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.
Originally posted by jpm1602
I don't know ignotbliss. I just don't know. I have a particular pic burned into my head of a near spherical hole of about 20 by 40 ft with firetruck first responders and no grass rugburn or aircraft debris. My lean is towards a cruise missile still, but what the heck do I know. I can say this with probable certainty it wasn't a 767.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Very important thread IIB.
Focusing attention on the light poles is key to this crime.
1. The plane was on the north side of the station too far to hit the light poles.
2. The cab driver's account has been proven to be a fabrication and is physically impossible anyway.
details regarding cab driver account here.
pole number 5 where you can see the ends are literally pinched:
And then there is the question of how uniform the damage is to the base of pole 4.
Instead it was perfectly uniform and you can even see soot on it as if from a torch:
The only logical conclusion is that the poles were removed in advance (perhaps even days or weeks before the event) and the pre-fabricated damaged ones were placed off to the side the night before.
4 out of the 5 wouldn't have been necessarily noticed by traffic while pole one could have been pulled from the shoulder or dropped from a truck minutes after the event when the Feds got on the scene and blocked traffic.
This image was taken at 9:49. The cab is in place but the Feds haven't surrounded him yet and it looks like the pole has not yet been placed:
And then at 9:52 they had the scene surrounded, traffic blocked, and the pole placed:
Originally posted by eyewitness86
But for sure the poles were NOT hit by anything flying, as that would have resulted in pieces of airplane falling on the spot and that didn't happen. Airplanes going aleged 500 mph shower debris when hit by anything matallic. No way. Poles were dropped by explosives.
Originally posted by eyewitness86
I hate to slightly disagree, but I believe that the likley scenario is that the poles were blown, at the moment that the attack took place, and they were felled by charges placed in or on them. Look at where the steel is crimped over, only a charge could do that, not being struck by a planes wing of fuselage.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'm not trying to poopoo your work, but I find it very alarming having PENTAGON Police being the primary ones throwing out such a staunch contradiction. Also the timing of their coming forward seemed almost too perfect as it seemed that Pentagon discussion in general was fizzling out.
I'm not ruling them out as being part of an intentional diversionary disinfo psyop just yet. Were you guys able to find any background records of them being 'enlisted' prior to 9/11 and that interview? They could be establishment shills in uniform sowing the seeds of confusion + divide & conquer.
2. The cab driver's account has been proven to be a fabrication and is physically impossible anyway.
details regarding cab driver account here.
The main argument seem's to be that it was impossible based on the other witnesses placement of the plane.
Ok, entertaining that thought:
What put the hole in the windshield?
The glass seemed to be deformed in a shape consistent with a pole entering from that side.
Maybe they made sure to elevate the pole as they removed it to not scratch the car and do further damage? His interview didn't contradct that possibility, just left it somewhat fuzzy.
The lamp could have been severed off and happened to land there.
Moving on:
I'm not sure it's an argument, but I'm not too concerned about the way he ended up stopping as I'm sure he would have locked up the breaks with the pole dynamics influencing the cars trajectory.
-"Changing account":
Where did that text quote come from?
-Claims he didnt hear an explosion:
He seemed to have cleared that part up at the end. Remember that memories are physical structures in the brain. Perhaps most importantly we memorize in approximations. If you don't use or "excite" memories/mindsets/etc they tend to fade. Now if you experienced the same exact scenario several days in a row you'd probably never forget a detail. So my point is that if if hardly ever puts any thought into his eperience the raw details are bound to fade away. This is the nature of the human brain. That's why you see him closing his eyes and looking about as his brain is tryng to reactivate these old brain elements. So don't be too hard on him if he's forgotten specific details, details from a moment of his life when he was 'jacked up' on adrenaline (aka "shock").
One more point, for fairness, Willie Rodriguez's story has changed and grown more dramatic over the years: Should we dismiss him too as government disinfo agent?
-Scratch in the ground:
That's interesting. Do you have a nice photo that's in better view than in Google Video?
Have you tried Kneson Imagener? It's HLS/police photo enlargment software. Here's a functioning demo that I think they took down from the site. You can't save but you can printscreen and paste it into paint etc to get your piece:
us.f13.yahoofs.com...
Lloyd England:
"This aerolane flew over the top of my car," ... "and when it did fly over..."
"When I did stop the car, there was no noise."
Hmm.
pole number 5 where you can see the ends are literally pinched:
Ok, so what pinched them? Those are some pretty fancy machines to prefab that sort of damage.
