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.

 

A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

page: 38
65
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: D8Tee

Forgive me for my ignorance but I imply from your story that you were driving too fast on ice and couldn't stop due to your reckless driving and knocked over a light pole then you decided to take off instead of reporting it. I imagine you didn't call anybody to offer to pay them. Do I have this correct or am I missing something? I try not to read your posts because they seem to have an agenda but I accidentally read that one.
Ha, yeah you got it about right.

The simple yet effective motto of ATS membership is "deny ignorance", I'm glad I could clear that up for you.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop


originally posted by: D8Tee
A reply to: LaBTop

Standard VDOT light poles lengths, as placed around the Pentagon was/is 40 feet / 12.2 meters high from top of lamp to base.

You have a source for the actual height of the poles in question?
You claim 40 feet here, your diagram indicates 34 feet.


If you had taken the time to read this whole thread, you'd have saved yourself some precious time, AND 9 posts of patting each others shoulders for a nonsense interpretation of my posted diagrams and photos of light pole specifications you had
34 feet up to the top of its straight pole length, NOTE the position of the two blue 34' texts written beside the tops of both poles in this photo :




D8Tee : Some one that knows about how these pieces of equipment operate will be able to answer you as to if they are capable of pinching off a light standard. First we will have to know what light standards we are dealing with.
The ones at the pentagon, can we find the engineering specs?
Height and materials of construction?


40 Feet from base to top of lamp head, the lamp holder truss arm is an extra 6' high, just READ and comprehend :


Wrong according to the person who made the original graphic.

Double check where you grab your photos from next time and understand the original intent before you start using them in your posts and changing the story.
Why don't you refer to the original context of the photo where you copied it from, the author clearly states that his analysis indicates.


Pole height: 32 feet
Base height: 16 inches
Full height to cap: 33.333 feet


If you want to use that diagram in the future, you're going to have to rework it and make the poles 40 feet tall according to you cause according to whoever made the original, they were 33.333 feet to the top.

Check your source buddy

edit on 16-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: pale5218

As far as I can see in that PEOC / DOD file at SCRIBD (see my above post to pinch for the link again), the Weapons Freeze remark was made when UAL 93 was on its way to Washington, according to all the remarks that can be time pinned, before that remark was made.
I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Thus, Cheney re-stated to that young man his Weapons Freeze order regarding AAL77, in my opinion. Which, I repeat, I would have done too, you're not going to shoot down a huge airliner above densely populated city areas.


The "weapons freeze"comment was only stated once that I could find in the Scribd transcript page 168 - "PEOC: We've got confirmation of an airplane 60 miles out. We think it's Flight United 93. Apparently,we're hearing weapons freeze right now."

I would consider this is stated as a rhetorical statement but because it is the PEOC stating it, that would lead the assumption they didn't really know. Why would Cheney or PEOC make the statement if he was the one giving the order. This doesn't make sense.


I have also read in totally other reviews and reports that the PEOC secure room under the White House had some military aids stationed there at all times and also on 9/11, and Secret Service agents and aids too, and these were talking together and had their own secure line to NORAD, that seemed to had tracked AAL 77 on their main radars already considerably earlier than you make up from your reading of your sources. At that time, they just called it "A plane" without transponder, on a course to DC.


This is where I disagree, AAL77 was not tracked until in passed south of IAD airport, that's when it came back into the picture. The plane they mentioned without a transponder on a course to DC is from the mistaken assessment of AAL11.

I don't see any communication or indication of anyone knowing the position of the AAL77. Could there have been military tracking and coordination on secure lines? It's possible but there has to be something that leads you to believe that and I haven't see any evidence, even circumstantial, to believe it.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop


neutronflux : Or do you become impotent when you cannot weave post after post to create your own reality?


You will find out if you ever reach my age, that sex is not at foremost interest anymore.
Thank you for asking.
Yep, I just really got tickled from your infantile remark. Well done. It helps.


