing a thread on this now, and we can discuss it there in great detail.

Look how fast you become a paranoid conspiracy theorist now that the official story is so clearly threatened.

Keep on crashing and burning Adam Larson. You might as well go out with a bang because your usefulness has clearly ran it's course.

Nothing seems thretened really from my end. I'm calm. And why are you so sure I'm on my way out? Boy that's an attempted psych-out if ever I seen one.

So... how about a deep breath and when someone has a new thought on the poles...

I am not certain what happened, just speculating...but that damage IS consistent with explosive charges: Clean cuts, little evidence of heat beyond the edges, extreme crimping and flat and square shapes remaining after the bases were supposedly ripped from their mounts..all tell tale signs of the poles being dropped at the monent of impact.

If those poles had been knocked over by force, the bases would have been ragged as hell, not smooth and even.That alone is proof of a set up.

The taxicab story STINKS to high heaven. There is NO WAY possible, none at all, that the cab could have had that heavy pole sticking out of the windshield while traveling and stopping and removing, and NOT ONE scratch on the hood!!?? No way Jose!! Impossible. There HAD to be scratches at the least if that pole story were true, so that driver is a patsy or a intel pawn told to tell a tale and did so. A ' unidentified ' man who helped him haul a 200 plus pound pole out of his windshield and then just split beofre anyone could find out who he was..suspicious.

I do not believe that those poles were lying on the ground before the event; what if thieves looking for materials to sell came upon it? Gone. they could not take those kind of chances on an abili like the poles, too important. Also, they would have to be positioned to appear as if the ' plane ' had hit them and to just dump them there and leave would not acomplish that.

The OP has done a great job and raised some very critical issues, but I think that we all need to take an attitude of seeing all the evidence before making any grand proclamations as to certainty in this case. The only certain thing about this case is uncertainty. But for now I will assume that the poles were NOT struck by anything and were blown when the charade started; the fact that no forensic testing was done on them speaks volumes; no thorough investigation would exclude testing all surfaces on felled poles for residue.

We all KNOW that no aircraft struck the Pentagon; that is a foregone conclusion based on the totality of the evidence. So the how's will have to fall into place as more proofs come about. We are all speculating and I believe that we are very close to finding a smoking gun so obvious that not even the most loyal Bush drone will have to admit that the Cheney Brigade pulled 9-11 off and should be standing in front of a Federal Judge geting life or death sentences for their deeds instead of flitting around the world ruining other peopls nations and stealing their wealth, but first things first:

Lets figure out exactly how it was done, and threads like this one will go a long way toward making that a reality.

Originally posted by eyewitness86


I do not believe that those poles were lying on the ground before the event; what if thieves looking for materials to sell came upon it? Gone. they could not take those kind of chances on an abili like the poles, too important. Also, they would have to be positioned to appear as if the ' plane ' had hit them and to just dump them there and leave would not acomplish that.

What you fail to understand is that this little stretch of highway is arguably the most secure and controlled stretch of highway in the nation.


It's right in front of the heliport where the President routinely travels from.

In fact as I posted earlier he had left from there the day before and was scheduled to return there the afternoon of 9/11.

Heliport Firefighter Alan Wallace:

“Our first helicopter flight was around 10 AM. 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.”

This means that Secret Service/"Security" would be on the lawn the night/day before "securing" the area. That means they would put up blockades and cones, blocking the walkway leading up to the area where the poles were planted.

This would be quite normal behavior for this area since it is the Pentagon and would cause no reason for concern or suspicion.

There was virtually zero risk of the poles being stolen for "material" in that area within a few hours.

Plus there is not any difficulty whatsoever in them figuring out in advance which way they want to lay the poles. They were all found right near their bases in this approximate position:



Do you really think it would be all that difficult for the suspects in question to plan that in advance?

Didn't these same perpetrators carry out a triple covert controlled demolition in downtown Manhattan?

This thing got out of control. I'm limited on time and pc access. The first page is wacked from loooooong images. I'll go thru it later maybe. You did have some good arguments, however I'm not near being ready to declare absolutes.

Here's some new questions.

