How many wintesses say they saw a plane hit light poles?

757 impact proponents are quite fond of regurgitating mainstream media reports with zero research, analysis, confirmation, or investigation.

Considering that 9/11 was a psychological attack with the media being the weapon of choice this is inherently suicide in the pursuit of truth.

Typically the same lists are published over and over by people like Jim Hoffman, Eric Bart, and most recently Arabasque.

CIT has shown you why we can't trust a lot of these suspect witnesses and why it's so important to seek out previously unknown witnesses if we want to find the real truth.

Due to the north of the citgo evidence we focus a lot of attention on the light poles and see them as the key physical evidence proving an outright deception on 9/11.

So this thread is meant to examine all known witnesses who allegedly saw the light poles get hit.

Of the known alleged light pole witnesses Stephen McGraw, Joel Sucherman, Chad Brooks, and Mike Walter have all personally confirmed with us that they did NOT see the light poles get hit and only deduced it from seeing them on the road.

Arabasque has the most comprehensive list of alleged light pole witnesses with a total of 22. Scroll down to the part that says "Witnesses described the plane hitting lamp poles and objects". (he says "and objects" because a few describe things that were not hit at all.)

CIT has pointed out errors to him in the past that he has refused to correct and we have always maintained that there is only ONE previously published account where the witness is quoted specifically claiming that she literally "saw" the light poles get hit by the plane.

I will now address each of the witnesses he presents in order to explain how the information Arabasque asserts is false and downright deceptive in how it is presented.

1. “It was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down.”[387]

Mark Bright. Pentagon police officer who was at the guard shack. Does NOT claim to have witnessed the impact OR the plane hitting the poles. Mentioning the downed poles is not the same as seeing the plane hit them.

2. “He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire.”[388]

Utility pole guide wire? He does not claim to have seen the plane hit any light poles and no "guide wire" was hit. In fact he is not even quoted about this but he IS quoted seeing the plane "bank" which contradicts the official flight path and SUPPORTS the north side flight path. Arabasque is 0 for 2.

3. “Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her.”[389]

Penny also does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles. Arabasque is not quoting Penny. Why is he deceptively attributing this quote to Penny in his analysis? He is 0 for 3.

4. “The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.”[390]

Lee Evey was the Pentagon renovation manager. He was not a witness to the plane, the attack, or the light poles. He was at home at the time of the attack. This is EXACTLY why Arabasque's "research" is so damaging. He does ZERO fact checking and simply copies and pastes words provided for him by the complicit mainstream media. We have pointed this fact out to him in this thread and he even acknowledged it and promised to correct his mistakes in this post over 4 months ago! That means he is knowingly pushing disinfo which is an assault on truth and a slap in the face to real researchers.

5. “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.”[391]

Don Fortunato. Nobody denies the cab and pole were on the road. Don does not claim he saw the plane hit the pole, the pole sticking out of the windshield of the cab OR the cab driver removing the pole. He is 0 for 5.

6. “[she saw] a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.”[392]

Kat Gaines was on 110 and would not be able to physically see the plane hit the poles. Once again Arabasque is not quoting Kat Gaines. Without a direct quote AND confirmation of that quote he is not citing evidence but citing mainstream media deceptions. Besides....no "telephone poles" were downed at all. He is 0 for 6.

7. “It hit some lampposts on the way in.”[393]

Afework Hagos is not claiming to have SEEN the light poles get hit. We can't find a trace of this person existing at all but regardless.....simply mentioning the poles is NOT evidence that they literally saw the plane hit the poles. We know that a lot of people saw the poles on the ground and deduced that they were hit. He is 0 for 7.

8. “[the [plane flew] over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building.”[394]

Like Lee Evey, Tom Hovis is not a witness, he was in his office...8 miles away from the Pentagon. He was not present during the attack. He was reciting what he believed he learned about the flight path of the plane. Once again Arabasque has proven how inaccurate the disinformation is that he is publishing online.

