If An Aircraft Hit The Pentagon, Why Was Light Pole #4 Cutdown And Staged?, page 3

reply to post by tezzajw

---

MIKE? (I'll just call you Mike, because it is handy...

NO!@!!!!!! Of course, light poles being hit by an airplane exceeding its designed parameters would not be felt by me, a few kilometres away....but, thanks for trying to deflect WHAT I WROTE....

My impetus in joining into the discussion on this thread was....to provide my personal perspective.

tezza, UNLESS you actually were living here, in the DC area, on 11 September 2001, then you really have no claim to understanding of those events.

Sorry to be so blunt, but that is the truth.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DarrylGalasso

---

I'd profer an alternate question: IF a vehicle, such as a Boeing 757 was being operated in a manner that was outside its design and mandated parameters, who are YOU to tell US anything????

Actually you are quite correct. I am nobody. Furthermore I really regret posting anything on this thread, I was only trying to offer what I considered to be possibly useful information. I apologize. I was out of line and my information is completely irrelevant. I am sorry to have wasted your time. I will make no further posts.

Incidentally I never once said anything pertaining to a 757. My post was my own observations of what I saw in some videos and my direct experience with the C130Q aircraft. Again I am sorry to have wasted your time.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

[edit on 12/11/2008 by DarrylGalasso]

reply to post by DarrylGalasso

---

Apologies for any implied slight.

Chalk it up to the problem of the Internet, and its anonynmity.

For what it's worth, and for ever what the Internet is worth, I offer a humble apology.

I can only type so fast....hope it gets through....

Who cares??? I misspelled 'anonynmity'....so, 'burn me', I deserve it!!!





[edit on 12/11/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by GhostR1der

---

Ghost....do you understand Newton's Laws....

Well, not just Newton, but something that Galileo first discovered, and Newton later defined.....it's known today as 'physics'....

Galileo was a scientist well ahead of his time, and he paid a dear price for it.

Newton...."Sir Isaac Newton" is another visionary....actually, he preceded Galileo...

IF YOU CANNOT understand what these pioneers have done, not only in physics but also in mathmatics, then you will forever be mired in ignorance.

AND, since ATS excels in advocating the break from ignorance....well, good luck everyone who wishes to wallow in the mud.....

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

---

To the OP very interesting thread.That light pole looked like it was planted on the scene perhaps the perps had some inside help in VDOT? it would explain why Mr.Landis was nervous during the interview he may have come across the people on the inside.

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

Oh goody gum drops! I was walking my dog Dora while I was strolling though ATS hallways, and saw the door open in this thread. I had to peek in here and heard the angry bickering over who saw what airplanes that where circling over the Pentagon that morning Oops, I drop a memo from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.org

Madison, WI (PRWEB) June 21, 2007 - A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. "We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building," said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission":

According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (pilotsfor911truth.org...), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:

a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
b. All altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.
(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.

Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government's official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn.

"Don't be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later," Fetzer said. "In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them." The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.

James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. "It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact." Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org.

"The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11," Fetzer said. "Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless," he added, "they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon

twilightpines.com...

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage
Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Mr. Aidan Monaghan (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to order the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, do not exist.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The Lack of Foundation Damage at the Pentagon is Irreconcilable with the Official Reports and Data
Craig Ranke, Rob Balsamo

03/15/08 - The lack of foundation damage at the Pentagon is irreconcilable with the official reports and is strong physical evidence contradicting the 9/11 official story.

The ASCE Building Performance Report has meticulously documented the damage to the building and has come to the conclusion that all damage from the alleged plane impact was limited to the bottom two floors, but primarily below the 2nd floor slab so that 90 tons of jumbo jet would have slid on it's belly across the 1st floor slab all the way through the C-ring. Full Article

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
The precautionary principle is based on the fact that its impossible to prove a false claim to be true. Failure to prove a false premise true does not automatically make it false but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 . After five long years, our government has provided the public with no physical evidence to support its claim that the attacks were the work of Muslim terrorists, or even that the identity of the aircraft that struck their targets on September 11 was the same as those specified in the 9/11 Commission's report. As explained below, it would be a simple matter to confirm the identity of each of the four aircraft, and until such physical proof of identity is forthcoming, no conclusions can be scientifically drawn to support the official story as being accurate. This is a precaution against rushing to judgment. At this point, it could just as easily be assumed that the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with full cooperation of elements within our own government

