The downed light poles were staged in advance.

Craig Ranke CIT

Padawan Learner
The downed light poles at the Pentagon are arguably the most convincing evidence that a 757 caused the physical damage that day.

But now that we know the plane was on the north side of the CITGO station it is clear that they got there somehow else.

This is compounded by the fact that it is physically impossible for Lloyd England's story to be true.

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.
187b.jpg


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.

wherelightpolesfell.jpg


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:
hovlane.jpg

trafficblocked.jpg

polesurrounded.jpg

lloydandfeds.jpg


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 can'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:
pentagonoyx8.jpg


This plain clothed federal agent with the red tie who was likely driving the white Saturn was a central figure in this scene:
redtiedude2.jpg



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:
polepinched4.jpg

polepinched22.jpg

polepinched33.jpg


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

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



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:
newpolecompared.jpg


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.
 
When I first started researching 911 and the Pentagon, the light poles/generator were the one thing I could NOT figure out. As you say, they're the most convincing argument for the 757 theory. Looks like I was duped! Thanks for the post, and keep up the good work.
 
hkoehli said:
The light poles/generator were the one thing I could NOT figure out.
I am pretty convinced that the generator trailer/fence was accomplished through explosives and staging.

Remember, the Pentagon "renovation" was scheduled to end 9/12/01, subsequently the week of. So logically people would not think ANYTHING of fences being "taken down" and trailers being moved. If the trailer was not already moved into that position, then perhaps the explosives accomplished it.

They DID actually move the fence back, I believe in preparation for the event:

newfence.jpg

(Red is the fence on 9/11, Green represents the generator trailer)

That is the leading hypothesis for me. The "engine fence hole" was staged by snipping links, pulling down the fence and bending/removing/replacing two fence posts. You can see the yellow pole is bent and the red pole is kinked in TWO places, uprooted, and blown AWAY from the trailer. You can also see a barbed wire holder, simply knocked off and hanging..after a 757 right engine supposed went through it.

BentBrokenPolesBarbedWireHolder.jpg

NoFenceStrike.jpg


The problem is the measurements for 757 and the quick, right wing up and left wing down, maneuver do not make sense with the damage. Remember, the plane supposedly tilted the right wing up to hit the fence/generator trailer and the left wing down for the engine to hit the ground/vent structure. In the nano second that this would have needed to happen, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to hit the fence and trailer AND hit the vent structure...

planetrailer.jpg


To boot, the FDR raw data trends show the descent angle PREVENTING the right engine from even touching the generator:

-5.jpg

TrailerFDR3D.jpg


The damage from the trailer is two fold, explosives blowing the front end OFF and the diesel fuel, black smoke-producing fire MELTED or WARPED the thin trailer shell into an EVEN BEND (watch video of this, you can see the fire raging):

WarpedBendinGeneratorTrailer.jpg


The gouge they claim came from flap track of the wing, was more than likely cut with a welding torch:

trailergouge.jpg


Could this black marking be the gouge pre-cut, pre-9/11:

FakeGroove.jpg


You can see that if the right engine/wing went through the fence/generator it certainly left these poles on the other side of the generator (btw, it was enclosed with it's own fence...hmmm)

5poles.jpg


You can see pieces blown away from the trailer...

generatorpieces.jpg


But no forward moving bend in the trailers, just looks like it was blown up using one big firecracker:

explosive.jpg
 
Hi Craig:

It is a pleasure to speak to you again. I am not buying into the fantasy that Lloyd England the taxi driver is an inside job bad guy, because the evidence says that is very much impossible. My distinguished debating adversary has misinterpreted the evidence and has gone on a wild goose chase to discredit key Pentagon witnesses to further his Citizen’s Investigation Team (CIT) agenda.

Craig >> The light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.
Your assertion here is very much impossible, which you should realize by a careful analysis of all the facts from the supporting witnesses. Craig’s problem is that we have far too many Pentagon ‘Plane / Light Pole’ witnesses seeing the plane and the light poles flying around during the initial 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike ( http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7519 ).


