We now have this.

That's it. It's a picture posted at this site:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentago...evidencesummary [page two in the middle]. It's labeled Pentacar.jpeg. It has no caption, sources, anything. I've never heard of any such damaged car. People mention Lloy'd cab, and a clipped truck antenna, that's it. passnger side window taken out? Someone could've been killed. that shoulda been in the news.

Lloyd's car with not ascratch on the hood get all that attention and this gets nothing until WTC7 Lies puts it up apparently outta nowhere.

Now, the first thing I notice, on the chance it is real evidence, is that is consistent with one light ple at the scene, the little-seen pole #2. Here's my graphic:


That said, this could be a simple hoax, an unrealated photo somene decided COULD fit at the Pentagon and dropped to see who bought it. We'd need to do more research. Expected pole 'dance' pattern, time of photo, exact location (probably not the exact spot it happened). Some creds if possible. Someone needs to ask that site what' up with this. Etc. That's it for me tonight, I just thought this curious new bit of supposed light pole evidence of the Pentagon attack deserved its own thread. I'll be back on it tomorrow.

While discussion of this issue continues at Red dawn's thread Red Dawn's thread it seems no one else agrees this desrves its own thread, that it's a waste of time. I disagree. I'm not trying to use this to prove anything, and as I've said a few times its as likely a hoax as anything. I put this here to encourag a figuring-out of it all.

So I'll lead with a road/tree analysis to see if it could fit anywhere around on Route 27.

Looks kinda like two lanes and a pullover lane, a divider, and something else. Dense foliace and a downslope on the other side, this side judging by shadows and reflection are trees, and a claer space with a smallish building up ahead. Light pole and inconcequential sign. No signs of it being on or near a bridge.

The area around pole 2:


Not a match.

Sun and shadow: If southboubd, this would have to be in the later afternoon, and all these cars left there that late makes no sense.

If this is near the Pentagon at all, it's either at some other spot on 27, northbound, and there's no easy way to just get over there from the other side, or it's on some other area street, likely nearby but not at the scene of the crime.

Also a satellite view: That's all the time I have for now.

That car looks to me like someone heavy stood on the car door while the window was rolled all the way down.

note how the damage looks like a pile-driver pushed straight DOWN onto the rim of the door, warping the window-frame, buckling the door, but not otherwise scratching the paint on the outside.

like a sledgehammer blow -- or as i said, like a 250+ lb man stepped up on the door with full weight.

There is no evidence within the frame of the photo to suggest to me that damage was caused by a light pole.

no witnesses.

no photos.

no video.

thus, the car first has to be corroborated as at the scene of the crime, on the same day, at the same, time, and then, all causes of damage whether man-made or other must be considered.

until then, it's just a photo of a grey car with smushed & crumpled door.

cheers!

Agreed. So far we've got nothing. I'm not rushing this, but I'm not done yet either.

Let's not loose sight of the signifigance of this being offered as Pentagon evidence. Either it is, which is significant, or i's a hoax, which would be interesting to catch. News as it comes.

I don't think a heavy guy would do that BTW, and I think I see broken glass. On some car, somewhere, at some time.

ETA: message in to Gravy requesting source info
I'll wait to see if he can offer anything to narrw it down before I dig more

your wording is a bit confusing, so im not sure what ur exact stipulations/assertions are. none the less, just so its clear, i have dissected the photo and the area (using both google maps and a drive-by the scene), and i am 99% certain i have accurately deduced where the pic was taken (if it was taken near the pentagon).

take note that the shadows cast on street, are cast by trees, not by buildings:



there are only 3 spots on this stretch of washblvd where there are trees on both sides of the road:



using the maps, and after driving by there tonight, i was able to rule out locations 1 and 2. in particular what i was looking for was 2 poles (one a light pole, the other a smaller sign holding pole), in close proximity to each other, on the lloyde side of washblvd. there are many of these smaller signposts on this stretch, but none with a light pole close by (by close im mean as depicted in the photo). the only question about location 1 was wether or not the trees were overhanging (on googlemaps' view) and blocking these 2 poles from being seen. my drive-by confirmed that at location 1 (near columbia pike/navy annex exit) there is a smaller sign, but NO light pole near enough by to be the same as the one in the background of the carpic.

i could tell by googlemaps that it wasnt location 2, there were no matching characteristics except that there were trees on both sides of the road. but location 3 shared many of the visual markers as the carpic.


first an overhead view (area in red is where i believe the carpic was taken at):



zoomed in:



labeled:



compared:




go to google and follow the road back to where lloyde was, and you will see that no other area has the right characteristics to match, other than location 3. the easiest thing to look for other than the trees on both sides of the road, is the center divider, which is not present in the carpic. as you approach the pentagon the almost 3 foot-tall concrete divider runs continuously throughout.


the only place with trees on both sides of the road, but without a concrete divider is the area i have specified (location 3):


i would post more pics of the whole stretch of road, but i'd have to zoom in tight to show the divider, and that would take way too many pics to present here. but feel free to look it up yourself and see that this divider indeed runs non-stop until the exact location above.

so im not sure what u were trying to suggest with your pic of pole number two crashing into the car, but that never happened. the car in question is pictured on the OPPOSITE side of the road.

