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.

 

Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
That speedy little white Saturn was discussed at SPreston's post here:

Alleged Light Pole Damage To Taxi - Possible? Impossible? (page 2)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

JFK at the Loose Change forum brings that Saturn and its license plate up at post #104 (on that same thread linked above).

s1.zetaboards.com...

I'm not sure if SPreston or 22205 first discovered that Saturn thing, but it appeared like it was one of them from my reading.

Although the light poles (and Lloyde's cab) are veering off-topic here, I found another thread when I searched here for the white Saturn (but haven't read that one yet).

The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The strangest thing about this white Saturn is that it appears to have had "law enforcement/emergency" access to the site and showed up conspicuously in several photos. I didn't find a thread for the strange, multiple appearances of that white Saturn in my search, but it appears to be intimately linked somehow to the "Lloyde pole" and the cab vicinity at the time of the Pentagon events and photos.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by rhunter]




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

posted by rhunter

I'm not sure if SPreston or 22205 first discovered that Saturn thing, but it appeared like it was one of them from my reading.



It was 22205 who lives in Arlington Virginia and has given tremendous patriotic effort to achieve justice for the innocent victims of the 9-11 perps.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.



Good grief, you can't be serious. How is it humanly possible to "stage a downed light pole"? It's not like someone pulled it out of their pocket and threw it onto the street when noone was looking, and I doubt they were able to train the lightpole to jump out of its hiding place on queue like a magician's rabbit.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by rhunter
The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.



Good grief, you can't be serious. How is it humanly possible to "stage a downed light pole"? It's not like someone pulled it out of their pocket and threw it onto the street when noone was looking, and I doubt they were able to train the lightpole to jump out of its hiding place on queue like a magician's rabbit.

Good grief, you are literal-minded and off-topic. That is the title of a topic here at ATS. Try clicking the link under that title and just see what happens. Then you can continue on-topic over there.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
Good grief, you are literal-minded and off-topic. That is the title of a topic here at ATS. Try clicking the link under that title and just see what happens. Then you can continue on-topic over there.


Ahem. The topic of this thread is over whether there was or was not a fly over at the Pentagon, and one of the factoids being presented to support the fly over claim is that the light poles may have been "staged beforehand". I'm posting that the claim that anything so large as light poles could ever be staged is incredulous, and therefore, the idea of the possibility of a fly over is likewise incredulous. I do not understand why I really need to point this out.

You, sir, seem to forget that I'm not subject to your rules of debate. You and I are subject to the ATS moderators' rules of debates, and since they're not yanking my posts, that's a de fact ruling that my posts are on-topic. If you cannot accept their judgement, then I recommend you start your own board and you can then implement whatever rules of debate you desire.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Ahem. The topic of this thread is over whether there was or was not a fly over at the Pentagon, and one of the factoids being presented to support the fly over claim is that the light poles may have been "staged beforehand".

Technically, Dave, you are off topic.

By showing that the light pole could not have punctured the taxi, as claimed, proves that the official flight path is BS. It does not necessarily prove a fly over, which is where the factoid goes off topic.

However, for truthers, showing that Lloyde The Truthsayer was in fact telling lies, is enough to discredit the entire official Pentagon story and flight path.

There are plenty of other threads about the light poles which are current, try and take your debate there.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
By showing that the light pole could not have punctured the taxi, as claimed, proves that the official flight path is BS. It does not necessarily prove a fly over, which is where the factoid goes off topic.


Your reasoning is flawed. For flight 77 to have hit the Pentagon at the altitude and attack vector that was attributed to it, it necessarily means that the light pole documented to have been in the way would have had to been knocked over by the craft. It's a given that a craft flying 500 MPH or so would have had no time whatsoever at that short a distance to gain altitude and "fly over" the Pentagon. The discussion about the light pole and the fly over claim are therefore linked together- if one happened, then it necessarily means the other happened. Of one didn't happen, it necessarily means the other didn't happen. This is the whole reason why the light pole was even mentioned to begin with, as I see the logic.

