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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

ZZZ 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?


No, I'm saying I see what is there objectively to see. The brick wall, as well as the bushes, make it perfectly clear. This conclusion is necessarily founded on spatial considerations, because obviously we have no other means of analysis here.


ZZZ they couldn't plan an exit strategy so a strike on the Pentagon? Doubtful.


That completely relates to the subsequent point you apparently chose not to address: The Exit Strategy can't be completely planned beforehand due to unknown parameters, i.e. uncontrolled circumstances, unlike 9/11, which (could have) had all relevant parameters under government control.


ZZZ I don't understand how everything becomes "obvious" and by your standards, it was obvious Iraq had WMDs too didn't it? [...] Consider that WMDs could have been planted in Iraq much easier


If the difference between rigging a game full of accomplices as opposed to a game including players acting upon their own, unpredictable agenda is not obvious to you, then you shouldn't dismiss conspiracies so easily, I think. It was obvious that Iraq had WMD - in 1983 for example. But then, in 2001: "He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." -Colin Powell, 2/24/2001, you know the rest. Convince me that WMD could've been planted "much easier" in contrast to 9/11. WMD would've had to be validated by external institutions outside of US control, they would have certainly noticed fraud - just remember the Ames Anthrax strain being traced back to USAMRIID. 9/11, however, was not validated by outside sources, only by governmental commissions that forged a story around the predetermined outcome and did never consider alternate theories.

The variables to keep the Pentagon strike secret are not that huge: Intimidation, Authority, Coercion, Manipulation, Disinformation - works wonders. Backed up by the non-scandals at AG and the NSA.

[edit]

mdefab01: of course he could've barely sneezed, but eyewitness testimonies are seldomly accurate. Anyway, if the pole was falling on his car while he was driving, it's incredibly improbable that the pole would end up in front of his car, it would've slid off to one side and remained behind unless he had somehow managed to perfectly aim for its center of mass. But when you want the taxi, the pentagon and the pole in one picture, what can you do?









[edit on 18-1-2006 by Lumos]




posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Here is another strange anomaly. The other light pole to the "left wing" was thrown back, into the grass. Not towards the highway or the Pentagon. This is next to the tree on the left side of the bridge. You can see the road the emergency vehicles are on that runs under the bridge.



Click here for entire enlarged image.

The taxi cab light pole (the green arrow) is supposedly clipped *forward*. The other (red arrow), is clipped *backward*.




posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc


The taxi cab light pole (the green arrow) is supposedly clipped *forward*. The other (red arrow), is clipped *backward*.



Says you. For Pete's sake, try some symblance of logical thinking. Tell me (and prove to me) where that lightpole was standing prior to being knocked down. Prove to me that the downed lightpole in that picture clipped backward. You don't even know where it was standing and you don't know how many times it "flipped" before it hit the ground.

sigh



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Mister_Narc


The taxi cab light pole (the green arrow) is supposedly clipped *forward*. The other (red arrow), is clipped *backward*.



Says you. For Pete's sake, try some symblance of logical thinking. Tell me (and prove to me) where that lightpole was standing prior to being knocked down. Prove to me that the downed lightpole in that picture clipped backward. You don't even know where it was standing and you don't know how many times it "flipped" before it hit the ground.

sigh



For Pete's sake, try some symblance of logical thinking.

Was that a compliment?
Oh and by the way, it's 'semblance'.


Prove it? Look at the photo provided. That is where the light poles were located. One on the left, one on the right of the bridge.

I'm just going by the picture. It is near the exact spot the pole was originally. So either it was knocked backwards some how, some way. Or it was clipped forward and then it "flipped" backwards, in some type of aluminum alloy acrobatics.

All the other poles went forward. Why not this one?



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mdefab01
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?????



Exactly, thank you for paying attention. It is mentioned in the OP as well though.

There is no way his account is true. It sounds like a PR firm's psy-ops version. Whoever wrote that wasn't thinking very clearly about what they were writing. I think they designed the 'scene' first and then wrote the 'script' afterwards not thinking about the details.

