Definitive 9.11 Pentagon EVIDENCE.

originally posted by: godsovein
a reply to: LaBTop

Any discussion of what hit the Pentagon and how starts and ends with the lightpoles, as far as I'm concerned.

Is it possible that it doesn't make any difference?

If it's clear that the official story is a lie ?

Isn't that all we the people need to know to make conclusions about what we're up against?

a reply to: LaBTop

The US govt used 9/11 as excuses to start off wars, regime changes in the middle east.

originally posted by: godsovein
a reply to: LaBTop

I scanned thru your posts to the next page. I cant seem to pin down your conclusion I'm supposed to take. The "definitive evidence" says what, that it was or was not the right plane, that it was or was not a plane, that it was or was not a missile, that it was or was not hot dog car?

You seem to be saying the the flight path they told us was wrong. Which brings us to the lightpoles that were sheared off. I recall them confirming said official path. And if what you're saying is that it wasnt a plane, then what hit the lightpoles? Any discussion of what hit the Pentagon and how starts and ends with the lightpoles, as far as I'm concerned.

I can’t seem to find a clear message either?

I thought they were complaining the plastic protected fisheye lens of the security camera that turned sunlight a greenish tint turned the explosion to a greenish tint?

originally posted by: LaBTop


ATS trusted Cam2 upload; things change over time, so, to be on the safer side :

originally posted by: godsovein
a reply to: LaBTop

I scanned thru your posts to the next page. I cant seem to pin down your conclusion I'm supposed to take. The "definitive evidence" says what, that it was or was not the right plane, that it was or was not a plane, that it was or was not a missile, that it was or was not hot dog car?

You seem to be saying the the flight path they told us was wrong. Which brings us to the lightpoles that were sheared off. I recall them confirming said official path. And if what you're saying is that it wasnt a plane, then what hit the lightpoles? Any discussion of what hit the Pentagon and how starts and ends with the lightpoles, as far as I'm concerned.

Second picture in my OP (Opening Post) is now suddenly partly cut off (all my posts in this thread were posted with Edge, will never do that again, from now on, Firefox as always ). And this one post by Edge again, to reciproke possibly a glitch :

[ats=676x361]https://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ct6390d458.png[/ats
I have removed that last ] sign, so you can read the link I posted there, below I post it again, now here is the full linked picture below :



Strange.! If I open that page 1, its now again shown in this new post, second picture, as seen above, partly cut off.
In this new post preview window in this post, with Edge again, it is shown in full, so that, as meant by me, you can compare plane length to wall height by the red lines and a pair of scissors , showing that plane is indeed 2x wall height, so it is the full real plane length, since wall height is 77 ft, plane length is 154 ft, that doubles it, so, plane can never fly in a 45 to 52 degree attack angle, that would have been registered by Cam2 and 1 as seemingly 1/3rd shorter than 154 ft.

That OP picture's right side is now suddenly, in ATS page posts view, as shown now, the next day, as partly cut off, while, when I open a reply window on my own post, and press "preview" button under it, I see a perfectly full picture.

Just a bug, or a secret CGI agent at work.?
Since with a cut off picture, the whole graveness of the evidence is suddenly totally gone for the fast reader.
We all have gotten short attention spans caused by TV slavery, this is a clever way to pull the angle out of a policy damaging post.

Admins, I made every post in the Reply window, with Edge, since I had constructed them all in Edge too, I used preview on every post, saw it was OK, posted, and again, everything was well.

Now, the next day after a lot of sleep, especially my OP post its second picture, which should for sure be very obvious, is now suddenly partly cut off, so the reader has no clue what is meant, and better, what is clearly meant to be seen.

You see my posted picture 1, then the full 2, and at once understand (I really hope for the above poster), why I said that it will be a revalation, since a 45 degrees plane that supposedly has clipped 5 lightpoles on its way in, is CLEARLY not possible, when you see this plane full length evidence in FULL.!

For the above poster, do you really still believe that secret agencies with billions of dollars annually, don't have the means and will, to simply blow off 5 light pole tops, as if it looks as if they were cut off.?
And the material you see at David Chandler's page, which I at many times here, gave links for, are given by the DoD, after a years long FOIA procedure by Judicial Watch.

That material is in the Library of Congress, and many other by you and us trusted and accessible public places. That's why he and I used it, no retraction ever possible anymore, for a long time already.!

a reply to: LaBTop

It was a plane.

Why wasn’t the hole as wide as a 757’s nearly 125-foot wingspan?
A crashing jet doesn’t punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon’s load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC in Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

www.popularmechanics.com...

So many eyewitnesses: Eighty-Seven Eyewitness Accounts

It's just not a strong conspiracy, there are more interesting ones. JFK, for example.

a reply to: Hecate666

“ Neither will your very patronising and frankly rude for no reason post.”


Hear Hear…….!!!!! 🤨

In Firefox, it also cuts off that picture partly :




[pic]ct6390d458.png[/pic for clarity of what link is used by me. Yesterday it fit perfectly :

This one should be the second picture in my Opening Post (OP) :

a reply to: LaBTop

Forgive me, I’m having a hard time following. The last pic you just posted clearly looks like an airplane.

