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

My model for the 9/11 Pentagon event would be that the aircraft flying very fast had one wing hit or scrape something, probably the ground, which sheared that wing off the plane at the high rate of speed. I am not versed in Boeing design but believe the two wings would have cross-connective structural bracing across the fuselage. Thus the other wing could shear off also at the first hint of contact with the building - thus no need to hypothesize anything else such as a missile to account for the impact pattern on the side of the building.

Originally posted by RockHound757

... and you have absolutely no evidence that N644AA impacted the Pentagon....

The rest of your post is continuation of Disinfo tactic 14.

Please provide positive ID that N644AA impacted the Pentagon. Please forwad such evidence to the growing list of Aircraft Accident Investigators at Pilots For 9/11 Truth. They been waiting for awhile now.

You dont happen to have any experience in Aircraft Accident Investigation.. do you? (rhetorical question, we know you dont). If not, P4T has a Professor who instructed on such a subject at one of the premier aviation Universities in the country. Perhaps we can set you up with a lesson or two? If your posts are any indication, looks like you need it.

Thank you for the offer of training in the field of accident investigation. I'm so happy that you have a captive professor who knows all about aircraft accident investigation. This must mean that you believe an aircraft was involved in an accident of some sort at the Pentagon. If that is the case, I will accede to the findings of the accident investigators. If, on the other hand, you espouse the tortuous timed-explosion-with-overflight fantasy that is CIT's latest attempt to justify their conclusions, then you might want to find some explosives experts to help you explain the awkward details.
Perhaps we can set you up with a lesson or two? If your posts are any indication, it looks like you need it.

Where did all that fuel come from?


[edit on 3/22/2009 by pteridine]

I am still wondering what the point of faking a white smoke trail would be if no one reported one?

Makes no sense...

I would also like to point something out about impacts .

as we have all discussed there is air in front of (and around) every moving vehicle....

Where does that air go on impact?

it escapses compression by following the path of least resistance.

So up and along the walls and then along the ground...

do you think an impact with limestone might create dust???

posted by pteridine

Where did all that fuel come from?

What fuel? There was none on the roads out by the light posts.

There was none on the lawn. No sign of fuel burning or not burning anywhere on the lawn. No sign of fuel burning on those polyethelene cable spools which were near the alleged impact point and apparently inside that alleged explosion in the parking lot security videos. How come that plastic was not burned or melted?

There was none near April Gallop's office.

There was none on April or Elijah.

There was none out in the A&E Drive.

What fuel? I saw no sign of jet fuel in the photos I saw. The only evidence of jet fuel was in those photoshopped parking lot security videos and from alleged persons who worked for the government and who kept changing the cause of the Exit Hole. That photo of the one dead Pentagon victim had a shirt on which was not burned or even scorched.

There was fuel burning in the generator trailer and the fire truck parked next to the wall. There was fuel burning in the other vehicles parked next to the wall. But somebody kept restarting those fires didn't they?

Where is the fuel you imagine?

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by pteridine

Where did all that fuel come from?

What fuel? There was none on the roads out by the light posts.

There was none on the lawn. No sign of fuel burning or not burning anywhere on the lawn. No sign of fuel burning on those polyethelene cable spools which were near the alleged impact point and apparently inside that alleged explosion in the parking lot security videos. How come that plastic was not burned or melted?

There was none near April Gallop's office.

There was none on April or Elijah.

There was none out in the A&E Drive.

What fuel? I saw no sign of jet fuel in the photos I saw. The only evidence of jet fuel was in those photoshopped parking lot security videos and from alleged persons who worked for the government and who kept changing the cause of the Exit Hole. That photo of the one dead Pentagon victim had a shirt on which was not burned or even scorched.

There was fuel burning in the generator trailer and the fire truck parked next to the wall. There was fuel burning in the other vehicles parked next to the wall. But somebody kept restarting those fires didn't they?

Where is the fuel you imagine?

I still think it is interesting that you accept one set of wintesses and not another.