The other thing is, members are commenting on the fact that there is no big deal with moving the cab. "Maybe they had to move to give access to emergency vehicles."

This is not possible due to his account.

If he was 'forced' to leave his car on the highway. Why would he only move it to allow the emergency vehicles and not off the highway or just take it home. Apparently only his windshield was damaged. How come he had to leave it?

I honestly think the whole area was staged. The traffic accident and "massivve traffic jam" both provided for the specific purpose of allowing selected individiuals to be in selected areas. Remember some could only see a low flying plane and THEN an explosion. It is admitted that the hills and treeline block a significant portion of the Pentagon visible from the highways.

The plane was going about 350 mph, which I believe is about 500 fps. That plane would have hit the Pentagon in like less than 5 seconds (total guess), before he could even open his door.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by Mister_Narc]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

“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”.



Actually it's not impossible. Because the time between the plane traversing the extremely short distance from striking the light pole by the taxi to impacting the Pentagon would have been so brief that it very well was equivalent to the amount of time it took the lightpole to fall and hit the taxi. In other words - if I had a lightpole falling through my windshield - I probably wouldn't notice that the world was coming undone - the windshield blowing in on me would take up most of my attention. The boom and explosion they heard while moving the light pole could have been a secondary explosion after the initial impact.

Going off this picture indicating the position of the taxi...



and using this map with a distance scale,



I've estimated it to be approximately 1000 to 1200 ft from the furthest clipped pole to the impact area on the Pentagon. At 400 mph that would be right at 1.7 to 2 seconds between the two events.

Meanwhile, assuming the light pole to be 30 feet high (I'm unsure of this, but they appear to be close to that) assuming you just dropped the light off the top of the pole it would take right at 1 second for it to hit the ground. But that's not what would have happened, because the pole bent, failed and then fell - I'm not sure how much time you have to add for that business to happen (because we don't know if it swayed a bit before snapping, etc, so we can't really know), but it is somewhere in excess of 1 second.

So let's say it took 1 second for the light pole to whack the mess out of this guy's windshield, and then IN HIS WORDS, he has glass spraying in his face and he "tried to stop the car" - which occurred after the 1 second it took the light to smack his windshield...

we're in the same time frame now, aren't we? Right around probably 1.5 to 2 seconds. While the dude was getting whacked, smacked, blasted and trying to shut his car down, the plane hit the Pentagon. I don't expect him to be paying attention to anything other than what was urgently requiring his attention - in order to not die himself.

Yeah, it's plausible he msised the entire impact - courtesy of a falling light pole through his windshield.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
EXCUSE ME - I made a terrible math error. It would take right at 1.8 seconds for the light to fall from the top of the pole to the ground. So now - we have the light pole hitting the windshield at almost the EXACT same time as the plane striking the Pentagon.

Yeah, he was distracted.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
EXCUSE ME - I made a terrible math error. It would take right at 1.8 seconds for the light to fall from the top of the pole to the ground. So now - we have the light pole hitting the windshield at almost the EXACT same time as the plane striking the Pentagon.

Yeah, he was distracted.


An excellent point!


Personally, I don't care if the taxi did move. I still don't buy the idea that:

- a few hundred people were forced in some way to make false statements
- the poles were rigged to "shear" off (not using demo)
- the cabbie was a stunt driver and set to drive that highway at that exact time to have the pole crash in his cab
- the real flight 77 was taken out
- the cellphone calls were rigged and/or faked
- a subsitute plane/missile was put in place full of explosives and painted to match
- the fire crews and other personel were also forced to make false statements
- AND it all happened to take place the same day that terrorists took other planes over and crashed them into buildings (and a field)

Now, I could buy that the terrorists were planted, trained, or set up by the government (if sufficient evidence was brought forward), but the fact is that two planes DID impact so what would the motivation be to have one fake? If the other planes (that were filmed and did have people onboard using their phones) impacted, then they all should be planes to make it believable.

