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: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
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).


Well, unfortunately you are biased, IMO. Because you have already read the thread. Again, give that passage to someone else who hasn't seen the thread. Just ask them to read it and then explain what happened according to the passage they just read.




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

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?






Did you miss this part of that post which you quoted?



Originally posted by HowardRoark

You can see the top arm of the pole behind the car in this shot.





And since you obviously didn't read the entire thread, you must have missed this post as well:



www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

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]


Yes, because the pole didn't hit the hood, it hit the windshield. It didn't hit the cab light on top of the cap either, that is why the cab light is not damaged. It also missed the muffler as well as the license plate for the cab.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
If that's all true Howwerd how do you explain the cabbie having to get a new car?

As we can see in the pic, the car is barely damaged, a new windshield is all it needs.

Or maybe they were trying to make it appear, in words, that the car was really messed up as it should be after being hit by the lamp post?
Were they counting on nobody conecting the pic and the written statement?
After all the powers that be consider us all chattle, right? And unforuneatly in a lot of cases they are right.

Doesn't make sense to me any way you spin it.

[edit on 19/1/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark





Pentagoncab.multiservers.com:

Look at the base of the pole below, the left side of the base is curved in one pic, but is not in the other.
In the pic to the left it seems as though it is broken all the way to the top of the base.







[edit on 19-1-2006 by Mister_Narc]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   


That Gulfstream hit one measly pole and went down shearing off a wing spewing debris and fuel 100 yards. But the AMAZING flight 77 Boeing hit *5* poles and still flew well enough that both wings did damage in the impenetrable pentagon ! Leaving NO DEBRIS, parts of a wing, engines,nothing scraped the ground, no fuel...

analysis.batcave.net...



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc


That Gulfstream hit one measly pole and went down shearing off a wing spewing debris and fuel 100 yards. But the AMAZING flight 77 Boeing hit *5* poles and still flew well enough that both wings did damage in the impenetrable pentagon ! Leaving NO DEBRIS, parts of a wing, engines,nothing scraped the ground, no fuel...

analysis.batcave.net...


Okay - what else would have the girth to whack those five poles?



Maybe it was a massively black-budget hundred foot diameter 400 mph missile, right? with wings that faked out all the drivers it roared over at about 30 feet above the ground. You actually are required to make an effort at an alternative, and feasible, scenario. You don't get to say - it wasn't a plane, but not offer any other solution to what caused the mass hallucination to all the drivers on the road, mowed down lightpoles and punched a hole in the Pentagon and made a plane of people disappear.

So what exactly is the name of the 100 foot diameter, 400 mph missile you're proposing?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

Look at the base of the pole below, the left side of the base is curved in one pic, but is not in the other.
In the pic to the left it seems as though it is broken all the way to the top of the base.


Can you not see (or comprehend) that those are two different poles?

It is very clear.

Now what of your theory?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
If that's all true Howwerd how do you explain the cabbie having to get a new car?


Who knows. Maybe he had too many outstanding parking tickets on it and couldn't afford to get it out of the impound yard.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

Look at the base of the pole below, the left side of the base is curved in one pic, but is not in the other.
In the pic to the left it seems as though it is broken all the way to the top of the base.


Can you not see (or comprehend) that those are two different poles?

It is very clear.

Now what of your theory?



Yes thank yoo VERY MUCH for your input. Those do appear to be two different poles. I am glad I am not the only one who see's this.

Only problem is, THOSE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME POLE THAT HIT THE TAXI. I posted the originals (from which the close-ups came) in Howard's quote box. Look at them.

Can you not see (or comprehend) that?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Who knows. Maybe he had too many outstanding parking tickets on it and couldn't afford to get it out of the impound yard.


Oh yeah I forgot he mentioned that in his statement
Dude what can I say?
Are you just trying to be funny?

And Val, nothing hit those light poles, they were planted, so was the cab. Do you get it yet?
The whole thing was staged like a Hollyweird movie set. That's why this part of the story is so important, for those who think arguing over light poles is irelevant.

[edit on 19/1/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Okay - what else would have the girth to whack those five poles?

Maybe it was a massively black-budget hundred foot diameter 400 mph missile, right? with wings that faked out all the drivers it roared over at about 30 feet above the ground. You actually are required to make an effort at an alternative, and feasible, scenario. You don't get to say - it wasn't a plane, but not offer any other solution to what caused the mass hallucination to all the drivers on the road, mowed down lightpoles and punched a hole in the Pentagon and made a plane of people disappear.

