The Five Lightpoles at the Pentagon

Discussion in '9/11' started by usda_select, May 11, 2017.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    It is invincible; no twofer can account for them without admitting it is a plane
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Intelligent human beings however, question everything and demand irrefutable proof, usually based on forensic science, which requires physical evidence and legitimate investigation. The rest question nothing and resort to silly name calling.
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The downed poles is nothing short of hilarious that anyone could be so foolish to sucker for that one.

    Here is a whopping 2 pound bird

    [​IMG]

    reality is not their strong suit

    [​IMG]

    thats what happens when a plane hits a pole LOL
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2017
    Bob0627 likes this.
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reality is whatever the US government tells them is reality, anything else is a "conspiracy theory".

    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  5. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Your commentary is appreciated.

    But the fact remains that the light poles were down…right?
    Please explain what put them there. I’m hoping you can do better than @Scott
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why? It's not up to him to explain it, he wasn't there and he was not involved in any official 9/11 investigation to my knowledge. Why aren't you questioning those who were and are fully responsible for explaining it to explain it and provide supporting factual evidence of their conclusion(s) based on a scientific forensic examination of the physical evidence? And if they didn't/can't do that (and there's no evidence they did), why don't you ask why?
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  7. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    It’s physical evidence.
    You can’t ignore it.
    Whatever idiotic scenario you guys have, you have to account for the physical evidence.
    So hop to it.
     
  8. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The light poles are physical evidence.
    Finatics usually have to have “irrefutable proof” because almost nothing in the world yields irrefutable proof.
    For most sane people, conclusions drawn on multiple facts and indicators do quite nicely.
    Those who demand “irrefutable” proof are often quite lonely people. Many are probably named Bob.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where do you read in my post that I ignored it? In fact, my post that you quoted contradicts your false claim. Where is the answer to my question? You're actually the one who ignores the physical evidence because you fail to question it. You ask questions about the physical evidence from those who are in no position to answer them but you fail to question those who are in the position to answer them.

    I don't have any "idiotic scenario" and you're the one who fails to question the evidence. You're the one who comes up with idiotic scenarios based on nothing but blind faith.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And other fanatics just defend unsupported fairy tales 24/7 and make up idiotic stories about posters who are intelligent enough to demand irrefutable proof.
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scientific study has shown that its also a fact that when a plane hits a light pole =>100 mph the wings are sliced off, and it only takes one pole to do so, do you intend to address that fact.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2017
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    apparently he wants me to come up with some kind of conspiracy theory, but all I know and have supported with evidence is that wings get cut off when planes meet poles. You are right however that he is essentially litigating on behalf of the gubmints claim its his job to defend it, he is getting what he wants since he is the OP. Seems counterintuitive for him to dodge discussing counter evidence and ask for a conspiracy theory instead.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's re-visit your original post:

    1. There's no conclusive evidence that any light poles were knocked down when AA77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
    2. There's no conclusive evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
    3. The reason it's "unknown to many" is because there's no mention of any of that (the light poles) in any official report. But please correct me if I'm wrong by pointing to where you read the above in any official 9/11 report.
    4. The reason there's no mention of any of that in any official report is that there never was any legitimate official investigation into 9/11, never mind any scientific/forensic examination of what actually caused the downed light poles.

    It seems all your claims are strictly faith based and the premise of your entire thread is based on multiple unsupported assumptions/theories. Then you go on about other people's theories when you begin a thread with your own set of theories. You also ridicule those who demand irrefutable proof calling them "fanatics" and "lonely people". In other words you have no interest in facts yourself because by your own words you believe facts and evidence (i.e. irrefutable proof) are for "fanatics" and "lonely people".

    Please do try and correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe that would be impossible since all the above comes from your own posts. Perhaps you made a typo (e.g. "Finatics")? Or perhaps you simply started this thread in the wrong section of the forum and it actually belongs in the section called "Humor and Satire".
     
  14. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Of course you’re brining up hypotheticals. What is factual is that there were 5 light poles downed that morning. One hit a cab so we know when it happened. If you say a plane didn’t do it, you have to account for what did.
     
  15. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    q
    No. I want you to account for the physical evidence of the light poles and do better than Scott
     
  16. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Cab tells a different story.
    Plane parts, plane wreckage, DNA, eye witnesses, etc…all say something different.
    So?
    The FBI investigated. The 9/11 Commission wrote a report about it. It’s 100% accurate on all major points. You can not cite one inaccuracy in the report.

    Wrong yet again.

    The only other theory put fourth are silly. One dude said “theatrics” and the other said “more proof” when there is already someone supposedly planting evidence inside the Pentagon and on the grounds as well?

    Its also silly in light of the planners could have avoided all of the supposed planting of evidence, cabs, etc…. by simply increasing the angle of approach to not hit the poles in the first place.

    Do you have irrefutable proof of anything in your life? Please name something, I’ll cast doubt upon it. The whole premise of “irrefutable proof of ANYTHING is stupid. Much more so when you’re asking for it in a criminal investigation where the criminals are dead.

    Nobody has that much time. “If”…now thats a laugh.