Could you give us a brief explanation of your conclusions? I’d love to read thru and do a deep dive, as you’ve clearly put a lot of time in to this. Which means it will take almost as much time to go through it all. I’d like to know what exactly you’re exact point is before I spend hours reading thru it all.

Plane? No plane? Photoshopped plane? Fake plane?

What exactly are you getting at?

These should have been the first 2 pictures of my OP, in my opening post.!!! :

Cam2 and 1, both registered the at 45 degrees incoming, here depicted AA77 plane, as a few meters less longer than the 90 degrees incoming AA77.
Edit : If you measure it, it turns out to be exactly the whole AA77 nose to wing struts length shorter... End Edit.
Both stood along the North Parking Entrance road in two low boots, a few meters from the 110 degrees corner joint of the West and North Walls :



Measure the length of AA77 as by Cam2 registered, compare it against the vertical red line of the Pentagon height at impact into column 16 and the little green tree, on 9/11 in front of it.
Column 16 was situated 8 windows to the left, or, i.o.w. to the North, from the 90 degrees corner of the a few meters protruding Pentagon part of the building's West Wall :

KKLOCO, and all the other posters and readers who had the same problem understanding the crux of the matter, my above last post its 2 pictures and text should be included as the two to be replaced first pictures in my OP, then you all should have immediately seen the grave implications, like f.ex. that the 5 cut light poles must have been staged, and a LOT more, far in advance. Let's not go yet PLEASE, into WTC 1 and 2 and 7, or the Pensylvania crash site, since that must have been false flag operations too.

I really hope you all now understand.

a reply to: LaBTop

the 5 cut light poles must have been staged, and a LOT more, far in advance.

Now we are heading in the right direction. To the point. I’m going to go back and read it all now.

The first picture/drawing by me is placed purely, so you all can easily measure with a ruler, or a pair of scissors, (I would have called it Measuring Pins) that the perpendicular view by Cam1 and Cam2 (situated far to the left, near the corner where West and North Wall meet under a 110 degrees angle) on both drawn planes, shows a shortening of the virtual perpendicular length as seen by the CCD chips inside the cameras, only for the 45 degrees incoming drawn AA77, amassing to the length of its nose cone section up to the front of its wings struts. To the front of its two wings, i.o.w.
When GIMP would be used on that case, it would show a real virtual registered 1/3rd less long AA77 plane.

The second picture is an enlarged, right side picture-piece with the AA77 plane in it, of a now 500 % enlarged video frame, out of an original FOIA freed video, shot by Cam2 in the security boot of the North Parking Entrance, however now corrected by a software program called GIMP, used when a fish eye lens was used, and its resulting straightening effects, of at first glance, all kinds of bended lines, especially the lines viewed perpendicular and parallel. In casu, the Wall and pavement, guardrails, but especially the perpendicular viewed length of the incoming flight AA77. As a result it is stretched from the originating, distorted by fish eye lens image, to its real proportions and natural looking image. To its real, normal and well known exact length of 154 ft.
And thus not to the by GIMP eventually corrected length, comparable to the length from its tail to the front of its two wings, in an eventually [but NOT] registered view case, for a 45 degrees, angle of attack flying, flight AA77 plane.

a reply to: drongosrevenge

What camera were those ? We'll just seen footage from the parking lot camera showing the Boeing 757 hitting the building

originally posted by: LaBTop
For the above poster, do you really still believe that secret agencies with billions of dollars annually, don't have the means and will, to simply blow off 5 light pole tops, as if it looks as if they were cut off.?
And the material you see at David Chandler's page, which I at many times here, gave links for, are given by the DoD, after a years long FOIA procedure by Judicial Watch.

That material is in the Library of Congress, and many other by you and us trusted and accessible public places. That's why he and I used it, no retraction ever possible anymore, for a long time already.!

The crap old CCTV tech images, yawn. I doubt they were designed to capture anything resembling quality images of an object that that even in spite of its size, was going so fast that it only even appeared in any sense in 5 measly frames. But even in the decent ones you have here, it looks more like a 767 with blue paint on it than any other thing we could talk about here does.

So crap CCTV frames, or we just go with actual physical evidence on scene (taken with quality film cameras). And we'll go with witness testimonies. How many witness testimonies that workers were out there hand taking down poles, swapping them with damaged ones? None? This was all done during morning rush hour. I imagine traffic sucks around there on a normal morning. So there should have been dozens of witnesses. Major construction activities, those things are normally erected using cranes and seriously heavy duty impact guns with major air compressors chugging to keep up.

So why bother? Why not just hit it with the right plane and keep sight on the bigger problem ala WTC?

