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

posted by pteridine
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.

You need speculation from our side on what went on in the minds of the 9-11 perps; the same people who totally screwed up the light pole staging? The heavy white smoke trail was faked, regardless; for whatever reason. The videos and still frames were photoshopped.

Who knows why they did what they did? Maybe they did not realize they would have defenders like you who would gladly accept their fantasy tale on faith, no matter how idiotic the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY became, and no matter how quickly it was sinking into the quicksand foundation it was built upon. Maybe Dubya wanted a role and the heavy white smoke trail was his idea. He landed there a lot by helo, and likely knew the lawn quite well. It would not be his first or last stupid idea would it?

Obviously they over-detailed their simulation of an aircraft impacting the Pentagon. They should have shipped the FBI agents over to the Bush Regime Gulag in Eastern Europe and used CIA agents to break-in and steal all the Pentagon area videos instead. The bumbling FBI certainly neglected finding and eliminating all the 20+ eyewitnesses to the aircraft Over the Naval Annex, didn't they?

They should have planted some aircraft parts with N644AA serial numbers on them. Maybe American Airlines would have lent them the parts, until after the necessary photo ops. They should have gotten a few more husky agents over to Lloyde's taxi and stuck the dumb light pole through the windshield for a few more photo ops. Nobody would have looked because nobody was paid to look, and certainly nobody would have remembered looking. Right? I guess the FBI was good for something.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/569e10deeb6f.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 3/25/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


Well since your entire theory is speculation, a little more won't hurt. The contrived explosives-with-flyover should have about run its course by now since no one can explain how all the fuel was stored and set off, so I expect a new version any time.

posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston

 

since no one can explain how all the fuel was stored and set off, so I expect a new version any time.

refer to previous post by SPreston for answer

reply to post by SPreston


If there was no fuel, what caused the fires? I think that you have no answer for the contrived flyover with explosion and the only way you can keep this improbable theory alive is to deny the existence of the fuel fires. We'll probably have a hologram sometime soon.

The smoke trail is because the gases exiting the engine are moving faster than the plane itself. Hundreds of people saw the plane and nobody saw lightpost planted?? HUMMM!! A plane hit the building get over it.

reply to post by SPreston


Whats always bothered me about the photo in your post is this.

The outside of f77's AA's paint job was basically chrome, shiny metal with red white blue stripes. Why does the smoke trail reflect the light perfectly while the outline of the plane seems to reflect complete black. Yet both are in the sun outside of the buildings shadow. Even if part of the plane was in its shadow the smoke were told is coming from the engine at the very least we should be able to see the back end and large tail of the jet ..shouldn't we?

Or am I missing something? How can the smoke reflect light with such brightness that the smoke cloud is perfectly outlined with even enough detail to see that it is spinning like a tornado laying sideways. Yet the shiny jet reflects nothing, not even its white markings.

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f823368d000d.jpg[/atsimg]

Yes, they would have us believe the entire 757 aircraft is hidden behind that parking lot entrance box; shiny fuselage and huge white tail and all. How convenient and in miniature. Yet the heavy white smoke trail supposedly coming from a damaged right wing turbofan engine is much much more visible than the imagined aircraft.

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

No wonder they deny needing serial numbers to prove what aircraft was allegedly at the Pentagon. There was no aircraft in the parking lot security videos. They were faked and the heavy white smoke trail was photoshopped. Photoshop it in and in the next frame that is not missing, photoshop it back out with a quick brush stroke.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4efbb934c0be.jpg[/atsimg]

It even looks like they accidentally chopped out part of the tree line background next to the alleged explosion. Thank you Mr leaker for leaking the photoshopped still frames years before they had the photoshopped videos finished.

The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is becoming such a sacred white elephant for the faithful government loyalists to defend. Don't you wish it made the tiniest bit of sense? Don't you wish it was not filled with holes and constant contradictions?



[edit on 3/28/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


So where is the alleged flyover? I don't see it here. Technically it should have been right over the fireball or just before the Pentagon. Where is the magic flyover?

EDIT TO ADD:

You forget why the plane isnt all shiny. Take a good look at the location of the sun in the sky and the direction of the shadows. The sunlight is hitting the aircraft from what can be estimated as the aircrafts' 1 o'clock position in reference to its orientation (ie the plane). This would mean the side facing us is NOT in direct sunlight and therefore cannot be all shiny and bright. However, the smoke cloud is white and as so, it is lit up by the sun far easier. So why isnt the Pentagon wall so bright and easily seen?
[edit on 3/28/2009 by GenRadek]

[edit on 3/28/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by SPreston


The treeline that was supposedly photoshopped out was actually smoke/vaporized fuel that was dispersing before igniting in the next photo you posted. The aircraft is in that cloud or has already entered the building.

reply to post by GenRadek

"So where is the alleged flyover?"

