• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged What knocked over the lightpoles, if not AA77?

TheLoneBedouin said:
It can not possibly be a huge airliner hitting them near the top as described by witnesses right?
Click to expand...


What witnesses?
Click to expand...

This one


Eastman:
2. You did not say whether you saw the poles being struck down. Am I right
in assuming that you did? Did you see how high on any of the poles contact was made?

3. Can you recall seeing what part of the plane struck any of the poles?

Lagasse:
Question #2.... near the top....yes I saw the plane hit them..granted at the
speed it was traveling I cant be 100% sure of exactly where on the
poles...but I did remember a black and orange cab that was struck by one of
them

Question #3 Wings....there was composite material from the wings in the
area around the poles that had been struck..the fuse could have struck one
of the poles as well.
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
The light poles were removed in advance, damage pre-fabricated, and likely placed the night before the event.

Full hypothesis here.

But did you know that there has been a light pole on the side of the road near the Pentagon that has gone completely unnoticed for years?

CIT has presented direct evidence proving how little attention a downed light pole on the highway near the Pentagon would get.

CIT's Arlington asset took these images of a pole that was downed on the highway over 2 years ago and they have been used to show the anomalous damage to the base of pole #4 from 9/11:

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/329g.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/newpole7cropt-1.jpg[/qimg]

The comparison has been used to contrast the difference between the breakage in the bases. The uniform damage to pole four is rather suspicious in comparison:

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/newpolecompared.jpg[/qimg]

But again these images were taken 2 years ago in December 2006 but the pole still remains on the side of the road to this day.

It was even photographed by the google maps "street view" cam.

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/capture_29112008_235918b.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/capture_30112008_000953.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/capture_30112008_001005.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/capture_30112008_001104.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/capture_30112008_001122.jpg[/qimg]

This pole is only dozens of feet away from the downed 9/11 poles and it's therefore also right near the VDOT who should have been the ones to clean it up. Even they haven't noticed it!

The 9/11 poles planted in advance only needed to go unnoticed for a single night. This evidence proves there is nothing amazing or ridiculous about this.
Click to expand...



 
UNLoVedRebel said:
This one


Eastman:
2. You did not say whether you saw the poles being struck down. Am I right
in assuming that you did? Did you see how high on any of the poles contact was made?

3. Can you recall seeing what part of the plane struck any of the poles?

Lagasse:
Question #2.... near the top....yes I saw the plane hit them..granted at the
speed it was traveling I cant be 100% sure of exactly where on the
poles...but I did remember a black and orange cab that was struck by one of
them

Question #3 Wings....there was composite material from the wings in the
area around the poles that had been struck..the fuse could have struck one
of the poles as well.
Click to expand...

Nope, Lagasse admits that he didn't actually see the light poles get clipped. He says that he couldn't even see them from his position, and deduces that the light poles on the North Path were hit. Of couse, being the pseudoskeptic that you are, you wouldn't know that.
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Nope, Lagasse admits that he didn't actually see the light poles get clipped. He says that he couldn't even see them from his position, and deduces that the light poles on the North Path were hit. Of couse, being the pseudoskeptic that you are, you wouldn't know that.
Click to expand...

Did Lagasse ever admit to you that the lightpoles must have been planted and the plane flown over the Pentagon since it is impossible for the plane to have done the damage if it flew NoC? Does he now share your fantasy, Craig?
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Nope, Lagasse admits that he didn't actually see the light poles get clipped. He says that he couldn't even see them from his position, and deduces that the light poles on the North Path were hit. Of couse, being the pseudoskeptic that you are, you wouldn't know that.
Click to expand...

Nope. Lagasse said he saw the light poles get hit, and he had a clear shot of them. Even the new pffft video shows him having a clear shot.

Lagasse_Poles_view.jpg


Lagasse didn't want to talk about the light poles because he didn't want to give two douche bags any fuel to add to the conspiracy fire. He says he sees the light poles get hit, it's proof of a conspiracy. He says he doesn't see the light poles get hit, it's proof of a conspiracy. The Loose Change "proof" was that a 757 couldn't clip five light poles and continue to its target, so he says didn't see them get him, and chooses only to talk about the plane. Lagasse never could've imagined something as stupid as "it was a decoy plane/flyover!" No one could have.
 
Last edited:
TheLoneBedouin said:
No he doesn't. Please quote him or admit your lying.
Click to expand...

I already did. I'm not repeating myself, and I'm not going to play a game of as long as I get the last word I win with a twoofer. If you have something to contribute to this thread, hurry up and say it.
 
Why, oh why, are there 3 different CIT/PFT related threads in the top 3 of this board, with each of them having multiple pages?

Why are people still debating CITPFT-supporters? Does someone seriously think them or us would ever change our positions about these subjects? :rolleyes:

This is like a perpetual-motion machine.
 
ref said:
Why, oh why, are there 3 different CIT/PFT related threads in the top 3 of this board, with each of them having multiple pages?

Why are people still debating CITPFT-supporters? Does someone seriously think them or us would ever change our positions about these subjects? :rolleyes:

This is like a perpetual-motion machine.
Click to expand...

It's just so fun seeing them tap dance around to try to support their insane fantasy. I hope their minds never get changed because then the fun would be over.

I'm still not quite sure why they bother debating us GLs as we all clearly believe that they are crazy. They should be out spreading their earth shattering "evidence" to people that might take them seriously and can do something about it. I suspect it is because they know deep down inside that the only attention they will ever receive outside of their cult is from us and they figure negative attention is better than no attention.
 
ref said:
Why are people still debating CITPFT-supporters? Does someone seriously think them or us would ever change our positions about these subjects? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


You're right of course, Ref. I just have a morbid fascination with the bizarre. I realize that the pushers of this particular piece of insanity are completely closed off to any form of logic, sensibilty or reason, and as such, debating their points is about the worst thing we can possibly do. But what keeps me reading is the fact that I have no idea what they are going to say next(like when TLB informed me that flyover was a safer choice for the perps than an actual aircraft impact into the Pentagon). I just can't understand how a mind could possibly work in this manner. Rationalization is one thing.....but they seem to actually enjoy forcefeeding themselves horse manure. Sometimes I have keep rereading some of the CIT related posts over and over as my brain attempts to come to terms with just how lunatic the flyover/NoC theory really is. But it never does....
 
Last edited:
UNLoVedRebel said:
I already did. I'm not repeating myself, and I'm not going to play a game of as long as I get the last word I win with a twoofer. If you have something to contribute to this thread, hurry up and say it.
Click to expand...

Source the quote. Where is your link?

Prove he said it. I think you are trusting Caustic Logic on this who also doesn't source it. Sorry but Caustic Logic is not a valid source. He is merely a proven dishonest obsessed blogger.

However it's no secret that Lagasse and Brooks both embellished to support the official story.

They both admitted it.

Lagasse admitted on camera that in the past he had embellished the notion that the "vortex" from the plane pushed him in the car. But BOTH Lagasse AND Brooks admitted to the camera that they did NOT see the plane hit the light poles after all. Just watch The PentaCon. It's all there.

So they corrected their past embellishments for the record on camera on location.

That is the sign of a true honest person and I will believe their on-camera statements over a heated email exchange online where a clear official story bias was being expressed in defense of the "conspiracy theorist" that he was talking to.

Embellishiment is a typical eyewitness tendency that does not demonstrate deliberate dishonestly ESPECIALLY when the witness clears the record and admits it!

Furthermore we know that their placement of the plane on the north side is corroborated by......

Robert Turcios
Sean Boger
Darrell Stafford
Donald Carter
Darius Prather
William Middleton
George Aman
Maria De La Cerda
Terry Morin
Ed Paik
& Levi Stephens

That's A LOT of doubt casting and denial that you are forced to embrace in order to suggest Brooks & Lagasse are ALSO wrong about the north side claim just because they admittedly embellished a bit in favor of the official story.

There is no debate here. You are clutching at straws and you know it.

You don't even have a valid source for your claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom