Faking The Pentagon Parking Lot Videos And The Fake White Smoke Trail

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Question: How did that alleged damaged starboard turbofan engine produce so much smoke in less than one second? Doesn't that seem impossible? The #3 light pole allegedly damages the engine causing a fuel or oil leak, which then starts to smoke providing a heavy trail of smoke, which is visible from the El Cheapo parking lot security video cameras several hundred yards away; all in less than one second. Nah that is not possible is it? More BS from the 9-11 perps? The very same video cameras by the way which could not make out the aircraft which is too small.







That alleged 757 has supposedly hit the #3 light pole with the right engine less than half a second back (several hundred feet at 784.8 fps or 535 mph), and it is already producing a heavy white trail of smoke according to both parking lot security videos and the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY and the Pentagon Building Performance Report and Popular Mechanics and Integrated Consultants and the many official south path Flight 77 defenders. Just does not seem possible at all.

Of course the aircraft was actually never anywhere near those light poles since it really flew the northern flight path.





posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
This is the third thread you have started regarding the smoke trail and parking lot video:

Why Did the Alleged Smoke Trail From Flt 77 Immediately Disappear From Both Videos?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pentagon Parking Lot Security Video Trickery?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why not add to either one of those?



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
The answer is simple.

The real tape, which is dated September 11th, 2001, was an embarassment to the administration, a body on the gurney, waiting for your fatal injection kind of embarassment. The perps had to fake a video somehow, but by the time they got around to it they forgot that 9/11 happened on 9/11. They thought it happened on 9/12, so they dated the fake video wrong and just made an effing mess of everything else about it too.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The answer is simple.

The real tape, which is dated September 11th, 2001, was an embarassment [sic]to the administration, a body on the gurney, waiting for your fatal injection kind of embarassment.[sic] The perps had to fake a video somehow, but by the time they got around to it they forgot that 9/11 happened on 9/11. They thought it happened on 9/12, so they dated the fake video wrong and just made an effing mess of everything else about it too.


Dude, you ARE kidding..... right?


Please tell me you are.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Yeah, I'm kidding. The administration are real honest caring people who are doing their level best to be straight with the American people. It's time to move on from all this. I mean, we weren't killed on 9/11 were we? Get a life people!

Happy now, Cameron?



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Of course the aircraft was actually never anywhere near those light poles since it really flew the northern flight path.


It would be nice if you had some actual evidence for all these threads you are putting up instead of just your opinion.

But, internet entertainment being what it is, keep up the good work!



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
id like to add something. i think the thread would be new if its asking a "new" question. and being that that flying object was going 500 plus mph, it is a bit premature. i know i may be comparing apples to oranges, but ive been to lots of stock car races. some up to 175-190 mph very close to me. hearing an engine let go at the beginning of thr straightaway, and not seeing smoke for about almost an 1/8th of a mile. not a scientific fact, or very exact, but understandable for the idiots in the world, like me.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by guinnessford
 


Not to mention that it wouldn't be billowing up in a neat little cloud like that at 500 mph.

Line 2.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
It would be nice if you had some actual evidence for all these threads you are putting up instead of just your opinion.

You've been caught out again, pinch, demanding evidence from others while not supplying evidence for your own claims.

A few months ago, I asked you to supply evidence for your claim that the FBI had all of the serial numbers to the parts of the alleged airplanes.

You never showed any evidence or tried to prove the claim. If it's just your opinion, that's fine. That means you have to respect SPreston's opinion also.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
You never showed any evidence or tried to prove the claim. If it's just your opinion, that's fine. That means you have to respect SPreston's opinion also.


Au contraire, my Down-Undah friend. I pointed you to the FBI web page that talks about the 9/11 investigation and their conclusion that it was, indeed, United 93, United 175, American 11 and American 77 that crashed in Sept of 01. If you don't like the results of their investigation, take it up with them. Use the ATS search function. It works wonders, sometimes.

*I* certainly don't have any problem with it. *I* understand that *I* am not privy to the details of an FBI investigation. Having said that, I also have no problem whatsoever understanding the dynamics of what happened that day which is why I don't have any reason to question the published conclusions of the FBI investigation.

As far as the properties of "smoke" dissipation goes, if Preston can be a bit more precise in what exactly that "smoke" consisted of, perhaps his opinion would carry a tad more weight than just pulling something out of his grommet. Was it oil? hydraulic fluid? fuel? low-altitude-flight-regime air condensation that evaporated almost immediately? Preston, rather, makes up stuff for his conclusions, which is not a particularly attractive way to reach said conclusion - unless you are a Truther, who seem to revel in "making stuff up" when they a) don't know what happened or b) don't like the conventional explanation of what happened.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
Au contraire, my Down-Undah friend. I pointed you to the FBI web page that talks about the 9/11 investigation and their conclusion that it was, indeed, United 93, United 175, American 11 and American 77 that crashed in Sept of 01.