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even learned of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft --- and in most cases, even determining the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be replaced, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. The plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists with a work order when the parts must be replaced. When the parts are installed, the completed work order will have serial numbers of the parts married to the aircraft registration number and it will be returned to the records section for updating in the aircraft records. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators, pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

My point is, we do not know what hit the Pentagon, and no has proved an airplane hit the Pentagon. Furthermore, until the Government is willing to release those airplane time changes out parts so we can match them to said airplanes, we have nothing. The Government can stop this conspiracy, just by producing the Time change out parts. What are they hiding?
Again people, who close all the doors in all the 911 investigation, the Bush Administration, so what are they hiding what is it they do not want us to know?

My opinion about the light poles is they could have been cut and stage. If it is ever proven no airplane hit the Pentagon, then we will know the light poles where staged.

I also find it imposable for a 757 to fly a few feet of the ground at 400t o 500 knots without slamming in to the ground first. Infact I have done a lot of reading about this, and most top gun pilots claim it is an imposable feat, LOL especially, by pilots that could not take off and land a Cessna PLEASE!

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

Or, to be more clear....it would have involved a few THOUSAND people to pull off a campaign to kill about 3,300....and NO ONE WOULD TALK!!!!!!!!

Who said it had to be a few thousand people?
My opinion is only a few people where probably need to pull this job off you would be surprised what the black Ops are trained in. However, only those in power of the operation needed to know the full scale of the events, the rest where probably only on a need to know basics. Oh and you better believe no one is going to talk, I am sure the players were well brief if you say anything consider your self dead along with your families.

reply to post by cashlink

---

one fatal flaw in your argument - the 9/11 planes were DELIBERATLY flown into the buildings

in all most all other crashes - the cause has to be established - was it :

pilot error

mechanival failure

sofware failure

fuel contamination

sabotage

etc etc etc

the reason there was no pressing need to examine compnents in detail was that there was no suspicion that thier failure / faults had contributed to the incident

a simple analogy - if a guy runs over a bloke in the street - you might want to check his cars brakes to see if they failed

but if after running him over once - he stops and reverses back over the body - its obvious it wasnt brake failure

the 9/11 hijackers deliberatly flew into buildings - ergo no need to investigate the condition / maointainance of the aircraft

posted by pteridine
Have you considered the possibility that the pole was damaged by the aircraft and cut down for safety reasons. In the picture of the pole in the truck, it appears that the crossarm was bent where struck by the aircraft. Breakaway poles are meant to break away when struck by ground vehicles, not aircraft.

posted by newagent89
My question is: exactly when was that picture taken?
Is it not possible that an early response crew cut down the remaining part of the pole that was standing to prevent further hazard? The picture that shows the concrete mounting block is too blurry to make anything out for certain. It isn't a useless picture, though. Is it not possible that the rest of the pole basing was also removed? When a pole is taken down, what is defined procedure? Could they possibly have diverted from this protocol because of the situation?

Reagan National Arff Team First Responder Fire Fighting Pentagon

Jason Ingersoll original - no fire trucks - no light poles standing - no light pole work crews 03876

The 4 light poles (#2 would be to the left out of sight) cannot be seen standing beyond the white Saturn and Jeep Cherokee. No light pole work crews are in sight and no fire trucks yet at the Pentagon, so less than 5 minutes has gone by since the initial explosion at the Pentagon wall which caused the fires. Also no sign whatsoever of an aircraft anywhere on the Pentagon lawn. In fact the Pentagon looks like an explosion happened outside the wall, which is exactly what happened. There never was an aircraft nor any other air frame impacting the Pentagon. High explosives were quite adequate; the initial explosion outside the wall at 9:37 and more explosions inside.

Jason Ingersoll original - no fire trucks - no poles standing - no light pole work crews in sight 03877

Some of you are overlooking a critical issue. Light poles still standing where a 90 ton aircraft was supposed to have flown would disprove the aircraft was ever there; so the light poles had to be taken down.



No, it is not possible that a work crew cut down a damaged light pole during the 9-11 Pentagon attack. There were 5 damaged light poles. We have hundreds of photos starting with the Jason Ingersoll series taken within several minutes of the explosion at the Pentagon wall, and all 5 light poles are already on the ground. There are zero photos or witnesses to work crews cutting down light poles after the explosion.



