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

Originally posted by Achorwrath
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,

Which of the about 15 presentations we have released are you talking about?

Why didn't you quote the full sentence and source it?

What is your point?

You are not making one because YOU are being misleading and deceptive.

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?

Released from what?

Why do you keep refusing to quote the full sentence and sourcing WHICH presentation you are talking about?

You are taking partial sentences completely out of context from DIFFERENT presentations and not asking relevant questions because it seems as though you don't even understand the question you are asking.

If you are talking about the CMH, the cab driver was not interviewed by them proving your point and question completely irrelevant and entirely ignorant in relation to the evidence presented that you STILL clearly have not viewed in full.

The cab driver WAS interviewed by us on 2 occasions. I have spent many hours with him in person and have physically examined the actual cab.

Of course all of this is presented on video for you and the fact that you don't know it is FURTHER proof that you have not bothered to view the information that you are furiously arguing against.

Therefore discussion with you is a waste of time so it will cease after this post.

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.

Now you are showing yourself to be a liar or else unable to comprehend very basic and obvious points that were spelled out in detail.

You are conflating 2 different claims in order to suggest he is changing what he said.

Lagasse said he is 100% sure that the plane was on the north side of the station in general (as did Brooks & Turicos and all the witnesses at the station and across the way at ANC and EVERYONE that we spoke with).

He did NOT say he is 100% sure of exactly how far north of the station it was and he was very specific about this.

It would be unreasonable to expect any witness to be mathematically precise down to the foot anyway.

He said it could have been closer or further away from the station but that it HAD to be on the north side.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c092034ed3ca.gif[/atsimg]

He could not possibly have been more explicit yet you still either completely failed to understand it, didn't watch it, or decided to lie about it.

Therefore you will be ignored because it is now 100% clear that you have no intention to engage in honest discussion.



[edit on 21-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Source

I am quoting from your latest video and you know that,

You try to confuse the readers about this but it will not work

Follow the timelines I have listed and the linked video and you will see the quote and context I used.

Also if you want here is a secondary source from your own webstie

Enter CIT (independent confirmation).

Of the few dozen transcripts released, only a small handful even claim they witnessed the plane as most were simply part of the recovery efforts or involved with the event in some other way.

We focused on the alleged plane witnesses and paid special attention to those who may have had a vantage point allowing them to distinguish if the plane was north or south of the former CITGO gas station. Of course the interviews were conducted on a human interest rather than investigative level so finding specific details regarding the flight path proved difficult. We were however able to ascertain certain clues in this regard and many pointed to the notion that some witnesses did indeed further corroborate the unanimous north side claim from the witnesses at the gas station.

We quickly determined that the most important of these CMH accounts were from individuals who were at Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) located directly north of the gas station right where the witnesses we already spoke with all placed the plane.

Source

So in your own statement you spoke with witnesses that already placed the plane where you claim it was.
You also state quite plainly in the sections I underlined that you only had a few dozen and that only a handfull of them saw a plane

Again answer the questions put to you and stop derailing the thred.

How many wore corrective lenses?
If any did were they wearing them?
How many had color deficient vision?

Why did you not interview the first responders? They would be able to prove or disprove the debirs.

You concentrate on a weak argument that when someone shows you your oen incosisntacies you attack them.

Again answer the above questions,

Originally posted by Achorwrath
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.

Ok one more post exposing the inherent failure in your argument here.

Witnesses are not computers.

It is unreasonable to expect any of them to be mathematically accurate down to the foot and we have never said that any of them were.

The point here is that if the plane was ANYWHERE north of Columbia Pike, or ANYWHERE directly over the Navy Annex, or ANYWHERE north of the gas station AT ALL it proves 9/11 was a deception.

This GENERAL claim is how all confirmed first-hand eyewitness accounts independently corroborate each other.

Get it yet?

Lagasse spelled it out for you in detail yet you chose to lie about what he said it so I have my doubts.

All of the witnesses had different perspectives so all of their accounts will vary within a reasonable margin of error depending on those perspectives and their POV.

This is basic common sense that I should not have to explain to you if you are a reasonable human being whose intent is to discuss this information honestly.

So although they certainly do vary within a reasonable margin of error the witnesses are UNANIMOUS in the GENERAL claim that the plane was on the north side approach and the fact that they have a variety of different and opposing perspectives yet still CORROBORATE each other in this GENERAL claim is scientific proof they are all correct.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3cd08f21611c.jpg[/atsimg]

So it doesn't matter if any of them wore glasses or not.


Independent corroboration is the scientific validation process so if insanely bad vision was an issue for any of them their accounts would not generally match.

They do NOT have to be 100% accurate and to expect them to be is unreasonable. We aren't relying on any ONE of these accounts.

If ANY of them were wildly and drastically mistaken about the north side then surely some of them would have placed the plane on the south side.