12. Don Fortunato says >> “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.”

13. Don Mason says >> “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.

14. Steven McGraw says >> “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.”

15. Mary Ann Owens says >> “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.”

16. Rodney Washington says >> “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.”

17. Rick M says >> “We heard a sound like a missile and the plane flew in front of us.

18. Tony Terronez says >> “At that point I didn’t know it was a plane… I thought it was a missile strike - how dangerous things were. Pulling away from the Pentagon there was tons of stuff on the ground, big pieces of metal, concrete, everything.
Since we have over two dozen Pentagon “Pole Witnesses” seeing a Big PLANE and poles flying around, then obviously nobody planted any light poles in advance. We have witnesses that you have already demonized in your own mind that support Lloyd’s testimony TO A TEE:

_http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

James Keglovich (across the street from the Pentagon) >> "They began exclaiming, "Where's he going? What's he doing?" when suddenly they saw the plane clip a taxi cab on the nearby bridge. The crash was exceptionally loud, he said. It shook the building and knocked people down who were closer to the point of impact."

Stephen McGraw (stuck in standstill traffic in the left lane) >> "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.”
My distinguished CIT debating adversaries (we have been through this before = start off with the WRONG hypothesis to begin drawing “Lloyd is a LIAR” conclusions without having any evidence for light pole evidence being staged by anyone. Everyone should understand that no Pentagon witnesses appear to contradict Lloyd’s testimony and nobody is accusing the taxi driver of anything but being a Pentagon ‘Survivor’ ( _http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=78448 ), except these CIT guys with the “Light Poles were staged” theories. Craig started off with the wrong conclusion to write,

Craig >> The downed light poles at the Pentagon are arguably the most convincing evidence that a 757 caused the physical damage that day.
No sir. There is no evidence for a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashing anywhere near the Pentagon and you very well know it. Glen Stanish the founder of the PilotsFor911Truth Board ( _http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html ) makes that fact perfectly clear to open this video ( _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA ). There is no evidence of the massive wing sections, Rolls-Royce engines, seats, cargo, landing gear or almost 50-feet tall tail section crashing anywhere near the Pentagon and ALL the expert witnesses in that 6-minute video draw the same exact conclusions.

Craig >> But now that we know the plane was on the north side of the CITGO station it is clear that they got there somehow else.
Craig fails to realize we have been looking at ‘two Pentagon attacks’ in the form of a 9:31:39 AM Missile Strike ‘and’ a 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet Attack where only the A-3 Jet took the North Of Citgo Flight path shown here in blue:

TimelineChart.jpg


There were NO light poles knocked down during the 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet attack, because all of those were knocked down five minutes earlier when the 9:31:39 AM Decoy Flyover Plane was running diversion for the Missile Strike creating only ‘inside-the-building fires.’ Barbara Honegger is a senor Navy Journalist and she also interviewed Lloyd to gather many important facts overlooked by my CIT debating opponent:

_http://blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf

Barbara Honegger >> He stated that he saw no evidence of a plane having impacted the building nor any visible plane pieces on the lawn at the time he arrived, which was AFTER the first violent event in the building, as black smoke was streaming up and to the right from inside−the−building fires.
BeforeAndAfter.jpg


Lloyd saw the 9:31:39 AM Decoy Flyover Plane that cast a large shadow on Citgo Station Security Camera #7 ( _http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/CITGO_CLIP.gif = lower right) at exactly 9:31:39 AM, when you realize the system is running exactly 10 minutes fast. The Double Tree Hotel Security Camera caught the initial explosion and smoke plume just after 9:32 AM ( _http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/0932AMExplosion.jpg ) when the ‘Decoy Plane’ knocked down these light poles. Read Barbara Honegger’s entire paper to realize the first explosion at the Pentagon took place just before 9:32 AM and not the reported 9:38 AM most people have been deluded into believing. The LibertyPost.org article provides more evidence that Lloyd is telling ‘the’ 911Truth, because he and his helper were wrestling with Pole #1 when the “Big Boom” took place just 5 minutes after the 9:32 AM first explosion.



Lloyd, 69, began the morning of September 11, 2001 like most days, driving his taxi cab. A passenger in Rosslyn told him what had happened at the World Trade Center so he turned on his radio and headed home. As he approached the Navy Annex, he saw a plane flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole [five minutes have passed], they heard a BIG BOOM and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened.
Lloyd was not forthcoming with ‘all’ the story for the CIT guys, because they were interrogating and demonizing him to discredit his testimony. Lloyd England is a 9/11 Pentagon “Survivor” these guys are trying to terrorize with their nonsense, because their theories do NOT even begin to match the ‘evidence’ for this Pentagon Case. THAT is why they start off discrediting Lloyd at the very beginning in making their presence known on these 911Truth Boards in the first place. :0) We have another witness corroborating Lloyd’s story TO A TEE. Terry Cohen is a construction supervisor sitting in a meeting in one of those construction trailers outside the Pentagon on 9/11, when the first explosion took place at exactly 9:31:39 AM. You must watch this video to see how she supports Lloyd’s story 100 percent:

_http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=5751351276150910098

Terry’s “Boom” to start the video is the 9:31:39 AM missile strike taking place under the cover of the Large Decoy Flyover Plane that finds Lloyd standing out in the middle of Washington Blvd with the light pole jabbed into his windshield. Terry Cohen testifies right off the bat to seeing “Just Smoke” (00:21). Terry’s witnesses saw a “Big Airplane” that was the 9:31:39 AM Decoy Flyover Plane that knocked down the light poles. Her “Terrible Explosion” is the 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet Attack explosion taking place just five minutes later coinciding with Lloyd’s “Big Boom,” even though Terry believed that took place fifteen minutes later. Therefore, Craig is right that the 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet took the North Of Citgo Flight Path, but Lloyd’s taxi cab was already damaged from Pole #1 five minutes earlier in the original attack taking place just before 9:32 AM.

Craig >> This is compounded by the fact that it is physically impossible for Lloyd England's story to be true.
No sir. All of the CIT guys have the Pentagon Timeline ( _http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16510 ) of events so mixed up, that you believe Lloyd is lying; when in fact he and his corroborating witnesses are all telling the 911Truth. The CIT guys have the 9:31:39 AM Plane Witnesses mixed in with the 9:36:27 AM A-3 Plane Witnesses ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD0qpbwHCYI , _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=schV0rKCRwA ) without knowing the difference. :0) Lloyd is telling the truth from what he saw out in front of the Pentagon on 9/11, but he does not know what happened. The famous taxi driver was heading ‘south’ looking away from the Pentagon when the 9:31:39 AM Decoy Plane approached from his right on the South of Citgo Flight Path, so he never saw the Missile Strike on Column Line (CL) 14. Lloyd and his helper were wrestling with Pole #1 with their backs turned to the Pentagon, when the A-3 Jet took the North of Citgo Flight Path ‘behind them’ to strike CL 11 ( _http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm = top picture) just five minutes later to create the “Big Boom” explosion they had to turn around to witness. To this day Lloyd has no clue as to what actually hit the Pentagon, because of a freaky series of events that propelled Pole #1 over 100 feet into the windshield of his taxi for him to put on the brakes and bring the light pole right back to the very spot where it was uprooted in the first place. :0) The CIT guys cannot understand the funny series of events surrounding these light poles that started the sequence of Pentagon events at 9:31:39 AM some six minutes ‘before’ you think Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, which ever even happened. :0)

Craig >> This may seem like a complex task but it would actually be quite simple for the suspect in question to accomplish.
No sir. The entire CIT crew has the Timeline of events dead wrong and has created this notion of staged light poles in the vacuum of misunderstanding. There is an explanation for everything happening to Lloyd proving beyond all doubt he is definitely a ‘good guy’ having done nobody wrong about anything. Everyone should realize Lloyd never espouses the Official DoD Cover Story even one time anywhere. Any DoD Operative would have his Cover Story canned and ready for action long before any of these light poles were clipped by the Decoy Flyover Plane at 9:31:39 AM. Russell Pickering from Pentagon Research interviewed Lloyd and received these results:

