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

When you present some evidence I will look at it and it will probably be as bad as what you have shown.


All you have right now are interviews with a very small number of people that support your claim.



This is in diametric oposition to the overwhelming majority of people that saw the plane hit.

But then again if you actually had real evidence you would not work so hard to attack me claiming that I have not viewed the videos you offer up as proof.

Once again, if you have proof then provide it - since you have nothing more than 13 picked witnesses that you asked leading questions seven years after the event you have nothing.

all the claims to the contrary are not going to prove otherwise.

And for the record 13 people saying something similar out of over 100 does not make it statistical likelyhood. Nor does it make your claim true.

Again you cherry pick the people to talk to, and then out of hand discard anyone else's evidence as not worthy of your time.

If you had read any of this thread other than the one you were pointed to you would know that.

There are more people that saw it hit than claim to have see the flight path you claim.

There is physical evidence of an aircraft, there is physical evidence of a JA1 fire, there were autopsys done on the dead there were funerals for them (from the plane and from the pentagon).

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

THE FACTS AND PHYSICS AND SCIENCE AND MATH SAY IT COULD NOT HAVE IMPACTED.

thats what matters FAR MORE THAN WHAT THEY "CLAIM" TO HAVE SEEN.

Eos

So, what matters more than what witnesses "claim" are physics, science, and math. I agree. The physics, science, and math leads directly to the conclusion that an aircraft struck the Pentagon after flying low enough to knock down light poles.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
When you present some evidence I will look at it and it will probably be as bad as what you have shown.

You have not given any indication that you have viewed any of the evidence.

In fact your responses have demonstrated that either you have not viewed it or else you have a seriously impeded ability to retain information.

All you have right now are interviews with a very small number of people that support your claim.

Once again proving you haven't viewed the information.

The claim is not ours. We are not witnesses.

It has nothing to do with us.

We merely reported what they said and their descriptions of the plane on the north side approach happen to unanimously and independently match proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they are correct about this detail proving the plane did not hit.

This is in diametric oposition to the overwhelming majority of people that saw the plane hit.

Sorry?

You have not presented as single piece of evidence for anything at all let alone evidence that someone saw a plane hit.

Provide first-hand accounts with confirmed POV's forensically analyzed or admit you have zero evidence.

But then again if you actually had real evidence you would not work so hard to attack me claiming that I have not viewed the videos you offer up as proof.

You are the one who publicly challenged the evidence without viewing it.

I am merely exposing you for your fallacious logic and blatant disregard for true skepticism and critical thinking principles.

Once again, if you have proof then provide it - since you have nothing more than 13 picked witnesses that you asked leading questions seven years after the event you have nothing.

That is a baseless accusation....not evidence.

You have not provided any evidence for these claims.

Your word means nothing particularly since you have already demonstrated your utter failure to even bother viewing the information in full.

And for the record 13 people saying something similar out of over 100 does not make it statistical likelyhood. Nor does it make your claim true.

100 what?

You have provided zero accounts that directly refute the north side approach.

Even if I accept the hearsay you googled as evidence...which it is not.

Again you cherry pick the people to talk to, and then out of hand discard anyone else's evidence as not worthy of your time.

Once again that is an accusation and you have not provided ANY evidence at all.

Your faith in what the government and other people told you is not evidence.

There are more people that saw it hit than claim to have see the flight path you claim.

Since you have provided zero evidence for this there isn't a reason to take your word for it.

Sorry but out of context media quotes are hearsay.

You have not provided a single first-hand account of ANYTHING let alone one that refutes the scientifically validated north side approach evidence.

There is physical evidence of an aircraft, there is physical evidence of a JA1 fire, there were autopsys done on the dead there were funerals for them (from the plane and from the pentagon).

Once again nothing but pure unadulterated faith in what you were told.

If you can not provide independent verifiable evidence just admit it! It is your prerogative to trust the govt and dismiss true skepticism and critical thinking principles based entirely on your faith but at least be a man and own up to it!

