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

Originally posted by pteridine
Burned bodies were found in the building.

You're discussing burned Pentagon worker bodies here, right?

I have to assume so, considering that you've not yet managed to prove that any passenger bodies were found at the Pentagon, in this thread or the other thread...

Anyway, I don't know why you would be mentioning Pentagon bodies in a thread that's designed to discuss the smoke trail? Is it that necessary to drift off topic all of the time?

reply to post by RockHound757


Is it outdated enough to make a large hole in the wall a small hole in the wall? Is it so outdated that the aircraft parts and physical damage noted and photographed don't count? Is it so outdated that some deluded individuals are still claiming missile strike after seeing the extent and type of damage?

Try again.

My opinion.


In many ways the Truther movement contributes to reinforcing the official version. 7+ years later they are still looking for holes in the record and pushing untenable theories.

They provide no chain of command evidence with communication transmissions, no whistleblower evidence that is credible, no coherent detailed version of what they claim are the hidden facts.

Just a lot of picking away.

There is some undisclosed information on people who had prior knowledge of the attacks, in the US and elsewhere. We might have to wait a generation before a new group are able to sort trough the rubble of evidence. The investigation has been muddied by agenda driven exploiters in the name of Truth with their selected bits of data pointing in the wrong directions, doctored videos, etc.

There is a deeper story, but the current crew of seekers aren't going to be the ones to uncover it and present a convincing case.


Mike F

reply to post by GenRadek


Father Stephen McGraw:

The plane clipped the top of a light pole

Mark Bright:

it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down

What you need to understand is that these people you are quoting do not claim to have seen the plane hit the light poles.

In fact, CIT interviewed Father Stephen McGraw on camera, and he told them that he did NOT see the pole get knocked over by the plane. He says that he saw the plane, and then LATER he saw the poles down, and then he ASSUMED that the plane had hit them.

You can watch the full interview here

This is a pattern we see again and again and again with eyewitnesses who mention the poles: deduction, not observation.

This is exactly what one would expect given the fact that over a dozen eyewitnesses have all confirmed that the plane flew on a flight path that took it north of the Citgo gas station, meaning that it could not have hit the light poles (or the Pentagon).

[edit on 21-2-2009 by Ligon]

Originally posted by pteridine
Is it outdated enough to make a large hole in the wall a small hole in the wall?

There are so many claims of the size of the hole over the years, its hard to tell which one is right. Even you increased the size in just one thread.

Is it so outdated that the aircraft parts

Unless you can show me N644AA on any of those parts and/or part/serial numbers and maintenance logs tracing back to N644AA, your argument is invalid and based on incredulity.

and physical damage noted and photographed don't count?

Obviously there is physical damage. I dont think anyone denies that. But did N644AA cause that damage? So far, there is nothing but a mountain of conflicting evidence and reports, much of it provided by govt agencies. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Some users on the internet make excuses for it.

Is it so outdated that some deluded individuals are still claiming missile strike after seeing the extent and type of damage?

Perhaps. The work of CIT i think debunked the missle theory. The work of P4T debunked the A3 Theory. Both organizations of which were founded after your outdated link.

Try again.

posted by mmiichael

My opinion.

Yep just an opinion and only an opinion based on a fanatical support of the government version 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY, which is full of hundreds of holes and contradictions and improbabilities and outright impossibilities. Blind faith is not a reliable investigative tool for a large scale criminal act.

Only an opinion with no redeeming value.

reply to post by RockHound757


So is your theory that an aircraft caused the damage? Were there people on it in your theory? Were the videos of the plane and smoke "faked?"

Originally posted by SPreston

Yep just an opinion and only an opinion based on a fanatical support of the government version 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY, which is full of hundreds of holes and contradictions and improbabilities and outright impossibilities. Blind faith is not a reliable investigative tool for a large scale criminal act.

Only an opinion with no redeeming value.

With all due respect, I'm not American and believe the US Govt has concealed the truth about a lot of things.

But as for the amorphous Truth movement I can also say "is full of hundreds of holes and contradictions and improbabilities and outright impossibilities. Blind faith is not a reliable investigative tool for a large scale criminal act."

It's easy to be critical and find holes and internal inconsistencies in something involving billions of pieces of data, evidence, testimonies, reportage, visual recordings.

Where is the Unofficial Version? Is Alex Jones hiding it?


Mike F

reply to post by pteridine


Have any of you devoted defenders of the faith (id est the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY) as of yet found any alleged official south path eyewitnesses with which to salvage your self-destructing fable from sinking into the quaqmire of exposed lies and propaganda?

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by pteridine

 

Have any of you devoted defenders of the faith (id est the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY) as of yet found any alleged official south path eyewitnesses with which to salvage your self-destructing fable from sinking into the quaqmire of exposed lies and propaganda?

Preston,
With rhetoric like that you should consider political speechwriting.

As I have stated before, witnesses cut both ways. They say NoC and also say impact. In the heat of the moment, they could easily misconstrue a flight path but would be hard pressed to miss the impact. CIT likes it the other way, giving witnesses the abilty to accurately determine flightpath but disregarding them on impact. Which is it? If you claim NoC, you should also accept the impact testimony. If you accept that, then there is no reason for any videos to be faked. The white smoke trail also need not be faked as no witnesses reported seeing it.
The problems with the latest "fake everything" CIT story are no evidence for explosives, no evidence for large quantities of fuel, no accounts of any physical evidence being planted, no evidence for assassination of passengers and no evidence of the planting of bodies and personal effects. Physical evidence says the plane came in low enough to strike lamp posts and then hit the Pentagon causing significant loss of life. Nothing had to be faked.

posted by SPreston

Have any of you devoted defenders of the faith (id est the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY) as of yet found any alleged official south path eyewitnesses with which to salvage your self-destructing fable from sinking into the quaqmire of exposed lies and propaganda?

posted by pteridine
Preston,
With rhetoric like that you should consider political speechwriting.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3ae333367e2.jpg[/atsimg]

I did not inquire about any already verified north flight path eyewitnesses. I asked about alleged official south flight path eyewitnesses most of whom have seemed to have disappeared and remain unverified. Did you find one solitary eyewitness who saw the light pole through the taxi windshield besides the liar Lloyde England? No? Did you find one single eyewitness who saw the white smoke trail above the lawn? No? Did you find one eyewitness in all of Virginia who saw Flight 77 descending in a high speed descending tight loop southwest of the Pentagon?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/54090fe5fdb9.jpg[/atsimg]

No? Why is that? Is it because the real aircraft crossed over the Potomac twice and flew over DC? Have you verified and videotaped any of your non-existent eyewitnesses? No? Did you give up?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9d45290e91d.jpg[/atsimg]

Would you agree that the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is dead dead dead?

posted by pteridine
Which is it? If you claim NoC, you should also accept the impact testimony. If you accept that, then there is no reason for any videos to be faked. The white smoke trail also need not be faked as no witnesses reported seeing it.

Are you daft man? Assuming the decoy aircraft flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo gas station and above the light poles in its path, because those light poles were still standing, is correct and it is; if there was an impact into the Pentagon by that aircraft, then the parking lot security videos would have to be faked and the heavy white smoke trail would have to be photoshopped, because it would be physically impossible for that particular aircraft to fly low and level and inches above the lawn as allegedly shown in the videos and as scripted by the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. The north flight path is too far north to possibly fly the low and level official south flight path across the lawn after allegedly knocking five light poles down. Why is it you cannot grasp that extremely simple concept? Can somebody out there somehow explain it more simply for poor pteridine?

reply to post by SPreston

You said: "The north flight path is too far north to possibly fly the low and level official south flight path across the lawn after allegedly knocking five light poles down. Why is it you cannot grasp that extremely simple concept? Can somebody out there somehow explain it more simply for poor pteridine?"
Poor Preston, help me grasp why all the physical evidence says a plane hit. Simply explain how all the physical evidence provides a flight path. Help me understand why your witnesses claim that the plane hit the Pentagon. Tell me why you wouldn't conclude that the flight path was incorrectly estimated.
You witnesses each had the most accurate eyesight when it comes to something as vague as a flight path but those eyes are not trustworthy enough to notice an airplane hitting a building.
Explain why you choose to make the weakest and most questionable testimony, inconsistent with everything else, the lynchpin of your story and bend everything to fit your conclusions. Inform me why everyone whose testimony is at odds with your predetermined conclusion is a liar or is ignored.
The Rube Goldberg plot you and CIT have ginned up has no rationale, no evidence, no method of execution, and no credence.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston

 

