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.

 

Explosive information on the Pentagon to be released soon.

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nightmare0
Quick question, if your right then why do you think the plane didn't follow the right path which would have taken it over the light poles (the only thing i can think of is pilot error which seems odd given the amount of preperation that must have gone into this). Also are you aware of any witnesses that saw the poles fall on there own. It may be worth investigating the witnesses who claim they saw the plain hit the poles, see if they have any government connections.


Very good questions Nightmare.

I personally believe it was an error. Just one of MANY that happened during 9/11.

Here is the final flight path as we have determined it from the eyewitnesses:



I personally believe it had to make that final bank after the navy annex in order to correct itself because it was erroneously off target.


We don't believe the light poles were downed in real time.

We believe that 4 out of the 5 were placed hours before perhaps in the middle of the night.



They may not even be the original poles that could have been removed days or weeks earlier for all we know.


Pole number 1, the taxi cab pole, was the only one that was in a conspicuous area.




posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
interesting thoughts on the lights, i never really noticed that only one was on the road, I look forward to your video, looks like your really paying attention to the little details



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I wonder if they were taken down early, if the chance of a witness to seeing them down on any given day before 9/11 and didnt pay no mind, finding this website, and finding odd evidence of downed lightpoles (boeing striking lightpoles)... I wonder if they would let us know?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Hey jack --i like your explaination of the jet liner pulling up before impacting the pentagon. With that said --that leaves the question of what toppled the light poles --i think i have the answer --see this video--

www.aviation-history.com...


the answer is jet exhaust wash.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
That was discussed in another thread. I believe the arguement was , if the force was strong enough to topple cars, why didn't it in this case? It seems to have skipped the vehicles with more surface area but knocked over poles where the blast could easily go around them. Sort of like an antenna on a moving vehicle vs a leaf stuck to the antenna.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Rob
co-founder
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Hello Rob, and welcome to ATS.


I watched your video Pandora's Black Box, and it is pretty interesting and very well made. I don't know if you read my previous questions, so I will ask again being more specific.

How exactly did you get the FDR from the NTSB? Was it through a FOIA request? I am wondering because Jack said that now they act as they weren't aware it was given to you and may have been leaked. This kind of sounds like you received it anonymously. If you did, how do you know it came from the NTSB and how do you know it is the actual flight data of Flight 77?

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by airtrax007
Hey jack --i like your explaination of the jet liner pulling up before impacting the pentagon. With that said --that leaves the question of what toppled the light poles --i think i have the answer --see this video--

www.aviation-history.com...


the answer is jet exhaust wash.


No this is not a possibility.

In the example given the plane is stationary.

You will not get the same affect from a plane that is traveling at 500mph because the force is absorbed.

Plus we know that the plane did not fly on the same path as the light poles so even if this was a possibility it would have been different poles that were knocked down.

The blue line is the true course of the plane with the yellow line representing the wingspan and the green dots are the poles that were NOT knocked down.



[edit on 16-2-2007 by Jack Tripper]

[edit on 16-2-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser
I wonder if they were taken down early, if the chance of a witness to seeing them down on any given day before 9/11 and didnt pay no mind, finding this website, and finding odd evidence of downed lightpoles (boeing striking lightpoles)... I wonder if they would let us know?


The chances of someone noticing the downed light poles before the event happened are extremely remote.

Even if they did the chance that they would remember it and put it together with a 9/11 conspiracy are much lower.

Most people in the truth movement don't know much or anything about the light poles so average citizens who have done zero 9/11 research know even less.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper





Now that's interesting because:











(pics taken/extracted from: www.infokrieg.tv... )

So the 10 degree different to the flight path of the 'white lawn marking' photographed 4 days before 9/11 is suddently no more.

might be completly random coincidence that the lawn working/marking now fit's with your new flight path..but this marking or work on the lawn becomes more suspect again now.


[edit on 16-2-2007 by g210b]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by airtrax007
Hey jack --i like your explaination of the jet liner pulling up before impacting the pentagon. With that said --that leaves the question of what toppled the light poles --i think i have the answer --see this video--

www.aviation-history.com...


the answer is jet exhaust wash.


No this is not a possibility.

In the example given the plane is stationary.

You will not get the same affect from a plane that is traveling at 500mph because the force is absorbed.

Plus we know that the plane did not fly on the same path as the light poles so even if this was a possibility it would have been different poles that were knocked down.

The blue line is the true course of the plane with the yellow line representing the wingspan and the green dots are the poles that were NOT knocked down.



[edit on 16-2-2007 by Jack Tripper]

[edit on 16-2-2007 by Jack Tripper]


Jack, Looking forward to your video. In it, will you provide any theories/opinions as to what flew along the red path and impacted the building? Aircraft or missle?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   



So the 10 degree different to the flight path of the 'white lawn marking' photographed 4 days before 9/11 is suddently no more.

might be completly random coincidence that the lawn working/marking now fit's with your new flight path..but this marking or work on the lawn becomes more suspect again now.