1> I'm curious if anybody has a time line covering when this road was supposidly blocked off to remove the traffic to provide a time window of how much time "they" had to go and drag out these 'stage props' without any highway traffic being able to see the 'planting of the "evidence"'?

Then we'd need a time frame of when 'basic troops' and other rescuers were running out there and arriving on the scene to better understand thw window involved for their lightpole and related props mission.

2> Has anybody done the math to see whether or not the width of the planes+wings are even wide enough to clip the poles 'on each side'? Or, if it was wide enough, this same calculation would give us an idea of what parts of the wings would/could have made the lightpole impacts.


These 2 points seem crucial in attempting to grasp what could of happened let alone what did happen.


3> Are there any witnesses from within a week or so of the event that claimed to see the plane flying the "CIT" path? 'Testimonies' from years later on visual perspective issues aren't exactly rock solid math. Especially not when one of the guys needs to be reminded of where he was standing and then he mentions that he's never really thought much about that detail of that day ever since. Memories fade, especially memories that aren't 'excited' for reinforcement.



Sorry, but those poles weren't damaged by explosives. If anything is "ludacrous" it's that. The 'jaws of life' is a big maybe, but not explosives. Take an old TV antenna and bend it parallel, then twist it back a few times till it snaps and you'll have pretty close to the same 'effect' as that one in particular.

CIT: My point about the car hitting the base in your example is I meant that the car literally could have done the direct damage to the base (cars aren't all jacked up like in Compton), as opposed to the car being responsible for knocking the pole itself and then the base looked like that from the forces on only the pole.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

eyewitness86: I agree that the poles were probably not planted in advance and came down at the time of attack. However, I feel a quick hard hit from an airliner is a better explanation than explosives, which is what would have most likely shredded them up. An airliner hit or something like it would cause such a sudden violent break it seems to me it'd give uniformly and instantly. As IIB says

Sorry, but those poles weren't damaged by explosives. If anything is "ludacrous" it's that. The 'jaws of life' is a big maybe, but not explosives. Take an old TV antenna and bend it parallel, then twist it back a few times till it snaps and you'll have pretty close to the same 'effect' as that one in particular.

of course the poles weren't bending back and forth, but the concept is totally valid - forces transfer to some waek point, massive and sudden molecular movement, friction/heat released, and the metal might even "melt" a bit at the break point. But I'm no pole expert.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This thing got out of control.

I apologize for my part in that. And back on topic.

Here's some new questions.

1> I'm curious if anybody has a time line covering when this road was supposidly blocked off to remove the traffic to provide a time window of how much time "they" had to go and drag out these 'stage props' without any highway traffic being able to see the 'planting of the "evidence"'?

I persoanlly don't. but maybe Craig does. It'd have to be quick - almost as quick as they could've gotten the area blocked off. Photos show the poles there early - no timeline handy, but I think there's pre-collapse photos, like Ingersoll's, showing the poles down, so before 9:57.

2> Has anybody done the math to see whether or not the width of the planes+wings are even wide enough to clip the poles 'on each side'? Or, if it was wide enough, this same calculation would give us an idea of what parts of the wings would/could have made the lightpole impacts.

Yes. The poles have been one of the classic "proofs" for a 125-foot wingspan passing that way. That's the whole point of planting the poles too, to fake that wingspan.

Of course this depends on heading and exact impact point. Here's a graphic I did based on P49T's new charge that the FDR heading is wrong to hit them all. They're using 61.2 as the real heading (ground track true), and I think a correct impact point. But a heading of 60 (magnetic heading) from the same spot, or the same heading hitting a few feet off, would still fit perfect. ('scuffed' VDOT mast included here as well - southernmost dot). At 61.2, the VDOT pole would be toast instead of lightly damaged, and pole 2 would be untouched. At 60 the official damage still fits. Lines here -

3> Are there any witnesses from within a week or so of the event that claimed to see the plane flying the "CIT" path? 'Testimonies' from years later on visual perspective issues aren't exactly rock solid math. Especially not when one of the guys needs to be reminded of where he was standing and then he mentions that he's never really thought much about that detail of that day ever since. Memories fade, especially memories that aren't 'excited' for reinforcement.