Regarding confusion about what I intended here, I just saying let's figure this out. And Wow, dude! That's the kind of thing I was hoping to see. That's great you can scope out the scene first-hand, and I dig all the work you put in there and only fel bad I don't even have energy left tonight to fully absorb it. But unless I'm missing something, You've confirmed what I was suspecting - this is probably not taken on Route 27 anywhere near the Pentagon light poles falling. To be hit like this by pole 2 on its passenger side, it'd have to be going south and probably in the inner lane. I don't see why it'd exit, get back on northbound, then pull over again because I agree area 3 is the only one that makes sense.

I hate to say it but for all your pains, it could still be on another street, somewhere off to the side, where a car headed south might go after leaving 27. Or perhaps the driver simply fled the scene and took this photo after getting home. Then it could be anywhere.

And it could be just some joke to get us wasting time, another light pole incident in any town any time since 9/11. So I suggest only doing any more surveying only if it sounds like fun. Now I'm waiting to see Roberts' reply - who's saying this photo says what? And then I'll go from there. Peace.

PM at JREF: Gravy says it's authentic, Pentagon-related, light pole he thinks, and he's hopefully getting me a source. At this point I need one.

Also it's pretty cler and sunny in that pic. Most Pentagon scenes are smoke-darkened.

with all due respect PRC, i think you have ridden the fence long enough on this subject. i sense your subversive intentions and i dont appreciate your sneakiness. come out and say what it is you're trying to pose about the pic.

i feel i have sufficiently proved that IF the photo was taken at the pentagon, where it HAD to have been taken. but you continue to persist, playing nice guy, but still looking to find a loophole that allows you to relate this photograph to a light pole. no it isnt some neigborhood surrounding the pentagon, i know the area, and there are NO guardrails next to solid white lines anywhere around here, but on the highway. the car was NOT hit by a light pole. something hit it while it was NOT moving. but nothing connects this car to any of the 5 poles, nothing. if u believe otherwise, then clearly STATE so, and SHOW so.

spell it out, once and for all: what are you asserting about this pic? why is it gravy is the one who is supposed to authenticate this pic, and make assertions about it? is he the source? is that site a result of his undertaking? and how is it you have a batphone that connects to gravy? and why are you the one focusing on and presenting this pic, if you yourself have NO assertions to make? or are you trying to force gravy's hand on this pic? or are you trying to create a whole new diversion thru this alleged pole/car "mystery"?

quit being evasive and subversive. make ur point clearly, please.

:rolleyes:

Dude? Seriously - firt I'm not smart enough to hatch any subversive plots. I can barely keep up with just being honest and trying to figure things out. I start with what I don't know and go from there. So far I don't know how to go ANYWHERE with this. But it's too interesting to ignore, no? I'm hip to some like new information, man. It's gonna take some time to sort it all out.

If you sense me being 'manipulative,' twisting thigs around, being vague, etc... that's because I probably am a bit but just to help me make a point and do what I'm doing here, which I'm pretty open about. Rhetorical tactics. And facts when possible and honest indecision when necessary. That's it, and the fact I'm good at it except when I'm not and have put way too much time into it.

Therefore only the briefest response to the rest:

What you've proven: I'm not contesting what you've proven nor consenting for sure. I just want to know why is WTC7 Liesposting this?
The site links to main 9/11 linnks page which in turn says "Links for 9/11 Research
Compiled by Mark Roberts email: nyctours(at)gmail(dot)com"
Oh, I just now saw the e-mail.
So I figured he was the guy to ask.
I have a barely-used JREF account so I PMed him.

Was that wrong?
I feel like I missed a memo.

AND ONCE AND FOR ALL WHAT I AM STATING ABOUT THIS PIC IS WHAT I'VE ALREADY SAID. I'm being vague because I simply don't know. Can't ignore, can't explain it, require more input. It's there, vaguely put forth as evidence, no supports, doesnt seem to fit the scene... is it oddly-buried evidence or a hoax? I'm actually leaning to the latter.

Now take a deep breath. Seriously, man. I'm not out to get people here. Why get defensive that I'm just trying to figure this out?

