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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Actually the pilot survived. There were passengers, and it was at an airshow (which is STUPID to begin with). Airbus originally said it was a computer problem, but later said the pilot was hotdogging and they charged him with manslaughter and he was in jail until recently.

As for the plane that hit the lightpoles, if they were in a parking lot they were a different kind of light pole. The lights in the parking lots of most airports are a lot sturdier and heavier framed than the light poles around the Pengtagon.




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The lights in the parking lots of most airports are a lot sturdier and heavier framed than the light poles around the Pengtagon.


This is not true. It was a Rent a car lot where they would have used the most COST EFFECTIVE poles... READ: Cheap. DOT does not use cheap... they use STRONG and long lasting. I live 10 miles away and will photgraph them for you.

Stop posting your guesses as fact.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
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.


You obvoiusly have no backgournd in physics... an Al skin airplane hits "metal" poles at 500mph RIPPING some of them out of the ground and you believe this should not damage the fragile Al skin on the plane all the way back to the wing spar?

The wing spar is the only thing in the wing that could have "cut" and "riped" the poles like that.

You cant even WALK on most of the winf of a jumbo jet because it is so weak. Birds blow holes in the wings... but not light poles?

You are nuts.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by snoopy
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.


You obvoiusly have no backgournd in physics... an Al skin airplane hits "metal" poles at 500mph RIPPING some of them out of the ground and you believe this should not damage the fragile Al skin on the plane all the way back to the wing spar?

The wing spar is the only thing in the wing that could have "cut" and "riped" the poles like that.

You cant even WALK on most of the winf of a jumbo jet because it is so weak. Birds blow holes in the wings... but not light poles?

You are nuts.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 13-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]


The wings may very well have been damaged--even severely.

But do you think the poles altered the course/trajectory of those wings and the jet in any way that would change the outcome (a strike on the Pentagon which was no just yards away at the time the wings struck the poles)? Of course not!



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
The wings may very well have been damaged--even severely.

But do you think the poles altered the course/trajectory of those wings and the jet in any way that would change the outcome (a strike on the Pentagon which was no just yards away at the time the wings struck the poles)? Of course not!



If the wings were severley damaged... where are ANY of the pieces?

YEs, hitting poles probably WOULD change the trajectory or MORE ACCURATELY the attitude of the plan... it would roll the nose downward and SINCE the plane engines would have been about 5 feet clear of the ground (if that) the whole way in (or how would it have hit the poles and the first floor?) it would take very little to send the plane skidding nose first into the ground.

Now, if ANY piece of the poles went into an engine... there should have been engine parts EVERYWHERE... Have you ever seen what happens to thos engines when even a small object touches the fins? BOOM! engine goes EVERYWHERE...

So, now I am to believe that hitting and ripping out of the ground all of those poles left no aircraft debris, did not change the flight path, none of the "chunks" or poles hit an engine and the flight maintained its 5' altitude through it all right to the Pentagon without EVER touching the ground?

NEAT trick.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:54 AM
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.

This one goes through some fence posts...

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


Which of these hit a metal pole at high speed?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
But yet you offer no counter arguments that are more plausible?


No I do not as the evidence to do so has been supressed, stolen and hidden by the FBI and DoD.


Originally posted by snoopyYou would also have to dismiss all the other evidence as well such as the 1000s of eyewitnesses.


Now it is THOUSANDS? You ar a flat out liar.


Originally posted by snoopy
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.


Sure I can... that is what happens to the "CTers" all day long here. "holograms" "pods"...


Originally posted by snoopy
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.


The thin AL skin of the aircraft chould have been severely damaged. We would expect to see parts and pieces of this... I explaind it above.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor
The wings may very well have been damaged--even severely.

But do you think the poles altered the course/trajectory of those wings and the jet in any way that would change the outcome (a strike on the Pentagon which was no just yards away at the time the wings struck the poles)? Of course not!



If the wings were severley damaged... where are ANY of the pieces?

YEs, hitting poles probably WOULD change the trajectory or MORE ACCURATELY the attitude of the plan... it would roll the nose downward and SINCE the plane engines would have been about 5 feet clear of the ground (if that) the whole way in (or how would it have hit the poles and the first floor?) it would take very little to send the plane skidding nose first into the ground.

Now, if ANY piece of the poles went into an engine... there should have been engine parts EVERYWHERE... Have you ever seen what happens to thos engines when even a small object touches the fins? BOOM! engine goes EVERYWHERE...

So, now I am to believe that hitting and ripping out of the ground all of those poles left no aircraft debris, did not change the flight path, none of the "chunks" or poles hit an engine and the flight maintained its 5' altitude through it all right to the Pentagon without EVER touching the ground?

