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.

 

9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

page: 15
3
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Two ton pole? Where did you get that figure frim?
Try more like 250 pounds. The same kind of light poles in Balitmore were being stolen right off the street, and probably sold for scrap. They were only 250, so how did the ones at the Pentagon suddenly become 2 tons?

[edit on 1/24/2006 by Zaphod58]


hey man, i gave 'you guys' a five pound block to work with.

are you gonna tell me they're 3? 10?

i
.

what are those scrape marks in an arc on the pavement?




edited for beer spelling. again.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by billybob]

[edit on 24-1-2006 by billybob]




posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
That pole is connected to the concrete pillar it sits on by shear bolts. Those bolts are meant to shear if the pole has a serious impact with something. They are made that way so if a car hits them it does less damage to the car, rather then splitting the car in two. The force required to shear off those bolts might have done some skin damage to whatever part of the aircraft it struck, but its certainly not going to make it change course. Too much weight and forward velocity and too little resistance from the poles shear bolts. The pole would have hit the ground hard I am sure, but it would not have gone from 0 to 400 simply due to the impact of the plane. Certainly, when a car hits a pole like this at say 80mph, the pole does not take off and fly through the air at 80 mph.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
So unless the light pole weighs 2 tons is won't leave a mark when it hits the ground? It's still gonna leave scrape marks and damage to the roadway, even if it weighs less than 2 tons.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Another thing to consider, is an aluminum light pole.

This article while not the best source, talks about aluminum posts being stolen. It puts the weight at about 250lbs. Which would also explain how two men lifted it off the car.


sfgate.com.../c/a/2005/11/25/MNGE4FTR571.DTL&type=printable


Baltimore -- Given that they stand some 30 feet tall, their disappearance is attracting a good deal of attention here -- even as their final destination remains a mystery.

Thieves are sawing down aluminum light poles. Some 130 have vanished from Baltimore's streets in the last several weeks, authorities say, presumably sold for scrap metal. But so far the case of the pilfered poles has stumped the police and left many local residents wondering just how someone manages to make off with what would seem to be a conspicuous street fixture.



On the trailer.


Why would they use a flatbed trailer for something like this?

Surely they could have found something that wouldn't have left the car out in the open to be seen by anyone.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Who would be paying attention? In rush hour traffic, thinking about your day ahead, who would even notice a cab on a trailer?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Seems to me that now Merc has been shown the photos are the same and the intersection is the one next to the Pentagon with a view of the damaged area, well OK the only one, that some very vague clutching of straws take place.

This thread is an excellent example of the mentality of those who are desperate to find some sort of foul play in anything. Discussing anything with these people is useless, because no matter how much evidence you show them for being wrong they will try and find something until that something starts to go into the realms of insanity for the rest of us.

A policeman in the distance? Absurd! Especially when the Pentagon had just got hit by an airliner! What the hell was he doing there!

Trailer half a mile away? Itmust have been used to trailer in this taxi - doesn't it make sense to you?

Of course it makes perfect sense to drive around with a taxi on an open trailer, set it up on a busy intersection (all without arousing suspision) so that it can be in a photoshoot for some magazines and stuff. Even if it was staged for some strange reason, they couldn't possible just drive it there? MCFLY?


Originally posted my Mister_Narc
No. You are not looking at the right bush.

Don't talk to me like I'm stupid.

I know I what I am looking at.

Are you going to make me circle it and school you once again?

[....]

You want to call it the same bush. But it's not.

It's new bush.

Regardless. It was moved. And your little tool is going to help me show it to you.

Tomorrow.

Toodles


I also notice that Merc had nothing to say regarding the broken glass patterns and I'm waiting for him to show us all how that bush isn't in the right place.
Well? 'School' us then? I was looking forward to that.
Did you 'know' what you're looking at the same way you 'knew' the pictures were all different?

[edit on 24-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The pole would have hit the ground hard I am sure, but it would not have gone from 0 to 400 simply due to the impact of the plane. Certainly, when a car hits a pole like this at say 80mph, the pole does not take off and fly through the air at 80 mph.


that's right. when a car hits a pole, and the pole slowly tips over, what happened to the car?

that's right! you're smart. it came to a dead stop. that is because it doesn't weigh 120 tons, and it isn't flying at 350-500miles an hour. get it?

unless?!?!?!! there WAS no 120 ton plane knocking over poles at five hundred miles an hour!!!!!! (dramatic theme music, here, ...dum dum dum)

didn't anybody else pass their basic physics courses? you're nothing without the basics, i always say, lol.

anybody see the scrape marks, yet?