Here it is. It was probably photoshopped out if those were actual parking lot videos. Photoshopper jthomas decided to replace it and shove it in our faces. At least he got that aircraft closer to the right size. Boy that still frame leaker sure did screw up their photoshopping efforts didn't he, and made them release those pieces of video garbage?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48d006eea9cc.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston



right and you mean to tell me that all of the eyewtinesses somehow missed this obvious bit? Including your own picked 13 NoC/ONA eyewitnesses, who all saw the aircraft enter the Pentagon, and did NOT see it lifting off way before the Pentagon and fireball. Also, how the heck did the plane manage to avoid getting destroyed in midair by the explosion and shrapnel? and where exactly did the plane do this amazing pull up from such a low level to be able to fly up and over the Pentagon, and not a single soul saw that happen right in front of their eyes?

Originally posted by GenRadek

your own picked 13 NoC/ONA eyewitnesses who all saw the aircraft enter the Pentagon

Wrong. Most of them do not claim to have seen it enter the building. What they are all certain that they did see was the plane flying over the Navy Annex and/or North of the Citgo Station. Have you not watched the interviews, or are you just trying to confuse people who are reading this thread?

and did NOT see it lifting off way before the Pentagon and fireball.

"Lifting off way before" the Pentagon and fireball?

If you mean pulling up to get over the building you're wrong.

Robert Turcios, who was at the gas station, saw the plane pull up at the last moment.



In this particular short clip he is saying "and then it picked up a little bit". That is, it pulled up to get over a sign positioned over Route 27, the highway it crossed a split second before allegedly reaching the Pentagon low and level (and from a different trajectory).

Full interview here: video.google.com...

Maria De La Cerda thought the plane hit on top of the building.

Pentagon employee Roosevelt Roberts saw a large commercial airliner flying roughly 100 feet off the ground away from the scene seconds after the alleged impact.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Ligon]

reply to post by cardsfan77

Lack of AA reaction around the Pentagon ?
No wonder : altitude almost zero, a path clear of AA, and a maximum speed.
Three basic conditions for a successful hit.

reply to post by Ligon


I think I should direct you to this thread from last year. Cogburn does a good job of explaining this part:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Turcios also said he did NOT see the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Also I have to add, you do know, or at least understand how aircraft and explosives work? Because in order for the "fly-over" fantasy, what is required is the plane either flying right into the fireball and debris from the explosion, or flying right over the massive "powerful explosive detonation", and completely avoiding getting knocked out of the sky by debris entering the engines, or shrapnel slicing through the aircraft, or getting smacked around by the blast wave. You see, the plane would have had to been at a minimum of at least 200ft above the blast to not get affected. There is no way, no way the plane could have pulled up from an altitude of 40ft to 200ft in order to avoid the blast and dissappear from view of thousands of witnesses and potential witnesses. All at a speed of 375-400mph. Do you get what I am saying?
If the plane was at such a low level, that would mean it would have had to pull up much farther away from the Pentagon, with a nose up position, and be at a safe height over the Pentagon at the exact moment of detonation of alleged high powered explosives and jet fuel, and hope the blast doesnt knock the plane out of the sky. Most witnesses saw the plane enter with a nose down position, or a straight in flight. Now, that correctly continues with the impact. NOT any magic flyovers.
Did you know that during WWII, Korea and even in Vietnam, aircraft sometimes crashed or were destroyed in midair because of their own ordinance detonating too close to their aircraft because they were too low on the drop? Or when they flew into the fireball and debris of an ammo dump they just strafed and got knocked out by flying debris and the blast waves? That happens when the plane is too low. This would have happened at the Pentagon as well if there was any so called flyover because the plane would have been much much much too low and close to the huge fireball and blast.


[edit on 3/30/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2ca32d9dee36.jpg[/atsimg]

Erik Dihle in an interview in 2001 with the Center for Military History confirms the northwest approach of the C-130 as reported by all the other ANC witnesses proving the 84 RADES data fraudulent and fully supporting the C-130 pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien describing the decoy aircraft headed for DC skies.

Erik Dihle also gave this statement in the CMH interview. It would sure be nice to interview some of these kept on going eyewitnesses on videotape.

Download CMH Interview neit426 - Erik Dihle

Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that the jet kept on going.

When are some of you government loyalists heading on down there to round up eyewitnesses to the heavy white smoke trail and the knocking down light poles and the light pole through the taxi windshield? Maybe you can help out with finding some kept on going eyewitnesses and bring their videotaped interviews back to the ATS Forum for the enjoyment of our membership? No? Why not?

Maybe because the FBI had a stern talk with those people?

We can sure see why the CMH insisted on redacting all their names and censoring their original interviews can't we? Even redacting the names of those eyewitness interviews ordered released by FOIA court order.