We already hashed that out in that other thread, pinch. None of it supported your claim that the FBI had serialised part numbers. The FBI website did not show any evidence of part numbers. I don't need to use the search function, as I clearly remember calling you out on it way back then. That same FBI website was also discussing a different crash, as it listed the Pentagon crash time at 9:39am, not 9:37:45am.

Maybe the FBI realised that they needed 1 minute and 15 seconds for the smoke trail across the lawn to dissipate, so they had to adjust their crash times? Too bad the airbrusher made the smoke trail dissapear within frames of the security booth videotape, hey?

(No, I'm not being serious. I just can't think why one of the official investigating agencies would not have the correct crash time listed on its website. It's less than acceptable. The American taxpayer deserves better than deliberate disinformation, such as incorrect crash times.)



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Does anyone find it odd that the most protected building in the world that also has the most sofisticated weapons defense system (including anti-aircraft missles), and that every defense measure failed on that day?
Call me crazy, but I find a problem with oddities in life.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   

posted by CameronFox
This is the third thread you have started regarding the smoke trail and parking lot video:


No. This is a completely different question dealing with the mechanical properties of an alleged Rolls Royce RB211 turbofan engine and the ability to produce heavy smoke from alleged damage from an alleged impact with a 337 pound light pole, after flying further for less than one half second. The alleged struck light pole was only several hundred feet away at 784.8 feet per second flight speed, if there was an aircraft present.

I think it is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for any damaged jet engine to produce smoke that quickly; especially in a large heavy cloud dense enough to be easily photographed several hundred yards away by cheap video cameras which were unable to successfully catch an image of the alleged 90 ton aircraft which should have been clearly visible.





Along with the fact that the real aircraft was to the north Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and nowhere near these light poles, and a multitude of other reasons, this evidence that the Pentagon parking lot videos were altered and faked provides proof that no aircraft impacted the Pentagon.




[edit on 12/20/08 by SPreston]



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by cardsfan77
Does anyone find it odd that the most protected building in the world that also has the most sofisticated weapons defense system (including anti-aircraft missles), and that every defense measure failed on that day?
Call me crazy, but I find a problem with oddities in life.


Could you be a bit more specific as to "sofisticated"(sic) weapons defense systems and "including anti-aircraft missiles"?

What do you mean by those comments? The building had neither one. Its "defenses" were in its location.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

I think...


Thanks a bunch for your learned and aircraft-engine/aerodynamically experienced opinion, but I would submit that a bit more than "I think..." is called for here if you want to be taken seriously..



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
i think its defenses were norad. where was that whole mess of another problem started?



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


So where did this airplane go? vanish into thin air? People saw a 757 airplane low to the deck flying towards the Pentagon and either A) Saw the impact and fireball, or B) saw the fireball.
So using SOME logic, this would mean that that plane @ 450+MPH flew past them and impacted the Pentagon. Now then, if you want to prove that it DIDN'T hit the Pentagon and flew it over, hows about finding eyewitnesses on the OPPOSITE side of the Pentagon that were within, say 4-5 blocks, that saw a 757 pulling up up and away from the fireball, in a steep climb. Then your "idea" will have a little more weight behind it.

I really don't know how hundreds of people, if not, thousands of people in and around the Pentagon who all turned and looked directly towards the Pentagon either during or just after the impact and fireball would miss seeing AND hearing something like this going over the Pentagon and flying away:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Preston,
Given your new claim that a gas turbine ingesting a large piece of metal wouldn't produce smoke immediately and is a sign of conspiracy, have you come up with a coherent theory? I am still waiting for the definitive description that has solidified into a set of specific, testable proposed events. Not long ago, you found one witness that said the plane flew over the Navy Annex parallel to the official flight path. You posted the drawing of the path. It was not North of the Citgo but you used it as evdence of one of the many interim theories. Is that still with us or has it been thrown out?
Do you have a theory, with specifics, that you can state? Start you story with a big airplane flying toward the Pentagon. That is what every witness saw so that should be a good place to begin. Build your story and describe the sequence of events. You don't have to give reasons for why the conspiracy occurred, just the physical aspects.
We await your detailed theory.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
We even touched on the smoke in a thread I posted months ago. SPreston's image analysis was as wanting as his overall observations.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Given that you can see in the link above that the "smoke" sinks over time and doesn't rise, it would indicate a distinct lack of energy. This would indicate that the "smoke" is not that hot. Combine that with the fact that the smoke is white and not black would total up to an indication that it is not sourced from a burning object.





Engine nacell fire suppression?

Coolant/hydrolic line rupture cooking off on the engine?

Nope... gotta be fake smoke.




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by SPreston

I think...


Thanks a bunch for your learned and aircraft-engine/aerodynamically experienced opinion, but I would submit that a bit more than "I think..." is called for here if you want to be taken seriously..


how about disproving the statement or something instead of adding your even more worthless commentary?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join