The Downed Light Poles Were Staged.

The Downed Light Poles Were Staged.

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Oct 19 2006, 06:55 PM #1

VERY few people claim they actually saw the light poles get knocked down.

As few as 20 eyewitnesses mention the light poles in their accounts but only a couple of them claim they literally saw it happen.

One of the eyewitnesses that mention the light poles in his account is Father McGraw.

I personally interviewed him with Dylan and Merc and he admitted to us that he didn't actually see them get hit but merely deduced that it happened because he saw them on the ground. Here he is during our interview:



Naturally many of the other 20 witnesses that mention the poles also could have merely deduced that they were hit just like Father McGraw.

The only witness to have direct physical contact with the light poles was Lloyd the taxicab driver who claims that a light pole went through his windshield.

Here is Dylan and myself preparing to interview Lloyd:


We have shown his account to be physically impossible.

Before we interviewed Lloyd we examined the same style light poles at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).

The poles are 40 feet high and 247lbs.



Here is a picture of Lloyd's cab on 9/11 with the pole sitting next to it.



Lloyd claims that this pole that was a minimum of 20 feet after being allegedly severed by the plane crashed through his windshield, pushed down the passenger seat, and caused him to lock his brakes and end up sideways on the road unharmed.

He then got out of his car and a "silent" person in a van allegedly helped him remove the pole from his cab.

Here is an illustration that Lloyd drew of how the pole was sitting in his cab before he removed it. (he also claims he "fell down" while removing it)



The problem with his story is that although this 20 foot + pole weighing well over 100 lbs supposedly was knocked down and through his windshield by a 757 going 100's of miles per hour..........

His hood remained unscratched and the passenger seat that got knocked back remains unripped. Not to mention the fact that it didn't even scratch the hood as he fell down while removing the pole.




Passenger seat:



Clearly Lloyd is lying or else the laws of physcis were violated.

The pole was much too long and heavy to have left his hood undamaged.

Lloyd has asserted from day one that it was this large pole that hit his cab as opposed to the small piece indicated below.



There would be zero reason or motive for Lloyd to lie or exaggerate about what hit his cab therefore the only logical conclusion is that his account has been totally fabricated and staged.

Lloyd has somehow been compromised by the perpetrators.

Other notable facts:

Lloyd's wife said she was a retired clerk for the FBI. She also verified that the large piece of the pole is what went through his cab indicating he told the same story to her when he got home on 9/11. (would he also lie to his own wife on the day of the event?)

Lloyd told us he is an honorary member of the Blue Knights which is a motorcycle fraternity for law enforcement.

If you look closely at the picture of the passenger seat of Lloyd's cab you can see that on 9/11 he was reading David Icke's newest book at the time about lizard reptilian shapeshifters controlling the world through the NWO:
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Oct 19 2006, 07:05 PM #2

Other evidence that the light poles were staged was the fact that they were ignored by the FBI and left lying around for 3 weeks to be photographed only to be unceremoniously cleaned up and salvaged by the VDOT.

This should have been important forensic evidence that was collected and analyzed since the plane allegedly directly hit the poles.

We know that all the other plane debris was quickly collected and forever hidden/suppressed from the public.

We know that the security videos were also quickly rounded up and most permanently suppressed while only a few released 5 years later that didn't even show a plane.

We know from the fire dispatch tapes that within minutes of the attack the FBI requested that the fire department "minimize units" to "maintain integrity" of the scene.

So they were willing to risk lives in the name of protecting evidence but the light poles were left there for weeks and ultimately ignored!

Here are pictures of the VDOT cleaning them up on 9/29:




www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

KADrummer6
Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 04:41 PM

Oct 20 2006, 03:22 AM #4

...and let's not forget the FBI was involved in the ENTIRE aftermath of 9/11 - WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

Not that I'm pointing a finger at the FBI, but we have to remember they were the ones controlling the evidence, and let's not forget Sibel Edmonds.

I would definitely like to see if any of the eyewitnesses talked to the FBI before they gave their testimonies.
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Oct 20 2006, 03:29 AM #5

Of course they knew what happened and never had any need or intent to investigate anything!

That is my take as well.

But all other physical evidence was quickly and thoroughly collected, controlled, and suppressed nonetheless.

Investigators never know which evidence will prove to be useful and what will not.

The light poles allegedly had direct contact with the plane.

Surely they would have been considered as potentially important.

It's evident to me that they wanted the light poles to remain out in the open and to be viewed/photographed as much as possible.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Oct 20 2006, 03:34 AM #6

KADrummer6 @ Oct 20 2006, 03:22 AM wrote: I would definitely like to see if any of the eyewitnesses talked to the FBI before they gave their testimonies.
Heh.

No kidding.

But besides the witnesses that were briefed or coached or even outright planted......

There are plenty that will embellish not only for the sake of making their account more important.....but to straight up bolster the official story simply because they believe it.

For instance......how many of they eyewitnesses that claim they saw clear AA markings on the jet do you think had already been told it was supposed to be an AA plane?

I would wager ALL of them.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Popeholden
Advanced Member
Popeholden
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 04:34 AM

Oct 20 2006, 01:13 PM #8

There would be zero reason or motive for Lloyd to lie or exaggerate about what hit his cab therefore the only logical conclusion is that his account has been totally fabricated and staged.

Lloyd has somehow been compromised by the perpetrators.
why isn't it possible that he's just telling the truth?



Other evidence that the light poles were staged was the fact that they were ignored by the FBI and left lying around for 3 weeks to be photographed only to be unceremoniously cleaned up and salvaged by the VDOT.

This should have been important forensic evidence that was collected and analyzed since the plane allegedly directly hit the poles.Other evidence that the light poles were staged was the fact that they were ignored by the FBI and left lying around for 3 weeks to be photographed only to be unceremoniously cleaned up and salvaged by the VDOT.

This should have been important forensic evidence that was collected and analyzed since the plane allegedly directly hit the poles.
they had a building nearby with plane wreckage and bodies. why would they need to analyze the lightpoles?

seriously, i'm asking you what information could be gained by analyzing the lightpoles?





if the lightpoles were staged, how was that accomplished? 5 guys just strapped these things to their backs and walked in with them, throwing them onto the road just as a missile went by...but without being noticed by any of the witnesses?

seems unlikely.
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Oct 20 2006, 05:23 PM #9

I agree that the aircraft evidence was whisked away and sequestered to this day.

But there is also plenty of photographic evidence and some video evidence of it at the scene prior to that whisking away
Yep. Because it was planted and meant to be photographed as well. But then it was cleaned up quickly and sequestered because they didn't want anyone physically examining this perfectly uncharred planted material and naturally it would look REAL funny if they left the plane parts lying around for too long.
I don't agree that the light poles were a photography exhibit nor the cab though. The pictures we have of both are pretty normal given the photos taken that day. We are lacking a good close up of pole 3 and pole 2 just happened to appear in a few off to the side. I am only aware of one photo that my include the base of pole two. The photos we acquired on the trip of pole 4 were normal for the guys to have taken during clean up. Notice they didn't do a photo essay on each pole and again they were only discovered late in the game due to our inquiry.
I never claimed that they were the subjects of a photography exhibit or "photo essay" that "they" planned and executed. Just that they were deliberately left around to be photographed/seen and documented. Obviously if they were planted they would most definitely NOT be important to the investigation. I also never claimed the Ingersoll photos of them cleaning up the poles were meant for any devious purpose. It simply proves that they were left lying around until 9/29.
In my opinion the cab is the same. We didn't even find out it was still around until recently and I would hardly call the snapshots we acquired on the trip of the inside a media campaign. They are normal photos somebody would have taken of just a plain car accident.
Again....I never claimed that the snapshots that Lloyd showed us were meant to be part of a media campaign. But clearly Lloyd's story was. I also did not claim there was a staged photoshoot of Lloyd and his cab or the light poles. But I have seen pictures of him and his cab on official goverenment websites. His story/pictures are continually referrenced in media accounts of the event. Clearly his account has been used to support the official story. There was no need to stage a photoshoot after staging the event.


Bottom line.......Lloyd's highly referrenced and extremely important account is a lie.

Do you or do you not agree with this Russell?
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Oct 20 2006, 05:52 PM #10

why isn't it possible that he's just telling the truth?
Because his account is physically impossible. Did you not read the post? We examined the same style poles. Lloyd asserts the long piece pierced his windshield yet it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have done that without scratching his hood or ripping his passenger seat.
they had a building nearby with plane wreckage and bodies. why would they need to analyze the lightpoles?

seriously, i'm asking you what information could be gained by analyzing the lightpoles?
Investigators do not merely collect evidence that they believe to be important at the time. They're supposed to collect ALL evidence so they can choose to analyze it or not later depending on where the investigation leads. By your logic there would be zero reason for them to quickly confiscate and suppress 84 video tapes that don't even show a plane.