You said: "The north flight path is too far north to possibly fly the low and level official south flight path across the lawn after allegedly knocking five light poles down. Why is it you cannot grasp that extremely simple concept? Can somebody out there somehow explain it more simply for poor pteridine?"
Poor Preston, help me grasp why all the physical evidence says a plane hit. Simply explain how all the physical evidence provides a flight path. Help me understand why your witnesses claim that the plane hit the Pentagon. Tell me why you wouldn't conclude that the flight path was incorrectly estimated.
You witnesses each had the most accurate eyesight when it comes to something as vague as a flight path but those eyes are not trustworthy enough to notice an airplane hitting a building.
Explain why you choose to make the weakest and most questionable testimony, inconsistent with everything else, the lynchpin of your story and bend everything to fit your conclusions. Inform me why everyone whose testimony is at odds with your predetermined conclusion is a liar or is ignored.
The Rube Goldberg plot you and CIT have ginned up has no rationale, no evidence, no method of execution, and no credence.

whats far more important and powerful than what they CLAIM to have seen which they either deduced or are part of the same LIES and cover-up lloyd has been involved in, is the FACT that they've ALL corroborated the NOC.

If you cannot comprehend the significance and implications of what that SIMPLE fact constitutes, then you're in a far worse state of denial or ignorance than we previously thought.

Oh,, and the physical evidence aka the LAWS OF PHYSICS says NO BOEING claimed by the OCT hit the Pentagon or the WTC.

Not only is it physically impossible that the alleged boeing could have fit in the HOLE it was claimed to have created or hit where it did if the NOC is FACT, but the physical evidence is NOT consistent with the damage a 90 ton boeing would and SHOULD have done in the REAL WORLD.

and all you can come up with to explain or rationalize the debunked and debfunked OCT flight path is that it was "incorrectly estimated?"



you remind me of a bernie madoff type lawyer

the lengths and excuses you'll come up with to defend blatent evil and protect the criminal murderer perps.

do you have a conscience? or do you just lack common sense?

posted by matrixNIN11
reply to post by pteridine

 

you remind me of a bernie madoff type lawyer

the lengths and excuses you'll come up with to defend blatent evil and protect the criminal murderer perps.

do you have a conscience? or do you just lack common sense?

There are quite a few of these 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY defending 'government loyalists' who seem to be quite lacking in both possessing a conscious and the ability of applying simple common sense.

Incorrectly estimated? Nah. The eyewitnesses could see the decoy aircraft approaching Over the Naval Annex; NOT way to the south on the official flight path as scripted by the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

The ONA and NOC flight path as seen and witnessed by Sean Boger and many others

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/95fd93411642.jpg[/atsimg]

I don't know guys. I had a friend, who was working in the Pentagon at the time, who was in the parking lot and saw the plane come over and slam into the building with his own two eyes. He's a civilian contractor who works for the Air Force- he's not military, and he's not a spook. Just a paper pusher. He said it happened really fast- a huge plane roared in and WHAM! Why would he lie? It's not like he goes around telling his tale to anyone who will listen. He just told his friends and family about it, because he was pretty shaken up.

There were a lot of people who saw it happen- there are 30,000 plus people who work in that building, and many of them were outside in the parking lot when it happened. The Pentagon is not exactly concealed- it's within plain view of several highways, residential buildings etc. And it's freaking huge. I used to drive by the Pentagon all the time- I lived in Arlington for several years around 9-11. I drove by the Pentagon the day after the plane hit, and it sure did look like a plane hit it to me. The hole looks small in pictures and in video, because it's hard to capture the scale of the building. It's HUGE. It's a lot bigger than it looks, and it's hard to grasp the scale because of the huge parking lot area that surrounds it, there's not much to reference it by. The plane didn't do as much damage to the Pentagon as it did to the Twin Towers, because it's a totally different type of building. It's not a glass-curtained office tower, it's a fairly low-slung, heavily-built steel and concrete building- and a hardened military structure to boot. Planes are built to be light. Light, fast moving aluminum vs. heavy concrete= not much left of the aluminum.

A real plane, filled with real people hit that building. It's entirely possible that the people inside the building knew that it was going to happen and when. How and why is open to debate I suppose, but why would anyone go to incredible lengths to make it LOOK like it happened- drone planes, planted explosives, huge cover up etc. When all it would take to make it happen for real would be a couple of guys with box cutters and cans of pepper spray?