The fact that they all corroborate the GENERAL north side approach is what proves this GENERAL claim correct and that the plane did not hit the building.

Trying to suggest that NONE of these witnesses are credible and that all of them were simultaneously hallucinating a north side approach IN GENERAL when the plane was actually far on the south side of the station where it needed to be to hit the light poles and building is intellectually dishonest.

If you want to refute this evidence you need to provide 14 first-hand witness accounts of people specifically placing the plane on the south side approach.

So far you have provided zero and have only demonstrated a desire to engage in spin and outright deception.

Therefore this is definitely my last post to you.

Originally posted by Achorwrath

So in your own statement you spoke with witnesses that already placed the plane where you claim it was.
You also state quite plainly in the sections I underlined that you only had a few dozen and that only a handfull of them saw a plane

Exactly as I said......you were referencing the released CMH transcripts.

Yet you asked about witnesses (cab driver etc) who were NOT interviewed by the CMH in relation to what we said about the CMH transcripts!

What we said was that out of all the released CMH transcripts only a few of them mentioned seeing the plane AT ALL.

These are the witnesses we sought out since of course our goal has been to determine the exact location of the plane.

Why would we seek out people who did not claim to have seen the plane?

The CMH transcripts of even the plane witnesses were left ambiguous about where they placed the plane (which is no doubt the only reason they were released in the first place) but after we figured out who the witnesses were, got a hold of them, and flew back to Arlington to record their accounts on-location and confirm all the details it became clear that they ALL unanimously support the north side approach after all.

They corroborated the citgo witnesses from the complete opposite perspective!

What more proof could you need?

This should not be that difficult for you to understand and I am tired of holding your hand through this so you will be ignored.

I promise.





[edit on 21-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Why did you not interview the first responders? They would be able to prove or disprove the debirs.

This has been a major sticking point with CIT. They refuse to because they think it means nothing. They believe all the airplane debris were scattered about by the perps. They believe since they have NOC witnesses from years after the fact, that cancels out all the other evidence.

I for one would love to see who was carrying the landing gear.

I spoke with Craig on one of his radio shows asking about the possibility of bombs being planted around the Pentagon during a massive renovation. He said it was possible that the civilian contracts may have played a role in it. (they would have had to) Although I am unaware of what Craig's occupation was prior to working with software, I can all but guarantee you that he has never worked on a construction site.

Originally posted by CameronFox
I for one would love to see who was carrying the landing gear.

I for one would love to see you stay on topic and address the thread - faking the smoke trail on the lawn.

I for one would love to see that alleged landing gear positively identified, instead of it being the scrap metal that it is.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Sorry Craig,

I guess you need the definition of Corroboration
Corroboration

Now to explain, in court with eye witnesses they have to put the item in exactly the same place.

You image above proves they did not,

Let me hold your hand through this;

There is a murder someone is shot 5 people say they saw something -

2 - say they saw the person shoot the other while standing the on the street corner,

1 - says they heard shots and saw the person running from the street corner

1 - says they heard shots but only saw the person in the street

1 - says they saw the person standing on the corner and heard shots later


Now do you know which witnesses corroborate each other?

Let me tell you, the first two and only the first two

As the place the person on the corner firing the gun

Your picture of extremely different flight paths is NOT Corroborating evidence it is speculative at best.

The fact that you do not have a base line for visual acuity of the witnesses and your findings show in very nice detail how each saw something very different from their point of view discounts their testimony as a single item.

Sorry but your evidence would be thrown out in court, and would probably get you a warning for providing misleading and speculative evidence

Witness statements cannot be counted as evidence if they are edited at all.

Show the raw a complete footage, stop with the zoom camera effects to make it appear the people had a better view point than they did and admit your theory hold now water

Oh and jut an FYI all digital cameras have a zoom factor built in.

Unless you have a 100% coverage CMOS sensor and a beter than 50mm lens there is also the crop factor to take into account.

Your videos are flashy but not evidence.

I do find it very interesting that anyone that does not agree with you is "not a true skeptic"

So what I am getting from this is that unless we all follow you with blind faith hannging on your every word we are not truly skeptical..

So I cannot be skeptical of you?

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Originally posted by Achorwrath
There is a murder someone is shot 5 people say they saw something -

You're still trying to drag the thread off topic? Why? This thread is not about your fictional shooting, so why try to derail it?

Stay on topic and show us how many people corroborate a smoke trail across the lawn. I dare you.

Brought up in this thread by Spreston, Matrix, and CIT has been the eyewitness accounts to support their claim of no plane.

It is on topic to discuss that evidence and to show that it is not accurate or indeed evidence at all.

SPreston claimed a smoke trail, where are his witnesses?



[edit on 21-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Originally posted by Achorwrath
It is on topic to discuss that evidence and to show that it is not accurate or indeed evidence at all.

