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.

 

What the Pentagon Guard Told Me About 9/11

page: 8
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


The fact of April Gallop sueing American Airlines in the first instance is old hat and indisputable :-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your apparent lack of awareness of this does nothing for your case.




posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by LightsideAssassin
 


Sorry....you have linked to a "source" that has ZERO credibility.


I think these guys can explain what I'm getting at better than I can:
pilotsfor911truth.org...
It's damned hard to lose a 747 over american airspace.


NO, it's damned hard to FIND an airplane that doesn't want to be found. Do you understand how our borders are, and then were (to the exclusion of the interior) patrolled regularly, mostly as part of drug flight interdiction? And still, they can't catch all of them....and this is when they are ACTIVELY searching for illegal entries.

There is a LOT of airspace over the ConUS. And, intercepting a target that does not have a transponder, and you (ATC radar) do not know its altitude? And, the way that ATC radar facilities are structured......each facility is broken down by geographic "sectors", and also vertically into differing areas of responsibility, for all those sectors. And, various facilities can be physically not in the same place, even if the geographic region is the same, depending on how high they cover the altitude of the particular airspace. There are huge gaps in radar coverage, for one facility, compared to the area that another covers, when you get lower to the ground.

The USA's ATC system is still surprisingly antiquated, if you want to know the truth.

People not in the Industry don't realize this....and, they tend to think of finding an airplane in two dimensions, and forget about the third dimension.


ETA, almost forgot......if you were unaware of that source's lack of credibility, all it takes is to note that the LONG disproven claim about United 175's ACARS transmissions is still up on their website!!!

This shows that they have a particular agenda.....and, contrary to the name of the group, it is NOT about "truth"....

(You can use ATS Search for the thread about the ACARS....it isn't worth mentioning, here)....

What would work as a valid source (not online, it's a book) is written by a pilot, and covers what is topical to this thread, in terms of American 77 and its approach towards, and impact with, the Pentagon.

It is titled "Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11", by Lynn Spencer.

Available in most libraries in the USA, or any others where they keep English-language books.

In fact, maybe it's been published in other languages, I do not know.....

(Amazon.com listing)


You will learn a lot about the facts, there.....

(...and, no......I don;t get any commissions for suggesting it....)..................




edit on Thu 16 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


oh dear.... i guess because it can happen in the movies it can really happen in real life.

Some woman sees the plane flying low, and decides to touch it from the sun roof of her car.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Yeah, ok. Well here's my take on your post.

While you did mention that your post was going to be anecdotal, I really don't think this particular anecdote merits it's own thread.

The guard was just exaggerating. He probably meant it at as a metaphore, that the plane was so close - and in his opinion - clearly identifiable as a plane. This particular person sounds like an idiot. Which isn't surprising, given the requirements to become someone with that position in the Pentagon. I mean, were you really that surprised by him? Did you really take him that seriously that you decided to argue the physics involved in his anecdote???

And, as for the 'scare tactic' when you left: What did you expect? To some people in the military you guys just insulted the Pentagon and the memorial, with your tones, rhetoric, and/or attitudes.

Conspiracy theories aside, there's still a way to talk to people in the military. You guys were looking for a fight and you got one. End of story. Hope you had fun on the tour.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightsideAssassin

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by LightsideAssassin
 



Kinda hard to miss large airliners flying off-course. Unless you mean to. I direct that at NORAD, and FAA...


It is when there are only Primary targets (all but one had the transponders in Standby...the other, UAL 175, was still squawking, but just random codes, so each controller, as it entered his/her airspace, had to re-acquire it, and then try to relay that to the authorities).

Even harder with just Primary targets....there were a lot of OTHER airplanes in the air, and once the decision to land them was made, then THEY were all "off course". I'm guessing you may not be a pilot, and familiar with how ATC works?

In addition, the interceptors were not capable of "Warp Drive"....even at Mach 2, that is merely twice the "500 MPH" you cited....about twice. Still, there is a finite time involved in recognition of the threat, and then action undertaken. And all the inherent confusion involved.

For the record, had the terrorists not intentionally crashed UAL 93, it was still somewhere around 125 miles, from D.C. After the AAL 77 impact, the alerts were clear, and the thread of UAL 93 was clear.

@ 125 miles, it could have been in the D.C. region within only about 15 minutes. So, it might have been intercepted in time. Hard to know for certain, though.....


edit on Thu 16 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


I think these guys can explain what I'm getting at better than I can:
pilotsfor911truth.org...
It's damned hard to lose a 747 over american airspace.


