It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

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.

is this what you plan to do with this thread after you realize it's
loony to think this way ? not loony but more like o j , believing your own lies . i really hate to speak to people like this but sometimes it's nessasary.

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:33 AM
here you have a lot of them, and one mr. Middleton, who's statement to a military History Unit three months after 9/11 is totally in line with the 2 PentaCon film officers :
(I quote the whole press release, since in my experience an awful lot of these historic documents tend to suddenly disappear after we unearth them)

Source :
It is still online.

Army unit piecing together accounts of Pentagon attack
By MILAN SIMONICH, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
WASHINGTON -- They are soldiers on the capital city's saddest mission.
Each working day, a three-man military history unit uncovers firsthand stories of the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon.
The terrorism here killed 189 people, including the five hijackers who crashed a commercial jet into America's military headquarters.
Now the Army's 305th Military History Detachment has the job of making sense of the madness. It is interviewing every willing survivor and witness -- a number that could climb into the thousands -- to write the U.S. government's book on the Pentagon assault and the lessons that can be learned from it.
The job is full of pain.
One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck.
Faced with so many funerals of friends and colleagues, the director of the office, Robert Jaworski,
agonized over which ones to attend. He could not possibly be at all of them.
Jaworski's plight was extreme, but not so different from what the military historians find every day. Just about every witness or survivor gets emotional when recounting Sept. 11.
"In most interviews there's a tear or two," said Sgt. 1st Class Dennis Lapic of Industry, Pa., who is a member of the history unit.
Before Sept. 11, Lapic spent most of his working life as a territorial sales manager for a manufacturing company. His duties with the 99th Reserve Support Command consumed only a few weeks a year. Now he is on active duty with a two-year assignment to find out everything he can about the attack on Washington.
That job was daunting enough for the Army to dispatch a second unit, the 46th Military History Detachment from Little Rock, Ark., to help with the interviews.
In all, the Army has 66 such units devoted to compiling history from battles and missions around the world. The Pentagon project is unprecedented because it will attempt to unravel an attack on domestic soil that indiscriminately killed civilians.
Even Pearl Harbor was different in that respect. All but 68 of the 2,403 Americans who died in the Japanese attack on Hawaii were soldiers and sailors.
More than three months after the Pentagon was hit, nuggets of information continue to emerge as witnesses step forward.
One day last week, Lapic ventured to Arlington National Cemetery to interview a groundskeeper who watched in horror as the plane crashed into the Pentagon.
The worker, William Middleton Sr., was running his street sweeper through the cemetery when he heard a harsh whistling sound overhead. Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft.
Middleton said the plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon. The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.
"My sweeper has three wheels. I almost tipped it over as I watched," Middleton said.
In those first minutes, he thought he had seen a plane in trouble, not a terrorist attack.
Middleton and his co-workers at Arlington continued to work Sept. 11 as Washington offices closed and buildings emptied. The cemetery crew had no choice. Funerals were scheduled and burials had to be completed, chaos and all.
As Middleton labored, he could see the destruction less than a mile away at the Pentagon, where the U.S. military mobilized for war.
Another Arlington worker who declined to be interviewed in front of the media told a story that the military historians had not heard in the 244 interviews they had conducted through last week. The man said a mysterious second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the Pentagon.
The interviewers ask every witness what might have been done to prevent the attack. It is more than protocol. They want to know if somebody may have seen or heard something hours or days earlier that could have been useful in stopping the attack.
When the interviews are completed, the findings will be published in book form and kept at the Army Center of Military History. The researchers hope their work will be a thorough account of the Pentagon attack, as well as a guide on what should be done to prevent terrorist attacks.
Along with facts for the book, the historians collect tidbits on what the attack did to the nation's psyche.
"I felt complete anger. If I wasn't an old man, I might volunteer to go back into the service," said Middleton, 54.
The history detachments for the Pentagon project are based at Fort McNair, a Washington post established in 1791 as Old Arsenal Penitentiary. Until now, the installation's most notable brush with American history involved the murder of President Lincoln.
Four people who conspired with Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth were hanged there July 7, 1865. The executions occurred as a nation torn by civil war tried to heal itself.
Now the military historians see their research on the Pentagon attack as one way to help people cope with today's crisis.
"There can be a cathartic effect to people talking about what they have seen and gone through," said Maj. Robert Smith of Germantown, Md., commander of the 305th History Detachment.