TO plan this one fake with all the variables that can go wrong and all the logistics and cover-up needed is just not plausable. All it would take is one mistake and the whole matter would be blown. You can't say anything went wrong when we're trying to prove a conspiracy by a cab moving a few feet.

If the current Admin could plan and execute that so perfectly, then they would plan and execute everything perfectly and we KNOW that's not true.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Actually it's not impossible. Because the time between the plane traversing the extremely short distance from striking the light pole by the taxi to impacting the Pentagon would have been so brief that it very well was equivalent to the amount of time it took the lightpole to fall and hit the taxi. In other words - if I had a lightpole falling through my windshield - I probably wouldn't notice that the world was coming undone - the windshield blowing in on me would take up most of my attention. The boom and explosion they heard while moving the light pole could have been a secondary explosion after the initial impact.

At 400 mph that would be right at 1.7 to 2 seconds between the two events.

Meanwhile, assuming the light pole to be 30 feet high (I'm unsure of this, but they appear to be close to that) assuming you just dropped the light off the top of the pole it would take right at 1 second for it to hit the ground. But that's not what would have happened, because the pole bent, failed and then fell - I'm not sure how much time you have to add for that business to happen (because we don't know if it swayed a bit before snapping, etc, so we can't really know), but it is somewhere in excess of 1 second.

So let's say it took 1 second for the light pole to whack the mess out of this guy's windshield, and then IN HIS WORDS, he has glass spraying in his face and he "tried to stop the car" - which occurred after the 1 second it took the light to smack his windshield...

we're in the same time frame now, aren't we? Right around probably 1.5 to 2 seconds. While the dude was getting whacked, smacked, blasted and trying to shut his car down, the plane hit the Pentagon. I don't expect him to be paying attention to anything other than what was urgently requiring his attention - in order to not die himself.

Yeah, it's plausible he msised the entire impact - courtesy of a falling light pole through his windshield.


The pole is 45 ft tall.

You are struggling to explain the impossible.

You have now created a "secondary" explosion to try and explain things.

You actually made the story seem even more impossible.

Now we've got the the light pole hitting the windshield at about the same time the "craft" hit the Pentagon.

There was no secondary explosion...

"...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... As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened."

'A big boom'=supposed "757" hitting Pentagon.

'An explosion'=Big orange fireball from supposed "757" hitting Pentagon

There was no 'secondary explosion'. The 'explosion' was from this supposed jet hitting the Pentagon. No one mentions a secondary explosion a minute or two later, which is how long it would have taken for Lloyde to "try and stop his car", gather himself, get out of his car, say something to the 'helpful samaritan', start to move the light pole, hear a "big boom", and turn to see an explosion.


"The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened".

He just saw a 757 about 50 ft above him, clip a pole that landed on his car. And he's "wondering what happened"? He should have practically saw the whole thing out of his driver side window, rear view, at least through his periph when the whole thing happened. He got out of the car, how the hell can he not tell "what had happened"?

As a matter of fact. If you go to criticalthrash.com, 'Steve Riskus' supposedly took photo's "less than one minute" after the plane had crashed. There is no report or evidence of a "secondary explosion".

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.









[edit on 19/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   
LOL so now there was a secondary explosion? The cabbie completly missed the first explosion when the plane impacted?

Wow you guys are stretching. Read the cabbies acount again very slowly.

What secondary explosion?

If there WAS a secondary explosion then pls show us some evidence of it. Otherwise you are just assuming things to help make your story fit.

Even the bogus witnesses, not one, mentions a secondary explosion big enough to be felt from the bridge.

I'd also like to know the breaking strength of those poles. A 757 wings are quit big at the leading edge, I think if they did hit the light pole they would have travelled a good distance from their original position. Not just fell over in place.
Also acording to you de-bunkers a 757 wing is weak enough to disapear into nothing, but it's strong enough to knock down light poles and not effect the flight path of the plane? At 350 MPH that's quit some force hitting those poles, how could it not effect the planes flight path?

There must have been damage to the wings leading edge right? Substantial damage at that. Take that with the dificulty of flying a plane that big, at that speed, and at that altitude, by a pilot who could barely fly a single engine prop plane?