I find the claim that the damage to the cab couldn't have been caused by a light pole is spurious, becuase the alternative claims that somethign so large as a light pole could be "planted" is even more spurious. This only adds credibility to the claim that the light pole was knocked over by flight 77, which in turn adds credibility to the claim that flight 77 hit, rather than flew over, the Pentagon.

Therefore, my argument and the topic of this thread are one and the same.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Your reasoning is flawed. The discussion about the light pole and the fly over claim are therefore linked together- if one happened, then it necessarily means the other happened. Of one didn't happen, it necessarily means the other didn't happen. This is the whole reason why the light pole was even mentioned to begin with, as I see the logic.

Your logic and reasoning is extremely flawed.

Without proof of the alleged light poles being allegedly hit, then all that can be stated is that the alleged jet did not fly that path to hit them. This means that all other aspects of the official story may not be as stated. This means that something else may have impacted the Pentagon flying along another path at another speed at another bank angle.

Light poles false => Official path wrong.
Light poles false =not> Fly over.

Try to keep up with logic, Dave.



I find the claim that the damage to the cab couldn't have been caused by a light pole is spurious, becuase the alternative claims that somethign so large as a light pole could be "planted" is even more spurious.

I find the claim that a heavy light pole can perfectly puncture a windscreen, as documented and only have one witness to the event more spurious, suspicious and worth investigating.

I find it highly suspect that NOT ONE government loyalist can model the light pole's alleged behaviour, using mathematics to show it did not leave a scratch on the bonnet or windscreen frame.

The government story has NO credibility when addressing Lloyde's light pole.



Therefore, my argument and the topic of this thread are one and the same.

Therefore, your false conclusions show how much trouble the official story is in. Prove that the light pole can do what it was alleged to have done and then you're a step closer to proving the official story true.

Otherwise... deep doo doo...



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I will explain to the more recent 9/11 interested visitors on this forum, why the "day one" researchers here, were, for so many (8) years, put on a wrong leg by the (French) website, that discussed for the first time (worldwide) all the obvious anomalies surrounding the 9/11 Pentagon event.

This is the still existing link to one of that site's pages :
pagesperso-orange.fr...
where you can click in the first two photos the "witnesses" and see that in both photos Desmoulins placed Penny Elgas (8) far too south, she was in fact quite close to Steve Riskus (10).

That site was set-up in early 2002 already by J.P. Desmoulins, and later, another French guy, monsieur Bart, added a long list of MSM reported eyewitness accounts to the site and made his own site.
J.P. deducted (wrongly) and showed us all in 2002 in the above linked page, that he thought Penny Elgas stood at a stand-still at the witness nr 8 position, which is proved by me now, to be totally wrong.

She was in fact much furhter north, very near to the nr 10 position of Steve Riskus, who stopped on the normal south bound lane, while she was standing still in the HOV lane, north bound, very near to the southern-first of the two trees at the side of the Pentagon lawn, just opposite of the helipad.

From the above link:

Witness 8 : Penny Elgas

Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was "Oh My God, this must be World War III!" In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. .../...


She described it as about 80 feet, or 27 meters above Washington Boulevard.
Thus it could have never, ever clipped some light poles much further south.
And it was too high to do so.


Witness 10 : Steve Riskus, [Interview conducted by email by "Agent Fescado"]

... I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof first... It did dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 ft or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it .ed towards the building... The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles on it's way...



This account is very precise on it's "photographic memory" side. The only problem is the distance evaluation. Between the point where the plane crossed the highway, hitting the lamp poles, under the "MAX APPROACH" tag and the first "E" of "ANGLE OF CAMERA", the distance is higher than 250 m (750 ft) : the side of the Pentagon length is 280 m !


Riskus described it as seeing the plane about 100 feet close to him, that's about just 34 meters away southwards!
And when you look closely at him describing his position in the above picture, he was also giving the right approach path, the red line of the "min estimated approach" trajectory.
That's an approach, passing north of Citgo and crossing Washington Blvrd just under the two Pentagon lawn trees in front of the helipad. And totally missing the five "downed" light poles.

