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: 4
65
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   
I see the majority of the posters here agree with my assesment. This video is the first 911movie to dedunk itself. WHY?

The end claims that the plane flew over the pentagon yet all three witnesses saw it hit.

The white cop gave IN DETAIL the angle of the plane...the tail section.

IF and thats a big IF there was a discrepancy in the flight path...you should have concentrated on that.

This video is pure trash and will get laughed at by ANY serious media outlet. You will however have your handful of people that want so badly to hold onto a conspiracy that just isnt there.




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

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



I think people would have noticed mach 3 rockets. Maybe not seen, but definatly heard..although come to think of it, they would have seen the vapour trail from any missile fired.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Sorry for posting again... I needed to bring up a couple more things that could discredit this video.

If the plane flew OVER the Pentagon...why wasnt there any type of a vapor trail beyond the explosion? (not sure if the angle of the camera allowed view of this)

I was watching the news (like everyone else) I happen to be watching a live report from the Pentagon when it was hit. The reporter heard a large explosion and said so. IF a plane was to continue over the Pentagon, he along with this camera man would have definatly noticed this? I would like to confirm his location @ the Pentagon.

More importantly...

Cell phone calls... Were there any placed AFTER the time of impact with the Pentagon? NO! Why not?? Why all of a sudden did loved ones stop talking to each other after the plane "flew over" the Pentagon?

Sorry Jack, you gave it your all.... You are the Newest Disinfo Agent on the block!



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   
It's probably just me, but when the officer was working out where the plane was traveling on the picture in relation to its flight path he seemed like he was "acting".

He made a sort of mini drama out of where he was standing and also seemed to have a slight "smirk" on his face

Other than that the evidence is quite good yet left me feeling not quite convinced.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
This is for CameronFox:

If Jack left out all the parts that you thought were dumb (i.e. the intro, music, etc) and left out the Plane flying over the Pentagon and focused only on the details of where the plane's flight path was, how would your Response be then?

But I do agree with you CameronFox, it shouldn't have been in this video. The whole purpose was to blow off the reports of the flight path and that was it. Thats what I would have done, given the 4 witnesses telling where the plane was, wam bam, thank you mam, credits at the end...

EDIT: Unneccessary partial post that made no sense

[edit on 23-2-2007 by BigMoser]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Jack - Were the witnesses compensated, in any form, for appearing in your film?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser
This is for CameronFox:

If Jack left out all the parts that you thought were dumb (i.e. the intro, music, etc) and left out the Plane flying over the Pentagon and focused only on the details of where the plane's flight path was, how would your Response be then?

But I do agree with you CameronFox, it shouldn't have been in this video. The whole purpose was to blow off the reports of the flight path and that was it. Thats what I would have done, given the 4 witnesses telling where the plane was, wam bam, thank you mam, credits at the end...

EDIT: Unneccessary partial post that made no sense

[edit on 23-2-2007 by BigMoser]


To me the entire video was junk. Sorry. He has 4 witnesses that claim a different flight path than that of close to 100 other witnesses.

Did you hear the white cop? HE even said..."you think things over and over in your mind and it constantly changes.". (something like that)

I'd like to see how many witnesses Jack & Company found whos story did not somewhat line up with their agenda. Did Jack try to find some witensses to the downed light poles?

Also, If the Citgo worker saw the plane pick up due to the DO NOT ENTER sign... wouldnt he have hit the light poles prior to that? (ill have to re check the heights)

Again...his claim of the plane NOT hitting the Pentagon was DEBUNKED by ALL of his witnesses... NOT ONE SAW IT FLY OVER.... NOT ONE SAW ANOTHER PLANE!!!