Russell Pickering >> The car "cut off" and he got out. He mentioned several times how quiet it was. Then he said the people on the other side of the divider were "huddled up" and asked if he was OK. After describing that he told me, "That hole was too small for the plane". He reiterated that even though he was "standing right there" he couldn't explain what happened to the plane. I asked if he saw the plane hit and he said, "I didn't care about no plane I was trying to get my car pulled over".
Lloyd had the perfect opportunity to become the DoD Spokesmen proclaiming to everyone that “Flight 77 Crashed Into The Pentagon,” but he resists even contradicting the Official Story saying, “That hole was too small for the plane.” All the 69-year old taxi driver of 40 years was trying to do was keep control of the vehicle to pull the car over. Period! Russell asked Lloyd straight up to describe the plane earlier in the interview:

Russell Pickering >> For a split second he saw a plane and then a piece of the pole came through his window. He described the plane as, "a big one like at the airport with 2 engines". He did not recall any markings and did not state that it was American Airlines.
Craig’s inside job DoD operative bad guy did not even claim the Pentagon was struck by an American Airlines Jetliner, but described the plane as “a big one like at the airport with 2 engines,” because he sees them on the job driving his taxi cab. The typical DoD operative is an ex-military man on the upper end of the intelligence ladder and somewhere in the middle on the socioeconomic scale, but Lloyd England represents the typical taxi driver on the lower end of both spectrums. I have looked at all the evidence and can only conclude that Lloyd’s story checks out 100 percent and is corroborated by a host of other Pentagon witnesses.

Craig >> First realize that the area is the literal backyard of the suspect and one of the most highly secured areas in the nation.
This is where Craig starts setting you up for his Grand Delusion, as if the FBI, CIA and Secret Service can ‘control’ the entire area visible to ALL THESE WITNESSES. :0) No sir. We have witnesses driving down Washington Blvd (Route 27) and witnesses standing across the street and others over at the Citgo station and others in their apartment buildings looking on from a distance. There are way too many people seeing the Large Decoy Flyover Plane and light poles flying around for one word of your “The Light Poles Were Staged In Advance” theory to have any basis in reality whatsoever.

Craig >> 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!
So what! This was 9:30 AM in the morning and we have plenty of witnesses standing around watching the Plane coming through knocking down the same light poles you say were staged the night before by FBI agents. :0) Your theory requires far more ‘evidence’ than demonizing Lloyd and his supporting cast of witnesses.

GL,

Terral
 
Hi Aldo:

In case anyone is unaware, Aldo and Craig are CIT partners with Lyte Trip, TerrorCell and other supporting members to their crew.

Aldo >> I am pretty convinced that the generator trailer/fence was accomplished through explosives and staging. Remember, the Pentagon "renovation" was scheduled to end 9/12/01, subsequently the week of. So logically people would not think ANYTHING of fences being "taken down" and trailers being moved. If the trailer was not already moved into that position, then perhaps the explosives accomplished it. They DID actually move the fence back, I believe in preparation for the event:
All of this is he said / she said hearsay testimony about what might have or could have happened with no evidence for anything. Craig’s Topic is about the five downed light poles having nothing to do with any trailers or construction fencing. Aldo appears to be getting ahead of himself by characterizing what might have happened to construction fencing ‘after’ the light poles were ‘staged,’ when the evidence says pre-staging is very much impossible.