9. “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.”[395]

Don Mason was a Pentagon Renovation worker that is one of 3 PenRen workers cited in the ASCE report. Because of this he is a VERY suspect witness but once again.....he is not even quoting Don Mason. And even still...the mainstream media reporter Arabaque is quoting STILL doesn't say that he "saw" the plane hit the poles. He is 0 for 9.

10. “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.”[396]

Arabasque KNOWS that we did an interview with opus dei influenced priest Stephen McGraw. He KNOWS that we have posted this entire interview online for the entire world to see. He KNOWS that McGraw specifically told us and the world that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles despite the fact that he was allegedly right in front of them. Therefore Arabasque is once again caught deliberately disseminating disinformation in support of the official story. How can he do something so malicious and harmful to truth?

11. “I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles.”[397]

Do I even have to address this? Kirk Milburn was not in a position to see the poles and he does not even claim to have seen them. We spoke with his son who told us that Kirk died in a motorcycle accident a couple years ago.

12. “As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110.”[398]

Terry Morin was at the Navy Annex parking lot where you CAN NOT see route 27 or the light poles. You can't even see the Pentagon due to the steep decline. He does not even claim to have seen the light pole get hit. Arabasque is 0 for 12

13. “The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me.”[399]

Vin was one of the reporters in the USA Today Parade. No "overhanging exit sign" was hit and he does not claim to see the plane hit any poles.

14. “Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.”[400]

Mary Ann Ownes is also part of the USA Today/Gannett Parade. She is not claiming to have "seen" the poles get hit by the plane. He is 0 for 14.

15. “On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner’s wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.”

Where is his source for this one? Who said this? Whoever it was it sure wasn't a witness because they are talking about it in 3rd person. This is not a witness account at all. He is 0 for 15.

16. “I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”[401]

Here is the one account. Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. No doubt Wanda is also deducing this and simply honestly embellishing her account just like Chad did. Since she is the ONLY one to specifically make this claim and since we have directly spoken with so many others who specifically say that they didn't see the poles get hit it is a fair assumption on our part to make. We are still trying to get a hold of her for direct clarification. Nonetheless she is the only one. He is 1 for 16.

17. “It knocked over a few light poles in its way…”[402]

Steve Riskus does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles.

18. “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.”[403]

I'll admit Noel Sepulveda sounds like he is claiming he saw the plane hit the poles. But he does NOT specifically state it and he may be relaying what he was told. This is why first-hand confirmation is so important. Plus it allegedly hit 5 poles not 2. Is it really possible for the plane to "try to recover" at over 500mph? If any of the 5 poles really affected the flight of the plane that would have been devastating and there is no way it would have hit with such perfect precision so low and level and fast to the ground as depicted in the security video. There is a lot of reason to doubt the legitimacy of this account and we were not able to find him for verification.

19. “There were light poles down.”[404]

Once again, Joel Sucherman DOES NOT claim to have seen the poles get hit, is a USA Today Editor, AND we interviewed him in his office at Gannett. He specifically told us that he did not see the plane hit the poles. That is the type of effort it takes to find the truth. Why does Arabasque refuse to confirm his research and insist on spreading information that has been PROVEN to be incorrect even though he is fully aware of it? How can he not see how harmful that is?

20. “It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles…”[405]

Once again....does not claim to have seen the poles hit. We had dinner at Mike Walter's house. He also specifically told us that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles.

21. “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.”[406]

Rodney Washington is not claiming that he saw the plane hit the poles. You can not take an unconfirmed statement out of context and assume he is saying what you want him to say. He is simply relaying what he believes the plane to have done.

22. “I saw it clip a light pole.”[407]

Uh-huh. Here is the "Unnamed Navy admiral". Real detailed account isn't it? That is not a witness with a name and so this is not valid evidence.

So......just as I stated; there is only ONE witness who states she saw the plane hit a pole.


Out of all these, many have ADMITTED they didn't see the plane hit the poles and many aren't even witnesses to the event at all and only 1 claims she saw the plane hit a pole. It's clear this is NOT evidence strong enough to counter the rock solid north of the citgo testimony that is independently corroborated 6 times and directly refuted by NOBODY proving the plane did not hit the poles.

