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: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

the 2nd stone wall is not a continuation of the more visible stone wall but is the stone wall from the other side of the overpass.

either way it clearly blocks the metal guardrail from in front of the taxi if you were to take a picture from that angle.

[edit on 19-1-2006 by Mister_Narc]


Ok I see that there are not windows now, no need to take that tone.

But supposing then it is a wall from another overpass why would it block the view of the taxi. To me it looks quite a distance infact I would say that the other picture was taken from about the same distance.




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Now here is another story:



Fortunato, Don
"Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think."
"Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think. . . . There were a lot of people with severe burns, severe contusions, severe lacerations, in shock and emotional distress . . ."
"Washington's Heroes - On the ground at the Pentagon on Sept. 11," Newsweek, 9/28/01


Pieces of the lamp post. So story B negates story A and we're back at so what? Why is the cab important? Moved, unmoved, all smashed, a bit smashed...it only proves that there was a cab and it might have moved and was sort of smashed.



Thanx for that Zeddicus. That should probably go nicely in the collection of witness accounts that contradict this event.

Why was it moved?

As stated before. Part of the staged psy-ops that was pulled off that morning was to make it look like a 757 hit the Pentagon. This is just another reason to believe it didn't.

If you look at the cab on the bridge. It was behind the right set of trees, maybe to hide it and what they were getting ready to do. This pic is evidently the only pic of them on the bridge. Maybe they started with the photo opportunity here and then moved it later to get the other shot. To drive home a point that the light poles were knocked down in this exact trajectory. Again, if you have either a lightweight craft or no craft at all to knock over light poles, then you would need to make it look like there were light poles knocked over. That is what is so important about a moved taxi cab.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
And also for those of you who continue to claim people questioning the Taxi event are 'agents' trying to only serve up distraction to keep people from 'real' 9/11 issues (Agent Smith, Grimm, etc). You might want to start with looking at the board you are posting on. No offense to the owners/admins here. But all one has to do is visit the discussion board choices to see all the "distractions" that would keep one from 'real 9/11 issues', not that it may be intentional. But please just look at what you are saying.

And furthermore, go back up to the beginning of the thread. You will see that this "thread" was pulled from a series of posts regarding contradictory events at the Pentagon in the "A 757 hit the Pentagon" thread. The OP didn't post this thread. The admin took it and made a thread out of it.

Now what was it you were saying about this thread being created to be a distraction from real 9/11 issues???



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark



Compare the diameter of the base of the pole with the pavement striping.

If the stripes are about 4 inches wide, how big is the pole?

Here is a typical spec sheet for this type of light pole.





gosh.

when i look at the spec sheet you provided the specs and diagram for the base of the pole match pretty perfectly with the exposed base we can see in this pic.

i sure don't see how that could possibly be the rubber grommet piece that would actually connect the top arm to the post.

this is clearly the actual post itself without the top arm and NOT just the top arm piece.

look at how long it is.

are you really trying to insinuate that this is merely the top arm piece of the post only?




and do you really maintain that the damage (lack of rather) to that hood could possibly be the result of a pole that long hitting it after being knocked down by a 757?




[edit on 19-1-2006 by Lyte Trizzle]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Thanx for that Zeddicus. That should probably go nicely in the collection of witness accounts that contradict this event.


No, it contradicts the cabbie's story...not the event. Again, you're stretching.


Why was it moved?

As stated before. Part of the staged psy-ops that was pulled off that morning was to make it look like a 757 hit the Pentagon. This is just another reason to believe it didn't.


Your statement says "Part of the staged psy-ops that was pulled off that morning was..."

Where did that come from? How did a cab that still hasn't been proven to move and some poles that were sheared off (now with a big sword maybe hiding behind a taxi for cover) become a "staged psy-op."

You don't say "could" or "might" or "maybe." You're saying it happened.

Funny because I guess all those witness stories contradict yours so you just eliminated yourself too.


Seriously, why make it "look" like a 757 when "they" (the bad guys) actually HAD a 757? You really don't seem to look at motive with the crime. What is the motive to:

- get rid of the real plane and passengers
- fake the cell calls
- get a missle launched within range AND fly it below radar yet full unseen by anyone one the ground anywhere in DC
- brief all eyewitnesses in advance so the stories to the roving press would all be of a plane
- brief the fire crews so their story would be of a plane
- fake shearing the poles (and with what? not a torch or a bomb clearly)
- ask the "witnesses" to put their lives on the line avoiding poles, fire, explosions, cars, debries, etc, etc and still say it was a plane
- do it all on the same day that it just happens "real" terrorist take planes and fly them into other targets (definately lucky timing)

Lord, I could go on...

