Originally posted by weedwhacker


Back to topic --- when a claim is made that a particular Light Pole (#4, in this case) was 'Cutdown and Staged', according to the OP...who ever does the fact checking???

The assertion is that ALL the light poles were removed in advance, damage pre-fabricated, and they were all staged at the scene on 9/11, not just light pole #4.

This is 100% proven by the scientifically validated eyewitness evidence demonstrating how everyone in the immediate vicinity unanimously agree that the plane was on the north side of the citgo station far from the light poles.



We just happen to have obtained these really great high resolution close-up images of pole 4 being collected which is the only reason it gets special attention.

Am wondering if the OP has ever actually been to the Washington, DC, area and seen the scene with his or her own two eyes?

Well since this post is based on my research you can say the answer to that is yes, by proxy!

On-site research is what CIT is all about and why this evidence exists to begin with.

Go up a few posts and check out the 2 minute youtube clip I posted with me physically examining the same style light poles at the VDOT which is right up the street from the Pentagon, across the Navy Annex, directly underneath the official flight path that has been proven false by all the witnesses.

Better question in my opinion is: Why would anyone staging something this massive, need to fake light poles being knocked over? What's the point? So that there would be a possibility to discredit their attempt? When creating a fabrication, the fewer loopholes or things that can be questioned, the better.

Ask yourself this: If there were not lightpoles knocked down whatever, would all those who do believe it was a plane, for some reason, then believe that it didn't? "Um.. no LIGHTPOLES were knocked down, this is obviously a fake!" Why would they add an element that is not needed, and would only cause possible further issues with the story.

When an agency can supposedly pull of a the biggest fraud and misdirection ever, it's sort of baffling they would add an element that not only is not needed, but could only cast doubt on the whole thing.

As far as how it would be cut down, when you can point out previous tests done with 757s against light poles, to disprove that it would happen like that, I'm all ears. Or in other words, there is nothing to compare this to. You are guessing when you say it wouldn't happen like that.

Originally posted by BornPatriot
I think Lloyd is a con man... who saw an opportunity to make some quick bucks...

in addition, we know the aircraft didnt hit the poles... maybe the missle did on its way in from one of our submarines.


[edit on 10-12-2008 by BornPatriot]

That is the most PATHETIC and ludicrous statement I have EVER heard. Missiles DO NOT randomly bounce between objects then hit their objective. You jumped to an amazing amount of assumptions, given no facts nor knowledge of what you speak.

Originally posted by fleabit
Better question in my opinion is: Why would anyone staging something this massive, need to fake light poles being knocked over? What's the point? So that there would be a possibility to discredit their attempt? When creating a fabrication, the fewer loopholes or things that can be questioned, the better.

Ask yourself this: If there were not lightpoles knocked down whatever, would all those who do believe it was a plane, for some reason, then believe that it didn't? "Um.. no LIGHTPOLES were knocked down, this is obviously a fake!" Why would they add an element that is not needed, and would only cause possible further issues with the story.

If you were going to hit a building with a missile and sell it as a plane, and understanding there would be no evidence of a plane such as wing sections, tail sections, landing gear, engines. Wouldn't you HAVE to do something to lend some credence to your story? They could not likely bring in aircraft debris, so that's out although they did have some very small pieces, there was no drudging of the lawn that would indicate a plane hit the deck just before the building, so that's out. But you would need something, wouldn't you?

[edit on 12/10/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

There is no evidence for a missile and there is no need for them to have used a missile.

There was one plane, all of the witnesses saw it on the north side of the citgo proving it didn't hit the light poles or the building.

The damage was caused internally. Pre-planted explosives.

Nothing hit the Pentagon.

We know because all the independent witnesses saw the plane on the north side.

We went there to get real evidence so people would stop all the unnecessary conjecture.

We HAVE to move on from this missile talk. It only sets us back.

We can prove where the plane flew and it proves a deception. This PROVES that the light poles were staged and why the damage to pole #4 and ALL of the physical damage is so anomalous.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Am wondering if the OP has ever actually been to the Washington, DC, area and seen the scene with his or her own two eyes?

Well since this post is based on my research you can say the answer to that is yes, by proxy!

On-site research is what CIT is all about and why this evidence exists to begin with.

Go up a few posts and check out the 2 minute youtube clip I posted with me physically examining the same style light poles at the VDOT which is right up the street from the Pentagon, across the Navy Annex, directly underneath the official flight path that has been proven false by all the witnesses.

I not only went to the Pentagon, IN PERSON, I also had close acquaintances in the parking lot who witnessed the flyover (One of them a USAF Officer), and others who witnessed the resulting explosion. It was undoubtedly a large Passenger Jet, and the damage to the Pentagon was exceedingly larger and far more massive than what MANY on here would have you believe.

BTW, I also know that all of these "Pentagon 9/11 Conspiracy" claims were first created, fostered, and spread by an Anti-American French guy about Two Weeks after the attacks. He had NEVER witnessed the attacks or damage first hand, let alone even traveled to the United States. He used nothing more than Published Photographs and SAT Images to "justify" his rumor spreading, and he even went as far as actually purchasing a domain name, and publishing the resulting information on his own web-site.

