If An Aircraft Hit The Pentagon, Why Was Light Pole #4 Cutdown And Staged?, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 21 times


reply posted on 11-12-2008 @ 10:36 AM by SPreston
posted by Jnewell33
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.



Actually we have a welder at Pilots For Truth who has plasma cut large cast aluminum tubing (1/8 inch wall thickness for these light poles) and he claims this looks exactly like a plasma cut. Several other welders agree with him. I will take them at their word. The breakaway base was obviously straight cut with something. It did not break from impact down there at the reinforced end of the breakaway base.



The taxi driver, Lloyde England insisted the taxi would not start and was undrivable in two separate videotaped interviews. So it could not have been backed away from the light pole. There is not one single photo in existence showing the light pole through the windshield. In fact the very earliest Jason Ingersoll photos taken within two or three minutes of the explosion show no long light pole sticking out of the taxi windshield out over the hood. There is not one single eyewitness to seeing the light pole hitting the windshield, seeing the light pole sticking out of the windshield, nor seeing the light pole being removed from the windshield. How could that be? There were a lot of people in the area and a lot of cameras. Of course the FBI immediately confiscated all of the cameras; but why didn't the FBI release one photo of the light pole through the Taxi windshield? So simple a fix to their dilemma. Because it never happened?



Actually that main #1 light pole is longer than the taxicab; about 30-33 feet long. It weighs between 210-240 pounds and the original main pole weighed 247 pounds.



If you think Lloyde could jump out of his taxi and talk a passerby into helping him take a 210-240 pound pole out of his windshield without scratching the highly polished hood, and then setting it behind the taxi on the road, and then dragging it across the road to its final resting place to the side of the taxi front bumper in 3 minutes; well that's you.



There is a drag mark across the road caused by the heavy base end of the light pole. In actually it was made by the agents who staged the light pole from its hiding spot behind the HOV lane wall.


reply posted on 11-12-2008 @ 11:02 AM by SPreston
posted by pteridine
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.



These 5 light poles were a long way from the fire truck access, which was way over by the helipad. Obviously you have spent zero time at researching the Pentagon attack. There were no standing damaged poles to be cut down later. As you can see, these agents were guarding this particular light pole which was left laying on Hwy 27 for hours and hours and hours.



posted by pteridine
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.


Those eyewitnesses seem to have disappeared or they have changed their stories or they were actually miles away and giving 2nd and 3rd hand reports or they never existed in the 1st place. Everytime CIT finds one of these witnesses, it turns out the MSM reporters got their story wrong.



Original image

Does this look like a jet fuel explosion? It looks like a high explosive white hot explosion to me. This is the only picture we have of the alleged initial explosion and that is not jet fuel. And April Gallup, who was at ground zero in her office inside the Pentagon E-Ring with her baby boy, reported NO JET FUEL inside the Pentagon.


Guns and Butter broadcast with Dave von Kleist interviewing April Gallup. There was an explosion and she crawled out from E-Ring through the hole onto the Pentagon lawn. She saw no jet fuel and nobody burned with jet fuel. She and her baby boy were about 35-45 feet from the alleged impact hole and no jet fuel was splashed on them. What happened to the huge infernos and fuel-air explosions inside which allegedly incinerated all the aircraft parts and engines and wheel hubs and baggage and seats?

Guns and Butter April Gallup - audio live testimony





[edit on 12/11/08 by SPreston]


reply posted on 11-12-2008 @ 01:27 PM by eyewitness86
Also, it occurs to me that the pole would have to hit the windshield perfectly, standing on edge balanced perfectly so it could not touch the hood. Impossible. It would have rolled over one way or another and scratched the hood. The fact that Lloyd didn't leave the pole in the cab, if the official lie is to be believed, is strange in itself. Why not leave the pole exactly where it was so the insurance company and police could validate the damage and insure a payoff for damges?

I would not have thought about getting some' stranger' to help me haul the pole out prior to examination...no way.Was there any attempt to validate the damage that would have surely occurred to the interior of the cab? The pole would have torn holes in the interior and damaged parts of the inside for sure. The back seat would show provable damage that could be compared to a pole slicing thru the car as alleged.

If no damage can be proved in the car interior, then that seals the deal.The flight path had to be faked and this is all a part of it. Light poles would have shredded parts of the plane off at impact point and NO prof of them has been shown. Planes do not hiot light poles at those speeds without massive damage leaving parts. The FBI stooges running around picking up scrap from the missle or drone that hit the wall did't find any plane parts from pole damage, and that also seals the deal.