How would you rather that I respond to this new supposed evidence?
How can I be more clear?

And to be clear with you: it was not taken in a surrounding neighborhood which you know, so are you saying it WAS taken at area 3 by the Pentagon? On 9/11 or later? Or somewhere else? Is it more staged evidence like the cab, or a hoax made up later, or what? Mr. demanding certainty, just What is your basic hypothesis?

Or if you're not sure, believe me I sympathize. If you are sure explain how please.

Gnite.

you were not being clear, yet you posted a pic of a pole (#2) resting on the car. you kept tip-toeing ur way around what ur depiction (via the graphic u made) might mean. this statement in particular felt like you were trying to still leave the door open to some car/pole connection:

so i wanted you to be clearer, just in case you were playing word games. to me, ur lack of stating a clear assertion about this pic, coupled with ur graphic, amounted to you trying to make some tie between these 2 non-related events. if u were clear, i wouldnt be confused.

im all for authenticating the pic, but personally, i dont really see the controversy about it. none the less i will try to further dissect it for you:

the car appears to have a virginia tag, so thats a clue that maybe the pic was taken in va. was it taken near the pentagon? it doesnt have to be.

im not the one putting it in a 911 context. ur source did that. so based on their assertions, im saying that if it is from 911 near the pentagon, then there is only one place near there that it could have been taken at.

do i think its from 911? if it was taken near the pentagon (which is yet to be proven), then based on the fact that people dont usually park, nor are they allowed to park on the highways around there (pics shows 5 cars parked), i'd say yes it could very well be from 911. the only time i have ever seen more than one car parked on that stretch of highway is the fourth of july, right prior to and during the fireworks (and in that case it should be dark/night, not daytime, and there should be lots of people around).

time wise- the shadows actually show that its early (definitely before noon). the sun rises behind the pentagon and sets directly opposite it. we can rule out anytime after noon (12pm), and based on the presence of parked vehicles, we have to rule out any time before the "main event" explosion (roughly before 9:45). so if im correct about the location, with such long shadows, my guess is that it could be somewhere between 10 and 11am, but possibly earlier. honestly, the pic doesnt show the shaded area very well, so its hard to say for sure.

now,

if the pic is proven to be what it claims to be, then something hit that car. the car may have even moved from the initial location of the "incident", but all the poles on its side of the washblvd fell away from the road. so again you can not tie any poles to this vehicle's damage.

so start hypothesizing about what may have caused the damage. but because it could NOT have been near a fallen pole area, then leave the pole speculation out of it. figure out what else may have hit this car to cause this damage. to me its not implausible that the explosion (caused by explosives) could have sent a chunk of debris flying into the side of this car, thats why im not that intrigued by this pic.

what you should be wondering is how did the car get hit, while standing still? the damage came downward on the car's door, with no visible horizontal damage. BUT shouldnt the car have been moving when the alleged explosion occurred? so shouldnt it show damage travelling towards the back of the car (what im calling "horizontal damage")?

to me it looks like this car was NOT moving when WHEN something hit it. so why was the car stopped? i have double checked the riskuspics (which show the stopped cars on that side of the road) and you dont see this particular car there. so was this car ever parked near to or in direct proximity of the "main event" explosion?


***

as far as gravy: i found it unusual that you have such open lines of communication with him. yes the address to reach him at is widely available making it likely the target of many disgruntled truthers, but why would he respond to you? so what i was suggesting is that you seem to be closer with him than you are letting on. by virtue of this thread you are (in essence) doing his bidding, posting his work, and now relaying his messages. why didnt/doesnt he simply source his info on that page where the pic is presented? that would be sufficient. why the lack of full disclosure on his part when posting his "evidence"?

who cares about that site anyway? its full of distortions of reality, omissions of statements and linked sources, resulting in misleading versions of witness accounts (singleton, bell), false assumptions and incorrect scientific examples (sandia rocket test and plane disintegration), and its even guilty of outright lying (campos saying he saw flight 77). the preceeding were but a few examples of misleading assertions on that site, im sure there are more, but they hardly need addressing. whats clear is the site's author's m.o.: he shapes truth instead of disclosing it openly and allowing a full picture of events and reality to be emerge. i didnt know it was m.roberts' doing, but now that i do, it only makes the the reasons and motivations for that site's particular tactics that much clearer.