WTF? Yuck. Creepy



www.dictionary.com...
impotent
[im-puh-tuh nt]
adjective
1. not potent; lacking power or ability.
2. utterly unable (to do something).


edit on 16-4-2017 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

He is still using weapons freeze?....sorry not going to waste the time to read his ramblings. However once again, they would not use weapons FREEZE, it is way too easy to interpret it as weapons FREE.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

To communicate precisely and effectively is an art. You are garbage in and garbage out.

So far,

Going to quote where I buy into the whole official story? I am just saying it was a large jet at the pentagon.

Going to comment on most light poles are made to breake at the base, face up to your statement of light poles being cut in half, and miss representing ATS posts on the light poles.

The credibility of your specialists are called into question.

Your understanding of wing design and applied force is questionable.

It's been stated in numerous cited works a jet hit the pentagon.

It's been observed the large jet denialists are hurting the truth movement.

If it was not a jet that hit the pentagon, then what happen at the pentagon.

Challenge, just state in two paragraphs what caused the damage at the pentagon. One paragraph for thesis. Second paragraph for the most conclusive proof for your thesis. For example.

A large jet hit the pentagon.

The large jet strike at the pentagon is evident by the entrance hole, 100 plus eyewitnesses that attest to a commercial jet, jet wreckage, human remains, DNA, personal effects, radar data, coroner findings, and flight recorder data.

By the why, what remains were released to and buried by the family members that survived the victims on flight 77?
edit on 16-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and thst



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: pale5218

20:00 - There were indeed areas in 2001, called “radar holes” and they were radar deficiencies, and could have played a role in the 9/11 planners plan. There were areas of radar coverage in 2001 that had not 100% reliability to primary radar, this was throughout the entire US. And the first doubters of the official stories cam up with a map of those radar holes, and what they found out was, that all 9/11 hijacked flights were crossing their paths either inside one of these radar holes, or near military airfields, so the circumstances were certainly there to swap planes. If I remember right, it happened also when the planes went lower, while flying near those radar spots and airfields there.
The early researchers here or those reading this, will hopefully have saved that radar holes map drawing, please post them here.
I had, but I have had several HD fries over these 16 years.


I will concede to the term radar holes if that was the term being used, so be it. I know there was lack of radar coverage, in 2001 and in today's NAS. The En'Route radar system is layered is a mosaic structure by using many radar sites to cover as much area as possible. It's like laying down many small circles on a surface, if the circles overlap, there is continued coverage, if the circles leave gaps or spaces between adjoining circles, coverage is lacking.

There was many areas of poor coverage, not completely non-radar so the chance of these flights being in any of these areas would not have been so unique. There was still radar tracking, except for AAL77 when they lost radar contact.


28:00

He mentions that the hijackers made a 180 degree turn and it was completed in a standard rate of turn. His contention is the hijackers had no reason to use the standard rate of turn but if the course reversal was entered into the active autopilot, this is how it would occur.


There is your problem with that : the hijackers (or whoever else) turned all three autopilot functions OFF, 10 minutes before impact, and they never turned them on again, according to that DFDR....


At 8:50 am, AAL77 lost radio communication, at 8:59 am the AAL77 flight made a 180 degree turn in southern Ohio and headed back towards DC. This was 38 minutes prior to impact, 28 minutes prior to the autopilot being turned off.




28:40 The aircraft is in WV and comes back up on radar again- incorrect

28:50 ATC assigned AAL77 to that target, at 29:21 he re-iterates this target was assigned AAL77 -incorrect

29:54 He states this everybody declares this flight was AAL77 – incorrect


How did you conclude three times incorrect.?


28:40 it did not come back on radar over WV. Nobody at this time knew where this flight was.
28:50 ATC did not assign AAL77 to this flight, Nobody at this time knew where the flight was.
29:54 Who declares this as AAL77, he states everybody once again Nobody at this time knew where the flight was.

These statements he comes out with are incorrect, the flight disappeared from radar at 8:50 and didn't get observed until passing south of IAD airport at 9:28. The flight didn't come back on radar, ATC did not assign AAL77 to this because they didn't know where it was.



He adds that a controller (O’brien) was watching this on her screen, somewhat disingenuous, she did observe it but it wasn’t as if she was sitting there tracking it.

