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.

 

Pentagon Light Poles (theory)

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Is there any way that the poles were some how brought into a turbulence or some sort of force to rip them out of the ground without being hit at the angle the flight recording animation shows? (That is, if this animation holds true)

Pentagon Flight Recorder

That is the link to the animation to the flight recorder ^^^^^




posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I don't know if that would be possible but they could have taken down the poles that were there the night before and had the "damaged" ones stashed in vehicles nearby to be planted perhaps just before "impact".



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Well, first, let me search around for any evidence of this type of thing happening (force from planes flying by ripping out objects from supports)

If any of the ATS members think this is a waste of time, please stop me, I don't want to search something that has been proven already



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

1376. I live under the flight path that leads into Sydney's International/Domestic Airport. As planes fly over, a sound follows them (3-4 seconds) like air folding in on itself. A slurping sound similar to sucking air in through your cheeks. This phenomenon does not happen all the time, but seems to happen when overcast. Any clues as to what is happening? -- TA, Sydney, Australia



The sound you hear may be related to the vortices that swirl behind a plane's wingtips as it moves through the air. These vortices form as a consequence of the wing's lift-generating processes. Because the air pressure above a wing is lower than the air pressure below the wing, air is sucked around the wingtip and creates a swirling vortex. The two vortices, one at each wingtip, trail behind the plane for miles and gradually descend. You may be hearing them reach the ground after the airplane has passed low over your home. If someone reading this has another explanation, please let me know.


How Things Work
This is from a website explaining how things work

Could this be in any relation to the vortices affecting the lightpoles?

[edit on 11-9-2006 by BigMoser]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser
Is there any way that the poles were some how brought into a turbulence or some sort of force to rip them out of the ground without being hit at the angle the flight recording animation shows? (That is, if this animation holds true)

Pentagon Flight Recorder

That is the link to the animation to the flight recorder ^^^^^


There were eyewitnesses that saw the jet hit the Pentagon.

They found jet engines, landing gear and flight recorders.

The simulation you link to can not have been mad without a recovered flight recorder, thus if you give the simulation any stock at all, then you must by definition and logic also give stock to the fact they found a flight recorder, and thus that a jet hit the Pentagon.

Given all that, what is so hard to believe that a few light poles might have been clipped as the jet struck the Pentagon? And why would any team of conspirators planning to hit the pentagon with a jet feel the need to manualy remove light poles beforehand? It's not like a reasonably intelligent person capable of flying a jet would, first, think that a few light poles would actually stop or interfere in any way with the jet strike, and second, that the jet MUST strike the target at precisely the point where the light poles had to be manually removed.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Given all that, what is so hard to believe that a few light poles might have been clipped as the jet struck the Pentagon?


It is hard to beleve because planes have hit light poles in the past at much lower speeds and the wings were severed.

It is also hard to believe that pieces of the jet wings would not have come off upon impact with said poles.

It is also hard to believe because there were cameras from:

VDOT
Hotel
Gas Station
and
The Pentagon

Which would CLEARLY show this, yet still, even after the proper FOIA channels have been followed they REFUSE to release htese videos.

There are three reasons why it is hard to believe.

Shall I continue?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Given all that, what is so hard to believe that a few light poles might have been clipped as the jet struck the Pentagon?


It is hard to beleve because planes have hit light poles in the past at much lower speeds and the wings were severed.

It is also hard to believe that pieces of the jet wings would not have come off upon impact with said poles.

It is also hard to believe because there were cameras from:

VDOT
Hotel
Gas Station
and
The Pentagon

Which would CLEARLY show this, yet still, even after the proper FOIA channels have been followed they REFUSE to release htese videos.

There are three reasons why it is hard to believe.

Shall I continue?


So, this conversation is happening on different threads. ha ha

Anyway, yes, let's continue. If someone manually brought down the light poles before the jet strike, then why didn't anyone see them although it was happening right on major thoroughfare at or near rush hour? The answer is that obviously no one was seen removing poles because, first, it didn't happen, and second, a conspirator would instead tell the pilot to fly high enough to avoid knocking down any poles or buildings (though it doesn't mean an amateur pilot would be able to do it flawlessly anyway, which is another sign that these pilots were not fully-trained).