When Lloyd said his wife was FBI I found that interesting: I entertained the idea that perhaps he's disinfo... but then I realized how much more incredible it is to try to explain that it was all a setup... and somehow they timed it with him (a simple taxi driver since the 50's) being there at the 'exact' moment this plane would fly over.
How do we know that the non-9/11 base wasn't hit by a car? Are there good shots of any of the other 9/11 bases?
Now that "soot" is striking. You could have something there, or it could be lighting effects from the metal being bent/stressed. Any other shots of that base from different angles?
Assuming those aren't Kneson Imagener enlargements, can you blow us up some new shots using that software?
Also, does anybody know what happened to these poles (crime scene evidence).
The only logical conclusion is that the poles were removed in advance (perhaps even days or weeks before the event) and the pre-fabricated damaged ones were placed off to the side the night before.
4 out of the 5 wouldn't have been necessarily noticed by traffic while pole one could have been pulled from the shoulder or dropped from a truck minutes after the event when the Feds got on the scene and blocked traffic.
I wouldn't go saying only just yet.
I mean the hole and everything else Pentagon is incredible, but this is heading for the deepend. Probably 1000's of cars would have driven by it that day and that certainly increases the odds that we might have heard something from someone.
In any case, I don't see how it's rock solid enough to go making absolutist statements, but I am a stickler lol
EDIT: So then how many people were involved in planting lightpoles, AND spraying parts all over the lawn, and so on?
911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...
upload.wikimedia.org...
Please nobody derail the thread with these expanding points. I'm just trying to get some probability established.
Look a the bush to gain the LOS. At that angle the electrial box is blocking the view of the poles 'location' on the guard rail.
One thing I noticed from your fancy flight path image is how the majority of the fire damage is on the side beyond the impact hole, which happens to support the "official angle". I don't have your image but this one is close:
And the damage to those poles is consistent with this image from some other non-9/11 plane clipping (from your forums sister thread):
www.cosmicpenguin.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
I've seen hurricane damage to monster sized poles on the side of the highway in Punta Gorda, from Hurricane Charlie. They probably had different bases but anyways they were bent just above the base but like in that photo above. Bent all the way to the ground they were. I think I may have tried getting photos while driving but I dont recall if they worked and my pc's and hardrives are total chaos from lightning zapping my main MB's (still have my data!!!). Stuck using a coworkers machine limited-style so I can't offer too much choice image etc work.
BTW: Having been down there, did you guys get any photos showing more of these cameras??
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'm not trying to poopoo your work, but I find it very alarming having PENTAGON Police being the primary ones throwing out such a staunch contradiction. Also the timing of their coming forward seemed almost too perfect as it seemed that Pentagon discussion in general was fizzling out.
I'm not ruling them out as being part of an intentional diversionary disinfo psyop just yet. Were you guys able to find any background records of them being 'enlisted' prior to 9/11 and that interview? They could be establishment shills in uniform sowing the seeds of confusion + divide & conquer.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The cops merely corroborate the north side claim. Our first two north side witnesses are good old working class civilians previously unpublished by the media that we found on our own by canvassing the neighborhood.
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Dig. This isn't the place to delve, but this type of observation doesn't get anough air. It's really distressing how much weight CIT is putting on all this without much deep thought about underlying motives of their witnesses. No problem calling dozens of others liars. Maybe not dozens yet, but if they keep paning for northnuggets with video interviews, you'll keep finding more and more "lliars."
I thought Turcios was nudged your may by someone while you were over there with Dylan and Russ et al?
And anyway Lagasse was first. Whether you knew or not at the time, he was saying northside since 2003, as you now point out. This was a side-point to his wrangles with Dick Eastman over... passionately denying flyover theories. Now, his testimony is being pushed as PROOF of an Eastman-connected flyover. And he's silent. No lawsuits or retraction videos. Is the PentaCon simply that good that he's seen the light and his balls have dropped so he's standig by the truth now? He seemed half-there already in the interview, debunking your route 27 witnesses already, etc. He just hadn't done the math yet, I guess?
Sorry nothing to add on the light poles other than this "why are we even looking at this?" moment.
“Our first helicopter flight was around 10 AM. But we were expecting President George W. Bush to land in Marine One around 12 Noon, returning from Jacksonville, Florida. (He had actually left from the Pentagon the day before.) Needless to say, neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day because of the terrorist attacks.”
Originally posted by eyewitness86
But for sure the poles were NOT hit by anything flying, as that would have resulted in pieces of airplane falling on the spot and that didn't happen. Airplanes going aleged 500 mph shower debris when hit by anything matallic. No way. Poles were dropped by explosives.