Unknown to many, five light poles were knocked down when AA77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. The light poles were not in a straight line and spaced far enough apart as to where only a wide body passenger jet or plane with a large air frame could have hit them. Also impacted was a large generator and the curb around a Helio Port. It is alleged by 9/11 Conspiracy theorists the light poles were staged by the mysterious conspirators. The purpose for staging was to "make it look like a plane" hit the pentagon. Also staged was a cab whose windshield was smashed in by one of the light poles.... They also supposedly staged American Airlines fuselage wreckage around the Pentagon and very large components of the airplane inside the Pentagon--some of it weighing about 1200 pounds. All of this staging would have happened in broad daylight None of this staging was witnessed by anyone. In this thread, I would like to discuss why you would stage both the light poles and the wreckage and the cab? Wouldn't one of the three be enough?
The light poles were staged in advance. No plane hit the light poles. Start watching this video at the 5:00 time mark. National Security Alert - Sensitive Information Part 6/8 It continues here. National Security Alert - Sensitive Information Part 7/8 Check this out too. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632&st=0&start=0
Absolutely no reports of a blockage in the road (VA 27) by the 1st light pole were filed that morning to the best of anyone’s recollection. The cab that was supposedly hit by the light pole marks the time as the pole either being knocked down or staged just before the Pentagon was hit so it was at 9:37 EDT. On a clear morning—brilliantly clear—for the cab to be planted, the cab, it’s tow vehicle, and the pole, had to have been planted simultaneously in broad daylight. Again, no eyewitnesses report anything of the sort happening. Please explain the lack of eye witnesses, the lack of stopped traffic, and why, if you’re going to stage wreckage at the Pentagon, why you would need to stage evidence elsewhere, increase the number of conspirators to include a taxi cab and it’s driver?
It's plausible that there were a few witnesses and the press simply didn't report what they said. Here's some info on the press from another thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...st-didnt-happen.336026/page-4#post-1063488116 Here's the official witness list. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632 The witnesses report different things which is consistent with a mixture of planted liars and real witnesses. Can you link to something that shows what the traffic situation was? What evidence are you referring to? Is it the cab? It reenforces their version of the story. This is a pretty silly question. Because it make the official story more believable. You ask some pretty silly questions.
So your version of events is that planting American Airlines metal parts outside the building isn’t enough. The conspirators had to plant wheels, landing gears, seats, plane parts…inside the building. Any idea on how they did that? But that isn’t enough. They had to saw off not one, not two, not 3, not 4, but 5 different light poles stating that the plane was flying low enough to knock them down and stage them around the highway outside of the Pentagon. But that wasn’t enough either. A light pole can certainly fall and not hit traffic and nobody would question it BUT the conspirators didn’t think that would be enough either. They hire a wrecker, take a cab. damage it offsite somehow, drive it through the same traffic the USA Today drivers faced —hundreds of cars—stops at a busy merge lane (not one of the exit ramps which would be less congested) unloads the car on the freeway right by the downed light pole. But that isn’t enough either. They then employ the cab driver to make up this story. IS that all? No! The conspirators not only: Staged American Airlines fuselage parts outside the Pentagon Staged American Airline parts inside the Pentagon Staged Light Pole #1 Staged Light Pole #2 Staged Light Pole #3 Staged Light Pole #4 Staged Light Pole #5 All in Broad daylight…. They take a massive generator, knock out a corner of it, set it on fire and knock it off it’s moorings!!!! Any idea how they managed to knock a corner of this generator off?
To accomplish staging they would have to have a very large crew, many large trucks and flatbeds and a big warehouse somewhere.
Good grief. It could have easily been done before the crash. It could have been discreetly knocked off during the night. I put some evidence that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon on page #1 of this thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/ You should already be familiar with it.
So nobody in the Pentagon questions why there is a 757 landing gear in this room, an airplane engine in that room, etc…? False. A generator that is so large they have to roll it in on a trailer? And, oh yeah, it was on fire too!!!! More “to make it look good” —setting the generator on fire? We haven’t gotten to the other damage by AA77 to the helipad which involves destroying concrete. Did they “discretely” jack hammer it too? No, you put a message on a message board.
So you refuse to go to that page and click on the links and look at the argument put forward by truthers that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. Well, what can I say? An objective truth-seeker would do so.
I'm not sure how many people were involved but my not knowing that doesn't make the proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon go away.
You had to have trucks, truck drivers, fork lifts, a full crew and a warehouse to pull off the scenario you are pumping.
Some of the evidence that could have “easily” been planted weighs hundreds of pounds. Nobody questioned a forklift or pallet jack being driven down the hallway?
WOuldn’t an “objective truth-seeker” simply re-post the information here for all to see? You said you “posted evidence”….don’t flatter yourself.
If you click on this link, you can see it on page #1. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/ The viewers are probably looking at it and coming to their own conclusions. Your refusing to look at it isn't going to sway them.
This is how some legitimate objective truth-seekers look at it: The Pentagon question has divided the 9/11 truth movement, impeding its thrust toward truth and public credibility. Hypothesis is True The hypothesis of impact by a large plane matching a Boeing 757 and Flight AA 77 is true. https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/ Based on all your posts, you are just the opposite.
I’m not going to read 20 posts and try to pick out the one you’re talking about. Sorry. If you have nothing else to add, please find the door and use it.
I'm talking about all of it. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pentagon-on-9-11.482175/ Click on all of the links and look at everything to get the big picture.
Neither are "objective truth-seekers" the topic. You brought it up even though the topic YOU created is "The Five Lightpoles at the Pentagon". Take your own advice.
Learn to read. An “objective truth seeker” wouldn’t cite a whole page of message board posts as proof of anything.
