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

posted by Boone 870
reply to post by SPreston

 

SPreston, I see that you are using CIT's FANTASY C-130 LOOPv3. Would you care to point out at which point along the flight path the "Decoy-Jet" flew from left to right on a northbound heading, as described by the pilot, in front of the C-130?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d0644214208f.jpg[/atsimg]

Well we do not know the exact flight paths of the C-130 or the decoy aircraft. We know the decoy aircraft approached from the west, flew across O'Brien's flight path left to right, crossed the Potomac, flew over DC, banked south and was reported 6 miles southeast of the White House, flew back across the Potomac, in front of Steve Chaconas, banking around Reagan National, flew low west of the Aurora Hiills and Crystal City, flew over the golf course, flew over Edward Paik and A-One Auto, flew Over the Naval Annex, flew above the ANC and NOC eyewitnesses, and flew directly at Sean Boger banking to the right.

Your alleged OFFICIAL Flight 77 aircraft did none of this did it?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/469cc238ad98.jpg[/atsimg]

There is nowhere your C-130 flying the faked 84 RADES data flight path to the southwest could have flown near your Flight 77 (left to right pass) flying the faked loop southwest of the Pentagon (and O'Brien watched it pass in front of him left to right) because in actuality O'Brien was three minutes behind the alleged 535 mph aircraft and could barely see it 15 miles ahead of him away in the distance. O'Brien could not see the Pentagon and thought the smoke was at Reagan next to the Potomac River which he could see in the far distance.

As can be readily seen on the map above, the only times the alleged Flight 77 crossed the flight path of the RADES C-130 left to right was both times when the C-130 was flying to the southwest along the RADES path in the opposite direction, or flying northwest banking to the right, where O'Brien could not have seen Flight 77 behind him.

But the C-130 did not approach from the southwest did it? No it approached from the northwest over ANC according to multiple witnesses, and your RADES data and Flight 77 loop were faked weren't they? They are nothing like the actual flight paths which real living eyewitnesses reported are they?

So my approximate decoy aircraft/C-130 flight path comparison at the top of this post does fit ALL of the evidence and your BS does not. And you STILL do not have one single eyewitness to the alleged heavy white smoke trail nor the light pole through the windshield, nor a photo. And your 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is self-destructing faster than you can prop it up.




[edit on 4/2/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


SPreston, you are not paying attention to what O'Brien said.

"We were flying westbound"

"First spotted at our 10 o'clock"

"About 4 miles out"

"On a northernly heading"

"From our left to the right"

"45° of bank"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6acf0e45d84e.jpg[/atsimg]

Your flight path has them approaching each other at nearly head-on, this is a not what he described.

Also, Flight 77 would have been in a left-hand turn at 4 miles out according to your flight path.

reply to post by Boone 870

Well we do not know the exact flight paths of the C-130 or the decoy aircraft. We know the decoy aircraft approached from the west, flew across O'Brien's flight path left to right,

As I pointed out, we do not know the exact flight path of the decoy aircraft nor the C-130. I have O'Brien flying due west, but north of west after passing the Washington Mall would still be a westerly flight path. He could have been crabbing into the wind to maintain his flight path. I guessed at the position of the decoy aircraft, but it could have been a bit further to the southwest already banking right. It is about at O'Brien's 10 o'clock position. Also the position of crossing paths is just a guess.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d0644214208f.jpg[/atsimg]

Regardless, my demonstration of the flight paths fits much much closer to O'Brien's testimony, than your ridiculous account of the OFFICIAL Flight 77 flight path and the 84 RADES data version C-130 flight path; which comes nowhere close to doing anything correctly.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/469cc238ad98.jpg[/atsimg]

As the RADES C-130 approaches the Pentagon, the alleged OFFICIAL Flight 77 flies in front of him from the right side, banking right and far ahead of him (almost 15 miles), and flying away from him. This is ludicrous; nothing like O'Brien's account.