Center for Military History - Redacted - redacted - redacted
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6d1055f255e8.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 3/30/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


Sorry SPreston. This nonsense of the C-130 on the wrong course has already been debunked last year by Reheat. The RADES Data is correct, always was correct, and will be. Read here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here:
forums.randi.org...

The videos he posted are correct and they completely prove your claims wrong. Again.
Sorry SPreston, you can only repost your debunked ideas so many times before others get sick of it and figure out how wrong you are. No matter how hard you try, repeating a lie does not make it true.

For fun, I will post this picture from reheat's comment of last year, and lets see if you can tell me when did this happen and which way is it looking.
old.911digitalarchive.org...

Seems to me its looking northwest and the aircraft is banking to the left well AFTER the impact and fireball. My my my. Smoke plume in the foreground, C-130 in the background banking left. Amazing what a picture can do. hahaha! That little left turn does not fit with your fantasy flight path.



[edit on 4/1/2009 by GenRadek]

posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SPreston

 

Sorry SPreston. This nonsense of the C-130 on the wrong course has already been debunked last year by Reheat. The RADES Data is correct, always was correct, and will be.

Reheat? Reheat the pretend pilot and disinfo artist? Reheat has so thoroughly embarrassed himself that he has gone into hiding. Reheat has been ordered on hiatus by his masters to regroup and to keep his big yap shut for a while. Didn't you know? I heard that Reheat and jthomas are hiding out together.

There are a multitude of eyewitnesses proving the C-130 aircraft came in from the northwest and Reheat the government loyalist wasn't even there. The faked 84 RADES data has thoroughly been debunked.

Actual C-130 flight path according to actual living eyewitnesses in yellow
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2ca32d9dee36.jpg[/atsimg]

It has been proven that the actual decoy aircraft (NOT Flight 77) witnessed Over the Naval Annex also flew east across the Potomac, over DC, and back west across the Potomac, banking around Reagan National airport.

Faked 84 Rades data
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7904ae38c716.jpg[/atsimg]

The faked 84 RADES data shows the official Flight 77 flight path going nowhere near the Potomac and in a tight loop southwest of the Pentagon, which not one single person in the entire world witnessed. By the way the C-130 pilot did not see the heavy white smoke trail across the lawn either.

Your 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is self-destructing faster than you government loyalists can prop it up.



[edit on 4/1/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


SPreston, I see that you are using CIT's FANTASY C-130 LOOPv3. Would you care to point out at which point along the flight path the "Decoy-Jet" flew from left to right on a northbound heading, as described by the pilot, in front of the C-130?

Originally posted by SPreston
Reheat? Reheat the pretend pilot and disinfo artist? Reheat has so thoroughly embarrassed himself that he has gone into hiding. Reheat has been ordered on hiatus by his masters to regroup and to keep his big yap shut for a while. Didn't you know? I heard that Reheat and jthomas are hiding out together.

Now why would I be embarrassed to see you get you ass handed to you by a couple of posters.

You can squeal all you want about your "witnesses", but you can't quite explain that photo of a C-130 that proves all of those "witnesses" wrong. You also can't answer the question asked by Boone. Whatsa matter, cat got your tongue?

You can ignore it, attack me instead, or you can call it fake, but you can't make it go away. As if nothing else does, it destroys your fantasy once and for all.

posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SPreston

 

That little left turn does not fit with your fantasy flight path.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dc3b5d373cb3.jpg[/atsimg]

Sure it does. After the last position in the image below, the C-130 (blue plane), according to several real living ANC (Arlington National Cemetery) eyewitnesses who were actually there on scene (unlike Reheat) on 9-11-2001, reportedly approached over ANC and then banked left before reaching the Pentagon and flew away to the north over ANC, which is exactly what that aircraft is doing from that video screen capture you posted; assuming the video is the real thing and not another fake from the 9-11 perps.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2ca32d9dee36.jpg[/atsimg]

Of course you government loyalists have yet to supply one single verified eyewitness who saw the white smoke trail across the Pentagon lawn, one single verified eyewitness who saw the light pole through the taxi windshield, or one single verified eyewitness who saw the alleged aircraft hit the generator trailer.

You government loyalists have not provided one single verified photo of the light pole through the windshield, one single verified photo of an alleged passenger still strapped into a Flight 77 seat, one single verified photo of a Flight 77 landing gear not taken in a warehouse in Italy, one single serial number from any aircraft part allegedly not planted at the Pentagon, or one single serial number from any part from the alleged four aircraft supposedly used against America on 9-11-2001 or from their supposed eight black boxes carried on the four aircraft.

Why is that? Has your faith in your government god weakened so much that you cannot drive yourselves to search out the necessary evidence and eyewitnesses to salvage it? Or are you just rendered weak and helpless as your fantasy tale self-destructs before your eyes?

In other words, your silly 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY sucks.




[edit on 4/2/09 by SPreston]