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

reply to post by rhunter


One more time, do you think......that the videos of the airplane and white smoke are faked, photoshopped, dubbed, modified, enhanced, degraded, falsified, or otherwise modified? This is the topic.

What is your theory on this aspect, if you have one, other than the usual "something must be wrong but I don't know what it is" complaint?

posted by pteridine
reply to post by rhunter

 

One more time, do you think......that the videos of the airplane and white smoke are faked, photoshopped, dubbed, modified, enhanced, degraded, falsified, or otherwise modified? This is the topic.

Yes, you finally figured it out. To comply with the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, the five 2002 leaked still frames and the two 2006 FOIA released parking lot security videos were faked, photoshopped, modified, enhanced, and falsified. Congratulations on your victory. It is truly amazing when government loyalists actually openly admit the truth.

reply to post by SPreston


Preston,
Blustering and posturing does no good on this thread. We both know that I was asking Hunter about HIS theory and what he believed and not professing my own beliefs. I understand your position on the matter and await your explanation of how this small part fits with the evidence of the witnessed airplane strike on the Pentagon.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by rhunter

 

You are so thoughtful. I would be interested in hearing the theory that someone of your depth would propose regarding the Pentagon strike. Are you a flyover NOC or a missile hit kind of person?

I'm not here to propose THEORIES, I'm here to examine the currently-known evidence, and to discuss/evaluate the same in a public forum.

Hypotheticals are like opinions (which are like something else, and there is a saying about those). Again, this topic is parking lot cameras, "smoke trails," and the pertinent implications, as I understand it.

Peace out, pteri:

posted by pteridine

If the smoke trail started when one of the light fixtures was ingested and remained for a few seconds after the aircraft passed, that would explain why there was smoke but no plane.

posted by SPreston
You do not have a few seconds after the aircraft has passed that alleged placement on the Pentagon lawn. Is 784 fps some mathematical concept beyond your ability to comprehend? You have less than half a second from that point on until the 757 aircraft depicted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY hits the Pentagon wall. You have less than half a second from the #3 light pole to that place in the parking lot security videos named plane.

posted by pteridine

Since no witnesses saw it there would be no need to fake it on the video, so we must conclude that one engine was smoking immediately before impact.

Since the heavy very dense white smoke trail was not hanging over the lawn because the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex (ONA) and above the light poles to the north and nowhere near the staged light poles along the official flight path to the south according to the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, then there is NO reason for the ONA eyewitnesses or the alleged south flight path witnesses to have reported seeing the heavy very dense white smoke trail, because NO light poles were struck and NO turbofan engines were damaged.



Explaining why the FBI Lab dummies would photoshop the heavy very dense white smoke trail into the five leaked 2002 parking lot video stills and the two 2006 FOIA released parking lot security videos is an exercise in futility. Obviously the guy who leaked the five still frames before the videos were finished was NO dummy. We should award him/her with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. What a patriot.

It is blatantly obvious that NO light poles were struck by an aircraft at the Pentagon on 9-11-2001 and NO aircraft hit the Pentagon on that day and NO eyewitness SAW the heavy very dense white smoke trail over the lawn that day even though some witnesses were alleged to have watched the alleged aircraft all the way into the explosion and fireball at the wall. NO visible heavy very dense white smoke trail equals photoshopping the parking lot security videos and stills. Another fabrication poorly done by the FBI Labs at Quantico.



Staged light poles, simulated aircraft crashes, planted explosives, scripted actor witnesses, planted aircraft debris, relighted fires, confiscated Pentagon area videos and photos, bullied witnesses, ludicrous prepared scripts, proven faked flight paths, changed eyewitness accounts, censored eyewitness accounts, alleged eyewitnesses who are untraceable; I give you the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY as it sinks into the quicksand foundation it was built upon.



The actual eyewitnesses proving the aircraft Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo have NO place in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY and neither do any other actual witnesses found and verified in the future, because TRUTH has no place in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.




[edit on 2/16/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


Preston,
Vituperation does not become your arguments. I understand the concept that there was not much time between smoke trail photo and impact. Likely the smoke/vapor lasted a bit longer than that time differential. The frame would have been from that interim but the smoke would have remained and not dissipated after the frame.

A prime witness in the flight tower has said that he saw the plane strike the building. Others saw the plane approach, heard the boom, saw the fireball and saw no plane leaving. This does not leave much room for flyovers and missile strikes, unless you would like to say that the smoke was real and was the exhaust from a missile.

A few interesting video's that I think neatly sum up some of the key IRREFUTABLE FACTS of pentagon fakery proving inside job and no boeing 757 hit the pentagon.

FRAMES MISSING / TAMPERED PENTAGON FOOTAGE ANALYZED IN FIRST PORTION (last portion he addresses i don't agree with though since its been shown the video is fake)
www.youtube.com...

PENTAGON CLIPS / FRAMES MISSING /
www.youtube.com...

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT RUSS WITTENBURG SAYS
www.youtube.com...

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by pteridine

If the smoke trail started when one of the light fixtures was ingested and remained for a few seconds after the aircraft passed, that would explain why there was smoke but no plane.

posted by SPreston
You do not have a few seconds after the aircraft has passed that alleged placement on the Pentagon lawn. Is 784 fps some mathematical concept beyond your ability to comprehend? You have less than half a second from that point on until the 757 aircraft depicted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY hits the Pentagon wall. You have less than half a second from the #3 light pole to that place in the parking lot security videos named plane.

Since the heavy very dense white smoke trail was not hanging over the lawn because the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex (ONA) and above the light poles to the north and nowhere near the staged light poles along the official flight path to the south according to the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, then there is NO reason for the ONA eyewitnesses or the alleged south flight path witnesses to have reported seeing the heavy very dense white smoke trail, because NO light poles were struck and NO turbofan engines were damaged.

Explaining why the FBI Lab dummies would photoshop the heavy very dense white smoke trail into the five leaked 2002 parking lot video stills and the two 2006 FOIA released parking lot security videos is an exercise in futility. Obviously the guy who leaked the five still frames before the videos were finished was NO dummy. We should award him/her with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. What a patriot.

It is blatantly obvious that NO light poles were struck by an aircraft at the Pentagon on 9-11-2001 and NO aircraft hit the Pentagon on that day and NO eyewitness SAW the heavy very dense white smoke trail over the lawn that day even though some witnesses were alleged to have watched the alleged aircraft all the way into the explosion and fireball at the wall. NO visible heavy very dense white smoke trail equals photoshopping the parking lot security videos and stills. Another fabrication poorly done by the FBI Labs at Quantico.

Staged light poles, simulated aircraft crashes, planted explosives, scripted actor witnesses, planted aircraft debris, relighted fires, confiscated Pentagon area videos and photos, bullied witnesses, ludicrous prepared scripts, proven faked flight paths, changed eyewitness accounts, censored eyewitness accounts, alleged eyewitnesses who are untraceable; I give you the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY as it sinks into the quicksand foundation it was built upon.
[edit on 2/16/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by rhunter


In your examination of the "currently known" evidence, will you examine the eyewitness statement of the flight tower occupant who said he saw the plane hit the Pentagon? It is this same person whose testimony is valid with respect to the flight path that CIT is enamored of so there should be no question about the validity of the building strike.
Then you can wax eloquently on why fake videos of aircraft and smoke were needed if the eyewitness saw the aircraft strike the building.

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...

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...

Actually it should be named "validation of northern approach and flt 77 striking the Pentagon" which, of course, makes this thread unnecessary. I note you are already waffling on this point and calling him inconsistent. If Sean is not to be trusted with seeing an airplane hit the Pentagon, how can he be trusted with the flight path? I'd bet most of those flight path witnesses are inconsistent and our only real physical evidence of the flight path are the light poles that were knocked over.

Originally posted by pteridine
Actually it should be named "validation of northern approach and flt 77 striking the Pentagon" which, of course, makes this thread unnecessary.

At what point did Boger ever confirm that Flight AA77 struck the Pentagon?

Was he able to read the serial numbers from the tail?

I thought that Boger stated he watched 'the plane' hit the Pentagon.

"Waffling" what there dogg? I generously provided you with a TOPICAL link to the whole Sean Boger thread. Did you know that there were 20+ pages of that interview? As I recommended above, you REALLY OUGHT to read it sometime.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by pteridine
Actually it should be named "validation of northern approach and flt 77 striking the Pentagon" which, of course, makes this thread unnecessary.

At what point did Boger ever confirm that Flight AA77 struck the Pentagon?

Was he able to read the serial numbers from the tail?

I thought that Boger stated he watched 'the plane' hit the Pentagon.