First-hand confirmation of ALL witness accounts is key.

Never trust the mainstream media but PARTICULARLY in regards to 9/11.

Whatever. I'll fix the list and comment later.

More nonsense from CIT, and character assassination (AD-HOMINEM) than analysis. But I guess that's why you were banned from the LC forum of all places.

You still haven't found a single witness to support the flyover theory. We all know how great the government has covered up the crimes of 9/11, and yet you can't find a SINGLE witness to support your theory. Instead you have to rely on character assassination, and weak attempts at debunking evidence. Talk about deceptive.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by Arabesque]

Character assassination?

Hardly.

This is all 100% factual.

You promised to correct you list 4 months ago and are still knowingly distributing the same disinfo.

North of the citgo testimony proves flyover and you have provided NOTHING to refute it.

Some additional information for a few:

5. Don Fortunato was at the Arlington County police department at the time of the attack, he drove to scene after the fact and saw the staged scene. So just like Lee Evey and Tom Hovis; he was not a witness at all.

14. Mary Ann Owens made these comments about the poles a year after 9/11. Her first account did not mention anything about them indicating she is referencing what she heard from reports.

17. Steve Riskus: From his position on the highway we don’t even know if he could see the poles from there. Yet he mentions nothing about a cab IN FRONT OF HIM spinning out sideways with a pole sticking out of the windshield.

18. Noel Sepulveda; HE CLAIMED THAT THE PLANE LOWERED IT’S LANDING GEAR AND HIT THE POLE WITH IT’S LANDING GEAR!!! This obviously did not happen, so how is this considered a genuine witness? And why is Arabesque omitting the part about the landing gear? That is very deceptive.

20. Quote from Mike Walter:

"There were periods where it seemed like the pilot was trying to stabilize it, I believe that may have been when it hit one of the light poles. But I don’t remember it hitting anything early on, although I am sure it must have hit one of the light poles right around the area where I was."

Clearly he is expressing uncertainty because he did not witness a plane hit the poles.








[edit on 23-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

No time to dig in and verify everything now...
so from what I gather it's true next to no one has specifically reported that they actually saw the poles clipped with their own eyes. Well-done post, Craig, showing the various ways reports can be misread as direct witnessing. In reality the field of reported light pole clipping is roughly on par with those who reported the landing gear down or the tailfin sticking out.

So yeah, this helps your case a bit. It DOES NOT prove that no one saw the poles move (whether knocked down or dragged up), just that neither scenario was widely reported in eyewitness terms.

Take the help and cherish it, you'll need it.

Now, is Lloyd in the category of those who saw it clip? He says he saw the plane and saw the pole coming in, but seems vague about contct point.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


Lloyd?

Hell even Hoffman and Arabasque don't have the gumption to include him!

What's even more notable is that ZERO witnesses report seeing the pole hit the cab, in the cab, or being removed by Lloyd.

Zero.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


No character assassination?

opus dei influenced priest Stephen McGraw.

appeal to religious suspicion

part of the USA Today/Gannett Parade

appeal to Hearst-ophobia?

Don Mason was a Pentagon Renovation worker that is one of 3 PenRen workers cited in the ASCE report. Because of this he is a VERY suspect witness but once again

That could be why he was working there, in a good spot to see it, in touch with ASCE, who worked closely with Penren. He better be suspicious, because:

The plane approached low,flying directly over him and possibly clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him,and struck three light poles between him and the building.He saw his colleague Frank Probst directly in the plane’s path, and he witnessed a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by the right wing.The aircraft struck the building between the heliport fire station and the generator, its left wing slightly lower than its right wing.As the plane entered the building,he recalled seeing the tail of the plane.The fireball that erupted upon the plane’s impact rose above the structure. Mason then noticed flames coming from the windows to the left of the point of impact and observed small pieces of the facade falling to the ground.Law enforcement personnel moved Mason’s vehicle and other traffic on,and he did not witness the subsequent partial collapse of the building.

