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: 5
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I just watched the pentacon video and it seems there is a discrepancy caused because certain poles are knocked down. They show the flight path as a loop, a circle. Is it possible that the poles were knocked down on the first part of the loop then the plane banks around for final approach and there is a fireball? Notice I do not say impact because it is clear to me from the video that the witnesses themselves are pre-conditioned to SEE a plane hit and it's entirely possible that in a blink of an eye, a split second, that the plane COULD have flown over. The most adamant witness says specifically that he WATCHED the plane hit BUT this same witness doesn't remember the correct vantage point from where he watched the event. He has to be told that it was from the rear fuel pump indicating that his MEMORY IS IN ERROR with the facts that were recorded on the CITGO video. It is possible he may have only seen a FIREBALL in a split second and not been able to see a plane hit, especially since he said he dived into his car. If he saw the plane, dived into the car, and then looked up it's possible that he could have seen the fireball and his mind filled in the missing pieces as to what was TRUTH.

Whatever the case may be, we are dealing with very MINOR discrepancies and I have every reason to believe that the four gentlemen are telling their VERSION of the truth, which to me, still leaves VERY open to question the possibility that a plane could have flown over the pentagon at the same time a missile exploded giving the illusion of a plane hitting the pentagon.




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Question for Jack and everyone else who thinks the plane flew over the pentagon.

Why would "they" sacrafice 2 planes for the WTC attacks but go through this elaborate flight paths and missles and flying over the building so a missle could hit? There are two many variables in that scenario that could be a slip up IMO. I do agree that the flight path is wrong though.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Question for Jack and everyone else who thinks the plane flew over the pentagon.

Why would "they" sacrafice 2 planes for the WTC attacks but go through this elaborate flight paths and missles and flying over the building so a missle could hit? There are two many variables in that scenario that could be a slip up IMO. I do agree that the flight path is wrong though.



We can't say for sure "why" they chose to pull off such a complex operation the way they did.

We are merely presenting the testimony and the logical conclusion.

Although I can suggest that perhaps they did it this way in order to have more control of the damage to their own building that they did NOT plan on completely demolishing.


Now to everyone else:

I'm sorry but I do not have time to answer everyone's questions this weekend. We are presenting at the 9/11 conference in AZ and will be on the road soon.

I will eventually address questions that specifically pertain to the data that we have presented as time allows.

Thanks!



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Although I can suggest that perhaps they did it this way in order to have more control of the damage to their own building that they did NOT plan on completely demolishing.


That's actually a good guess. I hadn't thought of it that way before. So, do you think that the missile was the thing that broke the light poles and hit the pentagon while the plane flew over the pentagon?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Although I can suggest that perhaps they did it this way in order to have more control of the damage to their own building that they did NOT plan on completely demolishing.


That's actually a good guess. I hadn't thought of it that way before. So, do you think that the missile was the thing that broke the light poles and hit the pentagon while the plane flew over the pentagon?


Oh no no no.

That couldn't have happened.

There was no missile.

That is dis/misinfo.

The light poles had to be staged in advance.

(except the one on the road that supposedly speared the cab. that had to be placed simultaneously with the explosion)



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
So, you are saying that there was a bomb in the pentagon then? I guess I should watch the video huh? Thanks for answering my questions even though I haven't watched yet.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Will this be avalible as a download, I have a pc older than time itself! If so I can put it on my friends super computer. Looking forward anyways to veiwing



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
OK I need some affirmation here folks. Please help.

Am I being totally paranoid in thinking that Jack is avoiding my question regarding whether the eywitnesses were compensated for appearing in his movie?

If they were not, doesn't it seem reasonable that he would have said as much after I asked him twice?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

The light poles had to be staged in advance.

(except the one on the road that supposedly speared the cab. that had to be placed simultaneously with the explosion)


And they did this all in broad daylight?

"...simultaneously with the explosion..."

What you are explaning is one of the most complex operations in the history of thought, and to what end?

The only reason to undertake such an outrageous plan, and to assume such a monumental level of risk, is for a very significant benefit.

What was the benefit of all this?
What was gained?


You are implying that a large number of government employees committed the most intricate and heinous act of treachery EVER...

...because WHY?

It makes no sense.

I don't care if you're flipping burgers at McDonalds or the President of the U.S., no one would attempt something with such a massive risk / reward gap.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Although I can suggest that perhaps they did it this way in order to have more control of the damage to their own building that they did NOT plan on completely demolishing.


That's actually a good guess. I hadn't thought of it that way before. So, do you think that the missile was the thing that broke the light poles and hit the pentagon while the plane flew over the pentagon?


Oh no no no.

That couldn't have happened.

There was no missile.

That is dis/misinfo.

The light poles had to be staged in advance.

