The Faking Of The Parking Lot Videos

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

The Faking Of The Parking Lot Videos; and the fake white smoke trail
Topic Started: Dec 19 2008, 10:36 AM (782 Views)
SPreston	Dec 19 2008, 10:36 AM Post #1
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Question: How did that alleged damaged starboard turbofan engine produce so much smoke in less than one second? Doesn't that seem impossible? The #3 light pole allegedly damages the engine causing a fuel or oil leak, which then starts to smoke providing a heavy trail of smoke, which is visible from the El Cheapo parking lot security video cameras several hundred yards away; all in less than one second. Nah that is not possible is it? More BS from the 9-11 perps? The very same video cameras by the way which could not make out the aircraft which is too small.



Marley	Jan 2 2009, 11:50 PM Post #2
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08	Well the foreign debris would pass through the engine rather quickly and wreck it. The gas that flows through the engine is moving much faster than the aircraft itself. I'm not surprised that the damaged guts of the engine would very quickly generate smoke as the ideal combustion process was destroyed by the debris.
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08


JFK	Jan 3 2009, 12:13 AM Post #3
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Frankly I can visualize that happening if the debris sheared off the fuel injector(s) within the engine.... and that engine had a "flame out" at the exact same moment. The resulting "smoke" would be mass quantities of vaporized fuel, and that would be the correct color and volume for what we see in the pic. But do keep in mind I do not have any hands on experience with turbofan engines. It would be best to ask that question of a A&P mechanic.
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


noeffects	Jan 3 2009, 02:51 AM Post #4
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	what plane wasn't that. ? this video is proof of no plane. why try to pretend "it" is there.
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


m0n3yman	Jan 3 2009, 05:04 AM Post #5
Posts: 128 Group: Members Member #900 Joined: 10/24/08	I can't see one viable reason the other video footage hasn't been released. On topic: the "el cheapo" security camera has miraculously lost a frame of video. Edited by m0n3yman, Jan 3 2009, 05:06 AM.
Posts: 128 Group: Members Member #900 Joined: 10/24/08


albion	Jan 3 2009, 09:03 PM Post #6
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	m0n3yman Jan 3 2009, 05:04 AM I can't see one viable reason the other video footage hasn't been released. Video footage of what? Edited by albion, Jan 3 2009, 09:03 PM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


Marley	Jan 4 2009, 03:21 PM Post #7
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08	Of the cameras that were close enough to catch anything, which ones were working at the time, which ones were pointed in the right direction and did any of them have the resolution required to provide any useful images? Is anyone expecting them to be any more useful than the ones that have been released?
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08


JFK	Jan 4 2009, 03:35 PM Post #8
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Marley Jan 4 2009, 03:21 PM Of the cameras that were close enough to catch anything, which ones were working at the time, which ones were pointed in the right direction and did any of them have the resolution required to provide any useful images? Is anyone expecting them to be any more useful than the ones that have been released? Considering that only 4 of the 85 responsive videos were not released how could you expect for us to answer that question ?
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


22205	Jan 4 2009, 03:53 PM Post #9
Arlingtonian Posts: 443 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: 01/14/08	Marley Jan 4 2009, 03:21 PM Of the cameras that were close enough to catch anything, which ones were working at the time, which ones were pointed in the right direction and did any of them have the resolution required to provide any useful images? Is anyone expecting them to be any more useful than the ones that have been released? inside the pentagon witness, DPS officer Michael Nesbitt speaks of a LIVE camera which was WORKING, and had a direct view of the fire at the impact side: http://memory.loc.gov/ser...fc2001015/sr/sr345a01.mp3 (full version) from 2:37 to 3:05 he speaks of cameras, and at 2:55 Nesbitt specifically states that he: "finally got another camera up... from one of the outside buildings to look down on the Pentagon.. you could see nothing but a big ball of fire."



albion	Jan 4 2009, 08:00 PM Post #10
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	JFK Jan 4 2009, 03:35 PM Marley Jan 4 2009, 03:21 PM Of the cameras that were close enough to catch anything, which ones were working at the time, which ones were pointed in the right direction and did any of them have the resolution required to provide any useful images? Is anyone expecting them to be any more useful than the ones that have been released? Considering that only 4 of the 85 responsive videos were not released how could you expect for us to answer that question ? I actually don't expect you, or anybody, to. The fact remains that whether there are videos or not is completely irrelevant to knowing whether AA77 hit the Pentagon or not. CIT bases its claims without need of any videos and we skeptics know that the convergence of all the independent evidence demonstrates that AA77 hit the Pentagon and hasn't been refuted. So no one needs any videos whether they show anything or not. Another point is that CIT and others claim that the one parking lot security camera video released was "doctored" to remove the "flyover" plane and other things. Edited by albion, Jan 4 2009, 08:00 PM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