So first hand accounts of firemen and first responders and not good enough to corroborate a fire in the building, but a handfull (13) are ok to prove the theory you believe.

sort of one sided isn't it?

posted by Achorwrath

So first hand accounts of firemen and first responders and not good enough to corroborate a fire in the building, but a handfull (13) are ok to prove the theory you believe.

sort of one sided isn't it?

So when are you going to post on this forum, your videotaped interviews with those firemen and first responders, verifying that they saw what the Mainstream Media propagandists claimed they saw? Surely they will be lining up, eager to go before your camera, and putting a stop to all these claims that the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is bogus and filled with lies and distortions. Maybe you will get real lucky, and find several witnesses who saw the heavy white smoke trail across the Pentagon lawn. Or luckier still; maybe you can videotape the guy who leaked the still frames from the parking lot security videos, and really screwed over the 9-11 perps.

Maybe you can get a few first responders on video to explain why first the nose cone, then an engine, then a landing gear, and finally a focused cone of energy from the alleged burning jet fuel, were claimed to have formed the Exit Hole out into A&E Drive. Maybe they can explain how the alleged dna miraculously survived all that heat, and why the dna was secretly transported in a heavily guarded military helicopter. Maybe a few will explain what they meant about the cordite smell reported inside the Pentagon. Doesn't sound like a jet fuel smell, does it?

While you are down there, track down 15 or 20 official south flight eyewitnesses and prove these CIT guys and the ONA and NOC eyewitnesses are completely mistaken. Where is your patriotic duty? Line them eyewitnesses up and get them talking. Protect your government and the status quo. Earn your pay for a change.

Nah, never mind. You are just like all the other 'government loyalists' pretending you will destroy CIT. You won't even try because you know for a fact that you won't find any such witnesses. Many of them have been gagged and ordered to keep their mouths shut, and won't like having to publicly lie to the American people. You won't go anywhere near Arlington County and the Pentagon. Will you?



[edit on 3/23/09 by SPreston]

Ah SPreston,

Again with the atacks and comments about me,

As to your claim, they were interviewed by the FBI on the scene.
I do not have to reinterview them seven years later.

I do think that it is curious that CIT only found 13 when there were names in the papers the day after the inident of people that saw it.

So they were able to track down witnesses by statements with names redacted but could not find the ones that had their names in the papers?

Seems fishy to me.

reply to post by SPreston


No fuel in the Pentagon site eh?
Well then they must have some super special fireworks or secret liquids that burn and smell just like jet fuel, not to mention the large fuel explosion we see and eyewtinesses saw and resulting fireball. Oh lets not forget that fire burning in the Pentagon for hours and hours that required airport foam pumper trucks to put it out. No jet fuel? Delusion.

Here another question. Where does the fuel go after impact? is it going to just splash outside, or will it follow the law of momentum and enter the Pentagon inside the wings of the aircraft? Once again I see that basic undrstanding of physics is not needed there at P4T or CIT.

And so please explain how the fires happened, how the massive FUEL fireball happened and the thick black smoke occurred.

Also, since this whole fantasy revolves around a magic flyover, do you have anyone over there that can explain how the "explosives" were set and detonated just as the plane flew right over them, and how the blast didnt bring the plane down by either engines ingesting a foreign object from the blast, or gettin knocked out of the sky by the alleged "powerful blast", or having sustained heavy damage to the skin and flight controls, from the blast. You do have realize that when dealing with high power explosives and very low flying aircraft, the aircraft is treading dangerous skies. Didnt you ever read of incidents during war of low flying aircraft getting knocked out of the sky by exploding ordinance or ammo dumps on the ground as they flew over? geeze. Even getting engulfed in the fireball would have played havoc on the aircraft.

Originally posted by Achorwrath

As to your claim, they were interviewed by the FBI on the scene.
I do not have to reinterview them seven years later.

I do think that it is curious that CIT only found 13 when there were names in the papers the day after the inident of people that saw it.

So they were able to track down witnesses by statements with names redacted but could not find the ones that had their names in the papers?

Seems fishy to me.

I always find it strange that some people are so willing to make presumptuous (and totally incorrect) arguments like this regarding CIT without even bothering to look into their work.