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
so, either the pole goes as fast as the plane, or the plane is slowed and thrown off trajectory. no?


What I was writing is in relationship to this remark. Not the words you are now trying to put in my mouth.

If a car hits a pole hard enough and has enough energy, which I believe is speed and mass (inertia), it most certainly can knock one of these things a little ways, however not at the speed of the vehicle. You are going to loose some energy in the shearing of the bolts and once enough energy is expended to cause this, then the other forces begin to act further decreasing energy until none remains. Some of the energy is released in the damage done to the vehicle, the bent steel, same as the skin of the plane. If you smacked this pole in a vacuum, in space, it would go off at close to the speed it was impacted at minus whatever energy is released in other forms (heat, noise, light, etc.). As to the plane being altered in trajectory, no, not if its inertia (energy) is far enough above what is needed to shear the pole. Some energy would be transferred in the damage done to the skin of the plane, some in movement of the pole, and some in damage to the bolts, but not enough to alter the overwhelming energy of that much mass moving at that speed in a certain direction.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Actually, FWIW, the bolts aren't designed to shear off, the base is. That square part on the bottom where the transformer / ballast sits is called a breakaway base. They have to be tested and certified to meet certain standards. just a bit of trivia.

this is the pole from the other side of the highway.



From that image it looks like the airplane wing sliced right through that particular pole, and I'm willing to bet it did the same to the one we are talking about here.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Another thing to consider, is an aluminum light pole.

This article while not the best source, talks about aluminum posts being stolen. It puts the weight at about 250lbs. Which would also explain how two men lifted it off the car.

On the trailer.


Why would they use a flatbed trailer for something like this?

Surely they could have found something that wouldn't have left the car out in the open to be seen by anyone.



I suggested that the trailer was for the Taxi, not the pole. And it was pure speculation.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
This thread is an excellent example of the mentality of those who are desperate to find some sort of foul play in anything. Discussing anything with these people is useless, because no matter how much evidence you show them for being wrong they will try and find something until that something starts to go into the realms of insanity for the rest of us.


Desperate? Take a look around bud. I'd hardly call it desperation. Only a response your guys' desperation. The cab and pole were moved, I only happened onto the site and had never noticed it before. That's it. You people can't even keep it straight. One minute it's="the cab didn
t move"...the next..."So what it moved 10 yards...So what if the cab was moved". It was moved.


A policeman in the distance? Absurd! Especially when the Pentagon had just got hit by an airliner! What the hell was he doing there!



Yes. Just an observation. What is he doing way out there. The Pentagon is on fire and pedestrians are neaby and he is three lanes over. Near the treeline. Like I said ok whatever. Just an observation.


Trailer half a mile away? Itmust have been used to trailer in this taxi - doesn't it make sense to you?

Of course it makes perfect sense to drive around with a taxi on an open trailer, set it up on a busy intersection (all without arousing suspision) so that it can be in a photoshoot for some magazines and stuff. Even if it was staged for some strange reason, they couldn't possible just drive it there? MCFLY?



Again. We are only theorizing. And again, I am maintaining that I think the whole thing was staged in some fashion.


I also notice that Merc had nothing to say regarding the broken glass patterns and I'm waiting for him to show us all how that bush isn't in the right place.
Well? 'School' us then? I was looking forward to that.
Did you 'know' what you're looking at the same way you 'knew' the pictures were all different?



I did address your broken glass. And I did school you. Go back and catch a recollection.

Ask yourself how the broken glass is so close to the shoulder line in a concentrated area.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
The glass is spread out? You have failed to address how they have managed to position the glass i the same respective positions for these different photographs, yet omitted such glaring details if we buy your version of events.
I was also waiting for you to 'school' (teach?) us how the photo Howard showed was not taken from the intersection in the overhead photo, you know the only intersection in view of the damaged area of the Pentagon, you know - the one that couldn't be any other... Oh yeah, how the bush moved...

While your at it, can you quote your posts that you debunked the positioning of the glass in as well as the post where you 'schooled' us on how the intersection is different and the bush moved? I seem to be having trouble finding them, I assume you talked about it on this forum in this thread?