There wasn't a 747 involved on 9/11 but if you think it is so easy to spot a particular errant plane have a look at the radar picture on the morning of 9/11. Second pic down :-

fastlane.dot.gov...



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Magnificient
 


You are welcome to test that theory. Let us know how it turns out. Do you realize how fast the plane
would be moving compared to even a car going 65 MPH? It would move by in a blur, I'm not sticking
MY hand out to touch one. That story is absurd. And the guy getting sucked into a harrier engine intake,
he didn't go thru the turbine blades, got sucked thru the side cowling. If he had gone into the spinning turbine,
he would be hamburger.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dubiousone

Good Ol' Dave, you keep forgetting that it wasn't just any old normal plane. It was a magic ariplane with magical wings and massive magical jet engines that at least twice suddenly and neatly defied the laws of motion (acceleration and change of momentum) by folding back at what must have been a near 90 degree angle in a small fraction of a second in order to slip through that nice round center hole in the Pentagon wall! Windows that didn't break despite what we're told was a direct hit by jet aircraft wings traveling 5oo or so MPH.


Tell me something, just how many plane crash sites have you analyzed in your forensics career, and how long have you worked in as a structural engineer servicing 1940's era buildings, for you to certifiably know what the plane should or should not have done when it hit the Pentagon? If the answer is ZERO then all you're doing is reaching into the BS artist cookie jar and pulling out a "you'll just say lots of fancy words you don't understand to confuse me" cookie for me to swallow.

The Pentagon is in the middle of an industrial park surrounded by numerous highways, apartments, office buldings, and even a marina, and all the people in these areas instantly became eyewitnesses when the plane impacted. Plus, there are photographs of the wreckage recovered inside and outside the Pentagon, and plus, the black box was recovered that showed it was flight 77. The problem ISN'T that there's no evidence that a plane actually hit the Pentagon, because there is. The problem is that you're so much in love with these conspiracy stories that you don't want to believe it, so you'll excuse me when I say I'm going to have to side in with the enormous amount of evidence over this junk science we both know you're cutting and pasting off some damned fool conspiracy web site.

Sometimes I swear these conspiracy theorists are really pulling my leg with this "no plane hit the Pentagon" bit.


One doesn't need to be an aircraft crash forensic investigator or a structural engineer to comprehend the fundamental Newtonian laws of motion.

What happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 is not well explained by the OS. I understand that you're very comfortable with the OS. Good for you.

I have yet to hear a credible explanation of why the two wing mounted massive jet engines did not punch their own two separate holes into the Pentagon walls. Until that is explained, the OS is pure unadulterated BS.

Those who say the aircraft wings are not massive, and therefore we should not expect to see much or any damage caused by the wings to the Pentagon walls, always comfortably fail to account for the two jet engines mounted on those flimsy wings. The jet engines are two of the most massive components of an aircraft and could not under any conceivable view have done what we're told they did that day.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sumgai
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Yeah, ok. Well here's my take on your post.

While you did mention that your post was going to be anecdotal, I really don't think this particular anecdote merits it's own thread.

The guard was just exaggerating. He probably meant it at as a metaphore, that the plane was so close - and in his opinion - clearly identifiable as a plane. This particular person sounds like an idiot. Which isn't surprising, given the requirements to become someone with that position in the Pentagon. I mean, were you really that surprised by him? Did you really take him that seriously that you decided to argue the physics involved in his anecdote???

And, as for the 'scare tactic' when you left: What did you expect? To some people in the military you guys just insulted the Pentagon and the memorial, with your tones, rhetoric, and/or attitudes.

Conspiracy theories aside, there's still a way to talk to people in the military. You guys were looking for a fight and you got one. End of story. Hope you had fun on the tour.


Lol
I started this thread to share a story. I'm not arguing a point, but relating an event. Sorry you don't find it worthy of a thread.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by LightsideAssassin
 


Sorry....you have linked to a "source" that has ZERO credibility.


I think these guys can explain what I'm getting at better than I can:
pilotsfor911truth.org...
It's damned hard to lose a 747 over american airspace.


NO, it's damned hard to FIND an airplane that doesn't want to be found. Do you understand how our borders are, and then were (to the exclusion of the interior) patrolled regularly, mostly as part of drug flight interdiction? And still, they can't catch all of them....and this is when they are ACTIVELY searching for illegal entries.