C'mon does that really add up?

(Mister_Narc you beat me to it)

[edit on 19/1/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Let's take a look at what you're comparing here.

Object A: Thin ALUMINUM TUBE designed to hold a LIGHT.

Object B: KEVLAR REINFORCED CONCRETE designed to withstand a large truck bomb going off INCHES from it.

Which do YOU think would to more damage to ALUMINUM wings?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
You're missing my point as usual Zaphod.

Of course the light pole is not going to cause as much damage as the pentagoon walls. But it would have cause some damage to the wings, and probably knock the plane off course. Remember that flight path was very tricky, any slight deviation it would have missed it's target.
How easy do you think it is to fly a 757 like that? Or any plane for that matter. Not sure about commercial planes but small planes flight control surfaces get very heavy at high speed. In any case a plane as big as that manouvers very slowly, any correction of flight path takes a while. This pilot had seconds to correct, not possible IMO. He most likely would have lost control and crashed other than the intended target.

Remember acording to you in other posts the 757 wings were very weak and light. In fact are the aluminium on the wings weaker than your light post?
Is the aluminium thinnner? Does anyone know this?

Also if your kevlar walls are so strong how did the A/C penetrate all the way in leaving very little of the plane left outside. The nose of the AC is not solid or designed to punch through kevlar strenthened walls. But anyway sry going off topic.


[edit on 19/1/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Yes you're right. a lightpole, designed to sheer from a LOW IMPACT collision with a car is CERTAINLY going to cause a 200,000 pound plane to veer wildly off course.


It probably DID cause some minor damage to the wings, IF the wings hit it. It was probably the engine that clipped it, being that the engines hang significantly lower than the wings.

As far as penetrating the walls, you have 200,000 pounds concentrated in a 13 foot round area. The smaller area, the more force exerted. I never said that the walls would withstand ANY impact at all. They were designed to withstand a blast spread out over a large area at close range.

Think of a knife against a bulletproof vest. If you shoot someone wearing it, the bullet will be stopped by most vests. If you take a knife, having a sharp point, and push it against the kevlar, it's going to penetrate the vest. It's a similar thing with the plane impacting the building.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's a similar thing with the plane impacting the building.


Sry but I just don't buy that at all. It's more like you hit the bullet proof vest with a stick of cellory than a knife.
Soft thin aluminium vs kevlar reinforced concrete? And the concrete loses, c'mon.
Are we living in a physics free zone or what?

Anyway the topic is the cab on the bridge, so....



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   
It boggles the mind why anyone would think such an elaborate ploy would be setup when it would be much cheaper and much easier to make it look like an airliner hit by simply, flying an airliner in.
Like I said in another thread, being intelligent does not always mean trying to find the most complicated and elaborate explanations for things. You might feel smart, you might believe your smart, other people may too... Sadly this is an illusion - it's actually rather dumb.
It would not take minutes for someone to stop and get out of their vehicle even in normal circumstances, when something like that happens a lot occurs in a short space of time. Anyone that has been involved in any sort of accident will be aware of that.
There may very well have been a secondary explosion, or it may be that the witnesses account has changed as does any person's. As has been said before, you can show several people the same incident and they will all remember things slightly differently, sometimes there are even big differences.
The fact it is printed as it is, and is not a 'perfect' account should actually make it less suspicious when you bear in mind the weaknesses of the human mind. I personally would find it more suspicious if every avenue was covered and there were not any inconsistancies.

But really, let's be realistic here, why the hell would they do anything other than fly in a commercial airliner? Why the hell would something so relatively simple be made so complicated?