Lagassse, 2003, is the earliest explicit one I know of. Perhaps Craig has found others that say or imply a north path earlier on. Few give any clue one way or the other, but I think several give good indications of seeing the south path, but not everyone agrees.

BUT, if wings had hit those poles there would have been a tearing of the wings and shredded metal from the strike all over the place and the ' jet ' would have lost control or been radically affected by the strikes, no doubt. There is no way that an aircraft going as fast as alleged could strike metal poles and remain level in flight; also there would be hundreds of little pieces of metal and such from the parts of the plane that were affected.

Why are there no bits and pieces of metal from the ' aircraft ' lying all over between the pole zone and the Pentagon? No white shirt and tie office drones were seen picking up tiny bits of debris from THAT area, now where they? No, and that means that no little pieces were there to pick up.

If the poles were placed there prior to the day of attack, then surely the films from the multitude of cameras would show a truck pulling up and dumping them, right? I mean, this is the MOST SECURE place in the nation, right? If so, then there should be film from days before that catch the placing of the poles. Has anyone reveiwed the tapes of prior days from the DOT cameras to see if it has any such evidence? I doubt it, and I doubt that any film can be found that shows that the poles were missing from their bases and dumped there to be found on 9-11.

Once it became clear that Bushie was NOT going to be returning from Florida directly to the Pentagon, there was no need for any Secret Service people to be anywhere near the area; they were busy trying to figure out how to explain not yanking the scum Bush from his Goat story immediately. Bush and his cabal were acting under orders from the perps, including Cheney, to stay out of the loop until the shadow govt. boys had finished their plans for the day.

Recall " Angel is next "? The perps had the codes to ALL of the defense in this nation, as they are at the very top of our pile of ghouls making us all minions in the game of global conquest and money. The perps were riding around in the white plane and running the operation from on high, and that is apparent.

Whatever happened at the Pentagon, we all know that there was no airplane there, and that it all was a psy op of the greatest magnitude, and that they are getting away with it. The American people are too dumbed down ( present company excluded ) to realize what happened. WE are almost gone as a nation when the perps are obvious and the guilty on TV every day lying to us about more and more matters...we are in deep crap.

But back to the Pentagon: The pole thru the windshield is an OBVIOUS set up, as no scratches on the hood means no light pole went thru the windshield, thats a fact.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
A couple more things:

Props where props are due for the on-site investigation, excellent photos, and thoughts Craig brings to the table. Seriously. Even as we disagree, at least he does contribute constructively and usually civilly. Facts are facts, and photos are photos, so I accept it all, we just think about it different. And its our differences that make us collectively stronger.

More hollow, meaningless, and manipulative rhetoric. Despite all of your concessions and praise you have not "accepted" a single thing. You bring nothing whatsoever constructive to this discussion other than straight up attacks against people in the movement and consistent convoluted nonsense for obfuscation purposes.

And then better graphics I just finished up (I had just been starting to look closer at this):

I hope these help things along.

This is not relevant to the light poles and therefore does not "help things along". The notion that the VDOT pole "scuff" was caused by a plane is far from definitive and borderline absurd. Same with the tree.

Here is my completed response. It won't let me edit it for some reason:

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
A couple more things:

Props where props are due for the on-site investigation, excellent photos, and thoughts Craig brings to the table. Seriously. Even as we disagree, at least he does contribute constructively and usually civilly. Facts are facts, and photos are photos, so I accept it all, we just think about it different. And its our differences that make us collectively stronger.

More hollow, meaningless, and manipulative rhetoric. Despite all of your concessions and praise you have not "accepted" a single thing. You bring nothing whatsoever constructive to this discussion other than straight up attacks against people in the movement and consistent convoluted nonsense for obfuscation purposes.

And then better graphics I just finished up (I had just been starting to look closer at this):

I hope these help things along.

This is not relevant to the light poles and therefore does not "help things along". The notion that the VDOT pole "scuff" was caused by a plane is far from definitive and borderline absurd. Same with the tree.

In fact the light pole downed by wind ALSO has a scuff.


Does that mean a plane caused it? Any number of things can cause scuffs on these poles perhaps even as they were transported and installed.

757's traveling at 500mph+ would not cause a "scuff". Plus the fact that this particular scuff was already obscured by oxidization demonstrates that it was there well before 9/11.