30:12 He adds that it’s now on radar so they can track the speed, Obrien considers this a fighter type aircraft because of the speed. It wasn’t tagged; there was no speed readout until the DCA controller tagged it with “LOOK”. In all fairness, looking at the primary target and update on radar, a controller can get a general idea of the speed.

30:42 An ATC considers it a military because of its maneuverability. There was no speed readout, there was no turn to indicate this was maneuverable, she might have considered it a fighter because of the estimate on speed, just some embellishment in his story by stating it this way.


We have to include the knowledge at the ATC desks all over the eastern part of the country, that airliners were hijacked and two of them, without transponders on, had been flown into the two WTC towers already, so a blip with no transponder on on their screen, was for sure a serious threat.
Miss O'Brien did say in a few interviews that she said to colleagues that it looked like a military plane, considering the smoothness of that downward turn.


Yes I agree that due to the heightened awareness, a non-transponder would attract attention. If she thinks it was a fighter because of the 330 degree turn, then I'm not sure what to think. To me it doesn't look "fighter like" at all.



31:30 The aircraft is barreling into Class B airspace, his contention is this flight approaching Class B airspace should cause alarm to controllers. This is an incorrect assumption also because there is no altitude readout; this target could have been well above the Class B airspace. This would be a normal and routine observation, a primary target, especially with that estimated speed would be considered a high altitude flight.

32:12 The controller in Boston is coordinating with the military fighters to have them go take a look at the very least. “They have been watching it now for quite a long time”. This is absolutely incorrect


See my former remarks again about the high alert on non-transponder blips.
Again, why is this incorrect.? If you base this on audio tapes, I repeat my remark about the NORAD main radars, which seem to have been tracking non transponder planes already quite some time, and transferring that knowledge to the SS and Military aids in the PEOC.


What I am stating about the Class B airspace is this observance by anyone seeing a primary target has no idea it's heading into Class B airspace. There is no altitude readout, it could be a flight in cruising Flight Levels above the Class B. Yes there is a heightened awareness but the idea everyone was out looking for primary targets is not true. The first two the impacted the WTC turned the transponders off but this wasn't immediately known by everyone. The following days/weeks controllers learned the details but 30 minutes after the impacts, doubtful it was well known.

As for the Boston controller and the "They have been watching it now for quite a long time" statement.
Who was watching this flight for quite a long time? Nobody was because nobody knew where it was. If you consider his statements about it coming back on radar and ATC assigning it AAL77 and everyone declaring it AAL77, then he could say that. But those statement aren't accurate, nobody knew where this flight was until passing south of IAD Airport.

If NORAD main radar was tracking it, you have to show the evidence. I can't accept this on hearsay or other reports that no longer exists. If this was something that was proved before, the evidence couldn't have been that compelling because this is not a well know fact and to me, this type of information would be significant to the theory of covert activity.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: pale5218

He is still using weapons freeze?....sorry not going to waste the time to read his ramblings. However once again, they would not use weapons FREEZE, it is way too easy to interpret it as weapons FREE.


Yea, I saw that correction before. The written transcript does have it written that way, I actually cut/paste that comment right from the transcription. It could very well have been transcribed incorrectly because I saw a lot of that with the FAA terminology.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: darkstar57

Each and every single airplane crash is different. No 2 are the same.

Just because you assume something to be the case. Doesn't mean it will be so.

BTW the Pentagon had blast proof windows and reinforced concrete walls installed in a remodel when the plane crashed.

Probably why the windows were unbroken.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: darkstar57

BTW the Pentagon had blast proof windows and reinforced concrete walls installed in a remodel when the plane crashed.

Probably why the windows were unbroken.