As for the pilot's skills, ask anyone who has been involved in a police chase for instance, they will tell you straight away they don't know how they suddenly can do half the things they do in the heat of the moment, sometimes you can see some pretty spectacular driving being done from someone who would probably stall on pulling away.
Somehow I think the pilot may have been experiencing a bit of an adrenaline rush before it happened. As for the tight turning circle, if he realised he had overshot the Pentagon then he would instinctively turn sharply to try and get back onto course. When you do this you lose lift and the plane will lose altitude fast, this is called a spiral descent and you would turn in a very tight space and lose a lot of altitude doing it. The fact he wasn't an experienced pilot and was panicking probably would mean this is a manoever he would very likely do, though probably unintentially.
But that's another subject anyway.....

[edit on 19-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
There may very well have been a secondary explosion, or it may be that the witnesses account has changed as does any person's.


If I recall we have to rule out all eyewitness accounts of the incident because they're "unreliable", but we have this one guy saying he heard a secondary explosion - and we all have to believe it.

This is what's so bloody frustrating. How come you can write off so many eyewitnesses, yet trust this one guys story because it happens to fit your agenda?

It's glaring logic flaws like this that make the government not need agents debunking things, for the most part conspiracy theorists lose their arguments just by sheer silliness.

You guys can't even get straight what you think actually flew into the Pentagon. You just know that the official story (even though the better evidence suggests its the most likely scenario) isn't true. And now were talking about a freakin taxi that you can't even conclusively prove, moved.

As has been said many times in the last few days there are several inconsistancies in the official story of things - those things are just not as sexy as stuff blowing up and clandestine plane switching. You're not going to get the general public to believe anything other than the official stories - unless you can prove some foreknowledge of the incident, which your not going to do postulating about whether or not a planes wing can take out a light pole.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc



You actually made the story seem even more impossible.

Now we've got the the light pole hitting the windshield at about the same time the "craft" hit the Pentagon.



Wait, I didn't make it "more impossible" and I didn't make the light pole hit the windshield or the plane hit the building...all I did was the math. So if you have a problem with mathematics, and the fact it doesn't assist you, feel free to dig up Descartes, Aristotle and Newton and give them a good talking to.

A poster of this thread asked if somebody would do the math on the time for the plane to hit the building. I did.

If the light pole is 45 feet then it would take right at 2.8 seconds for the light to fall to the ground. Now, I'm fairly easy to work with on things like this, but if you get off in the weirdo land of insinuating math is a conspiracy, I probably won't let up on you for some time. Nor will I take you very seriously until you come to your senses.




There was no secondary explosion...



Oops...I'm going to assume you just haven't looked into the situation enough, and that you are not intentionally leaving accounts out because they don't go with your argument.

Washington Post Article from 9/11/01



The building that houses 24,000 workers and operates as the nation's military command center suffered heavy damage, with at least a portion of the structure collapsing, witnesses said. Shortly after the crash, witnesses reported secondary explosions and plumes of smoke that could be seen miles away.


"I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."


Of course, Kirk Milburn is just a construction dude sitting on the highway, so he can't be impuned as easily as it is to call a whole covey of reporters "professional liars" and such, so, maybe that's why his account wasn't listed.

Here's another witness who reports secondary explosions:

Written by the witness


And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire. Now I wanted to get as far away as I could, but that was impossible. The people around me had gotten out of their cars. At least half had cameras and the others were on their cell phones. I experienced a moment of irrelevant amazement that so many people had cameras in their cars.

A few minutes later a second, much smaller explosion got the attention of the police arriving on the scene. They began ordering people back into their cars and away. I drove to work knowing that I would not be flying anywhere for a while. In the office I handled all the details that an emergency of this magnitude creates.


Also, there's at leat a half dozen witness who watched the plane impact the building that state they can't remember even hearing the impact or the initial explosion. One man writes that off to adrenaline, which is probably fairly close. I think it was probably just complete sensory overload.

Feel free to read all the "non professional liars'" accounts of the plane impact here:

www.oilempire.us...

Parent site is here:

www.oilempire.us...