The fact that THIS is the "physical evidence" you guys have to tout in support of a 757 is downright laughable.

It doesn't even come close to countering the overwhelming amount of evidence proving the plane was not anywhere near the pole.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
4 out of the 5 poles could have been already placed in the middle of the night . Pole 1 is the only one that needed to be placed after the event and the time line of the Ingersoll photos shows this had to be done within the first 10 minutes which is also when Lloyd would had to have removed the pole with help from the silent stranger in the van. There is no reason the pole couldn't have been pulled from the shoulder or unloaded from a truck in about 30 seconds. There is no reason that Lloyd removing the pole from his car would take less time than it would for them to put the pole in place.

But did you have a timeline tho? I ask because it's important in understanding how much time there was before the traffic was stoped from passing taxi guy. You see the more time/cars the more improbable it becomes. I can't say your scenario was impossible, nor really exactly how probable. The more people who seen the scene the more chances somebody would have stepped forward saying the scene was different.

I certainly wouldnt argue that the funny van guy drove it there. I'm not sure why a disinfo agent would even mention that guy as seeming like some sort of Op. It contradicts the idea of them trying to get away with something, and begins to beg its way into my diversionary disinfo theory.

You see EVEN IF someone saw them moving around a pole it wouldn't cause any reason for alarm and EVEN IF it DID happen to seem suspicious to somebody nothing would have happened if they had reported it during all the chaos of that day. (or ever for that matter)

For average people, "being part of" an event like 9/11 is HUGE. As in that's all they'd be talking about for a week was how they were right by the scene etc OMG. This increases the odds that they'd be inclined to later review pictures from that scene, and probably half of them would have a modernistic PC mindset. Has even one person stepped forward claiming it was different there / no pole(s) / etc? Those 2 guys moving that one pole is one thing, but people seeing guys drag poles across the street is another.

The first responders would have not been interested in what the Feds were doing on the highway.

That doesn't have to mean that they'd not be perceptive of what was happening in the area. They did have to drive there too. And then there's all the people running out of the Pentagon. Could people in the area behind the highway have had LOS with that area? Surely people were out in the street looking, basically everywhere.

How many corroborating witnesses would it take before you accept this simple claim that proves a military deception?

Im more concerned about the witnesses beng in cahoots with military deceptioneers. "Total control" is a term you use. Wouldn't the perps be in total control in the sense of having the gas station guy as one of their insiders? After all he was "able" to see what had happened, and is now contradicting "their version". But what if he was/is an operative, and now his role is to spread disinfo? That could be a dichotomy here. I'm sorry, but I just can't get over the PENTAGON Police

The source for the images says that pole was downed by wind.

It is possible that forces involved in the downings could cause different effects. A wind mechanism would be vastly different in nature than the plane impact. Like the wind would be blowing on it for some time, ove rits entire surface, causing it to sway in varying directions -for hours even- until finally reaching a sort of critical mass and then snapping violently and ruggidly, like a dull knife. But then a plane comes along elsewhere and snaps it almost instantly & abruptly, with all of the force impacting a limited area at once. The temperatures would probably be relevent as well.


-How can we be sure that those scuffs weren't pre-existing marks from who-knows-what?


-I'd guess that you subscribe to the E4-B as having been the control 'booth'. If so, why did they allow it to be visible? Even if it wasn't actually part of the operation?


-After going to all this length, why not simply fabricate the NTSB reports to shut everybody up? That should hav ebeen a snap after all of that, especially if they actually wanted people to believe it. The same could be said of why wasn't the FDR data/video doctored to reflect the official path?


-Most Importantly:
If it was a highly controlled operation using advanced drone systems or whatever, why didn't they fly the x over the lightpole path?

[edit on 6-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

But did you have a timeline tho? I ask because it's important in understanding how much time there was before the traffic was stoped from passing taxi guy. You see the more time/cars the more improbable it becomes. I can't say your scenario was impossible, nor really exactly how probable. The more people who seen the scene the more chances somebody would have stepped forward saying the scene was different.

From the images we know that traffic was completely blocked at 9:54. Of course they were likely directing/controlling traffic before then. It's a very secure area plus that is the benefit to knowing when the attack is going to happen. I don't understand what you mean by someone noticing a "different" scene. Different from what?

