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.

 

The PentaCon

page: 17
65
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper



Well you see I've just been overwhelmed after the Pentagon provided me with all of the necessary data to analyze that.

It'll take some time but we'll certainly get back to you.


Give me a break dude.

lol relax jack, no problem. im not here to try to burn you at the stake, i just wanted to know if you had compared what has been released as to the damage the pentagon sustained to blast characteristics of any types of explosives. if you havnt gotten that far yet or havnt planned on going that far, fair enough, i was just curious as i would be more interested in that than where the plane went personally.


This is the PENTAGON. The most secretive, richest, techonologically advanced defense agency on earth.
well, its a headquarters building anyway



They probably used all kinds of stuff including napalm which is made of jet fuel.

ah, ok, freeze. dont speculate. there are those that will crucify you for it and take anything you say out of context. thats not my goal in asking.

i guess a better question from me would be: have you done any blast wave or blast projetion comparisons to the published data of the damage at the pentagon?

better? no need to try to speculate what was used, just how.
and to further clarify i dont mean "ok they put x lbs of c4 on column 1 and used xlbs of anfo on the wall" etc

im really not being all that clear am i? sorry.

ok, lets try this: have you guys asked yourselves "ok, this is what the damage pattern looked like. what would or should it look like if a bomb was used?"

there. i think i like that question most of all. ill go with that one.



"Powder monkeys" can do just about anything with explosives.

i know, i was one. so...thanks
i personally take that as a compliment




You guys keep wanting me to speculate about stuff while IGNORING the evidence which is the testimony.

dont lump me in with everyone jack, its not fair. i do disagree with you however that doesnt mean i dont respect your opinoin or that i dont respect the work you have put into this. the ammount of effort youve put into this is admirable and frankly took balls. and more to the point of the quote, NO i personally dont want you to speculate. however, having said that, that also goes in line with your conclusions as well. you may have very well shown that the govts version of the flight path is wrong, by intent or error, but i DO feel you are speculating in your conclusion that the plane overflew the building and there was a bomb in place. that is my opinion and im entitiled to it. i wont call you wrong, just that i disagree. however, as i have no facts to back my opinion ill stay with that it iS my opinion.



Do you really believe that all 4 witnesses were so insanely incorrect about their placement of the plane?


nope, dont recall saying i did either.




posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I'll address this to Jack, but anyone with a decent explanation feel free to chime in:

Why do you think "they" decided to do it this way?

Surely it would have been much simpler, taken up fewer resources, and had a much smaller chance of being exposed if the planners of this false flag event simply "reassigned" a couple security guards and had a "terrorist" kamikaze a Ryder truck full of explosives into the side of the Pentagon.

What is your explanation for this operational choice? What was accomplished that couldn't have been accomplished with a simple truck bomb?



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
well, i think the MOST obvious answer to that is that its easier to fly (appear to fly?) over the top of security than try to drive through it. (hail of gunfire and all...?)

but thats just a hipshot answer. take it as you will.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Damocles,

Yes we speculated the flyover hypothesis and we specified this was a hypothesis in the film.

But this is secondary to the testimony.

Do you believe the testimony?

If not why?



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
I'll address this to Jack, but anyone with a decent explanation feel free to chime in:
Why do you think "they" decided to do it this way?
Surely it would have been much simpler, taken up fewer resources, and had a much smaller chance of being exposed if the planners of this false flag event simply "reassigned" a couple security guards and had a "terrorist" kamikaze a Ryder truck full of explosives into the side of the Pentagon.
What is your explanation for this operational choice? What was accomplished that couldn't have been accomplished with a simple truck bomb?




Well that was what Oklahoma was all about and although the Murrah Building scam fooled many people it was not going to work on the Pentagon. Too many people found out about the unexploded charges still remaining in the Murrah building. It was all they could so to keep the lid on that.

So when they decided to go with the airliners, probably the thought was, "we can get everybody to believe this because they will see it happen right in front of their eyes".

The PentaCon fell short of expectations because they vastly underestimated the intelligence of the American people. The PentaCon would probably have worked a little bit better if it hadn't been for the 6 minute delay between 9:31 when the first explosive went off and 9:37 when whatever ATC was tracking hit the Pentagon.

