Fallen light poles undermine Pentagon official story on 9/11

November 15, 2010

By Craig McKee

It seemed that they would confirm for the world that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 just as the government said. But they might just have done the opposite.
“They” are the five light poles that lay on the ground after allegedly being knocked over by Flight 77 in the seconds before it is supposed to have hit the Pentagon.
The reason the existence of these poles is helpful in questioning the official story is that they provide us with an exact flight path that the plane would have to have taken if indeed it hit the building. If the flight path had deviated even by a small amount, the plane would not have hit these poles.
So is it possible that the actual flight path was different from the one outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report? That may depend on who you believe. The film National Security Alert by Citizen Investigation Team makes the case that the plane that people saw flying near the ground and heading straight for the Pentagon that morning was well to the north of where it would have to have been to hit the light poles.
And if it missed the polls, how did they fall? And if the plane didn’t it hit them, did it hit anything? This is known as the “flyover” theory. It suggests that the plane arrived at the building but flew over it as the explosion in the building gave the appearance of an impact. This theory is very controversial within the 9/11 Truth movement, and I’ll look more closely at this in a future post.
The film makes its case with several apparently credible witnesses, including two Pentagon cops (Sgt. William Lagasse and Sgt. Chadwick Brooks) who were at the Citgo gas station across from the Pentagon. These two, along with an employee of the station, explained unhesitatingly that the plane they saw was to the left (north) of the station. This would mean that it could not have hit the light poles.
These three (along with several others interviewed who agreed on the flight path) didn’t even know that their versions were incompatible with the official path at the time of the interviews. They all recounted the event in considerable detail and with complete certainty.
If you doubt whether these witnesses are credible, I’d suggest you watch the film and decide for yourself. All of them worked in the area and described how the plane flew over the Navy Annex building or just to the north of it on the way to the Pentagon. This is completely incompatible with the official story, which would have the plane to the south of the Navy Annex and the gas station.
But wait, there were many eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane clipping light poles on the way to crashing. Many beats a few, right? Obviously a detailed examination of who all of these witnesses were and what they said they saw will have to wait for a future article, but some points are noteworthy.
Many of the “official story” witnesses say they saw the plane’s wings clip the light poles. Some say the wings sheared off the tops of the poles, although physical evidence doesn’t support this.
Quite a number of the witnesses who were sitting in traffic near the Pentagon were government employees (not surprisingly) and media employees. Fully six people employed by USA Today and its parent company Gannett were sitting in traffic on a quarter-mile stretch of road.
Several of the witnesses reported that they saw the poles hit. Some even say the plane was so low it even hit a car antenna. One of these was Don Mason, a Pentagon renovation worker.
We’re supposed to believe that the wing hit a car antenna without the engines touching the road? The engines in a 757 hang below the wings. The only thing that could hit an antenna would be the engines themselves. And are these people really going to talk about a car antenna as a huge airliner flies no more than five or six feet off the ground at 530 miles per hour? Just my opinion, of course.
This incredibly low altitude is supported by the account of Lee Evey who was quoted as saying that the plane approached the Pentagon at about six feet off the ground. Mr. Evey also happened to be the program manager for the Pentagon restoration project. Evey says the front of the plane “peeled back” with the impact so that the front of the plane remained near the exterior wall while the rear of the plane went farther into the building. Unfortunately, he also claimed that the nose of the plane penetrated all the way through the three outermost rings. Later, it was learned that Evey wasn’t even in Washington at the time and so he didn’t actually what happened at all.
Besides Mike Walter of USA Today, who had a ridiculous account of the wings “folding in” even though he admitted his view was obstructed, there was also Mary Ann Owens. Owens said she saw the fuselage hit the ground and explode. Physical evidence doesn’t support this.
Albert Hemphill, a Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, supports the official flight path with his account from the Navy Annex building. He says the plane was running along Columbia Pike. This was well before the Pentagon, but Hemphill reports that the plane was in a “sharp downward angle” even that far back.
This is another problem with many of these witnesses. Quite a number reported that the plane was heading for the ground at a very sharp angle – even as sharp as 45 degrees. But how can the plane be descending this sharply and still flatten out in time to hit the five poles? I don’t believe the two accounts are reconcilable.
Several witnesses also said they saw the left wing of the plane scrape the helipad right beside the Pentagon. Again, there’s no evidence of this contact.
In fact, much of what those “eyewitnesses” reported was irreconcilable. And some of it was downright suspicious. I’ll get into this in more detail in another post; it’s a very big subject.
So check out National Security Alert. Listen to the witnesses, and decide if you find them credible.


