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

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

posted by pteridine
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



Immediately means in less than half a second because less than one second is the time that Flight 77 in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY would have taken to fly from the #3 light pole across the lawn to the wall at the official speed of 535 mph or 784 feet per second. The alleged smoke trail is visible half way between the #3 light pole and the wall.



Obviously the jet engine would be reacting much too fast from alleged damage, and the alleged smoke trail is much much too dense in less than half a second. Therefore the images from the official parking lot security videos are faked and photo shopped. That is why not one single eyewitness reported a smoke trail from the aircraft even when it was flying Over the Naval Annex or banking to the right from North of the Citgo. No smoke trail anywhere in sight.




posted by cogburn
Engine nacell fire suppression?

Coolant/hydrolic line rupture cooking off on the engine?

Nope... gotta be fake smoke.


Yes it has to be fake smoke. No fire suppression system could react in less than half a second; let alone produce that much vapor/smoke. It would take more than half a second to record the sudden heat rise from an engine fire and flip a switch to iniate the fire suppression system.

Less than half a second is too little time for a coolant/hydraulic line rupture cooking off on the hot engine from impact with the #3 light pole; let alone producing that much smoke in less than half a second. The Pentagon parking lot security videos are photo shopped.






[edit on 2/4/09 by SPreston]




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


You said: "Obviously the jet engine would be reacting much too fast from alleged damage, and the alleged smoke trail is much much too dense in less than half a second."

How do you know how fast it would react and how dense the smoke trail would be if you don't know what the smoke is? If the pathway through the engine was about 15 feet, it would only take about 0.02 second for something to pass through it. If that something sheared lines, how long would it take for vapor to come out of it?

Have you come up with the unified, detailed Flt 77 conspiracy theory yet? Craig seemed to be searching for one a few weeks ago but hasn't written anything yet. I had hoped that maybe CIT had worked one out by now.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston
 


You said: "Obviously the jet engine would be reacting much too fast from alleged damage, and the alleged smoke trail is much much too dense in less than half a second."

How do you know how fast it would react and how dense the smoke trail would be if you don't know what the smoke is? If the pathway through the engine was about 15 feet, it would only take about 0.02 second for something to pass through it. If that something sheared lines, how long would it take for vapor to come out of it?



Nobody saw a smoke trail from the aircraft nor from one of the jet engines. Not one of the 20+ verified eyewitnesses who placed the aircraft Over the Naval Annex, most of whom were originally interviewed way back in 2001, reported any kind of smoke trail from the aircraft or one of its jet engines.

Not one of the alleged official south path eyewitnesses from the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY whom none of you devoted defenders of the faith can track down and verify, have reported a smoke trail. Even your lying eyewitnesses who changed their original scripts never ever reported a smoke trail from the aircraft or one of its jet engines.

Only the Pentagon parking lot security videos report a smoke trail, and they were very poorly photo shopped, not showing a 757 aircraft either.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


That is not the question. The damage may have occurred as the engine hit the light poles near the Pentagon, so no witnesses may have seen it.

You say it is photoshopped because you don't think that smoke or vapor would have been emitted as fast as the cameras show. I asked how you know how long it would take for vapor or smoke to be emitted if the engine ingested something near the Pentagon. The answer is that you don't. You just assume that it is "too fast." Because of this, your claim of photoshopping based on this differential is invalid.
You still haven't shown your detailed theory of Flt 77.

[edit on 2/4/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
S+F. They couldn't go and PS an actual plane in the frame, that be ludicrous. Since we have almost 90 camers in the surrounding areas, all confiscated, and supposedly show no plane. Why change what works eh?

But smoke, now there's something they could PS, giving one the impression if theres smoke like that before the impact it must be from a plane.

However, they shot themselves in the foot and forgot how fast this "supposed plane" was "supposedly" travelling.

Good catch Preston. I'd have to agree this smoke trail does not coincide with what was reported initially..and as you said even if Pole 3 caused the damage it'd take less time for the plane to hit the buiding before it could even begin to produce that type of thick billowing smoke.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch

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.


