The downed light poles were staged in advance.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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.

Thanks.

I have faith in your ability to read between the lines.

Peace.

 

[Terral]

Hi Craig:

I have quoted Craig and Aldo word for word to offer my rebuttals to their comments in Post #4 (Craig) and #5 (Aldo), but Craig ignores my supported arguments to just start talking . . .

Craig >> 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.

Please ‘quote >>’ from my Post #4 rebuttal in writing your defending arguments apart from mischaracterizing my views to ramble aimlessly about something else. This side of the debate has just as much right to attack the substance of your “The Downed Light Poles Were Staged In Advance” theory as you have to continually bash Lloyd’s head in with CIT nonsense. Craig is here to defend himself against my supported arguments, but the 69-year old taxi driver is not here to defend himself against your attacks against his person, so let’s try to keep things in their proper perspective. My statements above are ‘well-supported’ and you have chosen to talk about something else . . .

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

That is an unsupported opinion based upon nothing at all. You are here to prove the Light Poles WERE STAGED In ADVANCE and not to carry on with this “Lloyd-bashing” Charade. Remember? Showing us pictures of bent light poles is not evidence for the staging of any light pole evidence . . .

Craig >> 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:

Craig has not even read my post above, or he would not be mischaracterizing my views this way. There is nothing in my work about any shockwave from any A3 Skywarrior. His statement about wings being too small to hit light poles is ridiculous, as if Jet wings have to be a specific length to hit light poles.



We have MANY witnesses testifying to seeing the PLANE knocking down these LIGHT POLES. Period! Craig and his CIT partners can run around and try to discredit ALL these witnesses in support of their agenda, but all of this Plane/Pole testimony says a Plane is the culprit in this Light Pole case.

Craig >> 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.

Terral has an evidence-supported rebuttal standing against your OP assertions that Craig can begin addressing OR he cannot. My Pentagon Explanations are supported by ‘the evidence’ without regard to what the CIT guys have to say about anything. Craig says, “Nothing knocked down these poles in real time and no aircraft . . .,” but we have MANY witnesses saying otherwise. That is the basis of my arguments and not any mission to neutralize anything.

Craig >> He will not address the facts directly.

Please forgive, but I am quoting Craig word-for-word and you are charactering my views and answering nothing.

[moderator removed live links]

Craig >> What witnesses do you think are suspect Terral?

This is a leading question revealing the motivations of the CIT guys, as is their job is to run around making decisions about which Pentagon witnesses are the good guys and which are the bad guys. Craig’s job is to show us evidence that “The Downed Light Poles Were Staged In Advance,” which has nothing to do with deciding what witnesses are suspect of anything. All of these Pentagon witnesses make my case from their different perspectives and what they ‘did’ see and experience during these 9/11 attacks (plural with an ‘s’).

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

I am confident that Laura does fine work in all her posts, but that has nothing to do with Craig’s OP theory and the substance of your own defending arguments. These readers can tell by now that we know one another from other 911Truth Board encounters and I have gone through much of your work. However, to this day I have NEVER seen any evidence for to support the claim that Light Pole evidence was staged in advance by anyone. The CIT ploy is to systematically attack key Pentagon witnesses no matter the theory and no matter the claims, so this pattern of ‘destruction’ of Pentagon witness credibility has become the trademark of your handiwork rendering everything you touch utterly useless IMHO.

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

Listen to yourself for just one minute to realize the CIT agenda is forwarded by deciding which Pentagon witnesses to believe and which to assassinate. No sir. The CIT guys do not decide which 911Truth Investigators are legitimate and illegitimate, as if you know the difference. The members spending time trashing Pentagon witnesses need to take a few steps back and look at the bigger picture where ‘all’ these witnesses are telling the 911Truth from their particular perspectives. The most valuable evidence of all comes from the eyewitness testimony of someone interviewed on 9/11 or in the days thereafter, when everything was fresh in their minds. Also, there is a vast difference between 911Truth Investigators/Researchers and professional News Reporters and Journalists trained to ask the right questions to receive the unbiased eyewitness reply. The CIT guys lost their objectivity by placing themselves inside the movie with their Pentagon witnesses, so that now their subjective opinions are utterly useless to any serious Pentagon Investigation.