There is a LOT of airspace over the ConUS. And, intercepting a target that does not have a transponder, and you (ATC radar) do not know its altitude? And, the way that ATC radar facilities are structured......each facility is broken down by geographic "sectors", and also vertically into differing areas of responsibility, for all those sectors. And, various facilities can be physically not in the same place, even if the geographic region is the same, depending on how high they cover the altitude of the particular airspace. There are huge gaps in radar coverage, for one facility, compared to the area that another covers, when you get lower to the ground.

The USA's ATC system is still surprisingly antiquated, if you want to know the truth.

People not in the Industry don't realize this....and, they tend to think of finding an airplane in two dimensions, and forget about the third dimension.


ETA, almost forgot......if you were unaware of that source's lack of credibility, all it takes is to note that the LONG disproven claim about United 175's ACARS transmissions is still up on their website!!!

This shows that they have a particular agenda.....and, contrary to the name of the group, it is NOT about "truth"....

(You can use ATS Search for the thread about the ACARS....it isn't worth mentioning, here)....

What would work as a valid source (not online, it's a book) is written by a pilot, and covers what is topical to this thread, in terms of American 77 and its approach towards, and impact with, the Pentagon.

It is titled "Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11", by Lynn Spencer.

Available in most libraries in the USA, or any others where they keep English-language books.

In fact, maybe it's been published in other languages, I do not know.....

(Amazon.com listing)


You will learn a lot about the facts, there.....

(...and, no......I don;t get any commissions for suggesting it....)..................

Sorry, but simply stating that that site has no cred doesn't mean you're correct. Thst's a common (and frankly, tired) tactic. I believe them more than you. Sorry.


edit on Thu 16 February 2012
by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 



One doesn't need to be an aircraft crash forensic investigator or a structural engineer to comprehend the fundamental Newtonian laws of motion.


Probably not, but it would help immensely. The concepts involved are complex and require far more than simply applying Newtons equations of motion.

Did you take into account of the fuel load? The fuel load will determine the kinetic energy of the entire plane and how it will break up.

Did you take into account of the building design? (The pentagon is built using older building techniques. The bottom floor is built like a foundation in order to take the load of the upper levels).

This image was taken from www.freedomfiles.org...



I don't know how accurate this doctored image is in terms of scale and Flight 77's heading, but if it is accurate, then I don't think I would expect to see separate holes for the two engines. In fact I think it is pretty solid evidence that we would only see the damage that we have.

Wings are a bit of an enigma when it comes to collisions. They are built on a 'weight vs strength' formula that has to account for for such things as fuel weight, thermal cycling & shock(cold - hold - cold, sudden changes), atmospheric variations and load stresses caused by the actual movement of air over the surfaces to name but a few. In order to plot the break-up of a wing, we need to take all the above into account plus things like the shear bolts that hold the engine to the wing, the structural make-up of the alloy of the frame as well as the age of the aircraft and expected wear & tear due to that age.

Simply put.......plotting any collision involving a large aircraft at speed is no easy task.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


To Smyleegrl: Five of us here in the Bush have taken this story to task. We do not believe you are lying at all and the officer in charge here would like you to U2U me about this incident. This is the 2nd story we have of this kind within 3 weeks of this one here. We sent someone from our embassy to the Pentagon as a tourist and did some acting. This same Protocol you describe here is what exactly we were told by our mole. Except a telephone call was made to the embassy and taped. That is now under investigation and there is plenty of spin for all. Yes, you are not a liar. Not to us. Disinformation breeds more disinformation and we have more involved interrogation procedures than school teachers.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by hooper
I haven't gone through all the posts to this thread, but has anyone speculated yet that the OP is just plain old manure?


How so? Because I related a story told to me? I started this post by stating it was purely anecdotal.

Again, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE WOMAN TOUCHED THE PLANE IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED. This was simply the story told to me by the guard.



No, you misunderstand me. I think the whole thing is a load a crap. No tour, no teacher, no story about touching the plane. The OP is simply a bit of fiction. An excuse to post some piece of hogwash and ascribe it to the government and try and make whacky truthers look like brave and oppressed agents of change.


First of all, if you'll check some of my other posts it is quite obvious I'm a teacher.

As stated in the op, I do not have a concrete opinion on 9/11. I believe a plane most likely did hit the Pentagon. But I've also read threads on ATS and other sites that leave me with questions. I don't consider myself a "truther," as you so eloquently stated.

Believe the story or don't. But please refrain from calling me names. It weakens your arguments.



>> Well "WELCOME" then to the 9/11 Conspiracy! I know you were probably not ready for the Barrage of emotionally charged responses.