Here's a link to help you recap:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can you also post a link to the high resolution picture you identified this policeman in, because in the pic on here you can't tell what it is. Not that it matters, you would expect law enforcment officials to be spread out. It would hardly make sense to have them all in one area.


[edit on 25-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I have generally only "stalked" these 911 type threads now and again, as the level forensic detail and background knowledge that quite a few people exhibit (on both sides) makes it very hard just to drop into one of the threads as a "beginner".

However I have just flicked through this particular thread with an open mouth, flabergasted at such a pointless argument. Have you guys who started this thread ever heard the expression about debating "How many angels can stand (dance) on the head of a pin?"

It means:



Scornful description of a tedious concern with irrelevant details

I honestly can't think of a better description of this thread than that. Although it is obvious from the first 2 pages that the taxi hasn't been moved, and even if it had we have a very suitable expression here in the UK: who gives a toss?

Instead of behaving like the apocryphal medieval scholars having their pointless debate, why don't you take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

Let's, for the sake of argument, say that the attack was organised from US soil, for whatever reasons you want to invent. These US conspiritors managed to organise for 2 planes to fly into the (explosive packed WTC towers). But then, for reasons that can only be described as insane, decided to launch a cruise missile into the Pentagon. If they had just flown a plane into it they would have a relatively small (though still massive) cover up to pull off. However by using a missile and pretending it was a plane, they would have had to bring thousands and thousands of people in. Not only that but not one of these thousands of people have yet to say a single word about the biggest act of treason committed in US history. So the conspiritors pulled off the biggest show ever without getting caught, but they are also insane?. Yeah, OK.

Frankly this is one of the stupidest theories I have ever heard. Who, and for what reasons, attacked those buildings with planes, is a different matter and one worthy of debate. This isn't.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Ask any investigator - private, police, or otherwise - about witnesses. You can have 30 people witness the same incident, any incident, and get 30 different accounts of what happened.

Many of the witnesses reported seeing events in slow motion... obviously the event didn't happen in slow motion, this is just their skewed perception of it due to adrenaline rush and other physiological factors.

I am a private investigator. MANY times I have taken witness statements about an event, and later a surveillance camera recording will show up proving ALL of the witness statements to be incorrect.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
However I have just flicked through this particular thread with an open mouth, flabergasted at such a pointless argument. Have you guys who started this thread ever heard the expression about debating "How many angels can stand (dance) on the head of a pin?"

It means:



Scornful description of a tedious concern with irrelevant details

I honestly can't think of a better description of this thread than that.
Who, and for what reasons, attacked those buildings with planes, is a different matter and one worthy of debate. This isn't.


welcome to 'angel ballroom', lol.

another person weighing in with evidence that we shouldn't be discussing this.

thanks for your input father.

nobody noticed the arc scraped into the pavement, yet? i have an idea that that arc suggests something about the movement of that pole. agree, disagree anyone?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Yes, maybe the taxi driver + friend instinctively pushed it out of the way. Or maybe someone else came along later and did it. Seems pretty normal to me - attempting to remove obstructions from highways.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Or it happened after the pole hit the taxi, but before the taxi stopped.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Still nobody has answered why the cab driver needed a new cab, bought by the red cross no less, when from the pic we can see the only damage is the windshield.

Just another of the million points of this story that don't add up.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Actually, FWIW, the bolts aren't designed to shear off, the base is. That square part on the bottom where the transformer / ballast sits is called a breakaway base. They have to be tested and certified to meet certain standards. just a bit of trivia.

this is the pole from the other side of the highway.





Not trying to argue with you or anything here, just asking.
Isn’t it the four bolts that go through that box in the bottom, where you can see the bolt holes, what actually break off with the impact. The bolts go through that box and into the cement base it sits on. If the box broke wouldn’t it be detached from the post?


[edit on 1/25/2006 by defcon5]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Yes. Just an observation.


Hi Narc...

What's up with your signature? It looks strangely "familiar":

I did a trace route on www.--------------.com... the Node Name is listed and maintained by the government...Location
Langley, Virginia MS 60
Network Used whois.nic.mil (for military network information) It was difficult to get the IP Address, It was spoofed and looped over 9 times. Anyway Langley, Virginia is where the CIA headquarters is. I'm more than concerned


Now where in the wild world of research did you find that?




top topics



 
3
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join