***

so maybe my tone was a bit harsh in this particular instance towards u PRC, but i have seen you guilty of some of the same omissive/misleading tactics (per mcgraw and m.bell) and i suspected that you were trying to distort reality here by turning this carpic into a whole new lloyde/cab/pole mystery. so im sorry if i came at you in attack-mode, its a conditioned reflex to what i perceive as possibly intentional misinformation. but now that you have clarified your position, i understand your assertions instead of wondering about them. so minus the confusion, i have no reason to be so defensive. thank you for clarifications.

peace

I was being clear about my indecision. It DOES fit pole 2, so if it was a real 9/11 car that would be my guess. But that was getting ahead. I just saw it and felt like going ahead there and then trying to find out any source.

I'm not sure why you get confused by me. Perhaps it's my complex use of language to reflect my complex thot process? Most other people seem to get me okay.

Also I feel like I'm under personal attack here, which is fine I guess. I came here to confront bad theories. But I don't usualy get personal, but you - I think you might be a little too paranoid. I am too, but I know you're too paranoid here cause I know I'm not doing anything sneaky and you think I am.

Your findings: VA tags? All I see is white and blue. But that's at least consistent, right?
Otherwise I can't agree that it was in that one spot for sure. It's possible but I still think it could be almost anywhre else too.

Moving? I see what you''re saying but I'm not sure it was stopped. I don't know forensics as good as you I guess. Maybe he screeched to a halt jus before the pole bounced into him? The main damage does look straight down but the scuff indicates horizontal movement, tho whether from say the lamp head falling off in its own direction or due to the car's movement or a bit of each I'm not sure. There's just a lot I don't know

Location: that car you have in area 'B' - unless I'm reading it wrong - is an odd angle to park there - looks backed-in, or ready to pull in from a side-street that isn't there, and also the off-ramp is supposed to be curving away AT that sign. I'm not so sure that's the case:

So perspective issues and so on, this might be the spot, but I'm def. not sure.

From what I'm seeing, agreed. But I don't think it's that spot, which is the wrong lane either.
So I am leaning towards taken elsewhere, which'll make it a bitch to verify even if we get a claim 'this is __'s car, hit by a pole while s-bound on 27, photo taken at home...' I have a hunch we won't figure this out to everyone's liking.

Re: Gravy I've never contacted him before, tho we've conversed on a couple threads, at least once arguing over 9/11 allowance at least and agreed on some Pgon points. Believe me if you will. If I were in a secret cabal with him would I be sitting here saying "PM in to Gravy?"

Alright, baseball bat... heavy pipe... how about a pole swung by a team of dudes? Is that okay? :) Again, I'm just not as sure as you and don't even want to try and figure it out like this until I've first seen some more clues to narrow it down.

If I get nothing I'll dig deeper into the photo and try for better certainty (never 100% bus close sometimes). You're just going to be ahead of me until I see if Gravy is forthcoming. But that's it for me for now.

On second thought, Fedz' placement is more likely correct than I thought. The pole/sign placement relative to the trees is a close fit, even iff the offramp isn't plainly visible (perspective). No news from Garvy (it's on his to do list) but it didn't sound like it was well-referenced at all.

If at the spot Fedz IDd it's be in the northbound lane, the wrong spot to have a light pole hit that side of the car.

Perhaps it changed positions, but this would require turning around, driving a long way back past the divider and driving over the low median here, and re-parking. In fact, this being the spot makes sense then, as it's immediately after the median ends. Why exactly someone would do this I don't know.

Hmm... Just in case this doesn't come up in the new forum, thot I should add these thots.

i have driven by the location twice more now, and even tho it was night time, im 99 percent certain the car was photographed at the location i dissected earlier in this thread. im hoping on my next day off to go by and try to snap a daytime pic. unfortunately it will have to be done from a moving vehicle, on the road, instead of stopped and on the sidewalk. but im confident you will see enough to see how similar the 2 locations are.

regarding a u-turn: im confused slightly what u mean. if headed towards lloyde/cab, there is no way to make a u-turn (divider is in the way). you would have to exit and get back on in the opposite direction in order to end up where this green car was photographed.

my own thoughts for why it is where it is, if it is indeed where i suspect it is: the car is too far away from the pentagon for the damage it incurred to have taken place at that location. what makes sense is that it was more than likely closer to where the explosion(s) took place, and thats when something hit it. but in order to allow authorities and medical help to access the scene, this car was moved up the road (in the opposite direction and away from lloyde).

this could have been done by its owner or possibly by the police, im not sure which. if by the owner, why didnt he/she simply leave the scene and drive home? we dont see any damage that could have disabled the vehicle, so it "being stuck" can be ruled out. so why is this car sitting there without its owner? its possible the owner is somewhere in the vicinity, so that has to be considered as well.

but i wont speculate any further until the source of this pic can at least make some claims or offer some background info about this pic. since all we have is a pic but no source or even a caption, then its futile for me to dissect this matter any further.