Craig >> So please tell us......who do you think are suspect and why? Perhaps you can create a thread about it.

No sir. Maybe Craig can begin writing defending arguments supporting his original OP theory that has no basis in reality whatsoever. None. Every word of my Post #4 rebuttal remains standing, until you decide to begin ‘quoting >>’ me word-for-word where I support the testimony of all those Pentagon witnesses testifying against your theory.

Craig >> The notion that many witnesses saw the plane hit the poles is completely false and I have just posted a thread proving why.

No sir. Craig is deluding himself into believing something with no substance of fact whatsoever. You wish all the Pentagon Plane/Light Pole witnesses did not see the PLANE knock down all those light poles, but their testimony is part of the record; because that is exactly what happened whether you ever realize that simple fact or not. Craig calling all of these Pentagon Witnesses “LIARS” says much more about you and the CIT agenda than anyone . . .

We are here to debate your "The downed light poles were staged in advance" topic, so let's please write on your topic.

GL,

Terral

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

We are not attacking anyone.

We are simply reporting evidence.

Lloyd could very well be a victim of manipulation or coercion.

The alleged light pole witnesses do not even claim to have seen the plane hit the poles and that is proven in my new thread.

Notice how Terral refuses to answer my question about what witnesses he believes are suspect.

The notion that all the published witnesses are 100% honest during his 2 plane + a missile scenario is patently absurd.

If he is not willing to analyze the mainstream media published witness accounts critically and do some actual INVESTIGATION to confirm or refute their accounts he is simply playing into the hands of deception.

CIT refuses to assume any of the witnesses are valid and while we don't think that all the published witnesses are liars you better believe that all are suspect until scrutinized and confirmed.

Yet Terral has no problem deceptively and incorrectly quoting us as claiming all witnesses are "liars"?

He has no right to tell us what we believe.

 

[Laura]

Terral, I have twice asked you to please not place direct links to questionable sources/forums or places that WE do not wish to give google ranking support to. Please edit all your posts to conform with our policy.

Also, the following:

Please forgive, but I am quoting Craig word-for-word and you are charactering my views with this grandstanding “Terral, Terral, Terral” charade. Where is the evidence for the FBI, Lloyd and Father Steven McGraw staging Light Pole evidence in advance? :0) The fact is that Craig is not addressing the “plane/pole” facts established by all the witnesses quoted in Post #4, because we are supposed to believe ‘all’ the Pentagon Plane/Pole Witnesses are LIARS just like Lloyd. Right? Of course . . .

... is over the line of civility as we judge it here. Clean it up, or you are outta here.

 

[Terral]

Hi Craig:

If your post is directed at attempting to answer Post #4, then please include my name in the opening salutation. Otherwise a post directed at nobody is just that. You know this post is directed at you, because I took two seconds to place your name at the top of this reply.

Craig >> 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.

I have what?? Please . . . My Post #4 rebuttal is standing against your OP “The Downed Light Poles Were Staged In Advance” THEORY. I happen to think Craig is a nice guy with plenty of enthusiasm for this Pentagon Topic with a very likeable personality. However, none of that will stand in the way of writing rebuttals against your theories in support of Lloyd, Father Steven McGraw and the other Pentagon Witnesses inundated by your “extremely aggressive, antagonistic, and harsh rhetoric.” I have a different set of Pentagon Theories and we are allowed to disagree. Right? :0)

Craig >> 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:

Please allow me to understand that Craig cannot ‘quote >>’ from my Post #4 rebuttal to his OP proposition, but he can run to other Boards in some vain attempt to attack my person? This is a common tactic used on the Pentagon Pole witnesses spilling over into Craig’s attempts to assassinate the character of his debating adversaries on this Board. Someone is trying to throw as much dust into the air as possible, because obviously he has no arguments to defend his OP theory. :0)

Craig >> This is a very serious and direct attack for which he does not provide a single example.

A serious attack? This sounds funny coming from a CIT guy routinely going out to discredit the testimony of key Pentagon pole witnesses. The CIT guys have AN AGENDA to dig up all the evidence in support of ‘your theory,’ but opposing testimony is ignored and never given the light of day. I disagree with your theories and present my arguments accordingly.

Craig >> 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".