If we go back to the points where the OFFICIAL Flight 77 does cross the RADES C-130 flight path left to right, then the OFFICIAL Flight 77 aircraft would be behind O'Brien and not in front of him as he stated. The RADES flight path is ludicrous. The 84 RADES data and Flight 77 FDR were faked and nowhere near the truth. They disprove themselves with the slightest touch of simple common sense and logic.

"We were flying westbound" - RADES C-130 is northeast bound

"First spotted at our 10 o'clock" - about 2 o'clock

"About 4 miles out" - about 15 miles out

"On a northernly heading" - correct

"From our left to the right" - from our right to our nose

"45° of bank" - correct

Your RADES C-130 cannot possibly fit O'Brien's description. Here you are complaining about "CIT's FANTASY C-130 LOOPv3" and it is you who is not paying attention to what O'Brien said. It is you who cannot see that your 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is self-destructing right before your eyes, and you are helpless to prevent it. It is you who cannot see that there never was a heavy white smoke trail across the Pentagon lawn, nor was there a light pole through a taxi windshield nor did an aircraft impact the Pentagon.

Nevermind. Image problems...

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Boone 870]

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Boone 870]

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Boone 870]

reply to post by SPreston

If we go back to the points where the OFFICIAL Flight 77 does cross the RADES C-130 flight path left to right, then the OFFICIAL Flight 77 aircraft would be behind O'Brien and not in front of him as he stated.

It's obvious that you don't understand the official story. Pay attention to the timestamps in the below image:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1734a1993dcf.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Boone 870

Let me replace that sloppy drawing with a more accurate drawing
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a7260cd5c711.jpg[/atsimg]

Once again, YOUR RADES C-130 flight path configuration with YOUR OFFICIAL Flight 77 diving loop southwest of the Pentagon, in no possible way aligns with Colonel O'Brien's account, which you insist must be adhered to. Yet you attempt to apply this to the ANC eyewitnesses who reported the C-130 actually approaching from the northwest over Arlington Cemetery.

Hypocrisy. Remove the blindness from your own eye before pointing out the blindness in another's eye.

"We were flying westbound" - RADES C-130 is northeast bound

"First spotted at our 10 o'clock" - about 2 o'clock

"About 4 miles out" - about 15 miles out

"On a northernly heading" - correct

"From our left to the right" - from our right to our nose

"45° of bank" - correct

The OFFICIAL RADES C-130 southwest flight path from Andrews in no possible way describes O'Brien's description of his interaction with the decoy aircraft, which you have quoted.

OFFICIAL Flight 77 nowhere near the Potomac River
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/54090fe5fdb9.jpg[/atsimg]

We know for a fact that O'Brien flew North and West from Andrews, and we know for a fact that the decoy aircraft flew East across the Potomac, was seen over DC and 6 miles Southeast of the White House, and flew back West over the Potomac again. That OFFICIAL Flight 77 loop Southwest of the Pentagon goes nowhere near the Potomac does it? The RADES and the Flight 77 FDR were both faked weren't they, and the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is self-destructing isn't it?

Actual C-130 path North and West from Andrews - RADES C-130 Southwest from Andrews
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/227343fb4a40.jpg[/atsimg]

And of course, still no eyewitnesses to the Heavy White Smoke Trail, nor to the Light Pole Through the Windshield, nor photos. And not one single verified and reinterviewed eyewitness to the OFFICIAL South Flight 77 Flight Path.



[edit on 4/5/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by Boone 870


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7904ae38c716.jpg[/atsimg]

I see what you mean now. At 9:34:01 (F77) the C-130 is way back by Andrews. At 9:34:25 (F77) the C-130 is still across the Potomac; a right to left crossing. I wonder why YOUR O'Brien didn't see Flight 77 then? About 5 miles ahead and the sun behind him; reflecting all that silver aluminum, and crossing right to left. At 9:36:01 (F77) is crossing left to right about 4 miles ahead of the RADES C-130. So the RADES creators did a better job than I thought. Amazing how slow they have Flight 77 flying, allowing the 350 mph C-130 to not fall too far behind. I wonder how the alleged Flight 77 flying essentially level managed to accelerate to 535 mph in such a short distance? Can a 757 accelerate that much in about 20 to 30 seconds time? Amazing? Afterburners perhaps?