Is he filling in the parts where he blinked?

Terry Morin was at the Navy Annex parking lot where you CAN NOT see route 27 or the light poles. You can't even see the Pentagon due to the steep decline. He does not even claim to have seen the light pole get hit. Arabasque is 0 for 12

He saw a flash, apart from impact if I recall, that he later thought consistent with a lightpole being clipped. True enuff, could been a glint as the plane banked. But he DOES put it unequivocally on the damage path to have hit the poles.

Here is the one account. Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. No doubt Wanda is also deducing this and simply honestly embellishing her account just like Chad did. Since she is the ONLY one to specifically make this claim and since we have directly spoken with so many others who specifically say that they didn't see the poles get hit it is a fair assumption on our part to make. We are still trying to get a hold of her for direct clarification. Nonetheless she is the only one. He is 1 for 16.

And another DPS officer to boot. By the criteria so far, it seems he might be 0 for 16 eventually. We'll see who else retracts.

18. “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.”[403]

I'll admit Noel Sepulveda sounds like he is claiming he saw the plane hit the poles. But he does NOT specifically state it and he may be relaying what he was told. [...] There is a lot of reason to doubt the legitimacy of this account and we were not able to find him for verification.

His account does read funny.

He saw the plane fly above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. [...] "For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it."

mental embellishment perhaps - 'as if for a landing' makes him recall the gear down, slow-mo recall for the tailfin.

An explosion followed, sending Sepulveda flying against a light pole.

That one didn't fall. But he was close enough it sounds like.

Alright, so not much to go on, considering what should be the best witness is going around saying stories that don't add up and this discrediting himself (to say the least, right?). Most other eyes would instead be watching the plane and impact. Even people right near the poles. It seems to me the visual and audio of the 757 would drown out pole clippage to virtually all those not leaning against one or having one fly at their head.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Haven't you learned your lesson yet? My GOD these answers are lame and completely IRRELEVANT to the entire point.

Don't you have some LIHOP articles to write?

No character assassination?

opus dei influenced priest Stephen McGraw.

appeal to religious suspicion

HE ADMITS HE DID NOT SEE THE PLANE HIT THE POLES IN AN INTERVIEW WE CONDUCTED ON VIDEO TAPE.

That is what you call 100% proof that I am correct.

You better believe I have a right to point out suspicious connections to a hard-core Vatican associated secret-society that is well associated with the Washington political elite. Did you see the special the History channel did on Robert Hansen? It was a very interesting peak into the political connection of treasonous Washington spies to this suspicious sect.

But nothing to see there! Move along and accuse me of religious persecution.

part of the USA Today/Gannett Parade

appeal to Hearst-ophobia?

If there is one thing that LIHOPers and MIHOPers agree on is the manipulative and deceptive role of the media in this operation. For you to ridicule that notion COMPLETELY out of context of the discussion which is whether or not the witness is quoted claiming they SAW the light poles get hit is beyond disingenuous.

Don Mason was a Pentagon Renovation worker that is one of 3 PenRen workers cited in the ASCE report. Because of this he is a VERY suspect witness but once again

That could be why he was working there, in a good spot to see it, in touch with ASCE, who worked closely with Penren. He better be suspicious, because:

Is he quoted saying he saw the poles get hit by the plane? NO. Are any of those claims coming direct from Don Mason? NO.

If you are not rebutting my points direct in relation to the topic then stay out of the thread with your convoluted, deceptive, off-topic, blatant neutralization attempts.

Terry Morin was at the Navy Annex parking lot where you CAN NOT see route 27 or the light poles. You can't even see the Pentagon due to the steep decline. He does not even claim to have seen the light pole get hit. Arabasque is 0 for 12

He saw a flash, apart from impact if I recall, that he later thought consistent with a lightpole being clipped. True enuff, could been a glint as the plane banked. But he DOES put it unequivocally on the damage path to have hit the poles.

HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE POLES AND HE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT HE DID.

What part about that do you not understand or are able to prove incorrect?

I'll answer that for you, all of it and none of it.