One witness? :0) Does this mean I am supposed to go back and repost all the Post #4 witnesses Craig is ignoring to make this new claim? You can post this CIT stuff everywhere, but that has nothing to do with my believing a single word. There is no evidence of any Pole Staging in your Opening Post and none in any of your posts for that matter, because nothing like that exists anywhere. Your entire case is build upon supposition and ignoring a mountain of Plane/Pole Eyewitness Testimony. I cannot even quote from any defending arguments, because thus far your reply is about Terral, Terral, Terral and how Craig is being attacked. :0) No sir. My attacks are against ‘your theory’ that I believe is ridiculous, but everyone here is free to believe if that makes them happy.

Craig >> 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".

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7305

Thread Starter = Craig >> Ultimately the conclusion is that Lloyd England's account of what happened is in the very least implausible and now that we have the testimony from the citgo witnesses we know why.

So now that Lloyd has cleared this up even Russell Pickering has admitted that his account is impossible. Russell wrote it off to bad memory while CIT believed it to be an extremely important clue into solving this world wide psychological crime of deception.

We know it's impossible because Lloyd claims that he stopped his car sideways on the road with the pole sticking out of his windshield over his hood.

Lloyd's story makes no sense because of the weight and length of the pole and the fact that the hood of his car doesn't even have a single scratch on it:

So we had established the physical impossibility of Lloyd's account BEFORE we obtained the testimony of the citgo station witnesses.

So everyone is FORCED to make a decision of who to believe. The quadruple corroborated testimony of the witnesses in The PentaCon........or Lloyd and his extremely dubious and beyond implausible account. Their accounts can not simultaneously be true.

There are MANY ways of calling Lloyd England a liar and we are looking at just a few of them. If Lloyd’s account of what happened is in the very least implausible, then Lloyd is a liar. If Lloyd is guilty of perpetuating a “world wide psychological crime of deception,” then he is guilty of being much more than ‘just’ a liar. If Lloyd’s claims are impossible, then he is a CIT liar. If Lloyd’s story does not even make sense to the CIT jury, then obviously he is a liar. If the CIT guys established the physical impossibility of Lloyd’s account, then you have already convicted him of being your liar. The CIT guys put their quadruple corroborated testimony (yea right) against Lloyd that stood out in front of the Pentagon on 9/11 to give us these eyewitness accounts, but your CIT word is supposedly better than Lloyds; because . . . He is nothing but a dirty liar. Right? And why? “Their accounts cannot simultaneously true,” according to Craig’s expert opinion.

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

Lloyd England is standing in these Pentagon photographs pretty much alone ( http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/019.jpg ) and you very well know it. The CIT guys have no business digging into the personal lives of any Pentagon witnesses, but your job is to gather the evidence from the same news reports available to everyone here. You crossed the line in the day you began attacking the credibility of your very first Pentagon witness. If the testimony of any witness does not agree with your CIT nonsense, then find another source to support your theories or start basing your proposals on the evidence. Thus far I see no defending arguments for the staging of any light pole evidence and neither does anyone here.

Craig >> 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.

Bullony. Craig is attempting to divert attention away from his ‘lack’ of Pole Staging evidence by attacking Lloyd and Terral at the very same time. :0) Craig is skipping pass the substance of my arguments making my case, because he has no defending arguments for any Pole Staging and he very well know it.

Craig >> Barbara Honegger supports our work, has referenced us in her public appearances, and has talked to us in person on more than one occasion.

So what? These light poles were either staged in advance (not) or they were knocked down by the plane seen by many witnesses. This is not an answer to Post #4 at all, but another PentaCon Job about something else.

Craig >> 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!

Barbara Honegger’s paper ( http://blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf ) establishes the 9:32 AM First Explosion that took place when the light poles were originally knocked down. The CIT Agenda involves Lloyd’s Light Pole adventures and discrediting his valuable testimony in support of your CIT theories. The first explosion took place at 9:31:39 AM, even according to Barbara Honegger’s work, finding Lloyd standing in the middle of Washington Blvd “after the first violent event in the building, as black smoke was streaming up and to the right from inside−the−building fires.” Lloyd and his helper were messing with the Light Pole, when the ‘BIG BOOM’ ( http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=78448 ) happened behind him. The light poles were already knocked down at 9:31:39 AM, but the PLANE just hit the Pentagon at 9:36:27 AM!

