[911] 11 September 2001 - WTC / Pentagon tråden

EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA



LYKTSTOLPS-MYTEN KRING PENTAGON DEBUNKAD NU:
---------------------------------------------------------

En av de mest seglivade myterna kring hela den officiella versionen av 9/11-attentatet torde ändå vara att en (icke-existerande) Boeing 757 skulle ha fått 5 lyktstolpar på fall (endast 2 lyktstolpar officiellt enligt myndigheten VDOT, som handhar ansvaret för lyktstolparna *se längst ner) i närheten av Pentagon, och att 1 av de skulle ha kraschlandat in i en taxibil.

Till en början måste man ta och fråga sig sannolikheten i, att när en 113 kilo tung stolpe blir kapad av ett plan som kommer farandes i 220 meter/s och dundrar in i en bil, att skadorna på bilen bara skulle bli så här begränsade:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/1-1.jpg



Inte så mycket som en skråma på bilens tak, sidor eller motorhuv...

Invändigt i bilen, inte så mycket som en repa på sätena, och chauffören, Lloyd England, ja förutom att han inte fick så mycket som ett blåmärke, agerade han som om det inträffade aldrig hade inträffat...


Orimligt?

Nej, inte enligt Vita Husets och Pentagons officiella version...precis som det mesta kring detta helskumma 9/11-attentat...



På följande länkar kan ni läsa allt om denna lyktstolps-händelse; myterna som avslöjas och dissekeras en efter en med hjälp av vetenskapliga undersökningar, bildbevisen som knockar lyktstolps-apologeterna till marken, avslöjandet av diverse planterade "vittnen" kring denna lyktstolps-myt och framför allt besök och intervjuer som gjorts hemma hos chauffören Lloyd England nyligen, som till och med får de mest troende lyktstolps-fansen att ta avstånd från sina fantasifulla villfarelser!


Varsågoda, håll till godo, gott folk:


http://cab.batcave.net

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11451

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11676

http://reprehensor.gnn.tv/blogs/18027/Flight_77_What_hit_the_Light_Poles




Här nedan får vi till sist information och data som totalt motsäger den officiella versionen kring denna lyktstolps-myt. Jag har samlat ihop alla de intressantaste inläggen i form av frågor och svar, inhämtade från nedanstående två länkar, där lyktstolps-fansens vanföreställningar bokstavligt talat krossas jämns med fotknölarna!

Vi har flygingenjörer, ingenjörer och andra experter som här svarar på 31 frågor från de troende kring den officiella versionen, och tystar därmed och tar effektivt död på alla orimliga vanföreställningar kring hela denna lyktstolps-myt!

I början får vi här intressant och avslöjande information kring det riktigt skumma taxi-vittnet Lloyd, som ni kan ta del av här, med bildbevis och allt:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread225322/pg1

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread225369/pg1



There are a few things just downright wierd about this whole account...

1) The person that helped pull the pole from his car had time to stop his car, rush to Lloyds car, pull out the pole and then see the Pentagon hit? Right.. some slooooww flying plane then eh?


2) A plane, going 500 mph flies so low it hits a light post on a highway, yet his 2 ton car is unmoved in anyway. The vacuum from a plane going that fast that low should have rolled his car over. I have problems driving my car in a thunderstorm with strong winds, let alone a 500 mph gust.


3) Had a pole been struck by a plane going 500 mph it would have been disintegrated (along with whatever part of the plane that struck the pole), if it did manage to survive, it would not be intact like the pictures suggest. Also, had the pole been hit and shot towards his car, I think the pole would have shot right through his car, it would have severly injured him and would have taken more then a little hole out of his windshield.


4) Whether or not you listen to David Icke, which I do not believe a word he says, it is rather ironic that he was reading that book when the planes hit on 9/11. I think that to be more coincidence, an amusing one at that. His account for the day I think is far to shady to be usefull, I mean imagine you were right there when the Pentagon got hit, you would account for every second, this guy seems to remember very little, doesn´t even know what hit his own car, and could not account for the plane debris.