Aldo >> That is the leading hypothesis for me. The "engine fence hole" was staged by snipping links, pulling down the fence and bending/removing/replacing two fence posts. You can see the yellow pole is bent and the red pole is kinked in TWO places, uprooted, and blown AWAY from the trailer. You can also see a barbed wire holder, simply knocked off and hanging..after a 757 right engine supposed went through it.
Aldo needs to make up his mind on whether the FBI cut the fence down, OR if the Flight 77 starboard engine caused this damage. The problem is that Terry Cohen ( _http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=5751351276150910098 ) is sitting inside the construction trailer with other supervisors and makes no mention of any fence material taken down. She specifically says, “We were fenced in – we were only about 100-feet away from it- we were fenced in – ran out of the only gate and walked away from it – actually ran away.” The last thing Terry Cohen would say over and over again is “We were fenced in,” IF the FBI had cut the fence down the night before these attacks. In fact, this is evidence that the fencing was knocked down during the “Terrible Explosion” attack ‘after’ Terry Cohen “Ran Away.” Otherwise, she could have escaped through the large holes created by whatever (Missile) went “Boom” during the 9:31:39 AM attack she just witnessed a few moments earlier.

Aldo >> The problem is the measurements for 757 and the quick, right wing up and left wing down, maneuver do not make sense with the damage.
We agree. That the reason I must wonder why you have included bogus pictures of a Boeing 757 Jetliner in your post, when nothing like that ever struck the Pentagon on 9/11 or any other day. If you draw a 45-degree trajectory line between the light poles and Column Line 14, then you begin to realize the 9:31:39 AM Missile was flying just 5-feet off the ground b]= upper right[/b]) and blew right through this fencing material like a hot knife through butter. However, the original missile strike only torn down as small section of fencing overlooked by Terry Cohen through all the smoke, until the A-3 Jet struck the building 5 minutes later and the “Terrible Explosion” threw the fencing overtop even the parked vehicles:



Note that the Fence post tubing is thrown back in our direction with the fence laying over the Nissan hood. If Terry Cohen had taken too much time inspecting the original 9:31:39 AM impact hole, she and her co-workers would have been killed during the second 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet attack when most of this damage was done. There is no sense in even posting pictures including any 100-Ton Jetliner that only deceives these readers, because there are only two windows missing from the second floor and all the third story windows are intact. Since a real Bowing 757-200 Jetliner is almost 50-feet tall and weighs over 100-Tons, then obviously nothing like that crashed into this standing E-Ring wall going any 530 miles per hour.

Aldo >> Remember, the plane supposedly tilted the right wing up to hit the fence/generator trailer and the left wing down for the engine to hit the ground/vent structure.
Remember? No sir. The wingspan of a real Boeing 757-200 Jetliner is 125 feet and you have no gouge marks in the Pentagon lawn at all. We have the two parked vehicles on the left and 7-feet tall cable spools on the right . . .


. . . saying NO 100-Ton Jetliner tipped any wings up or down to crash into this wall. Period. You can see fires burning through the second and third floor windows, because those concrete slabs are also still intact. All the limestone debris has fallen ‘off’ the walls back in our direction from the missile detonating ‘inside’ the Pentagon.

Aldo >> In the nano second that this would have needed to happen, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to hit the fence and trailer AND hit the vent structure...
Please forgive, but your commentary assumes the Pentagon was attacked just once without taking Lloyd’s secondary “Big Boom” and Terry Cohen’s secondary “Terrible Explosion” into account when most of this damage was created.

Aldo >> To boot, the FDR raw data trends show the descent angle PREVENTING the right engine from even touching the generator:
The FDR raw data?? Where has anything like that been presented on this thread? All we have is FBI-provided BOGUS Flight 77 data given to Jim Ritter for the fraudulent National Transportation Safety Board Flight 77 Report , that if you actually read will reveal the final 9:15:15 AAL-683 entry over 15 minutes before their fantasy AAL-77 even enters Pentagon airspace. In short, Jim Ritter’s commentary does not even begin to match the FDR data in his own bogus report. :0) The fact that the 911Commission Report ( _http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf ) actually uses this NTSB-F77 Report as notation #61 speaks to the BOGUS nature of that body of DoD Disinformation. If you are referring to another source of FDR data, then please include that in your next reply.