IF YOU ARE ON THE FENCE -- DON'T LISTEN TO ANYONE BUT ME. After years of experience, I've decided that I actually do have the best opinion on the planet -- somehow I was cursed with this Cassandra like instinct for reality. Who knows how it happened,... but, at least you can benefit where others have wasted time trying to figure stuff out when they can just ask me!


While I don't agree with EVERY conspiracy -- and I think it's a waste of time to argue if a plane hit the Pentagon or NOT because the evidence has been embargoed. I do say that we have enough to prove that the NIST and the Government were involved in a coverup.
I'll give you TWO things to watch that use no-nonsense physics to show categorically, that the collapses we saw at the WTC had to be assisted with some sort of demolitions;

Engineers speak out; LINK
MIT engineer; LINK

When the firemen talk about "little streams of molten iron flowing down" inside the buildings -- it's not something that can be readily dismissed. When you see a building collapse at freefall speed -- there is nothing we've ever heard of OTHER than a demolition that can do it.

>> What COULD have happened at the Pentagon, is that a plane flew just over the roof, and some explosive's charge went off as it passed. Bystanders would see the plane and be distracted by the blast and VERY few people would be at an angle or be looking at the other side of the Pentagon to notice. This would be an easy theory to disprove IF WE HAD THE RADAR RECORDS FROM THE FAA. Guess what? The head of security for the FAA admits to destroying the tapes. No prosecution was made of this man.

So I would limit any investigation into what you can PROVE, and evidence of a coverup where we would expect things could easily be proved or disproved.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Even here in Tennet Creek Australia we has a different take on this. But listen to the gentleman that posted above this post. I guess He is the founder. He is correct in what He is telling you. The RAA is not attacking you nor is my department or any of the such, but the gentleman is spot on about protocol on this subject. I hate to research it because people are so bias about there opinion. We do not Judge. I am open to anything that you write.
Shannon.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by shannon83
Even here in Tennet Creek Australia we has a different take on this.

I'm confused. Your location says New York, but you say your from Tennet Creek. Do you mean Tennant Creek in the NT?


But listen to the gentleman that posted above this post. I guess He is the founder.


Founder of what? This thread? Nope, the originating poster (OP) was Smyleegrl.


He is correct in what He is telling you.


How do you know? Divine intuition?


The RAA is not attacking you nor is my department ...


I'm going out on a limb and assume that RAA should be RAAF(Royal Australian Air Force, for the non-aussies). Though I am curious, what department do you work for? D.S.S.?



I hate to research it because people are so bias about there opinion.


I hate to research things too. Facts always seem to get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.


We do not Judge. I am open to anything that you write.
Shannon.


You should and shouldn't respectively.

Anything posted online should be treated as absolute crap unless proven otherwise. Any number of people online will dupe you for laughs or money.

Deny Ignorance!



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 



Believe the story or don't.

I don't.

But please refrain from calling me names.

Then refrain from appearing to be a truther.

It weakens your arguments

There's no argument, you made something up and I called you on it.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

>> Well "WELCOME" then to the 9/11 Conspiracy! I know you were probably not ready for the Barrage of emotionally charged responses.

IF YOU ARE ON THE FENCE -- DON'T LISTEN TO ANYONE BUT ME. After years of experience, I've decided that I actually do have the best opinion on the planet -- somehow I was cursed with this Cassandra like instinct for reality. Who knows how it happened,... but, at least you can benefit where others have wasted time trying to figure stuff out when they can just ask me!


While I don't agree with EVERY conspiracy -- and I think it's a waste of time to argue if a plane hit the Pentagon or NOT because the evidence has been embargoed. I do say that we have enough to prove that the NIST and the Government were involved in a coverup.
I'll give you TWO things to watch that use no-nonsense physics to show categorically, that the collapses we saw at the WTC had to be assisted with some sort of demolitions;

Engineers speak out; LINK
MIT engineer; LINK

When the firemen talk about "little streams of molten iron flowing down" inside the buildings -- it's not something that can be readily dismissed. When you see a building collapse at freefall speed -- there is nothing we've ever heard of OTHER than a demolition that can do it.

>> What COULD have happened at the Pentagon, is that a plane flew just over the roof, and some explosive's charge went off as it passed. Bystanders would see the plane and be distracted by the blast and VERY few people would be at an angle or be looking at the other side of the Pentagon to notice. This would be an easy theory to disprove IF WE HAD THE RADAR RECORDS FROM THE FAA. Guess what? The head of security for the FAA admits to destroying the tapes. No prosecution was made of this man.

So I would limit any investigation into what you can PROVE, and evidence of a coverup where we would expect things could easily be proved or disproved.