Please stop doing it, because whether intentionally or not, you are spreading misinformation.

CIT has interviewed many dozens of witnesses. They have asked them very specific questions, and often find that the press reports have misrepresented what they claim to have seen. Here is just one recent example of misleading alleged witness quotes. There are countless more. If you watch and listen to their interviews you will see this pattern, and you will understand why it is a huge mistake to take the media reports at face value.

Another example: There are many news reports where people are quoted as saying the plane hit light poles, or where the reporter implies that this happened. However, they say things like "it hit some light poles", not "I SAW it hit some light poles". Did they see it happen, or did they assume that it happened because they saw the light poles down later on?

Well, CIT has gotten in touch with many of these people, as well as other previously unknown witnesses, and, despite the many misleading news reports, it turns out that NONE of them saw the light poles get hit. Even the people on the highway with the perfect vantage point. They saw the plane, then LATER they saw the light poles down and assumed that the plane had hit them.

The only person who was quoted as explicitly said she thought she saw the light poles get hit was Wanda Ramey. But when CIT called her and asked her if she was sure she saw them get hit, she basically said that the whole thing was hazy to her and she may not have seen them get hit after all. So there are literally no light pole impact witnesses.

So, if CIT interviewed dozens of witnesses, what's with the "thirteen" that you always hear about?

Well, the significance of these people is that they were the ONLY people that they could find who were in a position to see which side of the Navy Annex and/or Citgo station the plane flew. And they all say the same thing. From multiple excellent vantage points, they all saw the plane fly OVER the Navy Annex (as opposed to south of the Annex as it had to be for the official story to be true) and then NORTH of the Citgo Gas Station (as opposed to south where it had to be to knock down the light poles and cause the damage to the building).

In stark contrast to the supposed "light pole" witnesses, they are not wishy-washy. They are absolutely certain. Over and over in their interviews you hear things like "I'm 100% certain", "I'd bet my life on it", etc. Any reasonable person watching these interviews will see that there is no way for them to all be simultaneously incorrect yet completely certain about this same specific detail.

I could go on and on, but you would know all of this if you took the time to go over CIT's material at their site or here before badmouthing them. Please take the time to do this

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Ligon]

reply to post by Ligon


so out of many dozens they have only 13?

Why not show us those others even if we go with 2 dozen we have 11 unaccounted for.

I love it when people try to confuse the issue with misinformation like quatifications that do not match the facts.

Ah and the pople that did not see the poles get cut down were never asked about the plane that would have flown over them?

Again to provide an unbaised report you have to show ALL information.

At least the one lady admitted that after seven years she did not remember

I have covered time and memory recall in more than one post along with suggestive questioning and its affect

If CIT was so convinced of this why did they not start until 2006?

They should have been interviewing people in 2002 and eralier.

So five years lapse before they start their research?


Taking a look at that thread you linked I just see craig ranting about people sayng they did not see this or that and no proof other than one interview with an Opus Dei Preist.


He talks about staged scenes yet has never interviewed the first responders on the scene
who put those there
how did they do it in broad daylight infront of people?

It is all sensationalism on craig's part. with NO REAL PROOF of anything

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

posted by Achorwrath

I do think that it is curious that CIT only found 13 when there were names in the papers the day after the inident of people that saw it.

So they were able to track down witnesses by statements with names redacted but could not find the ones that had their names in the papers?

Seems fishy to me.

Yes it seems fishy to me also. And yet even in the papers, not one single eyewitness reported seeing the heavy white smoke trail across the lawn. Nobody. Doesn't that seem odd to you? How can there be a heavy white smoke trail across the lawn and NOBODY saw it? Smoke would not fly across the lawn, too fast for the eye to follow. Smoke would just get left behind, lingering above the lawn, and dissipating as the light wind on 9-11 blew it away. If the explosion in front of the Pentagon wall or from the construction trailers blew the alleged smoke anywhere; it would be back towards the alleged eyewitnesses on the road, who still did not see it, according to the papers.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/54c69fa85b88.jpg[/atsimg]

But there was no heavy white smoke trail was there; except in the photoshopped parking lot still frames and videos held for a long time in the custody of the Defense Department? Well somebody leaked the stills; and the Defense Department denied any knowledge of them. Then years later they released the imperfect photoshopped videos; forced out of them by an enforced FOIA lawsuit. Oooops.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/694cca2e5e33.jpg[/atsimg]

Where are these alleged eyewitnesses the Mainstream News Media 'quoted' in the papers? How come they have not come forward on their own, seeing that the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is in question and in desperate trouble and rapidly sinking into the quicksand foundation it was built upon?

How come your brother government loyalists traveled all the way to Virginia, and yet were unable to find one single official south flight path 'eyewitness' allegedly 'quoted' by the Mainstream News Media that had their names in the papers? Why did your brethren give up their search? Why have you not searched for official south flight path 'eyewitnesses' that had their names in the papers? Is it because they were 'misquoted' by the Mainstream News Media, or is it because they had fake names and never actually existed, except in the papers?

Perhaps your brethren did find some different 'eyewitnesses' and these 'eyewitnesses' insisted on correcting their 'misquoting' by the Mainstream News Media in the papers and that is why your brethren gave up the search and left Virginia never to try again.

Maybe that is why you and your brethren on this forum refuse to search for real south flight path 'eyewitnesses' for re-interviewing and videotaping. Perhaps that is why you and your brethren insist that finding and verifying real south flight path 'eyewitnesses' is not IMPORTANT. Could that be fairly close to reality?



[edit on 3/24/09 by SPreston]

Honestly I am not sure why you keep going on and on about something that is not of any consequence.

you mention a heavy white smoke trail, where? I see dust but no "Heavy White Smoke Trail".

perhaps the reason no one reported one is there there isn't one.
You claiming to see one does not make it real.

That blured and pixitaled picture in your post could be of anything
In the lower one I see no white smoke trail

posted by Achorwrath

you mention a heavy white smoke trail, where? I see dust but no "Heavy White Smoke Trail".

perhaps the reason no one reported one is there there isn't one.
You claiming to see one does not make it real.

That blured and pixitaled picture in your post could be of anything
In the lower one I see no white smoke trail

Military industrial complex contractor and major 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY defender Integrated Consultants thought highly enough of the heavy white smoke trail to include it in its simulation. The heavy white smoke trail is an integral part of the OFFICIAL STORY with the claim that the starboard engine ingested a broken piece of the #3 light pole, creating the heavy white smoke trail.



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1664707d3c92.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/866c7de8a211.jpg[/atsimg]

But you choose to rewrite the script for the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. At least Integrated Consultants told the truth when they informed us in their hocus pocus animation that they were continuing the 9-11 psyops mission against the American public. Are you a part of that group effort?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb1bf3464b95.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Achorwrath
reply to post by Ligon

 

so out of many dozens they have only 13?

Why not show us those others even if we go with 2 dozen we have 11 unaccounted for.

What the heck are you even talking about? How do you think I know about "those others"? It's because CIT has published their interviews with them.

They "only have 13"? If you watched the interviews (or even read my post) you'd know that of those dozens of people they interviewed, most were not in a position to see where the plane flew in relation to the Navy Annex or gas station. All of the ones who were in a position (including Pentagon Police officers at the station) say unequivocally that the plane flew OVER the Navy Annex and/or NORTH of Citgo.

Please watch the interviews, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

I love it when people try to confuse the issue with misinformation like quatifications that do not match the facts.

Ah and the pople that did not see the poles get cut down were never asked about the plane that would have flown over them?

Yes, they were asked about it in detail. Go watch the interviews.

Again to provide an unbaised report you have to show ALL information.

Yes. They do that. Go watch the interviews.

At least the one lady admitted that after seven years she did not remember

I have covered time and memory recall in more than one post along with suggestive questioning and its affect

Fortunately many of the ONA/NOC witnesses were interviewed in 2001 shortly after the event by the Center for Military History. CIT simply got in touch with them to verify the details of their account. These people are on record saying it came over the Navy Annex or NOC since 2001.

If CIT was so convinced of this why did they not start until 2006?