*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.



So what your saying is you basically will believe anything your government tells you, without even researching it. This is your facts?
No, no that is not gonna work here.

The official report says so! No, that is not an argument you should be allowed to stand on. Especially with the frugality shown in spending to investigate one of the biggest attacks on US soil ever. The official report, or the commission/omission report took so long and was botched from the get-go, never even included 7.

Please, don't say well, well I know it's fact because the government and the president and his people said so. It makes you look,err well



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


You said: "I'd have to agree this smoke trail does not coincide with what was reported initially..and as you said even if Pole 3 caused the damage it'd take less time for the plane to hit the buiding before it could even begin to produce that type of thick billowing smoke."

This is just opinion. You don't know how much time it would take because you don't know what caused the smoke. As was pointed out earlier, the smoke trail could be anything, including unburned, dispersed fuel or hydraulic fluid.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston
 


That is not the question. The damage may have occurred as the engine hit the light poles near the Pentagon, so no witnesses may have seen it.



No it could have NOT because the aircraft which flew Over the Naval Annex, as witnessed by 20+ verified eyewitnesses, most of whom were also officially interviewed way back in 2001 with their interviews officially censored and which original interviews were since ordered released by FOIA lawsuit, and subsequently reinterviewed and videotaped thus verifying their original interviews, went nowhere near those five light poles, and did not hit any other light poles either. So the aircraft engine did not hit anything to make it smoke, and besides NONE of the 20+ verified eyewitnesses saw it smoking anyway and NONE of the alleged south flight path official eyewitnesses which nobody can find and prove that they even exist, saw the smoke trail either. NONE. Your official south flight witnesses if they even exist are probably all hiding because they do not want to be videotaped LYING for the 9-11 perps.

Also the evidence from the aluminum light poles which are laying on the ground in many surviving photos shows that none of them were gobbled up and chewed up by rotating titanium alloy turbofan blades at full throttle. NOBODY has produced titanium alloy turbofan blades shattered by contact with a light pole and laying on the ground out by the staged light poles, nor was there any jet fuel out there by the light poles laying on the roads or on the lawn burning the grass and turning it brown like petroleum products do. NONE..

So your pretense is ridiculous and your desperation to salvage your lunatic 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is laughable and pathetic.





[edit on 2/5/09 by SPreston]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
[ nor was there any jet fuel out there by the light poles laying on the roads or on the lawn burning the grass and turning it brown like petroleum products do. NONE..







S&F from ME. If the jet fuel left a trail from the highway to the Pentagon the Impact Fire Ball will ignite the fuel on the ground and it will travel back to its source which is the light Pole.
We all saw the Squeaky clean Pentagon lawn and the Squeaky clean "debris". most excellent work








[edit on 5-2-2009 by Aubryish]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Well, you seem to really understand laughable and pathetic liars.

The idea wasn't that the engine injested a light pole but maybe one of those thingy's on the end called light fixtures. As to the smoke, it wouldn't have started until that point so none of the lying witnesses you referred to would have seen the smoke it as it flew by/over the Naval Annex. To the poster who assumed that the fuel would ignite and flash back to the light pole, pointing the way to the guilty like a beacon -- you have been watching too many Dukes of Hazzard reruns.
Preston, you still haven't responded to the previous posts. We are still waiting for a detailed theory. It doesn't need reasons, it just has to fit the evidence. DNA of the passengers and victims in the Pentagon wreckage, plane seen approaching the Pentagon at low level, big boom and fuel fire plane parts outside and inside the rings. That's all you have to account for. You can claim any amount of photoshopping and holographic flash-bang flyovers you want. Plane parts planted by midget zombies from another dimension or whatever. You have studied this for years and say that you know the truth. It is time to put up or shut up without further weaseling or waffling. Details, not just generalities.