And another DPS officer to boot. By the criteria so far, it seems he might be 0 for 16 eventually. We'll see who else retracts.

Huh? Now you are simply posting gibberish.

His account does read funny.

He saw the plane fly above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. [...] "For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it."

mental embellishment perhaps - 'as if for a landing' makes him recall the gear down, slow-mo recall for the tailfin.

An explosion followed, sending Sepulveda flying against a light pole.

That one didn't fall. But he was close enough it sounds like.

Why are you posting? He does not claim he saw the plane hit the poles.

Period. Prove me wrong or you are cluttering this thread with uselessness.

Alright, so not much to go on, considering what should be the best witness is going around saying stories that don't add up and this discrediting himself (to say the least, right?). Most other eyes would instead be watching the plane and impact. Even people right near the poles. It seems to me the visual and audio of the 757 would drown out pole clippage to virtually all those not leaning against one or having one fly at their head.

Who are you talking about?

What are you saying?

You did not rebut a SINGLE ONE of my claims.

Not one.

Now you end basically saying that nobody would notice the plane hit the poles anyway?


Insane.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

you rock, craig.
i just watched three of your videos, and the case they make is practically iron clad.
the alleged plane that allegedly hit the pentagon flew on the north side, nowhere near the downed light poles.

one of the strongest bits it's officer legassie(sp?) stating it would have been absolutely impossible for him to see the plane at all, if it were on the south side of the citgo/nex. that testimony is corroborated by the security cam video which shows where he was standing under the canopy/

busy, now, but just wanted to say thanks on behalf of humanity.

DOWNLOAD THE PENTACON AND SHARE IT, PEOPLE!!!!!

reply to post by billybob


billybob,

You give me hope for humanity.

Peace,

Craig

I'm not opposing any of your evidence or anything, but if the plane didn't down the light poles, what did?

Originally posted by Dienekes
I'm not opposing any of your evidence or anything, but if the plane didn't down the light poles, what did?

The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
757 impact proponents are quite fond of regurgitating mainstream media reports with zero research, analysis, confirmation, or investigation.

And you and a bunch of no-plane (impact) theorists are fond of ignoring them when they don’t tell you what you want to hear. This can really only be described as a form of denial.
In reality (as opposed to your version of it), the mainstream media is good at reporting FACTS (who, what, where), but terrible at ANALYSIS. If you do not believe me, read Paul Thompson’s 9/11 timeline. All of the evidence there obliterates the 9/11 commission report, ALL based on MSM reports. You don’t need to look anywhere else to prove an inside job.

Here I have to reveal a trade secret, which punctures the mystique of intelligence analysis. Generally speaking, 80 percent of the information one needs to form judgments on key intelligence targets or issues is available in open media. Ray McGovern, 27 year, former CIA analyst

Considering that 9/11 was a psychological attack with the media being the weapon of choice this is inherently suicide in the pursuit of truth.

More hand-waving. Do I really need to go through all of the eyewitness who support the fact that 9/11 was an inside job? And here we are, six years later, and you are promoting a theory based on eyewitness testimony in which you have NO EYEWITNESS claiming that a flyover with a large commercial jetliner happened.

Typically the same lists are published over and over by people like Jim Hoffman, Eric Bart, and most recently Arabasque.

Guilty as charged. Where are those witnesses who claimed a commercial plane flew over the Pentagon again?

So this thread is meant to examine all known witnesses who allegedly saw the light poles get hit.
Of the known alleged light pole witnesses Stephen McGraw, Joel Sucherman, Chad Brooks, and Mike Walter have all personally confirmed with us that they did NOT see the light poles get hit and only deduced it from seeing them on the road.

And many of these same witnesses said the plane hit the Pentagon. So let me ask you. If you interview say, 50 people, and they all say the plane hit the Pentagon, will you still promote the absurd theory that they were “fooled” about what happened?

Arabasque has the most comprehensive list of alleged light pole witnesses with a total of 22. Scroll down to the part that says "Witnesses described the plane hitting lamp poles and objects". (he says "and objects" because a few describe things that were not hit at all.)