Those remodeled/redesigned windows - frame, sill, material, everything - weighed half a ton each. Unless there was a direct impact, I'm not surprised they didn't break.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

D8Tee, for several decennia, I was the owner of several construction firms, which you should have known when you read my posts. And yes, if I would have got the task to fake, some cut by plane wings, aluminum light poles, I would have used one of my huge lathes (5 meter/yards long).
Because then I can make it look nearly like the real thing.
Even better, fix the pole parallel to the work floor, and let my lathe bend and cut it, with some much shorter, blunt piece of steel clamped in its claws, mimicking the front of a plane's wing. And no, the lathe can not be allowed to rotate 360 degrees or more, to avoid damage, only a short on/off, to mimic a pitchers or tennis player's arm.
There are also real big pipe benders and pipe cutters. There exists a lot of real big construction equipment. The bending can be done in a huge bending machine.
Faking this kind of damage is EASY.



Please consider the logic in what you're suggesting here
IE Numerous poles on a major traffic route were removed to an industrial facility, carefully dismembered and then returned to the original site and then precisely planted to resemble being struck by a plane at high speed.

OR stock poles were dismembered as above, planted in place and the original poles disconnected (electrically), removed and trucked away.

Either way with no-one noticing the lack of standing poles with working lamps or pole pieces (much of it on the roadway itself) prior to the passing of AAL77? No reports I've ever seen of crews of linesmen with cranes removing/replacing the poles as well, as I said, it was a major traffic route.
Add to that the numerous reports from eyewitnesses who saw the plane actually strike the poles and we can only conclude that the plane hit the poles as reported regardless of the precise position the eyewitnesses thought the plane passed over (they viewed it for just a second or two prior to impact at the pentagon).

While I do admire your persistence, on this point in particular it's very clear that you're wrong and continuing with it is only damaging your credibility further. And yes, it does invalidate entirely the NOC theory but regardless of what path the plane flew, the building was impacted and all the physical evidence including the poles shows what that actual path was quite accurately.
edit on 16/4/2017 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

You shouldn't have posted that last post. I see a long batch of posts to push your opinion back a couple of pages.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You'd be right there but the volume of ramblings is not necessarily proportional to their accuracy or factuality (would make a nice bumper sticker)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: neutronflux

You'd be right there but the volume of ramblings is not necessarily proportional to their accuracy or factuality (would make a nice bumper sticker)




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:18 AM
link   
CLICK this link : LaBTop

I seem to be prophetic, in not one of the 18 posts after my last post (correction, 20 posts by now), one of you touched what I implied in the above linked to post. And I, sure as hell, don't let you off the hook.

You all clearly understand that if one of you, scientifically correct, prove to me that those 13 NoC flight path witnesses were ALL lying, while being interviewed in 2006 on camera by CIT, I will immediately concede, and leave this Pentagon attack story alone.

And don't come up with snidely remarks that eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate, That doesn't count anymore, it's just a case of very clear and ridiculously simple observations, where no other conclusion can be shoveled in, by any means.
WHY, do you think, were both sergeants placed under gag orders, after top brass saw that CIT video.?

Lagasse COULD NOT, by any means, see a south of CITGO passing airplane, because the whole huge northern canopy and the whole CITGO building behind him, BLOCKED that possibility. He stood UNDER that canopy. PERIOD.
And the view to his left was blocked by that row of high trees beside the parking on the other side of Joyce Street, and the view to his right by the two trees there, and their low hanging branches. Basically, he COULD ONLY see the north side of the CITGO gas station.

And again, if I ever saw a statement of an honest witness, that's the one from Sgt. William Lagasse, and NOT ONE of you can talk me out of that conviction.
End of discussion, about him possibly seeing a South of CITGO gas station passing plane.

Sergeant William Lagasse stood under the northern canopy, ON SECURITY CAMERA IN THAT FOIA FREED CITGO VIDEO, for anyone to be seen, and we see a flash of reflected sunlight appearing on the white bottom side of the canopy, when that plane passed.
And at that moment, we see persons at the counter inside, turn their heads north, and then, not more than a second later, we see in that same video, all those persons at the counter inside, turn, and run to that northerly door, where they flocked together to see the smoke of the impact.
And after that flash, we see Sgt. Lagasse bend into his open car window, take his radio-mike and report the impact to his base station. Then he jumps in the driver seat of his police cruiser, backs off, turns and speeds out of the pump aisles entrance, to Columbia Pike.