So in YOUR 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, YOUR suspicious RADES data has Flight 77 crossing twice in front of the RADES C-130; once right to left and once left to right and both times within five miles distance apart? But neither Colonel O'Brien nor his copilot had enough experience to see that a large silver commercial aircraft was circling and diving just ahead of them? Is that how the fantasy tale reads?

Regardless, the RADES data is still bogus and the Flight 77 FDR path still faked for a multitude of reasons, but especially because the actual aircraft involved was PROVEN across the Potomac on the East side, and this bogus Official Flight 77 aircraft flew nowhere near the Potomac on this OFFICIAL map and on the faked 84 RADES data. And there are STILL no eyewitnesses to the heavy white smoke trail nor to the light pole through the windshield. It appears you are fighting a losing cause Boone.

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




[edit on 4/5/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston

So in YOUR 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, YOUR suspicious RADES data has Flight 77 crossing twice in front of the RADES C-130; once right to left and once left to right and both times within five miles distance apart?

It's good to see that you are finally learning the story that you are arguing against. FYI, the radar of data I'm using is from DCA TRACON, not RADES.

The first time Flight 77 crossed directly in front of the C-130's flight path they were separated by 6.5 miles. The second time (left to right), they were separated by 3.5 miles.

Now, onto the next hurdle for CIT's fantasy loop.

Here is a link to the sector recording with the controller that instructed GOFER06 to follow Flight 77.

Take some notes while you listen. One minute and thirty seconds after O'Brien reports that Flight 77 is at his 12 o'clock position he reports that the aircraft had crashed. How could the "Decoy-Jet" fly from a position of 5 miles west of the National Mall to a position of 6 miles southeast of the White House to 6 miles east of the White House to 6 miles southwest of the White House and then back to the Pentagon in 90 seconds?

Wow, did this thread ever go off topic!

Shouldn't C-130's and Radar be discussed on one of these older threads?

Actual C-130 Interaction With The Pentaplane helps reveal the TRUE flight path.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

C-130 Flight Path
www.abovetopsecret.com...

FAA or 84RADES data falsified, or both.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Flight 77's Shadow
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

actually you're just parroting more of the same OCT bullsh%t about how a boeing 767 supposedly cut through the WTC steel columns like butter while at the same time violated newtons laws of motion as it disappeared inside the tower without showing any normal or expected impact REACTION.

Obviously you're either in denial about that fakery, ignorant of it, or part of the cover-up.

And even more pathetic is that you actually believe a 90 ton commericial jet and an amateur pilot could pull of that maneuver at the pentacon in which it approached the impact point for several hundred feet inches off the ground but caused no damage to the PENTALAWN.

another miracle and case of suspending the law of physics or physical impossibilities that day eh?

how gullible and naive can you be?

reply to post by SPreston

The white smoke is very reminiscent of detcord.
Look at this video, then watch it frame by frame.
www.youtube.com...
Detcord stretched tight then detonated will form the characteristic swirly cloud. The smoke disappears almost instantly. No evidence.

posted by gunkieats
reply to post by SPreston

 

The white smoke is very reminiscent of detcord.
Look at this video, then watch it frame by frame.
www.youtube.com...
Detcord stretched tight then detonated will form the characteristic swirly cloud. The smoke disappears almost instantly. No evidence.

Maybe so.