But in 'their' extreme and total arrogance 'they' never imagined that some would question the flight path or the damage or the fake FDR data or the fake videos or the faked airplane wreckage inside or the faked passenger bodies. You cannot truly understand 911 if you don't understand the complete contempt, arrogance and disdain with which the perps held the American public.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius

Why do you think "they" decided to do it this way?


As Damocules said, easier access for one. BUt there are a variety of other possible reasons.
This would be a good topic for another thread.

Personally I think that key people, either 'in the know' or ones able to 'figure it out' were killed by the attack on the pentagon.
Imagine if it was an inside job and you had a dozen pentagon employees on the payroll.
They help you plan and carry out three hijackings and then unbeknownest to them you have procured a fouth flight/missile/hologram that will 'hit' the pentagon and kill them.
'You' (the mastermind of 911) have effectively eliminated half of your covert ops team, thus minimizing chances that somebody will rat you out.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
I'll address this to Jack, but anyone with a decent explanation feel free to chime in:

Why do you think "they" decided to do it this way?

Surely it would have been much simpler, taken up fewer resources, and had a much smaller chance of being exposed if the planners of this false flag event simply "reassigned" a couple security guards and had a "terrorist" kamikaze a Ryder truck full of explosives into the side of the Pentagon.

What is your explanation for this operational choice? What was accomplished that couldn't have been accomplished with a simple truck bomb?



I have no intentions of speculating WHY the perpetrators chose to pull off this operation the way they did.

I am only reporting what the eyewitnesses claim.

But since you insist.....it makes sense to me that they would want as much control as possible over the damage to their own home.

So....do you believe the north of the citgo testimony? If not why?



[edit on 7-3-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
well, i think the MOST obvious answer to that is that its easier to fly (appear to fly?) over the top of security than try to drive through it.


A fair answer.

But if "the fix is in", what is the security that is easier to pose? Four or five guys with machine guns, or NORAD?

I'm just having a hard time believing that anyone in the intelligence community would have such a public and sensitive operation hinge entirely on someone's ability to control a commercial aircraft going 400 mph at an altitude of 30 feet.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Most people were fooled but certainly some were planted witnesses and some accounts were completely fabricated.


planted witnesses
planted explosives
planted aircraft parts
staged light pole damage
insiders at FAA
insiders at NTSB
insiders at FBI
insiders at the CIA
insiders in the US Army and/or Air Force
insiders at the Pentagon
insiders at American Airlines
insiders at the Fire Department
insiders with the DC Police Department
univolved persons at all of these agencies who could have discovered or overheard evidence of the plot.
witnesses or accomplices to the payoff, imprisonment, or death of the American Airlines flight crew
witnesses or accomplices to the payoff, imprisonment, or death of all the Passesngers of AA 77


And not one single insder wistleblower with one piece of credible evidence to prove the conspiracy?

I find the idea of a flying saucer crashing into the Pentagon more believable.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius

I'm just having a hard time believing that anyone in the intelligence community would have such a public and sensitive operation hinge entirely on someone's ability to control a commercial aircraft going 400 mph at an altitude of 30 feet.




I agree with you one hundred percent. And this is why I doubt that a 'real' Boeing 757 was used.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Damocles,

Yes we speculated the flyover hypothesis and we specified this was a hypothesis in the film.

But this is secondary to the testimony.

Do you believe the testimony?

If not why?


fair question to which im sad to say i have to give a complicated answer.

do i believe the testamony? i cant say i dont believe it. i believe they are giving their account as they may recall it. but, humans are fallable. to play devils advocate i also must say that we have no idea how this was edited, was this their WHOLE testimony? were there leading questions off camera? hard to say, id like to think that someone after the truth wouldnt do taht so, having no basis for such accusations ill have to take you at your word that didnt happen.

but to base my own opinion on these few witnesses id have to discount ALL other witnesses that saw something else entirely.

ultimatly, my mind isnt made up abuot the flight path though i do, again, commend you for your work.

where my problem lies is in the damage pattern to the building compared to waht i would expect to see from a truck bomb, missile, or other type of shape charge.

but thats jsut me.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Too many people found out about the unexploded charges still remaining in the Murrah building. It was all they could so to keep the lid on that.


I feel like worries about “unexploded charges” would be dwarfed by the concerns that would be brought up by bringing several aircraft, missiles, and knocked over light poles into the mix.


