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.

 

Why no marks in grass from Pentagon light poles?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   


In regards to poles 2-5, if they were knocked down on the grass by a roaring Boeing 757 traveling around a blistering 530 mph, shouldn't there be marks in the soft grass where these heavy metal poles must of landed hard from being knocked down by such tremendous force?

It's looks like to me that poles 2-5 were laid down gently, like by hands.




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
they dont seem too heavy so i dont know if they would necessarily dent the ground.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



What in the World are you saying??

Let me see if I understand.

"They", in the broad daylight, removed the normal light poles and hauled them off to God knows where. Then "they"
trucked in the damaged light poles and layed them gently in their designated spots.




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I cannot see a picture. It may be just my comp but is there a pic on your post or a link? I would like to see this as i am very curious what it looks like. Sounds very odd what your describing.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
they dont seem too heavy so i dont know if they would necessarily dent the ground.

You don't think metal light poles would leave dents in the grass?????



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
A reply to the Title of this thread.

I do not know.


I do have the feeling that you have already reach a conclusion.

So why not state it?

Maybe we can start the discussion from there. You state why you believe that there are no marks in the grass ( I have read otherwise but I will listen to you out) then I will reply. Any question is fair and I promise that I will reply to all of your questions as honestly as I possible can.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by fizzy1
I cannot see a picture. It may be just my comp but is there a pic on your post or a link? I would like to see this as i am very curious what it looks like. Sounds very odd what your describing.

I PM'd you the photo link. If you look at the grass around where the light poles lay, you don't see an marks in the grass/ground where think the metal poles would have landed hard after being knocked down with extreme force by a blistering fast plane. It looks like they were gently laid down.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
I do have the feeling that you have already reach a conclusion.

So why not state it?

I don't know either.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
if you think about it, a metal pole of that size *would* make a mark or dent in the grass, IF IT WAS DROPPED WITH FULL FORCE.

by that i mean, say someone dropped one of those poles from about 50-100 feet in the air, yeah the weight of the pole would leave a mark.

but when you look at these pictures the poles are blatantly bent, twisted, distorted and what not.

when you take in account the energy taken to bend these thick metal poles, not to mention the energy to rip the thick bolts and welding that is holding it to the ground, you find there there is not much energy left to literally press the poles into the ground to leave the marks you're looking for.

of course i could be wrong, and i hope i am, because i do believe that 911 was a conspiracy, but i'm just throwing out an idea.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Classified Info
I do have the feeling that you have already reach a conclusion.

So why not state it?

I don't know either.


Fair enough.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Indeed you are correct that the light poles allegedly struck by a 90 ton 530 mph aircraft and violently thrown to earth left no marks on the ground. Furthermore 4 of the 5 light poles ended up laying right next to their original bases. The 5th light pole (#2) was somehow magically hurled backwards from the direction of flight down the hill.

For instance light pole #4 is laying right next to its base, with the sheared in half upper piece with truss arns still attached, which is right next to its lower half, propped up neatly on the guardrail. The lamp. is sitting neatly on the edge of the road surface. Does this light pole look like it was hit by a 90 ton 460 knot aircraft?



Original image light pole #4

Light pole #3 is laying within 10 feet of its base with no visible damage to the turf. Shouldn't the 530 mph wings allegedly clobbering these 5 light poles have knocked them a much greater distance in the direction of the Pentagon?



Light pole #5 is oddly placed with the sheared off top piece laying under the bottom piece. How could that happen naturally?

Of course now we know that the aircraft proven flying Over the Naval Annex could have not possibly have struck these 5 light poles could they? Because of a multitude of reasons including Lloyde the liar; we know that these 5 light poles and the taxicab were staged.




[edit on 7/8/09 by SPreston]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by conrad x
reply to post by ATH911
 

What in the World are you saying??

Let me see if I understand.

"They", in the broad daylight, removed the normal light poles and hauled them off to God knows where. Then "they" trucked in the damaged light poles and layed them gently in their designated spots.


According to the eyewitnesses on the scene that day the plane flew north of the former Citgo gas station across from the Pentagon.

This means that it was nowhere near the light poles and did not hit the building.

This means that the light poles were staged.

Frequently Asked Question: How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Hmm this is odd. yes i see what your talking about nowand its very odd. I do agree that there should be some scaring of the ground or dirt flung up somewhere at least in one of th epictures. Maybe not necessarily a dent on the groun but at least some dirt from where the jagged ends of the poles or parts of them made contact and tore the grass loose. Its very strange but i really dont know what this could imply.
We know that the plane struck the pentagon so i cannot see why someone would deliberately fake photos when it would be easy to just take pictures of the real thing. Very odd.

I can say that in a unrelated event that once i was in a rollover crash with my suv and the back hatch glass window got knocked out and was laying underneath the suv halfway and totally unbroken or cracked at all. We landed on the passenger side and the glass was sticking out the back end and was whole. very weird considering we fliped 7 times.

Its that event that makes me think that weird things can happen when there is no real reason they should of.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
The light poles are hollow to begin with, and secondly, they were more than likely tossed sideways quite a bit before they landed upon the grass. It is not as if the light poles were picked up a few hundred feet and then vertically dropped straight down, to the contrary, they instead tumbled and fell horizontally, which would have lessened any impact they made upon the ground.

Here is a light pole that was knocked over in a Severe Storm, which mind you, has far more force than any manmade object:




Do you notice much of a disturbance on the ground?


BTW, following the attack there was NO time to simply walk around "Planting" light poles, as a crowd had gathered within minutes, and the news stations are all within 2 Miles or Less of the Scene.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
The light poles are hollow to begin with,




and secondly, they were more than likely tossed sideways quite a bit before they landed upon the grass. It is not as if the light poles were picked up a few hundred feet and then vertically dropped straight down, to the contrary, they instead tumbled and fell horizontally, which would have lessened any impact they made upon the ground.

You make it sound like the plane's wings cut through it like a Samurai sword and the poles slowly fell over! lol


Here is a light pole that was knocked over in a Severe Storm, which mind you, has far more force than any manmade object:

Do you notice much of a disturbance on the ground?

I love when skeptics compare apples and oranges. That light pole looks less than half the size of the Pentagon light poles. Did the winds from that storm reach 530 mph? (Hurricane winds only go up to about 200 mph.) Did the storm knock it don't in one burst, or did that pole finally fall from continued battering from that storm?


BTW, following the attack there was NO time to simply walk around "Planting" light poles, as a crowd had gathered within minutes, and the news stations are all within 2 Miles or Less of the Scene.

Who's says they planted them after the "crash"?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Couldn't some kind of explosive have been placed inside the light poles and detonated to simulate that they had been hit by the plane?



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I would definitely think that the poles would have gouged out quite a bit of the grass, exposing the dirt underneath. I'm not sure if the poles would have been flung far from their bases. It seems that the top halves especially would have been thrown quite a distance, and if not, would have landed very hard, causing damage to the grass. Is it possible that the pictures don't actually show the real resting place of the poles? Were perhaps unprofessionally dragged off to the side to make something accessible? It wouldn't be the first crime scene that day to be compromised.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


First, can you prove that the position of the poles in those photos is exactly were the poles landed after being struck and secondly, how do you know there is no disturbance to the ground, thirdly, how do you know in each case that the first point of impact was the ground in all cases and not the pavement, curbing, guiderail, etc?

Sorry, you, as usual are assuming a lot and knowing little and asking everyone to explain the difference and don't even have the courtsey and honesty to say that you don't think a plane hit the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
If a plane had hit these poles, it would have cut its wings like butter and it would have lost its balance and crashed immediately.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeanne75018
If a plane had hit these poles, it would have cut its wings like butter and it would have lost its balance and crashed immediately.


Those light poles, as with light poles generally, were designed to break away if hit by a car ( to minimise injuries ); let alone an airliner.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join