And as I said in that other thread, precedents do not establish rules. Rather, precedents are useful to establish EXCEPTIONS to the rule. Just because one plane sheered a wing at some point when it hit a pole, it does not mean that all planes must therefore sheer a wing. For example, if in this case the jet never hit the poles with it's wings, then it obviously would not sheer off it's wings.

It is reasonable to assume and believe that jets can indeed knock down poles like this without crashing or sheering off wings. I would be surprised if in al the history of aviation that this hasn't hapened before (planes knocking things down without crashing or sheering off wings).



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Anyway, yes, let's continue. If someone manually brought down the light poles before the jet strike, then why didn't anyone see them although it was happening right on major thoroughfare at or near rush hour?


Like I said, I am not going to speculate on how the poles got in the condition they were in. That is not my point to speculate.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
And as I said in that other thread, precedents do not establish rules. Rather, precedents are useful to establish EXCEPTIONS to the rule.


Exceptions to the rule, just like everything else in the official 9/11 accounts.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
It is reasonable to assume and believe that jets can indeed knock down poles like this without crashing or sheering off wings. I would be surprised if in al the history of aviation that this hasn't hapened before (planes knocking things down without crashing or sheering off wings).


Find me a source for a jumbo jet hitting a pole with it's wing and not breaking off the wing.

I have found you a source where it hit a pole and the wing broke ioff.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   

[

That is not my point to speculate.


Find me a source for a jumbo jet hitting a pole with it's wing and not breaking off the wing.


This whole forum is about speculation, so please continue doing so as you have been.

The source I refer to is the Pentagon on 911. There is more than ample evidence to suggest that a jetliner struck several poles on its final trajectory to the Pentagon. After all, downed light poles were found very near to the Pentagon in the direct path the plane is known to have taken. And major components of a jetliner were found in the Pentagon. To top that off, no witnesses have come forward to claim they saw anyone manually removing light poles or that they saw lightpoles lying in the middle of a busy highway at rush hour just prior to the attack.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
The source I refer to is the Pentagon on 911.


According to the 9/11 Comissioners "the Pentagon" (re: DoD) lied about many things on 9/11 and regarding 9/11 so I do not accept their story as valid.

They also openly admit to lying about Iraq...

Sorry, but their story and witnesses reliability have been impeached.

You seem to imply that I do not think an aircraft could have taken out the poles, I conceed I do believe it could have... just not a 757.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Slap Nuts -

I agree there's inconsistancies, but what other plane do you thing knocked all the poles over? Either a heavier plane knocked 'em over and flew away (no evidence or reliable witness accounts of this), or no aircraft at all knocked them over and they were positioned that way (I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed that).

Stuff like this is where it starts getting into the IPU (invisible pink unicorn) logic.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
Slap Nuts -

I agree there's inconsistancies, but what other plane do you thing knocked all the poles over? Either a heavier plane knocked 'em over and flew away (no evidence or reliable witness accounts of this), or no aircraft at all knocked them over and they were positioned that way (I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed that).

Stuff like this is where it starts getting into the IPU (invisible pink unicorn) logic.


That is not what I meant at all. I do not have a list of airframes that might be able to withstand those impacts SO, I will not say NO PLANE COULD HAVE DONE THAT.. I am simply leaving the door open.

As far as tht 757 or any othe Boeing commercial jet liner airframe goes, history tells us it is highly unlikely the plane could survive those impacts.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Astygia
Slap Nuts -

I agree there's inconsistancies, but what other plane do you thing knocked all the poles over? Either a heavier plane knocked 'em over and flew away (no evidence or reliable witness accounts of this), or no aircraft at all knocked them over and they were positioned that way (I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed that).

Stuff like this is where it starts getting into the IPU (invisible pink unicorn) logic.


That is not what I meant at all. I do not have a list of airframes that might be able to withstand those impacts SO, I will not say NO PLANE COULD HAVE DONE THAT.. I am simply leaving the door open.

As far as tht 757 or any othe Boeing commercial jet liner airframe goes, history tells us it is highly unlikely the plane could survive those impacts.