Photographs of a few pieces of debris does not prove it got there from a plane hitting the building and it CERTAINLY doesn't refute the scientifically validated north side approach evidence.

The fact that you trust the word of the govt regarding the source of the DNA doesn't refute it either.

That is merely further evidence that your pure unadulterated FAITH in the government supersedes any evidence contradicting what they told you.

Ah so here we go,

Thanks for that post

At 00:58 in your video you state -
" All of the Witnesses"

With out stating which ones... Very missleading,

You finally admint that only a "few dozen" statments were released.
But that you chose to concentrate on the ones that saw the plane.

Again that is missleading as you did not talk to the people on the highway, the cab dirver that had the lightpole go through his cab. Where are they?

They saw the plane.. OR is it that your claim of all witnesses was not accurate?

The we have Sgt Lagasse who at 02:50 says - "Best guess estimate that's about where the fuselage was"

Then a few seconds later he says laughing with the interviewer, after a disolve - " You can't say 100%, because... there's no way it was anywhere other than where I said it was"

Then the interviewer asks him to reverse the statement.

Why the disolve? why not show the whole interview? or was there something else said behind it? why the sudden change of attitude?

I mean first he says Best Guess Estimate now it is 100%?

That is a big change to account for.

So now we have one witness that show obvious suggestive reacall (that is where someone reinforces their recall with suggestions)

He went from a guess to 100% certain.


and that is before we even get to the new witnesses.

Witness 420 and others to follow after your next personal attack on me.

Originally posted by pteridine

So, what matters more than what witnesses "claim" are physics, science, and math. I agree. The physics, science, and math leads directly to the conclusion that an aircraft struck the Pentagon after flying low enough to knock down light poles.

Nah. Common sense and ordinary physics leads directly to the conclusion that five 237 pound heavy gauge aluminum light poles struck at 535 mph would have ripped the wings off the aircraft, spilling fuel all over the grass and crashing the aircraft on the lawn, because it would still have been descending at the light poles. That did not happen did it?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/77ef734d0f9e.jpg[/atsimg]

This imaginary aircraft could never have possibly pulled up at a very high G level from the dive down the hill to level flight inches above the lawn as scripted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, especially after allegedly impacting the five light poles. In order to hit the light poles in the next image, the dive would have to be steeper and the pullup G force much greater. Impossible.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aac27890af7d.jpg[/atsimg]

Real living and verified eyewitnesses place the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex, rendering the official fantasy tale impossible. And the high G pullup at the bottom from the official 535 mph dive down the hill into the light poles would also render the Pentagon fairy tale impossible.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d972a0d3da6.jpg[/atsimg]

Therefore in many different ways, we can prove that the heavy white smoke trail never happened and was photoshopped into the videos and still frames. The alleged AA 757 highly reflective aluminum fuselage was also very poorly photoshopped into the videos and still frames, and is essentially invisible.

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



[edit on 3/20/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


You claimed: "Nah. Common sense and ordinary physics leads directly to the conclusion that five 237 pound heavy gauge aluminum light poles struck at 535 mph would have ripped the wings off the aircraft, spilling fuel all over the grass and crashing the aircraft on the lawn, because it would still have been descending at the light poles. That did not happen did it?"

Your sense may think that would happen, but ordinary physics says differently. Similar aircraft cut through the steel columns of the WTC and would easily have knocked over breakaway aluminum light poles at 500+ mph without slowing down.

posted by pteridine
reply to post by SPreston

 

Your sense may think that would happen, but ordinary physics says differently. Similar aircraft cut through the steel columns of the WTC and would easily have knocked over breakaway aluminum light poles at 500+ mph without slowing down.

I said nothing about the alleged aircraft slowing down after hitting the light poles, did I? To pull up from the alleged 535 mph dive down the hill, the 90 ton 757 aircraft would require tremendous lift on the wing aerodynamic surfaces, in order to pullup to level flight inches above the lawn as scripted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, after allegedly striking the five 237 pound light poles.

