Pentagon: DOD Fake Photos on 9/11

[Craig W]

[Hombre]

[Sasha]

I do not believe a 757 smashed in the Pentagon. The dimensions of the target are far too small for any airliner that size. Period end of that story. The photo analysis is just that, a look at badly photoshpped mosaics for the official story.

BFN is a shill site as far as 9/11 is concerned. Or most of the current/active membershipL ook at the swarm tactics, then lace posts with bullshit and leads off to nowehere.

None of my other posts get any feedback like this or in this manner. Funny?

The CIA Rat's Nest topic is missing many names. Very informative read, but it falls short in exposing all. Yes it throws out the marginalised, but lacks names and pointers to the more cupable.

Starting to wonder what's what with this angle of attack? Is BFN just another Prison Planet? Infowars.com? No one answered any of my dierect questions. The structure used on my 9/11 posts reminds me of labrynth of bullshit you try to follow on AboveTopSecret

I have doubts now.

[Sasha]

You're right. That rusty guardrail - not rusty guardrail in some of the photos is a horrible job and should never have been let out to the public. Jack White's photo analysis is great. I have no problems with what he points out. The DoD photoshopping was done very badly - too busy trying to get DNA samples together.

I should direct my shill claims against some of the responders, not BFN or Fintan Dunne in particular. He has not responded to any of these specific posts made by me. My mistake, forgive me for that.

[Craig W]

Sasha, White's analysis is poor on so many counts I'm really surprised you think it otherwise. Off the top of my head:

1) It's very badly structured. There are no page numbers, no index, no summary, and importantly no references, so we have no idea where these photos are from (or indeed if they have been tampered with since originally taken).

2) There are very few explanatory diagrams (overhead plans, sideviews, etc) and the labelling of the pictures is sloppy and difficult to understand.

3) He makes much play of the "missing" guard rail and yet provides no evidence that it was ever there before 911, merely assuming that it was. In fact his sole evidence for the existence of the rail is an aerial shot taken "several days later", appearing to show a thin rail. However, he makes no effort to firmly identify the triage area as being the same location as the "mysterious" guard rail. Moreover, he gives no consideration to the possibility that the rail may have been erected after 911 (perhaps as a result of the events). He simply jumps to the conclusion that its claimed absence on the day is evidence of photo fakery.

4) Similarly, he assumes that the green strip of grass is evidence of fakery and overlooks any other possibility, for example, that it has been re-turfed recently.

5) He makes overblown and/or confusing claims for the "anomalies" he apparently sees in the pictures. For example, in one instance White highlights a vehicle that, shock horror, appears to be in a different location in another photo. Perhaps someone should inform Whte that it is in the nature of vehicles that they occasionally move.

6) He overlooks the different times at which photos may have been taken, apparently considerng that things should always be in the same place ad have identical appearance (shading, relative position, etc).

7) He uses self-referential and circuitous logic. For example, in the photo of the lady with the nice legs he concludes that it must be a fake because she cannot be sitting there because that is where the guard rail is (you know, the one for which he provides almost no evidence, doesn't consider its erection after 911, and makes no attempt to locate). And again, he makes no attempt to clearly locate her position relative to the claimed guard rail. (Due to the photo being a close-up with only grass as background, she could be anywhere).

He highlights a yellow and black sign which is next to a tall pole in one shot and a similar sign which is next to a shorter pole in another. Making no attempt to locate the items or prove they are the same, and overlooking the possiblity that they may be different poles, White again jumps to the conclusion that they are evidence of fakery.

9) When "analysing" the different colours of the explosions he overlooks the obvious possibility that the colour mix of the Pentagon security camera shot is massively exaggerating the orangey-redness of the explosion image (as strongly suggested by the glaring redness of the traffic cones seen in the same shot). Again White jumps to a totally baseless concluson (this time that the colour differences between shots of the WTC2 and Pentagon impact explosion indicated that the latter was not a jet).

10) In "Chapter 9a" White says there is "something very suspicious" about the two images of firetruck 61, which he claims show trucks of different lengths. However, it seems he is deliberately attempting to mislead as he says the lower picture is "from directly side-on". In fact, anyon with eyes can see that the lower, "too short", picture is not a side-on view but that the rear end of the truck is mitted out of shot to the left hence making it appear shorter (hence fitting White's conclusion) that the truck in the other image. There is nothing anomalous with the two pictures as far as I can see, only with White's spin. This error/lie alone makes me think White may belong to the CIA Rat's Nest. If not then he is at least totally incomptent and not to be relied on.

I could go on at length but life is too short. To sum up, this "analysis" is not evidence of skullduggery, only of White's incompetence in this instance. Given these and other flaws I conclude that it is worthless in any investigation.

I can't believe I've just wasted my time on this crap.

[Sasha]

I disagree.

All I needed was the guardrail and the photoshopped grass along the path. Then I ask why do this bad photoshop job, release it?? To start the disinfo immmediately. Especially on the net. It was Arabs right? They must have opened a sweat shop photoshop studio in DC or NY just prior and quickly whipped off these bad photo jobs.

Just like Arabs wired the WTC pre 9/11 for conventional demo. Or Hani Hanjour eyes wide looking skyward, flying into the Pentagon muahahaha...good god

How did these dudes get on any airplanes and not be on one flight manifest? One hidden CCTV that exist in all airports used?