Only a handful mention the poles at all and I have yet to find one that claims they actually witnessed them being hit. Most simply saw the cab and the downed poles and simply deduced they were hit.

Contrary to popular belief there are almost no eyewitnesses that claim to have actually SEEN the poles get knocked down.

Same with the actual plane impact.

Yes a lot of people saw a plane....but very few claim they saw it impact, apart from some planted witnesses.

Naturally if the poles and other mechanical damage was staged a couple of planted witnesses would be used as well.

Lloyd told us he is a member of the "blue knights" which is a motorcycle fraternity for law enforcement.

His wife told us she is a retired clerk for the FBI.

I believe Lloyd is either a patsy or an agent of some sort.



Question 1:
Lloyd is old, frail, and a bit senile...so I am a little confused why a number of people seem happy to treat his story, the "impossible" story of a "senile" witness, seriously and draw the potential conclusion that the damage was staged and is, therefore, evidence of Government complicity whilst cheerfully dismissing the eye witness testimony of others as sensationalist.

Surely the logical conclusion is that it is Lloyd's story that is sensationalist and that others present a far more rational account of what happened. Presumably, if some dark forces were determined to plant a witness to the events they would have chosen someone a little more credible?


Answer:
Good point but Lloyd's account is the same as it was since day one so this is not a question of the story morphing. He isn't so senile that he wouldn't have known what went through his windshield on the day of the event.

He is a prime candidate for a patsy.

Either he was convinced by nefarious sources to lie or else alternative methods were used to convince him he was telling the truth.

Look up MK-Ultra if you think that mind control is not a tool used by the shadow government.

Whatever the explanation his crucial account is impossible.

You know what's great about this thread?

Not ONE person has been willing to suggest that Lloyd's account of the approximately 40 foot severed pole over 250 lbs crashing through his windshield without damaging his hood is possible!

Lloyd's account is physically impossible therefore this "evidence" for a 757 is extremely suspect.

I wish people would understand the gravity of this.




Question 2:
What is so hard to believe that a few light poles might have been clipped as the jet struck the Pentagon?


Answer:
It is hard to believe because planes have hit light poles in the past at much lower speeds and the wings were severed:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2001/aug/16/512225197.html

It is also hard to believe that pieces of the jet wings would not have come off upon impact with said poles.

I am open to anyone that can provide me factual evidence of a jumbo jet wing hitting ANYTHING, especially a light pole, and the wing not suffering major damage. Then, if that is established, I would like a reference to one that did SEVERE damage to MANY objects or poles without the wing shearing or immediate nose dive.

The center of gravity of the plane is right between the wings... if you hit the poles with the leading edge AND the wings do not shear, what effect should this have on the altitude of the plane?

How does the SOFT Al skin of the wing survive 100% intact and not leave pieces all over the roadway?


It is also hard to believe because there were cameras from:

VDOT
Hotel
Gas Station
and
The Pentagon

Which would CLEARLY show this, yet still, even after the proper FOIA channels have been followed they REFUSE to release these videos.



Question 3:
It is reasonable to assume and believe that jets can indeed knock down poles like this without crashing or sheering off wings. I would be surprised if in all the history of aviation that this hasn't happened before (planes knocking things down without crashing or sheering off wings).

Answer:
Find me a source for a jumbo jet hitting a pole with it's wing and not breaking off the wing.



Question 4:
Precedents do not establish rules. Rather, precedents are useful to establish EXCEPTIONS to the rule.

Answer:
Exceptions to the rule, just like everything else in the official 9/11 accounts...

Question 5:
The lights in the parking lots of most airports are a lot sturdier and heavier framed than the light poles around the Pengtagon.

Answer:
This is not true. It was a "Rent a car" lot where they would have used the most COST EFFECTIVE poles... READ: Cheap. DOT does not use cheap... they use STRONG and long lasting. We TALKED TO the VDOT who are the "people who made them" and they let us inspect the same style pole. I personally lifted the base end of one. They are 250 lbs and 40 feet long. Obviously too heavy and long to not damage the hood of the car.



Question 6:
What is going to fail is the weakest point. So it's a question of which is weaker. The plane wing, or light poles that were built to break upon impact.


Answer:
The thin Al skin of the aircraft should have been severely damaged. We would expect to see parts and pieces of this...

You obvoiusly have no background in physics...an Al skin airplane hits "metal" poles at 500 mph RIPPING some of them out of the ground and you believe this should not damage the fragile Al skin on the plane all the way back to the wing spar?

The wing spar is the only thing in the wing that could have "cut" and "riped" the poles like that.

You cant even WALK on most of the winf of a jumbo jet because it is so weak. Birds blow holes in the wings... but not light poles?

You are nuts!



Question 7:
The wings may very well have been damaged--even severely.

But do you think the poles altered the course/trajectory of those wings and the jet in any way that would change the outcome (a strike on the Pentagon which was no just yards away at the time the wings struck the poles)?

Of course not!


Answer:
If the wings were severley damaged... where are ANY of the pieces?

Yes, hitting poles probably WOULD change the trajectory or MORE ACCURATELY the altitude of the plane... it would roll the nose downward and SINCE the plane engines would have been about 5 feet clear of the ground (if that) the whole way in (or how would it have hit the poles and the first floor?) it would take very little to send the plane skidding nose first into the ground.

Now, if ANY piece of the poles went into an engine... there should have been engine parts EVERYWHERE... Have you ever seen what happens to those engines when even a small object touches the fins?

BOOM! engine goes EVERYWHERE...

So, now I am to believe that hitting and ripping out of the ground all of those poles left no aircraft debris, did not change the flight path, none of the "chunks" or poles hit an engine and the flight maintained its 5 feet altitude through it all right to the Pentagon without EVER touching the ground?

NEAT trick!



Question 8:
Either the jet's trajectory was not affected by striking the poles, and it hit exactly where the plane was commanded to hit. Or the poles affected the trajectory slightly, and it struck at a point other than the one where the pilot intended.

Answer:
While perfectly maintaing its 5 feet altitude? Okeedokee.



Question 9:
Can you prove no wing parts not found? You keep implying no parts were found. Can you prove that?

Answer:
Look at the photos of the freeway and show me part of a jumbo jet wing or engine.



Question 10:
Eyewitnesses do indeed get SMALL details wrong, but not HUGE details like jets hitting buildings.

Answer:
Sure they do... many said it was a small plane, a military plane, etc...



Question 11:
Some witnesses indeed said they saw two jets, or a jet and a missile. Though what they saw was a jet and its shadow converge on a single point. Still, 87 eyewitness names were posted earlier in this thread--many of them military. For you to casually dismiss them even while aligning yourself to the very few who said they saw other things is telling of your predisposition.

Answer:
So, many of your witnesses are from the DoD which the 9/11 Comisison Co-chairs told the American Public DIRCETLY LIED to them?

Impeached here and in a court of law!



Question 12:
Whether or not the jet's trajectory was affected by the pole impacts, this does not mean we have to rule out a jet impact to the building. You have yet to provide a cognizantr response to this point (your 5 feet comment was like throwing a glass of water on a raging inferno).

Answer:
Altitude, not trajectory. The vecotr forces involved should have rolled the plane foreward when the wingspars hit the poles... unless the poles were made of paper. Now, being that the bottom of the engine shroud was about 5 feet off of the ground from the freeway on, even an angle change of 1 degree would have made it hit the ground.



Question 13:
Doesn't matter. My point is unchallenged still. The jet could have hit the Pentagon exactly where it did after it hit those poles and had its path/trajectory/altitude affected.

Answer:
Nice job ignoring the nose down vectors, etc. Your point is challenged until you can tell me how, on a physics basis, the plane remained level and did not nose down at all?



Question 14:
Any parts falling off the airplane were also travelling at 500 mph and would not be found on the freeway unless they fell off some distance PRIOR to the freeway. Any parts that might have been sheered from the wings as a result of the poles hitting them would most likely be found on the Pentagon lawn (to which I have posted pictures of aircraft parts) or at the Pentagon wall itself.

