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: 3
65
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
How is it that interviews of people years after the fact outweigh the physical evidence of the downed poles?

Which is more plausible, that the witnesses were led into remembering the wrong direction?

Or that a secret light pole breaking squad was dispatched to drop poles onto the freeway?

What purpose would such a plot serve?

And more importantly why do you ignore the eyewitnesses who saw the poles get knocked over, and yet didn't see a secret government light pole hit squad?



that is the reason i'm not going to bother watching this video.




posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I find it highly impossible that a police officer standing under a wide canopy, who watched a plane come in from the north, standing on the left side of his car to fill up, can look through the CITGO building and see the same plane on the south side. Physically impossible. The roof and the gas station building was clearly blocking his view to the south.
Btw, I've heard him say several times that he was totally convinced it passed the station on the north side, and when asked if he could be mistaken, asked if there was a negative chance of him seeing it pass to the south side.

The other officer drew nearly an identical flightpath on the aerial view photograph shown to him as his colleague, and this officer was standing on the other side of the entrance to the station when he saw the plane coming.

Definitely two very convincing witnesses.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Right.

But the physical evidence of the downed poles is also very convincing.

As is all the other evidence that contradicts the handful of witnesses presented.

Why were all the contradictory witnesses left out of the video?

911research.wtc7.net...

Maybe you can answer how you think the poles were knocked down if not by the plane?

Or even better explain what purpose would be served by lying about the flight path?





[edit on 22-2-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I just watched the video and was intrigued by accounts. I can't say I agree with the conclusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon though. The witnesses said they saw it hit the Pentagon, but it does show a different flight path than the official story.

Anyway, I have a question about when the two officers were being interviewed. In the background there was three tall curved poles to the north of the gas station right in the path of where they said the plane flew. I tried to do a screen capture, but it was blank.

Do you know what those curved poles were in the background Jack? Were they there on 9/11? If they were, aren't they in the flight path and would have been hit?



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
i just watched your video and i see no proof of anything..my reasoning being -
first off , the interview with the white cop was really good . but it seems to me that your placing your entire case on 10 to 20 yards . and those 20 yards aren't going to make alot of difference with a 150ft aircraft.
the first guy you interviewed , to me , was almost un-hearable . and
when you would say anything , he agreed .
and the black wings , could be shadow from looking at a plane thats in front of the sun .
not one person saw a second plane . not one . none in the interviews.
and the cop says he saw it hit , not fly over the pentagon.
i just don't see a smoking gun in this video . it was well put together
but nothing positive .



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   
How do you explain eyewitnesses like this one?


911research.wtc7.net...

As I stepped onto the highway next to the triage area, I knelt down to tie my shoe and all over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger than a half-dollar. Anyone familiar with aircraft has seen the greenish primer paint that covers many interior metal surfaces - that is what these shards were covered with. I was out of the immediate area photographing other things within 20 minutes of the crash.
groups.yahoo.com...


Another witness near the infamous taxi cab.


911research.wtc7.net...

"Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think. (...) "There were a lot of people with severe burns, severe contusions, severe lacerations, in shock and emotional distress"
www.msnbc.com...



Kat Gaines, heading south on Route 110, approached the parking lots, saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles. "
www.fccc.org...



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."
www.guardian.co.uk...


There are many witnesses to the both the flight path and the knocking down of lightpoles.

Yet you would have us believe that a few witnesses interviewed five years after the fact by someone trying to prove a conspiracy somehow holds weight?

Right.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I want to counter already a remark I expect to be made by someone in the future.
How can someone who is filling his gas tank up, see the plane coming in his back?

Answer : because most people will look at the counter, to fill up to a certain dollar amount, and in his case he was doing so, thus facing north, as can be seen in the Citgo video. He then jumped in his car, backed up and sped out of the compound.

Secondly, you have to start understanding if you believe these witnesses, and they are very convincing, that something else has downed those "impossible flightpath" poles.

Planted small explosives, but better think about planted "witnesses" first.
I have posted in the damn long "757 etc" thread already that all witnesses after plane impact were send far away a few times after a second non existing incoming plane was radioed in on 9/11.

The conclusion after watching this footage is inevitable :

The official conspiracy is much broader than thought before, and much more planted liars were involved then formerly expected.

Expect much more added proof from the Researchers version, coming soon.

PS: Here is a second undeniable "smoking gun" evidence by me :
www.studyof911.com...
Please address it in a separate thread.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

The official conspiracy is much broader than thought before, and much more planted liars were involved then formerly expected.



How do we know that the people in the pentacon video aren't "planted liars"?

Are you sure it's not the "truth" movement conspiracy that is much broader and with much more planted liars?



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Good flick, but I can't say that I agree with the conclusions. I have seen many pictures of aircraft debris at the Pentagon after the crash. I have seen film which should have shown an aircraft pulling up at the last second.
By far my own best evidence is a friend of over 25 years aquaintance that was there. Yes, he was working as a contractor at the Pentagon on 911.
My friend is certain that a plane hit the Pentagon. On the other hand, he has told me certain details that I have not heard before anywhere else. I have never known this gentleman to lie or exaggerate in the past, but I will take a few days to check out his story and to ask him a few more questions. I will post whatever I learn from him right here on A.T.S.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Nicely done video Jack!