Seriously; I'm asking you why it would be so important to confiscate security videos from EVERY business in the area within hours even though they don't even show the plane? Why bother doing this when the case was already "solved"?

It is clear that some evidence was meant to be seen while most wasn't.

if the lightpoles were staged, how was that accomplished? 5 guys just strapped these things to their backs and walked in with them, throwing them onto the road just as a missile went by...but without being noticed by any of the witnesses?

seems unlikely.
You can claim it "seems unlikely" and I will even admit that it does. But this does not change the fact that Lloyd's account is physically impossible and it certainly doesn't mean that it would be impossible for them to stage this in their own backyard.

Here is a scenario that I have speculated:

The orginal poles were removed in the middle of the night before and it was made to look like normal maintenance.

Pre-damaged poles were placed in the less conspicuous areas perhaps an hour before the event.

Lloyd, his cab, and the pole that allegedly hit it were placed just at/during the moment of impact by the "silent friend" in the van that allegedly helped him "remove" the pole from his cab.

No big deal for the richest, most skilled, most deceptive covert intelligence organization in the world to pull off in their own backyard that's for sure.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

eddykola
Advanced Member
eddykola
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 20 2006, 07:34 AM

Oct 20 2006, 07:47 PM #11

All the people that saw then hit....against the people that saw them planted = 0?


Many many people would have seen them being planted....it's not something that could have easily be done.

Removing the current lightpoles and replacing them with broken ones.



I do belive it was an inside job...but noboddy will take the truth movement seriously if this is our evidence.
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Oct 20 2006, 08:45 PM #12

eddykola @ Oct 20 2006, 07:47 PM wrote: I do belive it was an inside job...but noboddy will take the truth movement seriously if this is our evidence.
Ignore the facts if you want but Lloyd's account is impossible.

Not to mention both eyewtinesses at the citgo station place the craft to the NORTH of the station making it impossible to hit the light poles.

Nobody had a better vantage point of the plane hitting the lightpoles than the witnesses at the CITGO station.

The blue line is where they place the craft and the red line is where it had to be if it hit the light poles.

www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

eddykola
Advanced Member
eddykola
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 20 2006, 07:34 AM

Oct 20 2006, 10:56 PM #13

In the gas station videos taken on 9/11.

But at least one eyewitness wasnt stood where he said he was when the plane hit, I don't know about the other guy.


Fact of the matter is though...they both still said a plane hit the pentagon.

Ignore this fact if you will...
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Oct 20 2006, 11:01 PM #14

Neither saw it hit the pentagon.

Yes I think at least one of them believes it hit the pentagon. Perhaps both.

A tendancy to believe what the authorities tell you happened even though you didn't see it happen is not a strange phenomenon.

Yes this operation of deception was quite effective in that most people were decieved.

But just like in every normal murder investigation.......the perpetrator typically sets stuff up to be make it seem like something completely different is what took place.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

eddykola
Advanced Member
eddykola
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 20 2006, 07:34 AM

Oct 21 2006, 12:48 AM #15

Well.

Me beliving what I see on the news, is certainly no worse from someone belive what they see in LC or an Alex Jones vid.


I just thing it would have been too much of a task to fake flight 77 hitting the pentagon.
Noboddy would fire a missile into the pentagon over a busy highway, it wouldn't even be considered.

Why fake the light poles anyway, that's just stupid.

They would have a different story, without the plane hitting them...if the story was fake.
Quote
Like
Share

Calcas
Advanced Member
Calcas
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 20 2006, 12:22 PM

Oct 21 2006, 02:33 AM #16

"A tendancy to believe what the authorities tell you happened even though you didn't see it happen is not a strange phenomenon."

Another one of your leapfrog conclusions.

You assume that ALL of the witnesses were "coached" by the "bad guys."

HUNDREDS of people are on record. These are regular prople, like you and me, who were on the beltway, in office buildings, in hotels, etc. and gave immediate and first hand accounts of what they witnessd.

Immediate and first hand accounts. Not "coached" accounts like you would like to believe.

And, why isn't there even ONE person, NOT EVEN ONE, who said they saw AA 77 fly past the Pentagon?

Give me a friggin break.
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Oct 21 2006, 06:09 AM #17

eddykola @ Oct 21 2006, 12:48 AM wrote:Well.

Me beliving what I see on the news, is certainly no worse from someone belive what they see in LC or an Alex Jones vid.