Jason Ingersoll original - no fire trucks - no light poles 03879

The Reagan National 1st Responder fire trucks were close by and got to the fire scene within 5 minutes of the explosion. Ingersolls photos show no fire trucks at the scene, so we know the 5 minutes has not yet elapsed, The 5 light poles in question are not standing waiting to be cut down.



Jason Ingersoll original - Fire trucks have arrived - over 5 minutes since explosion - no sign of aircraft anywhere on lawn - damage area roof still has not been collapsed - just the original small hole through wall 03880

Originally posted by mike dangerously

---

To the OP very interesting thread.That light pole looked like it was planted on the scene perhaps the perps had some inside help in VDOT? it would explain why Mr.Landis was nervous during the interview he may have come across the people on the inside.

Quite possibly. Christopher Landis had a good job and a wife and two young children and every reason to live. His death was ruled a suicide.

Looking at the original photo lined up with the impact area on the Pentagon wall (remember the roof was originally not collapsed with just a small hole through it and fires burning and no sign of an aircraft anywhere), could you imagine a better staged photo op for #4 light pole?

Don't forget; a 90 ton aircraft with a 124 ft 10 in wingspan was supposed to have flown through here and the light poles had to come down to maintain the illusion. Very few boob tube addicted American sheeple would believe that an aircraft could fly through standing light poles without knocking them down. They would be able to withstand only so much 9-11 magic. Although not too likely, it is possible for a sleeping populace to suddenly wake up and actually look around.

Of course open-minded thinking persons might wonder how the aluminum wings of a 757 could possibly survive the impacts of five 337 pound light poles at 535 mph; but the Mainstream News Media and disinformation specialists could deal with them. Just call them wacko conspiracy theorists and that should shut them up.

Original image of #4 light pole staging

Look how that #4 pole just seems tipped over with the breakaway base almost touching the concrete base. Doesn't that lamphead look real pretty just nestled there by the road? And the top piece of the pole allegedly severed from the main pole by the impact, just leaning there against the guardrail still connected to the truss arm by all eight bolts apparently. What a gorgeous photo op. It would make Dubya jealous with all his bumbled photo ops.

But wait just a dang minute. That 757 aircraft was allegedly headed towards the Pentagon there at an official 535 mph. Some of those pole parts ended up further away from the alleged wing impact. How could that happen? Can anybody imagine how a 535 mph wing could hit a 337 pound light pole hard enough to sever the main pole in two; yet drop it exactly where it stood, even moving some parts backwards? Of course not. The FBI evidence fakers did not think out their script properly and staged the light pole wrong. Anybody disagree?



And finally, just look how beautiful a cut across that #4 light pole breakaway base. Isn't that nice and straight? Does that discoloration next to the cut indicate a plasma cut? I would think so. I would guess that was a vertical cut, with the pole maybe laying on a flatbed crane truck, with the breakaway base sticking out over the edge. Just slice it off with a nice steady hand. Presto. Ready for the next staged piece of evidence.




[edit on 12/11/08 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston

---

My previous post did not imply that the poles were cut during the event. The photos show things laying around but we have no way of knowing if they were debris removed from roadways and staging areas and just stacked where they were photographed. Emergency vehicles would need a clear path to the fire so anyone could have helped out and dragged them out of the way. Cutting down a damaged pole that was unable to be easily unbolted from the base is not an unreasonable thing to do in the days after the strike.

reply to post by SPreston

---

You said:"There never was an aircraft nor any other air frame impacting the Pentagon. High explosives were quite adequate; the initial explosion outside the wall at 9:37 and more explosions inside."
How do you explain the many eyewitnesses who saw an aircraft arrive, heard and saw the explosion, and saw no aircraft leave?
High explosives would not provide the fuel fire. Burning fuel is what is causing the clouds of black smoke. The gray smoke that you see in later photos is from the contents of the Pentagon burning and is only easily visible after the thousands of gallons of fuel burn off. Look at photos of oil refinery fires or burning tankers and you'll see the similarity.
The hole in the side of the building appears to be from a kinetic impact.

US Consulate Whistleblower Says 9/11 Hijackers Passports were issued by the CIA
  Posted 19 days ago with 21 member flags

9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 13 days ago with 14 member flags

9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
  Posted 16 days ago with 12 member flags

Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags

Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags

new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

Final Decision: Court sanctions lawyers behind September 11 conspiracy case
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: