Craig Ranke CIT
Padawan Learner
757 impact proponents are quite fond of regurgitating mainstream media reports with zero research, analysis, confirmation, or investigation.
Considering that 9/11 was a psychological attack with the media being the weapon of choice this is inherently suicide in the pursuit of truth.
Typically the same lists are published over and over by people like Jim Hoffman, Eric Bart, and most recently Arabasque. Now Terral has appeared out of nowhere representing a "missile" or "small drone" proponent who has chosen to relentlessly and ironically attack the research of CIT except that he continuously references the research of 757 impact/witness list compiler Arabasque while carrying out his mission!
CIT has shown you why we can't trust a lot of these suspect witnesses and why it's so important to seek out previously unknown witnesses if we want to find the real truth.
Due to the north of the citgo evidence we focus a lot of attention on the light poles and see them as the key physical evidence proving an outright deception on 9/11.
So this thread is meant to examine all known witnesses who allegedly saw the light poles get hit.
Of the known alleged light pole witnesses Stephen McGraw, Joel Sucherman, Chad Brooks, and Mike Walter have all personally confirmed with us that they did NOT see the light poles get hit and only deduced it from seeing them on the road.
Arabasque has the most comprehensive list of alleged light pole witnesses with a total of 22. Scroll down to the part that says " Witnesses described the plane hitting lamp poles and objects[/url]". (he says "and objects" because a few describe things that were not hit at all.) _http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html
CIT has pointed out errors to him in the past that he has refused to correct and we have always maintained that there is only ONE previously published account where the witness is quoted specifically claiming that she literally "saw" the light poles get hit by the plane.
I will now address each of the witnesses he presents in order to explain how the information Arabasque asserts is false and downright deceptive in how it is presented.
MIKE WALTER: There were periods where it seemed like the pilot was trying to stabilize it, I believe that may have been when it hit one of the light poles. But I don’t remember it hitting anything early on, although I am sure it must have hit one of the light poles right around the area where I was.
So why didn't he see it?
So......just as I stated; there is only ONE witness who states she saw the plane hit a pole.
Out of all these, many have ADMITTED they didn't see the plane hit the poles and many aren't even witnesses to the event at all and only 1 claims she saw the plane hit a pole. It's clear this is NOT evidence strong enough to counter the rock solid north of the citgo testimony that is independently corroborated 6 times and directly refuted by NOBODY proving the plane did not hit the poles.
First-hand confirmation of ALL witness accounts is key.
Never trust the mainstream media but PARTICULARLY in regards to 9/11.
Considering that 9/11 was a psychological attack with the media being the weapon of choice this is inherently suicide in the pursuit of truth.
Typically the same lists are published over and over by people like Jim Hoffman, Eric Bart, and most recently Arabasque. Now Terral has appeared out of nowhere representing a "missile" or "small drone" proponent who has chosen to relentlessly and ironically attack the research of CIT except that he continuously references the research of 757 impact/witness list compiler Arabasque while carrying out his mission!
CIT has shown you why we can't trust a lot of these suspect witnesses and why it's so important to seek out previously unknown witnesses if we want to find the real truth.
Due to the north of the citgo evidence we focus a lot of attention on the light poles and see them as the key physical evidence proving an outright deception on 9/11.
So this thread is meant to examine all known witnesses who allegedly saw the light poles get hit.
Of the known alleged light pole witnesses Stephen McGraw, Joel Sucherman, Chad Brooks, and Mike Walter have all personally confirmed with us that they did NOT see the light poles get hit and only deduced it from seeing them on the road.
Arabasque has the most comprehensive list of alleged light pole witnesses with a total of 22. Scroll down to the part that says " Witnesses described the plane hitting lamp poles and objects[/url]". (he says "and objects" because a few describe things that were not hit at all.) _http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html
CIT has pointed out errors to him in the past that he has refused to correct and we have always maintained that there is only ONE previously published account where the witness is quoted specifically claiming that she literally "saw" the light poles get hit by the plane.
I will now address each of the witnesses he presents in order to explain how the information Arabasque asserts is false and downright deceptive in how it is presented.