He did say that, tezz, but he also said this:

Boger: "And um I just happened to be looking out the window. And as I was looking
out the window I could see a plane it was actually, it was actually like three
minutes later the plane was coming directly at us. And uh when I saw it you
know I was just in amazement so I just - - well I just looked at it I mean you
know I fell to the ground and I covered my head."

He was obviously deeply influenced by what he was told happened by his superiors and the MSM, in the days after the events took place.

It's therefore not that difficult to suspect him feeling a bit embarrassed, and therefore
changed his story around, to him "actually" witness the plane hit.

Obviously he would not at that time have been aware that he thereby would contradict his account, in which he placed the plane NOC and coming from over the navy annex!

Silly man. It's always best to tell the truth first time around it seems - then one never gets caught in the proverbial web, as so many others find themselves tangled in,
around the place!

reply to post by djeminy


Yeah, dj - no worries.

I'm not worried so much if Boger said he saw the plane hit or deduced it. The point of my post was that Boger didn't identify the plane as being Flight AA77.

There's always people who like to insert their own beliefs into witness statements.

I don't know of a single witness who identified the alleged plane as being Flight AA77 as it was allegedly approaching the Pentagon.

Originally posted by tezzajw
reply to post by djeminy

 

Yeah, dj - no worries.

I'm not worried so much if Boger said he saw the plane hit or deduced it. The point of my post was that Boger didn't identify the plane as being Flight AA77.

There's always people who like to insert their own beliefs into witness statements.

I don't know of a single witness who identified the alleged plane as being Flight AA77 as it was allegedly approaching the Pentagon.

You're spot on there mate.

Good on ya with that one!

reply to post by rhunter

Hunter,
What I meant by "waffling" was bringing his testimony into question with implications of "inconsistency" and the like. If he is that inconsistent, why use him as a NoC witness? He should be disregarded as a witness to anything. Craig likes the NoC part but can't deal with the impact part because it eliminates flyovers and missile strikes and wall breaching demolitions. If you wanted to, you could cherry-pick statements from witnesses and then claim inconsistency when you didn't like something.

I like the casual use of the vernacular "dogg" that shows you are a cool and with-it kind of guy. I missed the "what-up" part, so your street cred just isn't where it should be. Maybe a gratuitous "dude" will bring you back.

Oh brother.... look, I think people are pretty much guessing at where light poles would end up. All I know is if I were staging this event, I'd see NO need to knock light poles over. Why in the world would I INCREASE the chances of my planned event getting busted?

And it's still amazed that people not ONLY planted these things.. they KNOCKED THEM DOWN! And not a single person noticed. Astounding.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by rhunter

 

Hunter,
What I meant by "waffling" was bringing his testimony into question with implications of "inconsistency" and the like. If he is that inconsistent, why use him as a NoC witness? He should be disregarded as a witness to anything. Craig likes the NoC part but can't deal with the impact part because it eliminates flyovers and missile strikes and wall breaching demolitions. If you wanted to, you could cherry-pick statements from witnesses and then claim inconsistency when you didn't like something.

I like the casual use of the vernacular "dogg" that shows you are a cool and with-it kind of guy. I missed the "what-up" part, so your street cred just isn't where it should be. Maybe a gratuitous "dude" will bring you back.

So you haven't read (or at least quoted) any of those 27 pages of Sean Boger's interview then, pteri-dogg? I did provide you with a link to the Boger thread above (just in case pteri-dogg is interested in staying remotely ON-topic).

On those waffles, pteri-dogg might want to try this place:
www.wafflehouse.com...

If you're looking for chicken&waffles, then I could probably find a couple more recommendations.

If pteri-dogg has a question specifically for Craig, then perhaps pteri-dogg should contact Craig directly (say via U2U or email/contact at Craig's website).

RH

reply to post by rhunter


On topic, huntingdudes--
If Sean and other witnesses saw the plane hit, why would there need to be a fake video?
If CIT is a disinformation group diverting attention from the real conspiracy, wouldn't they have an interest in promoting the idea of everything being faked?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by rhunter

 

On topic, huntingdudes--
If Sean and other witnesses saw the plane hit, why would there need to be a fake video?
If CIT is a disinformation group diverting attention from the real conspiracy, wouldn't they have an interest in promoting the idea of everything being faked?

Machiavelli would surely been very pleased with your efforts, and found it to his
advantage having you in his employ, had you lived in those interesting times!

He was known for seeking favours from unsavoury quarters!