It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

page: 28
285
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

I've seen what looked precisely like the exact same model of poles crumpled up on the side of the highway (as a pedestrian), not 2 years ago. Cracked aluminum base and all. Stuff had been layng there fr who knows how long. Real close to my house int eh city. Real close to my house, real close to an access point. I even contemplated dragging the bits out of there, as I always deconstruct all the angles when I look at things, even though we'd never be able to scrap the parts anywhere. Me with my truck wouldn't have gotten the parts out alone, period.

These aren't Lincoln Logs we're talking about here, unless the discussion is what happens when a jumbo jets blasts right through them at hundreds of miles per hour.
edit on 21-2-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Xenogears

This isn't some group of ideologues being bastard trolls ont he Internet.

This is real world actual work boots on the ground in a scene of total horrifying chaas working like surgeons with tools like this:


Anyone that can properly comprehend just the air compressor required to run 4 of those simultaneously would never listen to this tale again.



Here's the thing, that's for working with real stuff. IF we have pre-treated materials that are not equivalent to the real stuff, anything goes.

You'd need information regards the long term history of the lightpoles to make sure they were not replaced months or years priors with ones that could deform and take shape with ease, as happens with movie props, which can be quite functional.

Also, the history after the event would be of use, as that could make sure they're real light poles and no alteration has been made to the materials.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but it doesn't seem impossible.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears



These aren't soda pop cans we're talking about here. These are some heavy duty building materials. To humans doing hand work as such you have no clue, unless you do (in that case you wouldn't dare try to argue with this view).



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Xenogears



These aren't soda pop cans we're talking about here. These are some heavy duty building materials. To humans doing hand work as such you have no clue, unless you do (in that case you wouldn't dare try to argue with this view).


Here's the thing, they don't have to be soda pop. Chemistry is quite wonderful. Hard and heavy and realistic materials can have unexpected properties if treated the right way. You can have a quite solid and heavy object that depending on what's been done to it might react to heat, certain gasses, certain radiation, etc in peculiar ways. You could have a heavy solid object that when exposed to a certain substance deforms, shatters, or explode in short order.

The only way to rule such possibility is to investigate long term history of the object, or to check the object after the fact. It looking and feeling real, in weight and solidness does not mean it cannot behave unlike the real thing when exposed to certain factors if its material composition is not actually the real thing but something meant to pass of for real but with special properties.
edit on 21-2-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

Here you go:
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

That crew was very active in here. They had some yuge threads that went on forever. All about the Pentagon. They had lots of supporters. And they had tons of people take them head on with the various angles of their decent.

And with this Lightpoles Problem argument I came swooping in like a 9/11 hijacker. And they crumpled like aluminum lightpoles in the face of a Boeing 767. That page there is the best they've managed from all of that experience, apparently.


Lets bring back the 9/11 Truth Movement:
History Commons
by moving past the absurdities that destroyed it.

edit on 21-2-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

What does any of that do to explain the problem of something massive was required to take them all out in one fell swoop, and still jive with the impact situation on the building?

And we don't need any more what if's. I've laid out teh specific requirements to pull off such a job, and somebody now needs to one up all that with a methodology that circumnavigates that real world model, in detail.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye




2. if the plane descended into the pentagon from above, and did not fly straight into the pentagon, how in the world would it have enough force to penetrate several walls and leave a punch out hole?


Its called V E L O C I T Y

Double the speed - force exerted goes up by factor of 4 .....

Plane was travelling at speed of 530 mph - that is 744 fps, speed of pistol bullet In this case have a bullet that weighs
in at 250,000 lbs

Also only penetrated 2 walls - exterior (E Ring) and the C Ring . There are no internal walls on 2 lowest floors



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: facedye


if flight 77 actually hit the pentagon, there's every reason in the world to consider that the craft was controlled in the same way a UAV is controlled. why would i state this? because of the near-impossible maneuvers in their trajectory.



Still waiting for you to quote from a past post, from your own words, where you ever answered how DNA from the passengers of flight 77 ended up at the pentagon.


On the actual flight of American Airlines flight into the pentagon, evidence shows the jet was flown by actual human interaction of the flight controls. The high jackers where operating the controls in the cockpit that resulted in manipulating the flight surfaces.



www.internationalskeptics.com...

Forum: International Skeptics
Thread Title: Flight 77 Manuver
Post By: beachnut

The FDR shows Flight 77 was hand flown. Do you understand, the FDR?

www.ntsb.gov...

I have the raw data, and the data which Warren decoded, which has the final four seconds, and matches the NTSB for the rest of the data. Even 911 truth nuts like Balsamo have the raw data, and thus they have to say the FDR, the entire NTSB faked the FDR. Add thousand more to the list of MIB, like me, I was on active duty on 911, thus I was in on the "stand-down", I was an active flying on 911, I am one of the MIB too; if you believe 911 truth nonsense based on ignorance.