NEAT trick.


FACT1: I have posted a pic earlier in this thread of a jet engine in the Pentagon impact site.

FACT2: Others have posted links to eye witness accounts of the jet strikes.

Now back to your comments: either the jet's trajectory was not affected by striking the poles, and it hit exactly where the plane was commanded to hit. Or the poles affected the trajectory slightly, and it struck at a point other than the one where the pilot intended.

Also, I again ask, can you prove no wing parts not found? You keep implying no parts were found. Can you prove that?

I have seen photos of aircraft metal near the Pentagon. I have posted a link to some of those photos earlier in this thread whoich shows a white and red piece of scrap metal and other things, including a JET ENGINE!

It appears to me you are ignoring the replies and responses and facts I and others are providing.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
FACT1: I have posted a pic earlier in this thread of a jet engine in the Pentagon impact site.


NOT A FACT... you posted a picture of a piece of an engine/


Originally posted by Lomillialor
FACT2: Others have posted links to eye witness accounts of the jet strikes.


So what... others have posted conflicting accounts... eyewitnesses SUCK and their stories change over tiem. They are UNRELIABLE.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
Now back to your comments: either the jet's trajectory was not affected by striking the poles, and it hit exactly where the plane was commanded to hit. Or the poles affected the trajectory slightly, and it struck at a point other than the one where the pilot intended.


While perfectly maintaing its 5' altitude? Okeedokee.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
Also, I again ask, can you prove no wing parts not found? You keep implying no parts were found. Can you prove that?


Look at the photos of the freeway and show me part of a jumbo jet wing or engine.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
I have seen photos of aircraft metal near the Pentagon. I have posted a link to some of those photos earlier in this thread whoich shows a white and red piece of scrap metal and other things, including a JET ENGINE!


The UNBURNED, UNSCORCHED perfetly shinly metal fuselage part that survived an impact which VAPORIZED STEEL, TITANIUM and ALUMINUM? Something worng wiht that in your head?

You did not show a jet engine... you shoed a hub of a part of a jet engine... this photo is nothing new and has been debated for years.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
It appears to me you are ignoring the replies and responses and facts I and others are providing.


What facts?

FACT: there is a photo of a SINGLE piece of the planes fuselage on the Pentagon lawn... it is NOT BURNED, SCORCHED, SCRATCHED, MELTED or VAPORIZED, yet we are led to believe that the OTHER 99.9% of the PLANE WAS.

THAT IS FACT.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
A scrap metal photo....
www.news.navy.mil...

87 eyewitnesses statements and some photos....
www.ratical.org...
www.ratical.org...
www.rense.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
A scrap metal photo....
www.news.navy.mil...


Yes, again you show me a picture of a piece of fuselage that according to the government should ahve been VAPORIZED like the rest of the plane YET inexplicably, there it lay unscorched, not burned or vaporized.... ITS A MIRACLE!



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Strike 1 against your logic - You can't casually disregard so many eyewitness accounts. EIther they saw a jet strike the Pentagon or they didn't. Eyewitnesses do indeed get SMALL details wrong, but not HUGE details like jets hitting buildings.

Strike 2 - Whether or not the jet's trajectory was affected by the pole impacts, this does not mean we have to rule out a jet impact to the bldg. You have yet to provide a cognizantr response to this point (your 5' comment was like throwing a glass of water on a raging inferno).

Strike 3 - Any parts falling off the airplane were also travelling at 400+MPH and would not be found on the freeway unless they fell off some distance PRIOR to the freeway. Any parts that might have been sheered from the wings as a result of the poles hitting them would most likely be found on the Pentagon lawn (to which I have posted pictures of aircraft parts) or at the Pentagon wall itself.

Strike 4 - Your comment that all scrap metal must be burned, scorched, etc, is absurd.

Conclusion: You are pre-disposed to believe anything except that a jet hit the Pentagon and knocked down a few poles on the way in.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor
A scrap metal photo....
www.news.navy.mil...


Yes, again you show me a picture of a piece of fuselage that according to the government should ahve been VAPORIZED like the rest of the plane YET inexplicably, there it lay unscorched, not burned or vaporized.... ITS A MIRACLE!



Miracle or not! The PHOTO DOES NOT LIE! There is PROOF positive that aircraft scrap metal was found on the lawn. Maybe this is a piece of the wing or the fuselage that was ripped off by a pole (i.e. the metal scraps you just recently demanded to see).

You are intentionally mischaracterizing things/issues.

The gvmt never said the entire jet VAPORIZED.

You are equivocating!

