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.

 

Car Bomb Explodes Outside Pentagon: A 9-11 Diversion?

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Thanks for the info.

I am currently researching the cell phone aspect, but I have one question:

If what you claim is true, then how are people able to make calls from the cell phones that are provided in the head-rests on commercial flights?




..




posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
Thanks for the info.



If what you claim is true, then how are people able to make calls from the cell phones that are provided in the head-rests on commercial flights?

Well, that's a good question. And I am not an expert. It probably has to do with networks. The study gets into that.

I hope it helps. Let us know what you think of it.




..



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I was investigating this Pentagon crash, too. The video showing 4 frames of the crash actually proves that it could only be a passenger plane. Some sites put an Autocad version of a Boeing, and realized that it is just too big to fit in the video. Now why is that? Simply, because the plane arrived in an angle, not straight. The white smoke coming from the engine was the exhaust, which comes from every plane. It also indicates that it is a big plane. The tail is also quite big one.

Where were the wings gone? The WTC planes crashed into frames of light steel, holding the planes like the net the fish. The engines of the first plane crashing were clearly seen on their exact place while exploding inside the building. The Pentagon is a building made of reinforced concrete, designed to withstand a nuclear war. Hitting the side with a really high speed will not demolish the building like usually planes destroy big hotels.

Eye witnesses wrote to several websites, that they saw the plane, and it was not fake at all. The wings were enveloped, and the whole plane was part of the building after the crash.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
ECK
You are completely out of your league here. A car bomb would do nothing to the exterior of the pentagon. You need to familiarize yourself with the structure of the pentagon before even contemplating a post like this.

The exterior walls consist of 24" of concrete, reinforced with a web of steel post and beams. I hate to drop the bomb on your little party here but your way off base with this one.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sniper068
ECK
You are completely out of your league here. A car bomb would do nothing to the exterior of the pentagon. You need to familiarize yourself with the structure of the pentagon before even contemplating a post like this.

The exterior walls consist of 24" of concrete, reinforced with a web of steel post and beams. I hate to drop the bomb on your little party here but your way off base with this one.



You Sir are off base. ECK never claimed a bomb made the hole. He is sinple saying a bomb went off to make a diversion(sp), to get eyes other places.

Let me say, when this thread first came up, I was surprize to see it disbuted, I know the news in Indianapolis claimed a car bomb went off outside, It wasnt 30 seconds to a minute later, the "plane" hit. But we all know how the media was wrong, when all of them anounced the winner of the 2000 election, well all but one, Fox............



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I am coming in in the middle of this conversation and have not read the entire thread. I have the bombings of the WTC and the Pentagon on tape and the alleged car bombing wasn't outside of the pentagon, it actually wasn't reported until after word of the pentagon bombing had been spread.

The car bombing was supposedly in San Francisco. It was, of course, a false alarm.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 01:34 AM
link   
deeprivergal

Thank you

I too was listening to the live reports coming in and the reports I heard was that there was explosion at the pentagon. There was never a mention of car bomb, and if there was that sounds like an error on the part of the press.

Now you have car bombs going off as a distraction, Holographic images being projected from missles, misssle pods under the wings of commercial jets. This has the making of a good sci-fi thriller, not a conspiracy to thrust us int a war against the middle east.

Think!!!!!!!!!! This is way to complex for a conspiracy. You have four different events taking place at the same time. The probability for failure (or blowing your cover) (that is for the conspiracy crowd) increases 10 fold. You dont try and pull off a plan like this if failure is not an option. The terrorist who did committ these horrific acts had nothing to loose, they would have 1 shot and had to make the best of it. Future attacks would be highly unlikely do to increased security and they new it.

One plane into one building clearly would have been sufficient to rally America.









[edit on 18-7-2004 by sniper068]



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Thats not exactly what I remember. I'm not sure at what stage it happened, but during the 9/11 events I remember reading a banner on one or more of the networks that said: "Car bomb explodes outside...." and I think it was Congress, but not the Pentagon. It was probably an incorrect wire story that went out.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
It's interesting that this debate is continuing. Usually when that's the case, the truth still remains hidden from the official explanation.

The report of the car bombing came from outside the state department. That has been confirmed. Read from the beginning of the thread. As pointed out in one of the above quotes, it was most likely used as a diversion. It worked well, too. Swerve.. all eyes over here, then back. What was it they did not want us to see? A missile going into the Pentagon? A military helicopter hovering near the Trade towers, guiding the planes into the buildings by remote?

Are there any cell-phone experts here at ATS? If so, could you give us your creds and opinion regarding cell-phone use from airplanes at those specific altitudes? Your voice in this would be much appreciated.

Sniper, you only attack everything I say in my threads and attack me personally. I'd suggest, since you're not interested in the conversations within, simply avoid my threads. I have no interest in arguing with you or anyone else.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
The car bomb diversion theory it totally wrong.