A light pole not on the ground is not something somebody would notice or remember let alone report. That simply makes no sense.

Lloyd, the cab, and the light poles were not a focus of attention on 9/11. It would be quite a while before anyone would scrutinize images and details after the fact at all let alone these particular details. Anyone who questions the official story is treated the same.....ignored.

I simply don't understand what you think someone would have come forward to say or why you think this would have been likely at all in this case.

I certainly wouldnt argue that the funny van guy drove it there. I'm not sure why a disinfo agent would even mention that guy as seeming like some sort of Op. It contradicts the idea of them trying to get away with something, and begins to beg its way into my diversionary disinfo theory.

I have no idea what you are talking about. When did I argue that? Are you suggesting the "funny van guy" really helped Lloyd remove the pole from his windshield?

Do you understand that a 757 was supposed to have knocked that pole in the cab without scratching the hood?

Are you saying you believe Lloyd about the silent stranger in a van helping him remove the pole within 5 or 10 minutes after the attack?





For gods sake man, THINK!

You see EVEN IF someone saw them moving around a pole it wouldn't cause any reason for alarm and EVEN IF it DID happen to seem suspicious to somebody nothing would have happened if they had reported it during all the chaos of that day. (or ever for that matter)

For average people, "being part of" an event like 9/11 is HUGE. As in that's all they'd be talking about for a week was how they were right by the scene etc OMG. This increases the odds that they'd be inclined to later review pictures from that scene, and probably half of them would have a modernistic PC mindset. Has even one person stepped forward claiming it was different there / no pole(s) / etc? Those 2 guys moving that one pole is one thing, but people seeing guys drag poles across the street is another.

Increased the chances? By how much? What are you talking about?? IT DOESN'T MATTER if anyone DID call in because they were suspicious.

Why would they need to drag it across the street? You are making things up. There is virtually nothing that could be done with the pole that would make people on the scene think there was a conspiracy. You are reaching so far here it's ridiculous.

The fact is that they got away with it regardless of the "chances" that someone would be suspicious.

The pole did not spear the cab after being hit by a plane. The physical evidence proves this.

Suggesting that there would have been "chances" that someone would be suspicious and blow the whistle is merely an argument from incredulity that could be applied to EVERY facet of 9/11.

How did they rig the towers and building 7 with nobody noticing?

How many people would it take? What are the chances that somebody would notice them planting bombs?

Since nobody noticed that or has come forward does this prove that the buildings fell from fire and damage alone?

This is the extent of your argument.

The first responders would have not been interested in what the Feds were doing on the highway.

That doesn't have to mean that they'd not be perceptive of what was happening in the area. They did have to drive there too. And then there's all the people running out of the Pentagon. Could people in the area behind the highway have had LOS with that area? Surely people were out in the street looking, basically everywhere.

So what? The poles WOULD NOT MATTER. The feds were there. The light poles were not a threat. People were dying. The Pentagon was on fire. It doesn't matter how "perceptive" anyone was because nothing the feds did with those poles would be an issue. They are the feds.

How many corroborating witnesses would it take before you accept this simple claim that proves a military deception?

Im more concerned about the witnesses beng in cahoots with military deceptioneers. "Total control" is a term you use. Wouldn't the perps be in total control in the sense of having the gas station guy as one of their insiders? After all he was "able" to see what had happened, and is now contradicting "their version". But what if he was/is an operative, and now his role is to spread disinfo? That could be a dichotomy here. I'm sorry, but I just can't get over the PENTAGON Police

Yeah well you can accept evidence that proves that 9/11 was an inside job obtained by ruthless independent citizen investigators or you can reject everything as a conspiracy within a conspiracy so no proof matters.


And why are you putting words/concepts in my mouth? What kind of a way is that to have a discussion? When did I ever use the term "total control" at all let alone in the context you are using it?

The source for the images says that pole was downed by wind.

