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: 6
65
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
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.




They, like virtually all witnesses, were fooled into believing it hit the building due to what had just happened in new york and the brilliant slieght of hand illusion of the timing of the flyover to the explosion.

The north of the station claim is independently corroborated by all.

This claim proves the plane could not have hit the light poles and the building regardless of whether or not they were fooled into believing it did.

The hollywood fireball concealed the impact and the flyover.




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Jack:
ok, i have to say i disagree with your findings. pretty much on every level. for you guys to use eyewitnesses as proof that the plane had a different flight plan than the govt claims but then turn around and disregard the testimony when they get to the "and then i saw it hit the building" part seems a little too selective for me personally.

for me its just too much of a leap to go from a deviated flight plan to an overflight of the pentagon followed by a bomb/missile. one doesnt prove the other. or, to be fair, disprove it. to me all youve really proved is that the govt is misreporting the flight plan. by mistake or by intent. thats it.

having said that, while i may disagree with you, i do respect your opinions and more than anything i admire your conviction in this matter. takes guts. i respect that.

but, i really feel compelled to say this. the following statement:


Originally posted by Jack Tripper

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


that one statement has given me more reason to really reconsider 9-11 than all the grainey wmv's, pics, testimonials, all of it put together.

i like being challenged mentally. this statement challenges me.

thanks for that



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Permanent global war on a shadowy uncatchable enemy requires a pretty significant pretext.


If the goal of our permanent war is to keep the enemy from attacking us, instigating that war with 9/11 is akin to burning your house down to keep it from catching fire.

But, correct me if I’m wrong, I’m guessing that’s not really what you meant. I’m guessing you were looking at the financial upside of a war. Like etshrtslr:


Originally posted by etshrtslr
The United States has had a permanent war economy since WWII and something needed to be created to keep it a permanent war economy.


So put a bomb in a school.
…a little baby nuke in Minneapolis.
…a little smallpox outbreak in Austin.
…20 bombs in 20 malls across the U.S. going off at the same time.

Compare those operations to what you described in your movie.

Minimal risk, the exact outcome of 9/11.


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
I do not pretend to be able to read the minds of the megalomaniacal perpetrators.


You’ll have to if you want to sell your conspiracy as legitimate.

Anyone can conjure the “HOW” of a conspiracy…it’s the “WHY” that will make people believe it.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
[
They, like virtually all witnesses, were fooled into believing it hit the building due to what had just happened in new york and the brilliant slieght of hand illusion of the timing of the flyover to the explosion.




oh so they were fooled into that but they're positively certain about everything else? I am dumbfounded as to why ATS gave you your own forum. We're supposed to listen to 4 witnesses out of the 100s that were interviewed and ignore most of what they said and only believe the stuff you want us to agree with? This whole thing is utter nonsense.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   


So put a bomb in a school.


To have a permanent war economy you need to be building machines for war. Like aircraft carriers, submarines, bombers fighter jets and everything else thats needed to fight a war.

To convince the public to spend their hard earned tax dollars to increase military spending an event needed to be created that was so big so spectacular that people would not question at all what was being spent on the military industrial complex.

And if you look at the results since 9-11 I think the money spent on military industrial complex prove they did a good job of convincing the public it needed to be done.

Edit to add:

To have a permanent war economy you also need to have a strong domestic economy and nuking a city or creating a small pox outbreak in a city or bombing 20 malls would create unnecessary economic damage to the economy that far exceeded what happened on 9-11.



[edit on 23-2-2007 by etshrtslr]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr
To convince the public to spend their hard earned tax dollars to increase military spending an event needed to be created that was so big so spectacular that people would not question at all what was being spent on the military industrial complex.


Are you a parent?

Five bombs in five elementary schools across the U.S. would have created 50 times the furor that 9/11 did.

And...not that elementary school janitors aren't vigilant watchdogs of safety...but I'm guessing the operational risk would have been significantly less than hijacking four commercial airliners then flying them into three buildings, two of which had been extensively wired from the inside to collapse, one of which had been specifically reinforced to withstand the collision of a missile which would be launched at it providing the illusion that the the airliner collided with it.

Now I'm not saying that nothing ODD happened on 9/11.
I'm simply saying that unless a RESPECTABLE explanation can be provided as to why "THEY" decided to do it that way, then it's all going to come across like a tinfoil hat fashion show.

Me personally...I've never seen a single viable explanation of "WHY" attached to a 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Not one.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
After reading through this entire thread - and highly anticipating the release of this documentary - I can't say I was happy with what I saw.

I am glad that there were witnesses who were interviewed that could corroborate the story of the plane to the north of the CITGO gas station. This in itself provides enough "evidence" for there to be some new looking into the exact flight path.

However, I was very dissapointed in the conclusions made regarding the flight pulling up and over the Pentagon. I am not sure whether or not the "Smoking Gun" version of the film was to focus solely on the eyewitness accounts of the different flight path - but I feel including the pull-over maneuver in the "Smoking Gun" version without appropriate research or justification may have knocked down the validity of the film overall.