Mark Bright. Pentagon police officer who was at the guard shack. Does NOT claim to have witnessed the impact OR the plane hitting the poles. Mentioning the downed poles is not the same as seeing the plane hit them.1. “It was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down.”[387]
Utility pole guide wire? He does not claim to have seen the plane hit any light poles and no "guide wire" was hit. In fact he is not even quoted about this but he IS quoted seeing the plane "bank" which contradicts the official flight path and SUPPORTS the north side flight path. Arabasque is 0 for 2.2. “He said the craft clipped a utility pole guide wire.”[388]
Penny also does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles. Arabasque is not quoting Penny. Why is he deceptively attributing this quote to Penny in his analysis? He is 0 for 3.3. “Penny Elgas stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her.”[389]
Lee Evey was the Pentagon renovation manager. He was not a witness to the plane, the attack, or the light poles. He was at home at the time of the attack. This is EXACTLY why Arabasque's "research" is so damaging. He does ZERO fact checking and simply copies and pastes words provided for him by the complicit mainstream media. We have pointed this fact out to him in this thread (_http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread286109/pg1) and he even acknowledged it and promised to correct his mistakes in this post (_http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread286109/pg2#pid3265092) over 4 months ago! That means he is knowingly pushing disinfo which is an assault on truth and a slap in the face to real researchers.4. “The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.”[390]
Don Fortunato. Nobody denies the cab and pole were on the road. Don does not claim he saw the plane hit the pole, the pole sticking out of the windshield of the cab OR the cab driver removing the pole. In fact, he was at the Arlington County police department at the time of the attack, he drove to scene after the fact and saw the staged scene. Arabasque is 0 for 5.5. “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.”[391]
Kat Gaines was on 110 and would not be able to physically see the plane hit the poles. Once again Arabasque is not quoting Kat Gaines. Without a direct quote AND confirmation of that quote he is not citing evidence but citing mainstream media deceptions. Besides....no "telephone poles" were downed at all. He is 0 for 6.6. “[she saw] a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles.”[392]
Afework Hagos is not claiming to have SEEN the light poles get hit. We weren't able to locate him to confirm his account but regardless.....simply mentioning the poles is NOT evidence that they literally saw the plane hit the poles. We know that a lot of people saw the poles on the ground and deduced that they were hit. He is 0 for 7.7. “It hit some lampposts on the way in.”[393]
Like Lee Evey, Tom Hovis is not a witness, he was in his office...8 miles away from the Pentagon. He was not present during the attack. He was reciting what he believed he learned about the flight path of the plane. Once again Arabasque has proven how inaccurate the disinformation is that he is publishing online.8. “[the [plane flew] over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building.”[394]
Don Mason was a Pentagon Renovation worker that is one of 3 PenRen workers cited in the ASCE report. Because of this he is a VERY suspect witness but once again.....he is not even quoting Don Mason. And even still...the mainstream media reporter Arabaque is quoting STILL doesn't say that he "saw" the plane hit the poles. He is 0 for 9.9. “[he watched the plane clip] the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him. It also struck three light poles between him and the building.”[395]
Arabasque KNOWS that we did an interview with opus dei influenced priest Stephen McGraw. He KNOWS that we have posted this entire interview online for the entire world to see. He KNOWS that McGraw specifically told us and the world that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles despite the fact that he was allegedly right in front of them. Therefore Arabasque is once again caught deliberately disseminating disinformation in support of the official story. How can he do something so malicious and harmful to truth?10. “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.”[396]
Do I even have to address this? Kirk Milburn was not in a position to see the poles and he does not even claim to have seen them. We spoke with his son who told us that Kirk died in a motorcycle accident a couple years ago.11. “I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles.”[397]
Terry Morin was at the Navy Annex parking lot where you CAN NOT see route 27 or the light poles. You can't even see the Pentagon due to the steep decline. He does not even claim to have seen the light pole get hit. Arabasque is 0 for 1212. “As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110.”[398]
Vin was one of the reporters in the USA Today Parade. No "overhanging exit sign" was hit and he does not claim to see the plane hit any poles.13. “The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me.”[399]
Mary Ann Ownes is also part of the USA Today/Gannett Parade. She is not claiming to have "seen" the poles get hit by the plane. She made these comments about the poles a year after 9/11. Her first account did not mention anything about them. Arabasque is 0 for 14.14. “Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.”[400]
Where is his source for this one? Who said this? Whoever it was it sure wasn't a witness because they are talking about it in 3rd person. This is not a witness account at all. He is 0 for 15.15. “On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner’s wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.”
