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.

 

New eyewitness evidence that Flight 77 could not have knocked over the light poles at the Pentagon

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Four eyewitnesses (two of them policemen) have been found by Citizen Investigation Team who state categorically that they saw a commercial-sized plane flying past them very low towards the Pentagon shortly before they saw an explosion there. There is some disagreement over its color and markings, but they are all adamant that it flew over the North (left) side of the CITGO gas station, not the South (right) side, as the official record states. This means that it was impossible for the plane to have knocked over the light poles because they would have been too far away. The poles must have been either planted (I find that impossible to believe - far too risky) or blown up with small, remote-detonated explosives.

If you take these people seriously (why should two policemen lie when they knew that their story contradicted the official scenario?), then it means that the knocked-over poles were intended to create a false approach path for post-9/11 investigators. According to these witnesses, the approach angle was more like 90 degrees, not 40-50 degrees. The question then is: why would the plotters go to the trouble of laying down a false approach path? Answer: because they wanted to provide phony evidence that what hit the Pentagon was a plane that was flying low enough to hit light poles and large enough (i.e. a commercial jet) to knock them out of the ground. Phony, that is, because Flight 77 (or the plane purporting to be it) never crashed into the Pentagon (the debris field was too meagre) but flew over its roof and landed at Regan Airport, if these witnesses are to believed. Trouble is, the actual plane did not take the planned route, according to these people!

These witnesses assume that what they saw was what hit the Pentagon. But was it? The building was too far away for them to be sure. The plane had to fly very low in order to deceive anyone seeing it that the explosion they saw and heard soon after indicated that it had crashed, whereas it actually flew unseen over the Pentagon. The witnesses did not spot any other plane either following it or approaching the Pentagon at another angle. But I have to wonder whether they would have noticed a small plane flying in fast at a very different angle, given the distance of the CITGO gas station from the building.

I believe the reason why people are finding so many issues with the video frames is that they are all fabricated. It is not yet clear what exactly happened at the Pentagon. But these witnesses prove - if they are not lying - that the knocking over of the light poles must have been fabricated because the plane they saw remained too far away from the poles ever to have been able to hit them. Their story is another smoking gun.

Google Video Link




posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
its not new eye witness evidence, there testimony was just never taken into consideration by the 9/11 commission.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I'm not a fan. it may be true, but I did a review here:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...[/ url]

It made Jack Tripper mad.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Am I right? is he right? Are we both right/wrong? I gotta report to my controllers now. I'll be back later. Peace y'all.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 7-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Well now that I'm COINTELPRO, getting either ignored or flamed at random spots as a "CIA fan" blowing smokescreens, etc. It's weird days, and I've hit some nerves it seems.

Where I'm coming from: The case I've been looking at is entirely consistent with the impact of a 757 from the southwest, clipping five light poles, tearing through a const. fence, smashing a generator, scraping a vent structure, and finally hitting starboard high just below the second floor slab, removing facing and clumns for a span of 100 feet on the first floor and fifteen on the second, piercing in some form through most of three rings, landing gear basically at the A-E Drive. The "official story," at least physically speaking.

Now new evidence surfaces that claims to turn the whole story upside down. In one way or another, whether by being 480 feet over the building or just barely clearing it, a new double-pronged campaign (Pandora's Black Box and The PentaCon) prove altitudinally there was no 757 impact. the 757-like damage was faked with bombs, the light poles torn off earlier and planted but they don't know or get into that.

Both new arguments agree on a northerly flight path proven by a "black box animation" of dubious legitimacy and four honest citiens. That's where the PentaCon comes in, and my review of it that was none too neighborly. but it's my beat, I mean nothing personal, but I have to take it on. As Jack tries to remind his critics, it's not about the whole theory, how the plane parts were planted, why no radar track after the overflight, etc. it's about the quadruple corroborating testimonies of their witnesses. Questioning their video means questioning the witnesses. Unlike most others, I'm willing to admit lying as a possibility. It makes me look like a mean old caveman with a jagged Q-mark in its head.

I casually offered a challenge; i could find more than four witnesses with creds who saw a plane on the official path and he could call them liars. He took me up and challenged me, seems confident I'll find one witness only that can explicitly counter them and he's compromised, meaning a liar. I have no doubt he's looked into it and this is how he sees it. I accepted. So some Pgon witness account analysis coming here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now eyewitness accounts are not my area of expertise. The whole gov. plant/fallibility of the Human mind thing. And so far, in my first round of scans, they're different than I thought. Not as clear, more contradictory, many full of holes. But I got the old school Laibach goin' on, and so I'll do okay.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
So... Let me get this straight.

Even though, the government somehow managed to pull off this unbelievably complicated covert operation--perfectly--and even though, according to some of you, it's super-obvious that the jet couldn't have taken out those light poles...

The government still decided to plant some light poles. And they managed to somehow plant them without anybody noticing.

Makes perfect sense.

You know what? Even if the conspiracy theory was right (and it's not), it's stuff like this that keeps people from ever giving it a chance. The light poles are meaningless minutia.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by whiterabbit]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiterabbit
So... Let me get this straight.

Even though, the government somehow managed to pull off this unbelievably complicated covert operation--perfectly--and even though, according to some of you, it's super-obvious that the jet couldn't have taken out those light poles...

The government still decided to plant some light poles. And they managed to somehow plant them without anybody noticing.

Makes perfect sense.

You know what? Even if the conspiracy theory was right (and it's not), it's stuff like this that keeps people from ever giving it a chance. The light poles are meaningless minutia.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by whiterabbit]


I should be asleep but... exactly I think. the light poles - and generator damage, and etc - are very important in that they illustrate either the real plane or the "fakery." I slay these arguments. And yet I bleieve they carried out an operation. Just not a stupid one. This is real, not a cartoon.



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join