JUST as he had already written on a 9/11 forum he visited, long before 2006, when he got interviewed on the spot by CIT.
By the way, just 2 seconds later, you see Chadwick Brooks his police cruiser also pass by on Joyce Street, in front of the CITGO entrance, speeding behind Lagasse's police cruiser, both on their way to the Pentagon South Parking.

And don't ask for proof, just type in, those names, in an ATS Search window, and hundreds of posts will turn up, with that notorious video interview by CIT, with those two men in them.

Question by CIT : How sure are you that this plane flew NORTH of this gas station.?
Answers by Sgts. Brooks and Lagasse : 100 %, I bet my LIFE on it.!


edit on 17/4/17 by LaBTop because: Correction nr of posts.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Go back and read my post with regards to your dimensional diagram.

You lifted the graphics from here:

Click me Laptop

Can you provide some clarification for me with regards to how the original creator of the graphic attributed different heights to the poles than you have?

The point isn't how tall the poles are, it's you taking someone elses work and twisting it to suit your purposes.


edit on 17-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: LaBTop

One thing always stands out from answers by ATS members, clearly critical to my posts, and especially those who for sure have an immense short attention span :

You never ever touch the REAL meat of the matter in all my posts.

You directly go on a witch hunt to find some tiny typos, flaws or whatever other parts you can think of, to use to go on a rampant page-filler tour. And are mostly wrong on them too.

While totally neglecting the real answers for the real questions, since you guys do not have them at hand, EVER. Or have the guts to get into a real debate about them.

Since you know far too well, it has been done to death in numerous threads here and at other forums, and no one has ever had the guts to go and visit personally those two Pentagon Police NoC flight path witnesses, after their 2006 interview by CIT.
Or those 4 ANC workers, or Christine Peterson or Penny Elgas, or any of the other NoC witnesses.

Only that PumpItOut forum owner Jeff, telephoned a few of them (but not Brooks and Lagasse.! ), but he masterfully avoided any questions on the exact spot on Route 27 where Penny Elgas and the others I mentioned, stood at a standstill in the northerly going HOV lanes, while that plane, from a NoC flight path, came thundering that low, over their heads and cars. Penny stood a few cars behind where the plane passed over Route 27, and Christine Peterson was very clear on the position where she stood, namely right in front of the helicopter landing pad, and she was also very clear that the plane came right over her head.
Thus Penny stood also very near to that white, concrete landing pad on the Pentagon lawn, making the official story a right out lie. Including all these 5 cut poles.

Be a man, answer the real questions of Life after 9/11.!
Because everything we and you experienced after 9/11, is still caused by that huge false flag operation on the day of 9/11, and by its preparations from before and by its damage recovery efforts that are still going on afterwards.


All of the discussion on radar, flight characteristics, light poles, is superfluous distraction. You need a coherent theory. Obfuscation and misdirection via long-winded posts does not cut it. The "I-don't-know-but ...." answer is unacceptable.

Were bodies of passengers found inside the Pentagon?
If they were, how did they get there?
If they weren't, what happened to the passengers?


Now, pteridine, this kind of posting is an excellent example of what I hinted at in my last above post and in your own quote.
You have the audacity to quote my whole post, then AVOID the quintessence completely, go on a rambling tour about other details which I do not mention at all in that quoted text, then ask for a coherent theory.
Well here it is, short and easy, also for the less gifted ones here :

MY THEORY :
Plane flies INTO Pentagon, government says flying in a SoC flight path. Comes up with lots of "proof".
Lots of viable witnesses, btw on government payrolls, say they saw it fly in a NoC flight path. Bet their life on it.!!!
Something's REALLY fishy at the Pentagon on 9/11.!

Whatf do you not understand about that quite simple theory.?

Then you ramble on about passenger bodies.
WHY try to imprint in the readers mind the notion that I am an IMPACT DENIER.?