[edit on 18-3-2009 by moonwilson]

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by matrixNIN11
reply to post by pteridine

 

you remind me of a bernie madoff type lawyer

the lengths and excuses you'll come up with to defend blatent evil and protect the criminal murderer perps.

do you have a conscience? or do you just lack common sense?

There are quite a few of these 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY defending 'government loyalists' who seem to be quite lacking in both possessing a conscious and the ability of applying simple common sense.

Incorrectly estimated? Nah. The eyewitnesses could see the decoy aircraft approaching Over the Naval Annex; NOT way to the south on the official flight path as scripted by the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

The ONA and NOC flight path as seen and witnessed by Sean Boger and many others

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/95fd93411642.jpg[/atsimg]

Now lets see where those witnesses were in relation to the two flight paths on the ground and see if their perspective is again skewed. We do not know that the perspective you show in that video is accurate. where is the pentagon in relation to the point that image was taken from?
What angle are you lookin at it from? Where was each witness when they saw the aricraft?

All of that would be important supporting information for your theory,

But all of that aside most of your 20+ witnesses say they either saw the plane impact the Pentagon or they heard it and saw a ball of fire.

Where are the ones that saw it pull up and fly away? I have only see one referenced but have never actually seen his testimony.
Are there any that say they heard it fly away?

The human eye is subject to distance and perspective distortion at distances. just as it can be tricked by simple geometric shapes

Is this a real stair?

posted by Achorwrath

Now lets see where those witnesses were in relation to the two flight paths on the ground and see if their perspective is again skewed. We do not know that the perspective you show in that video is accurate. where is the pentagon in relation to the point that image was taken from?
What angle are you lookin at it from? Where was each witness when they saw the aricraft?

It is obvious that that you have never bothered to look at CIT's research nor the videotaped interviews with the ANC eyewitnesses. If you had, you would know that the aircraft could not possibly have flown level inches above the lawn and left the heavy white smoke trail, let alone knocked down the five light poles.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/95fd93411642.jpg[/atsimg]

Sean Boger was located in the helipad control tower and testified the aircraft flew straight at him from Over the Naval Annex and then banked to its right. The photo above and the photo below are from his perspective. Since the Pentagon is a highly secured area, the photos could not be taken from inside the tower. With the 'primary suspect' in control of the crime scene, we Americans in search of justice are at a major disadvantage, especially with disloyal people with no conscious defending them.

The ANC eyewitnesses were located on the right side of the above photo not too far north of the Citgo gas station. Obviously the aircraft had to be above those light poles in the foreground because they were not knocked down.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07ab3f3dc0fa.jpg[/atsimg]

Some of the Arlington Cemetery eyewitnesses also testified the aircraft came straight at them from Over the Naval Annex. According to their videotaped testimony, the aircraft flew above them from Over the Naval Annex and banked to its right. It was not down inches above the Pentagon lawn creating a heavy white smoke trail and knocking down light poles as scripted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. The aircraft could not be above them and the Naval Annex and the Citgo and simultaneously inches above the Pentagon lawn hundreds of feet to the south. That is just not possible.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6f690ef81024.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47dc86c59383.gif[/atsimg]

The Northside Flyover - Part 1

The Northside Flyover - Part 2




[edit on 3/18/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


you still have not shown me these people's points of view on a map.
plot them out, show me how they saw based on line of site.

I have read the no plane hit the pentagon theory over and over again.


I guarantee that picuture where someone has conviently placed two planes in was NOT taken form the heilport tower.

so that still image from a video is NOT an accurate represenation of what was seen.

showing people standing and pointing means nothing you have no frame of reference for their indications.

Once again please plot out where each were and what their lines of site would be and post that here.

And of course ignore the people who saw the plane hit...

posted by Achorwrath
reply to post by Achorwrath

 

showing people standing and pointing means nothing you have no frame of reference for their indications.

I will waste no more time with a person who has not bothered to watch the interviews with the ANC eyewitnesses.

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by Achorwrath
reply to post by Achorwrath

 

showing people standing and pointing means nothing you have no frame of reference for their indications.

I will waste no more time with a person who has not bothered to watch the interviews with the ANC eyewitnesses.

witnesses.... you mean the ones that saw the PLANE hit?

Your ANC interviews neglect to mention that,

where are the witnesses that say it flew away?

interesting how you can exclude that information.






[edit on 18-3-2009 by Achorwrath]