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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
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?


Why do I need a "counter theory" for you to pick apart?

My goal is to point out issues with the "offical story" not to make my own theories on what happened. I do it with the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Comission, EPA and the Bush administration as a whole. (and before you jump me fior "Bush bashing" I voted for the certifiable wack job twice)

I post from a position that we have been repeatedly lied to. IT IS FACT. The lies are on record. From the DoD, FAA, NORAD, POTUS, CHENEY, RICE, TENET, CIA... The list goes on and on yet posters here still give credence to the reports THEY funded and chose the contractors for?

And I am the "nutty CT guy"? Pull your heads out of the proverbial sand.

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




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
As to your blanket impeachment of all military witnesses.... First, I said "many" were military. There were also many civilians in their cars who testified. Second, your disbelief of all military testimony now implies that each and every one of them lied or was part of a vast conspiracy.

As to your nose down theory. You seem to be saying that you find it impossible for a jet to strike a few light poles and then hit the Pentagon. What was it supposed to hit after it struck the light poles (assuming you don't think it was supposed to just dissappearr off the face of the Earth)? Was it supposed to have nose-dived immediately into the freeway or the lawn despite its 400+MPH inertia? You are truly telling us that you can't imagine a scenario where, either light poles won't affect the path as you claim, or second, that maybe the inexperienced pilots hit the poles just after pulling up slightly in order to avoid hitting the ground too soon?

Every time someone responds with the obvious answers to your last set of objections, you simply come back with something different and just as easily answerable.

Hey, since you believe that light poles are sufficient defense to protect a building from an incoming jetliner, why don't you write a letter to the Pentagon and let them know you have a cheap alternativer to AA batteries? You could save the gvmt billions and become a millionaire overnight.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
In researching the question whether or not there was debris found near the poles, I found this;


americanhistory.si.edu...


But it brought up so many different questions that I thought it deserved it's own thread, which is here;


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Was it supposed to have nose-dived immediately into the freeway or the lawn despite its 400+MPH inertia?


No, not immediately... How many degrees does the angle of the plane need to change to turn 5' into 0' and AT LEAST leave a mark on the lawn?

WHAT ABOUT MY 17 OTHER POINTS? I ASKED YOU QUESTIONS.... I answer your questions OVER and OVEr ad nauseum YET you ignore EVERY question I pose to you...

Are you aware of the heat that comes out of a commercial jet liner engine at full throttle?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Lomillialor
Was it supposed to have nose-dived immediately into the freeway or the lawn despite its 400+MPH inertia?


No, not immediately... How many degrees does the angle of the plane need to change to turn 5' into 0' and AT LEAST leave a mark on the lawn?

WHAT ABOUT MY 17 OTHER POINTS? I ASKED YOU QUESTIONS.... I answer your questions OVER and OVEr ad nauseum YET you ignore EVERY question I pose to you...

Are you aware of the heat that comes out of a commercial jet liner engine at full throttle?


What points haven't I talked about?

I hope you now will simply agree that just because the jet hit the poles, it does not mean the jet couldn't have hit the Pentagon precisely where the impact occurred.

The jet had to have impacted somewhere after hitting the poles. And the place it obviously impacted was exactly where that big SCORCHED hole was photographed.

I can't believe you are trying to convince anyone--especially yourself--that light poles were guarenteed to prevent that jet from hitting the pentagon. How silly does that sound?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

This video should explain everything!!!!



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
lomillollimmillar...

I refer you to this thread where you are already experienceing extreme ownage at the hands of Jack Tripper on the EXACT subject:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Go get 'em big boy.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I know parts of a plane have been found, people state they saw a plane hit, some even claim to have ID'd it as an AA commercial jet. Isn't there any way to produce serial numbers on the engine pieces that would be able to be cross referrenced to construction documentation, and put this to rest once & for all?

Obviously something knocked the light poles over, and flew into the Pentagon at high speed that produced a great fireball, and killed 200+ people. The thing I can't get out of my mind is why is there no trace of the obviously almost "zero" altitude flight path anywhere on the lawn? I can't swallow the PENTALAWN!

Why won't they release the video damn it, and let me go back to thinking about my OWN lawn! AAARRRGGG!!!



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
I know parts of a plane have been found, people state they saw a plane hit, some even claim to have ID'd it as an AA commercial jet. Isn't there any way to produce serial numbers on the engine pieces that would be able to be cross referrenced to construction documentation, and put this to rest once & for all?


Would this really "but this to rest"? I do not think so.

How about they release ALL of the videos and all of the photos that do not show a corpse?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by 2PacSade
I know parts of a plane have been found, people state they saw a plane hit, some even claim to have ID'd it as an AA commercial jet. Isn't there any way to produce serial numbers on the engine pieces that would be able to be cross referrenced to construction documentation, and put this to rest once & for all?


Would this really "but this to rest"? I do not think so.

How about they release ALL of the videos and all of the photos that do not show a corpse?


You're probably right. No it wouldn't because I guess the evidence could be tampered with. It's so mind boggling to try to figure out why they won't release the videos and really "put it to rest" once & for all. Obviously they are either lying, or the secrecy & dis-information is worth more that releasing the proof.


spelling

[edit on 13-9-2006 by 2PacSade]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.