You ignore the obvious, the facts, and grasp for wisps of conspiracy.

What will you propose now? The photo was faked or airbrushed? That the missile had similar markings as an American Airlines jet?

Even Homer Simpson would know that some of the parts would appear just as in the photos--unscorched and jagged sections of aluminum, while in other cases they would indeed by melted slags of metal (as other photos earlier show).



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Eyewitnesses do indeed get SMALL details wrong, but not HUGE details like jets hitting buildings.


sure they do... many said it was a small plane, a military plane, etc...


Originally posted by Lomillialor
Strike 2 - Whether or not the jet's trajectory was affected by the pole impacts, this does not mean we have to rule out a jet impact to the bldg. You have yet to provide a cognizantr response to this point (your 5' comment was like throwing a glass of water on a raging inferno).


Attitude, not trajectory. The vecotr forces involved should have rolled the plane foreward when the wingspars hit the poles... unless the poles were made of paper. Now, being that the bottom of the engine shroud was about 5' off of the ground from the freeway on, even an angle change of 1 degree would have made it hit the ground.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
Strike 3 - Any parts falling off the airplane were also travelling at 400+MPH and would not be found on the freeway unless they fell off some distance PRIOR to the freeway. Any parts that might have been sheered from the wings as a result of the poles hitting them would most likely be found on the Pentagon lawn (to which I have posted pictures of aircraft parts) or at the Pentagon wall itself.


So, you claim that a piece of fueselage that is OBVIOUSLY from the TOP FRONT of the plane (look at the "N") was sheared off by the light poles but the wings stayed intact? Neat theory that blows away the "break away light poles" option. If the poles were strong enough to "can opener" that piece as you seem to imply, how were they so WEAK as to not leave pieces of the wings?


Originally posted by Lomillialor
Strike 4 - Your comment that all scrap metal must be burned, scorched, etc, is absurd.


Almost as absurd as:
1. the Al "Vaporized".
2. The wings "entered the hole" on impact.
3. The tail section just disappeared.
4. No seats, etc. were found.
5. < 1% of a 757 can be pieced together from the limited controlled photos released by the Pentagon.
6. The plane flew for 1/2 mile, 5' off of the ground without ever touching the ground at 500mph.
7. The FBI confiscating all of the private tapes and not returning them or responding to FOIA requests for them.
8. The FBI's removal of the PHYSICAL cameras from two hotels and a gas station.
9. the plane was not intercepted.
10. It hit the part of the pentagon housing the accountants looking for Rumsfelds MISSING 2.3 TRILLION dollars.
11. It hit the only reinforced part of the Pentagon.
12. It made serious manuvers with a half-*** pilot at the controls.
13. NO ARAB DNA WAS FOUND at the Pentagon, BUT every other passenger was accounted for.
14. The engines "dragged" along the wall and entered through the "hole"... explain those vector forces for me please.
15. No luggage, cargo, etc is visible.
16. The offices right next to where it hit are unburned in MANY photos.
17. The Pentagon clocks stopped six minutes "early".


Shall I continue?



[edit on 13-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Miracle or not! The PHOTO DOES NOT LIE! There is PROOF positive that aircraft scrap metal was found on the lawn. Maybe this is a piece of the wing or the fuselage that was ripped off by a pole (i.e. the metal scraps you just recently demanded to see).


It is a piece of the front top of the fuselage... look at the lettering.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
The gvmt never said the entire jet VAPORIZED.


No, you are right, they just said it "disappeared".


Originally posted by Lomillialor That the missile had similar markings as an American Airlines jet?


What missile? do not put words in my mouth.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
Even Homer Simpson would know that some of the parts would appear just as in the photos--unscorched and jagged sections of aluminum, while in other cases they would indeed by melted slags of metal (as other photos earlier show).


Even homer simpson would know that if the engines hit the wall witha straight foreward vector thay should have bounced or penetrated at the inital impact point, not slid along the wall and into the hole.

If that scrap of Al survived, what about the harder metals like the counter weights?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
So what is your counter claim slapnuts?

What scenario do you imagine that can explain the knocked over light poles, damaged generator, hit the pentagon and left debris consistent with a Boeing jet.

You have plenty of criticism for the Boeing theory, but have not advanced one of your own.

What do you think better explains the evidence?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Eyewitnesses do indeed get SMALL details wrong, but not HUGE details like jets hitting buildings.


sure they do... many said it was a small plane, a military plane, etc...