It is possible that forces involved in the downings could cause different effects. A wind mechanism would be vastly different in nature than the plane impact. Like the wind would be blowing on it for some time, ove rits entire surface, causing it to sway in varying directions -for hours even- until finally reaching a sort of critical mass and then snapping violently and ruggidly, like a dull knife. But then a plane comes along elsewhere and snaps it almost instantly & abruptly, with all of the force impacting a limited area at once. The temperatures would probably be relevent as well.

Yeah sure whatever.

But it's NOT possible for Lloyd's story to be true without damaging his hood or be reconciled with the citgo witnesses.

You are rejecting hard evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job because you prefer to think that the perpetrators WANTED to manipulate me into obtaining this evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job. '

How is that logical?

-How can we be sure that those scuffs weren't pre-existing marks from who-knows-what?

-I'd guess that you subscribe to the E4-B as having been the control 'booth'. If so, why did they allow it to be visible? Even if it wasn't actually part of the operation?

EXCUSE ME? Why are you telling me what I think when I have never said such a thing? This is unreal. You have now TWICE decided to attribute things that I never said AND don't believe to me.

Hell no I don't believe that.

It's funny that you even bring up the E4B as we will be releasing a video short within the week outlining EXACTLY what our position is on the E4B.

You are not even close.

-After going to all this length, why not simply fabricate the NTSB reports to shut everybody up? That should hav ebeen a snap after all of that, especially if they actually wanted people to believe it. The same could be said of why wasn't the FDR data/video doctored to reflect the official path?

Why are you asking me to tell you why the evidence is what it is? That is not my job or responsibility.

All I can do is report what the evidence is. Yes there are contradictions.

That's what happens when really big lies get told.

-Most Importantly:
If it was a highly controlled operation using advanced drone systems or whatever, why didn't they fly the x over the lightpole path?

Why are you asking me to tell you why the evidence is what it is? That is not my job or responsibility.

All I can do is report what the evidence is. Yes there are contradictions.

That's what happens when really big lies get told and this only supports our case which proves a military deception.

Why is that so hard for you to accept?

You aren't discussing evidence you are merely poking rhetorical holes.

Ok, you slammed me on the spherical as opposed to circular thing. Truth is a puttable lawn post a '757' (thanks again for clarifying) crash is just not possible.

I'm sensing some hostility.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I have no idea what you are talking about. When did I argue that? Are you suggesting the "funny van guy" really helped Lloyd remove the pole from his windshield?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
which is also when Lloyd would had to have removed the pole with help from the silent stranger in the van. There is no reason the pole couldn't have been pulled from the shoulder or unloaded from a truck in about 30 seconds.

Close enough I didn't actulaly say that you did argue that either.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITAnd why are you putting words/concepts in my mouth? What kind of a way is that to have a discussion? When did I ever use the term "total control" at all let alone in the context you are using it?

Ahem...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThis image shows you how they had the area blocked off and in complete control

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITWhat you fail to understand is that this little stretch of highway is arguably the most secure and controlled stretch of highway in the nation.

And again:

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITOf course they were likely directing/controlling traffic before then. It's a very secure area plus that is the benefit to knowing when the attack is going to happen.

Slightly out of context, that last one in particular, but it once again shows your jib of language that I was referring to.
Why wouldn't the gas station be "secured and controlled"? Having "unlimited time, money, and access to unknown technology" why wouldn't they have had the employee positions filled at the gas station overlooking the entire thing?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
-How can we be sure that those scuffs weren't pre-existing marks from who-knows-what?

-I'd guess that you subscribe to the E4-B as having been the control 'booth'. If so, why did they allow it to be visible? Even if it wasn't actually part of the operation?

EXCUSE ME? Why are you telling me what I think when I have never said such a thing? This is unreal. You have now TWICE decided to attribute things that I never said AND don't believe to me.
Hell no I don't believe that.
It's funny that you even bring up the E4B as we will be releasing a video short within the week outlining EXACTLY what our position is on the E4B.
You are not even close.

I'm not sure why you lumped those together. Now that I review what I had skimmed over it's clear that you weren't the one arguing for the scuff. I thought you had brought it up and I was vague on that point.

But, considering your staunch view of the Pentagon, it's really not too much to assume that you'd subscribe to the E4-B 'what-I-said'. But the way you lumped those together I'm still unclear on that.

Anyways...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITFrom the images we know that traffic was completely blocked at 9:54.