Fake photos are still fake photos.

Like steel is still steel with or with out fire retardant and a hydrocarbon is still a hydrocarbon. The steel melts at 2800 degrees and the hydrocarbon burns at 600 degrees.

The Pentagon is the weak link in the chain (after that 20ft hole in Pennsylvania). The Pentagon was staged.

I refer you to this:

No Cellphone pics
No video
Justa bunch of sell out chump TV or media whore eyewitnesses

[Sasha]

Addendum to above:

I refer you to this:
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=66621&highlight=#66621

No Cellphone pics
No video
Justa bunch of sell out chump TV or media whore eyewitnesses

[Peter]

NIST had to FOIA to get hold of a NYPD chopper video? Why are they hauling this out now?

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/07/exp.nr.9.11.attacks.helicopter.cnn?hpt=C2

[IronClad]

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

I believe this aviator is having some fun at our expense and there is some sarcasm in there too.

because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let's not mull over that little point. - -

According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees per minute while descending at 3,500 feet per minute, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult manoeuvre,

Is that sarcasm in there?

What he says is it is impossible but with beginners luck sometime these things happens.

It went off radar. Was this the blind spot to civilian atc's. "Then pops up" Yeah, of course it does. How is it determined to be Flight 77?

You'd think that hijackers would become pilots anywhere but the USA. All you need is 4 hijackers with a modicum of intelligence to become pilots anywhere else other than the USA. Youtube is full of youngsters videos of their exploits on Flight Simulators. Wouldn't this be the first step before going to flight school anywhere else than the USA. Upon visiting the USA they would have not gone anywhere near a flight school for fear of exposure. Oh yes, one did and got caught. Presumably all the others had done their time at the fight schools so were not too concerned when he got caught. He must have been the last of the required number. May be he was a spare. May be he should have been on 93 to have taken it to the target whereas Jarrah, the stand-in only flew it into the ground.

The eye-witnesses at the Pentagon were not to outspoken about the noise or the fact that vehicles were blown off the road when it flew over but one reported that it seemed to be gliding. If there is such a thing as a gravity plane [may be a hoax] or other such glider that is more likely to have hit the Pentagon than a 757.

Read the Italian guy. I think his report is factual but tongue in cheek when it comes to the difficult bits. He says it was impossible without grooves in the lawn made by the engines.

As a layman and observations of plane landings - the nose is kept up until the landing wheels touch down but in anycase the nose could not have got down that far to have made the hole in the facia of the Pentagon without the rear of the plane touching the ground.

Can we not dismiss the nonsense of the mainstream account in regard to the Pentagon.

We need to get real. 10 years is long enough to be keeping a lie going.

[Southpark Fan]

Pentagon Strike:
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/


and

Fake Pentagon Photos:
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm

I love the circular arguments on here. Just go around in a circle. Do not have to go very far to find shills. Bring up a point and the regulars hop on it and fill the rest of the thread with sheeple trash, disinfo and bad humour.

For those new members just watch the names of the regs who jump on any real discussions about 9/11. They appear quickly. Isolate then ignore them.


Water board Bush and Cheney for confirmation of fake photos.

[IronClad]

Even if the photos have been touched up where does it lead? Touch up a few pics and draw peoples attention to them and a conspiracy is created.

The major issue here is that they have set up their triage area with the fire or rather smoke still bellowing out the building. The scene itself looks more like an exercise than a serious place for treating the injured.

No more planes, missiles or bombs were expected along any time soon and they knew it. No more terrorists on the loose either.

[Southpark Fan]

This is really cut and dry. The plane the US gov says carved a hole thru the Pentagon like an underground drilling machine was too big -- tall, wide -- to make impact in the manner portrayed.

End of this story. The Pentagon was a smoke and mirrors show - by extension and logic, so was the rest of the event.

Paint it up any way you like. This could not have happened in the manner described by any of the many shills that have prostituted themselves for this perverted cause.

Dimensions of a Boeing 767-200ER:

http://boeing.net/commercial/767family/pf/pf_exterior_er.html

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103

To make a hole like that, and have the attitude described by shill witnesses, there would have been a WWI like trench dug is the lawn. Oh and while making this trench, the plane would have started breaking up long before impact with the first outer wall.

Why not get Myth Busters - those crazy guys - to hammer this one out? Easy to make a wall, then remotely slam the plane in to it using same latitutde and every other reading. Electronic towing solves that. Oh ya, I forgot any mention of 9/11 is a no, no on the Myth Busters forum webpages.

http://www.sysplan.com/capabilities/radar/fts/

[Continuity]

If that were the case, then why didn't 'they' engineer it so that the hole(s) in the buildings would have been of the appropriate dimensions?

Surely that wouldn't be too much more effort over and above what they had to do anyway...?

[Southpark Fan]

I don't know. I know what didn't happen.

Hole in Pentagon: 65 feet across.
757 Wingspan: 124 feet, 10 in - 45 Ft tall
The plane does not fit!
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/753sec2.pdf

757, 767 whatever; neither is responsible for the intial damage photos. It is impossible.



I don't make these plans - so who knows. I do get the feeling they don't really care if you and the general public get it...they are gonna lead you by the nose anyway.

[Southpark Fan]

Something like this a bit bigger!





Helicopter view