The white line is strictly the result of water damage from the water line.

It does not line up with the eyewitness flight path but it does line up with the official flight path.

This is merely a coincidence

[edit on 16-2-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Jack, Looking forward to your video. In it, will you provide any theories/opinions as to what flew along the red path and impacted the building? Aircraft or missle?


None of the witnesses saw anything like a missile or another craft on that flight path.

We believe that all of the damage was staged with explosives that were strategically timed to go off just as the plane flew over the building and through the fireball. (but the downed light poles were likely planted earlier)

The fireball and resulting smoke diverted attention and hid the flyover plane from the witnesses.

So spread the word.......

THERE WAS NO MISSILE!



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
The fireball and resulting smoke diverted attention and hid the flyover plane from the witnesses.

So spread the word.......

THERE WAS NO MISSILE!


I see. So is it your contention that all of the following eyewitnesses that saw an airplane hit the building were mistaken or lying?

These come from Catherders thread "9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon"


"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 20

"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News

Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn�t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001

"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said. Captain Defina was the shift commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.] NFPA Journal November 1, 2001



No disrepect intended. I admire your previous investigative work and respect your opinions, however there is a huge discrepancy between a theory that states no outside object struck the bldg and the eyewitness testimony of individuals who say they saw an aircraft hit the bldg.

Futhermore, if the destruction was caused by planted explosives, were the aircraft parts shown in pictures in Catherders thread (engine turbines, landing gear, bulkheads, and seats) also planted?

There is much compelling evidence to support all three main claims
1) Flt 77 hit the bldg.
2) No plane hit the bldg.
3) Anoither plane or missle hit the bldg.

IMO the way to get to the truth is find areas where there is direct contradiction of testimony or evidence, and eliminate the false evidence or testimony.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

The white line is strictly the result of water damage from the water line.

It does not line up with the eyewitness flight path but it does line up with the official flight path.


? Do we speak about the same 'white' line? It's the other way if you check the pics.



This is merely a coincidence


Probabily, but it's interesting that they worked on/below the lawn in that exact path. I see two entrance at both ends of the 'line'.

I don't want to distract from your work. Just wanted to mention it because for me this little line is now back in the focus. Might be the pilot did not make a 'mistake' in his planed flight path but for example the pole light blowers. Or the pilot was confused by the rodden lawn too and thought thats a marking for him. My mind goes wild.


I am very curious about what you come up with when finish. I really hope it holds water. It would change a lot.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky


I see. So is it your contention that all of the following eyewitnesses that saw an airplane hit the building were mistaken or lying?



Yes that is correct. Most were simply fooled by this ingenious sleight of hand illusion but certainly some were planted witnesses and/or completely fabricated accounts.

If you read through even the witnesses you posted you will see that very few specifically state that they saw the plane hit the pentagon.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by g210b

? Do we speak about the same 'white' line? It's the other way if you check the pics.



No matter how you look at it I personally believe the line is a non-issue.

It doesn't make sense that they would mark it on the lawn!

Here is a decent analysis of this:

www.pentagonresearch.com...



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Jack, which side is the Single Pump Side, and which side is the Dual Pump Side?

I was looking at the Gas Station video again, and I was looking at some previous research that I was doing of what appeared to be 2 dot shadows cross the street in a matter of a couple frames on the Single Pump Side..

Please help me



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser
Jack, which side is the Single Pump Side, and which side is the Dual Pump Side?

I was looking at the Gas Station video again, and I was looking at some previous research that I was doing of what appeared to be 2 dot shadows cross the street in a matter of a couple frames on the Single Pump Side..

Please help me


Single pump side is the south side.

Dual pump side is the north side.




With the plane on the north in relation to the sun there would be no shadow on the station at all.

One of the witnesses specifically said on his own that there was no shadow on the station at all.

I know what you're talking about and I believe it was added.

The citgo security video is extremely dubious.

There is zero reason to accept such bad quality video evidence that was sequestered for 5 years as valid.

The timing of it's release just last year within a couple weeks after we first posted about the initial witness claiming the plane was on the north side hardly seems coincidental.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

If you read through even the witnesses you posted you will see that very few specifically state that they saw the plane hit the pentagon.



True, by my count, five cleary state they saw an aircraft impact the building. Aydaz Kizildrgli, Dan Creed and two colleagues, and Sean Boger. So far, your explosive evidence is based on the eyewitness testimony of three. I eagerly await the complete disclosure of your evidence and theory.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
So the detractors are going to be forced to call 3 credible witnesses either liars or insane or else admit that 9/11 was an inside job.


Or the proponents of the conspiracy theory will be forced to call 5 credible witnesses who state they saw an airplane impact the building either liars, or insane, or else admit that a real US airliner struck the Pentagon.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join