Your 'history" appears to be based on ONE report you have cherry picked from all others.

Since you are now claiming that history is on your side, can you provide an extensive historical trend of numerous incident reports showing that 100% (or nearly 100%) of all plane incidents involving clipped poles of any kind involve sheered wings or other majhor components?

I think it is silly to claim that ONE report out of the entire history of aviation is sufficient for you to claim that it is highly unlikely a 757 could knock down a light pole and basically survive intact long enough to fly a few more yards at high speed and hit its intended target.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Posted these in the Lloyd thread.

Here's a video of a remote controlled passenger plane shearing the tops from several hundred feet of trees before it eventually goes down.

This one goes through some fence posts...

This private plane's hit the ground and didn't even break, just buckled.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
To the OP's comments;

I have read that the expertise of the pilot was brought into question because it had been stated that to keep a 757 at that speed close to the ground would be quite a chore, even for an experienced pilot. This is due to the natural lift of the airframe as it approaches the deck, and as the plane gets closer to the ground the condition increases. If this is so, and the air mass between the ground and the airframe is being compressed, then I would say that area would be one of extreme turbulence & shifting pressures.

Could this be the catalyst for downing the poles, yet also satisfying Slap Nuts criteria about wing impacts? Just a thought. Comments?


spelling

[edit on 12-9-2006 by 2PacSade]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I don't think flimsy tops of trees or fence posts can be compared to steel posts with foundations! Good links though, thanx for posting them - would be interested in seeing aircraft hitting any thing more substantial, gonna look now.


Originally posted by Astygia
Posted these in the Lloyd thread.

Here's a video of a remote controlled passenger plane shearing the tops from several hundred feet of trees before it eventually goes down.

This one goes through some fence posts...

This private plane's hit the ground and didn't even break, just buckled.


If an aircraft did do the damage to those posts i have two theories.
#1 What if only the engines hit (wings may not be ripped off, just an idea, no research)
#2 2PacSade has an interesting point, as others have also pointed out. The effect talked about is called wing in ground effect (WIG) there have been many craft which exclusively use this phenomena as it is a more efficient way of flying. I wanted to build a simple model once, didn’t have recourses, but search on WIG craft (Caspian sea monster rocks!!)


p.s. damage to the pentagon does not show anything bigger than a missile



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dipsothedrunk
I don't think flimsy tops of trees or fence posts can be compared to steel posts with foundations! Good links though, thanx for posting them - would be interested in seeing aircraft hitting any thing more substantial, gonna look now.


Only except the poles were thin aluminium and didn't have rigid foundations, contrary they're designed to break off at base in case of a small car impact at about 20mph close to ground.
Now let's see how much bigger would be the momentum of impact of plane travelling much faster and hitting pole much higher off the base?



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
Posted these in the Lloyd thread.

Here's a video of a remote controlled passenger plane shearing the tops from several hundred feet of trees before it eventually goes down.


That's not a remote controlled plane, it was an automated one. And unfortunately the pilots inside (who weren't doing any flying) died. Unfortunately the computer would not let them override.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Like I said, I am not going to speculate on how the poles got in the condition they were in. That is not my point to speculate.

I have found you a source where it hit a pole and the wing broke ioff.


So you don't feel a plane hit the pentagon because of the light poles. But yet you offer no counter arguments that are more plausible? You would also have to dismiss all the other evidence as well such as the 1000s of eyewitnesses.

The problem is that you cannot simply take pot shots and small parts of an entire investigation and expect that to void the entire research. A plane hitting the poles is more than plausible. Maybe it did not happen, but until one can find a more plausible explination, it would have to stand that it's the most likely cause of the light poles being clipped. Pretty muchj ever other speculation requires a lot of other speculations that become less and less plausible as you add them up.

Simply finding another plane that had its wings clipped off is not evidence that it could not happen in this case. There are too many variables to make such a determination. And it would come down to speculation. And you just said it's not your point to speculate.

What is going to fail is the weakest point. So it's a question of which is weaker. The plane wing, or light poles that were built to break upon impact.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Oh, I didn't know that, that sucks.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join