That means Lloyd was looking at the “Single Smoke Plume” between 9:31:39 AM and 9:36:26 AM, until the “Big Boom” set all the fires for 300 feet along the E-Ring wall like this:

Too big >> http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/2.jpg

Does that look like just “inside-the-building fires” to you? :0) No. Lloyd is standing in the bottom left-hand corner of this famous picture wondering what the heck just happened, just like everybody else. There are no fire trucks on the scene yet, which means this picture was taken between 9:36:27 and 9:41 AM when Truck #105, Foam Unit 331 and Fort Meyer Rescue Engine 161 showed up on the scene. Barbara Honegger also has no theory about ‘what’ hit the Pentagon at 9:31:39 AM or 9:36:27 AM or at any time for that matter, because he work is focused upon the 9:32 AM first explosion.

Craig >> 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)!

Contradicts? No sir. The light poles were downed at 9:31:39 AM at the same time Lloyd’s Pole #1 struck his windshield. The “Big Boom” takes place 4 minutes and 48 seconds later at 9:36:27 AM, which is proven by the evidence. I am not at all confident that Craig understands my explanation well enough to be making these kinds of statements. This is Craig’s “The Downed Light Poles Were Staged In Advanced” Thread where he is supposed to be hauling out all of that “FBI and Lloyd Staged The Light Poles” evidence. Remember? :0) If you wish to write rebuttals against my missile/plane ‘two attack’ thesis paper, then please head over to that thread and I will quote your every word in my defending arguments.

Craig >> 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.

Terral’s convoluted neutralization attack . . . Heh . . . This is getting hilarious. The common ploy from a guy without a case is to attack my person, so in response I attack his person and nobody realizes Craig has no ‘Planted Pole’ evidence to support his original theory. The point here is that Barbara Honegger believes Lloyd England, or she would not use his testimony in her 9:31:39 AM First Explosion work. Lloyd is a very important witness in my ‘two attack’ thesis papers, so obviously I have a horse in this race to ensure Lloyd’s eyewitness testimony is 100 percent credible and reliable. After all, look at ‘too big’ picture above again to see him standing right there, but I see no picture of Craig or the CIT guys anywhere. Do you? I will take Lloyd’s word over that of anyone here about this Pentagon case, because he was there when history was being made and the rest of us are mere spectators to his active role in these events. Craig and I are like attorneys defending their cases and Lloyd is one of my prize witnesses, so stop trying to trash one of the good guys the real News People say is a Pentagon Survivor in “Lloyd, Survivors' Fund Project Survivor Story” ( http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=78448 ).

Craig >> 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.

Barbara Honegger’s work is only good for establishing a 9:31:39 AM first attack. She simply has not done her homework on the remainder of the case to offer any serious supported conclusions about anything. These explosions were obviously ‘outside-the-building’ too, because even the Army clock inside the Heliport building stopped within the same minute as the Navy Clock inside the Pentagon ( http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/312.jpg ). Lloyd and Terry Cohen are looking at a HOLE in the E-Ring wall with black smoke pouring out to beat the band. Alan Wallace and Mark Skipper were just injured in that attack ( http://web.telia.com/~u43109230/flight77/texts/Wallace.txt ) and also saw the plane that knocked down the light poles at 9:31:39 AM, even if they were running north and missed all of that action.

Craig >> 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.

No sir. Craig is cherry picking around my statements to completely ignore most everything from my Post #4 arguments, which includes all the Plane/Light Pole witness testimony from here ( http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html ). What did Rodney Washington say? Oh yea,

Craig said >> There is only ONE witness who specifically claims she literally "saw" the plane hit the poles and NONE say they saw poles "flying around".

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

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

Mike Walter >> “It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles…”

We have a couple dozen witnesses seeing a PLANE knocking down LIGHT POLES and Craig saying the FBI and Lloyd staged everything in advance. :0)

Do the math,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Laura:

Terral, I have twice asked you to please not place direct links to questionable sources/forums or places that WE do not wish to give google ranking support to. Please edit all your posts to conform with our policy.

No. Perhaps you included a request somewhere in one of these threads that I have not yet read, but I am happy to conform to any Admin request ASAP. What is a ‘questionable source/forum or a place WE do not wish to give google support to?? That is a statement about Laura’s personal choice and I need at little more information to avoid this problem in the future.