But... In the defense of the Citizens Investigation Team and Jack Tripper, I do commend them on the excellent job they did with the CGI of the film, talking to the eyewitnesses, and I look forward to seeing what they put together with the Researcher's Edition.

Everyone in this thread who is bashing the CIT and the Pentacon movie - take a step back for a second and see what you have done for the Truth movement, whether you believe or not. If you don't believe - I don't see you going out and makiong documentaries refuting anything that the truthers have brought to the table.

And to those who are bashing the film and CIT and ARE a part of the Truth movement, what have you done lately to help push forward the fight for a new investigation?

Before you go judging the character of someone, take a look at yourself and ask yourself what you've done for your own cause or agenda.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   


Are you a parent?


Yes I am...three children.

If you read my edit to my recent post I think the goal was to create as much fear as possible with the least amount of economic damage. The scenarios you outlined would have caused much more economic damage than what was actually done on 9-11.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Has it been verified that the do not enter sign existed in 2001 exactly as it does now?

I only ask that b/c I think the african american officer said that there was nothing blocking the plane's path then. I think the gas station attendant said it was there and the plane flew over it. Why not make sure.

Obviously the officers thought the plane hit the pentagon, that's the whole point of the explosion. It seemed to me that they thought they were debunking conspiracy theories with their account. I did not see the interviewer leading them at all, in fact I thought he was being very carefull not to.

If it is indeed true that the plane could not have hit the pentagon from that angle then the witnesses' testimony is devastating. And even if it could, how can the damaged light poles, that were not in the flight path, be explained?

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Bob from BC]

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Bob from BC]

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Bob from BC]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr



Are you a parent?


Yes I am...three children.


I'll go out on a limb here...I bet you live and die with your kids...if someone threatened them you would wrap yourself in Old Glory six times over, wouldn't you? More moved to action than after 9/11?


The scenarios you outlined would have caused much more economic damage than what was actually done on 9-11.


But that isn't exactly what you said before...we're not talking about short-term drops in the stock market, we're talking about the long-term financial support of an inspired and united American people.

And 9/11...especially how it's described by the PentaCon movie...could IN NO WAY be seen as the path of least resistance to that end.

I'll stand by each scenario I listed as having an equal or greater impact than 9/11 with probably about a TENTH of the operational risk.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   


But that isn't exactly what you said before...we're not talking about short-term drops in the stock market, we're talking about the long-term financial support of an inspired and united American people.


Im not sure what you mean by this.

What I have said before has been entirely consistent.

They needed some event so big and so spectacular to convince the public to increase military spending but at the same time it needed to do the least amount of harm to the economy.

Bombing schools, malls or nuking a city would paralyze the economy. Setting a virus free on a city would shut it down completely and the repercussion would be felt throughout the entire economy.

What was done on 9-11 was designed to create the maximum amount of fear with the least amount of economic damage.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr
They needed some event so big and so spectacular to convince the public to increase military spending but at the same time it needed to do the least amount of harm to the economy.


I'm no economics major or anything, but I feel like it isn't consistent to say that there could be an event that increases military spending AND damages the economy. History shows that the two are mutually exclusive, doesn't it? War is GREAT for an economy, regardless of how it started.


Bombing schools, malls or nuking a city would paralyze the economy.


More than completely leveling the epicenter of U.S. economic activity?


Setting a virus free on a city would shut it down completely...


I didn't say "setting a virus free"...I said "a smallpox outbreak." Nor did I say "nuking a city"...both of these events have variables that could be controlled easily (as compared to the 9/11 attacks) with equal psychological results in the American people.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I feel that posts need to be deleted that do not pertain to the Pentacon, I can't concentrate reading on with everyone having problems and questions with everyone else and not about the documentary!

If you have questions for someone in particular, thats what a U2U is for!



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
wait ,wait wait a minute ! how does this prove that it flew "over" the pentagon ? please , explain that to me as if i was a 7 year old , cause i see no proof .



edit - jt quote " The light poles had to be staged in advance "
i think some of the people driving their cars would be hip to that because
one would remember a road crew dropping off bent light poles in the middle of the road . - just use your brain a second , all this is just way too much to pull off . people dropping off bent light poles where people were driving seconds before, a jet flying over the pentagon that no one see's , the 20 or so feet difference in the flight path that's the key to your whole messed up " proof " .
i love a good conspiracy , but only when there's substance to it . your's doesn't even have any smoke . sorry to be so harsh , but there are some who will never see the forest for the trees .





Originally posted by Jack Tripper
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]


[edit on 23-2-2007 by rainking]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

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?


I'm reticent about pasting a previous post, but I think this question stands. I'll keep bumping it until someone answers.

Smoking Gun?

I don't think so.....



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Here's how the outline should have been based on everyone's views

1. Simple Narrative Intro about what's about to come

2. 4 Key Witnesses to the Flight Path to the Pentagon from memory of 9/11/01, starting from the furthest away

3. Ending Credits

End.

