How many witnesses say they saw a plane hit the light poles?

Craig Ranke CIT

Padawan Learner
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. Now Terral has appeared out of nowhere representing a "missile" or "small drone" proponent who has chosen to relentlessly and ironically attack the research of CIT except that he continuously references the research of 757 impact/witness list compiler Arabasque while carrying out his mission!


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[/url]". (he says "and objects" because a few describe things that were not hit at all.) _http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

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 (_http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread286109/pg1) and he even acknowledged it and promised to correct his mistakes in this post (_http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread286109/pg2#pid3265092) 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. In fact, he 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. Arabasque 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 weren't able to locate him to confirm his account 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. She made these comments about the poles a year after 9/11. Her first account did not mention anything about them. Arabasque 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. 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. “[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. 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? 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.

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.

So why didn't he see it?



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. Is there any proof he was on the highway? Has anybody interviewed him and confirmed his account? Without direct confirmation this is not valid evidence.

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.
 

Craig Ranke CIT

Padawan Learner
Please note how I directly address every published alleged "light pole witness" that exists and do not call a single one a liar.

That doesn't mean that none are liars but it is not necessary to call them liars to demonstrate how they do NOT directly support the notion that they actually saw a plane hit the poles.

Why Terral continuously claims I am calling "all" of them liars (or any of them for that matter) is beyond me.

It's very frustrating when someone continuously and blatantly misquotes you and lies about your beliefs as a straw man argument.
 

Terral

The Force is Strong With This One
How Many Witnesses Saw The 9:32 AM First Attack?

Hi Craig:

Nobody else is writing on your topic and my name is mentioned in the Opening Post, so please allow me to offer up this counterproposal to your light pole witness conclusions:

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

The evidence clearly indicates that no 100-Ton Jetliner crashed anywhere near the Pentagon (CNN News Clip) on 9/11 or any other day (Expert Military Witnesses). Jamie McIntire was standing in front of the Pentagon on 9/11 and these Military Witnesses have obviously done their research. However, eliminating a 100-Ton Jetliner from striking the Pentagon is a far cry from ascertaining exactly what ‘did’ hit the Pentagon and ‘when’

Craig Ranke CIT said:
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.

All of that sounds fine and dandy, until you begin dragging out the evidence that something ‘did’ really hit the Pentagon. After all, we have plenty of witnesses who ‘were’ in front of the Pentagon that ‘did see’ a Jet strike the West Wedge Wall right before their very eyes Michael Kelly News Clip[/url], Don Wright News Clip). The difference is that these eyewitnesses saw a smaller plane hit the Pentagon and no 100-Ton Jetliner. Therefore, this is no mere psychological attack or all of these innocent Americans would still be alive and only psychologically damaged . . .

Craig Ranke CIT said:
Typically the same lists are published over and over by people like Jim Hoffman, Eric Bart, and most recently Arabasque. Now Terral has appeared out of nowhere representing a "missile" or "small drone" proponent who has chosen to relentlessly and ironically attack the research of CIT except that he continuously references the research of 757 impact/witness list compiler Arabasque while carrying out his mission!

This is nonsense. My ‘two attack’ thesis paper can be read if anyone is interested. There is no small drone anywhere in my testimony of what really happened at the Pentagon. The Pentagon suffered the 9:32 AM missile strike ‘and’ a 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet Flying Bomb attack (pic) explained on this Pentagon Strike Forum here. I welcome any comments that Craig has on my interpretations of the Pentagon evidence, if we can ever get him out of the middle of Washington Blvd pointing fingers at Lloyd. :0)

Craig Ranke CIT said:
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.

My interpretation of the evidence says that the Pentagon witnesses are 'all' telling the truth, but from their perspectives of these ‘two attacks’ taking place about 5 minutes apart. Craig and Aldo are forcing the witnesses to tell ‘their’ story rather than simply digging deeper to understand how all of the evidence has been explaining a ‘two attack’ scenario at the Pentagon.

Craig Ranke CIT said:
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.

No sir. The deception is created by well-intentioned investigators (Craig is a very nice guy) simply misinterpreting the Pentagon evidence to create inside-job bad guys out of Pentagon victims and true 9/11 heroes like Lloyd the taxi driver. You have created a myriad of rabbit holes leading away from ‘the’ 911Truth, so your methods must include demonizing perfectly good Pentagon witnesses who simply saw something else beyond the reach of your one-dimensional CIT explanations. We had this conversation on the telephone some time ago and you continue chasing rabbits down the wrong holes. :0)

Craig Ranke CIT said:
So this thread is meant to examine all known witnesses who allegedly saw the light poles get hit.

Those would be the Pentagon witnesses who witnessed the 9:31:39 AM Missile Attack run by the painted-up A-3, when the remote control operator almost crashed his flying bomb into the Pentagon lawn. He panicked and pulled back on the joystick to send the A-3 over the E-Ring roof to disappear into the single smoke plume, before starting the wide turn to the north. Your ‘North of Citgo’ witnesses saw the second attack taking place just about 5 minutes later when no light poles were taken down.

Craig Ranke CIT said:
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.

We can argue back and forth for days about what the 9:31 attack witnesses saw VERSUS what the 9:37 Am witnesses saw, but let’s take a look at what the on-station firemen witnessed during the 9:31:39 initial attack:

Alan Wallace >> As I said, we were expecting Pres. Bush about noon, which would be a Code One Standby. In such situations, one of the problems I see at the heliport is that there are too many people there. Plus there are many vehicles, including Secret Service, Pentagon SWAT, U.S. Park Police, D.C. cops on motorcycles, and the two Presidential limousines. And some of these vehicles even park in front of the fire station apparatus door, blocking the fire truck from exiting the building! That is why I wanted the crash truck out of the station and parked in a good location, for easy access to the Heliport in the case of an emergency.

The man had to move the Foam 161 Crash Truck out of the garage at 8:30 AM, because there were too many vehicles and too many people in the area to take a chance on trying that later. Here is the problem:

The distance from the E-Ring impact hole to the far side of the Route 27 cloverleaf is only 1,438 feet making Pole #5 about 450-feet away from the impact point. The entire field is open to eyewitnesses sitting in traffic on Washington Blvd and a host of people standing in the field between light pole #5 and the Heliport Building and nobody has ever said one word about anyone moving around any light poles ‘before’ the attacks. This is a perfectly clear day without a cloud in the sky and there is simply no opportunity for anyone to start taking down light poles manually to fit into your version of what happened on at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Remember that even the secret service is here establishing a perimeter for the President to land at this same Heliport Pad ‘and’ you are trying to say that light poles are being moved around without anyone seeing them. :0) No sir. Alan Wallace and Mark Skipper saw the painted-up A-3 coming from the South of Citgo Flight Path and began running ‘north’ when the 9:31:39 AM missile strike took place ‘behind’ them. The A-3 flew over the roof and the firemen ran for cover under the vehicles only to be driven out by the ‘fire’ of the ensuing 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet attack. Again, the witnesses seeing the light poles flying around were seeing the original 9:31:39 AM attack, as no poles were downed during the second attack.

Craig Ranke CIT said:
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[/url]". (he says "and objects" because a few describe things that were not hit at all.) _http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

No sir. Craig is trying to twist the testimony of these 9:32 AM ‘light pole’ witnesses to fit ‘his’ CIT ‘planted light poles’ story that simply does not fit the evidence. Period.

Craig Ranke CIT said:
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.

Nobody on God’s green earth goes back to change the testimony of ANYONE standing in front of the Pentagon on 9/11. Craig and Aldo were NOT THERE and they are going back to badger witnesses into telling ‘their’ version of the story. The 911Truth says what ‘all’ the evidence says ‘and’ without creating a single contradiction. We have‘light pole’ witnesses in the first place, because they saw the original 9:32 AM A-3 Jet Missile Attack Run, even though the remote-control operator sent the Jet over the E-Ring wall. Lloyd obviously saw the PLANE pass in front of his taxi going SOUTH away from the Pentagon, when Pole #1 as catapulted into his windshield like everybody else who saw the same thing from various perspectives. However, the traffic moved on in the five minutes and a second group of ‘PLANE’ witnesses saw the A-3 actually strike the Pentagon, but NO POLES were knocked down; because they were already on the ground from the original 9:32 AM missile attack.

Craig Ranke CIT said:
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.

Is merely a third-party entity reciting the eyewitness testimony of everyone involved with no agenda and no explanation to corroborate like the CIT guys. I have read every account from every eyewitness like Craig and Aldo and have no reason to doubt or change the testimony of anyone, except George Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their 9/11 Inside-Job cohorts. :0)

Please direct me to the CIT Timeline of events and perhaps we can straighten things out - if you even have one . Anybody running a murder investigation without a solid Timeline has yet to even begin. The CIT boys will continue chasing rabbits down the wrong holes, until you wake up and begin to see the ‘two attacks’ where the light poles were knocked down at 9:32 AM. But hey, we have been through these things already on many Boards and someone seems content to spend time chasing rabbits. :0)

GL,

Terral
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Very interesting exchange. I've always had a hard time with the idea that somebody just totally deceived everyone by setting charges or something in light poles. That just strikes me as WAY too involved a process for the conspirators that pulled off 9-11. There HAS to be a logical explanation for those clipped poles that does NOT include charges or whatever.

Of course, you can read what we think about it in our book: "9-11 - The Ultimate Truth" which does NOT pretend to be the definitive answer of what happened on 9-11 in terms of logistics, but addresses the "ultimate truth" about the types of individuals that could and would do such a thing.
 

Craig Ranke CIT

Padawan Learner
Hi Laura,

The notion that there were "charges" in the light poles is not something I have ever suggested and is certainly not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

Same goes with Terral's convoluted double violent event outside of the building theory that merely merges every other theory in existence in an a blatant attempt to obfuscated the definitive evidence that we do have. Terral follows me around the internet attacking me personally and the evidence we present until he gets banned for his abusive behavior and completely unsupported wild conjecture.

An A3 skywarrior AND a missile?? And a north side flyover? At different times?? Come on. We are way past the point of this type of wild conjecture.


There is only evidence for one plane, and one external explosion. If there were pre-detonations at 9:32 they were internal and not detected by anyone outside.

If there were two violent events outside of the building it would have been witnessed by hundreds yet nobody reports such a thing.

The light poles were simply staged in advance, not downed in real-time by a plane, a missile vortex, or any sort of explosives.

This may seem like a complex task but it would actually be quite simple for the suspect in question to accomplish.

First realize that the area is the literal backyard of the suspect and one of the most highly secured areas in the nation.

It's right by the heliport where the President travels from quite often and in fact he had left from there the day before and was scheduled to return there that afternoon!


Heliport firefighter Allan Wallace:
Our first helicopter flight was around 10AM. But we were expecting President George W. Bush to land in Marine One around 12 Noon, returning from Jacksonville, Florida. (He had actually left from the Pentagon the day before.) Needless to say, neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day because of the terrorist attacks.
source

This means that they had all the excuse they needed to "secure" the area in preparation for his arrival and this would even be quite routine and expected for the people in the area since the President travels from there regularly.


The poles could have been removed in the middle of the night on any night prior to the event in what could have been made to look like regular late night road work.

Then the pre-fabricated damaged poles could be put in place perhaps at 4:00am on 9/11 or even later in the day while they were "securing" the area for the President's scheduled arrival.

4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side on the grass.


I'll address pole 1 in a bit.

There isn't a reason that any of them would cause a reason for alarm or notice by any of the morning rush hour traffic even if they could be seen.

Pole 2 was completely hidden and poles 4 and 5 were down on slopes.

They were all on Pentagon property/jurisdiction/control which could have been on serious lock down due to the President's scheduled arrival.



But the bottom line is that EVEN IF someone did happen to see a pole on the ground and remember and EVEN IF they put 2 and 2 together after the fact and called the FBI obviously nothing would have happened.

But they most likely would NOT put 2 and 2 together because the light poles were an insignificant tiny blip on the most historically tragic day in U.S. history.

The average public has absolutely no clue about the light poles at all and even many in the movement aren't aware of them.

The poles have not been covered in a single official report either.

This seemingly impossible scenario to stage would have been child's play to do in their own backyard for the same perpetrators who pulled off a covert triple controlled demolition in downtown Manhattan.

Light pole one was likely staged after the fact and a detailed photographic look into this scene is available here.


But as a summary the possibly pre-damaged cab could have been towed or driven to it's spot where they partially blocked traffic and placed it. Minutes later feds rolled up and surrounded the area and completely blocked traffic.

These images show you how much control they had of the scene after blocking traffic and surrounding the area as well as how the cars on the other side of the highway going northbound wouldn't see anything because of the HOV lane that was already closed and had two sets of guardrails:






These images were all taken within 17 minutes maximum after the event. Traffic was already completely blocked and the entire scene was controlled.

They could have done anything they wanted and it wouldn't matter because the Pentagon was burning and nobody would care or notice the feds and the cab and the pole even if they could see them. But they couldn't.

Pole 1 could have been pulled from the shoulder, maybe from behind the bush, over the guardrail from the other side, or even unloaded from a truck all in about 30 seconds.

We do know it was moved before all these images were taken due to the scratch on the road:


This individual with the red tie who was likely driving the Jeep Cherokee was a central figure in this scene whose access and seeming authority imply he is likely a federal agent:



The notion that the poles were blown with explosives or knocked down by the vortex of a second plane or a missile is simply not possible primarily due to the physical damage of the poles revealing that they were somehow pinched at the top:




This could not have happened from explosives or the vortex of anything.

But it could have been easily pre-fabricated in advance:



Compare the damage to this same style "break-away" base of a pole from the same area that was blown over by wind to pole #4's base:


The 9/11 base is perfectly symmetrical and sooty as if it were removed with a torch while the wind blown base is more random like you would expect if it were broken by a sudden force like wind or a 90 ton jet.
 

Craig Ranke CIT

Padawan Learner
It seems that one of the most difficult things for people to understand is how they could have planted the 5 downed light poles without being noticed.

A better question to ask would be why would anyone notice a planted light pole on the road to begin with?

The answer is simple.....you wouldn't.

The light poles could have all been laid out in advance off to the side the night before and there isn't a reason in the world that anyone would have noticed them.

Here is direct evidence of the lack of attention a downed light pole on the highway near the Pentagon would get.

In "Eye of the Storm" we reference images of a downed light pole from the area as photographed by undercover CIT member 22205, our Arlington asset.




The images were used in the presentation to contrast the difference between the breakage in the bases and demonstrate how pole 4 from 9/11 has suspiciously uniform damage in comparison:


What's amazing is that he took the images 2 years ago in December 2006 yet the pole STILL remains on the side of the road and was even photographed by the google maps "street view" cam!







Google only recently published the "street view" in Arlington and it's an amazing resource.

This pole is right up the highway 1/3rd of a mile from Lloyde's location on 9/11 and less than a 1/4 mile from VDOT who is in charge of light pole maintenance and salvage.

The 9/11 poles planted in advance only needed to go unnoticed for a single night and as I said they could have easily been hidden off to the side on the shoulder like this before the event and pulled out to their final places shortly after the violent event during all the initial chaos while the Pentagon burned.

Easy schmeezy.
 

Terral

The Force is Strong With This One
Many Of Craig's Statements Are Simply Not True :0)

Hi Craig:

Craig Ranke CIT said:
Same goes with Terral's convoluted double violent event outside of the building theory that merely merges every other theory in existence in an a blatant attempt to obfuscated the definitive evidence that we do have.