It would take a little more than that to divert your attention from a F#&@%^$# jumbo jet screaming over your head , diving towards the pentagon, hitting light poles that smash into cars as they pass on the interstate.

ECK

that is not true, I simply look for threads that interest me. I have to admit I do end up posting on a lot of your threads. Nothing personal, I admit you post some of the more interesting ones. Many thread are down right boring and generate little response, unlike POLITICS. We have different opinions, I respond for that reason alone. I will be more selective in the future.



[edit on 22-7-2004 by sniper068]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sniper068
The car bomb diversion theory it totally wrong.

It would take a little more than that to divert your attention from a F#&@%^$# jumbo jet screaming over your head , diving towards the pentagon, hitting light poles that smash into cars as they pass on the interstate.

ECK

[edit on 22-7-2004 by sniper068]


Sniper, do have any idea how fast those jets fly? How very quickly they come out of nowhere? Have you ever worked on an airfield? I was monitering every news station at that moment. Attention was most definitely diverted when the carbomb was reported, I assure you.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
If what you claim is true, then how are people able to make calls from the cell phones that are provided in the head-rests on commercial flights?
..


That is because they are sat phones, not cell phones. That is the reason why it costs so much per minute to use.

I think AT&T has the contract to provide the phones.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Facefirst
If what you claim is true, then how are people able to make calls from the cell phones that are provided in the head-rests on commercial flights?
..


That is because they are sat phones, not cell phones. That is the reason why it costs so much per minute to use.

I think AT&T has the contract to provide the phones.


Thanks for pointing that out, Cool Hand.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by COOL HAND
That is because they are sat phones, not cell phones. That is the reason why it costs so much per minute to use.

I think AT&T has the contract to provide the phones.


Thanks for pointing that out, Cool Hand.


You are welcome. There is quite a bit of info in the 9/11 superthread about cell phone use in aircraft.

Bottom line, it is possible to make a phone call from a cell phone from a plane in flight.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   
At some altitudes and with certain phones. From the data I've seen, though, not many. Have you seen the data (in the thread) and in the 9-11 research thread? It's very interesting.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   
On Cell Phone use in the sky. Remember - according to the official story, some passengers on the hijacked airlines reportedly used their own cell phones - at altitude. Not possible.

In-flight cell phones 'worked great' in test
By Dan Reed, USA TODAY
The race is on to enable airline passengers to make and receive cell phone calls in flight.

Qualcomm Inc. chief executive Irwin Jacobs right, makes a call from an American Airlines jet as Monte Ford, left, listens in.
By Donna McWilliam, AP

Cell phone company Qualcomm (QCOM) has teamed with American Airlines (AMR) to develop satellite-based air-to-ground cellular service. Several smaller companies are working on rival systems. In-flight cell service could be introduced within two years and become commonplace within four, developers believe.

Last week, American and Qualcomm officials circled over West Texas in a jetliner making calls from their cell phones. The Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Communications Commission authorized the flight to test the technology's safety and transmission quality.

"It worked great," says Monte Ford, American's chief information officer, and the special flight's host. "I called the office. I called my wife. I called a friend in Paris. They all heard me great, and I could hear them loud and clear."
www.usatoday.com...



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
On Cell Phone use in the sky. Remember - according to the official story, some passengers on the hijacked airlines reportedly used their own cell phones - at altitude. Not possible.


That is because they were not at altitude. They were flying lower than normal for commercial aircraft in order to find the targets more easily.

Just match the times that the calls were made to the aircrafts flight path and you can see that for yourself.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Where was the debris? And why won't they release the tapes that were recording every inch of that area?


I know. I keep looking at the pictures after the "plane" hit and I have yet to see any kind of debris. My mom claims she saw them lift airplane pieces out from the rubble on tv but I've never seen anything to back up her claims. I bet you they won't release the tapes because they know a missile hit it and not a plane. Plus, why have a security camera that only records pictures at such a slow frame rate? Does the Pentagon think they don't need better cameras to catch a criminal or terrorist?


Trust me, my best friend lives on Arlington Blvd. which is a road that leads right to the Pentagon, in one of the last civilian buildings before the Federal Land on which the Pentagon sits. On that morning the plane flew right over his house not 50 feet off the ground. He ran out and saw it impact the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:58 PM
link   
i am enjoying to see you debate this subject.
for the sake of the people interested in this bomb/car/missile/whatever problem in the pentagonon i will post a link where you will have some questions to answer...and trying to spot where the plane is....!

cya


www.asile.org...



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I remember seeing a story about a plane going down in Colorado I believe it was. It was a straight nosedive. Witnesses caught a glimpse of the plane going down and thought it was a small craft. They got to the crash site and found nothing but a few small pieces of metal. It was as if the wreckage vanished. To their amazement what went down was a 727. Anyone else remember this story? How about the one that went down in the Florida Everglades? From the air there was little or no sign that anything had crashed there at all.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join