Is it not possible that a witness could not tell the difference between a light pole and what was hit considering the plane was moving so fast?

CIT has pointed out errors to him in the past that he has refused to correct and we have always maintained that there is only ONE previously published account where the witness is quoted specifically claiming that she literally "saw" the light poles get hit by the plane.

I apologize for taking so long, and I will fix the mistakes that I agree with. But I guess I could go over all of the ridiculously deceptive arguments, false claims, and borderline lies that you have made WITHOUT correction. Such as the claim that “NO ONE contradicts the north claim”. Your own witnesses contradict that claim when they said the plane hit the Pentagon, so this is a lie.

1. “It was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down.”[387]

Mark Bright. Pentagon police officer who was at the guard shack. Does NOT claim to have witnessed the impact OR the plane hitting the poles. Mentioning the downed poles is not the same as seeing the plane hit them.

He clearly said he saw the plane. Sorry, but you’ll have to do better than this. Quite frankly, based on your antics I don’t trust you enough to take your word for anything.

2. “He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire.”[388]

Utility pole guide wire? He does not claim to have seen the plane hit any light poles and no "guide wire" was hit. In fact he is not even quoted about this but he IS quoted seeing the plane "bank" which contradicts the official flight path and SUPPORTS the north side flight path. Arabasque is 0 for 2.

Sorry, not so fast. Did it ever occur to you that the plane was moving so fast that the witnesses would not REALIZE what it had hit? Ranke is 0 for 2.

3. “Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her.”[389]

Penny also does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles. Arabasque is not quoting Penny. Why is he deceptively attributing this quote to Penny in his analysis? He is 0 for 3.

Sorry, but this one stays as well. You have to do better. The light pole was near her, so you cannot rule out that she did see it.

4. “The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.”[390]

Lee Evey was the Pentagon renovation manager. He was not a witness to the plane, the attack, or the light poles. He was at home at the time of the attack. This is EXACTLY why Arabasque's "research" is so damaging. He does ZERO fact checking and simply copies and pastes words provided for him by the complicit mainstream media. We have pointed this fact out to him in this thread and he even acknowledged it and promised to correct his mistakes in this post over 4 months ago! That means he is knowingly pushing disinfo which is an assault on truth and a slap in the face to real researchers.

It is true that I haven’t fixed this, but the only one who is pushing disinfo is CIT, with their absurd no-evidence flyover theory. I have a hard time believing that you believe your own disingenuous and ridiculously absurd arguments… but I'll get to that some other day.

5. “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.”[391]

Don Fortunato. Nobody denies the cab and pole were on the road. Don does not claim he saw the plane hit the pole, the pole sticking out of the windshield of the cab OR the cab driver removing the pole. He is 0 for 5.

And how did they break the window on that cab again? Who the “devil” knows.

6. “[she saw] a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.”[392]

Kat Gaines was on 110 and would not be able to physically see the plane hit the poles. Once again Arabasque is not quoting Kat Gaines. Without a direct quote AND confirmation of that quote he is not citing evidence but citing mainstream media deceptions. Besides....no "telephone poles" were downed at all. He is 0 for 6.

More disingenuousness. Sorry, but you’ll have to do better. You do use your brain to think once in a while right Craig? If you saw a plane knock down a light pole, could you mistake what it was? You guys really don’t think very hard some times.

7. “It hit some lampposts on the way in.”[393]

Afework Hagos is not claiming to have SEEN the light poles get hit. We can't find a trace of this person existing at all but regardless.....simply mentioning the poles is NOT evidence that they literally saw the plane hit the poles. We know that a lot of people saw the poles on the ground and deduced that they were hit. He is 0 for 7.

Sorry, you’ll have to do better. You sound like a JREFer trying to support the official story with these weak arguments. I think you must spend too much time there. It’s rubbing off on you, I can tell.