So that's a 14 minute window within which they had to work. Do we know how many other official cars & "traffic controllers" were in the visible area (on the road there with them)?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITI don't understand what you mean by someone noticing a "different" scene. Different from what?
A light pole not on the ground is not something somebody would notice or remember let alone report. That simply makes no sense.

The poles being moved around differently. Anything really. It's really pulling for a stretch claiming that the poles were already laid out in advance on both sides of the highway. All sorts of people would/could have noticed them like that: commuters, Pentagon personnel (security details, etc employees drving by them or seeing them across the lawn outside their windows, etc). We're not talking about little SimBots, who only do or look at what the mouse pointers points them at. We're talking about complex beings interacting within the nearby environment, thus raising all sorts of possibilties of people noticing things and then later reporting them on the Internet/etc.

It doesn't make sense that you have a Broadway staged scene built in advance with props and the rest and nobody notices. You have pre-impact commuters, local security and police details, FBI agents, firefighters, Pentagon personanel including DOD and civilian contractors, post-impact-commuters etc. LITERALLY thousands of people 'walking across this stage' between day break and highway shutdown post-impact, YET, it doesn't make sense that nobody would notice? To me, that is ludacrous if anything here is.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITAnyone who questions the official story is treated the same.....ignored.
I simply don't understand what you think someone would have come forward to say or why you think this would have been likely at all in this case.

Because when you have thousands of people near or around a scene before during and after something it tends to become less plausible (your argument) the more conscious individuals you bring into the picture.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We are real researchers and we leave no stone unturned.

I'd like to ask if you asked those Police or other witnesses if they say anything happeneing over there or what their ideas were about how those poles were knocked down. I'm quite surprised you missed that opportunity the first time (I don't recall you asking them anyways). That was your big moment, and I got the impression that at least one of them would have had an overlook of that spot. Maybe asked them how they think it could have happened if they didn't. Boy would that have caused some unpredictable cognitive dissonance if you popped that question at the very end of each interview?!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Do you understand that a 757 was supposed to have knocked that pole in the cab without scratching the hood?
Are you saying you believe Lloyd about the silent stranger in a van helping him remove the pole within 5 or 10 minutes after the attack?

Get ready for this: It's not impossible for them to have not scratched the hood. It may seem very improbable, but it's irrational to declare its impossibility in pure absolutes.

And realistically, going by your logic, it would have been a snap for them to change his hood. After all, Lloyd is a suspect, the guy in the van might as well be guilty, and he had a van. They could get away with almost anything over there since the Pentagon was on fire and the highway wasn't worth anybody even getting in anybody's line of site. Next they just switch the hood with the one in the agents van. Four bolts to "freedom". Would you say that's absurd? It's not far off from what you're proposing, except the motives are just different. In all actuality, if we're to take either seriously, they could have done both. Or they could have done neither. It's all incredible no matter how you boil it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITFor gods sake man, THINK!

Um, yeah. I advocate that everybody THINK! Knee-jerking isn't thinking.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITWhy would they need to drag it across the street?

To have them dumped on the far side until before the impact is one thing, but then to have them alid out on both sides is taking it over the top. Either is, actually. Pun intended.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The pole did not spear the cab after being hit by a plane. The physical evidence proves this.

It contradicts it. PROOF is another story. Proof would be if there was no damage to the taxi whatsoever, yet they claimed there was.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITHow did they rig the towers and building 7 with nobody noticing?
How many people would it take? What are the chances that somebody would notice them planting bombs?
Since nobody noticed that or has come forward does this prove that the buildings fell from fire and damage alone?

That's a far different scenario. Until perhaps you (I mean anybody) begin declaring that explosives on the outside of the towers blew the cartoon holes into them. Then it's more on par with planting and arranging props such as lightpoles on teh side of the highway in broad daylight during morning rush hour in visible range next to the largest office building in the world.

The "CD" idea of the towers would be using maintainence access to the internal towers... during things such as power-downs... and removing bombsniffing dogs... or whatever. Far different than the side of the road. People are apparently coming forward this year claiming to see things exploding inside WTC7 etc before etc and so forth.


[edit on 7-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]