Purdue University is a US Military Industrial Complex contractor and they faithfully
produced this 757 image to loyally support the official Bush Regime fantasy tale

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c161d1e54ddd.jpg[/atsimg]

However destroyed or even badly damaged wing surfaces would be unable to generate the necessary lift for the high G pullup. If fact it is unlikely the wings would survive the high G 535 mph pullup even if the wings had not been battered by the heavy metal light poles. There should have been an explosion on the lawn instead of that photoshopped heavy white smoke trail with the teensey invisible aircraft ahead of it. Correct?

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

But we all know for a fact that the real aircraft was Over the Naval Annex and the official fantasy tale was a big big lie, don't we? The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is rapidly sinking into the quicksand quagmire foundation it was built upon. Don't you guys just hate defending a terribly constructed lie?




[edit on 3/20/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Achorwrath
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.

If you don't believe what the witnesses saw, then why don't you go to Arlington and interview them, like CIT did?

Put your feet where they were standing and look at the situation through your own eyes. Ask any of them if they saw smoke across the lawn or not.

Report back to us, when you're done.

Assuming for the moment that this alleged 757 dive down the hill along the official south flight path actually happened, even though it did not, the aircraft would have flown past the Sheraton Hotel from the golf course to the west. Then as it flew past the Naval Annex, it would have pitched down to dive down the hill and then pitched up before the light poles to end up level and inches above the lawn, according to the official myth. The wings would have been at maximum G force when they struck the heavy aluminum light poles. The wings would not survive and the heavy white smoke trail would not need to be photoshopped.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ed919adc78f4.gif[/atsimg]

The flight time at 784 fps between the two pitch manuevers would have been about 2 seconds. To operate the controls and control surfaces in only 2 seconds is not bloody likely. Even double that time span (4 seconds) or triple (6 seconds) is not believable. A 757 moving at 535 mph does not react like a fighter. To expect Cessna reject Hani Hanjour to fly with superhuman reaction time is the ultimate in ridiculous notions.

Of course the location of the aircraft Over the Naval Annex renders the official flight path through the light poles impossible because it would have thrown a right and left turn in with the two pitch manuevers. To imagine that any pilot could perform four manuevers in any aircraft in 2 seconds time is totally ludicrous.
Isn't this 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY a hoot?



[edit on 3/20/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


Your last post "I said nothing about the alleged aircraft slowing down after hitting the light poles, did I? To pull up from the alleged 535 mph dive down the hill, the 90 ton 757 aircraft would require tremendous lift on the wing aerodynamic surfaces, in order to pullup to level flight inches above the lawn as scripted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, after allegedly striking the five 237 pound light poles."

Actually, you claimed that the wings would be ripped off and fuel would spill all over the lawn. that would tend to slow the aircraft a bit.
Apparently, the break-away light poles were not as detrimental to the flight characteristics as you believe they should have been. There is no evidence for any explosives or a flyover.

reply to post by SPreston


The double maneuver is your version of what could have happened and is not necessarily what did happen. The breakaway poles were more of an inconvenience than an impediment to an aircraft of that size.

Originally posted by pteridine
The breakaway poles were more of an inconvenience than an impediment to an aircraft of that size.

Please supply the equations that prove this claim.

Please supply the equations that show how four poles ended up on undamaged lawn, while one pole pierced the taxi window without causing any further damage to the taxi.

reply to post by tezzajw

See my previous posts referring to the MIT paper on energy required to shear the steel outer columns of the WTC towers. The breakaway posts require insignificant amounts of energy.

Provide equations that prove that the posts don't end up on the lawn if you disagree with the evidence and wish to invoke a more complex theory.

Edit to add:
From the International Journal of Impact Engineering; abstract below.