Isn't it sickening that after all the proofs and all the evidence we still hear nothing from anyone in a position to do anything about it? Amerika is truly in deep danger of losing it all....we are close when they can pull stuf like this off and walk away. Shame on every politician in office that ignores this issue.


reply posted on 11-12-2008 @ 03:15 PM by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston

You said: "Does this look like a jet fuel explosion? It looks like a high explosive white hot explosion to me. "

Actually, it doesn't look like much of anything to me other than an overmagnification of something. Perhaps there is an impact in there somewhere. It is possible that an aircraft hitting a solid structure at 500+ mph could produce a white flash as kinetic energy is converted to heat and the aluminum skin burns. Solid projectiles emit light flashes when striking something resistant to penetration. Further, as some of the jet fuel is vaporized and ignited by the heat of impact, it would make a fuel air explosion possible.
The fire was burning hydrocarbon, so something had to deliver at least a few thousand gallons to the impact site. Note that a large aircraft filled with fuel is a far more effective weapon against office buildings than any cruise missile and there is nothing to hide, like cruise missile parts, or witnesses to kill off, or a huge conspiracy to hold together. Why would any conspirators make something simple into something complex? Why would conspirators need a Pentagon hit, at all, after the WTC hits did all that was politically required? What do you think the motive was for a Pentagon strike and why would anyone bother with a cruise missile?


reply posted on 11-12-2008 @ 04:50 PM by SPreston
posted by eyewitness86
Also, it occurs to me that the pole would have to hit the windshield perfectly, standing on edge balanced perfectly so it could not touch the hood. Impossible. It would have rolled over one way or another and scratched the hood. The fact that Lloyd didn't leave the pole in the cab, if the official lie is to be believed, is strange in itself. Why not leave the pole exactly where it was so the insurance company and police could validate the damage and insure a payoff for damges?

I would not have thought about getting some' stranger' to help me haul the pole out prior to examination...no way.Was there any attempt to validate the damage that would have surely occurred to the interior of the cab? The pole would have torn holes in the interior and damaged parts of the inside for sure. The back seat would show provable damage that could be compared to a pole slicing thru the car as alleged.

Like light pole #4, light pole #1 was carefully staged as per the official script for the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY. Somebody prepared all these different scripts beforehand and they seem to have been followed to a Tee. Of course using 20/20 hindsight, some of these scripts do appear rather peculiar and un-necessary. But that is how they got caught isn't it? Perhaps too much over-planning and they entrapped themselves? They apparently forgot all about the KISS principle. (Keep It Simple Stupid)

Lloyde got a new taxicab out of the deal somehow and still has his old taxi stored on a piece of acreage he owns. He took Craig and Aldo and several other fellows there to view the damaged taxi.


Google Video Link


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 12:22 AM by mike dangerously
reply to post by SPreston
SPreston it looks like a missle impact or a demoliton charge.If it were jet fuel wolud there not be darker smoke?




reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 12:12 AM by pteridine
reply to post by mike dangerously


In the early response photos of the site posted earlier, note the fires burning near the impact area and thick black smoke. This is a hydrocarbon fire in a fuel rich environment. That kind of fire is not caused by high explosives igniting office equipment; it is caused by a large amount of burning fuel. I believe that a large, fuel-laden commercial aircraft hit the building even though some people believe differently because they intuitively believe things should "look different." No one knows what the Pentagon would look like if it was struck by anything else, if demolition charges were set off in it, or if an earthquake hit. It is just outside the realm of everyone's experience. The reasons for my belief are as follows:
1. Many people saw an aircraft heading toward the Pentagon and didn't see one leave after a bang and big fuel fire.
2. An aircraft and its passengers disappeared.
3. If a conspiracy existed, the use of anything other than an aircraft would leave evidence, a large conspirator organization and would not be able to be blamed on terrorists.
4. A fuel laden commercial passenger aircraft is more destructive than any non-nuclear missile in the inventory. Why not use the biggest bang with the least risk?

All the so-called evidence to the contrary is mainly speculation based on incomplete data and uncertain agendas of the claimants. By elimination, what the Pentagon looked like after the strike must be what it would look like after being struck by a large, fuel-laden commercial aircraft.


reply posted on 13-12-2008 @ 01:23 PM by pteridine
reply to post by benoni

You said “after the so called strike we were left with a hole no wider than 20ft.......
Does this make sense to you....??20ft wide!! (typo corrected from “@0ft”)
Surely you can see that your large fuel-laden commercial aircraft would, without a shadow of a doubt, do more damage than that...”