*Flying over the Pentagon should not have been mentioned without the proof, or at least say "It will be covered in our next film as I will show you proof."*

ATS Members - If the outline went as follows, would you have enjoyed watching it to the fact that there were witnesses reinacting their moment of seeing the plane fly over moments before hitting the Pentagon?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
The hollywood fireball concealed the impact and the flyover.


Are there any witnesses to corroborate this? Any proof whatsoever?

You have managed to add skepticism towards the original flight path, I give you that. But I hardly see how the video adds to anything remotely close to indicating that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon.

Seems like a lot of people would of seen this. The fireball did not block everyone's view.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by chissler]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   


Everyone in this thread who is bashing the CIT and the Pentacon movie - take a step back for a second and see what you have done for the Truth movement, whether you believe or not. If you don't believe - I don't see you going out and makiong documentaries refuting anything that the truthers have brought to the table.


I am now going to link to websites that debunk the Truthers.

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...
911myths.com...
911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com...
www.pointlesswasteoftime.com...

and theres tons more. the first two are in my opinion the best as I haven't looked into the last ones very well.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   
i dont think its so much a matter of debunking the truthers. or the 'official story followers"

i think its a matter of finding the truth devoid of bias in an open minded analytical way.

i think no matter what side of the fence anyone is on, we can all agree we didnt get the whole story.

now, whether that is because there is a cover up, or if the govt is incompetant, or whether they are holding evidence as part of an ongoing criminal investigation hardly matters

but, in an effort to find the truth of the matter, we need to debate all possibilities but always remember to stay open minded.

i mean, its no secret how i feel about the ideas that there were explosives in the wtc complex, but im open minded about it. when i have some very compelling evidence, ill reevaluate my opinion, but as of yet there is no compelling evidence to make me just throw out all the years i spent working with explosives.

just as while i am willing to entertain the idea that jack is on to something about the flight path, im more willing to believe that the govt just screwed up in their analysis before im willing to admit that a 757 could fly over the pentagon by what would have to be mere feet and not have anyone at all that was in the building say "yeah, there was a loud explosion and then what sounded like a jet flying overhead really low"

but thats just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   
darkbluesky,

Based on which facts did you draw your yellow proposed flightpath line in the last post on page 1 ?

It is wellknown, established by many eyewitnesses from the french "bart" list (see the 200+ Pentagon flight 757 thread, around post 180 to 200 I posted a lot of them), that the last trajectory of the plane followed Columbia Pike, and thus could not easily follow your yellow line.
(Columbia Pike is the road going downhill from the ridge and passes in front of the Navy Annex, then makes an S curve behind it).
It past in front of the east side of the high hotel laying south of the Navy Annex (clearly seen by a man in a top room), went over the roof of the Navy Annex (seen by an military officer in a conference room at the west side, he mentioned it passed over his right shoulder when he was looking down at the Pentagon).

I'm going to review the bart list, weaponized with Jack's witness testimonies.
I found it odd from the beginning in 2001, that so many military personnel was trapped in that traffic jam in front of the Pentagon, just when the plane passed over that road and slammed in the building.
I asked myself, which percentage of all these military witnesses were all much too late leaving home to be in time at work, and which percentage already left work again to do an outside job.
I mentioned in the big 757 thread, that the congestion was caused by a traffic accident, the same one which attracked the 2 famous first fire engines from the airport within 3 minutes on the Pentagon grass, and who kept wide spreading so enormous fountains of water, obstructing nearly every possibility to make clear pictures from the impact region, untill the roof came down.

I have now a lot of mistrust in nearly all of those traffic jam witnesses, based on Jack Tripper's new witnesses and the discrepancies already found years ago in all of their testimonies. The bulk of the traffic jam witnesses were military or government affiliated.
Too many to be statistically normal for a traffic jam, even one in front of the Pentagon. Officers must be at work in the building, not in front of it at 09:38 a.m. The military starts early.

Where did you get this info from ? (""was on course at the driving range, "")
I remember some military guy golfing there. But also a woman telling it flew right over her house with the address added, beside Columbia Pike. And that would force the plane to make a very strange S turn to cover both spots.

Why did you call this one finalflightpath3 ?
Are there any other finalflightpath jpg pictures in your photobucket account beside the other finalflightpath2.jpg I found?

This is your picture :




Jack Tripper, I have a feeling you will come up with good reasons why in the new flightpath, the plane could not have impacted so low at the wall, exactly with the center of the nose cone on the floorslab between floor 1 and 2.
(You'r not so stupid to just add that info without proof. Too long seen your posts.)
And that it was only possible when a flat last 500 meter trajectory was accepted, as also seen in the famous tool boot video.
Why were there so many witnesses then who said the plane DIVED in the building, ask yourself that f.i.

There were a few huge traffic signs f.i. spanning the whole road. And those large trees at the Pentagon side of the road.
I already mentioned once, that it seemed to be a damn big coincidence that the official theory flightpath was nearly the only one which fitted in between all these traffic signs, radio masts and lightpoles.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join