8. “[the [plane flew] over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building.”[394]

Like Lee Evey, Tom Hovis is not a witness, he was in his office...8 miles away from the Pentagon. He was not present during the attack. He was reciting what he believed he learned about the flight path of the plane. Once again Arabasque has proven how inaccurate the disinformation is that he is publishing online.

I'll have to look at this, I’m not conceding it.

9. “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.”[395]

Don Mason was a Pentagon Renovation worker that is one of 3 PenRen workers cited in the ASCE report. Because of this he is a VERY suspect witness but once again.....he is not even quoting Don Mason. And even still...the mainstream media reporter Arabaque is quoting STILL doesn't say that he "saw" the plane hit the poles. He is 0 for 9.

Maybe. This is why you look at all of the statements, not just four a few years after the fact to figure out what happened. That is analysis. Cherry picking four witness statements is not an analysis. Although your conclusions are frequently absurd, the actual witness interviews help to support a plane impact more than a flyover.

10. “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.”[396]

Arabasque KNOWS that we did an interview with opus dei influenced priest Stephen McGraw. He KNOWS that we have posted this entire interview online for the entire world to see. He KNOWS that McGraw specifically told us and the world that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles despite the fact that he was allegedly right in front of them. Therefore Arabasque is once again caught deliberately disseminating disinformation in support of the official story. How can he do something so malicious and harmful to truth?

I know, but I didn’t watch until a few days ago. Jumping to conclusions is one of the sure signs of a weak and irrational mind. Are you developing any mental illnesses that we should know about? Regardless of your interview, it is POSSIBLE to forget what one has witnessed. “Clipped the top of a light pole” is a VERY SPECIFIC statement. So while I acknowledge he said differently in his interview, the possibility remains that he simply forgot what he saw. He still said the plane hit the Pentagon, so your point is moot anyways. How many witnesses are telling you this before you figure it out?

11. “I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles.”[397]

Do I even have to address this? Kirk Milburn was not in a position to see the poles and he does not even claim to have seen them. We spoke with his son who told us that Kirk died in a motorcycle accident a couple years ago.

I agree his statement is vauge, I will make a note of this.

12. “As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110.”[398]

Terry Morin was at the Navy Annex parking lot where you CAN NOT see route 27 or the light poles. You can't even see the Pentagon due to the steep decline. He does not even claim to have seen the light pole get hit. Arabasque is 0 for 12

If you say so. But don’t expect me to take your word for it.

13. “The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me.”[399]

Vin was one of the reporters in the USA Today Parade. No "overhanging exit sign" was hit and he does not claim to see the plane hit any poles.

I'll agree it’s not a light pole.

14. “Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.”[400]

Mary Ann Ownes is also part of the USA Today/Gannett Parade. She is not claiming to have "seen" the poles get hit by the plane. He is 0 for 14.

Nope. Gosh, you do sound like a JREF’er defending the official story. You’ll have to do better than that. Why does it matter, you wouldn’t believe the witnesses even if the DID say they hit the light poles… just like you don’t believe them when they say the plane hit the Pentagon. This is a fake debate. Don’t waste my time with fake debates. I’ve got better things to do.

15. “On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner’s wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.”

Where is his source for this one? Who said this? Whoever it was it sure wasn't a witness because they are talking about it in 3rd person. This is not a witness account at all. He is 0 for 15.

Frank Probst said it. www.militarycity.com...
Yes it is in the third person, but by its level of detail it is clear that the witness explained this to the reporter. The idea that the MSM could control all of it’s reporting is simply false…

16. “I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”[401]

Here is the one account. Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. No doubt Wanda is also deducing this and simply honestly embellishing her account just like Chad did. Since she is the ONLY one to specifically make this claim and since we have directly spoken with so many others who specifically say that they didn't see the poles get hit it is a fair assumption on our part to make. We are still trying to get a hold of her for direct clarification. Nonetheless she is the only one. He is 1 for 16.

Wow. Well thanks. But you have not convinced me at ALL of most of your “1 for 16”…

17. “It knocked over a few light poles in its way…”[402]

Steve Riskus does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles.

Source for this claim?