So when they decided to go with the airliners, probably the thought was, "we can get everybody to believe this because they will see it happen right in front of their eyes".


I think this “shock and awe” explanation holds more water than the others…but it still seems extravagant. They could have achieved the same results with a more streamlined operation.


You cannot truly understand 911 if you don't understand the complete contempt, arrogance and disdain with which the perps held the American public.


This disdain could have been manifest in an equally insulting way (in fact, it already had been in New York, right?) while still reducing the risk that “they” would be subjecting “themselves” to.


Originally posted by 11Bravo
Personally I think that key people, either 'in the know' or ones able to 'figure it out' were killed by the attack on the pentagon.


It’s possible Bravo…which would add, by my count, the 85th layer of complexity into this operation.


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
…it makes sense to me that they would want as much control as possible over the damage to their own home.


By having a 757 pull a 350mph fly by??


So....do you believe the north of the citgo testimony? If not why?


In the end…deep down…I guess I don’t. And I’m not just trying to be contrary, Jack. You’ve dismissed many witnesses as “possible plants”, and I think that the same label should be applied to your own.

If indeed there is a congregation of “insiders” who orchestrated the Pentagon attack, then confusion is their greatest ally at this point in the game. Getting a researcher to focus all his ample efforts on the “flight paths” as compared to the damage to the building or the motive of the alleged conspirators seems like a worthwhile and low-resource effort on the part of “them.”

I know that my participation here often seems off-topic and annoying to you, Jack. But this is the thorn in my side when it comes to 9/11 and I can’t ignore it:

There is no motive to match the means you are describing.

If you can show me a payoff that makes the risk of this complex operation worth bearing, I will be 100% more willing to swallow the grandiose nature of it all...and I don't think I'm the only one.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
nybaseball44 please let me respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath and exhale slowly. I don't think there is any point going into convulsions over this issue.

Agreed. I was gonna say something myself.


I believe all of Jack's witnesses saw a large plane, probably a Boeing 757 but no Boeing 757 ever hit the Pentagon ever. There is no damage where the wings would have hit and there is not a big enough hole for the plane to have crashed through.


rotfl. rotfl. Not at the punch-out or[/] impact points? You mean they didn't even fake it right?

the scraps outside are odd - wing metal makes perfect sense, tiny bits, but front fuselage sections outside as the plane pierces? Was it blowing up before impact? That is one of the few mysteries I can't explain...


We have the problem that the Pentagon clocks show the first explosion at 0931. That was about 2.6 seconds after the Citgo flyover. But both the ATC records and the time stamp on the Flight Data Recorder read 0937. So that means whatever ATC was tracking on radar didn't hit the Pentagon until 6 minutes after the Citgo flyover.


We have the flyover at 9:31? I didn't know that. I can buy two explosions. smell of cordite doesn't dismiss add'l smell of jet fuel left unmentioned in those accounts... And don't forget April Gallop's wristatch stopping at about 9:31. Did the bomb blast hit her arm?


Whatever flew over the Citgo gas station was not what ATC was tracking; either it flew over the Pentagon and went somewhere else or it was a holograph. With the technology available today (at least 50 years ahead of where anyone in the public sector knows about according the to the late Ben Rich, head of Lockheed Skunkworks) it would be no problem projecting an image complete with sound and other effects. The concept of such a holograph is impossible for todays public brain filled with modern science to imagine. It can't conceive of anything that technologically advanced.

But if we can temporarily suspend our preconceived notions of what is scientifically possible and consider the possibility of a holograph then we have a solution for what the wtinesses saw. Hope you're feeling better.


This is one possible explanation for the nortern flight path as seen, and it not appearing on radar after. But everyone knows holograms sound too sillyto even mention... but you're right. Could be. Still doesn't explain the damage from the southern path tho...



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
We have the flyover at 9:31? I didn't know that. I can buy two explosions. smell of cordite doesn't dismiss add'l smell of jet fuel left unmentioned in those accounts... And don't forget April Gallop's wristatch stopping at about 9:31. Did the bomb blast hit her arm?


i have to say this, its a compulsion, please forgive me, but cordite is used as a propellant for bullets, not as a component of high explosives as far as i know. cordite is nitrocellulous, very weak explosive properties, it ranks well below even dynamite. so the quote from that guy that was certain there was a bomb cuz he smelled cordite...all i can say is its likely he was mistaken. im personally not aware of any HE that uses cordite.

just my .02



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius

So....do you believe the north of the citgo testimony? If not why?