What exactly is the motivation there? I have post all this before (twice I think now) and of course you avoid it. Why? Because all of those things that would NEED to happen to make this really a "psy-op" are staggering.

We missed rescuing hostages in Iran in the 80's. We screwed up in Mogadishu. We couldn't get Bin Laden. We couldn't find Hussein for a long time. We have "accidents" with actual Ops all over the world...but they did all this planning and set up and there were no mistakes anyone can find except to question if a cab moved a few feet or if it got hit with the whole pole or part of a pole?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

What exactly is the motivation there? I have post all this before (twice I think now) and of course you avoid it. Why? Because all of those things that would NEED to happen to make this really a "psy-op" are staggering.

We missed rescuing hostages in Iran in the 80's. We screwed up in Mogadishu. We couldn't get Bin Laden. We couldn't find Hussein for a long time. We have "accidents" with actual Ops all over the world...but they did all this planning and set up and there were no mistakes anyone can find except to question if a cab moved a few feet or if it got hit with the whole pole or part of a pole?



of course they would plant witnesses/evidence in a covert false flag terror operation of this magnitude.

the cell phone calls were key in getting people to beleive the official story right away and the anomalies involved with the cell phone calls are staggering and deserve a thread of their own.

why are you posting a bunch of irrelevant general nonsense?

couldn't "catch" bin laden? of course not!! that's the last thing they wanted to do to their number one patsy.

couldn't get saddam for "a long time"??? LOL!


it looks like you got frustrated with things you can't explain and spewed whatever you could to cover it up!




besides.........do you really think you are aware of every covert illegal operation in US/British/Israeli intelligence history?

are you trying to say that every single operation has been uncovered somehow and that because this one hasn't (yet) therefore it wasn't one?

strange logic.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I have to go with Zedd on this one. WHY use a missile, or another type of plane when they could quite easily use a real 757?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I have to go with Zedd on this one. WHY use a missile, or another type of plane when they could quite easily use a real 757?


and how on earth do you think they could "easily" use a real one?

that's another part of the official story that simply doesn't hold water.

hani hanjour could NOT have maneuvered that plane in the desired trajectory (hitting the renovated portion exactly) and neither could an experienced pilot according to many that have testified as such.

the pentagon strike was carried out with military precision and for people that know aircraft (commercial pilots, aeronautical engineers) they know that it just couldn't have been carried out in this fashion with a 757.

especially by hani hanjour.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I used to work airport security. I know EXACTLY how easy it was to hijack a plane. ALL the ATC controllers that said that a 757 couldn't carry out this manuver had a convenient portion dropped from their quotes. After the part everyone ends at, they said "they just don't do that. It's not safe." Nothing to do with whether a 757 could do the manuver, but concern for the passengers safety.



[edit on 1/19/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZoranderWe missed rescuing hostages in Iran in the 80's. We screwed up in Mogadishu. We couldn't get Bin Laden. We couldn't find Hussein for a long time. We have "accidents" with actual Ops all over the world...but they did all this planning and set up and there were no mistakes anyone can find except to question if a cab moved a few feet or if it got hit with the whole pole or part of a pole?




don't forget, Bush and company have been planning this since they botched the '93 WTC bombing so they've had plenty of time to get it right.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Hi all. I have been reading this thread and a few of the other ones but haven't posted cause I don't think I have anything of value to contribute. I do enjoy the discussion. I'm not an expert on any subject that would be pertinent to this topic. Until now.
Mister_narc you seek an unbiased opinion of the cabbies account well here goes(I have no leanings in either direction):
I don't see any correlation between the plane hitting the light pole and the explosion. He didn't say the plane caused the explosion. Just that there was an explosion. And he didn't specify whether it was the first or second explosion. He said the plane hit the pole which hit his cab. He heard an explosion. I don't get the sense from the account that the writer was implying anything other than what the man said. Btw I'm a writer(poetry mostly).
Anyway I do enjoy reading these threads and just thought this offered me a chance to speak up. Oh and I fail to see the relevance of the cab to what happened.
Hope this helps if not then please resume your regularly scheduled program.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
it looks like you got frustrated with things you can't explain and spewed whatever you could to cover it up!


No...guess you missed the point. That will teach me to write better.




besides.........do you really think you are aware of every covert illegal operation in US/British/Israeli intelligence history?