I will now address the totally unbelievable story of the downed light poles.
In light of course of the CIT north of Citgo interviews, which make them a clear deception, but also in light of the behavior of a 757 at top speed in thick air.

You just have to realize a few major 757 measures now.
1. The height from wingtip to the bottom rim of its jet engine for a 757 parked on the ground.
In that case, the wings hang down a bit, caused by gravity pulling at the wings with the heavy jet engines attached quite near the fuselage body.
2. That above very different height in full flight, operating at the officially declared 9/11 speed of plus 500 miles per hour. Then, gravity pulls the most at the fuselage body, but the wing tips are pushed up by the fast flowing air.
All of you who have ever flown in a 757 at 10.000 meters cruising height in very thin air, and while at cruising speed (800 plus km per hour), know that when you looked out from your wing seat to the wing tip, that the tip was far up, and at least 2 meter higher than you saw it, resting on the ground.
3. Now imagin the same wing tip at the same speed but at a few meters above the ground, thus flying in very thick air compared to air at 10.000 meters high. The wing tip will be forced up even more, and stressed to its upper limits.

Then, go find the thread with the videos I posted from a New Zealand Air Force 757's last flight on their Airshow, and look at the height of the wing tips compared to the bottom rim of its two jet engines.
And that 757 did not fly by far at the officially pushed 9/11 speed.
Then calculate the difference in height between the wing tips and the bottom rim of the jet engines, at full speed at nearly ground level.
Then add the height of the jeeps, SUVs and other cars photographed in the HOV lane on 9/11 just after the event, and see if it would have been possible for a 757 at top speed with its wingtips lifted up to the maximum height allowed by the strength of its frame, to hit the light poles at the heights to be calculated by the visible cuts in the poles on the 9/11 photographs, and not hit anything earlier on its way in, than the diesel generator trailer.
The height of the poles is a known factor, ask Craig or SPreston how long they were.

The height of the "wingtip" pole-cuts can be calculated by measuring the lower parts of the cut poles from the photos.
I think the lower jet engines rims would have hit or nearly missed the top of the cars, or the guide rails along the HOV lane on Washington Blvrd.

Flying that low already above Washington Blvrd, when it "hit" pole nr 1 on the west side of the road, would mean that the 5 Pentagon video-photos first released, had the smoke trail about at the right height, but the "plane" it's nose far too far in the background if you look at the statements and real positions of Penny Elgas and Steve Riskus.
The distance of the parking boot camera to the incoming plane was thus in fact about 190 meters, about 2/3 of the west wall length, said to be in above excerpt as being 280 meters.

By the way, Craig, I noticed now in the above "Riskus placement" picture, that there was no huge road sign in the way on that "min estimated approach" trajectory.
Thus, it is still possible for the plane to have hit the building.
BUT, then the damage trajectory inside the Pentagon, and the outer wall damage is totally different than the shown damages. The damage path angle does not fit the "Riskus" damage angle at all.

Or, you must accept a nearly .-on plane impact damage trajectory which was in fact much less deeper into the building than we are officially forced to believe, and the 52° much longer damage path inside was added by man-made explosions.
Sounds reasonable to me. Especially when you realize that there was a strong Keflar netting inserted inbetween the layers of concrete and limestone in the facade, and that strong steel beams were placed in the concrete as reinforcement. And super strong panzer-glass windows with their frames embedded in the added steel beams.
This also fits most eyewitness accounts, fits the inside oriented facade damage, and camouflaged the rest of the interior explosions on that artificial 52° trajectory.

We then still have a huge military pre-planned deception but no fly over.
And still a north of Citgo trajectory.

See the next two Pentagon column damage diagrams:

1. First one.
Drawn damage only as deep as the A-E drive inside the building.
Original link: www.alsx.info...

Original image:


Forum fit image:




2. Second one.
Imagine the drawn by me, yellow lines now so far down, that the center yellow line overlaps the drawn-in plane's nose cone.
That could have been the North of Citgo flying, then impacting nearly .-on, mystery plane.
But the damage inflicted by the plane would have been only to the first, outer row of columns.
The rest of the damage would have been caused by planted explosives. And the victims remains would have been planted too at the exit hole, or that whole scenario was an imaginary one, and one person just made up a detailed DNA report. Can you prove it was not done that way? All in case of a military "Northwoods-style" deception, of course.
Then such a report would be a minor problem for them.