A site for a group of people who state there is much true research that needs to be done into suspicious factors of 9/11 - but ...


the "no plane" theories discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven evidence of complicity

the fake debate between no plane and no complicity gets the Bush regime off the hook
there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims - hundreds of people saw the plane, none saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot plane, smaller plane or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards
the physical evidence shows that a large twin engine jet hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon, the "Black Boxes" were found, cleanup crews found remains of the passengers, the "hole was too small" claim was a hoax
making 9/11 complicity dependent on the no-plane claim was a brilliant tactic to discredit the real evidence for people inside the Beltway, both for the majority who vote against Bush and the political / military elites (especially the military officers who saw the plane crash or the plane debris)
the material on this page and all of the websites that are linked here should finally extinguish the "no plane" hoax -- except for those who have staked their credibility on these claims and cannot admit a mistake, and those who intentionally promote the hoax. Every claim for the "no plane" hoaxes is refuted here or at a page linked from this page


I agree.

[edit on 1-19-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
People... you are being played.

How many members, have stated in numerous posts, that this silly minutiae is detracting from any serious discussions of the more expansive and important issues? If anything, this is increasingly becoming the one reoccurring thought in all these chaotic threads where you engage mental olympics of the unimportant on topics that do nut "push the ball forward."

Why is it more important to discuss the possible validity of this hack's story than it is to speculate on the target selection?

Why is it more important to banter in excruciating detail the dent in a light-pole than it is to locate actual eye witnesses?

Why? It isn't.

So why are you? Because you're being played by experts who want to ensure that you egotistical online discussion board conspiracy theorists waste time and fritter precious credibility on mundane details that send you far down paths of irrelevance.

Either Merc and Narc (?) are examples of these experts, or they've already been so expertly played they are now unwitting accomplices to an expansive campaign of confusion and deflection.

For the past five years, I've seen ATS members mostly behave smarter than this. But this trap is expertly sprung upon you: i. it plays to your "I'm right" ego of BBS, ii. it plays to your "hobby" of digging for answers (regardless of the importance of the question), iii. it plays to your need to disagree with someone, iv. it tosses seemingly interesting topics to you like fish to a seal.

And most important, it has kept you preoccupied with silly arguments for nearly five years.

Wake up. This is a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists. You have been deeply infiltrated.

This site is the only place where this conspiracy can be examined and debate can move beyond it. Will you do it? Or are you snared so deep in the cage you can no longer think?

G.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's a similar thing with the plane impacting the building.


Sry but I just don't buy that at all. It's more like you hit the bullet proof vest with a stick of cellory than a knife.
Soft thin aluminium vs kevlar reinforced concrete? And the concrete loses, c'mon.
Are we living in a physics free zone or what?

Anyway the topic is the cab on the bridge, so....


The only person living in a physics free world is you pal. I would highly suggest you go into your backyard and build a concrete wall and do some rudimentary tests with various methods, guns, rocks, etc and you try telling me that concrete is invincible. You sir need to get an education because you obviously understand nothing about physics, materials science, inertial resistance, etc etc etc etc etc. Or pick up a book about it maybe??!@?

Hey try this bro, hang a bag of water from a pole on your street. First punch it standing still, you probably blast open the bag or at very least send it flying. Now get in a car and go 100 mph at the bag and then swing, I bet the bag of water rips your entire arm off your body. See the difference?

And even if the cab moved, well, it had to move eventually right, when the tow truck came to pick it up, so even if they moved the cab WHATS THE POINT?


Train

[edit on 19-1-2006 by BigTrain]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's a similar thing with the plane impacting the building.


Sry but I just don't buy that at all. It's more like you hit the bullet proof vest with a stick of cellory than a knife.
Soft thin aluminium vs kevlar reinforced concrete? And the concrete loses, c'mon.
Are we living in a physics free zone or what?

Anyway the topic is the cab on the bridge, so....


It just so happens that I came across a show about tornados recently. What's the connection? They put a 2x4 through just about everything they tried to stop it with. They have a tornado simulator that fires 2x4s into just about anything they can think of. It went completely through brick, concrete, wood, aluminum....the only thing that stopped it was a steel lined door. Now if a 2x4 piece of WOOD can go completely through brick, concrete and other structures, then a 757 can CERTAINLY go through a concrete wall.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join