I just thing it would have been too much of a task to fake flight 77 hitting the pentagon.
Noboddy would fire a missile into the pentagon over a busy highway, it wouldn't even be considered.

Why fake the light poles anyway, that's just stupid.

They would have a different story, without the plane hitting them...if the story was fake.
Funny that you equate the MSM to AJ and LC.

Too much of a task?

What about the entire 9/11 operation?

Yes it was complex, thorough, and widespread enough to affect the entire world!

Whether or not it was carried out by the USG or OBL.

If you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job then you have no place in this forum.

This is a place for discussion between people who don't buy the official story.

If you do believe it was an inside job then surely you must understand that it was a significantly complex task.

And surely you must understand that they had more control over the pentagon than any other area/aspect of the operation.

It is their own literal backyard after all.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Craig Ranke CIT
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 05:13 PM

Oct 21 2006, 06:34 AM #18

You assume that ALL of the witnesses were "coached" by the "bad guys."

HUNDREDS of people are on record.  These are regular prople, like you and me, who were on the beltway, in office buildings, in hotels, etc. and gave immediate and first hand accounts of what they witnessd.
Very few saw the actual impact but yes many saw the flyover. I do NOT believe that "all" of them were coached and I stated this earlier in the thread.

After thorough evaluation of all accounts on paper, interviewing some in person, as hwell as seeking out random un-published witnesses.......here is my take on the various catagories that exist:

1. Most were regular honest people that saw a plane and not the impact.

2. Some were regular people that simply embellished their account to claim they saw the impact or the AA markings to make their account more important or tell the reporters what they expected to hear. This is typical eyewitness behavior and would probably be even more prevelant during an event like 9/11.

3. Others are straight up planted witnesses that are lying through their teeth. (PNAC member Gary Bauer? GOP USA founder Bobber Eberle?)
And, why isn't there even ONE person, NOT EVEN ONE, who said they saw AA 77 fly past the Pentagon?
Quite simple.

Because their accounts were confused with the C-130 and blown off as irrelevant.
www.ThePentaCon.com

"The attacks of Russell Pickering would be much more convincing if he hadn't attacked and ridiculized the video material before its release. This was neither rational, nor did these pre-emptive strikes enhance his credibility. So as things are at present, his behavior after the release was pretty predictable." -Woody Box
Quote
Like
Share

eddykola
Advanced Member
eddykola
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 20 2006, 07:34 AM

Oct 21 2006, 10:22 AM #19

Lyte Trip @ Oct 21 2006, 06:09 AM wrote:

If you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job then you have no place in this forum.

This is a place for discussion between people who don't buy the official story.
Like i've said before, I belive the government lt it happen on purpose...


But I do belive there were 4 planes, Inc flight 93 and 77.
I don't belive in bombs or missiles.


Why is my theory less of a theory than yours?

Or the guys that belive in no plane at all, or that a mini-nuke brought down the towers?
Quote
Like
Share

George Hayduke
Advanced Member
George Hayduke
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 04:08 PM

Oct 21 2006, 04:02 PM #20

eddykola @ Oct 21 2006, 10:22 AM wrote:
Lyte Trip @ Oct 21 2006, 06:09 AM wrote:

If you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job then you have no place in this forum.

This is a place for discussion between people who don't buy the official story.
Like i've said before, I belive the government lt it happen on purpose...


But I do belive there were 4 planes, Inc flight 93 and 77.
I don't belive in bombs or missiles.


Why is my theory less of a theory than yours?

Or the guys that belive in no plane at all, or that a mini-nuke brought down the towers?
With all due respect, one theory is as good as another as long as neither dismiss crucial information in their formations.

Ergo, if one theory, theory A, dismisses crucial information while another, theory B, takes that crucial information into account then at least in my opinion the latter is more relevant than the former. Theory B trumps theory A. Emotional appeal or lack thereof of both theories be damned, 2 + 2 = 4 every time. Every time.

So let's exame a chunk of crucial information that plane-huggers tend to dismiss (from a Morgan Reynolds essay)

"Before examining physical evidence—our principal task—we should note that many facts about the alleged flights subvert the official account. The Colgan Air flight 5930 Portland-Logan is riddled with questions and AA Flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled that day. Official BTS data are meticulously kept because of liability issues. The two American Airlines Boeing 767s in question—tail numbers N334AA and N644AA—were deregistered January 14, 2002, but without evidence they were involved in the alleged flights. Mohammed Atta supposedly left a rental car at Portland International and absurdly left a second car full of incriminating evidence at Logan, in other words, evidence was planted/fabricated. And was Gate 26 or 32 used for the unscheduled flight 11? The two United Airlines aircraft that allegedly crashed that day—tail number N612UA for Flight 175 and N591UA for Flight 93—were deregistered four years later on September 28, 2005, despite a requirement that destroyed aircraft be deregistered within 24 hours.

