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.
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.
Originally posted by rhunter
The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Therefore, my argument and the topic of this thread are one and the same.
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. .../...
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 headed 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 !
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by SPreston
Possibly....
Perhaps...
There is a likelihood...
Some people were yelling...