Since YOU especially, are not dumb at all, know very well from all my years long posts, that I am goddamn sure not a follower of that dumb Pf911Truth theory of a fly-over, but a proud defender of the NoC witnessed, curved flight path, flown in a 30 to 35 degrees STANDARD bank angle, which combined with the distance flown and the resulting turn radius, automatically returns in every online bank calculator, a far less than the official crazy speed of 825 KMH, of about 230 MPH, and that this NoC curved flight path was followed by an impact at column 14.
THAT's my theory.!

Which you knew far too well, so are you playing dumb, or posing dumb, were you sleepy, or do you have another agenda by imprinting the non-impact stamp on me, the one that got sacked from visiting that PfT forum, especially BECAUSE of my much more viable NoC curved flight path and my IMPACT theory.
Much more viable than their non defensible fly-over theory.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
A reply to: LaBTop

Go back and read my post with regards to your dimensional diagram.

You lifted the graphics from here:

Click me Laptop

Can you provide some clarification for me with regards to how the original creator of the graphic attributed different heights to the poles than you have?

The point isn't how tall the poles are, it's you taking someone elses work and twisting it to suit your purposes.


NO, I did NOT lift that graphic from Larson's site. PERIOD. From somewhere else, who took it from him to prove him wrong.
And Larson wasn't careful enough to PHONE the VDOT and just ask THEM.!
Their answer : 40 feet total height, including truss arm and lamp head, as you can see in my other photo with the right pole length dimensions in it.
F.y.i., that VDOT call has been done by more precise researchers. And to top it off, and be TOTALLY sure, they VISITED the VDOT their near-Pentagon compound, made photos (accompanied by a VDOT worker) of the VDOT their standard light poles and posted their real length dimensions on the Internet.


-- it's you taking someone elses work and twisting it to suit your purposes.


My purpose is clear : prove you (and him) wrong on ONE detail he wasn't sure of : The pole its total length.
And in my books, 20-23 feet is half way up from a 40 feet high light pole.

CHECK it yourself, instead of clamping yourself onto indefensible long ramblings and worse, trying to accuse me of plagiarism, which is totally humoresque on a board where everyone else copies work from others without mentioning their sources. I do not give my source to you yet, in this special instance, just to press you, to find out where I got these photos from, it's easy as pie, believe me. Google is your friend, report back please.
So we can see if you have the guts to apologize to me for this kind of grave accusation.

And I repeat one more time :
WHY do you guys go on ants fornicating tours, instead of addressing the meat of the matter in my posts.?
My firm conclusion : BECAUSE THOU CAN'T.
You get all riled up when you realize that something really stinks at the Pentagon.
edit on 17/4/17 by LaBTop because: Its ants.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

You're relying on a select group of witnesses (cherry-picked perhaps) whose accounts could support the notorious NOC theory and it is a theory without physical evidence to support it. And yet there are quite a few witnesses who claim to have seen the plane hit the lamp poles so, without physical evidence, we could decide that the actual path is indeterminate as the accounts in relation to north/south create an impasse but we do know without doubt that the building was struck by the plane.

Enter the lamp poles which are the physical evidence of the actual path so I guess you'd need to come up with an elaborate story, as you have, to explain how that evidence came to be there. That story sounds like utter nonsense no matter how many times you spin it - was it magic?

A thought I had a while back - look into the time of day, it was during daylight saving btw, and the elevation/bearing of the sun in the DC sky at the time of impact that fateful day.
edit on 17/4/2017 by Pilgrum because: grammar



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop


State proof the light poles were cut cleanly in half!









NO, I did NOT lift that graphic from Larson's site. PERIOD. From somewhere else, who took it from him to prove him wrong.


Well you were certainly aware of where it comes from, and you were aware that it represented 34 foot poles, not 40 foot poles. But yet when I asked for clarification of what length poles the graphic represented you deceptively tried to make the claim they were scaled to 40 feet. Whatever, i'm not overly concerned about the length of the poles, just goes to show the level of your credibility.

What I am trying to tell you is that if Caustic Logic made that graphic and scaled it for 34 foot poles which is what he had determined the poles length to be, you'd have to rescale the poles to be 40 feet to provide an accurate representation of what you have found the poles to be.

Caustic Logic Blog



edit on 17-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
65
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join