But the heavy white smoke trails in the official Pentagon parking lot videos seem even more reminiscent of extensive photoshopping. Much too clear to fit with the rest of the crappy video. And remember that a leaker released the 5 still frames of the video to the public way back in 2002 before the 9-11 perps were finished with the video.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/54c69fa85b88.jpg[/atsimg]

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

Recently we all read about and watched the Pentagon deception.
Two things are missing, the method of the explosion, and the whereabouts of the real flight 77.

While the concept of a photoshopped image is appealing in it's simplicity, it really does not add to the explanation, and is difficult to substantiate. I've been working with photoshop for over 17 years, photstyler before that, and I'm afraid I don't see anything in the images that "proves" they were altered.

However, detcord stretched over great lengths ALWAYS makes an instantaneous curly white smoke trace and leaves no residue. I'm going to do an analysis of the distances and shutter speed of the security cameras and see if it would be possible to capture just some of the detcord explosion rather than all.

posted by gunkieats
Recently we all read about and watched the Pentagon deception.
Two things are missing, the method of the explosion, and the whereabouts of the real flight 77.

While the concept of a photoshopped image is appealing in it's simplicity, it really does not add to the explanation, and is difficult to substantiate. I've been working with photoshop for over 17 years, photstyler before that, and I'm afraid I don't see anything in the images that "proves" they were altered.

However, detcord stretched over great lengths ALWAYS makes an instantaneous curly white smoke trace and leaves no residue. I'm going to do an analysis of the distances and shutter speed of the security cameras and see if it would be possible to capture just some of the detcord explosion rather than all.

I do not think it is possible for that image to be detcord. You do realize the relative size of the alleged heavy white smoke trail don't you? It is about the equivalant size of a 757 turbofan engine or larger. How could detcord possibly produce that much smoke? Even if the trail of detcord was much closer to the cameras, the volume of smoke still seems too much.

A more accurate scaled representation of a 757 aircraft
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/18e2538993cb.gif[/atsimg]

Scaled aircraft according to 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY defender Purdue University
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c161d1e54ddd.jpg[/atsimg]

Ok I'm not a photography scientist, but I did some VERY ROUGH calculations based on readily available information.
Detcord explodes with a propagation front of about 7000m/s
Digital cameras use a nominal outdoor shutter speed equivalent of 1/400 second.

7000/400=17.5 or about 60 feet.

That means the digital security camera could have captured about 60 feet of exploding detcord in a single frame. What is the length of the curly smoke trail?

Detcord is sold coiled on a spool. It is quite stiff but can be tied in a knot. When stretched across a span, the detcord will try to return to it's coiled form when ignited, resulting in the characteristic "coily" smoke cloud.

The sun is at the right angle to reflect the smoke brightly.

I don't wish to disparage the other theories, but this one seems to fit very nicely, and explains much more.

I mean, why would you do such a bad photoshop as the "actual security video" when it is entirely possible to make a really convincing one like the one you posted showing a full size jet?

The photoshop solution requires more conspirators. The nature of conspiracy is such that the fewest people possible is ideal. What is wrong with the concept of well meaning
people releasing a video they "think" shows a plane but actually shows something more sinister? That's a more reasonable explanation.

None of the witnesses saw a smoke trail.

It fits better with the flypast theory, that's all I'm saying.

posted by gunkieats

I mean, why would you do such a bad photoshop as the "actual security video" when it is entirely possible to make a really convincing one like the one you posted showing a full size jet?

I realize we are on the same side here, and your detcord (which I know nothing about) theory may end up having a great deal of merit. I suggest you start a new thread on your detcord which will likely draw a lot more responses than this thread.

However to answer your question, back in March 2002 somebody leaked five still frames from the #2 parking lot security video. The FBI had confiscated these videos and 83+ other videos within minutes after the 1st explosion at the Pentagon. But the still frames were published worldwide before the FBI could intervene again.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4efbb934c0be.jpg[/atsimg]

The Defense Department denied any knowledge of the leaked still frames which were dated 32 hours later than the initial official explosion at the Pentagon.