Original link: www.alsx.info...

Original image:


Forum fit image:



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
It will be helpful to read all my posts at page 14 of this thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That covered most of my proof of the real positions of Penny Elgas, Christine Peterson and Steve Riskus on 9/11.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Standard Pentagon area VDOT light pole lamp.s are 40 feet above ground level.



Robert Turcios testified that the aircraft flew north of the Citgo gas station and pulled up over the over. highway sign to miss the light poles. This would have been too far north to possibly hit any of the five downed light poles. This would also be too high to possibly hit the Pentagon 1st floor.






posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Thanks very much, SPreston, for that above first picture with all the numbered lamp poles in it.
Height of standard lamp pole is thus 12.192 meter (equals 40 feet).
We must concentrate at the moment on poles numbers 20 up till 27 on the left side of the road, and number 6 and 7, and possibly one more pole north of 7.

Do you perhaps have a tad bit bigger picture with some more detailed obstacles in the way of a descending plane instead of your above one?
As I said, one must add the minimum height of a car roof to the wingtip-to-engine-rim height of a 500+ miles/hr incoming plane with strongly bended-up wingtips, to determine its possible clearance above the road.
In that case however, the plane's wings would still severe one or more lamp poles, I think.
Pole numbers 7, 21 and 22 come to mind.

Opponents of a fly-over will say that thus the plane flew just high enough above Washington Blvrd to clear those lamp posts, and was still on a slight downwards angled trajectory, on its way to those concrete air vents in front of the center impact point.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Who saw a flyover? Where are the pictures? Where are the witnesses? Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Where did the plane go? How come nobody on the highway saw it fly over? How come nobody in the south parking lot saw it fly over? How come nobody in the north parking lot saw it fly over? How come nobody on the east side of the Potomac saw it fly over? How come Lagasse or Brooks or Turcois or anyone else didn't see it fly over? How come the ANC workers didn't see it fly over? How come nobody on GW Highway didn't see it fly over? How come nobody at the Jefferson Memorial didn't see it fly over? How come nobody at the marina didn't see it fly over?

How come NOBODY saw it fly over?



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


From the #7 light pole to the explosion/impact hole at the Pentagon is 400 feet distance. Diving at 784 fps (official speed) from 40+ feet altitude, the aircraft could not pull up to keep from hitting the building foundation in a one half second timespan.

Google maps over. view of light poles



According to all available photographs, the Pentagon building foundation was not damaged or gouged at the explosion area by impact with a 90 ton 535 mph object. So if something impacted the Pentagon building, it would have to slide in cleanly into the 1st floor damage area without impacting the ground level foundation. There is no evidence that two 6 ton Rolls Royce turbofan engines impacted the foundation.





[edit on 5/12/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

posted by trebor451

Who saw a flyover? Where are the pictures? Where are the witnesses? Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Where did the plane go? How come nobody on the highway saw it fly over? How come nobody in the south parking lot saw it fly over? How come nobody in the north parking lot saw it fly over? How come nobody on the east side of the Potomac saw it fly over? How come Lagasse or Brooks or Turcois or anyone else didn't see it fly over? How come the ANC workers didn't see it fly over? How come nobody on GW Highway didn't see it fly over? How come nobody at the Jefferson Memorial didn't see it fly over? How come nobody at the marina didn't see it fly over?

How come NOBODY saw it fly over?