No, but I would be willing to bet I know more than most.



are you trying to say that every single operation has been uncovered somehow and that because this one hasn't (yet) therefore it wasn't one?

strange logic.


No. I'm saying to make the "non-757" believable, you need more than a maybe-moved cab and some poles. Look at motive. Has anyone even explained that? The Prez could have waged his war on the actual plane crashes. Why fake one (that just happens the same day the real ones did) and then set up ALL of those things I list above?

If you know how Ops are planned, then you know that I wrote a casual off-hand list. There would have been way more than that. So, what's the motivation? To start a war, but the actual terrorists happen to pick the same day? How did they manage to control so many variables in the area, plus what was going on in the country at the same time?

It just doesn't fit. Might as well say the Greys snatched the plane and then shot a laser-plane hologram at the Pentagon. It's actually more believable of a story.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I have to go with Zedd on this one. WHY use a missile, or another type of plane when they could quite easily use a real 757?



Easily? Getting a novice pilot to man and control a 757 in order to hit a VERY specific and difficult area without crashing it or wrecking it before hitting the target is easy?

If you want to make sure you hit your target and not do any serious damage to an area that is near empty, leaving the Pentagon still functioning. You don't use a 757. Or a novice pilot.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
IF it was a gov't op, who says they would use a novice pilot? They could get an experienced pilot, and have setup Hani Hanjour to appear to be the pilot. They already had three planes that day, why risk blowing the whole thing wide open by NOT using a fouth, real plane.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Here's the 'globe' of the light pole on the ground here. Note the red line and the stone wall that runs along side of it:



Larger image


Now note the same globe, circled in blue. And please note the red line running along side the *guardrail*, NO stone wall:



Larger image


The cab and pole were moved.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

No. I'm saying to make the "non-757" believable, you need more than a maybe-moved cab and some poles. Look at motive. Has anyone even explained that? The Prez could have waged his war on the actual plane crashes. Why fake one (that just happens the same day the real ones did) and then set up ALL of those things I list above?

If you know how Ops are planned, then you know that I wrote a casual off-hand list. There would have been way more than that. So, what's the motivation? To start a war, but the actual terrorists happen to pick the same day? How did they manage to control so many variables in the area, plus what was going on in the country at the same time?

It just doesn't fit. Might as well say the Greys snatched the plane and then shot a laser-plane hologram at the Pentagon. It's actually more believable of a story.


you have got to be kidding.

as if this is the only thing questionable about the pentagon!

this is a mere side note and you know it homey.

whoever said it was "the prez" that carried it out?

actual terrorists? what are you talking about.

half were double agents/patsies and half were stolen identities.

even robert mueller acknowledged this but yet the 9/11 commission ignored it!

this was not just about the iraq war it was about a PERMANENT GLOBAL WAR.

that is what we have declared.

as soon as people forget......

they just release a new video with their favorite actor.

www.cnn.com



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They already had three planes that day, why risk blowing the whole thing wide open by NOT using a fouth, real plane.



Who says the other three were real planes?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Show even a HINT of proof that they weren't. Or did the gov't somehow brainwahs THOUSANDS of people that stood there watching them hit. Oh wait! It was the alien holographic ray!



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZoranderWe missed rescuing hostages in Iran in the 80's. We screwed up in Mogadishu. We couldn't get Bin Laden. We couldn't find Hussein for a long time. We have "accidents" with actual Ops all over the world...but they did all this planning and set up and there were no mistakes anyone can find except to question if a cab moved a few feet or if it got hit with the whole pole or part of a pole?




don't forget, Bush and company have been planning this since they botched the '93 WTC bombing so they've had plenty of time to get it right.





And who said it was botched?

If you were trying to establish, incrementally, Islamic Terrorism and the scenario of unfinished business with the WTC. I would say it was a success.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Show even a HINT of proof that they weren't. Or did the gov't somehow brainwahs THOUSANDS of people that stood there watching them hit. Oh wait! It was the alien holographic ray!


I could post the dozens of reports of Flight 11 being a "small commuter plane". The Naudet footage, when carefully analyzed shows a smaller jet firing missiles off it's wings right before a bright flash, that precedes impact. Flight 11 also shows up as not taking off on 9/11. Also, a new graphic obtained by freedom of information shows Flight11 9.6 miles west of the World Trade Center at 8:47, time of impact. How about we just start and stop with Flight 11 since this is about the taxi?

[edit on 19-1-2006 by Mister_Narc]




top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join