Not true. My Pentagon explanations are based upon my interpretations of all the facts without regard to what anyone else believes happened one way or the other.

Craig Ranke CIT said:
Terral follows me around the internet attacking me personally and the evidence we present until he gets banned for his abusive behavior and completely unsupported wild conjecture.

Not true. A good example of Aldo’s attacks is on full display. These guy were run off the LetsRoll Board (see on my thread where Merc = Aldo) where I continue to write to this day. Do we see any of this supposed abusive behavior on Laura’s Board? No, but Craig is attacking my person and not the substance of my Pentagon explanations told by the evidence. Craig and Aldo have friends running some of these Boards and that gets in the way of defending 'the' 911Truth from time to time.

Craig Ranke CIT said:
An A3 skywarrior AND a missile?? And a north side flyover? At different times?? Come on. We are way past the point of this type of wild conjecture.

No sir. Craig has no argument against my Pentagon explanations, or he would be attacking that instead of my person.

Craig Ranke CIT said:
There is only evidence for one plane, and one external explosion. If there were pre-detonations at 9:32 they were internal and not detected by anyone outside.

Not true. The ‘plane’ from the ‘two attacks’ is the same and the Pentagon was ripped apart from the E-Ring to the C-Ring in ‘internal’ explosions from the 9:31:39 AM missile strike. The error of Craig’s interpretations are easy to see from Barbara Honegger’s account where only ‘inside-the-building fires’ ) were created in the original attack, but Craig says this came from an exterior explosion. This missile strike explosion was massive, which we know by the fact that the Navy clock ‘inside’ the Pentagon ‘and’ the Army clock 'outside' in the Heliport Building were knocked off the wall at . This marks the time that the outside E-ring entry hole ‘and’ the interior C-Ring exit hole were created some 330 feet apart (). How does that happen from a single exterior explosion outside the E-Ring wall? Oh, let me guess! The bad guys planted the light poles ‘and’ explosives along.

Craig Ranke CIT said:
If there were two violent events outside of the building it would have been witnessed by hundreds yet nobody reports such a thing.

Not true. Lloyd’s taxi was struck by the light pole at 9:32 AM during the first explosion and the light pole almost fell on him again during the 9:36:27 AM explosion just 5 minutes later. Terry Cohen was sitting inside her construction trailer for the first explosion, then runs away to hear the ‘Terrible Explosion’ () behind her after time passes. Colonel Jonathan Fruendt testifies to the ‘two explosions’ down in #8 if anyone is interested.

Craig Ranke CIT said:
The light poles were simply staged in advance, not downed in real-time by a plane, a missile vortex, or any sort of explosives.

Simply? :0) Here we have five light poles standing above all these witnesses on a clear September day where cars are sitting still in traffic on Washington Blvd, but Craig here insists that evidence was staged. :0) This is really funny. The distance from the Heliport Pad to Pole #5 was only about 100 yards and the Secret Service and SWAT and soldiers with dogs are establishing and watching the perimeter in anticipation of the President landing there, but none of these people say one word about any downed light poles before the 9:32 AM first attack. :0) Simple common sense tells you that if these poles were down ‘before’ the plane first approached the Pentagon at 9:31:39 AM, then nobody had the opportunity to see any light poles flying around in connection to the same cotton picking plane. And yet, we have tons of witnesses who saw the PLANE and the LIGHT POLES flying too and fro. Case closed on the ridiculous CIT Light Pole Fantasy once and for all. :0)

Craig Ranke CIT said:
This may seem like a complex task but it would actually be quite simple for the suspect in question to accomplish.

What suspect? :0) This is far beyond ridiculous. If anybody wants to follow CIT’s concocted version of the 911Truth, then more power to you. My explanation from Nov. 2007 is on this Board if Craig wants to try and point out any place where my interpretations seem to divert away from the EVIDENCE. At some point Craig must come away from the middle of Washington Blvd to begin explaining what really hit the Pentagon and 'when' and according to his interpretations of the EVIDENCE.