(except the one on the road that supposedly speared the cab. that had to be placed simultaneously with the explosion)


Bwahahhahhaahaha... Your serious? Is ANYONE buying this ?? This guy is railroading the entire TRUTH MOVEMENT. Then again... this is the SAME guy that posted LASER GUIDED PLANES at the WTC! (which turned out to be pieces of paper)

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK JACK!! #1 Disinfo Agent!!



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Then again... this is the SAME guy that posted LASER GUIDED PLANES at the WTC! (which turned out to be pieces of paper)


If those were pieces of paper, they were huge pieces of paper. What were they? Cardboard posters?

Not to go off topic, but IMO it was sunshine reflecting off the building which then reflected off the plane as it came closer. But that's my opinion.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Griff... look at the entire video...you can see it continue AFTER the plane collides. It appears on the building next to the WTC.

I really don't care WHAT it is... its NOT A LASER !!

(Sorry Mods for going off topic)



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   
CameronFox,

Will you please stop your baseless accusations.

I posted that thread a long time ago.

If you read my update you will see that I AGREE with you and have admitted I was incorrect.

I never believed it for sure anyway it was just posted for discussion.

In fact I now formally request that the mods delete that thread as it is not relevant to the Pentagon or our movie and I do not want it in this forum.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

The light poles had to be staged in advance.

(except the one on the road that supposedly speared the cab. that had to be placed simultaneously with the explosion)


And they did this all in broad daylight?

"...simultaneously with the explosion..."

What you are explaning is one of the most complex operations in the history of thought, and to what end?

The only reason to undertake such an outrageous plan, and to assume such a monumental level of risk, is for a very significant benefit.

What was the benefit of all this?
What was gained?


You are implying that a large number of government employees committed the most intricate and heinous act of treachery EVER...

...because WHY?

It makes no sense.

I don't care if you're flipping burgers at McDonalds or the President of the U.S., no one would attempt something with such a massive risk / reward gap.


So you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Because all of those sentiments apply regardless of how it was carried out.

I believe the poles were planted in the middle of the night.

And the last one just after the plane flew over when everyone's attention was on the explosion.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
OK I need some affirmation here folks. Please help.

Am I being totally paranoid in thinking that Jack is avoiding my question regarding whether the eywitnesses were compensated for appearing in his movie?

If they were not, doesn't it seem reasonable that he would have said as much after I asked him twice?



They were not.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

They were not.


Jack - Thanks for responding.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

So you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job.


Not at the moment, I guess. There's just no decent motive for any of it.

I think your ambition is commendable, I really do.

But if the ultimate goal of the 9/11 truth movement is to bring those responsible for the attack to justice then, at some point, someone is going to have to supply a feasible motive.

So far, "truthers" rely heavily on:

A) He was rich but wanted to be richer.

and

B) He was powerful but wanted to be powerfuler.

And I don't think those hold water at this level of national betrayal.

So Jack, this is my completely sincere and respectful question to you...and I'm not asking you to speak for the entire "movement", I just want your opinion:

Why do you think the government orchestrated this elaborate hoax?
Why an elaborate daylight slight-of-hand instead of a simple bomb and a well written speech for the president?

What was gained by the intricacy of the plot?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   


Why do you think the government orchestrated this elaborate hoax?
Why an elaborate daylight slight-of-hand instead of a simple bomb and a well written speech for the president?

What was gained by the intricacy of the plot?



I do not pretend to be able to read the minds of the megalomaniacal perpetrators.

But for some possible insights into this I suggest you read the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and the exit speech from Dwight D. Eisenhower about the military industrial complex.

Permanent global war on a shadowy uncatchable enemy requires a pretty significant pretext.



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



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   


Permanent global war on a shadowy uncatchable enemy requires a pretty significant pretext.


Thats a very important point most people fail to realize. The United States has had a permanent war economy since WWII and something needed to be created to keep it a permanent war economy.

With an invisible ever changing enemy the war will never end. And for people to dismiss documents such as PNAC out of hand really need to look at the history of the US economy. They have now created a perpetual war.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by etshrtslr]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Jack,

Allow me to begin by offering congrats and two thumbs up for your efforts. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job and any effort to prove this is worthy of our respect.

But I do have a question.

Of the four eye witnesses, how many openly said they witnessed the plane go into the Pentagon? I can think of two I believe, but it might of been three. I don't think the first guy did, and he mentioned it "pulling up". But if the other three are saying they witnessed the plane go into the building, how are we to ignore this and focus on other details they did see.

Seems like you could of easily done some editing to reinforce your own agenda, and the fact you guys have not done this reinforces that this is a legitimate testimonial. But if your theory states that the plane flew over the Pentagon, and your eye witnesses, which you base your theory from, are saying that they witnessed the plane hit the pentagon, how are we to ignore this discrepancy?

I look forward to your reply.

Very interesting work here.




new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join