Leaking the still frames prevented any further photoshopping of the videos if that was their intent. The 9-11 perps were unable to make the videos more realistic and were stuck with the too small alleged aircraft in the video and the fake looking heavy white smoke trail and the fake looking white hot initial explosion and the strange red colors on the control tower and hanger. Likely that was the intent of the leaker and the 9-11 perps were screwed with incomplete videos.

Since the aircraft has been proven Over the Naval Annex, then the aircraft could not possibly have flown low and level across the lawn as shown in the videos, and the parking lot security videos have to be faked.

A FOIA lawsuit was filed and the Defense Department was forced to release the incomplete videos in May 2006 and the 9-11 perps were outed.

The Pentagon Video Frames
In early 2002, five frames from a Pentagon parking lot security camera overlooking the impacted west wall were released. The first frame shows what appears to be a small aircraft obscured by a post in the foreground, and a vapor trail behind it. The second frame shows the vapor trail and a bright white explosion.

The video frames fueled theories that the Pentagon was hit by a small attack drone rather than a large jetliner. Curiously, few asked what end the people who released the images were seeking to advance, and whether the images were edited. The perpetrators of this fraud appear to have exploited several subconscious mechanisms to gain uncritical acceptance of the images' authenticity.

The video frames can easily be seen as evidence that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, since the apparent plane is too small, there is a vapor trail suggesting a missile, and the explosion sees to white to be a jet-fuel fireball. People embracing the no-Boeing theory for other reasons, such as the lack of obvious debris in post-crash photographs, are inclined to uncritically embrace the video frames as corroborating evidence.
The hiding of the apparent attack plane in the video makes it seem genuine. People who suspect the motives of the video's source will nonetheless easily overlook this ploy.

Even if the video frames looked real they would be of almost no value as evidence, given their source. But they show signs of forgery.

e x c e r p t
title: Evidence the Images Were Edited
authors: 911research.wtc7.net

There are many peculiar features of the video images. Some have possible explanations, such as the red glow in front of the helicopter control tower being the result of ionized air from the explosion. We note three features that appear to have no explanation other than that the images were fabricated. In the following we refer to the individual frames using the captions in the cropped set: plane, impact, #2 impact, #3 impact, and #4 impact.

impact has an elevated brightness throughout the image, not just in areas that would be illuminated by the explosion.
impact has peculiar patches of color on the pavement.
#2 explosion shows a roughly conical explosion whose vertical axis lies deep within the building.
#3-#5 explosion show sunlight-illuminated lawn that should be darkened by shadows from the explosion.

911review.com...

[edit on 7/7/09 by SPreston]

very cool, I know some of this stuff and other stuff i'm just learning.
typing one hand now between sips of champagne for my 30th anni.

i am very! interested in pusuing this from a fresh perspective. every small step puts us closer to the truth.

cheers


pg

Here is a video of a ' Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III' casting doubt on an aeroplane hitting the Pentagon.

Hey, SPreston... it looks like we've got another member for the truth movement...

In this thread, jthomas refuses to endorse the security camera images.

Originally posted by jthomas
Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

I wonder how many other confused government story believers will jump on board with jthomas and doubt the authenticity of the security camera images???

He's really opened up a can of worms with this latest statement of his.

posted by tezzajw
Hey, SPreston... it looks like we've got another member for the truth movement...

In this thread, jthomas refuses to endorse the security camera images.

I wonder how many other confused government story believers will jump on board with jthomas and doubt the authenticity of the security camera images???

He's really opened up a can of worms with this latest statement of his.

So true; jthomas may jump ship any moment.

Soon jthomas will be publicly denying the 5 light poles and the light pole through the windshield.

I can just see his new much wished for screen name; jthomas CIT.

The 9-11 perps may have to send out their hit squad again.

posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.

In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.

The avatar of jthomas proving everything including a self-diagnosis of hypocrisy

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48d006eea9cc.jpg[/atsimg]