GL,

Terral
 

anart

The Living Force
Terral is obviously trolling, verbally attacking other forum members and attempting to obfuscate the issues. He has been banned.
 

Thoughtful

The Force is Strong With This One
I am surprised that others haven't commented on the following here.

In support of Craig's planted light pole theory, Pilot's for 911 Truth have
analyzed the Flight Data Recorder information that was provided by the NTSB.
The data included an animation of the entire flight from take-off to one second before crash at the Pentagon.

The data and flight animation show that both the position of the aircraft and its height made it completely impossible for it to have hit any of the five light poles that officials claim were struck by the 757.

This information was published by Pilot's for 911 Truth on 08/20/06.

So Craig has corroboration on his light pole theory.

I must say, in addition to all of the above evidence, I find it extremely difficult to believe that any jet could could hit five light poles in flight (let alone one) and not crash to the ground as a result.
For the wings to have hit the poles, the belly of the plane would have had to have been not more than 20 feet off the ground. How many 757 jets can fly 500 mph just 20 feet off the ground?
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Thoughtful said:
I am surprised that others haven't commented on the following here.

Fwiw, just reading this thread now for the first time and speculating about your question, assumed after research of the prior 7 years (since the 2008 post) had been done by the counter to the official narrative, perhaps it became of such a nature to many people reading here that by not commenting there was general agreement, in part or whole, or other reasons. Since Craig Ranke CIT has not been here since 2009 (which you may not be able to determine), there is no point if a reply was expected back.

If you have not had a chance to read 9/11: The Ultimate Truth from this link created by Laura & Joe Quinn, it does a very good job of connecting the dots to the 757 plane fallacy (and more), and as such, many of tPtB's pseudo facts of square pegs in round holes are presented as mere distractions in favor of the official narrative, osit. Thus, from my thinking anyway, the light standards (and many other matters) become interesting data points to remember, yet are seen as just part of the mosaic of square pegs, as is likely the NTSB data from the Black Box found, which is the basis for the 757 phantom flight pattern.
 

Thoughtful

The Force is Strong With This One
voyageur said:
Thoughtful said:
I am surprised that others haven't commented on the following here.

If you have not had a chance to read 9/11: The Ultimate Truth from this link created by Laura & Joe Quinn, it does a very good job of connecting the dots to the 757 plane fallacy (and more), ...
Thus, from my thinking anyway, the light standards (and many other matters) become interesting data points to remember, yet are seen as just part of the mosaic of square pegs, as is likely the NTSB data from the Black Box found, which is the basis for the 757 phantom flight pattern.

Thanks for your comments voyageur.

I haven't read Laura's book yet but understand where she is coming from and think she is definitely on the right track.

I tend to think outside of the box usually and also like to look at the big picture whenever possible.

As I mentioned when I joined here, I arrived at the 911 party quite late. Ten years late, to be precise.
So I had to catch up fairly quickly and that's just what I did.

What has transpired in terms of 911 research seems to follow the perp's script to the letter.
Focus and fascination on the two huge phallic symbols in New York and minimal attention to the evidence at the Pentagon.

As we know, a break in the official story, anywhere, constitutes a complete collapse of the official story.
There is no better place to find the breaks than at the Pentagon.
Yet 95% of research and attention has been on the twin towers. It's a shame.

Much of the 'discoveries' surrounding the towers has been 'he says' 'she says' etc.
In contrast, we have Pentagon evidence screaming "look at us, it's all here!"

As for my big picture view.
The 911 trail has cooled sufficiently now that the FBI/CIA have everything completely under control.

Only a mega event that will unite and motivate the general public to take 'to the streets' action will be effective at bringing about 911 justice.

But of course these mega events would likely be usurped by the authorities before they could materialize.
Therein lies the 911 Catch-22.
 
Top Bottom