HE was leading all of the witnesses telling them that "others saw a c-130 in the area"



[edit on 23-2-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
i guess im left wondering...why, if the witnesses testamony about the flight path is credible, but the fact they SAW the plane physically hit the pentagon is wrong, how are they still credible?

i mean, can they be right about part a but wrong about part b and still be 'good' witnesses?

me? im willing to accept that the official flight path could be wrong. but, it could be wrong as a mistake not a conspiracy.

if thats the case how'd the lightpoles get knocked down. dunno. car maybe? no idea honestly. dont really care honestly. you got credible witnesses that appear in this video saying they saw the plane hit the building. nuff said.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
i am convinced that the official story has been caught in error... and now there is a mystery as to what caused the downed poles and damaged the taxi.

the biggest exposure here is i would assume the reported flight path is allegedly from the black box... and used in government testimony.

may as well drop the whole "plane flew over the pentagon" angle, its the weakest link of the story. i kept saying to myself, as it was repeated over and over, why would they bother doing this if they had already crashed 2 other planes?

the video is pretty bad... i suggest tightening it up with an edit to hide all the gaffes, and passing it into some filters in places to increase the contrast or something... you owe it to the black officer to not make him look like a fool at any rate.. lol.

too bad you didn't have a boom or lapel mike, and didn't drop the tripod altogether. or used an assistant... all the paperwork stuff was a good laugh... lol. all the traffic noise, like the garbage truck... omg. i suspect alot of this will be cleaned up for the next edit, and you just wanted a release, and thats respectable.

me? now i believe that a plane indeed hit the Pentagon... and that facts are being rewritten. i do believe that the planes in use that day were remote controlled replacements of the original flights, if the flights ever existed.

www.iasa.com.au...

maybe one day ill make a video about that...

thanks Tripper



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   


Cell phone calls... Were there any placed AFTER the time of impact with the Pentagon? NO! Why not?? Why all of a sudden did loved ones stop talking to each other after the plane "flew over" the Pentagon?


the whole phone call thing is phoey, it is impossible to make a cell phone call in a commercial air liner. I've tested this many times.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
OK here's my theory. Opinions welcome.

Refering to the picture below, It's my opinion that a 757 could follow the flight path shown in blue at 350-375 kias. The width of the blue line is roughly the wingspan of a 757 to give you some perspective. Based on the faulty memory of the key witnesses in various regards, specifically which pump he was at in 2001, and the stated speed of the icident, it's completely plausible that the aircraft was visible to witnesses on the N side of CITGO without it actually having passed well north of the station but just over it.

Any pilot, experience or otherwise would want to look out his port window during any approach. on the yellow flight path he would have made his final turn to starboard to line up on the building.

And finally, this is a reprated question I posted yesterday but I'm still looking for opinions. Why would a pilot, who was part of a conspiracy to make it appear his airplane hit the pentagon by flying over planted damage light poles, and on a trajectory matching column damage in the building, deviate from his planned flight path with 3-4 seconds to impact?

CIT says the yellow line was the final approah, The red line roughly shows the official trajectory. At impact minus 4 seconds, the pilot was on target, why divert so late and ruin all these well laid plans?




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by phantom702


the whole phone call thing is phoey, it is impossible to make a cell phone call in a commercial air liner. I've tested this many times.


False. As anyone who flies and owns a cell phone knows.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I don't think we need to repeatedly post how we have a distaste for the film. Either we do, or we don't.

But I do feel that some of the eye witnesses were led to some of their conclusions, and some actually acknowledged seeing the plane go into the pentagon. The film begins with facts saying that there are no contradictions, and that they are going to present irrefutable evidence. This expectation was a detriment to the film, because it instilled high hopes within me. And at the end of it, I was disappointed.

The second eye witness was quoted as saying how the plane pulled up over the Do not Enter sign. But in the next breath he was quoted as saying the plane was flying over the tree in the CITGO parking lot. The tree is just as high, if not higher, than the do not enter sign. If the plane was flying over the tree, it had no time whatsoever to drop, and then pull up, to go over the do not enter sign.

This may not be much of a contradiction, but they do exist in this film. And since they do exist, the expectation should not be set so high. I felt that there was a serious emphasis on small facts, while others were blatantly ignored.

