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

Originally posted by CameronFox
Looks like it will be TF Green for me. Then Amtrack or Peterpan.

Actually, PVD, JFK, LGA, ALB, MHT, BDL, and even so far north as BGR is covered.

American, United, Delta, Continental, jetBlue, Southwest, Northwest, AirTran, many of the regionals, many fractionals (although you cant afford places like Netjets), and corporate (although many are dismantling)... all covered by P4T members who choose to list publicly, those who may not, and those who have been trained by such....

Enjoy yor rail... or Peter... or both at the same time maybe?

Originally posted by pteridine
Maybe the professional organizations show the smoke trails in the animations because that was what was seen in the video.

Which is the point of this thread - faking the smoke trails.

If no witnesses saw it, why would it have to be faked in a post facto video, anyway.

Do you understand the logic of what you typed? If there was a smoke trail, as seen in the parking lot video, then why are there no witnesses on record who claimed to have seen it live?

SPreston has raised an important question in this thread. Some believers in the official story have claimed that there were no witnesses to a smoke trail. If so, then why was a smoke trail included in some videos???

As to the "insults" that you note, try reading some of your comments to others. Perhaps your youth and inexperience let you think that different rules applied to your behavior.

Why do you still persist with your incorrect, amateurish assumptions about my personality, pteridine?

reply to post by tezzajw


You comment "Do you understand the logic of what you typed? If there was a smoke trail, as seen in the parking lot video, then why are there no witnesses on record who claimed to have seen it live?

SPreston has raised an important question in this thread. Some believers in the official story have claimed that there were no witnesses to a smoke trail. If so, then why was a smoke trail included in some videos???"

Yes. Why would a trail have to be faked if no one saw it? Why bother? SPreston asks a good question. Maybe the smoke trail was included in the cartoon videos because it was in the security cam video. Maybe it wasn't faked to begin with.

Originally posted by pteridine
Yes. Why would a trail have to be faked if no one saw it? Why bother? SPreston asks a good question. Maybe the smoke trail was included in the cartoon videos because it was in the security cam video.

Great. So maybe there was a smoke trail on the security video? Was it fake or not?

Maybe it wasn't faked to begin with.

If there was a real smoke trail on the video, then why didn't anyone see it live?

It's similar to when official story believers ask CIT why no one saw their alleged fly over, right?

It's also similar to when official story believers claim that the only person who saw a light pole through the taxi was Lloyde... Not one other person on the planet can verify that story.

Logical contradictions everywhere...

So, pteridine, was there a smoke trail or not? Was it faked or not? Did real people see it or not? These are the questions this thread is attempting to address.

Originally posted by tezzajw

If there was a real smoke trail on the video, then why didn't anyone see it live?

It's similar to when official story believers ask CIT why no one saw their alleged fly over, right?

It's also similar to when official story believers claim that the only person who saw a light pole through the taxi was Lloyde... Not one other person on the planet can verify that story.

Logical contradictions everywhere...

No one knows if anyone saw the smoke trail in the two seconds that it took for the plane to impact the building. The confusion surrounding the event makes it possible that no one will come forward claiming to have witnessed the smoke. So far, no one has reported seeing the smoke trail. That doesn't mean that it wasn't there, just that the only evidence that it occurred is a poor quality video.

The cab with punctured windshield offers some physical evidence, just as the video offers some physical evidence of the smoke trail. There is no physical evidence of explosives, planted evidence, or the plane that flew over, hence the CIT theory has no real basis.

Originally posted by pteridine
No one knows if anyone saw the smoke trail in the two seconds that it took for the plane to impact the building. The confusion surrounding the event makes it possible that no one will come forward claiming to have witnessed the smoke. So far, no one has reported seeing the smoke trail. That doesn't mean that it wasn't there, just that the only evidence that it occurred is a poor quality video.

I will now attempt to replace the above quote with "fly-over"

No one knows if anyone saw the "fly-over" in the two seconds that it took.... The confusion surrounding the event makes it possible that no one will come forward claiming to have witnessed the fly-over. So far, no one has reported seeing the fly-over. That doesn't mean that it wasn't there, just that the only evidence that it occurred is [numerous independently corroborated witnesses who place the aircraft opposite the physical damage].

Ok... so i had to refine the last sentence... but good job proving a point pt!



[edit on 21-3-2009 by RockHound757]

posted by RockHound757

-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

posted by CameronFox

Note to self... Refrain from flying on JetBlue Airways.