The FDR shows Hani/Terrorists pilot make inputs which were flying Flight 77 to impact. Evidence shows no remote control.


edit on 21-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Added more thread info

edit on 21-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Fix something



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 05:40 AM
link   
The truth movement stance on flight 77 maneuver into the pentagon is confusing?

Was it impossible?

Was it done with remote control? When the flight data shows the jets was being controlled and responding to manual cockpit controls?

The evidence shows flight 77 was jerking around. The crash into to the pentagon was impossible by human control, but done with a radio control device that was jerky and bouncing the jet's flight path all around.

Or the flight data from flight 77 was faked?

Would the maneuver cause a crash? Well, flight 77 did nose into the pentagon?



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Steven O'Brien testimony on seeing a silver passenger jet hitting the pentagon on 9/11.

Includes flight 77 maneuvering.




www.archives.gov...

Eye-Witness account of the plane hitting the Pentagon

Miles played the recording of O'Brien telling Washington (Approach or Center?) ATC that the plane was "down." O'Brien confirmed that he meant the plane had crashed. He acknowledged the choice ofwords made his meaning unclear.
(He added that once before he had .witnessed a classmate of his crash his plane on final approach, so he'd seen the sight of a jet fuel explosion once before.)
On the recording, O'Brien identified the planebefore it impacted the Pentagon as a 757. He did not know what airline company it was (he was not asked this by air traffic control at the time). He cominented that the aircraft is it approached was "unusuallybanked for a very steep for a tum-It was between a 30-45 degree bank." He was looking at it from higher up. There appeared to be a red stripe on the silver plane. He also told the intelligence folks at Youngstown, Ohio this information.
His initial guess that the plane was a 757 turned out to be correct. The red stripe was probably the signature "American Airlines" des.ignation on the body of the plane, reflecting on the wing.


Continued same source




TCAS : equipment that allows you to identify other transponder codes in the area. That is how he identified other traffic. He noticed the 757 before the ATC pointed out the fast mover over the radio. From his vantage point, it was fairly obvious who the controller was talking about. The surprise came when the controller asked him to identify the aircraft for him. The controller is supposed to know more than a pilot about the planes in his air space.
Was the 757 the only other aircraft he was aware of on the scene that day?
Yes. O'Brien can't recall other aircrafts in the vicinity, such as a helicopter that took off the Pentagon or two Bob Cats that were at 17 and 21, 000 feet. Because he does not recall them does not mean they weren't there. He had no reason to take note of them.
The wAshingotn controller asked O'Brien to follow the 757 in. O'Brien did so; there was a significant distance between them. He was trying to keep the aircraft in sight. The sun was low- pollutants - many factors contributed to the difficulty in keeping the plane in sight.
Miles was able to determine that the C-130 was about two minutes behind the aircraft (AAL 77).
O'Brien asked ATC for permission to orbitthe Pentagon after impact. ATC gave him a heading of 2-7-0. 0 'Brien did not want to fly through the plume of smoke;.



More odds and ends at (Metabunk Mysterybwhite plane) www.metabunk.org...
edit on 21-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Added lead into thread



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 06:42 AM
link   
No matter how hardcore it gets debunked, it should be worth at least 337 flags. So close but so far......



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   
When the farsight Institute remote view 911 they seemed to think the missile was shot from an Israeli submarine.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: flyingdutchman2112
When the farsight Institute remote view 911 they seemed to think the missile was shot from an Israeli submarine.


Remote viewing



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Very good job, thank you. The plane has never fit in 9/11 Pentagon theory. Now we have 3 lost missilles and 3 crashed "planes". If the video from outside of the Ptgn is real, the answer is obvious. Destruction site and Your 2nd pic shows perfectly what have caused the damage. The truth is clear for awaken ones.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: everyone

it's been ridiculously difficult to track and follow this course of events to be perfectly blunt with you.

if you or any other member here can clarify that statement you're referring to, I would be eternally grateful.

I hit dead ends here all the time. phage was able to find a few of them, but the fact still stands that this entire list *has not been released to the general public.*





Phage found some of the pentagon recordings ?

Now that would be Gold , pure gold. But how where those recordings verified and what was the source? I dont believe those recordings were from the pentagon not for one minute not witouth seeing them myself at least. I might have to pm him about it or otherwise someone here surely had saved them to their HDD, i know i would.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I read through your thread from 2007 (you posted it a few pages back), and it seemed to me the argument was that all of the poles, except lightpole 1, could have been in place on the ground before the Pentagon was hit because they weren't all that visible from the highway and who would think anything of it even if someone did notice one while driving by.

But lightpole 1 allegedly hit Lloyd England's cab, and he claims that he and another man removed it from his windshield, so obviously it wasn't that difficult to move with two people (225 pounds IIRC). So conceivably it wouldn't have been too cumbersome to move into place...especially if the pieces were tucked into the bushes next to where his cab stopped, prior to that morning.