Aldo >> The damage from the trailer is two fold, explosives blowing the front end OFF and the diesel fuel, black smoke-producing fire MELTED or WARPED the thin trailer shell into an EVEN BEND (watch video of this, you can see the fire raging):
Things tend to blow up and burn from a Missile Strike followed by an A-3 Jet Attack having nothing to do with anyone planting explosives in anything but the missile and A-3 Flying BOMB. The CIT theories force everyone to perform a wild series of gymnastic moves for your story to have any basis in reality whatsoever. So far you have the Light Poles staged in advance by FBI operatives, so Lloyd and Father Steven McGraw can come along to tell LIES and fool everyone. Then we have planted explosives to explain all the Pentagon damage, when we also have many Plane/Light Pole witnesses seeing a plane downing light poles and explosions taking place at the very same time. No sir. Please forgive if my Pentagon explanations are based upon ‘the evidence’ and first-hand eyewitness testimony having nothing to do with anything being staged in advance at all.

GL,

Terral
 
Terral is not basing his claims on any real evidence or research and merely authoritatively spouting off information without backing it up to attack us.

The damage to the cab and the poles is 100% INCONSISTENT with his scenario.

The "shockwave" from an A3 skywarrior (which has too small of a wingspan to hit the poles) can not be what caused this damage that literally "pinched" the top of the poles:

polepinched4.jpg

polepinched22.jpg


And Lloyd's hood could not have been undamaged if the pole entered the car as he described,
DSC_0421.jpg

lloydshood.jpg


Plus the base of the pole was clearly removed with a plasma torch as has been confirmed from more than one professional welder:
pole4base.jpg

newpolecompared.jpg




Nothing knocked down these poles in real time and no aircraft or missile caused a pole to spear Lloyd's windshield.

But Terral is on a mission to neutralize and sow confusion on our research as he has been since he anonymously exploded into virtually every 9/11 forum that exists a couple months ago.

He will not address the facts directly.

What witnesses do you think are suspect Terral?

Laura has done an excellent analysis on many of them in this forum pointing out many contradictions.

No legitimate 9/11 researcher who understands this is operation was a military deception would suggest that NONE of the witnesses are suspect.

So please tell us......who do you think are suspect and why?

Perhaps you can create a thread about it.
 
CRC said:
Terral is not basing his claims on any real evidence or research and merely authoritatively
spouting off information without backing it up to attack us.
Why do you believe he is attacking? Perhaps he has a different take on it, and has
every right to "poke holes" any theories that have no "smoking gun" proof (DATA).

That is why you/we are here, so keep 'em coming but with DATA! We are not here
to debate, but to seek objective truth!

OSIT
 
dant said:
CRC said:
Terral is not basing his claims on any real evidence or research and merely authoritatively
spouting off information without backing it up to attack us.
Why do you believe he is attacking? Perhaps he has a different take on it, and has
every right to "poke holes" any theories that have no "smoking gun" proof (DATA).

That is why you/we are here, so keep 'em coming but with DATA! We are not here
to debate, but to seek objective truth!

OSIT
I figured most here would see through it and I wouldn't have to get into every single little attack he makes but I have no idea what you have read because Terral is clearly using extremely aggressive, antagonistic, and harsh rhetoric in an attempt to divert the discussion and neutralize the information and primarily sow confusion with unsupported nonsense. All of that while making a concerted effort to leave out his typical childish names and images that he constantly attributes to us in other forums like "chat-monkeys" and "idiots" etc.

I guess I can pick out a few of many examples for you since for some reason you failed to notice:

.....has misinterpreted the evidence and has gone on a wild goose chase to discredit key Pentagon witnesses to further his Citizen’s Investigation Team (CIT) agenda.
This is a very serious and direct attack for which he does not provide a single example.


Since we have over two dozen Pentagon “Pole Witnesses” seeing a Big PLANE and poles flying around, then obviously nobody planted any light poles in advance. We have witnesses that you have already demonized in your own mind that support Lloyd’s testimony
There is only ONE witness who specifically claims she literally "saw" the plane hit the poles and NONE say they saw poles "flying around". I have proven this here and Terral has seen this information in another forum. We do not have to 'demonize' any of the alleged "light pole witnesses" that he cites because virtually none say they saw a plane hit the poles. Terral is clearly demonizing us by making statements about what I am doing in my "mind".


......start off with the WRONG hypothesis to begin drawing “Lloyd is a LIAR” conclusions
Now Terral is straight up lying by misquoting us and he even went so far as to bold the misquote!

We have never said Lloyd is a "liar".

We have always maintained that he may have been manipulated or coerced which would make him a victim.

Whatever the case his account is clearly physically impossible and Terral refuses to address the evidence proving this direct while insisting on erroneoously attacking us by lying about what we have said.


Barbara Honegger is a senor Navy Journalist and she also interviewed Lloyd to gather many important facts overlooked by my CIT debating opponent:
Barbara Honegger supports our work, has referenced us in her public appearances, and has talked to us in person on more than one occasion.

Barbara Honegger has published no interview with Lloyd and her reference to him is not in regards to Lloyd's alleged experience because it states he came to the scene after the roads were "barricaded" and makes NO mention of the light pole or the damage to the cab at all! This ALSO completely contradicts Terral's entire hypothesis since he states it was the first violent event that downed the poles and that Lloyd witnessed the 2nd violent event while removing the pole from his cab (with the undamaged hood)!

Terral's convoluted neutralization attack pieces are rife with fatal contradictions like this but most people never notice because it's virtually impossible to get through an entire one of his posts let alone check out all his absurd claims and links.

Barbara Honneger has never maintained that there were violent events outside of the building before the "main event" if you will. Only that there were likely pre-explosions INSIDE the building that nobody outside knew about.

Terral is trying so desperately to confuse and neutralize that he does not care that he is regularly contradicting himself and making completely unsupported claims.

....Lloyd was not forthcoming with ‘all’ the story for the CIT guys, because they were interrogating and demonizing him to discredit his testimony.
We interviewd Lloyd with Dylan Avery and Russell Pickering and there was no "demonizing" involved. This is clear if you watch the interview. This is yet another blatant and unsupported direct attack based on a lie.

You must watch this video to see how she supports Lloyd’s story 100 percent:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid= … 6150910098

Terry’s “Boom” to start the video is the 9:31:39 AM missile strike taking place under the cover of the Large Decoy Flyover Plane that finds Lloyd standing out in the middle of Washington Blvd with the light pole jabbed into his windshield. Terry Cohen testifies right off the bat to seeing “Just Smoke” (00:21). Terry’s witnesses saw a “Big Airplane” that was the 9:31:39 AM Decoy Flyover Plane that knocked down the light poles. Her “Terrible Explosion” is the 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet Attack explosion taking place just five minutes later coinciding with Lloyd’s “Big Boom,” even though Terry believed that took place fifteen minutes later. Therefore, Craig is right that the 9:36:27 AM A-3 Jet took the North Of Citgo Flight Path, but Lloyd’s taxi cab was already damaged from Pole #1 five minutes earlier in the original attack taking place just before 9:32 AM.
There is NOTHING in Terry Cohen's interview to support a single one of these claims about times of the explosions, multiple planes minutes apart, AND a missile all at different times.

Absolutely nothing. This is why Terral will not quote Terry Cohen direct.

Terry Cohen witnessed nothing about the attack and is merely reporting about the chaos afterwards.

Terral first claims that Lloyd came in after the road was barricaded but that his cab was damaged and all the poles were downed by a military drone at 9:31 but that a passenger "decoy" jet flew in over 5 minutes later on the north side of the Citgo with another big explosion!

His "theory" is so convoluted that he contradicts it within this single post.

How could nobody realize that there were three obviously separate violent events outside of the building ALL involving flying objects and significant explosions?


He literally asserts there was a drone, a missile, AND passenger jet flyover north of the citgo 5 minutes later!

How can Terral think anyone would swallow this nonsense?

He doesn't.

He only hopes to confuse, neutralize, and cast doubt.

Please pay attention to what he is saying and how he is saying it.

It is not only a direct assault on CIT it's a direct assault on valid research.
 
Thank you, Dant! Couldn't have said it better myself!

I think that Terral and Craig and Aldo (and most of us here) agree on one main thing: Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.


It really isn't our job to prove what DID hit the Pentagon.

What IS our job is to convince the masses of ordinary people - whose support is needed to actually DO anything about this - that there are people capable of telling such a lie and they are in charge of our government. And, as I say over and over again, the only way to do that is to educate them about psychology, the real deal about psychopaths. Only when they understand that there are human-looking beings who could and would and DID do 911 and blamed it on someone else, will they be able to even "go there" in terms of demanding a new, impartial, scientific investigation, and making sure that said investigation isn't contaminated by pathological material.

That's our mandate: to educate the public about psychopathy. Everything else follows.



We aren't supposed to be wasting time arguing stuff like this, we are supposed to be shining the spotlight on the pathogens infecting the body politic.

We don't have TIME to figure it out!
 
Laura,

We have never attacked anyone's research.

We have never gone after Terral or anyone.

Terral is an anonymous poster who exploded on the scene a couple of months ago on a clear and direct mission to attack us directly.

He is not the only one, just the only one who asserts a 757 did not hit the building yet he continually references the work of our detractors who DO assert a 757 impact.

We would not care if he was pushing his theories without continually attacking us and our work.

But for some reason he can not do one without doing the other.

Craig
 
CraigCIT said:
Terral refuses to address the evidence proving this direct while insisting on erroneoously attacking us by lying about what we have said.
Well, for what it's worth, I have also picked up on an 'attack' mode in Terral's posts when he speaks about CIT - seems to be run on emotional energy, perhaps from past interactions, perhaps there is an agenda, at this point I cannot know. This is likely more clear to Craig due to the past interactions and Craig's personal identification with the data he has worked to pull together.

However, with that said, I wholly agree with Laura that:

Laura said:
It really isn't our job to prove what DID hit the Pentagon.
(snip)
That's our mandate: to educate the public about psychopathy. Everything else follows.

We aren't supposed to be wasting time arguing stuff like this, we are supposed to be shining the spotlight on the pathogens infecting the body politic.

We don't have TIME to figure it out!
 
CRC said:
I figured most here would see through it and I wouldn't have to get into every single little attack he makes but I have no idea what you have read because Terral is clearly using extremely aggressive, antagonistic, and harsh rhetoric in an attempt to divert the discussion and neutralize the information and primarily sow confusion with unsupported nonsense. All of that while making a concerted effort to leave out his typical childish names and images that he constantly attributes to us in other forums like "chat-monkeys" and "idiots" etc.
Ah, but here is the rub. Perhaps you ought to take a step back and see the "forest for
it's trees" and I sense that you are getting emotional when someone (anyone)
disagrees your deeply held views? I sense your emotional responses when writing
words such as that above in bold? I would say that you ought to reflect on this and
perhaps respond in a more level headed manner and use it to your advantage,
such as providing real proof with "smoking gun" DATA? Without objective DATA,
you are simply exposing yourself to "attack" of which you did not in the least, expect?
 
Craig, don't worry. We are observing. There's a bunch of us and not much slips by us. We want to be fair and civilized, but we don't tolerate nonsense in this forum.
 
anart,

There have been no direct past interactions other than his direct attacks which started at the Loose Change forum AFTER we were banned and could not reply.

That is where there is no holds barred in regards to name calling, ad hominems, and childish images and personal attacks against us and our research and he takes full advantage of it.

He came out of nowhere and exploded on to the scene at that point with a clear mission against us.

That is why I reached out and asked him to call me to discuss his attacks.

It only got worse.

Again.....we NEVER go after other people in the movement and their research unless we are defending ourselves.

Craig
 
Back
Top Bottom