Kathleen Collins

Film of Missile Going into Pentagon

86 posts in this topic

Looks fake to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pretty crude fake the "missile" doesn't even start from the edge of the screen and it hits the wrong face of the Pentagon. The river and lake-like body of water in the background are due east of the building, so it is the south side while the western one was struck on 9/11, this is why the image is reversed.

Also note that there were no witness accounts of a helicopter flying anywhere in the vicinity at the time. This also destroys the truther argument that aircraft flying near the Pentagon would be shot down.

Odd also that if it were real that it would take 10 years to surface. Where did it supposedly come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if any of you have seen this. It looks real to me. Someone had this film for so long.

Here is the site. Scroll down.

post-5645-009411800 1303515366_thumb.gif

Kathy C

http://www.beyondpol....php?f=11&t=272

For some reason the film is flipped horizontally, making it appear that the "missile" hits the WRONG side of the Pentagon.

Flipping the image shows the correct orientation, striking just to the right of the heliport. I am attempting to attach,

but am likely still blocked from posting images.

Jack

Oooooops, the image posted!

post-667-058786700 1303623376_thumb.jpg

Edited by Jack White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if any of you have seen this. It looks real to me. Someone had this film for so long.

Here is the site. Scroll down.

post-5645-009411800 1303515366_thumb.gif

Kathy C

http://www.beyondpol....php?f=11&t=272

For some reason the film is flipped horizontally, making it appear that the "missile" hits the WRONG side of the Pentagon.

Flipping the image shows the correct orientation, striking just to the right of the heliport. I am attempting to attach,

but am likely still blocked from posting images.

Jack

Oooooops, the image posted!

You're right Jack the flipping of the orientation did confuse me but we are still left with the facts that:

- the "missile" doesn't start at the edge of the frame

- there are no reports of a helicopter in the area at the time

- there is no explanation as to the provenance of the clip let alone why it took 9 years to turn up.

- the clip is very low resolution and could easily have been faked with any number of programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if any of you have seen this. It looks real to me. Someone had this film for so long.

Here is the site. Scroll down.

post-5645-009411800 1303515366_thumb.gif

Kathy C

http://www.beyondpol....php?f=11&t=272

For some reason the film is flipped horizontally, making it appear that the "missile" hits the WRONG side of the Pentagon.

Flipping the image shows the correct orientation, striking just to the right of the heliport. I am attempting to attach,

but am likely still blocked from posting images.

Jack

Oooooops, the image posted!

You're right Jack the flipping of the orientation did confuse me but we are still left with the facts that:

- the "missile" doesn't start at the edge of the frame

- there are no reports of a helicopter in the area at the time

- there is no explanation as to the provenance of the clip let alone why it took 9 years to turn up.

- the clip is very low resolution and could easily have been faked with any number of programs.

The clip IS very suspicious for various reasons. However, that alone does does not make it fake.

It just makes it suspicious.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL if the video was identical but showed an AA jetliner instead you'd declare it an obvious fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a fake. There are just so many things wrong:

1. As has been pointed out, if this film were genuine, wouldn't it disprove the truther claim that anything in the airspace would be shot down?

2. The size of the object does not match that of a cruise missile.

3. How did the missile knock and buckle the lamp posts?

4. How do you account for the over 100 witnesses who saw an airliner strike the Pentagon? And please, don't give me that also faked image of a missile painted in AA markings.

5. How do you account for the 757 aircraft debris seen on the crash site? (http://www.911myths....7_wreckage.html)

6. How do you account for the human remains from the passengers in the aircraft, found on the crash site by first responders? Some of these first responders testify that they walked among burnt bodies still strapped into their seats and carried with their own hands the body parts of the passengers. ("When [Army Staff Sgt. Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him." http://www.usatoday....ntagon-usat.htm)

It's another truther inconsistancie how they ascribe the government powers of great planning, organisation and the ability to conduct a massive cover-up.... and yet unable to see major flaws?

Government: "Let's hijack a commercial plane and crash it into the Pentagon."

Other Government people: "No, no. That wouldn't make sense. How about, we hijack a commercial airliner, land it secretly on a secret base, THEN fire a cruise missile at the Pentagon, THEN after that we crash an A-3 Skywarrior into the building!"

Government: "Great idea! But we'll need to plant bodies and DNA of the passengers and hijackers, personal effects, light poles, eyewitnesses who say they saw a large American Airlines airliner, airliner debris matching AA, landing gear, engine debris, etc..."

Other Government People: "That shouldn't be too hard."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a fake. There are just so many things wrong:

1. As has been pointed out, if this film were genuine, wouldn't it disprove the truther claim that anything in the airspace would be shot down?

2. The size of the object does not match that of a cruise missile.

3. How did the missile knock and buckle the lamp posts?

4. How do you account for the over 100 witnesses who saw an airliner strike the Pentagon? And please, don't give me that also faked image of a missile painted in AA markings.

5. How do you account for the 757 aircraft debris seen on the crash site? (http://www.911myths....7_wreckage.html)

6. How do you account for the human remains from the passengers in the aircraft, found on the crash site by first responders? Some of these first responders testify that they walked among burnt bodies still strapped into their seats and carried with their own hands the body parts of the passengers. ("When [Army Staff Sgt. Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him." http://www.usatoday....ntagon-usat.htm)

It's another truther inconsistancie how they ascribe the government powers of great planning, organisation and the ability to conduct a massive cover-up.... and yet unable to see major flaws?

Government: "Let's hijack a commercial plane and crash it into the Pentagon."

Other Government people: "No, no. That wouldn't make sense. How about, we hijack a commercial airliner, land it secretly on a secret base, THEN fire a cruise missile at the Pentagon, THEN after that we crash an A-3 Skywarrior into the building!"