Answer:
So, you claim that a piece of fueselage that is OBVIOUSLY from the TOP FRONT of the plane (look at the "N") was sheared off by the light poles but the wings stayed intact? Neat theory that blows away the "break away light poles" option. If the poles were strong enough to "can opener" that piece as you seem to imply, how were they so WEAK as to not leave pieces of the wings?



Question 15:
If the part in that photo was "OBVIOUSLY" from the jet, as you suggest, why are you arguing a jet did not strike the Pentagon?

Answer:
I did not say a jet did not strike the pentagon. I am pointing out evidence of inconsistencies, implausabilities and impracticalities. I do not claim to know what hit it, I am SMART enough to know that planting that evidence would be as SIMPLE as pie.



Question 16:
Your comment that all scrap metal must be burned, scorched, etc, is absurd.

Answer:
Almost as absurd as:

1. The Al "Vaporized".

2. The wings "entered the hole" on impact.

3. The tail section just disappeared.

4. No seats, etc. were found.

5. <0.1% of a 757 can be pieced together from the limited controlled photos released by the Pentagon.

6. The plane flew for 1/2 mile, 5 feet off of the ground without ever touching the ground at 500 mph.

7. The FBI confiscating all of the private tapes and not returning them or responding to FOIA requests for them.

8. The FBI's removal of the PHYSICAL cameras from two hotels and a gas station.

9. The plane was not intercepted.

10. It hit the part of the Pentagon housing the accountants looking for Rumsfelds MISSING 2.3 TRILLION dollars.

11. It hit the only reinforced part of the Pentagon.

12. It made serious maneuvers with a half-*** pilot at the controls.

13. NO arab DNA was found at the Pentagon, BUT every other passenger was accounted for.

14. The engines "dragged" along the wall and entered through the "hole"... explain those vector forces for me please.

15. No luggage, cargo, etc is visible.

16. The offices right next to where it hit are unburned in MANY photos.

17. The Pentagon clocks stopped six minutes "early".

Shall I continue?



Question 17:
The goverment never said the entire jet VAPORIZED.

Answer:
No, you are right, they just said it "disappeared", not to be found at all...

Question 18:
I suppose you are a physics expert?

Answer:
Close, I have a BS in ME with a minor in Applied Mathematics from UM AA and am a project lead at a fortune 100 engineering firm for a decade...

More qualified than most here to speak re: Physics, Energy, Fluids, Materials...



Question 19:
You seem to imply that you believe no plane hit the Pentagon,.

Answer:
Wrong... I clearly state MANY, MANY times I do not know what did or did not hit the Pentagon... THEN I look at photos, etc. (re: EVIDENCE) and try to pick it apart to form an opinion. So far the only opinion I have given is that a 757 colliding with light poles should rip the plane to shreds and that there is a SEVERE lack of parts and pieces in the available evidence at the Pentagon... <0.1% of the plane as far as I can guess-timate.



Question 20:
Is there any way that the poles were somehow brought into a turbulence or some sort of force to rip them out of the ground without being hit at the angle the flight recording animation shows? (That is, if this animation holds true)

Answer:
I don't know if that would be possible but they could have taken down the poles that were there the night before and had the "damaged" ones stashed in vehicles nearby to be planted perhaps just before "impact".



Question 21:
Why "stage" the pole knockdowns?

It seems so preposterous to even consider it.

As far as I can deduce, the reason some people insist the poles were knocked down manually was to clear a path for the jet (which was ostensibly piloted by an inexperienced terrorist). Is that your point?


Answer:

No!

I don't believe there was an actual impact from a jet. The poles were planted as evidence.

The physical damage was simulated.

We interviewed many eyewitnesses, some published and some random that we found in the neighborhood businesses and residences.

There is no question that a plane flew by low and fast in the area.

But the eyewitness accounts AS WELL AS the FDR data do not match up with the physical damage.

The flight path is way off.

The plane flew over the Pentagon and the damage was faked with explosives/incendiariers.



Question 22:
Hundreds of unrelated witnesses on the ground near the area reported the plane clipping the lightposts.

Answer:
Incorrect. There aren't even "hundreds" of witnesses of the plane in general! Only a handful mention the poles at all and I have yet to find one that claims they actually witnessed them being hit. Most simply saw the cab and the downed poles and simply deduced they were hit.



Ouestion 23:
Witnesses all around the city and as far away as the freeway saw it.

Answer:
Yes many people saw a plane....I know this. But how many of those accounts actually saw the light poles hit or the plane impact the Pentagon? Not many at all. Certainly a low enough number to have been planted.



Question 24:
Father Stephen McGraw is said to have witnessed the poles hit.

Answer:
Boy am I glad you posted his account! We also interviewed Father McGraw in person on our trip. He told us flat out that he DID NOT see the poles hit but merely deduced that they were hit because he saw them on the ground and the damaged cab. He did say that he saw the plane hit the Pentagon though. But his story is questionable for other reasons. You can read an assesment of our interview with him here:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11676



Question 25:
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways, at least 19.

Answer:
Funny that they don't list the 19 accounts of people allegedly seeing the lightpoles get hit. Seems like a low number out of "hundreds" of witnesses. Naturally plenty of them ALSO deduced that they were hit by the plane just like Father McGraw. And of course some of them may be plants, like Father McGraw!



Question 26:
But no one saw the plane fly away from the area?

Answer:
What makes you think they didn't? The Pentagon is right next to Reagan national airport and planes are flying in and out of there all day long. Plus there is the account of the C-130 that flew by within a minute after the attack. If anyone called to report a fly-over plane it would simply be blown off as that.



Question 27:
And where did the passengers of that flight dissappear to?

Answer:
How am I supposed to know? Most likely executed like the 2,000 + people at the towers.



Question 28:
And what about the witnesses who saw the jet strike the Pentagon (one Marine in particular comes to mind, and so does Lloyd's own comment that he saw the jet strike)?

Answer:
Lloyd specifically says that he did NOT see the plane strike. There are very few eyewitnesses that claim they did. Some may be sensationalizing or exaggerating for attention and others may be plants.



Question 29:
How did Lloyd's window get smashed if no poles actually fell at the time the jet flew over?

Answer:
Are you not getting anything that I am claiming?

THEY STAGED IT!



Question 30:
Too many incredible details that need to be answered before one can begin to seriously entertain your scenario.

Answer:
You have already begun!

Yes 9/11 was an incredible event with LOTS of incredible details.



Question 31:
But there were dozens if not 100s of witnesses to the plane impacting the Pentagon.

Answer:
Dozens that saw a plane....yes...but that saw the impact? Nope.

People often deduce, sensationalize to make their accounts more important, and of course there would be planted witnesses as well.

Eyewitnesses are notorious for sensationalizing and if 9/11 was an inside job it would be utterly disingenous to suggest that they didn't plant any witnesses.




* Här har vi det svart på vitt, i en officiell rapport från VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) att det officiellt faktiskt bara var två (2) lyktstolpar som gällde i början, som det påstådda planet sades ha dragit ner:

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt


"Just before impact, the plane clipped off two (2) VDOT light poles on Washington Boulevard, a football field or two away from the Pentagon, according to the VDOT, which is the official structure in Virginia in charge of these lamp poles!"



Denna rapport skrevs nästan två veckor efter attacken, så det borde inte vid det laget ha varit några tvivel om hur många lyktstolpar man officiellt ville sätta summan vid...men tydligen tyckte man efter något år inom desinformationsdepartementet att det inte räckte, så man utökade helt sonika summan till just 5 lyktstolpar...allt för att få Boeing 757-teorin att låta lite rimligare.

Utplanteringen och plåtningen av dessa enskilda stolpar något år efter attacken torde inte ha medfört några större logistiska problem...

Spännande och se vad lyktstolps-apologeterna kommer med för bortförklaringar nu...

Japp.

/Mod

Mankan, vem citerar du när du skriver dina frågor och svar?
Ange hellre länk direkt i stället för att citera andras ord, kan vara problematiskt upphovsrättsligt.

/Mod

Nej, tyvärr. Du har inget nytt att komma med.

För det första innehöll din första länk så pass allvarliga fel att jag inte läste hela. Pilar drogs helt felaktigt lååååångt till vänster om ingångshålet. Den 10-åring som gjort den sidan har garanterat fått IG i betyg.

De två nästföljande länkar är till ett debattforum som inte tillåter oliktänkande. Flashback är också ett forum, men ingen här sitter inne med eviga sanningen.

Den sista är en bloggsida av...? Gäsp

Fortfarande hållar jag den oberoende utredningen som mest trolig, litar på vittnena och fotobevisen på flygplansdelarna.

Sedan påstår (vilket jag iofs inte misstror) att de "undersökt" lyktstolparna. Jaha. Intressant kan man tycka. Ska de presentera ett vetenskapligt bevis för första gången? Men nej, jag blev besviken igen! Men de berättade vad de trodde. Hmmm, intressant. Vad de kunde ha gjort om de är intresserade av sanningen är att ta färgprover t.ex. från lyktstolen, ge till en expert för att se om det matchar ett flygplans. Men nej.

Sedan är det vidrigt att se hur systematiskt de bryter ner alla vittnen med personliga påhopp och en stark misstänksamhet mot ALLT. De griper ord ur meningar och ger de en ny innebörd, som t.ex. -"I saw a plane that looked like coming in for landing", vilket är en naturlig förklaring om man ser ett plan på låg höjd. Men LC forumet vill få det till att han TVEKAR på att han sett ett plan.

Sedan tycker jag att du i fortsättningen inte postar en massa länkar som är skrivna av andra. Kommentera gärna och peka på vad det är du tycker är en orimlighet, och vart man kan läsa det i texten.

Hur har det gått till då enligt dig utifrån dina nya "bevis"? Om nu inte pastorn är trovärdig. Vad är det då i de andra 18 berättelser som säger sig ha sett planet träffa pentagon. Vad träffade taxi? Ellver, vad träffade pentagon?

Avslutningsvis tycker jag att du ska läsa dina egna länkar också. Kolla vem som har skirvit rapporten som du hänvisar till där bara två lyktstolpar skulle vara träffade...... Abraham Lincoln!!!!!!

Vart tar vingarna vägen här?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3DDZU1C-hc

Vad hände med pentagon då? Ge din version utan länkar till vad någon annan tycker. Skapa en egen åsikt för första gången, utifrån det det du tror på.

Kan man få namnen på dessa personer? på vilka områden är de experter? Vad jobbar de med? Har du varit med i en utredning efter attacken? Vilken teknisk bevisning har de? (för alla frågor de svarar på der de bara en allmän syn på saken)

Jag väntar med spänning faktiskt. För detta kan faktiskt bli FÖRSTA gången du kommer med fakta byggd på utredningar och inte bara en länk till ett forum eller bloggsida.

Ja, vad är det med det? Det är ju som det väl vill framhållas en mycket aktad person som vittnar och det måste ju tillmätas en mycket hög trovärdighet även om han råkar vara död!

Länkarna finns!

Det är främst länkarna till abovetopsecret.com där jag gått igenom alla inlägg som jag sedan satt ihop till frågor och svar, pusslat ihop de i en bättre ordning, rättstavat, lagt tillsammans citat från andra om de berört precis samma fråga och tagit bort sånt som inte direkt hör ihop med lyktstolps-myten...

Allt för att göra det hela lättillgängligare och mer lättförståeligt för er här på tråden... , jobbade med det hela i drygt 30 timmar för att få i ihop det hela...allt för att tjäna er...


Men om det är något speciellt citat ni inte hittar och vill veta vem det kommer ifrån, så ställer jag gjärna upp och tar fram just det åt er!

Och...?

Jag känner ett par stycken här i Sverige som heter Ingvar Carlsson...