They should have been interviewing people in 2002 and eralier.

They weren't convinced of anything until they went and interviewed people on camera, on location. That's when everybody who was in a position to tell unanimously told them that the plane flew on a completely different flight path than where the government says it flew, and where it had to be to cause the physical damage. Go watch the interviews.

Taking a look at that thread you linked I just see craig ranting about people sayng they did not see this or that and no proof other than one interview with an Opus Dei Preist.

What?

He talks about staged scenes yet has never interviewed the first responders on the scene who put those there

Oh you know who put them there? Please e-mail CIT, I'm sure they would be eager to interview these people.

They have spoken to first responders, btw. Go on their website. There's a letter of appreciation written by one of them on the front page.

how did they do it in broad daylight infront of people?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is all sensationalism on craig's part. with NO REAL PROOF of anything

Speaking of no real proof, can you please provide an independently confirmed first hand eyewitness account of someone saying they saw the plane fly south of the Navy Annex, do a physically impossible dive and pull-up, and hit light poles?

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has proven that this could not have happen, and despite your claims of "no proof" CIT has published dozens and dozens of eyewitness interviews, and all of the witnesses who could tell unequivocally place the plane on the ONA/NOC flight path. This is evidence so strong that it qualifies as "proof" beyond a reasonable doubt.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Ligon]

posted by Achorwrath

Honestly I am not sure why you keep going on and on about something that is not of any consequence.

The alleged heavy white smoke trail in the parking lot security videos is what this 11 page thread is about. Is there some reason you keep steering the thread elsewhere and taking it off-topic? Your 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is in deep doodoo and the heavy white smoke trail is an integral part of it. Just one more of hundreds of discrepencies in the official fantasy tale of course.

reply to post by Ligon


I have watched them until I am sick of seeing Craig.
He uses leading questions and by his own admission went for people that already thought they saw the plane north of citgo.

Again where are the interviews with the dozens of firefighters? the medics and first responders?

They would have FIRST HAND knowledge of what was at the pentagon.

Instead he focuses on rediculous theories about flight paths that can nerver be confirmed.

One of his wintesses thought he saw a C-130 but no one else did.

Interviewing the first responders would be a priority to anyone TRULY wanting to know the truth.

When do we get to see those?

Originally posted by Achorwrath

He uses leading questions

Yes, he sometimes tries to lead them AWAY FROM the ONA/NOC path and TO the official path, but they tell him that no, that's definitely not what happened.

One of his wintesses thought he saw a C-130 but no one else did.

Actually MANY of *the* witnesses (they're not "his" witnesses) saw the
C-130, as you would know if you had watched the interviews instead of spreading misinformation. (It's also on film, if you're trying to imply that it wasn't there.) They say it approached from the northwest (as the pilot himself indicates) whereas the government says it approached from the southwest.

Interviewing the first responders would be a priority to anyone TRULY wanting to know the truth.

Oh really? How many first responders have you interviewed? Why haven't you posted the audio or video? If you haven't interviewed them, are we to conclude that you don't truly want to know the truth then?

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Ligon]

Originally posted by Achorwrath

Again where are the interviews with the dozens of firefighters? the medics and first responders?

They would have FIRST HAND knowledge of what was at the pentagon.

When do we get to see those?

Where are the interviews with the official south flight path eyewitnesses?

They would surely give FIRST HAND knowledge of the alleged impact with the five light poles and the heavy white smoke trail and the light pole sticking out of the windshield.

Two of your brethren went down there to the Pentagon area looking for witnesses and found ZERO.

Is that the actual number of real living eyewitnesses to the official Flight 77 flight path?

ZERO?

Where is your zeal? The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is in real trouble.

Why aren't you down there hunting up real living eyewitnesses who were in the papers?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/84729d1b253f.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 3/24/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


I am not making an outlandish claim that this was all faked and the debis planted.

If I were making that I would talk to the first responders to corroborate my claims, if it was all BS I would avoid them..

reply to post by SPreston


Why would something not witnessed have to be faked? Achor and I have been asking this throughout the thread and have not yet received an answer.