  1. I have a problem with the overall premise of your article but I still think its really informative. I really like your other posts. Keep up the great work. If you can add more video and pictures can be much better. Because they help much clear understanding. 🙂 thanks Gregbryant.

  2. Dear Craig
    My name is reshad nawoor. I’m 25, from the UK, and have been looking into this for a number of years now, in my spare time of course.
    I am writing in response to ‘Fallen light poles raise doubts about Pentagon official story’
    are you aware of the talk given by calum douglas of the uk on YouTube entitled
    ”Flight 77: flight data recorder investigation files”. ?
    It uses the data from flight 77’s flight data recorder taken from its black box via the freedom of information act and corroborates perfectly with the eyewitness testimonies in he film ”National Security Alert”. This data proves that flight 77 was nowhere near the light poles, and far too high, according to it’s last radar altitude output (273ft) to have even struck the pentagon, and that any manoeuvre to rectify this in any way is so many orders of magnitude outside the performance envelope of ..well any commercial airliner, that from watching these two documentaries (one talk) in conjunction with each other, one can really only validate the flyover theory, as the one that accounts for 1) witnesses seeing a 757, but wreckage, and damage totally inconsistent with a 757.
    2) the reasons why no conclusive camera footage exists, because it would show the aircraft flying over and away from the pentagon.
    3)why the light poles could not have been downed..and as you’ve mentioned the witnesses who claim to have seen otherwise all have ties to the pentagon or big media.
    ..and so on.
    I hope this finds you well, and that all is well in your world
    Take care

    1. Hi Resh,
      Thanks a lot for letting me know about this; I haven’t seen it. Perhaps I’ll write about it in the next few days. Thanks for the tip and the comment.
      I wrote a post a couple of months back that focused on the Flight Data Recorder and that it showed the plane was too high and on the wrong trajectory to hit the building. I’m really interested to hear what Douglas has to say. Here’s the link for my piece:
      I’ve now written a few on the Pentagon, and they seem to be the most read of the pieces I’ve written.
      I look forward to getting more comments from you in the future.
      All the best

  3. Hey. Good work in picking out the differences in Witnesses accounts. We All know that there Were Planted “witnesses” in NY that ALL worked for the major media organizations, the most famous being Mark Walsh a.k.a “The Harley Guy”. Turns out, these so called “Witnesses” have a conflict of interest in regards to being Witnesses due to their employment and affiliation with The Media companies. So in that light, I’d ask you or someone to look further into these Pentagon “witnesses”. For example, the one who was the manager of the Pentagon reconstruction team working on the renovations. I don’t know if you’re aware of the connection between the impact zone and the deaths of who were inside. It was the entire chain of command for the Pentagon Accounting office where they were uncovering the where abouts of the missing 2.3 Trillion$ that Rumsfeld described JUST the day before, on September 10th. My point being, I believe that in the case of some of these witnesses at the Pentagon, many of them were plants. Any Witness that is employed through the Government should really be looked into because there you may discover more discrepancies and planted accounts.

    1. I love how the taxi driver who was supposedly driving next to the Pentagon admits his wife works for the FBI. Nothing odd about that at all.

  4. It’s not surprising that the eyewitness accounts don’t match up or meet the evidence though. Its well known that people do remember things wrongly. A simple thing like thinking a plane coming down at 45 degree instead of say 20 or less is a very easy possibility.

    1. The thing is, we know that their memories re the flight path are accurate because they corroborate each other. It would be one thing if the witness accounts were all over the place, but they’re not. They unanimously place the plane over the Navy Annex and to the north of the gas station. This fact has been corroborated by enough witnesses as to put it beyond reasonable doubt.

  5. Great article. What fascinates me is you can always find a new perspective on all kinds of things 16 years after it happened. See you at the victory celebration. Hopefully we can pencil in a date soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *