Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Aubryish
 


Aubry,
SPreston has provided photographic evidence of two and maybe three fixtures. Read my post for a response on the smoke.
Because someone is on this site looking at conspiracies, it doesn't necessarily mean that that individual must agree with all or any of them. This site is generally more orderly than others and has a broader range of topics and people involved which is why I prefer it. I was actually looking at things that were completely different when I saw a great deal of bad science and misinformation on a few WTC posts. The Pentagon posts were ancillary. Lately, I have been trying to get a theory from the CIT crew/JPreston that doesn't change between posts and addresses the evidence, as we know it.




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:46 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 just do not get it do you? That alleged smoke trail visible in the plane frame of the parking lot security video is less than half a second away from the #3 light pole which officially created it. The aircraft is officially flying at 784 fps as depicted by the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY and there is less that 800 feet of distance between the #3 light pole and the Pentagon wall. The alleged 757 aircraft which nobody can see in this frame is about halfway along the



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


In that 1/2 second the turbine made 125 revolutions pushing smoke out the exhaust.

What's not fast enough?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston
 


In that 1/2 second the turbine made 125 revolutions pushing smoke out the exhaust.

What's not fast enough?




In less than half a second, YOUR lamp head must somehow damage the alleged 757 turbofan engine which is already 15 feet past it and under the wing, and THEN cause it to somehow produce the heavy dense smoke trail. That is just too much to do in less than half a second's time, especially when the actual aircraft was flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and came nowhere near your precious staged light poles.



Are you not yet sick to death of YOUR silly 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY? When are you going to face reality and admit that the parking lot security videos were photo shopped, and the alleged Flight 77 FDR was much much too high to hit the light poles or Pentagon, and the 84 RADES data was faked years after 9-11, and the real aircraft flew east of the Potomac before circling around Reagan National, and nobody in the entire world saw Flight 77 descending in a tight loop over Virginia southwest of the Pentagon, and 20+ real living eyewitnesses placed it Over the Naval Annex, and it hit NO light poles, and even the FAA realizes now that it hit NO light poles, and no aircraft impacted the Pentagon?


Never happened - Yep this is another LIE from the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY






[edit on 2/6/09 by SPreston]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

posted by pteridine
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.

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



The right wing of the alleged 757 depicted by the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY only officially struck two light poles. (#1 and #3) Both lamp heads (light fixtures) are accounted for in the photos. Obviously neither of these two light fixtures was sucked up into the turbofan engine, shattering the titanium alloy turbine blades, and scattering them all over the ground, where not one single piece of turbine blading was found.

Pretty little #3 lamp head (light fixture) smile nice for the camera



You claim that the other two light fixtures are unaccounted for. But the #2 light pole was way over on the left side and allegedly and mysteriously knocked backwards down the hill by an alleged 535 mph aircraft wing going the other way. Presumably that light fixture did not end up way over in the right turbofan engine intake which would have been far forward of the #2 light pole, and moving away at 784 fps.



The remaining #5 light fixture was also way over on the left side and allegedly over a hundred feet to the northeast of the right wing turbofan engine. It is unlikely a leftward angled wing leading edge would have flipped the light fixture over or under the large 535 mph fuselage to the right side engine intake. Your light pole staging scenario just gets more and more ridiculous as the light of truth and reality gets shined upon it. The most simple conclusion is that the parking lot security videos were photoshopped.



Can you not see how patently ludicrous this light pole staging scenario really is with the light poles allegedly smashed with a 535 mph bat, yet these two lamp heads (light fixtures) sitting out on the upper ends of the light poles somehow ending up behind the alleged aircraft sitting on the ground next to their bases and damaged only a little.

It looks like they were gently set there on the road surface by hand, perhaps prepared beforehand by the careful swinging of a hammer or some such tool. Is that the tool used sitting next to the lamp head in the #4 light pole photo? Isn't it odd how all three lamp heads ended up sitting on a road surface, when lawn surface makes up a much higher percentage of the total ground surface available?

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





[edit on 2/6/09 by SPreston]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 

I allowed that overstress of the engines could have caused the smoke, meaning that no ingestion was necessary and that the sequence of events would not have to be as proposed.

As to the photoshopping of the smoke, why would that have to be dubbed if no one witnessed it?

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, the FAA has not changed their story on the impact of Flt 77 with the Pentagon. The circular flight path is what it is. Ground observers may or may not agree with it, but it is difficult for an observer on the ground to estimate a distant flight pattern considering obstructed views and parallax errors.

You have not yet stated your theory of the entire event. If the smoke was photoshopped and the plane was photoshopped, how did the DNA from the passengers get into the Pentagon? What really stuck the Pentagon? Where is Flt 77 aircraft?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston
 


As to the photoshopping of the smoke, why would that have to be dubbed if no one witnessed it?


Because it actually was not there?

Because the plane was not there either?

Because the smoke trail could not possibly have been there in that spot above the lawn?


posted by pteridine
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, the FAA has not changed their story on the impact of Flt 77 with the Pentagon. The circular flight path is what it is. Ground observers may or may not agree with it, but it is difficult for an observer on the ground to estimate a distant flight pattern considering obstructed views and parallax errors.


1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive



This is not an admission that the light poles were not struck by YOUR aircraft as depicted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY? How were YOUR light poles knocked down if the aircraft flew nowhere near them? How were the turbofan engines overstressed when the Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo eyewitnesses testified that the aircraft was flying much slower than the 535 mph official aircraft? How come none of them reported a smoke trail, including Terry Morin who watched the tail until the explosion?



If they were not staged, then what knocked YOUR light poles down, when the FAA has the aircraft flying to the north of them? No, magic is not allowed; let's just stick with normal scientific procedures.



So where did the smoke trail in the parking lot security videos come from? It had to be photoshopped since there never ever was an aircraft flying low and level inches above the lawn. The FAA has the aircraft far north of where the parking lot videos have it. They can't both be right can they? Over 20+ eyewitnesses also have the aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex, totally negating the position shown by the parking lot videos. Why can't you see that the parking lot videos are photoshopped and faked? That is why some insider leaked the five still frames way back in March 2002. That person should get a Presidential Medal of Freedom from the next President we can trust.




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 

You've told us what didn't happen. Tell us your latest theory of what did happen.
Be specific. Call out details. Include white smoke and airplane photoshopping.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston
 

You've told us what didn't happen. Tell us your latest theory of what did happen.
Be specific. Call out details. Include white smoke and airplane photoshopping.

Wow, this is almost identical to a more recent post of pteridine's. I'll save everyone reading it twice and just post a link to my reply.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 


You are so thoughtful. I would be interested in hearing the theory that someone of your depth would propose regarding the Pentagon strike. Are you a flyover NOC or a missile hit kind of person?



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I'm a ' the "official" and corporate media-based "explanations" don't add up properly with other information since made available, there was clearly a rabid Bush administration coverup for several years, and the relevant Federal agencies have refused to comment or clarify theorist'-type person.

My response to pteridine's question is veering somewhat off-topic (regarding videos and smoke) however.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 


OK. You think something is wrong but are still looking at possible theories. Is the smoke trail photoshopped? Is the plane real?



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
OK. You think something is wrong but are still looking at possible theories. Is the smoke trail photoshopped? Is the plane real?


Have we got an "official" source on the CNN-"leaked 5 frames" stills? The Gallery link at CNN was dead for me:

archives.cnn.com...

Same thing at archive.org, and I tried at least 5 versions there:

Wayback Machine

archives.cnn.com...

(can't get the link to work- paste the 2nd into the 1st)

I don't have video processing software or experience (and don't trust much "video" evidence anyway).

The stills here do have AP captions, specifically

911research.wtc7.net...

says "ONE OF FIVE PHOTO SEQUENCE--This photo from a Pentagon surveillance camera obtained on Thursday, March 7, 2002, shows the fireball that resulted when the hijacked American Airlines plane slammed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11. The image had been made available to law enforcement to aid in the investigation. Officials could not immediately explain why the date typed near the bottom of each photograph is Sept. 12 and the time is written as 5:37 p.m. The attack happened at about 9:37 a.m. on Sept. 11. Officials said it was possible that the date and time were added the day after the attack when they may have been catalogued for investigative purposes. (AP Photo), 20020307, 000000+0500, UNCLASSIFIED" Caption writer was "SH" and there was some other info in that AP photo.

link

Photo and video evidence is extremely subjective (and easy to tamper with current/post-1990 technology), so I personally rate that a BIG inconclusive.

On your 2nd question pteridine- what plane?



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 

What plane? The plane that officially struck the Pentagon; Flt 77. Some of the CT folks say that the plane flew over and a missile hit. Others say Flt 77 was shot down at sea or flown to a secret base were everyone was killed and the bodies planted. One proposed a resurrected Navy A-3 as the plane that struck. It is difficult to get a theory that lasts more than a few hours. Sometimes, it changes between posts which is why I keep trying to get a detailed theory from someone. The flight path goes from north of Citgo to over the Annex and back to NoC. Super flash bang devices distract the masses while an un-noticed jumbo jet beside the flash-bang casually slips away to somewhere else. Missiles fly and light poles are planted, presumably by FBI.
I was asking for your take on the plane. What plane, if any, hit and were there passengers onboard?



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Trying to stay on-topic, I was referring to "the plane" alleged to be in those "5 frames" (in the Adobe Photoshop context). I would think that those other issues are discussed at some length on some existing threads around here that I haven't read yet.

Again, the "5 frames" are inconclusive "evidence" (if even that IMHO). Now possible conflicts-of-interest with defense contractor Integrated Consultants, Inc. who produced the Solidworks animation somehow is another (on-topic) matter. I wonder who paid Integrated Constultants' fee.

Edit: can we be certain that "flight 77" even took off and was in the DC/Pentagon vicinity?

[edit on 14-2-2009 by rhunter]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 


Bodies were recovered. People on the flight disappeared and never returned.
Is there a question of it taking off?



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by rhunter
 


Bodies were recovered. People on the flight disappeared and never returned.
Is there a question of it taking off?

What are the verifiable sources of all 3 of those (off-topic) assertions? While we're at it, what is the unquestionable info source that it was actually American Airlines flight #77 that left Dulles, got hijacked, and crashed into the Pentagon? (Wasn't there a little "problem" with radar transponders somewhere along the way)? [/rhetorical] and back on-topic.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 


Is your theory that the plane never even took off and that the plane and smoke in the video was photoshopped? If it didn't take off, how did the bodies of the passengers get into the wreckage and what did the wreckage consist of? What struck the Pentagon?



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Perhaps you should read "my theory" again- I think it was fairly straightforward the 1st time.

Originally posted by rhunter
I'm a ' the "official" and corporate media-based "explanations" don't add up properly with other information since made available, there was clearly a rabid Bush administration coverup for several years, and the relevant Federal agencies have refused to comment or clarify theorist'-type person.

Pteridine appears to have various "theories" on the brain...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This topic covers parking lot camera video, "white smoke," and I would think Integrated Consultants, Inc. (by implication as their computer animation preceded the "leaked 5 frames" CNN video IIRC).



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
If it didn't take off, how did the bodies of the passengers get into the wreckage

This is off topic.

Please start a new thread with all of your evidence that shows exactly which passenger bodies were found in the Pentagon and where they were found. In the same thread, you might like to explain how passenger bodies are supposed to be used to identify an inorganic plane?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join