State your detailed theory or concede that you have searched in vain and there is no explanation better than the official explanation. I will assume that a lack of response with a detailed theory is a concession.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston
 


We are still waiting for a detailed theory. It doesn't need reasons, it just has to fit the evidence. DNA of the passengers and victims in the Pentagon wreckage, plane seen approaching the Pentagon at low level, big boom and fuel fire plane parts outside and inside the rings. That's all you have to account for.

State your detailed theory or concede that you have searched in vain and there is no explanation better than the official explanation. I will assume that a lack of response with a detailed theory is a concession.


Try sticking to the topic according to ATS forum rules. This thread is about Faking The Pentagon Parking Lot Videos And The Fake White Smoke Trail. It is not about faking DNA and imaginary passengers still strapped into aircraft seats.

There was no smoke trail. Nobody saw a smoke trail either Over the Naval Annex nor above the undamaged light poles along its flight path, nor did anybody see a smoke trail along the simulated official Flight 77 south flight path depicted in the phony 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. You government loyalists need to face reality.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 

The smoke trail would be included in your theory, of course, as part of a coherent whole. It is coherent, isn't it?

If the smoke trail started when one of the light fixtures was ingested and remained for a few seconds after the aircraft passed, that would explain why there was smoke but no plane. The impact and fire would explain why no lying witnesses to the event saw mentioned a little extra smoke. Why bother photoshopping an event that no one noticed, anyway?

You do seem to have trouble with a coherent theory. I'll start you off:
"Flt 77 was hijacked by terrorists because the intel people weren't talking to one another. The hijacked plane flew beside the Navy Annex and directly at the Pentagon at low level. It didn't turn because it was going too fast and was too low. At those speeds it couldn't have pulled up without hitting the building. Many witnesses saw it and described it in slightly different positions and with slightly different flight paths, but the damage was done all the same. The plane knocked over lamp posts on the way in and one damaged engine began to smoke immediately before impact. This was not noticed by any witnesses but was recorded on the abysmally poor video cameras. Impact was accompanied by a fireball and fuel fire. Many died, including all the passengers on Flt 77 and many of our bretheren in the Pentagon."
Change what you think is incorrect. I await enlightenment.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Change what you think is incorrect. I await enlightenment.

Firstly, how about you prove what you think is correct in your theory?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Tezza,
You might not understand the concept, but this is a theory. I am waiting for a theory from SPreston, if he has one that he would like to propose. Then we will discuss the merits of each theory. You may even join in, if you wish. Do you have a coherent theory, different from Preston, that fits the facts? Post it and we will discuss it, too. Be sure to include the smoke and videos, which are the topics of this thread, as part of your complete theory. I said that the smoke was real and no one saw it other than on the videos. Why fake something that no one witnessed?
Preston thinks that this may be too far off topic. If so, I will start a thread so he can reveal his overall theory of 77 and maybe the WTC's, if we go for a grand unified theory.
Pteridine


[edit on 2/5/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You might not understand the concept, but this is a theory. I am waiting for a theory from SPreston, if he has one that he would like to propose. Then we will discuss the merits of each theory. You may even join in, if you wish. Do you have a coherent theory, different from Preston, that fits the facts?

You probably don't understand it either, but you've failed to show me what the 'facts' concerning your theory exactly are.

Facts are not facts until proven. Where's your proof?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston
 


Well, you seem to really understand laughable and pathetic liars.

The idea wasn't that the engine injested a light pole but maybe one of those thingy's on the end called light fixtures. As to the smoke, it wouldn't have started until that point so none of the lying witnesses you referred to would have seen the smoke it as it flew by/over the Naval Annex.


Your thingies on the end called light fixtures according to the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY do not get sucked into the engine to create a smoke cloud in less than half a second; but simply land neatly next to the light pole to look pretty for photo ops. So there goes another theory of yours all shot to hell.

Pretty little #4 lamp head (light fixture) smile nice for the camera



Pretty little #1 lamp head (light fixture) smile nice for the camera



Another element of the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is that the level wings took out the light poles and the alleged breaks in the main poles are below the lamp heads. So you and your fellow government loyalist defender Integrated Consultants would have us believe that the poles just layed down gently next to their bases after being swatted by 535 mph wings; but somehow the lamp head (light fixture) from light pole #3 flew forward faster than 784 fps to catch up to and enter the turbofan inlet cowling of the right wing engine in order to shatter the alloy blades and start up the smoke trail which NOBODY saw. Such nonsense and you dishonest people all know it.





As anybody can see with their own eyes, the 757 wing is swept back and would have hit the light pole outboard of the engine which cowling opening sits about 15 feet ahead of where the light pole was allegedly struck. In other words, the engine opening was already 15 feet past the light pole moving at the official speed of 535 mph (784 fps) and the lamp head would have had to play catch up in addition to moving down and to the left in order to enter the turbofan intake. But the rest of the light pole was supposed to gently fall over next to its base. What a joke. This 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is ludicrous and getting worse and worse each time another desperate government loyalist attempts to salvage it.



And miraculously, there is light pole #3 laying gently on the lawn in two long pieces right near its base. Isn't that a great photo op? Looking at the photo below, the lamp head (light fixture) would have been over the wing when the wing leading edge allegedly hit the main pole. Gee it looks like it was somehow severed in two almost equal pieces and somehow bent on the lower end too. Did two wings hit it? Could that be the lamp head (light fixture) laying on the edge of the road surface right next to the base? Of course it is. Don't those FBI/Secret Service agents do a good job planting and staging evidence? Quantico and Rowley must do a lot of detailed training.



So if that is the #3 light fixture laying next to the road, then the right wing turbofan engine was already 15 feet past it and over the road when it allegedly fell straight down THROUGH the 535 mph wing surface to land gently on the road next to the base. Or maybe it bounced and rolled across the wing surface without picking up any of the aircraft inertia and forward momentum. That is totally ridiculous. Just how gullible can you people possibly be?




[edit on 2/5/09 by SPreston]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Once again, this is a theory. I am proposing a theory for discussion. I can say anything in a theory; lawyers propose theories all the time. I am asking Preston if he has a theory. Not a theory of bits and pieces or one that changes minute by minute, but a coherent theory as the result of studying this for all those years.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston
 


If the smoke trail started when one of the light fixtures was ingested and remained for a few seconds after the aircraft passed, that would explain why there was smoke but no plane.


You do not have a few seconds after the aircraft has passed that alleged placement on the Pentagon lawn. Is 784 fps some mathematical concept beyond your ability to comprehend? You have less than half a second from that point on until the 757 aircraft depicted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY hits the Pentagon wall. You have less than half a second from the #3 light pole to that place in the parking lot security videos named plane.




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 
From your post, you question light fixtures getting ingested into the engine and show several lying on the lawn. Some fixtures are accounted for - but not all. As I have no hard evidence of fixture ingestion, and we have no photo of every fixture, I conclude that that is only one possibility of a smoking engine. Overstressing the engines could have also caused the smoke and there is a good chance that the engines were being operated in a way that would stress them.
Since no witnesses saw it there would be no need to fake it on the video, so we must conclude that one engine was smoking immediately before impact.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston
 


To the poster who assumed that the fuel would ignite and flash back to the light pole, pointing the way to the guilty like a beacon -- you have been watching too many Dukes of Hazzard reruns.



That'd be me
and I do believe the smoke is not consistant with the time frame that it would take for that plane to hit the light pole then the building and leave a thick trail on the grass traveling at 500+mph. I found ATS in January because I was searching through google looking for 9/11 information. Turns out ATS is a "conspiracy" site that confronts more than 9/11 cover ups. I've seen UFOs, Shadow People, Orbs, Angels and more but not once has anyone here questioned what I've seen and FYI people agree with me and confirm what they've seen too
. but If I want to agree with a "conspiracy theorists" on 9/11 then somethings wrong. So why would a person that doesn't believe in conspiracies be on a site with people who believe in conspiracies.....um.... pter?





top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join