18. “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.”[403]

I'll admit Noel Sepulveda sounds like he is claiming he saw the plane hit the poles. But he does NOT specifically state it and he may be relaying what he was told. This is why first-hand confirmation is so important. Plus it allegedly hit 5 poles not 2. Is it really possible for the plane to "try to recover" at over 500mph? If any of the 5 poles really affected the flight of the plane that would have been devastating and there is no way it would have hit with such perfect precision so low and level and fast to the ground as depicted in the security video. There is a lot of reason to doubt the legitimacy of this account and we were not able to find him for verification.

Wow, you are getting desperate. You are putting Mark Roberts to shame with your disingenuous arguments! You expect me to respond to this nonsense?

19. “There were light poles down.”[404]

Once again, Joel Sucherman DOES NOT claim to have seen the poles get hit, is a USA Today Editor, AND we interviewed him in his office at Gannett. He specifically told us that he did not see the plane hit the poles. That is the type of effort it takes to find the truth. Why does Arabasque refuse to confirm his research and insist on spreading information that has been PROVEN to be incorrect even though he is fully aware of it? How can he not see how harmful that is?

Ok. I'll take this one down. Fair enough.

20. “It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles…”[405]

Once again....does not claim to have seen the poles hit. We had dinner at Mike Walter's house. He also specifically told us that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles.

But like every other witness he said the plane hit the Pentagon making your point moot…

21. “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.”[406]

Rodney Washington is not claiming that he saw the plane hit the poles. You can not take an unconfirmed statement out of context and assume he is saying what you want him to say. He is simply relaying what he believes the plane to have done.

What “I want him to say”… that sounds like CIT’s area of expertise. It is your job to PROVE that he is wrong, not offer wishy washy possible scenarios that he is wrong.

22. “I saw it clip a light pole.”[407]

Uh-huh. Here is the "Unnamed Navy admiral". Real detailed account isn't it? That is not a witness with a name and so this is not valid evidence.
So......just as I stated; there is only ONE witness who states she saw the plane hit a pole.

Hardly.

Out of all these, many have ADMITTED they didn't see the plane hit the poles and many aren't even witnesses to the event at all and only 1 claims she saw the plane hit a pole. It's clear this is NOT evidence strong enough to counter the rock solid north of the citgo testimony that is independently corroborated 6 times and directly refuted by NOBODY proving the plane did not hit the poles.

And you have never convincingly explained how they were knocked down in the first place! This is a fake debate. You have not proven anything. Not only are there witnesses statements of a plane hitting the light poles there are NO eyewitness statements to the CONTRARY. No one saw them taken down in any other way than a plane hitting them.

First-hand confirmation of ALL witness accounts is key.

Honest research is key if we are about TRUTH. You have NOT proved that the light poles were taken down. So this entire piece is a fake debate.

Never trust the mainstream media but PARTICULARLY in regards to 9/11.

I only agree with a few of your objections, and your effort is worthy of a JREF’er trying to feebly support the official story. Never trust sensationalist conspiracy “theory” filmmakers either.

reply to post by Arabesque


Boy you were on a mission on a holiday night!

Don't hooded anonymous bloggers have any family?

I'll be with my family out of town for the weekend and so will reply more thoroughly next week but most everything you said was pretty empty and devoid of any factual rebuttal with evidence.

You really didn't debunk a single thing I said and mostly just look silly.

The main point of this thread is to show you how important direct confirmation is of any and ALL eyewitness accounts.

Funny that you simply still don't seem to get it since you have not once talked with a single eyewitness.

Mainstream media hearsay is NOT evidence.

We have proven many times over how they misreport information.

And PLEASE stop attributing statements to me with quotes that I did not say.

You CONSTANTLY do this and it's very deceptive.

Either link to my exact quote direct or don't put quotes around it.

Nice thread that I thought I would drag back from the dead.

OCT Believers - how many people allegedly saw the plane knock the light poles down?

OCT Believers - how many people allegedly saw the light pole in Lloyde's taxi?

Craig, did you chase up Wanda Ramey to verify her story?