In the end…deep down…I guess I don’t. And I’m not just trying to be contrary, Jack. You’ve dismissed many witnesses as “possible plants”, and I think that the same label should be applied to your own.


I was gonna say that too. So it's okay to dimsiss some witnesses as plants but your four are magically immune. the reason I suspected a disinfo campaign is how else to explain four semi-corroborating accounts that conflict with everything else? You want me to go through the list of people who saw THE plane to the south, clip the poles, hit the generator and vent structure, etc. and list their creds and challenge you to call them liars? I could probably find more than four...


If indeed there is a congregation of “insiders” who orchestrated the Pentagon attack, then confusion is their greatest ally at this point in the game. Getting a researcher to focus all his ample efforts on the “flight paths” as compared to the damage to the building or the motive of the alleged conspirators seems like a worthwhile and low-resource effort on the part of “them.”


Damn straight. Budgets are tightening, got more wars to prepare for. the blatancy and sloppiness of the disinfo is evidence of their disdain for us, not their faked out crash site.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

cordite is used as a propellant for bullets, not as a component of high explosives as far as i know. [...] so the quote from that guy that was certain there was a bomb cuz he smelled cordite...all i can say is its likely he was mistaken. im personally not aware of any HE that uses cordite.

Useful insight! thanks. Yeah, i dunno. Two accounts tho actually, Gilah goldsmith and Don Perkal. Both lawyers at the Pgon. off-point tho. Sorry on my part too.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

I was gonna say that too. So it's okay to dimsiss some witnesses as plants but your four are magically immune. the reason I suspected a disinfo campaign is how else to explain four semi-corroborating accounts that conflict with everything else? You want me to go through the list of people who saw THE plane to the south, clip the poles, hit the generator and vent structure, etc. and list their creds and challenge you to call them liars? I could probably find more than four...



Name one witness I have dismissed as a plant besides Lloyd.

Reasons for him are more than obvious since his account is physically impossible.

But I will take you up on that challenge.

You will not find ONE eyewitness that definitively places the plane on the south of the citgo station. Of course none had a perfect vantage point to tell except for the ones on the station's property and we all know where they place the plane.

Now in regards to the light poles......

You will only find 2 that specifically say that they "saw" the light poles being clipped.

Wanda Ramey and an "anonymous" military man.

The rest merely mention the light poles in their account because they heard about them or saw them on the ground after the fact.

There are about 20 total that mention the poles.

We have interviewed 3 of them personally and ALL THREE admitted to us that they did NOT see the light poles get clipped and merely deduced it after the fact.

Those three would be Chad Brooks, Father McGraw, and Joel Sucherman.

We tried to contact Wanda Ramey to get her to confirm or clarify her statement but we were unable to reach her.

My guess is that she deduced the poles being hit like the others but of course she could have been embellishing or lying.

Since you offered though.....I will break this challenge off into a separate thread for you.

Good luck!


ETA: Frank Probst is the Pen Ren dude who allegedly jumped away from the plane as it clipped the generator trailer.

His account is ludicrous and is of course featured in the ASCE report.

So yeah....you've got him on your side too.


[edit on 7-3-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Damn, Probst is the only one I had ready in mind. I'll check tho. Just accepted the challenge, new thread, watch me win or lose there, that's it for this one.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

I was gonna say that too. So it's okay to dimsiss some witnesses as plants but your four are magically immune. the reason I suspected a disinfo campaign is how else to explain four semi-corroborating accounts that conflict with everything else? You want me to go through the list of people who saw THE plane to the south, clip the poles, hit the generator and vent structure, etc. and list their creds and challenge you to call them liars? I could probably find more than four...



Name one witness I have dismissed as a plant besides Lloyd.


Steve Storti. On page 16 I posted his comments about seeing an airplane disappear into the pentagon up to its tail before becoming engulfed in flames.

You replied:


Either he is deducing the impact or he is lying.

Most people were fooled but certainly some were planted witnesses and some accounts were completely fabricated.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Jack, I have some questions about the flight data recorder data being discussed on this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Could you please forward this on to Pilots for 9-11 Truth so we can get their feedback?

Thank You.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join