Originally posted by Zaphod58
They were also hit a lot lower than this one was. When a car hits a pole, it's hitting the portion of the pole where all the support is the strongest. If you were to hit it higher up, it would tend to bend before snapping off the base.

This isn't true.

I have worked in city consturction for highways and that statement isn't true. Yes, there is alot of support at the bottom of the pole but for wind purposes alone the metal that extends to the top of the pole is alot easier to bend. (that is why you see construction workers putting poles up with straps and not ropes or chains.
If there is a plane that is going 500+ mph this pole should have been "pinched". IE take a straw and pinch it in the middle, thus you have the "pinched" look.

This pole should have been destroyed by the planes engine hitting it or even the wing hitting it alone should have made it disintegrate.

Is it just me or wouldn't a low flying C-130 cause an enormous amount of noise as it flew overhead? Wouldn't this cause people to say a jetliner passed overhead?

Seriously, what was a C-130 be doing right there right then? Is that addressed in the 911 cOmmission report?

And how can one "see the people in planes" that are going near 400 mile an hour? Is that even possible?

ADMIN UPDATE

Member, "Merc_the_Perp" will be returning to posting on ATS as we've exchanged a couple emails and I think we can all agree that he and we got off on the wrong foot. Perhaps because of some "rumors" out there about us causing our defenses to be up, and his suspicions to be on high-alert.

In any event, I think he may have some interesting contributions to this and other debates... so let's work on "cleaning the slate", starting over, and facing a direction that gets us collaborative to the truth.

Thanks.

For one, it's perfectly obvious that the cab was moved. Second, it would be interesting to see if the posts visible in the background are of the same kind as those seaming the road - in case they are, there's something very wrong.

Third, and that's most important, the affiliation (allegiance?) of the eyewitnesses should be of much more concern here. Sure, having lots of governmental types around there is not surprising, but having republican (neocons?) and military-industrial complex people mentioned only sure is!

Originally posted by deluded

Seriously, what was a C-130 be doing right there right then? Is that addressed in the 911 cOmmission report?

The C-130 had just taken off on a routine flight when it was diverted to look for the inbound hijacked plane. It was overhead when the Pentagon was hit. This is covered in the long thread, don’t ask me what page, though.

Originally posted by Lumos
For one, it's perfectly obvious that the cab was moved.

No it’s perfectly obviuous that some people will believe anything.

There is considerable spatial distortion in the images. They are taken from different viewpoints. There is no proof that the cab was moved. And besides,

WHY?

Originally posted by Lumos
For one, it's perfectly obvious that the cab was moved. Second, it would be interesting to see if the posts visible in the background are of the same kind as those seaming the road - in case they are, there's something very wrong.

Hmmm, there are so many variables between the different camera lenses, photographer positions, etc, etc that telling if the taxi moved would be pretty hard. In fact, I could take a picture today that made me look 12 feet tall quite easily just from optical effect. There are many such effects so I don't think it tells us anything.

It also could have been moved since it was sideways across a major freeway. They could have moved it to allow emergency vehicles access. Who cares if it moved anyway? It's proof of what exactly? A massive coverup? Well, keep reading...

Are we to believe the taxi was a distraction to make people think they saw a plane or to convince the country? Were all the eyewitnesses were coached in advance of 9/11?

I think when dealing with this stuff, use the same logic I have seen the Cassiopaeans use which is "if it walks like a duck..."

Now think about the suspected coverup, the outside people were coached in advance, the Pentagon people were coached in advance, the pole was set up, the cab was set up, the plane switch was set up, a look-alike plane/missle was launched, the cell calls from the actuall flight 77 were routed or staged, the fire crews and other teams were coached to say it was a plane, etc, etc, etc...ad nauseum.

All of this with absolute timing that a movie studio can't even do in one take.

OR

A plane flew low being seen by lots of people on the ground, clipped a pole which hit a taxi and then the plane crashed and exploded into the Pentagon.

Occam's Razor and all that, which is basically the "walks like a duck..." logic.

I don't think it "pretty obvious" at all. The grand logistics required are more staggering than planning an "after war" exit strategy, which this Administration couldn't even pull off.

Third, and that's most important, the affiliation (allegiance?) of the eyewitnesses should be of much more concern here. Sure, having lots of governmental types around there is not surprising, but having republican (neocons?) and military-industrial complex people mentioned only sure is!

The eyewitnesses are not a concern in my book and changing the attack critique to the witnesses seems pretty shallow. Just look at all the other factors that would have needed to take place with absolute secrecy and perfect timing. You're saying they could pull all that off, but not cover up the Abu Gharib scandal or the WMD scandal or the NSA listening scandal?

It just doesn't fit.

I also didn't need to chain-smoke and channel it from the heavens to figure out how many factors must have been involved. It's fairly straight forward, it walks like a duck, and it doesn't give GWB far more credit than he deserves.