Top / Subscribe / Letters to Editor / Contact Webmaster / Staff Directory
Please mail any comments to
Call us at 508-997-7411

So the plane crossed over the outskirts of ANCemetery.
And he mentioned the same height above telephone poles as the officer who was not filling up the car.

Jack, here you have an abundance of witness statements put down in that historic report, and the names and addresses where to find them.
And where to find that historic report.
Wouldn't surprise me if it is a secret.

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:42 AM
Good job on the film! I would have liked to see more evidence of the downed light poles and proof of their exact locations. It is clear from the testimony the official flight path is off base at the least. I did verify that the film was correct in the locations of the downed poles. Now, here is where it gets speculative and your conclusions bothered me. I think planting of downed light poles to be a stretch. The explosion on the security camera seemed outside the building. I would point out the color of the fireball on the security camera(pentagon) was a completly different variety of fireball compared to the plane crashing into the world trade center. As a pilot myself(lost medical) there is no way a 767 could have come from the witness described flight path, made a turn to knock down the poles, and another turn to strike the building. I state that with confidence because, I don't think I could do it in a cessna at 100kts, let alone a 767 at a minimun speed of 160-200kts . Of course, I have no 767 flight time logged, so take that for what you will. Maybe ask John Lear!!!!Also, ask John Lear if wake turbulence of a 767 traveling between 170-500kts has the power to knock down a light pole. It actually might have that power, but ask John. All in all good movie. Need to answer more questions before speculation on a conclusion. Ask John those questions and we might be able to go further.

BTW I did an experiment with cell phones in my plane, while I was flying over southern California. Here is my results.
1,000-3,000ft MSL cell phone worked 70% of the time, pretty clear signal
3,000-6,000ft MSL cell phone worked 50% of the time, semi audible signal
6,000-8,000ft MSL cell phone worked 15% of the time, barely audible
8,000-9,200ft MSL(highest my plane would fly with the density altitude)
cell phone had no signal at all, zero.

Experiment Conditions:
Multiple phones
I conducted this experiment over a heavily congested area, San Diego. The weather was VFR, sky clear, visibility 20 miles
No sunspot activity reported

[edit on 25-2-2007 by rich1974]

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:39 AM

Originally posted by coven
you are the only person in the avionics world to ever think a 757 can turn 90 to the left, center back, 90 to the right center back, at 350kts. and a few hundred feet off the ground... On top of the less than 1/8th mile to perform this manuver in...

1.7miles and 30 degree truns
I speak about Jacks flight path.

Don't confuse it with the darkblues flight path question (that is also painted blue) and that is impossible to fly with that aircraft also in my opinion.
And this is importand.

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:50 PM

Originally posted by g210b

Originally posted by coven
you are the only person in the avionics world to ever think a 757 can turn 90 to the left, center back, 90 to the right center back, at 350kts. and a few hundred feet off the ground... On top of the less than 1/8th mile to perform this manuver in...

1.7miles and 30 degree truns
I speak about Jacks flight path.

number 1 watched the movie... It is not 1.7 miles to cross an 8 lane interstate, and a small field to get to the pentagon... Jacks flight path in the movie shows the plane lifting over the poles then turning right back to center and left back to center, all in the span of the interstate to the pentagon... NO WHERE NEAR 1.7 MILES... Maybe, Just maybe .7 miles. More than likely .35 miles if anything... Once again Not possible for a plane of this size and speed at that distance... The total distance of two 30 turns with coming back to center is actually 120 Degrees so your correcting statement, is actually further proving Jacks Mathmatics incorrect. As I said before the plane would have impacted on its side with the diagam shown in the film. The Diagram Above (Posted by Jack Tripper, No one else) Now shows a straight blue line stopping at the lift, and leaving out the impossible turns over such a short distance...

Don't confuse it with the darkblues flight path question (that is also painted blue) and that is impossible to fly with that aircraft also in my opinion.
And this is importand.