Maybe you should stick with George Dubya Bush's Boosh Airways out of Texas. Then you can ride with your own kind and get a lesson in how excellent cokeheads are at piloting.

reply to post by RockHound757


Where is the equivalent video or physical evidence of the flyover? Not there. No evidence of any kind. No flyover.
No evidence of explosives or planted parts, bodies, light poles, fuel tanks, extra aircraft, etc. No flyover.

Thanks for reminding me to point out, once again, the complete lack of evidence that CIT has for its latest theory, Rock.

BTW, these differences of opinion do not reflect on my opinion of the airmanship of any of the P4T pilots. I am an equal opportunity customer. If you can avoid the stuffed clouds and plant it on the numbers, wheels down, you are OK with me. Even deckspotters are not downrated.

Originally posted by pteridine
Where is the equivalent video or physical evidence of the flyover?

I suppose with the numerous confiscated videos and cams still held by the FBI?

Let me guess, you also believe the entire pentagon is only covered by a 1 frame per second parking gate cam, of which the video has been proven to be manipulated based on interlacing frames?

You probably also believe gravity and fire can collapse steel buildings as well, while at the same time claiming numerous exposives need to be planted to have the same effect?





I note you ignore the questions regarding the fake smoke trails touted by CNN, but refusal to cover the NTSB animation.

reply to post by RockHound757


There is no evidence for the CIT theory that a plane flew over and demoliton charges, timed to the fraction of a second, blew out the walls and flashed several thousand gallons of diesel or jet fuel on the exterior and a goodly amount on the interior.
Do you have any evidence of explosives necessary for such a show or any evidence for fuel storage, empty fuel tanks, disrupted fuel bladders, detonation gear, spent caps, unburnt detcord or main charge, residue, electronic detonators, or anything else related to explosive use? There is also the problem of the passengers and the airplane that flew away. Do you have any evidence of that airplane, the passengers, their disposition, how the DNA was faked, how the bodies were planted, how the parts were planted, how the lamp posts were planted, or videos of the fly away?
If you do not have such evidence but only pin everything on a select group of witnesses who say NoC flight path, which you accept as gospel, but disregard witnesses who say the plane hit because they must be mistaken, then it is you who have problems with logic and reason. It is you who do not understand evidence and confuse evidence with testimony.
CIT's flyaway theory is completely unsupported by any evidence. They might as well claim that everyone is part of the coverup but the someguys-for-truth groups. The more I look at this and read the illogical, tortuous conspiracies thay come up with, the more I wonder who is behind their planned misdirection and what the real conspiracy is.

Originally posted by pteridine
, but disregard witnesses who say the plane hit because they must be mistaken, then it is you who have problems with logic and reason.

Of all those people, whom you claim saw the plane hit, how many of them reported a trail of white smoke across the Pentagon lawn, as the plane flew past?

If none did, then why does there appear to be a trail of smoke across the Pentagon lawn in the parking lot video and other animated video recreations?

Perhaps the video has been tampered? Perhaps the witnesses can't be relied upon to correctly recall all of the details?

I wonder what else they omitted or imagined about the plane allegedly hitting the Pentagon, if they can't recall the smoke trail?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by RockHound757

 

There is no evidence for the CIT theory that a plane flew over and demoliton charges, timed to the fraction of a second, blew out the walls and flashed several thousand gallons of diesel or jet fuel on the exterior and a goodly amount on the interior.
Do you have any evidence of explosives necessary for such a show or any evidence for fuel storage, empty fuel tanks, disrupted fuel bladders, detonation gear, spent caps, unburnt detcord or main charge, residue, electronic detonators, or anything else related to explosive use? There is also the problem of the passengers and the airplane that flew away. Do you have any evidence of that airplane, the passengers, their disposition, how the DNA was faked, how the bodies were planted, how the parts were planted, how the lamp posts were planted, or videos of the fly away?
If you do not have such evidence but only pin everything on a select group of witnesses who say NoC flight path, which you accept as gospel, but disregard witnesses who say the plane hit because they must be mistaken, then it is you who have problems with logic and reason. It is you who do not understand evidence and confuse evidence with testimony.

Disinfo tactic number 14.


Let us know when you have evidence which positively identifies N644AA impacting the pentagon via serial and part numbers, which does not include human remains transported by highly controlled US Army Chinook over 100 miles to a secure Air Force Base (according to a DOD publcation).

So far the flight data provided by the NTSB, as plotted by the NTSB, and numerous witnesses place the aircraft outside the physical damage path.