With that said, I do highly recommend that film. Even though I disagree with some of it, it was an interesting watch. North or South of CITGO is a tough one to overcome. All of the eye witnesses are corroborating this one. But aside from this fact, the film comes up short for me personally.

Kudos to the individuals involved with this though. I really did enjoy it.





[edit on 23-2-2007 by chissler]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Sorry Jack, you gave it your all.... You are the Newest Disinfo Agent on the block!


I second this! This video was nothing but a waste of time. Sure you put a lot of work into it, but that doesn't make it a compelling premise to your conclusions. With that in mind, why are people so eager to give away a WATS vote to this guy? He's done nothing but spread misinformation. If anything, you get my Way Below Top Secret Vote of the month.

I don't see how you go from eye witnesses saying they saw a plane hit the pentagon to a plane not hitting the pentagon. And then hypothesizing that bombs were strategically placed in the building.




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
[..
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.




as outlined in the 757 thread, about a year ago, these six walls rested on a lot of columns, walls don't just hover in the air and the hole's geometry is strange, infact it may even be fake (ie. blown out after the attack).

regarding your movie, you proved the flightpath shown by MSM was wrong and misleading, which is nice for people on ATS, but most people won't care about such details, so i really hope you have some evidence the plane simply flew over the pentagon.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Thanks for the input everyone!

We knew this testimony would be extremely controversial even within the movement.

There was a lot of good feedback here and we appreciate it.

Bottom line this movie was not made for the masses.

It was made for the researchers.

We intended to release this simultaneously with the Researcher's Edition but we wanted to get this critical testimony out as soon as possible.

We know there are contradications/errors in their accounts and we left them in on purpose for transparency. But the one thing that is certain now is that the plane flew on the north of the station. This is corroborated by ALL of them.

This proves it didn't hit the building.

Period.

Thanks for watching everyone and I look forward to discussing this more here in the future!


[edit on 23-2-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Wait wait wait...

Let's just inch this up the field and not touch the Pentagon at this moment, please, for Jack and everyone.

Inch it up the field..

Ok, we have a line of the flight path from the witnesses matching up to the fact it flew on the North side of the Citgo Gas Station.. that was the purpose.

NEXT: Let's move it up to the downed lightpoles and STOP here until we can figure it out how they got to get to where they are.

My question is: Could the plane have swirved into that direction, banking, turning, whatever.. and still knocked the poles down anyway? (link to answer if there is one)



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

Originally posted by CameronFox

To me the entire video was junk. Sorry. He has 4 witnesses that claim a different flight path than that of close to 100 other witnesses.



100 witnesses did not give the flight path details.

The police officier at the Citgo knows what he saw, and he evidently knows what really happened, although was reluctant to speak up about it.

Until we get proper decent video footage of the plane hitting the pentagon, i would buy Jacks theory over the official line anyday!

On a serious note, i think its a very plausible theory!! I really dont get why everyone is up in arms about it, saying its rubbish, because its not.

I commend you Jack! Anyone putting information out there which could open a few more minds is a saint in my opinion. Well done



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I'm not sure, but I think we were all just dismissed?

Jack - Were the witnesses compensated by anyone, in any way, for taking part in the film? Simple question.


[edit on 2/23/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
But the one thing that is certain now is that the plane flew on the north of the station. This is corroborated by ALL of them.

This proves it didn't hit the building.

Period.


I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm being dense here, but how does proving the airplane flew on the N side of CITGO prove the airplane did not hit the Pentagon?

Also, I dont think eyewitness testimony contitutes proof...it constitutes testimony. If, for arguments sake, we accept that testimony is proof, then there is more proof supporting the conclusion that the airplane hit the building.

Proof is photographic evidence, physical damage, etc. There's quite a bit of that which supports the position that AA77 did hit the Penatgon, regardless of what course it followed.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join