Also No one is trying to debunk the film, I am trying to let Jack know the Flaws to his feature, Being a Physics Student, I think I have a little more knowledge on the subject than most Americans, And Want to see the best foot put forward in a community I consider myself apart of... I'm sick of friends looking at me like I'm crazy Cause you Guys think PLANES FLEW OVER BUILDINGS... Guilt by association; if you understand that then you understand this is not your place to argue, But , Jacks place to explain his points...(which I have yet to see, just a lot of you trying to dissuade my arguement)

Once again I spent an hour watching this... I will not watch it again, or another version of it... Its an Idiotic Idea, and there is no basis to it... It is 9-11 profiteering at its worst... take a decent Idea, Add a theory that hold no water and on top of that he doesn't do anything to validate the decent Idea(light poles in wrong place), but keeps trying to validate the horrible theory(plane flying over and through explosion[PHYSICALLY NOT POSSIBLE, HEAT RISING ON THE TAIL WOULD BRING THE PLANE DOWN!])
Stick to the point, The government knew about it, and let it happen, then covered it up... Validate that first, then come back to the loony, Plane flew over the building (ohh yeah and the WTC PLANES WERE 2d *De De Dee*)

Get a clue people... your Government lies to you, But you can't lie to yourselves... Planes hit things on 9/11 3 things... BUILDINGS... The Rest is up to question... But... THE FACTS ARE NOT....

Let me Repeat That:


keep that in mind, and question the details, Not the FACTS!
3 planes Hit 3 Buildings, and really F*'d Some Stuff Up(And the government was warned about it)
1 plane crashed into a field....(Ditto)
1 president sat in a classroom and did nothing
1 Vice President Sat in a Bunker and Did Nothing
3000 + people died, because Somebody did nothing(Just that day, Imagine the real toll Today!)
Bush Knows Bin Ladens Dad(ohhh... And Usama too)
Cheney Makes Millions off Of our no bid Buddy Halliburton
Basically his entire cabinet either once was, or are still, active board members for war profiters and Oil Barrens...
People in NY are Still Dying from Asbestos Exposure...

Those are all Facts, And a Valid Enough Arguement(Not even including the patroit acts) to Remove our Government from power; Why Look for the Trivial S* in between.

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:55 PM
use google earth coven

Here is a helpfull picture:

Jack's flight path we are discutating is visible in that pic and is the yellow path.
(the blue in this is a question of darkblue)

(edit: made it a two liner including a picture)

[edit on 25-2-2007 by g210b]

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:34 PM

You are correct there is zero percent chance of a 767 following the blue flight path. I just can't take a giant leap and assume there was bombs in the building. Jack should ask John Lear the questions I asked from my previous post about wake turbulence and a combination of W.T. and the large blast. I just don't know enough about the power of wake turbulence from a really fast moving jet to answer that. Since, most large jets don't land at 500kts, with no flaps.
Wake turbulence can affect small planes for minutes after the larger plane has already traveled out of the area.

I am not trying to discount Jacks theory. I just want to eliminate other possible explanations.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by rich1974]

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:43 PM
if that is the case Darkbluesky has an extremely valid question, as his line is just as plausible, The question is did the plane follow the simpler Yellow path, or is there proof that the Pilot was not one of the names listed on 9-11 as s/he was experienced enough pilot to have flown the blue line... As it flies to the north of citgo and its angle of entry would be more precise for the damage. I Also Like LabTops Theory of the Financial and accounting offices of the pentagon being the target of the pentagon attack. That seems a much more credible route to explore than did the plane even hit the building?

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:02 PM
Following the blue line didn't happen, 100% certain, impossible. The jet would be traveling at around 750ft per second. So, it begs the question. What in the hell knocked down the light poles? None of the witnesses reported the plane in a high bank turn, near the Citgo. I put these questions in John Lears thread.

1)Is it possible wake turbulence could have knocked down the light poles?
2)Is it possible a combination of wake turbulence and the shock wave from the blast working in tandem caused the poles to fall?
3)Would you agree with my assesment that there is a zero percent chance that a 767 followed the witness flight path turned to hit the light poles and turned back to hit the pentagon.(I doubt I could do that in a cessna)
4)Is there any studies of shock wave behavior in disturbed air, or a wing tip vortex?

This is a vortex from a small plane.

Red is wake turbulence/blue is shockwave from blast

[edit on 25-2-2007 by rich1974]

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:09 PM
That's how mr. William Middleton Sr. described what he heard at the Arlington National Cemetery.

If you try to make a sudden sharp curve with a plane at that speed and that low and also presumably trying to exercise those blue S-turns, you will instantly drift off a hundred meter or so, when operating the tail rudder alone. You won't have the time and power to reverse the tail rudder in a split second at all, the plane's enormous inertia at that speed will prevent that.
If you try to operate the tail rudder in concert with the wing ailerons, at that low height, and at that near max. speed at that altitude and thus air density, ask a pilot what will happen.
Or more convincing perhaps to you, try it in a Microsoft Flight Simulator program. Some people here and at Pilots for 911 Truth have done that already, No way, José, you can do that with that plane.

At the last half mile of its approach path, the plane must have followed a very smooth nearly straight flightpath, or it would have ended in the ground, or left or right of the Pentagon west wall.
This was not a much lighter fighter jet, capable of doing that perhaps, at that speed, but a massive enormous plane designed to make smooth turns and smooth dives or climbs.

Subject : broken light poles. All broken at their bases, also cut at various heights :
Another possible cause of damage to light poles far away from the now known flight path, probably a head on collision at a near 90° angle to the wall.
Seen in the light of first proposing theories fitting the known facts, and later eventually switching to more complicated theories, involving deceit and treason :

The engines are designed to break off their holding nacelles when impacting an obstruction, and designed to fly up and go over the wing after breakage. That means that the right wing engine will have impacted the Pentagon wall at an higher point than the wing, in a horizontal arc, after hitting the generator truck near the impact point. The high speed revolving turbine blades will thus have been spinning in an horizontal plain, possibly bouncing off with enormous speed from the wall, and all their remains, still spinning at 10,000 rpm or more, impacted the light poles and cutting them while passing.
Remember please the eye witness, a woman, who later found a front piece of a wing in the backseat of her car, flown in through the opened sliding roof.
Her car was standing much further away than the light poles, on the interstate leading to the bridge over the Potomac river into Washington.
We have posted a picture of that wing piece here at the 9/11 forum.

Personally I find it too good to be true.

Some more on the Military History Detachment units :

* Robert G. Smith holds the rank of major in the U. S. Army Reserves and is commander of the 305th Military History Detachment. Since Oct. 5, 2001, the unit has been stationed at Fort Eustis, Va. to comb through the Pentagon rubble for artifacts and interviewing survivors and rescue workers from Sept. 11, when terrorists hijacked an airliner and crashed it into the Pentagon. The goal of the History Detachment is to compile an objective, accurate historic account of the events of Sept. 11. When their work is completed, their accounts will be stored at the Center of Military History in Washington, D.C., in massive volumes known as “green books.” The green books are devoid of politics or opinions and are considered the definitive history of a conflict.

Are the “green books” already completed and stored there?
Go check please, these are of enormous importance for all those who doubt the official explanations, but also for those adhering to them.
We'll see who can draw the best conclusions from that material.

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:18 PM
If you are with pilotsfor911truth it is a great website. I appreciate the work you guys are doing over there. keep it up!!!Also, I am not trying to debunk Jacks film. I believe if your gonna come at someone with proof of goverment involvment of 911 you better cover all your bases. So I am just looking at this objectively. I suspect my wake/blast theory will not hold water, and am working on finding an answer.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by rich1974]

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 07:00 PM
About darkbluesky blue path question Jack already gave an answer here:

Next that it is very likley impossible to fly that path with that aircraft the darkbluesky's blue path is also in contradiction with the observation of the two officers that both draw a straight line with a clear direction, west to east over a certain point, the fence.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by g210b]

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:03 PM
Hey thanks for doing some digging LaBTop!

We are quite certain there were some important witnesses in ANC.