The burden of proof is on you to prove your story. Not us. We expose the conflicts as true skeptics. And the conflicts are a plenty. The US govt and people like you have not provided a shred of positive identification to justify the the sacrifices (including death) Americans go through daily based on such BS.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by RockHound757]

reply to post by RockHound757


CIT has no evidence for any of their latest timed-explosives-flyaway theory. It falls apart immediately.

They can't answer the simplest question of where thousands of gallons of fuel came from for the deflagration and fires. You can't either, Rock, because you don't have the technical juice to understand the problem. The burden of proof is on those who claim extraordinary circumstances. That would be you.

Where did all that fuel come from and how did it manage to flash with such precision timing?

Originally posted by tezzajw
Perhaps the witnesses can't be relied upon to correctly recall all of the details?

I wonder what else they omitted or imagined about the plane allegedly hitting the Pentagon, if they can't recall the smoke trail?

Good point, Tezza, it is very helpful. I wonder what else they omitted or imagined about the plane allegedly flying NoC, if they can't recall the smoke trail?

Originally posted by pteridine
Good point, Tezza, it is very helpful. I wonder what else they omitted or imagined about the plane allegedly flying NoC, if they can't recall the smoke trail?

Remind me again of how many NOC witnesses were in a position to clearly see the plane impacting or in a position to see the lawn before the Pentagon?

So how many SOC witnesses to the alleged impact also stated that they saw the white smoke trail across the lawn? Either they have faulty memories, or the video in the parking lot is suspect.

reply to post by tezzajw


They probably all have faulty memories. The shock of the plane hitting probably did it.
For the CIT crew, the shock of those fuel trucks exploding and the charges hidden in the walls detonating just as the plane suddenly pulled up and flew away likely caused them to miss the white smoke from the missile that initiated the event.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by RockHound757

 

CIT has no evidence for any of their latest timed-explosives-flyaway theory. It falls apart immediately.

... and you have absolutely no evidence that N644AA impacted the Pentagon....

The rest of your post is continuation of Disinfo tactic 14.

Please provide positive ID that N644AA impacted the Pentagon. Please forwad such evidence to the growing list of Aircraft Accident Investigators at Pilots For 9/11 Truth. They been waiting for awhile now.

You dont happen to have any experience in Aircraft Accident Investigation.. do you? (rhetorical question, we know you dont). If not, P4T has a Professor who instructed on such a subject at one of the premier aviation Universities in the country. Perhaps we can set you up with a lesson or two? If your posts are any indication, looks like you need it.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by pteridine
Good point, Tezza, it is very helpful. I wonder what else they omitted or imagined about the plane allegedly flying NoC, if they can't recall the smoke trail?

Remind me again of how many NOC witnesses were in a position to clearly see the plane impacting or in a position to see the lawn before the Pentagon?

So how many SOC witnesses to the alleged impact also stated that they saw the white smoke trail across the lawn? Either they have faulty memories, or the video in the parking lot is suspect.

According to the post from CIT three, unless you think it was too far for them to see clearly.

Or perhaps they did not recall correctly,

But that would have to apply to everything they claim they saw too...






[edit on 22-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

reply to post by RockHound757


And you have this experience?
Do you also have explosives and demolition experience?

Are you trained in crime scene investigation? Forensics?

If not you are taking other peoples opinions and restating them as fact.

Yes every eyewitness from those five vantage points reported the aircraft Over the Naval Annex. Not one of the eyewitnesses from those five vantage points reported seeing a heavy white smoke trail from that aircraft. In fact the aircraft was much too high in altitude, having to fly above the light poles and overhead highway sign in its flight path, which it did not knock down, to lay the heavy white smoke trail mere feet above the lawn as depicted in the suspect parking lot security videos.

In fact not one of the other witnesses to the aircraft Over the Naval Annex, many originally officially interviewed way back in 2001, reported a heavy white smoke trail across the Pentagon lawn. Smoke tends to linger, and dissipates rather slowly.

Not one alleged eyewitness to the official south flight path, and it appears they have all gone into hiding if they ever existed in reality and were not simply MSM creations, ever reported a heavy white smoke trail across the Pentagon lawn. In fact even Lloyde England, who has altered his own unbelievable tale, never reported seeing a heavy white smoke trail.

The only witnesses to a heavy white smoke trail across the Pentagon lawn are two alleged parking lot security videos, which are suspect themselves for a multitude of other reasons; primarily because they were in the hands for a long time of the 'primary suspect' to the crime of 9-11 and they appear to be photoshopped.

Is the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY sinking out of sight into its quicksand foundation or is it not?