I vividly recall ALL of the aforementioned, and thus it frustrates individuals such as myself to hear such incompetence, rumor-spreading, and ill-logically founded "conclusions".

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
There is no evidence for a missile and there is no need for them to have used a missile.

There was one plane, all of the witnesses saw it on the north side of the citgo proving it didn't hit the light poles or the building.

One of the witnesses in one video I saw said he saw a missile strike the building, this EXACT same guy was interviewed in a different video and said he saw an American Airlines jumbo jet (I believe the interviews were msnbc and cnn but not sure I also sent the time stamps to these videos to Alex Jones when I e-mailed him approximately 5 years ago, I do not remember both of the videos but one was loose change and the guy was wearing a yellow polo shirt) This guy had not even had a chance to go home and change his shirt and he had already changed his story. Why? I can understand that in some way you could mistake a jumbo jet for a missile (not really but I'll assume he did), but how do you mistake it for a missile one time and then not only know it was an aircraft the next time, but you also know the company who owned it? That to me definitely indicates something is wrong somewhere. I am going to go and see if I can find both videos for you and I will list the time stamps so you can see for yourself. I am not very well versed with how to embed video here so if I cannot figure it out I will just list the videos name's and the time stamps, fair enough?


[edit on 12/11/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

Ever tried torching cast aluminum???? This makes no sense at all. When were these light posts originally installed? Were the REAL lightposts removed and these "props" put there to seal the deal on the whole conspiracy.

The guy who lifted the light post may have been a con, but only to his own auto insurance company. If the post is already propped up and all you have to do is support the weight post while the car backs away from the post. You guys act like he is trying to lift a 18-25 foot piece of lead or something. I have no idea of the length of these posts precisely, but if it were 15 feet in length(which it's not) and weighed 500 lbs(which it doesn't) it would still only weigh 35 lbs a lineal foot if it were the exact same diameter the entire length. These light posts are tapered and the base half would by far out weigh the illuminating half.

Of course the worker who killed himself seemed nervous, I would terminate an employee immediately if was talking to some nut jobs trying to prove the government would be so diabolical to plant light posts at the scene of a such a historically tragic event such as this.

Show me a fact anywhere in this post, simple as that. John Lear got kicked of this site for not substantiating facts but at least his topics had substance. The posts are re-enforced at the BASE to withstand a collision at the BASE, not the TOP.

Were the new posts that replaced the "designed to fail,props the exact same design and style? Why replace 3 posts and not the 4th. If it were even slightly damaged they would intentionally take it down as there is no way to know the true structural integrity of once damaged, same procedure for telephones. Next thing we'll find out is that Cheney actually launched the rockets from the submarine while Bush was flying around as a decoy in Air Force 1. Anyone who paid attention to the news understood that this attack was bound to happen in some way or form, as the U.S. laughed of any threat from these "terrorists".

I am not saying there wasn't a conspiracy and government officials may have known about or even helped coordinate such an effort, but this whole thread can be summed up in one word, PETTY

Originally posted by Jnewell33John Lear got kicked of this site for not substantiating facts but at least his topics had substance.

That sentence alone shows how little you know and how ill-informed you are. The rest of your post isn't worth reading, based on you skewing facts to suit your own story.

No more off topic nonsense. This isn't about John Lear, it's about the light poles being staged!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Having said all of the above: I LIVED through the attacks on 9/11....OK, I admit, I lost no loved ones on that day. By 'living' through it, I merely watched on Cable News, as most of us did....UNTIL I felt the tremor, in my home, as the floors of the Pentagon collapsed. It was roughly 10:10 EDT.

Tim, how does the Earth moving for you, relate to this thread, which is about the light poles?

We can all do a search on your post history, where you inform us that you felt the tremor in many of your posts. BIG DEAL! You still weren't there, were you?

Did you see what happened to the light poles? No.
Did the light poles make the tremor that you felt? No.
Have you spent as much time at the scene examining the light poles that Craig has? Probably no again.

Subsequent to that experience, had occasion to speak with a friend who lived in an apartment on Columbia Pike....who told me he SAW an airplane fly past his balcony,

Did your friend see the alleged plane strike any light poles?
Did your friend see the alleged plane impact the Pentagon?

Let me guess, another two responses of 'No'?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
tezza, thanks for the clearly personal touch....by using my name.
YES, everyone!!!! That is, indeed, my real name....I am TIM!!!!

You told all of us your name not long after you registered. It might have been in your first twenty or so posts. I forget the actual post, but I remember your name. You told all of us that we could call you TJ as well. It might have been in one of John Lear's threads.

But, back to point, tezza....you claim to live in Melbourne, yet have such A VISCERAL and personal touch with 9/11....almost as if you actually LIVED IN THE AREA when it happened???
DID YOU?????
Oh...wait...I DID!!!!!!!!!

I do live in Melbourne, Tim. It's not a claim, it's a fact. Temperature in my house right now is around 24 degree celcius. There's a clear, blue sky with very few clouds. Channel 10 news will almost confirm that about now, it's time for the weather segment.

Like you, I watched 911 on TV. You watched it on TV from Arlington, while I watched it on TV from Melbourne. We shared the same experience. Granted, my TV time should have been sleep time due to the time differences. I was probably also a few moments behind with the satellite feeds as well.

Now, what does any of that have to do with the light poles?