Good point! Some witnesses indeed said they saw two jets, or a jet and a missile. Though what they saw was a jet and its shadow converge on a single point. Still, 87 eyewitness names were posted earlier in this thread--many of them military. For you to casually dismiss them even while aligning yourself to the very few who said they saw other things is telling of your predisposition.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
Strike 2 - Whether or not the jet's trajectory was affected by the pole impacts, this does not mean we have to rule out a jet impact to the bldg. You have yet to provide a cognizantr response to this point (your 5' comment was like throwing a glass of water on a raging inferno).


Attitude, not trajectory. The vecotr forces involved should have rolled the plane foreward when the wingspars hit the poles... unless the poles were made of paper. Now, being that the bottom of the engine shroud was about 5' off of the ground from the freeway on, even an angle change of 1 degree would have made it hit the ground.

Doesn't matter. My point is unchallenged still. The jet could have hit the Pentagon exactly where it did after it hit those poles and had its path/trajectory/attitude affected.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
Strike 3 - Any parts falling off the airplane were also travelling at 400+MPH and would not be found on the freeway unless they fell off some distance PRIOR to the freeway. Any parts that might have been sheered from the wings as a result of the poles hitting them would most likely be found on the Pentagon lawn (to which I have posted pictures of aircraft parts) or at the Pentagon wall itself.


So, you claim that a piece of fueselage that is OBVIOUSLY from the TOP FRONT of the plane (look at the "N") was sheared off by the light poles but the wings stayed intact? Neat theory that blows away the "break away light poles" option. If the poles were strong enough to "can opener" that piece as you seem to imply, how were they so WEAK as to not leave pieces of the wings?

You are putting words into my mouth I did not say. You need to pay closer attention to the details. perhaps this is why you keep getting things wrong. I hope it isn't on purpose. Also, if the part in that photo was "OBVIOUSLY" from the jet, as you suggest, why are you arguing a jet did not strike the Pentagon?


Originally posted by Lomillialor
Strike 4 - Your comment that all scrap metal must be burned, scorched, etc, is absurd.


I repeat this comment without your irrelevant diatrade against it because it is correct. Your earlier claim that all scrap metal at a crash site MUST be scorched and burned is silly.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Isn't there an air current or something like a wake that follows the plane, thats been known to take out cars?

If the plane was flying low, wouldn't that wake be able to rip the poles down?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Good point! Some witnesses indeed said they saw two jets, or a jet and a missile. Though what they saw was a jet and its shadow converge on a single point. Still, 87 eyewitness names were posted earlier in this thread--many of them military. For you to casually dismiss them even while aligning yourself to the very few who said they saw other things is telling of your predisposition.


So, many of your witnesses are from the DoD which the 9/11 Comisison Co-chairs told the American Public DIRCETLY LIED to them? impeached here and in a court of law.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
Doesn't matter. My point is unchallenged still. The jet could have hit the Pentagon exactly where it did after it hit those poles and had its path/trajectory/attitude affected.


Nice job ignoring the nose down vectors, etc. Your point is challenged until you can tell me how, on a physics basis, the plane remained level and did not nose down at all.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
You are putting words into my mouth I did not say. You need to pay closer attention to the details. perhaps this is why you keep getting things wrong. I hope it isn't on purpose. Also, if the part in that photo was "OBVIOUSLY" from the jet, as you suggest, why are you arguing a jet did not strike the Pentagon?

I did not say a jet did not strike the pentagon. I am pointing out evidence of inconsistencies, implausabilities and impracticalities. I do not claim to know what hit i, I am SMART enough to know that planting that evidence would be as SIMPLE as pie.


Originally posted by Lomillialor
I repeat this comment without your irrelevant diatrade against it because it is correct. Your earlier claim that all scrap metal at a crash site MUST be scorched and burned is silly.


Repeat all you want because this same argument has been made on here 1,000 times. IF the scrap was on the plane at impact, and we believe the governemt story of what happened to the REST OF THE FUSELAGE, this piece MAKES NO SENSE.

How did it survive the "fireball" and "explosion" without a scorch but EVERYTHING ELSE... EVERYTHING did not?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Isn't there an air current or something like a wake that follows the plane, thats been known to take out cars?

If the plane was flying low, wouldn't that wake be able to rip the poles down?



I personally don't know. But whether the poles were knocked down by air turbulence or by a wing or by a jet engine or by a fuselage or by a monkey sticking its arm out the cockpit window, it does NOT force us to believe that a pole impact MUST NECESARRILY mean the jet could not have impacted the Pentagon, which is what I gather some are arguing here.

If in fact the poles hit the jet and caused it to veer off in some unintended direction, it is obvious that jet was still bound to impact SOMETHING. It could just as easily have been the Pentagon since the Pentagon was the closest thing in its intended path.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join