The cab was moved, it's blatantly obvious, no optical illusion - that's all I said. I don't know why nor do I pretend to.

I think we're all aware of the implications a conspiracy this vast brings with it, there's no need to reiterate. However, that neither answers my question about the eyewitnesses nor does it make such an event impossible, as long as there's something to gain for everyone involved.

There's a major difference between pulling a pre-planned trick under controlled circumstances and covering up unforeseen complications under not-so-controlled circumstances. That's obvious as well. Besides, what "scandal" could be observed following Abu Ghraib, WMD or the NSA eavesdropping? Not much, really - some talk and in the end it was all "justified" by the administration in cooperation with the obedient media to the satisfaction of the majority. Is that a "scandal" by your standards?

So there.

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
-How is he able to come to a stop, with a light pole on his cab, gather himself, while another driver stops, gets out of his car, runs over to "Lloyd", presumably asks him if he's ok, helps Lloyd out of the car or while he gets out on his own, then the both of them begin to move the lampost AND THEN there is an explosion from the plane?

Well. I suppose it might be time to break my long silence (again).

With all due respect Merc, I can see how the methodology of your contribution to the collective knowledge available on the 9/11 issue is any different than that which has been accused of CatHerder (and not so indirectly, this website and their owners).

Let me direct you to statements like this from Joe Quinn's critique of the CatHerder article:

The reader will notice in the above something that CatHerder does repeatedly throughout his/her analysis. When presenting his/her argument he/she pads out the point being made with additional information that is often irrelevant to the point being made, but which is included, it seems, to create the impression that the point being made is well-researched or "factual". For example, what does a link to an online pilot training aid that lets you play around with a 757 instrument panel have to do with identifying the disk in the above picture?

Let me alter that final sentence to: "For example, how is a detailed analysis of a damaged taxi cab, and whether or not it was moved, germane to identifying what struck the Pentagon?"

The critique of the CatHerder article and ATS centered around reoccurring sentiments such as this in an effort to discredit the source(s). The idea that "confuse and deflect" through overwhelming data is the theme upon which the "COINTELPRO" accusation had been first constructed.

Here we have a similar contribution from a supporter of the "something-other-than-a-757" camp, that meets all the criteria of a "confuse and deflect" strategy. Tell me Merc, with all due respect, what was your motivation for composing this material?

G.

Hi Guys.....

see you're talking about the Pentagon--I'm including a link of photo evidence I prepared, and you can scroll down to photo concerning that aspect of 9/11.

[links removed]

I say photo evidence because, with the Pentagon especially, researchers were pretty much left with just that.

People need to know this up front for better understanding--the media was not allowed anywhere near the impact, and you can see from the photos just how far back they were kept--(maybe 1/2 mile away). They were stopped from speaking from any of the people leaving the pent. or attempting to interview them with a threat, "You try to interview anyone from the Pentagon, and you'll never get another story from us." They insisted on providing all interviews, which included any eye wit

nesses were selected by THEM. It wasn't until the next day that photogs were allowed to go near it ESCORTED & TOLD WHERE THEY COULD SHOOT, and this for only 45 minutes. It was like this for days--the media had to depend 100% on Pentagon people for their stories and photo coverage. So you see they had nearly 100% control of the crime scene, and controlled the info. SO THEY COULD DO PRETTY MUCH WHAT THEY WANTED TO THE CRIME SCENE UNOBSERVED, AND EVERYBODY ELSE was sworn to secrecy and god knows what.

The forensic evidence does not match up with the story given by the USG.

They can haul out all the EyeWitnesses's they want but forensics trump EW's every time. EW testimony that conflicts with physical evidence must be ignored, only EW test. that does not conflict can be CONSIDERED.


There were only two groups in the section that was targeted, IMHO, for assassination, and that was the Office of Naval Intell. (highly secret, highly respected, and would have caught on immediately that the war games suddenly went "live", and would known who did it, and would probably attempted to stop it...the entire chain of command of ONI got taken out. Also the very budget auditors who were looking for Rummy's and that spooky-looking guy with the dual citizenship--can't remember his name) did wthe the missing $3 Trillion--they were killed, the files destroyed. You look at an aerial photo and you see that no one was supposed to survive.

This drill, which included "a plane hitting the Pent." would normally have a "garbage trucK" containing aircrash debris out of a warehouse to scatter around for reality, plus stretchers, whatever else..... BUT the first photos we have plainly show no debris, so the photo. beat the garbage truck.....later on we see a sprinkling of small pieces. The poles you're talking about are odd--some point the wrong way, they could have had small charges placed on them, or they could have come off the garbage truck--prob. charges.