Laura >> ... is over the line of civility as we judge it here. Clean it up, or you are outta here.

Craig (Post #17) >> He will not address the facts directly.

My edited reply >> Please forgive, but I am quoting Craig word-for-word and you are charactering my views and answering nothing.

Hopefully this reply is more to your liking. Please try to resist the urge to threaten members with banning, when all you have to do is point out our errors and I am happy to edit anything you find objectionable to conform with your wishes. Also, let’s not assume everyone has read all these posts to see ‘I asked you twice’ statements about anything. Apparently we have no Private Messaging System that would allow these threads to remain clean without all the Admin actions derailing the topic, but I will do my best to try and keep up with what is going on. Please point out the questionable links (?) you are talking about and I will head right over there and delete them. If you have a list of bad websites never to include in our posts, that would be very helpful too.

Thanks a bunch,

Terral

 

[anart]

Hi Craig:

If your post is directed at attempting to answer Post #4, then please include my name in the opening salutation. Otherwise a post directed at nobody is just that. You know this post is directed at you, because I took two seconds to place your name at the top of this reply.

This is a forum, not a private conversation, Terral, so what you write is 'directed' at everyone reading. Please reduce the level of aggression in your posts. You also seem to be 'spamming' the same information and photos repeatedly; this is not only unnecessary, it is noise. You also have not deactivated links in your posts as Laura has repeatedly asked you to do. Please deactivate the links or they will be removed.

This:

Hopefully this reply is more to your liking. Please try to resist the urge to threaten members with banning, when all you have to do is point out our errors and I am happy to edit anything you find objectionable to conform with your wishes. Also, let’s not assume everyone has read all these posts to see ‘I asked you twice’ statements about anything. Apparently we have no Private Messaging System that would allow these threads to remain clean without all the Admin actions derailing the topic, but I will do my best to try and keep up with what is going on. Please point out the questionable links (?) you are talking about and I will head right over there and delete them. If you have a list of bad websites never to include in our posts, that would be very helpful too.

Thanks a bunch,

Terral

Is inappropriate. This is not your forum, Terral, and as such it is not for you to direct things here. You are free to start a forum of your own and post whatever you like - however, such aggression and snide remarks do not and will not 'fly' here. Please thoroughly read the forum rules to more fully understand how close you are to being removed from this forum if you are unable to control your behavior.

 

[Terral]

Hi Anart :

Anart >> This is a forum, not a private conversation, Terral, so what you write is 'directed' at everyone reading. Please reduce the level of aggression in your posts. You also seem to be 'spamming' the same information and photos repeatedly; this is not only unnecessary, it is noise. You also have not deactivated links in your posts as Laura has repeatedly asked you to do. Please deactivate the links or they will be removed.

Thank you very much for passing along the information. Please deactivate anything you wish, because I do not post here anymore.

GL,

Terral

 

[Beau]

What is a ‘questionable source/forum or a place WE do not wish to give google support to?? That is a statement about Laura’s personal choice and I need at little more information to avoid this problem in the future.

No, you could just deactivate all links. It's really not that difficult.

Hopefully this reply is more to your liking. Please try to resist the urge to threaten members with banning, when all you have to do is point out our errors and I am happy to edit anything you find objectionable to conform with your wishes.

When a suggestion to follow forum policy is ignored, you will be given a warning that your actions are against forum rules and will get you banned. It's not a threat at all. Laura did exactly what you wrote above and it was ignored.

Also, let’s not assume everyone has read all these posts to see ‘I asked you twice’ statements about anything. Apparently we have no Private Messaging System that would allow these threads to remain clean without all the Admin actions derailing the topic, but I will do my best to try and keep up with what is going on.

Of course their is no private messaging system. What would be the point of the forum if you could have one-on-one conversations? I think you need to look at how you are framing the admins and moderators on this board. We do not derail, we make sure that topics do not descend into flame wars and he said/she said debates. That's not what this forum is for. If you had read the rules of the forum before joining, you would know that. Maintaining the highest signal to noise ratio is of the utmost importance.

Please point out the questionable links (?) you are talking about and I will head right over there and delete them.

Since their are so many, just disable all of them.