So what exactly is the name of the 100 foot diameter, 400 mph missile you're proposing?


Who said a missile?

Judging by the evidence available and the conflicting trajectory. It's a good possibility. LIKE I HAVE STATED BEFORE, the poles were either planted and there were agents along the highway and around the immediate area for the staged event. Or on the other scenario, whatever *MAY* have hit them, might have been hitting light poles that had their bolts loosened. Maybe they sawed sections out at the base, to make them easier to knock over. But judging Lloydes sitch. It looks like there is a good possibility they were staged and used as props.



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

Originally posted by ANOK


And Vall, nothing hit those light poles, they were planted, so was the cab. Do you get it yet?
The whole thing was staged like a Hollyweird movie set. That's why this part of the story is so important, for those who think arguing over light poles is irelevant.


Yeah, I get it. LMAO...and a lot of other people just did too.

Congratulations, there's bound to be some kind of award for the most preposterous theory yet....and I'm sure you'll get it.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Who knows. Maybe he had too many outstanding parking tickets on it and couldn't afford to get it out of the impound yard.


Oh yeah I forgot he mentioned that in his statement
Dude what can I say?
Are you just trying to be funny?


Cabs are notorious for accumulating unpaid parking tickets.

Most city impound lots won't release a car with unpaid tickets on it.

At any rate. Who cares?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Sry Val but are you paying attention here?

This whole thread is suggesting it was staged, Mister Narc pls tell me if I'm wrong...



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Sry Val but are you paying attention here?

This whole thread is suggesting it was staged, Mister Narc pls tell me if I'm wrong...



I assure you that if the foundational argument that merc the mr narc has is that nothing was real and that the taxi driver's words - the taxi driver who had to be part of the cast - are to be used for anything other than script in a movie...no, I haven't been paying attention. Because that's not what merc-the-perc has been intimating, now is it?

He wants us to accept that this single little taxi driver in the midst of this great big fake scene which must involve stopping traffic, bending lightpoles, knocking them to the ground, having a plane fly over - or having all the commuters lie that a plane few over (that's more important actually) - this single little taxi driver is the only person that has ever said anything and who was ever there at the fake scene who wasn't part of the big hoax, and whose words we should hang on.

EDIT: the word "imbecilic" was removed because it wasn't nice.

[edit on 1-19-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Let's just take a look at the GII and the 757, and see which would be more likely to withstand a lightpole impact.

GII:
Gulfstream II

757
757

Again, it is a LOT more likely that it was the ENGINE that clipped the lightpole than the wing.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Cabs are notorious for accumulating unpaid parking tickets.

Most city impound lots won't release a car with unpaid tickets on it.

At any rate. Who cares?


Who cares? Well obviously you don't. You don't care about the truth at all do you? As long as your 'official story' is still believed by the majority.

Where are you getting this parking ticket thing from, your rear end?
I know, let's just make things up to fit our version of the events.
Seems like a catching desease to me.

The authorities don't have to get their story 100% straight because the population has been conditioned to believe what they are told by those in authority without question, no matter how stupid it sounds. History is full of it.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Why is this "moderator", Valhall, allowed to post negative and antagonistic comments about members of the board?

This is about the 4th time I've seen her try to push someone's button.

Or is this what she does when she is frustrated and realizes she has been outwitted on a thread?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Can you not see (or comprehend) that?

I can comprehend that the reporter or photographer may have made a mistake in writing the story that included these pictures. But that matters little.

Several light poles were hit. Your pictures (that you claimed were the same pole), are obviously two different poles simply by looking at them.

If you make such simple mistakes in observing minor items like this, how can be possibly believe anything you say?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

I can comprehend that the reporter or photographer may have made a mistake in writing the story that included these pictures. But that matters little.

Several light poles were hit. Your pictures (that you claimed were the same pole), are obviously two different poles simply by looking at them.

If you make such simple mistakes in observing minor items like this, how can be possibly believe anything you say?



Can someone else reply to this guy. Because he is obviously not paying attention to the other pictures that were posted in the beginning.

They are SUPPOSED to be the same pole. But I agree, they are NOT the same pole. That is why I posted the pictures.


One more time...this pole:



Is this pole:



This pole:



Is this pole:




new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join