Possibly hundreds of people saw a flyover. The traitorous Mainstream News Media would not touch them with a ten foot pole. The FBI quickly confiscated and permanently censored the Arlington County 9-11 hotline call-ins and transcripts. Perhaps some called in there. Likely others called the FBI or local police authority, who promptly referred them to the FBI; who would have informed them that they were mistaken and saw a 2nd aircraft which was following the hijacked aircraft. The FBI would have walked them through their accounts again and again until they got it right. This is J Edgar Hoover's FBI don't forget; perfectly honed as a strongarm political tool. Where would the 9-11 perps be without the faithful FBI?

And beside one had to be careful about aiding the terrorists and the FBI was taking names. There is a likelihood that the 9-11 perps used flash-bang technology in the initial explosion at the Pentagon, and many people were temporarily blinded for 5 seconds or so; plenty of time for the aircraft to fly away at 500 feet per second (300 knots) or so.

Arlington Cemetery employee Erik Dihle
"Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going."

audio recording of Erik Dihle interview by the Center for Military History
Erik Dihle interviewed by CMH in 2001



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by trebor451
How come NOBODY saw it fly over?


Possibly hundreds of people saw a flyover.
Perhaps some called in there.
Likely others called the FBI or local police authority, who promptly referred them to the FBI; who would have informed them that they were mistaken and saw a 2nd aircraft which was following the hijacked aircraft.
The FBI would have walked them through their accounts again and again until they got it right.

There is a likelihood that the 9-11 perps used flash-bang technology in the initial explosion at the Pentagon, and many people were temporarily blinded for 5 seconds or so



Wow.

That's alot of absolutely nothing. Only serves to drive home the point that this whole subject is completely bunk.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Your logic and reasoning is extremely flawed.

Without proof of the alleged light poles being allegedly hit, then all that can be stated is that the alleged jet did not fly that path to hit them. This means that all other aspects of the official story may not be as stated. This means that something else may have impacted the Pentagon flying along another path at another speed at another bank angle.

Light poles false => Official path wrong.
Light poles false =not> Fly over.


You forget the fact that I do not subscribe to your conspiracy stories, so for me, the equation is-

A) light pole knocked over by plane
B) plane hit the Pentagon

If A is true, then B is necessarily true. You claim B is not true becuase you argue A really equals...

A) Light pole has been planted

...which I agree would disprove B, but your value of A cannot be true becuase the light pole is a large object which would be nigh difficult if not impossible to plant to begin with, so B has not been disproven. It *might* be the case that A may instead equal...

A) light pole was brought down by a remote explosive charge

...which would likewise prove B wrong, so I will leave that up to you to illustrate. All I know is that the value of A as you try to interpret it is wrong, so the current value of A (and therefore, B) still stands.

Who ever said that math wasn't fun?


I find the claim that a heavy light pole can perfectly puncture a windscreen, as documented and only have one witness to the event more spurious, suspicious and worth investigating.


Not particularly, since as the events was unfolding, it's a given that everyone was watching the giant aircraft scream over their .s, fly into the building, and make the building go BOOM, rather than the cab or the offending light pole. The dread of imminent horrific death seems to do that to people.


I find it highly suspect that NOT ONE government loyalist can model the light pole's alleged behaviour, using mathematics to show it did not leave a scratch on the bonnet or windscreen frame.


But the problem for you is that the truthers are likewise unable to model how something so gigantic as a lightpole could suddenly be planted. More contradictory is the fact that you can provide no eyewitness to the fact that the lightpole was planted. Yet, you still subscribe to this idea.

Why the blatant double standard?


[edit on 12-5-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

But the problem for you is that the truthers are likewise unable to model how something so gigantic as a lightpole could suddenly be planted.




Of course we have.

Here is a detailed and extremely plausible hypothesis as to the staging of the light poles.

And here is direct physical evidence proving how little attention a downed light pole in the same area would actually get:
Light pole on hwy near Pentagon goes unnoticed for years.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston




Possibly....



Perhaps...



There is a likelihood...



Some people were yelling...


PLEASE tell me your case is not built on "possibly" and perhaps" and "likelihoods" and "some people". Please tell me that 7 and a half years after the event you can't do any better than "possibly" and "perhaps" and "likelihood" and "some people". Please tell me that your argument rests on more than what amounts to one big fat guess.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join