There were no wings, no 40-foot tail, no NINE-FOOT by twelve Foot steel engines--nothing at all. But a few days later THEY claimed to have found an engine. But your trusty researchers, many of whom have a military background, knew the small engine came from a missile--not used in larger aircraft. Many of these --trying to think of the name, but too lazy to look it up---but as much as possible to avoid radar detection they are made out of non-metalic materials.....and they would burn up on contact, and only it's metal parts would survive--like a DU penetrator rod????

There was no plane at all, and certainly not any Flt 77, for none was scheduled for that day to fly. And while this may seem like a small item, but it isn't--boarding passes CANNOT BE PRINTED OUT on planes that are not on the schedule, and flights have to be in the computer 7-10 days prior.

It seems that Ted Olson figured out a way to avoid alimony?

Good luck on your research,
izzy

P.S. One thing I'd like to say--the skills of the USG people are no better than our own--don't be in awe of them, as we've caught a few mistakes they've made--they just have the toys. But don't be afraid of them--your brains are as good as theirs.

[links removed]



Admin Note:
The links to another discussion board were removed since they seemed to be included simply to promote the other board. They did not link to any material related to this discussion.


[edit on 18-1-2006 by SkepticOverlord]

Your site appears to be excessively biased in favor of one viewpoint of the events of 9/11.

In any event, when I clicked the link, I saw what appears to be a discussion board, but the content of the thread posts were completely white. Are they blanked out for non-members?

Originally posted by Lumos
The cab was moved, it's blatantly obvious, no optical illusion - that's all I said. I don't know why nor do I pretend to.

So you're saying that you see what you want to see, regardless of the possibility of different angles of the photographs, the position of the photographers, and the possibility of different lenses? Even the taxi could have been moved.

I think we're all aware of the implications a conspiracy this vast brings with it, there's no need to reiterate. However, that neither answers my question about the eyewitnesses nor does it make such an event impossible, as long as there's something to gain for everyone involved.

What implications? That large list of things that had to be done in concert to pull the whole thing off as a hoax? Quite a stretch. You're right though (see, I can see other angles) that it doesn't make it impossible...only highly improbable. Like I said...they couldn't plan an exit strategy so a strike on the Pentagon? Doubtful.

There's a major difference between pulling a pre-planned trick under controlled circumstances and covering up unforeseen complications under not-so-controlled circumstances. That's obvious as well.

I don't understand how everything becomes "obvious" and by your standards, it was obvious Iraq had WMDs too didn't it? All the potential mistakes that Mr. Murphy (see Murphy's Law) would have brought to the table is staggering.

Besides, what "scandal" could be observed following Abu Ghraib, WMD or the NSA eavesdropping? Not much, really - some talk and in the end it was all "justified" by the administration in cooperation with the obedient media to the satisfaction of the majority. Is that a "scandal" by your standards?

What scandal? Well, the point I was making is that all the variables to keep a potential Pentagon strike secret and then ensure the cover-up is huge. Consider that WMDs could have been planted in Iraq much easier, Abu photos destroyed and the personel hidden, even the NSA evesdropping covered up better than a potential strike by Americans on Americans. You are giving them far to much credit. They're better than Sigfreid and Roy it seems.

Originally posted by deluded
Is it just me or wouldn't a low flying C-130 cause an enormous amount of noise as it flew overhead? Wouldn't this cause people to say a jetliner passed overhead?

Seriously, what was a C-130 be doing right there right then? Is that addressed in the 911 cOmmission report?

And how can one "see the people in planes" that are going near 400 mile an hour? Is that even possible?

There's no way that you're gonna mistake a turboprop C-130 for a jet engine if it was going overhead at low altitude. You'd still get a roar, but you'd get your teeth just about vibrated out of your head. The C-130 was a routine cargo flight that had just left ANdrews AFB, and was asked to look for Flight 77 to identify it.

As far as the cab, after looking at all the evidence, I don't see any sign of it being moved. As was stated many times, different perspective, same location.

Please people let’s get to the meat of the subject here and that is what the witness himself states:

“As he approached the Navy Annex, he saw a plane flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion”.

Now the only poster who caught this is Mister_Narc and two thumbs up to you mate and I will post your quote below:

“The account given by the cab driver is impossible and should be thoroughly scrutinized as well. His whole account would be a lie. There is no way that light pole could have fell on him because "they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion". That "craft" would have hit the Pentgon well before he would have even been able to open his car door to get out, let alone the other driver”.

Mister_Narcs comments were posted on page 1 of this thread and no one has responded. Why?

What we need is someone who is good in math or physics who can figure out the distance of taxi from Pentagon, speed of plane, etc. to see if he even had enough time to sneeze!

Also, this is just me but if I saw a plane going over 500mph, flying that low, clipping poles and whatnot do you think I would care about lifting a pole of my car in that given moment?

Sounds fishy?????