I did get uncomfortable with the stuttering and the moments when the first two were trying to get the words out of their mouths, but I only wanted to see them point to where the plane was going..

Then on to the Police officers.. that was something I could relate to. They explained thoroughly about what they saw, drew identical flight paths which I thought was pretty neat.

The white cop was something I've never seen in interviews in the fact that he recollected on the spot... and he said he's never heard of the "Official" flightpath from 9/11, but their line of work had something different, which was amazing to me.

I just wouldn't go as far as saying a plane flew over (unless there's some evidence in the Researcher's edition that is coming) after watching this part of the research.

So the picture that we see of the cab is wrongfully taken? (from the white cop's memory)

Anyways, WATS and waiting to watch on the Researcher's edition!

Don't listen to the constructiveness, unless the mass media does call in, do so, like the editing out the unneccessary stuff when you go through it again.. but on the other hand, I do understand everyone's concern for taking out such parts.

CNN would probably show small clips from the film primarily on the fact that the flight path is different and might start from there, IMO, which I think they should do.

Enjoyed! Video worked fine on my machine straight from the website.


56

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I think the video could have been a bit better. It did not convince me at all that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. I am convinced though that the reported "official" flight path was wrong. As far as the plane not hitting the pentagon and going over, one question I have not seen an answer to is where did the plane go then? Now, I havent done much research into the Pentagon side of 9/11, but from the little I have seen, I don't see how the plane did not hit the Pentagon. Maybe the researchers edition will shed some more light on that theory.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Great Job!
Just got done watching it,impressive.

You have voted Jack Tripper for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
thought I threw in this eyewitness account from your "bart" link :


Lagasse, William

Sgt. William Lagasse, a pentagon police dog handler, the son of an aviation instructor, was filling up his patrol car at a gas station near the Pentagon when he noticed a jet fly in low. He watched as the plane plowed into the Pentagon. Initially, he thought the plane was about to drop on top of him -- it was that close. Lagasse knew something was wrong. The 757's flaps were not deployed and the landing gear was retracted.
206.181.245.163...

Lagasse, William

I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground, 400 miles an hour. The reason, I have some experience as a pilot and I looked at the plane. Didn't see any landing gear. Didn't see any flaps down. I realized it wasn't going to land. . . . It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. . . .I got on the radio and broadcast. I said a plane is, is heading toward the heliport side of the building.
web.lexis-nexis.com......
www2.hawaii.edu...


Bart's list was first compiled in 2003.
Sergeant Lagasse seemed to have the exact same recollection of memory in 2003 as in 2006. So, it's not 5 years ago as you said.

I am waiting to hear on what undeniable facts the makers of this film base their assumption that the plane Lagasse saw, in fact slipped over the Pentagon and not hit it.
AT this moment, I still see this as some sort of wishful thinking, I see no undeniable proof.

Another possible scenario:
Poles were downed by a few supersonic ground to air rockets from the Pentagon defence network, perhaps even launched automatically from the Navy Annex roof or somewhere in its vicinity.
They impacted the plane just before it hit the wall.

Realize yourself that Mach 3 or faster rockets would be quite difficult to notice, at that speed.

I said before already, that the damage pattern inside the Pentagon indicated more than one flying object causing it, and one damage pattern indicated a much more head-on impact.
There's your reason for the military to lie about the real flight path, perhaps.

[edit on 22/2/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Do you know what those curved poles were in the background Jack? Were they there on 9/11? If they were, aren't they in the flight path and would have been hit?


It is an airforce memorial that did not exist on 9/11.

It was completed last year.


memorial web site



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Thanks for posting, great vid. I find it compelling about the flight path. Very interesting



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Was the photo of the taxi cab location fake? (? 4 Jack)

Did these Mach 3 missles that were launched good enough to make a hole that would break through those rings with that small/big of a hole?
And add to the explosion?
(? 4 LabTop)

Will the Researcher's Edition shed light on the "Flyover Pentagon" and the "Downed Lightpoles"? (? 4 Jack again)


[edit on 23-2-2007 by BigMoser]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser
Was the photo of the taxi cab location fake? (? 4 Jack)

Did these Mach 3 missles that were launched good enough to make a hole that would break through those rings with that small/big of a hole?
And add to the explosion?
(? 4 LabTop)

Will the Researcher's Edition shed light on the "Flyover Pentagon" and the "Downed Lightpoles"? (? 4 Jack again)


[edit on 23-2-2007 by BigMoser]


All photos of the cab are real.

We don't believe there was any sort of a missile.

The rings of the pentagon are not separated in the bottom two floors.

The notion that it had to break through 3 rings is completely false.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   


You have voted Jack Tripper for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


I saw the movie, and think it's really ground shattering. Now I'm gonna watch it again, and concentrate on details.

If the US authorities actually do their work, they should react to this movie in the most serious way! I really hope they won't throw it away as 'just another nutcase conspiracy theory'. But I'm afraid - this exactly is going to happen.

Or maybe something like 'Screw PentaCon'?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   
interesting documentary. Nice work to all those involved



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   
didja post the Google video already or did I just miss it?

I deffenatly want to watch this and see what the buzz is all about. Seems to me you guys got some realy good evidence going.

Never mind I found it




[edit on 23-2-2007 by whatukno]




top topics



 
65
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join