Government: "Great idea! But we'll need to plant bodies and DNA of the passengers and hijackers, personal effects, light poles, eyewitnesses who say they saw a large American Airlines airliner, airliner debris matching AA, landing gear, engine debris, etc..."

Other Government People: "That shouldn't be too hard."

How do you account for all of the things on your list? .. Try disinformation.

I watched a documentary once where a few of the survivors of the Pentagon attack were interviewed .. None of them ever saw any evidence of any jet having hit the building anywhere, while they were crawling out of the wreckage.. Instead, they all described several loud explosions going off that sounded more like bombs.

Even the first news reporters on the scene admitted that there was no sign of any huge passenger jet ever hitting the Pentagon.

But then they were all there and you weren't, so I guess you must know better that they do.. :lol:

btw, your ridicule of the "truthers" was amusing, though a tad distorted .. I'm just wondering if that tactic still fools thinking people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again Duane, for your edification: over 100 witnesses who SAW an airliner fly at the Pentagon, a majority of them actually seeing it HIT the Pentagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you account for all of the things on your list? .. Try disinformation.

I watched a documentary once where a few of the survivors of the Pentagon attack were interviewed .. None of them ever saw any evidence of any jet having hit the building anywhere, while they were crawling out of the wreckage.. Instead, they all described several loud explosions going off that sounded more like bombs.

So all we have is your supposed recollection of an unnamed documentary. Is your memory accurate? Were the witnesses or their statements cherry-picked? And as Evan pointed out numerous witnesses outside the building saw a plane, “But then they were all there and you weren't, so I guess you must know better that they do” and whose judgment should we put more faith in those who actually saw the crash or those who showed up shortly afterwards?

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html

Even the first news reporters on the scene admitted that there was no sign of any huge passenger jet ever hitting the Pentagon.

Another examples of truthers cherry picking. BEFORE he said:

From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon

Jamie Mcintryre had said:

I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane

http://www.911myths.com/html/jamie_mcintyre_and_the_pentago.html

‘But then he was there and you weren't, so I guess you must know better that he does’..

To make matters worse McIntyre's was taken out of context:

WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in…

[ibid]

In other words he was saying “there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere NEAR the Pentagon” i.e. “short of” the building; rather he thought, correctly, that in crash into it.

btw, your ridicule of the "truthers" was amusing, though a tad distorted .. I'm just wondering if that tactic still fools thinking people

No it was quite accurate. Note how they selectively edited what McIntyre said and ignored the numerous witnesses who saw the crash. Not surprisingly a new study shows that truthers and moon hoax proponents “have more lax personal morality may endorse conspiracy theories to a greater extent because they are, on average, more willing to participate in the conspiracies themselves.”

[see new thread]

PS - The film is a crude fake, I found a version that had not been flipped around and it shows the 'missile' hitting to the north of the helipad and as jack can tell you the impact site was to the south of it. Case Closed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkkHrtwDRKc

EDIT - Added PS

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colby is wrong as usual.

Here is the "video missile" path compared to the "AA77 official" path.

Numerous witnesses described the "plane" coming over Arlington National Cemetery

instead of over the Naval Annex. Pilots for truth did a video showing it coming north

of the Citgo station, not the official south.

Jack

post-667-000607900 1303914856_thumb.jpg

Edited by Jack White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And these are the same people who accepted only witness statements that agreed with their theory, disregarded all the other witness statements that disagreed with their theory (which were the majority), and of the witness statements they accepted ignored the later part of the same witnesses who SAW the airliner hit the Pentagon.

epic-fail1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colby is wrong as usual.

Here is the "video missile" path compared to the "AA77 official" path.

Numerous witnesses described the "plane" coming over Arlington National Cemetery

instead of over the Naval Annex. Pilots for truth did a video showing it coming north

of the Citgo station, not the official south.

Jack

No Jack YOU once again are wrong the CIT heads' claims are so ludicrous that even within the truth moment they are considered crackpots (if not poison pill disinfo). They claim that the flight path was north of the “official” one that even most CT's accept. What neither they nor anyone else disputes is the impact point, which was south of the helipad, unlike the one in the forged video.

pentagon-2000ft.jpg

pentagonimpactvideo.jpg

And speaking of being “wrong as usual”, some of your recent foibles include

- Calling the the WFC Winter Garden a toppled over building

- Saying an engine part obviously in front of a garbage can was an entire engine IN the can.

- IDing a Calder sculpture in front of 7 WTC as flames in the building

- Mis-IDing the Pentagon crash site by about 500 feet (150 meters)

claiming that a photo in which the shadows are pointing east was taken at least 2 ½ hours BEFORE solar noon

claiming that WTC 6 was gray

claiming to have seen every (or virtually every) 9/11 and aftermath photo of ground zero

IDing a store awning as construction scaffolding.

Confusing the south and north sides of an intersection and implying similar looking buildings were constructed just to confuse you.

- Saying that photos from different Apollo missions were taken from the same location

- Croping the flames out of a Pentagon photo and saying it was taken AFTER the fire was extinguished

calling reflections of WFC 3 in the windows of WTC 6 flames

confusing biogenisis with evolution

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a jumbo passenger jet really hit the Pentagon, the survivors inside the building would have seen it coming in, instead of describing bombs going off in various places inside the Pentagon.. The light weight aluminum wings of the jet would have also been sheared off during impact with the building.. Yet there was no evidence anywhere of any wings laying outside the building.. Nor was there any evidence of any plane wreckage being removed from the building.. No seats, bodies, etc.. The story of the plane being "vaporized" is even sillier that the story of the ground swallowing up an entire plane (never to be recovered) at the Shanksville Pa. site.

Anyone who believes the official version of the 911 attacks are complete fools.

Edited by Duane Daman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now