You have mistaken the footage for flight 296. That's not wht the video is of. It was a test flight to demonstrate the computer automation.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

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]


I suppose you are a physics expert? One needent be an expert to know that the weakest point will give first. The light poles at teh Pentagon we already know were designed to knock over from simple car accidents. It's obvious that the wings of a plane are going to be stronger than that. I haven't seen any information to conclude that the light poles in the example accident were of that same design, so it is an assumption that they were.

It's also a scenario where you have two different results. Why is one right and one wrong? Is it impossible to get two different results? And why is it assumed that the Pentagon scenario is a lie? Why is it you don't use the same logic twards your example? Why don't you speculate that that was impossible to happen?

I can tell you why, because one is a conspiracy theory and you are simply tring to use any information for the sole purpose of proving a pre determined conclusion. Hence ignoring all the other evidence such as the 1000s of witnesses who watched the plane fly into the Pentagon.

Perhaps youa re right. Perhaps it was a missle that zigzagged back and forth knocking down light poles and that they used a mass halucinagen on all the witnesses.

Right now, I will believe whatever is the most plausible until that changes. So simply finding questionable evidence (questionable not meaning wrong, but with areas that are uncertian) and not researching further to find an answer is not going to cut it. I saw come up with a theory that is more plausible than what is accepted, and then we can talk.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Stop posting your guesses as fact.


Yeah, you're right. That was a Wild A$$ Guess, and working AT AN AIRPORT for 6 or 7 years had nothing to do with it.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
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.



What was that about posting guesses as fact? Sorry but I've walked on many wings of KC-135, and similar sized planes while they sat in the hangar, and you can walk on most of it. There are PORTIONS where there is something valuable under the skin they don't want to risk damaging, but you CAN walk on most of the wing of a plane.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
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.



What was that about posting guesses as fact? Sorry but I've walked on many wings of KC-135, and similar sized planes while they sat in the hangar, and you can walk on most of it. There are PORTIONS where there is something valuable under the skin they don't want to risk damaging, but you CAN walk on most of the wing of a plane.


Hi Zaphod- What's your take on the wings impacting the poles? Do you think it would have caused damage? Left traces? Traces would be left ahead of the impacts? Not jabbin - Just inquiring because you have experience with airframes obviously. Thanx-



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
If it was the wings themselves that hit, then yes, there would have been damage, but at the speed the plane was flying unless it shoved the nose down it wouldn't have had time to affect the trajectory. It was something like 2-3 seconds between the lightpoles and the wall.

If it was the engine, then I wouldn't expect to see major physical damage to it. It would have started smoking something awful, because parts of the light pole would have gone down the intake, and damaged it. But I don't think you'd see chunks of engine falling off.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If it was the wings themselves that hit, then yes, there would have been damage, but at the speed the plane was flying unless it shoved the nose down it wouldn't have had time to affect the trajectory. It was something like 2-3 seconds between the lightpoles and the wall.

If it was the engine, then I wouldn't expect to see major physical damage to it. It would have started smoking something awful, because parts of the light pole would have gone down the intake, and damaged it. But I don't think you'd see chunks of engine falling off.


What do you think about my earlier post concerning this;


In researching the question whether or not there was debris found near the poles, I found this;


External Source

americanhistory.si.edu...


But it brought up so many different questions that I thought it deserved it's own thread, which is here;


External Source

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Do you think this could have actually happened? According to this lady, and the Smithsonian, she found a piece of the tail section in her car, but hours after the impact. She never noticed it before that, but she was able to identify it as a piece of from the tail from a Boeing 757-223.

What's your take on the whole "WIG" anomaly & could have this downed the poles?

edit to add last comment

[edit on 13-9-2006 by 2PacSade]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I can see it being part of the plane, and it certainly LOOKS like part of the plane, but her story is a little odd. I can believe a lot easier that she picked it up as a souvenier (I've been to a couple plane crashes, and lots of people do that), and didn't want to admit that she did, so she gave that story. That "conveyor like roller with pins" if it came from the plane could only be from the cargo hold. Which means the bottom of the plane would have had to have been ripped open, and THAT would have caused major debris all over the road, and THAT would have caused a disruption in the flight path. There's no way that came from the tail however.

Ground effect and wake vortex is POSSIBLE to do that, but I won't say for certain one way or the other. I'd like to see some studies on that though.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I can see it being part of the plane, and it certainly LOOKS like part of the plane, but her story is a little odd. I can believe a lot easier that she picked it up as a souvenier (I've been to a couple plane crashes, and lots of people do that), and didn't want to admit that she did, so she gave that story. That "conveyor like roller with pins" if it came from the plane could only be from the cargo hold. Which means the bottom of the plane would have had to have been ripped open, and THAT would have caused major debris all over the road, and THAT would have caused a disruption in the flight path. There's no way that came from the tail however.

Ground effect and wake vortex is POSSIBLE to do that, but I won't say for certain one way or the other. I'd like to see some studies on that though.


That's an interesting theory about "collecting shells" & hiding the truth. I didn't think of that as an option. Just to clarify are you saying the aritfact itself is not from the tail, or the debris she ran over.

Secondly- Don't you think it's a bit odd if this thing is sitting in the Smithsonian on her word alone? ( News still to come on this though. )



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I can't see any possible way it's from the tail unless the plane was laying over at 90 degrees. However, there are a lot of white portions on the wings and engines of American Airlines planes. The portion that she ran over, IF IT WAS FROM THE PLANE, could ONLY have come from the cargo bay, which isn't possible.

I find it very odd that the story was accepted so easily. I can see the part going to the Smithsonian, just because it WAS part of the plane, and this was a major event.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join