I tried going thru your first page there and get to the point but I kept missing it. Maybe you need more info-graphics. Talking about degrees of angles and so on. And why bother? They pulled plane wreckage out of the Pentagon. Light poles sheared off as expected (note they're designed to break away I've seen the exact same model / design poles knocked down by cars on the sides of highways). That one CCTV frame it looks like a plane if anything. No witnesses to say otherwise, right? And not one person from the (how many) technicians, operatives, and so on teams it would take to pull it off. Not one after all these years, not that I've heard about anyways.

And the bigger problem with all of this no plane thing here, is it fuels all of the even more preposterous and 9/11 Movement destructive WTC no planer insanity. This no planer stuff almost single-handedly fractured the old Truth Movement, which was clearly a CIA type op the coverup, and that's where the attention should be placed. Just like a real murder prosecution they dont even need to prove you did something per say if they can proved you 'covered it up'.

My big problem with the missile theory is this: Why bother?

Why go to all the trouble of prepping the location with the lampposts etc?

Why risk witnesses seeing the prepping, or seeing the missile on the day and leaking their testimony before they can be ‘controlled’?

Why take those risks when they could instead just fly real planes into the targets?

I’d guess that in 2001 the tech already existed in the labs of Lockheed to remotely fly these aircraft. Even if take off was beyond remote tech an agent could’ve handled take off and then bailed out. All the remote had to do was steer it to the target (and off course landing wouldn’t be necessary).

This is from a newspaper article published 5 days after 9/11…

aviation experts are surprisingly confident. They say devices that would allow air traffic controllers to override the controls of a hijacked plane are close to development. Boeing has made one such system and used it to steer military aircraft remotely.

Remote pilots could steer planes to safety


…Then there’s this from 5 years ago…


I think it’s fair to assume that tech in the public domain is often many years behind the military - particularly in aeronautics.

Imo it’s therefore just as fair to assume that if you were a dastardly 1990’s hawk plotting a false flag to guarantee unilateral, as well voter support for the next phase in the imperialistic resources grab in the Middle East, then why would you opt for the complex and highly risky missile fakery, when you can instead remotely fly the real thing into the targets?

a reply to: DevotedResearcher

What I’d like to know is what hit building 7...

Who killed JFK and who are those people named in Epstein’s black book and why aren’t they being investigated?

So many things I’d like to know but it’s obvious the guilty aren’t going to just give themselves up.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: DevotedResearcher

What I’d like to know is what hit building 7...

Nothing. It was controlled demolition.

Also, it was reported on mainstream news, in Europe, I believe, before it happened.

Who killed JFK and who are those people named in Epstein’s black book and why aren’t they being investigated?

I don't know.

Our only hope is to persevere in saving the republic of the United States at some point in the future, and having an honest Congress with subpoena power.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Here is a better copy.



It's fake.

I was stationed at the Pentagon for roughly five years while I was enlisted in the Army. I actually spent my time in the wing that was hit. I saw the offices that were destroyed and met many fellow soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen that were there when it happened. So here's some direct inside information for you.

1. The cameras on the area were not off or disabled. Everything is classified Top Secret and not allowed for civilian release. In fact, basically everyone who worked at the Pentagon from 2000 to at least 2012 has the majority of the records sealed under Executive Order. The one covering me ends in 2050.

2. The plane was commandeered and flown into the Pentagon. The damage to other areas near it, such as the Air Force monument, roads, light poles, and more, was extensive and resulted in massive rebuilds. Even in 2008 there were still evidence of damage from fuel burns and similar in the area.

3. The large number of folks I served with will happily dispute the idea that it was faked, a missile or similar. They lived through this all and don't owe anyone explanations for their actions. The entire area stepped up and worked their asses off to repair damage and help folks out.

4. Regardless of what others say, prior to 9/11 there was not 24/7 constant surveillance in the area nor were there staffed fighter jets ready to fly at a moments notice. Even now it takes time to get combat ready aircraft up for defensive purposes. Heck, if a General or Admiral wants to take air transport (usually a helicopter) from the Pentagon to any other local place still takes a solid 15 minutes or more to get ready. Combat aircraft take significantly longer to prepare in the area.

5. The VAST majority of personnel stationed in the DC area are not combat troops. Instead they're mostly administrative personnel and regardless of what you think any officer with a star on their chest is nothing more than a politician in a military uniform. If any of them ever saw combat it was from behind a desk or surrounded by safety measures. They have no idea what danger is really like.

6. The government has never released the actual, 100% accurate flight paths, plans, etc of the attack. Why? Simple - why publish exact details that other terrorists or foreign actors could use to replicate the attack? Why would we hand out defense force data to others? Simply put, the government doesn't because giving your enemies specific details of your operations makes no sense at all. The same goes for the towers hit in NYC.

7. If you think damage to the plane, light poles, etc make sense then I invite you to go peruse the footage of planes that have crashed on forests. You'll get to see the wings of a plane leveling hundreds or more trees that are far more structurally sound and dense than a light pole.

I've no doubt that government response to the events on 9/11 was anemicaly slow. It wouldn't shock me if much was known ahead of time and politicians looked the other way for their own agenda.

Just some info from a Veteran who walked those grounds.

a reply to: MaineLakes

Where any parts of bodies found?