I didn't see where this theory was debunked in that thread but perhaps I missed something.
edit on 21-2-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Inc_9x
a reply to: everyone

I am not really sure that I follow your point and I certainly did not mean any offence or disrespect.

I take your point that it would arguably be just as disrespectful to the victims to simply accept a story and to not campaign for the truth. I guess I was trying to aver that in such a sensitive and painful matter, it is disrespectful to band around conjecture.

If there someone were to stumble across evidence then that should be made public, in fact it's your duty to bring it to light, but a lot of what has been mooted on these very boards has been pretty tenuous in my opinion.

As for the questions I raised, the point I am trying to articulate is that I cannot reconcile motive with the crime you are alleging.

There seems to be some suggestion that there was something in the pentagon that needed to be destroyed - that is what these theories are driving at. Given what had already happened on that day, an office fire within the pentagon would have gone unnoticed by anyone and completely unreported. Why draw this level of scrutiny to something by staging what has been suggested when all hell was breaking loose everywhere?

I have made whatever point I felt needed to be made. This is where I check out.


If you want to bring the argument that all arguments for a inside job are pure conjecture then you may as well burn the official story in a ritual. What does NIST say is the reason that WTC7 went down so perfectly in on itself with the elevator section going first (textbook demolition, one of the best most have ever seen even according to demolition companies).

Their official reason is "random fires" no other reason given.
No steel high rise ever has collapsed because of random fires or just fire. Let alone as perfectly as WTC7 did.

But you are willing to accept that and not file it under conjecture or BS just because that is the official reason given to you? You would need to be of the hivemind for that and willingly dumb (not meant as a insult to you and intended for anyone subscribing to it)


Motive for WTC7. FBI and CIA departments were there and several others. Classified exon files and JFK murder files where all in WTC7 among other things but just those 2 give more then enough reason. Billions of insurance was made on the 2 towers from a terrorist insurance which was made just a month or so before the even and it was collected twice, once for each building and a war was ok'ed and started because of the event because it helped to get public opinion behind the war which was very much needed to be able to start it.

1 day before 9/11 we got the message that they lost 2 trillion.


You want to know about more conjecture in the official story?

Osama bin laden did not claim the attack like any terrorist organization would proudly do. In fact he did the opposite and denied it. in fact it was not until 2005 that we have even seen him mention the name "Al quiada" and he was not put even put on the top ten most wanted of america list and we could supposedly not find him for 10 years while a CNN reporter was supposedly just able to walk into his cave (lol?) and get interview with the man.

The entire story around his capture and death speaks volumes i wont even get into to deep but the only "evidence" we have is a recording made from about 1 mile distance and zoomed in of a body being dumped into the sea. This as claimed was done out of respect for his religion (yeah..right) and photo's of his dead body never released because of "the children might see it" and more nonsense reasons like it. (meanwhile we are allowed to view sharia beheadings of men and woman in saudi arabia right on their streets and sidewalks because they failed to wear their niqabs properly.

17 of the 19 hijackers were from saudi arabia and only 2 were from iraq. Iraq however was invaded and bombed to hell
The pentagon you already covered yourself.

When asked after the war What did iraq have to do with 9/11" the answer was "nothing". But the reason was 9/11.


Edit: Before 9//11 itself we had a arab woman on TV that made a claim that shook the nation. It was intended to get the people behind a war, it turned out that it was not enough.

Crying on TV in a court that iraqi's took babies out of their (forgot the name of the things) in a hospital and laid them on the floor to die. Crying she did. She got busted and she turned out to be the daughter of a saudi sheik (worth billion upon billions) and she never worked in worn down hospital (well yes color me surprised) More was needed to get the public opinion for a war. Hussein planned on dumping the petro dollar for the euro and they needed reasons to get in their and replace its goverment

Enter 9/11.

Need more motive?

I am sorry but anyone siding with the official story has to be a stupendously naive fool. im not trying to be snide i just dont see any lesser way of expressing the obvious.
edit on America/ChicagovAmerica/ChicagoTue, 21 Feb 2017 09:23:48 -06001720172America/Chicago by everyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I read through your thread from 2007 (you posted it a few pages back), and it seemed to me the argument was that all of the poles, except lightpole 1, could have been in place on the ground before the Pentagon was hit because they weren't all that visible from the highway and who would think anything of it even if someone did notice one while driving by.

But lightpole 1 allegedly hit Lloyd England's cab, and he claims that he and another man removed it from his windshield, so obviously it wasn't that difficult to move with two people (225 pounds IIRC). So conceivably it wouldn't have been too cumbersome to move into place...especially if the pieces were tucked into the bushes next to where his cab stopped prior to that morning.

I didn't see where this theory was debunked in that thread but perhaps I missed something.


Lloyd England admitted that it was all planned and that he has seen it, he was not the only one driving there he "drove in with the event" Read: people being part of it. He did so when he thought the camera which was present was turned off.

I might make a thread of it later today when i have time.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: PrinceCharles
m.youtube.com...


WTH did you post that for here???




top topics



 
285
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join