JFK	Jan 4 2009, 08:32 PM Post #11
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	albion Jan 4 2009, 08:00 PM JFK Jan 4 2009, 03:35 PM Marley Jan 4 2009, 03:21 PM Of the cameras that were close enough to catch anything, which ones were working at the time, which ones were pointed in the right direction and did any of them have the resolution required to provide any useful images? Is anyone expecting them to be any more useful than the ones that have been released? Considering that only 4 of the 85 responsive videos were not released how could you expect for us to answer that question ? I actually don't expect you, or anybody, to. The fact remains that whether there are videos or not is completely irrelevant to knowing whether AA77 hit the Pentagon or not. CIT bases its claims without need of any videos and we skeptics know that the convergence of all the independent evidence demonstrates that AA77 hit the Pentagon and hasn't been refuted. So no one needs any videos whether they show anything or not. Another point is that CIT and others claim that the one parking lot security camera video released was "doctored" to remove the "flyover" plane and other things. So let me get this straight... We have been provided with no serial numbers which some of us could verify, we have been provided with no definitave video proof that flight 77 was anywhere near the Pentagon, and we have no photographs pre collapse showing any debris on the lawn, and the flight data recorder and RADES 84 data conflict with the "official story" and each other and you call this fact ? It sounds more like faith on your part.
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


albion	Jan 5 2009, 03:04 PM Post #12
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	JFK Jan 4 2009, 08:32 PM albion Jan 4 2009, 08:00 PM JFK Jan 4 2009, 03:35 PM Marley Jan 4 2009, 03:21 PM Of the cameras that were close enough to catch anything, which ones were working at the time, which ones were pointed in the right direction and did any of them have the resolution required to provide any useful images? Is anyone expecting them to be any more useful than the ones that have been released? Considering that only 4 of the 85 responsive videos were not released how could you expect for us to answer that question ? I actually don't expect you, or anybody, to. The fact remains that whether there are videos or not is completely irrelevant to knowing whether AA77 hit the Pentagon or not. CIT bases its claims without need of any videos and we skeptics know that the convergence of all the independent evidence demonstrates that AA77 hit the Pentagon and hasn't been refuted. So no one needs any videos whether they show anything or not. Another point is that CIT and others claim that the one parking lot security camera video released was "doctored" to remove the "flyover" plane and other things. So let me get this straight... We have been provided with no serial numbers which some of us could verify,.. Why would you need to "verify" serial numbers? Quote: we have been provided with no definitave video proof that flight 77 was anywhere near the Pentagon,... But you know that the evidence of a plane crash anywhere does not require videos. Quote: ...and we have no photographs pre collapse showing any debris on the lawn,... And why do you need something that may not exist? And we have plenty of photos of debris on the lawn. Would you then agree with other truthers who said the debris "must have been planted?" Quote: ...and the flight data recorder and RADES 84 data conflict with the "official story" and each other and you call this fact ? So the NTSB released information to bring suspicion on the government? Smart move.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


JFK	Jan 5 2009, 03:32 PM Post #13
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	albion Jan 5 2009, 03:04 PM But you know that the evidence of a plane crash anywhere does not require videos. So, what evidence do you have ?
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


albion	Jan 5 2009, 09:53 PM Post #14
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	albion Jan 5 2009, 03:04 PM But you know that the evidence of a plane crash anywhere does not require videos. JFK So, what evidence do you have ? I don't personally posses any. But we all have the same access to the same information.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


JFK	Jan 5 2009, 11:08 PM Post #15
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	albion Jan 5 2009, 09:53 PM albion Jan 5 2009, 03:04 PM But you know that the evidence of a plane crash anywhere does not require videos. JFK So, what evidence do you have ? I don't personally posses any. But we all have the same access to the same information. Which happens to be conflicting at best.
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


noeffects	Jan 6 2009, 12:47 PM Post #16
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	Dear Albion, Do you think the parking lot video recorded a plane hitting the pentegon on 9/12/2001 ?. Or do you think it is faked ?. Sincerely, noeffects
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


Marley	Jan 7 2009, 08:50 AM Post #17
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08	JFK Jan 4 2009, 03:35 PM Considering that only 4 of the 85 responsive videos were not released how could you expect for us to answer that question ? You got me. Ask the people here who claim the FBI has +80 confiscated camera footage showing the impact at the Pentagon. Surely they have evidence to back their claim or they would not have made it. Or maybe I am holding LCF to too high a standard; collect evidence first, then make claim.
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08


JFK	Jan 7 2009, 09:02 AM Post #18
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Marley Jan 7 2009, 08:50 AM JFK Jan 4 2009, 03:35 PM Considering that only 4 of the 85 responsive videos were not released how could you expect for us to answer that question ? You got me. Ask the people here who claim the FBI has +80 confiscated camera footage showing the impact at the Pentagon. Surely they have evidence to back their claim or they would not have made it. Or maybe I am holding LCF to too high a standard; collect evidence first, then make claim. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Edit to add - Edited by JFK, Jan 7 2009, 09:05 AM.
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


noeffects	Jan 7 2009, 11:10 AM Post #19
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	JFK-good post people really need to know that tidbit is crucial. Marley man be serious . there are 13 CCTV around that exact area. maybe we could get a glimpse of the explosion better or so called airplane debris flying past . Or rescue perps after the explosion moving about on all 80+ cameras. I seriously have a hard time believing only one camera has anything of interest.
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


JFK	Jan 7 2009, 11:12 AM Post #20
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	noeffects Jan 7 2009, 11:10 AM JFK-good post people really need to know that tidbit is crucial. Marley man be serious . there are 13 CCTV around that exact area. maybe we could get a glimpse of the explosion better or so called airplane debris flying past . Or rescue perps after the explosion moving about on all 80+ cameras. I seriously have a hard time believing only one camera has anything of interest. Thanks.. What I find sad is the majority of the "debunkers" are unaware/willfully ignorant of that nearly 4 year old piece of documentation.
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Marley	Jan 8 2009, 03:41 AM Post #21
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08	noeffects Jan 7 2009, 11:10 AM I seriously have a hard time believing only one camera has anything of interest. Me too. But that does not excuse those who claim there are +80 videos out there showing an impact of the Pentagon. Does accuracy matter so little here?
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08


JFK	Jan 8 2009, 09:41 AM Post #22
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Marley Jan 8 2009, 03:41 AM noeffects Jan 7 2009, 11:10 AM I seriously have a hard time believing only one camera has anything of interest. Me too. But that does not excuse those who claim there are +80 videos out there showing an impact of the Pentagon. Does accuracy matter so little here? Prove that they don't. Oh wait, you can't. So why are these videos not released if they supposedly show nothing of interest ? What is it that the Government is hiding ( this time ) ?
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Marley	Jan 10 2009, 02:52 AM Post #23
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08	They lie so much it is hard to keep track. But until you have hard evidence of lying, it is best to try and find out instead of speculating.
Posts: 92 Group: BANNED! Member #946 Joined: 11/19/08


Miragememories	Jan 10 2009, 09:05 AM Post #24
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	I think the main point about the 80+ cameras number is not so much the accuracy of that figure, but it's magnitude. There were a heckuva lot of cameras! The fact remains, there were very many cameras which should have provided valuable evidence of what actually did or did not occur at the Pentagon on 9/11. It is statistically improbable to the extreme, that NOT ONE of these cameras was able to provide a single recognizable aircraft image to support the Official Story. If an American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon on 9/11, then they have visual proof and I'm sure they would be more than happy to share it publicly. MM
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


albion	Jan 10 2009, 01:10 PM Post #25
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	noeffects Jan 6 2009, 12:47 PM Dear Albion, Do you think the parking lot video recorded a plane hitting the pentegon on 9/12/2001 ?. Or do you think it is faked ?. Sincerely, noeffects Everyone knows that the video was taken on 9/11 and no one can really discern a 757 in the video. The point of course is that no one needs any video, including that one, to know AA77 hit the Pentagon. Truthers, of course, need to deny there is any evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon so they can avoid having to deal with all of that evidence. That is why CIT would never deal with ANY evidence whatsoever. Edited by albion, Jan 10 2009, 01:11 PM.
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2