Oh my is right. Your reading comprehension is astounding. Where did you read the poles were brought down using explosives?
Mine is just fine, thanks. Where did I say anything about explosives?
My comment regarding controlled demolition is as a result of this reasoning:
There exist photographs of the light poles on the ground, and IIRC, across a taxi.
Witnesses agree the light poles were standing before Flight 77 flew over.
The witnesses also say the light poles were on the ground immediately after flight 77 flew over, thus demolishing their usefulness as light supports.
So clearly they
were demolished, either in an uncontrolled manner by something physically connected with the overflight of flight 77, or in a controlled manner to hide something suspicious regarding the flight path of flight 77.
Some witnesses say they saw Flight 77 hit the light poles. You dismiss these statements for reasons of your own. If we accept your facts, that rules out the uncontrolled demolition theory.
That leaves the controlled demolition hypothesis, unless you have a third hypothesis that will explain the coincidence of their falling just as Flight 77 flew over.
Notice I'm not saying that they were
exploded. It is not my personal conviction that anything other than Flight 77 brought them down. But their position after the overflight of flight 77 is a physical fact which needs to be accounted for.