Indeed. Which is why SPreston is showing that someone is telling lies about the alleged smoke trail. There appears to be conflicting evidence about the smoke trail.

SPreston claimed a smoke trail, where are his witnesses?

Have you witnessed the parking lot video in the OP? SPreston shows that it contains a smoke trail.

SPreston links to some animated YouTube videos of the alleged Pentagon crash, which show a smoke trail from the plane.

Now, be a good researcher, Achorwrath and go to Arlington to find the eyewitnesses who saw the smoke trail across the lawn. We're waiting for your fieldwork, so you can contribute to the thread without straying off topic.

I see another is attempting the excuse that witnesses can place an aircraft flight path down to the foot.... without ever going to Arlington themselves to attempt to confront such witnesses and their placement of the aircraft.


Here is what an Actual Aircraft Accident Investigator had to say about the witness statments gathered by CIT and presented by Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

This is very factual and deserves much attention. You did a good job on presenting your case. While watching, I put myself in a court room and listened as if this were a court case and your argument was very compelling.



Jeff [Latas]

Source

Lt Col Jeff Latas Credentials and Experience

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

Source










[edit on 21-3-2009 by RockHound757]

Originally posted by RockHound757

-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

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

Originally posted by CameronFox

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

Pilots For 9/11 Truth core members cover almost all major airlines (and every branch of the military). Looks like its the train for you.

Edit to add: I know personally that Capt Rob has trained many of the pilots based at BOS Logan who fly for several different airlines there. You dont plan on flying out of BOS anytime soon, do ya?



[edit on 21-3-2009 by RockHound757]

reply to post by tezzajw


Tezza,
I see you are giving more experienced people condescending advice about research and interviews while policing the thread topic.
No witnesss claimed to see a smoketrail so there would be no reason to "fake" one in the video.
Now be a good boy and stop trolling.

Originally posted by pteridine
No witnesss claimed to see a smoketrail so there would be no reason to "fake" one in the video.

Thats a matter of opinion... no?

Conversely...

Since no witnesses in a position to actually see light poles being impacted, or a cab impaled claimed as such. certainly a "smoke trail" photoshopped into a 1 frame per second video would prove such an impact to those who prefer Cognitive Dissonance over Skepticsm.

Now be a good boy and stop trolling.

Have you reported such trolling to the mods? It is against forum rules IIRC. If not, why not?

Originally posted by pteridine
No witnesss claimed to see a smoketrail so there would be no reason to "fake" one in the video.

So why have some professional organisations shown animated videos of the alleged crash with smoke trailing from the wing/engine?

Obviously there are 'fake' smoke trails in some videos that need to be explained.

Now be a good boy and stop trolling.

Personal insult noted.

I find it hilarious that you accuse me of trolling, while trying to steer the thread back on topic. Contradict yourself much?

reply to post by tezzajw


You said "So why have some professional organisations shown animated videos of the alleged crash with smoke trailing from the wing/engine?

Obviously there are 'fake' smoke trails in some videos that need to be explained."

Maybe the professional organizations show the smoke trails in the animations because that was what was seen in the video. If no witnesses saw it, why would it have to be faked in a post facto video, anyway.

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.

Originally posted by RockHound757

Edit to add: I know personally that Capt Rob has trained many of the pilots based at BOS Logan who fly for several different airlines there. You dont plan on flying out of BOS anytime soon, do ya?

Looks like it will be TF Green for me. Then Amtrack or Peterpan.

Oh, and Cappy, it's nice to know you keep notes of those that visit your website. Is everyone's IP address recorded, or just us "detractors?"



[edit on 21-3-2009 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw

 

You said "So why have some professional organisations shown animated videos of the alleged crash with smoke trailing from the wing/engine?

Obviously there are 'fake' smoke trails in some videos that need to be explained."

Maybe the professional organizations show the smoke trails in the animations because that was what was seen in the video. If no witnesses saw it, why would it have to be faked in a post facto video, anyway.

Why are some animations touted on CNN and other media with fake smoke trails, not based on any flight data whatsoever, but the NTSB animation doesnt even get so much as a mention of release to the public on Mainstream Media?

We know why..

Originally posted by RockHound757


I will restate that I have not read of any witnesses claiming to have seen the smoke trail. As there are many witnesses, it is possible that someone did see a smoke trail.

You said "Since no witnesses in a position to actually see light poles being impacted, or a cab impaled claimed as such."

Are you discounting the driver of the cab? He would have been in a good position to see the cab being impaled.

"Cognitive Dissonance" has a nice ring to it. Use it whenever possible but only skeptically.

I have not reported such trolling to the mods. I assume that the Mods can read Tezza's signature so his actions must not be over the censure line. Are you a troll policeman?

[edit on 3/21/2009 by pteridine]