Without a shadow of whose doubt? Why do you think it would do more damage than that? Nothing ever hit the Pentagon before. It is apparently a very sturdy structure and the result of any strike is not intuitive. An airplane strike is a certainty. One arrived, there was a boom and a large fuel fire, and no airplane left. We must conclude that the damage was caused by the aircraft.
It was not a missile. A missile carrying that much fuel would have been at least the size of a tanker truck. No missile in the inventory could deliver it and maintain the flight profile. The cruise missiles are too small. Air launched rockets are too small and leave smoke trails. An ICBM loaded with fuel would arrive with a sonic boom at a much steeper angle and would have done much different damage. We would certainly not be arguing about light-pole bottoms had one of those arrived.
Given all of this, I stand by my previous post. The damage was caused by a large commercial aircraft in a shallow dive even if intuition regarding the damage leads some to believe otherwise. If you still need a conspiracy, research who might have flown it or if there were passengers on it or if it had an armor piercing nose cone, but the evidence overwhelmingly points to an aircraft, as described.


reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 09:29 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston


SP...what if? Just 'What If'???

What if the orginal housing on the light pole was 'welded' at the same point you consider to be the 'plasma-torch' cutting point?

What I'm asking is, "What If" the light housing of the pole was manufactured with that exact same seam, and the seam broke off cleanly under the force of impact?

Comments???


reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 10:35 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston


Then, it seems SPreston, that the light poles in and surrounding the Pentagon Parking Lot were, as most Light Poles, designed to 'shear' on any impact. It appears you have verified this fact.

This is a common design factor for most modern Light Poles...even if an automobile were to impact one, the Pole would shear, even as the alternate force impact the the car you be minimized, thus improving the survivability of the occupants of the automobile.

I believe the industry term for this concept is "frangible"...meaning, strong enough to operate under normal environmental forces, but able to "shear" under extreme forces, in order to minimize the damage to the intruding force (AKA a vehicle).


reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 10:50 PM by SPreston
posted by Vilyariel
This might be a dumb question, and it may have already been answered...

but on any of the light poles, is there any trace of an impact point where the wing would have hit? I would be expecting a bit of light denting, maybe paint scratches or some scuffing around the point where it was hit.

Obviously not all the photos have enough detail to see this but maybe some of you notice something like that on them.

edited to add: if there was enough force to cause the poles to bend before they snapped off, surely there must be a trace of the plane on the pole.


Not a dumb question at all. We have not been able to discern any impact damage on any of the poles from the photos. No obvious damage to the turf near where the poles ended up. Most were sheared in two; but there are problems. They all seem much too near their bases for having been allegedly struck by a 90 ton aircraft flying at an official 535 mph. #2 pole flew backwards from impact. They appear staged.



The #1 light pole has a smooth even bend which seems to be mechanically induced, without any apparent dents or scuff marks from the alleged impact with a wing. There is also a scratch in the pavement across several lanes from the base end dragging.



Original image #1 pole

#5 light pole original image

The two sheared off ends of #5 light pole do not match and oddly the heavier bottom end of the pole is lying across the upper end.





Here is a non 9-11 broken off cast aluminum light pole breakaway base.



All the light poles




reply posted on 18-12-2008 @ 10:51 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by Vilyariel


Vilyariel, THAT is actually a good question!!

The physics of these sorts of impacts SHOULD be well-known....except that, as far as I remember, most 'CFIT' (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) events were NOT intentional (with the possible exception of EgyptAir, over the Atlantic....but it impacted into the ocean, so there's no corallary).

Other CFIT accidents that may have occured in wooded areas are usually recorded at a much slower speed, and, of course, trees are not exaxctly THE SAME AS MANUFACTURED light poles....

So the real question remains: Once momentum is established, based on heading and descent rate, and at the speed postulated....well, inertia does the the rest....(remember Newton's Laws ?)...

A few frangible light poles, even as they damage the wings leading edge, will not STOP a vehicle that weighs nearly 230,000 pounds that is traveling at 450 to 500 MPH. NOT when the distance from the light poles to the wall of the Pentagon is only another few hundred meteres....

We are talking about fractions of seconds here, even IF the wings hit the light poles!!!! The Elevator still works!!! Quite possibly the entire Flight Control System will continue to work for the fraction of a second needed....it takes a few seconds, may twenty to thirty, to piss out ALL of hydraulic fluid from the FCS!
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



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
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

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 123 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 14 hours ago, 68 replies
ATS's Gutter-rats and the 90+ intro thread
  Rant, Posted 17 hours ago, 36 replies