    I started the thread because I got tired of your whining about posts being “off topic” every time I posted anything.
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I did not witness how or when the poles ended up on the ground, I have no idea what scott posted, you claim a plane downed 5 poles, since I was not a witness and its your claim you need to provide evidence that conforms with scientific method or give us expert analysis why we should believe anything outside of the scientific method. Science has proven that wings are slice off by poles, if you input all the parameters into a fea the wings get sliced off. Are you saying the wings were sliced off? It starts there.
     
  18. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Again, what study are you dreaming about?

    Well, I’ll put it to you this way, a missile moves in a straight line and almost none of them are more than a few feet in diameter. The poles were over 100’ apart at some points meaning that the only ariel object that could have taken them down is a large airplane. Given that the passenger DNA was found at the crash site and the DNA matches the passenger manifest…it’s lightyears beyond conclusive what large airplane hit the light poles.

    The light poles are designed to become disengaged if hit. Its doubtful that they were “sliced off”.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "cab" doesn't prove AA77 knocked down any light poles. So unless and until there's an evidence based correlation, the cab story is just a story.

    None of the above proves AA77 had anything to do what happened at the Pentagon. The alleged "plane parts" and "plane wreckage" were never identified as parts of AA77 and there's no evidence that any forensic examination of the debris was ever conducted as required that might have lent credence to (or refuted) the official claim that it was AA77.

    So it means everything you posted about the light poles (this entire thread) is strictly your concoction and has nothing to do with any of the facts about 9/11. It goes back to what I posted. You're only interested in theory, not facts.

    Whether they did or didn't, there's no evidence that the FBI conducted any legitimate investigation of 9/11 and the facts and history prove they hid an enormous amount of documents from Congress, the 9/11 Commission and certainly the public. You know that very well, the links to the facts have been posted numerous times. But then you're not interested in the facts.

    Repeating silly nonsense ad nauseum doesn't make it true.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/

    You have yet to dispute any of the 29 major facts listed in post #195 in the above thread. So by your agreement with those facts, you keep contradicting yourself. But again, you're not interested in the facts.

    All the above proves I'm correct.

    You started this thread and I believe it more appropriately belongs in the "Humor and Satire" section of the forum, it has nothing to do with the facts about 9/11 regardless of other theories.

    That's absolutely irrelevant to this discussion and ridiculously silly (see "Humor and Satire"). However yes, I have irrefutable proof I exist and I'm guessing you have irrefutable proof you exist. Perhaps you'd like to cast doubt on your own existence. But in your world those who demand "irrefutable proof" are "fanatics" and "lonely people". So by the above you consider yourself a lonely fanatic.

    Unfortunately you live in a world where the "stupid" standard to any claim is irrefutable proof or as close as it can possibly get. Your world however disregards the standard and strictly demands theory as evidenced by your own posts.

    Correct, you can spend your entire life trying to prove I'm wrong but you can't do it. The post I'm responding to is clear evidence you can't prove me wrong. Posting silliness doesn't work.

    Yet you continue to post off topic comments throughout your own thread. See the many examples above.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's incorrect. If he claims that a plane didn't do it, he only has to show why his claim is true (Burden of Proof). If he believes a plane didn't do it, he only has to show why he believes a plane didn't do it but it isn't required. Neither of those requires accounting for what might have done it.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    science is used to disqualify liars. that is where its at. controlled tests performed by the army crp of engineers show the wings get wacked off when plane meets pole and it only takes 100 mph to do it.

    I see he is using the false argument that the poles are intended to disengage and that is entirely false, they have frangible bases so the base shatters when 'the base' is hit by a car.

    The poles were cut in half which means that the full force the pole was capable of exerting on the wing has been exceeded.

    I am surprized he starts a gun fight and comes unarmed.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've seen at least one video that shows it's true for one case. The question is has there been any instance of a plane's wing(s) impacting a pole, downing that pole and continuing to fly in its trajectory?

    That's pretty typical of his posts.

    Note: There are several scientific peer reviewed papers on the subject of the Pentagon plane theory.

    http://www.scientificmethod911.org/pentagon.html

    I don't know what really happened at the Pentagon. No one really knows other than those who were knowingly involved. There are numerous theories but no conclusive facts. None of the above papers address the fact that the alleged debris was never forensically matched to AA77 or conclusively proven to be the type of aircraft officially claimed. By the official failure to investigate the event using standard airplane crash/criminal investigation protocol, one can only conclude coverup. By covering up, the US government either strongly indicates that the official story is false or that there is much more to the official story than the US government wants the public to know (a lie by omission). Given that the official 9/11 publications have all been proven to be obvious frauds, it stands to reason that the official story on the Pentagon is also fraudulent. And unfortunately, poles or no poles, that's the bottom line, a clear consistent pattern of fraud and deception. The pole issue is a minuscule piece of the picture.
     
    Scott likes this.
  23. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Again…no mention of the supposed study. Strange.
    The poles are not cut in half.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Note the above is evidence that a crime is being committed. That crime is tampering with the evidence and corrupting the crime scene. Because it's 9/11 that we're talking about, the crime being committing is magnified. The light pole has not been forensically examined for the possible cause of the damage but is being carted away, likely to be deliberately destroyed just like the vast majority of the 9/11 physical evidence. This is a classic case of a coverup.
     
  25. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Total rubbish.
     

Share This Page