LOL!!!
I realize 9/11 is a very sensitive topic to many. I have no wish to offend anyone and have tried to keep my replies civil....but being called a liar or compared to "anal matter" is rather difficult to take.

I am not well versed in the various theories concerning 9/11. I'm not a physist or engineer, so reading threads about the hole left in the Pentagon and size of the plane are a little above my paygrade. Since I can't evalua te the scientific info for myself, it becomes (for me) a case of he said/she said.

The question that always arises when I read the theories about a missle hitting the pentagon is....what happened to the plane? Those people are missing...right? Did the "government" or whoever kidnap them and send them to another country?

I will continue to read about 9/11 from a plethora of sources. Maybe over time I will solidify my opinion...but (and I truly mean no offense to you) I think I will gather information from a variety of sources. Thank you though for offering to be the one source. I will gladly read your threads, but I think for balance sake I'll also read others.




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by smyleegrl
 



Believe the story or don't.

I don't.

But please refrain from calling me names.

Then refrain from appearing to be a truther.

It weakens your arguments

There's no argument, you made something up and I called you on it.


Oh my. I guess you peered into your crystal ball and realized I was a "truther." Have you bothered to check my posts? I think I've posted a comment in maybe 2 or 3 9/11 forums over the years here at ATS. Definitely the work of a "truther."

And the accussation of lying? I don't lie. Sorry you find the whole thing hard to believe, but there it is. I can't convince you of the validity of my story and frankly won't waste anymore time defending my self. Believe what you will. It makes no difference to me.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


According to April Gallop when she walked out of the hole there was no plane.


Baloney. According to the literal word of April Gallop's testimony a few years back she didn't notice any wreckage because she was too preoccupied looking for her infant son. I know that's what she said because I read her claims when she first came out of the woodwork. If she's saying something else now then she's changing her story to suit her alternative history lawsuit (the court's wording, not mine)


The Pentagon lawn where the impact took place looked in pristine condition.


Enough photographs exist that irrefutably show the lawn was littered with plane wreckage...as well as people walkign around carrying plane wreckage off the field...to prove this statement is false.


My nephew in law who is a pilot said if a plane had hit, it would have skidded and messed up the lawn beyond what was shown.


Your nephew has no idea what he's talking about. The plane wasn't made of rubber so it's not going to bounce off the Pentagon wall like a basketball to even be doing any skidding. Do I really need to point that out?


BTW: Who signs your paycheck?


It depends- which particular sinister boogeyman do you think is secretly plotting to murder us all, the gov't, the Jewish World Order, the Masons, or that ancient cult of Satan worshipping numerologists I've heard tell about?

Let me ask YOU a question, now- which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites are you getting this whole "no plane hit the Pentagon" nonsense from? There's no flipping way any rational person would be watching the events unfold that day and spontaneously wonder if the planes were really holograms and all the eyewitnesses were planted disinformation agents. Someone had to have used some hard core marketing to sucker you into swallowing such an absurd story.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 



Oh my. I guess you peered into your crystal ball and realized I was a "truther."

Crystal ball? No, just read the words you wrote. Don't exactly need a crystal ball.

Have you bothered to check my posts? I think I've posted a comment in maybe 2 or 3 9/11 forums over the years here at ATS.

Just going by what you wrote.

Definitely the work of a "truther."

Absolutely.

And the accussation of lying? I don't lie.

Then you're not human.

Sorry you find the whole thing hard to believe, but there it is.

Hard? Try impossible.

I can't convince you of the validity of my story and frankly won't waste anymore time defending my self.

So you post a story that has no validity and is contrived to support bizzare conspiracy stories and you don't like defending it? Then you shouldn't have posted it in the first place.

Believe what you will. It makes no difference to me.

There's no "believing" going on here. Its B.S. unless you can prove otherwise.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Thanks for sharing your story. Even if one believes the official story, you still have the military standing by allowing it to happen. By coincidence the plane happened to crash at the exact spot needed to destroy evidence of trillions of dollars in missing pentagon money. Hmmmmm?

GoodOldDave's avatar cracks me up. It is sooooo appropriate. It comes from a time when folks figured we could trust the government to tell us the truth and have the best interests of all of it's citizens in mind. However, we now know that was not the case then (50's and 60's) and it certainly is not the case now.

NEVER ACCEPT THE OFFICIAL STORY.............FOR ANYTHING!! Question every single thing that the government tells you. They have lied before and they will lie again. The sun rises in the east. Water flows to the ocean. Grass turns green in the springtime. The government lies.




top topics



 
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join