Here is the one account. Wanda Ramey. She is the ONE known witness who is directly quoted as having "seen" the plane hit the poles. She is or was a Pentagon police officer just like Chad Brooks. Chad had also said in the past that he saw the plane hit the poles. When we interviewed him he clarified and said that he didn't actually see it happen but simply saw the poles on the ground after the fact. No doubt Wanda is also deducing this and simply honestly embellishing her account just like Chad did. Since she is the ONLY one to specifically make this claim and since we have directly spoken with so many others who specifically say that they didn't see the poles get hit it is a fair assumption on our part to make. We are still trying to get a hold of her for direct clarification. Nonetheless she is the only one. He is 1 for 16.16. “I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.”[401]
Steve Riskus does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles. From his position on the highway we don’t even know if he could see the poles from there. Yet he mentions nothing about a cab IN FRONT OF HIM spinning out sideways with a pole sticking out of the windshield.17. “It knocked over a few light poles in its way…”[402]
I'll admit Noel Sepulveda sounds like he is claiming he saw the plane hit the poles. But he does NOT specifically state it and he may be relaying what he was told. This is why first-hand confirmation is so important. HE CLAIMED THAT THE PLANE LOWERED IT’S LANDING GEAR AND HIT THE POLE WITH IT’S LANDING GEAR!!! This obviously did not happen, so how is this considered a genuine witness? And why is Arabesque omitting the part about the landing gear? Plus it allegedly hit 5 poles not 2. Is it really possible for the plane to "try to recover" at over 500mph? If any of the 5 poles really affected the flight of the plane that would have been devastating and there is no way it would have hit with such perfect precision so low and level and fast to the ground as depicted in the security video. There is a lot of reason to doubt the legitimacy of this account and we were not able to find him for verification.18. “[It] struck a light pole…The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle.”[403]
Once again, Joel Sucherman DOES NOT claim to have seen the poles get hit, is a USA Today Editor, AND we interviewed him in his office at Gannett. He specifically told us that he did not see the plane hit the poles. That is the type of effort it takes to find the truth. Why does Arabasque refuse to confirm his research and insist on spreading information that has been PROVEN to be incorrect even though he is fully aware of it? How can he not see how harmful that is?19. “There were light poles down.”[404]
Once again....does not claim to have seen the poles hit. We had dinner at Mike Walter's house. He also specifically told us that he did NOT see the plane hit the poles.20. “It turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles…”[405]
MIKE WALTER: There were periods where it seemed like the pilot was trying to stabilize it, I believe that may have been when it hit one of the light poles. But I don’t remember it hitting anything early on, although I am sure it must have hit one of the light poles right around the area where I was.
So why didn't he see it?
Rodney Washington is not claiming that he saw the plane hit the poles. You can not take an unconfirmed statement out of context and assume he is saying what you want him to say. He is simply relaying what he believes the plane to have done. Is there any proof he was on the highway? Has anybody interviewed him and confirmed his account? Without direct confirmation this is not valid evidence.21. “The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, knocking over light poles.”[406]
Uh-huh. Here is the "Unnamed Navy admiral". Real detailed account isn't it? That is not a witness with a name and so this is not valid evidence.22. “I saw it clip a light pole.”[407]
So......just as I stated; there is only ONE witness who states she saw the plane hit a pole.
Out of all these, many have ADMITTED they didn't see the plane hit the poles and many aren't even witnesses to the event at all and only 1 claims she saw the plane hit a pole. It's clear this is NOT evidence strong enough to counter the rock solid north of the citgo testimony that is independently corroborated 6 times and directly refuted by NOBODY proving the plane did not hit the poles.
First-hand confirmation of ALL witness accounts is key.
Never trust the mainstream media but PARTICULARLY in regards to 9/11.