Further fueling suspicion, all four cross-country flights had improbably light loads with most seats vacant (approximately 52-86% empty) while the airlines, government and media never produced credible passenger manifests, a routine matter, and all inexplicably lacked Arab names. Mainstream media have reported five to nine alleged hijackers alive while ongoing searches of birth, death and marriage records suggest some passenger names were fake. Families of air crash victims remain silent, suspicious behavior while government lies and spins, and families of ground zero victims are outspoken. Searches thus far fail to show hull insurance paid on the four jetliners. Then we have missing surveillance video tapes, an incredible string of airport security/screening failures, flights disappearing from conventional radar, missing flight data and cockpit voice recorders, gagged flight controllers and firefighters, physically impossible cell phone calls with fake dialogue (“I see water and buildings. Oh my God! Oh my God!” “Hello, mom. This is your son, Mark Bingham”), not to mention the technical impossibility of the purported Arabs piloting the planes as advertised. Little if anything checks out in the official account about the alleged flights. Corporate media steer a wide berth from these problems in favor of canonizing the official conspiracy theory."

Lets enumerate the crucial information that must be addressed in any theory. We'll start with something that was unmentioned in Reynold's essay.

1) "(N)ot one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft." ("In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

"Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.") --Source

2) For the first (4) time(s) in aviation history, an commercial passenger plane crashed and the FAA did not investigate.
("The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written." --Source)

3) Flight 11 and 77 were not scheduled for that day.

4) "The two American Airlines Boeing 767s in question—tail numbers N334AA and N644AA—were deregistered January 14, 2002, but without evidence they were involved in the alleged flights."

5) Unscheduled Flight 11 supposedly boarded at two separate gates? 26 and 32?

6) "The two United Airlines aircraft that allegedly crashed that day—tail number N612UA for Flight 175 and N591UA for Flight 93—were deregistered four years later on September 28, 2005, despite a requirement that destroyed aircraft be deregistered within 24 hours."

7) "The airlines, government and media never produced credible passenger manifests (Source: "Media Published Fake Passenger Lists"), a routine matter, and all inexplicably lacked Arab names(.)"

8) Families of air crash victims remain silent, suspicious behavior while government lies and spins, and families of ground zero victims are outspoken.

9) "Searches thus far fail to show hull insurance paid on the four jetliners."

10) "Then we have missing surveillance video tapes, an incredible string of airport security/screening failures, flights disappearing from conventional radar, missing flight data and cockpit voice recorders, gagged flight controllers."

11) The physically impossible cell phone calls with fake dialogue (“I see water and buildings. Oh my God! Oh my God!” “Hello, mom. This is your son, Mark Bingham”). (Another source: "Project Achilles Report Parts One, Two and Three"; Another source: Another source: "The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93")

12) Roughly half of the alleged hijackers turn up alive and well living elsewhere after the supposed "crashes."

This list does not address the footage of the alleged F175 impact, which depicts a plane flying through a building like it would fly through the air, without it slowing, shredding and without any of the plane exploding outside the building while the building effectively opens up and absorbs the plane, allowing it to pass into and through it virtually unhindered, no bending and cratering, and with the soft aluminum fuselage of the plane bursting through the opposite side of the building. (2 + 2 = 5?)

This list also does not acknowledge that none of the alleged "crash" sites actually appear like jumbo jet crash sites have in the past. For example, we are to believe that planes essentially disappeared into holes at the Pentagon and in Shanksville. No footage or photograph of the burning towers reveals an angle of the hole wherein parts of a plane can be seen. Sept. 11 is the day of the amazing, disappearing, vaporizing planes!

The information in this enumerated list must be addressed when one advances a theory of what happened on 9/11. A theory failing to address the information listed here should be considered compromised at best, dubious at worst.

All theories are not created equally. Theories asserting that the flights as advertised in the official government conspiracy theory carrying both innocent American passengers and flown by Arab hijackers fail when analyzed critically because they, so much like the official government conspiracy theory, depend entirely on the information contained in the enumerated list amounting to little more than a heap of incredible coincidences that should simply be forgotten for the sake of the appeal of "the movement."

###
Quote
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: