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

reply to post by djeminy

He also would have found comfort in your reply, seeing in it a fellow traveller.

Originally posted by rhunter
Sorry pteri- I'm not going to wax anything here.

If by "tower occupant" that you vaguely can't seem to bring yourself to name directly (at least 3 times I noticed), I think his name would be Sean Boger. Perhaps everyone should read the entire Boger interview- there are many inconsistent things in there. Sometimes eyewitness accounts can be that way (I think perhaps that is why more than one person was interviewed).

There is an existing thread or topic for that here BTW:

Heliport ATC Sean Boger: ultimate validation of northern approach
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pteri-dogg isn't very good at that reading comprehension thing apparently. The link to the recent Sean Boger thread is above, so that pteri-dogg doesn't lose it a 2nd time.

P.S. I'm not a "dudes," pteri-dogg, but I am still working on my "street cred" as you recommended and requested.

Also, shouldn't pteri-dogg be asking Craig and/or CIT all these Craig and/or CIT-specific questions (via U2U or email) as I recommended above? I think they have a website- perhaps pteri-dogg has seen it before.

reply to post by rhunter

Huntingdudes,
I will agree that there are inconsistences and uncertainties in all witness accounts. I recommend that we disregard all witness accounts and only look at the physical evidence. That would seem to be the logical thing to do if we are not certain of which witness testimonies are trustworthy.
Unless, of course, you would like to vouch for specific testimony of specific witnesses of your choosing.

Originally posted by pteridine
Unless, of course, you would like to vouch for specific testimony of specific witnesses of your choosing.

I was under the impression that this topic was about parking lot videos and a "smoke trail" as depicted in the defense contractor Integrated Consultants animation. All that stuff looks pretty "fishy" to me.

I think someone might have tried to derail it with all this talk about eyewitnesses though. I have seen an existing thread about eyewitness Sean Boger here though.

Originally posted by rhunter
I was under the impression that this topic was about parking lot videos and a "smoke trail" as depicted in the defense contractor Integrated Consultants animation. All that stuff looks pretty "fishy" to me.

I think someone might have tried to derail it with all this talk about eyewitnesses though. I have seen an existing thread about eyewitness Sean Boger here though.

Animations of all sorts are just opinions. We both know that.
I thought that the smoke trails referred to were what was claimed to be photoshopped into the videos. The OP thinks everything is faked including the plane. I contend that the physical evidence is consistent with a plane and there is no need to fake the crappy videos.


Mod edit: Fixed quote.

[edit on 2/21/2009 by Hal9000]

Which "physical evidence" might that be?

9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent
www.911blogger.com...

NTSB Affirms Dubious Explanation For Pentagon "Black Box" Data File Time Stamp Discrepancy
www.911blogger.com...

Is it anything like those AA77 "passenger bodies" that tezz has been asking you about pteri-dogg?

Originally posted by rhunter
Which "physical evidence" might that be?

9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent
www.911blogger.com...

NTSB Affirms Dubious Explanation For Pentagon "Black Box" Data File Time Stamp Discrepancy
www.911blogger.com...

Is it anything like those AA77 "passenger bodies" that tezz has been asking you about pteri-dogg?

Huntingdudes,

This shows the locations of the bodies on the first floor. upload.wikimedia.org...

There are photos from the trial available; you are smart enough to find them yourself. They do not say whose bodies are in the photos.

Oh Wikipedia- thanks for that. You know, i could fire up Power Point and make and upload all kinds of "evidence." Would you like to be the Queen of England, pteri-dogg? How about the Emperor of Mars? A scary six-legged alien perhaps?

Wasn't the Pentagon/DoD/US Army involved in the custody of all that DNA "evidence?" There was once an old concept of "conflict of interest"way back when, but I don't think the Bush Administration really thought along those lines (evidenced by their appointment of war criminal Henry Kissinger to the 9/11 Commission).

The plane vaporizes but the DNA doesn't- very curious. I seem to recall a claim that one woman's DNA was found outside up on the Pentagon roof.

How does this "physical evidence" tie in with the crappy videos again?

Originally posted by rhunter
Oh Wikipedia- thanks for that. You know, i could fire up Power Point and make and upload all kinds of "evidence."

Carp about wikimedia. Wikipedia is innocent. For an interesting viewpoint, look at bovarcher's post in this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2/20/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
Carp about wikimedia. Wikipedia is innocent. For an interesting viewpoint, look at bovarcher's post in this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

I counted about 6 bovarcher charges of "disinfo" with no verifiable sources listed. It was somewhat interesting where bovarcher said this about Craig though: "He may turn out to be right. We'll have to wait and see."

On your "innocent" Wikipedia:

See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign
www.wired.com...

WikiScanner

So what does this bovarcher have to do with videos and "smoke trails" again?

reply to post by rhunter



So what does this bovarcher have to do with videos and "smoke trails" again?

He says that they are not faked. I thought that you would benefit from his background, viewpoint, and advice.

"Try to be more civil, please, and try to remain sane and
less deluded." -- Bovarcher

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by rhunter

 

Huntingdudes,
I will agree that there are inconsistences and uncertainties in all witness accounts. I recommend that we disregard all witness accounts and only look at the physical evidence. That would seem to be the logical thing to do if we are not certain of which witness testimonies are trustworthy.
Unless, of course, you would like to vouch for specific testimony of specific witnesses of your choosing.

Are there inconsistencies and uncertainties in the detail of the north side of the Citgo flight path?

NOPE.

It has been corroborated 13 times over. It is a detail that hasn't been asked of witnesses until now, and I can tell you with certainty that, there has not been one bit of "inconsistency and uncertainty" with that very specific detail they were asked about.

All of them saw the plane on the north side of the Citgo.

BTW, the physical evidence IS the crime. It is why we are here in the first place. In fact what is the "physical evidence"? Photographs.

Do you have any reports that show how the plane actually struck the poles? In light of the controversy surrounding the Pentagon attack, do you have a forensic analysis of the light pole "physical evidence" that PROVE that a silver AA wing made contact with said light poles?

THAT is where your "physical evidence" argument can ever make any sense.





[edit on 20-2-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Are there inconsistencies and uncertainties in the detail of the north side of the Citgo flight path?

NOPE.

It has been corroborated 13 times over. It is a detail that hasn't been asked of witnesses until now, and I can tell you with certainty that, there has not been one bit of "inconsistency and uncertainty" with that very specific detail they were asked about.

All of them saw the plane on the north side of the Citgo.

BTW, the physical evidence IS the crime. It is why we are here in the first place. In fact what is the "physical evidence"? Photographs.

Do you have any reports that show how the plane actually struck the poles? In light of the controversy surrounding the Pentagon attack, do you have a forensic analysis of the light pole "physical evidence" that PROVE that a silver AA wing made contact with said light poles?

THAT is where your "physical evidence" argument can ever make any sense.

As to NoC, there are inconsistencies. Some witnesses say yes and some say no. Many say that the plane hit the Pentagon. Sean says NoC and plane strike.
Physical evidence is the 75' hole in the Pentagon, the landing gear and engine parts within the structure, the type of damage that would not be done by a missile or high explosives, the fires from large volumes of fuel, the topppled light poles showing the path of the aircraft, the incinerated bodies from the fires, and sheet metal aircraft parts strewn over the lawn. Based on this, you would need evidence refuting this scenario. You would have to prove the downed light poles were positioned; you only speculate. You would have to prove NoC. You have mixed witness accounts with over the annex, parallel to the annex, NoC and various intermediate pathways. The downed poles trump all flight path witnesses.
You have complained about poor videos and smoke trails that were faked for no reason. If that evidence is so poor or faulty, it is untrustworthy also and cannot be considered. You have no credible witnesses to any sort of flyover, missile strike, or second plane. You have no physical evidence for any of these scenarios, just doctored youtube garbage, so everything including those scenarios must be hearsay and speculation.
All that is left is that a large passenger aircraft struck the Pentagon, penetrated several layers and provided thousands of gallons of fuel for a catastrophic fire that killed many people inside, including all the passengers. The plane left parts of itself external and internal to the building. It toppled light poles on the way in.
Any conspiracy should be consistent with the physcal evidence or verifable counter evidence must be provided. Missile strike? Show missile parts. Second plane? Show radar returns or comm intercepts. No passengers? Prove that DoD lied about the remains and that all the funerals were faked.


Mod edit: Fixed quote.

[edit on 2/21/2009 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Do you have any reports that show how the plane actually struck the poles?

Here is a report:

Mark Bright
"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon. He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon. "As soon as it struck the building I just called in an attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental," Bright said. He jumped into his police cruiser and headed to the area.

Stephen McGraw
"The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill." "I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said. "I hadn't heard about the World Trade Center at that point, and so I was thinking this was an accident. I figured it was just an accident. There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows."

www.geocities.com...
There are a few more reports of light poles knocked down by the plane!

Although pteri has yet again failed to support any of its claims and is now pursuing yet another perfect solution fallacy and a boatload of red herrings...

Originally posted by rhunter
Which "physical evidence" might that be?

9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent
www.911blogger.com...

NTSB Affirms Dubious Explanation For Pentagon "Black Box" Data File Time Stamp Discrepancy
www.911blogger.com...

Is it anything like those AA77 "passenger bodies" that tezz has been asking you about pteri-dogg?

For reference, here is that now-closed thread where apparently no one was able to provide any proof of AA77 passenger bodies strapped to seats found in/at the Pentagon:

Bodies strapped to seats on AA77, Pentagon?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't you remember pteri, we already discussed this recently here (where you couldn't provide any proof that 64 passengers actually boarded AA77 in Dulles):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You really should let this "physical evidence" thing go pteri, since you seem noticeably incapable of providing it. The only "evidence" I've seen from pteri is one Wikipedia Power Point slide that was evidence of numbered ellipses.

By the way, aircraft have highly-documented "time change parts" that have serial numbers engraved in them and are carefully logged in maintenance records. For AA77, the NTSB registration number was reported as N644AA, but the FBI has refused to identify any of the 4 planes alleged to have been involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 events.

rinf.com...

So we've got no serialized proof of plane debris, a Flight Data Recorder with no serial number and a problem on the NTSB data file time, no passenger bodies, some numbered ellipses, and some photos that exist somewhere that pteri claims show some kind of "proof" of something.

Well here is a photo that "proves" GWB was in "Lord of the Rings," but I don't really believe it:

www.fugly.com...

Again pteri, that Sean Boger thread is here (for the 3rd? time now):

Heliport ATC Sean Boger: ultimate validation of northern approach
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again pteri, this topic is fake videos and fake white smoke trails, not Boger, and not this bovarcher person (whoever that is). Please try not to further derail pteri- it will probably be very difficult for you though.

reply to post by rhunter


rhunt-
I know that you spend your days reading the CIT and P4T sites, so much of what follows will escape you as it won't fit the predetermined outcome that they desire.

The physical evidence says an airplane full of fuel hit the pentagon. It toppled light posts on the way in, punched a 125 foot hole in the building and started a fire. Burned bodies were found in the building. Parts of the airplane were outside and inside the building. The fires were seen inside and outside and photographed as was the damage, which was not consistent with high explosive satchel charges or missile strikes.

Eyewitnesses are fallible and testimony is not always reliable. If there are enough of them, it is possible to come to general conclusions such as a plane flew toward the Pentagon, there was a bang and no plane flew away. Physical evidence has to fill in the details as best it can.

The videos are as good as you'll see unless someone breaks loose other confiscated videos. Make what you will of them. Believe that the white smoke was faked if that's what you're told. This would be a pointless move on the part of the suspected plotters because no witnesses mentioned seeing it.

How you theorize a conspiracy around this physical evidence is only limited by your imagination, but it will only be speculation because you have no other evidence. You can spend the rest of your days discussing serial numbers of flight recorders, second planes, missiles, flyovers, light pole bases, or whatever you want, with the CIT and P4T core membership. That audience will praise you but all of your arguments are moot.
There is no evidence of a conspiracy.

Originally posted by pteridine
Physical evidence is the 75' hole in the Pentagon, the landing gear and engine parts within the structure...

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by rhunter

 

rhunt-
I know that you spend your days reading the CIT and P4T sites, so much of what follows will escape you as it won't fit the predetermined outcome that they desire.

The physical evidence says an airplane full of fuel hit the pentagon. It toppled light posts on the way in, punched a 125 foot hole in the building and started a fire. Burned bodies were found in the building. Parts of the airplane were outside and inside the building. The fires were seen inside and outside and photographed as was the damage, which was not consistent with high explosive satchel charges or missile strikes.

Eyewitnesses are fallible and testimony is not always reliable. If there are enough of them, it is possible to come to general conclusions such as a plane flew toward the Pentagon, there was a bang and no plane flew away. Physical evidence has to fill in the details as best it can.

The videos are as good as you'll see unless someone breaks loose other confiscated videos. Make what you will of them. Believe that the white smoke was faked if that's what you're told. This would be a pointless move on the part of the suspected plotters because no witnesses mentioned seeing it.

How you theorize a conspiracy around this physical evidence is only limited by your imagination, but it will only be speculation because you have no other evidence. You can spend the rest of your days discussing serial numbers of flight recorders, second planes, missiles, flyovers, light pole bases, or whatever you want, with the CIT and P4T core membership. That audience will praise you but all of your arguments are moot.
There is no evidence of a conspiracy.

And not surprisingly, all of your "arguments" are still unsupported and weak, p-dogg (other than those numbered ellipses I saw on the other thread). I notice that the "physical evidence" you claim just grew by 50 feet. Do you have sources for a single one of your assertions, or are you just making stuff up as you go along?

I think the photos with all the firefighting foam show a much smaller hole in the Pentagon- have you even looked at them yet? Do you even know the reported timeline of events reported to have happened there that day?

Why don't you go back and look at the links I have provided for you and count them, then count the ones you have given as "support." Are you sure that I'm the one speculating, or are you the one constantly demanding "theories" and making the claim above "on the part of the suspected plotters?" Do you know any of these "suspected plotters" BTW?

The gaps in your circular "logic" are larger than this growing "125 foot" hole in the Pentagon, so far.


Edit- look supporting evidence:

Metcalf 4

Metcalf 5

Metcalf 6

[edit on 21-2-2009 by rhunter]

reply to post by rhunter


rhunt,
Here is something that you probably saw and forgot about. In this presentation the puncture is only 96 feet across. I was counting the facade damage, too. Its from the 911research.wtc7.net site, so it isn't tainted by anything from the federal government. Steve Jones even likes it. I recommend that you look at all of the slides, they are quite informative.

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by rhunter

 

rhunt,
Here is something that you probably saw and forgot about. In this presentation the puncture is only 96 feet across. I was counting the facade damage, too. Its from the 911research.wtc7.net site, so it isn't tainted by anything from the federal government. Steve Jones even likes it. I recommend that you look at all of the slides, they are quite informative.

911research.wtc7.net...

Extremely outdated and was published prior to the creation of Pilots For 9/11 Truth and CIT, and therefore also omits extensive analysis regarding witnesses, FDR data, and the numerous links/sources posted by rhunter.

Did you know that Steven Jones is a member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth and has also published P4T work in his JONES report?

Try again...