Titre du document / Document title
How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
WIERZBICKI T. (1) ; TENG X. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Ocean Engineering, Impact & Crashworthiness Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 5-218 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, ETATS-UNIS

Résumé / Abstract
The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.
Revue / Journal Title
International journal of impact engineering ISSN 0734-743X CODEN IJIED4
Source / Source
2003, vol. 28, no6, pp. 601-625 [25 page(s) (article)] (25 ref.)
Langue / Language
Anglais

Editeur / Publisher
Elsevier Science, Oxford, ROYAUME-UNI (1983) (Revue



[edit on 3/21/2009 by pteridine]

The next questions for CIT to answer -

How many of the witnesses needed corrective lenses?
If they did what was the correction factor?
How many (if needed) were wearing them on 9/11?

How man had color deficient vision?
If any what color(s) was it?

Without knowing the answers to these you cannot count testimony as fact.

When inteogating a witness it is always asked if they wear glasses or contacts, if they are color blind etc to determine accuracy of vision.

Especially when long distances are involved.

reply to post by tezzajw


We are talking about the credibility of the witnesses CIT is using to prove their theory -

Since they make the claim they have the burden of proof.

Next Question for CIT to answer -

You say you are trying to prove that no plane hit the pentagon and making statements that the Debris, DNA, etc are not consistent.

Why then would you not talk to the first responders and people that arrived after the crash?

Surely their first-hand accounts would be invaluable to you, they would confirm there was no debris, no bodies, etc.

You omit them though and concentrate on 7 new witnesses, more indication that you picked them especially for their original testimony of seeing what you claim.

As an example you chose witness 420 because he claims to have seen a C-130 fly in behind the other plane.

Sounds like a careful selection of the witnesses to me.

Essentially the aircraft flew over their heads and therefore their eyesight would be immaterial, as long as they were not legally blind. Sean Boger was the furthest away and he was a certified Air Traffic Controller and the aircraft flew right at him from Over the Naval Annex and supposedly his eyesight was excellent and experienced at seeing aircraft.

Roughly where each eyewitness was located

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9c2d73f0c8dd.jpg[/atsimg]

If they could see the Naval Annex and if they could see the aircraft above the Naval Annex, and the aircraft flew closer and above them, then their determination on where the aircraft actually flew in their immediate vicinity should be fairly accurate.

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

However any south side eyewitnesses looking north from much further away, if the government loyalists are ever able to locate any, should have their eyesight examined because of depth perception and distance distortion. The aircraft may be several hundred feet further away than they estimated and actually Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo. And absolutely nobody reported seeing a heavy white smoke trail across the lawn; not even the media invented alleged witnesses.

Isn't it just awful trying to defend the faulty 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY?

So Witness 420 at the warehouse was not .25 miles away when he claimed to see the plane over the Sheraton and the Navel Annex?

Why would he say that then? It is on the video...

And why would the video say 7 new witnesses and 1 critical flyover witness if all saw it fly over?

Sean was not .50 miles away when it supposedly went over the Navel Annex?


The witnesses vision is a factor in any eye-witness account.

Why has your flight path changed???

Original


New




they are not even close...

your original image shows a curving pass around the Citgo and Close to the Arlington National Cemetery.

Your new one shows a straight path...

In fact your new one is almost parallel to the official one,


Inconstancies...

No that is just the approximate flight path that Edward Paik drew. The other longer flight path is from combining all the eyewitness accounts. Besides I am not from CIT nor do I represent them. These are my renderings of what the eyewitnesses stated; not necessarily totally agreeing with CIT.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ad9e58ff6be5.jpg[/atsimg]

remember acording to the video and your own posts the eye-witnesses verify the flight path because they match.

Some of the starting points varry by as much as a 1/4 mile.

So what happend to your witnesses all verifying each other?

They do not have heading, direction or even flight path the same.

So would you agree that due to distance, viewing angle , memory recal, line of sight, and other mitigating factors you cannot prove the flight path you claim?

Does that mean you know the exact distances involved? Or that the witnesses do?

Your plot is estimations of the path the plane took based on unconfirmed visual sightings from people that may or may not have visual impairment.