In fact we have a 3rd party tip on some that were there who specicially claim they saw a plane fly over.

Hopefully they pan out.

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:12 PM
so basically this whole movie is based on nothing but four out of the hundreds of witnesses that say they saw the plane in another direction, which is right, but when they say the plane went into the building they are wrong. This makes so much sense! You should win a nobel prize!!!!1

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:33 PM
Many persons who were outside at the Pentagon on 911 weren't questioned at all, by anyone. The courtyard is generally filled with those who feel the need to slowly destroy their bodies with cigarettes. I have heard there were persons in that courtyard who indeed did see an airplane closing on them.

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:11 AM
Chadwick Brooks is a pentagon police office who witnessed the attack.

He was not questioned or briefed once by the feds.

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:31 AM

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Many persons who were outside at the Pentagon on 911 weren't questioned at all, by anyone. The courtyard is generally filled with those who feel the need to slowly destroy their bodies with cigarettes. I have heard there were persons in that courtyard who indeed did see an airplane closing on them.

Waaiiiit a minute here.

Are you suggesting yoiu have heard of people in the pentagon COURTYARD that saw the plane??

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:40 AM
Hey Fraud .... I mean Jack.....

Funny how you answer only the brain damaged that actually got something from your pathetic comedy. You have not answered one question from the 90% in here that say your claims are bogus.


Sgt Lagasse claims to have seen the plane for a 1/2 second. a 1/2 second!!

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:36 AM

Originally posted by CameronFox
Hey Fraud .... I mean Jack.....

Do us, the members, Jack, and everyone else a favor, and lay off a little. You disagree with what has been said in this documentary, as do I. However, Jack's efforts are certainly noble and I believe are in the right direction. But these petty jabs you continue to take are simply giving "us", the members of ATS, a bad reputation. "We" as a membership are known to be open and respectful. It is nice to see this expectation fulfilled. Frankly, your efforts to bait Jack are making some of us look bad.

Agree to Disagree on this and attempt to show respect to someone who has made a viable contribution to the "truth" movement.

Jack, we may not all agree with everything that you say. But "most" of us certainly respect what you are attempting to do here.

My salute to you man!

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:01 AM
I don't know why, I am even wasting my time trying to point out some of the holes in the bomb theory, since it will be ignored with all my other posts and every one elses that has any thing different to say. I was trying to help, so people don't discredit the film by poking holes in it. It is obvious no one wants to hear any possible explanations to what could of happened. The film was well done and exposed gapping holes in the official account of that day, but lacks rebuttle to other explanations that people will in no doubt bring up.
Here is the answers I got from John Lear.
quote: Originally posted by rich1974

1)Is it possible wake turbulence could have knocked down the light poles?

There is a lot of force generated by wake turbulence. It may have been possible.

I don't think the blast had anything to do with the pole damage.

quote: 3)Would you agree with my assesment that there is a zero percent chance that a 767 followed the witness flight path turned to hit the light poles and turned back to hit the pentagon.(I doubt I could do that in a cessna)

Assuming the distance was 3500 feet from abeam the Navy Annex to the Pentagon and assuming the Boeing 757 was traveling 750 feet per second (450 mph) and he made one right turn of 35 degrees and then a left turn of 40 degrees here are my calculations:

At 750 feet per second (450mph) it would take 4.66 seconds to travel that distance while completing one turn to the right of 35 degrees and one turn to the left of 40 degrees. Assuming you could make the turn to the right of 35 degrees in 1 second then from the right bank to the left bank in 2 seconds (that would be a bank angle change of 180 degrees at a rate of 360 degrees per second) then a 40 degree heading change in 1 more second you would have .66 seconds to level from a 90 degree left bank. The leveling bank from the 40 degree left turn would have to be at a rate of greater than 90 degrees per second or actually about 120 degrees per second. Assuming that both the wings and the tail were still on the airplane when it hit the Pentagon that would have been quite a feat of airmanship for a Arab hijacker on his first flight in the Boeing 757. Heck that would have been quite a feat even if the wings and tail were not still on the airplane.

I agree with you that there is zero percent chance that a Boeing 757 could have made this maneuver.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by rich1974]

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in