Missile Heading Towards Pentagon "real Or Fake", Pentagon Missile Options

[Paul]

I have found this video on you tube which i have never seen before,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhkQDXlSdMY titled Pentagon, 2nd video,
now the piece of footage which caught my attention starts at 3:13 its seem to me to be some kind of a military missile camera, showing a missile being flown towards the pentagon and its cuts out about 2 seconds before impacting the pentagon, switching over to footage of whats supposed to be the impact fireball from the supposed flight 77 which allegedly hit the Pentagon. Now what I am wondering is if this video is a fake or is it a genuine video showing a missile hitting the pentagon, i want to hear especially what you TV media fakery folk, or anyone with video editing experience think, or from anyone on this forum.

I also find this video very revealing of the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX01twhfUK4

Woops he said pentagon pried open by missile should have just said plane.

There are two points i think adds to this videos validity as not being a fake, and one against it.

1:)for: Notice in the top right hand corner of the video it is correctly dated as 2001-9-11.

2:)for: Notice in the bottom right hand corner there is a timer counting, the time until the missile impacts the pentagon.

3:) Against: The buildings and the tree's seem kind of computer generated video editing fakery.

I have no idea what the little square box on the top left hand side of the video is for, and also have no idea what the writing on bottom left hand corner says maybe you know? So whats the verdict genuine video of missile hitting the pentagon or fake.

Cheers 9/11_Justice_Now

This post has been edited by Paul: Nov 8 2008, 10:49 AM

[Paul]

[Moved by d from South Tower thread- it is a Pentagon video linked below]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oVH5jm06pJY

Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press, witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:

"That was no American Airlines jet"

"It was a military plane"

"It was definitely no airliner"

"It didn't have any windows on the side"

"It was a big, grey plane"

"It was a missile"

Should have added that one to the list (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/varoom.gif)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX01twhfUK4

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 9 2008, 12:33 AM

[Paul]

Just found this article very interesting.

http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm

9/11 = No Planes, at all.

[p.w.rapp]

I have found this video on you tube which i have never seen before,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhkQDXlSdMY titled Pentagon, 2nd video,
now the piece of footage which caught my attention starts at 3:13 its seem to me to be some kind of a military missile camera, showing a missile being flown towards the pentagon and its cuts out about 2 seconds before impacting the pentagon, switching over to footage of whats supposed to be the impact fireball from the supposed flight 77 which allegedly hit the Pentagon. Now what I am wondering is if this video is a fake or is it a genuine video showing a missile hitting the pentagon, i want to hear especially what you TV media fakery folk, or anyone with video editing experience think, or from anyone on this forum.

<s>

There are two points i think adds to this videos validity as not being a fake, and one against it.

1:)for: Notice in the top right hand corner of the video it is correctly dated as 2001-9-11.

2:)for: Notice in the bottom right hand corner there is a timer counting, the time until the missile impacts the pentagon.

3:) Against: The buildings and the tree's seem kind of computer generated video editing fakery.

I have no idea what the little square box on the top left hand side of the video is for, and also have no idea what the writing on bottom left hand corner says maybe you know? So whats the verdict genuine video of missile hitting the pentagon or fake.

Cheers 9/11_Justice_Now

Paul,
welcome to P4T Forum.

I'm pretty sure Acoiris.tv didn't use anything 'real' for the missile footage at 3:13
Seems to be a 'home-made' animation.

Here's a translation of the Italian narrative:
"...the confirmation of the absolute impossibility that the real aircraft was a Boeing 757. In fact this type of aircraft, weighing more than 300 tons, has neither the manoevrability nor the reduced dimensions to accomplish a manoevre of this kind."
#

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Paul,

Welcome to the forum but I'm going to have to respectfully request that you go through all of the information in this forum and understand that missile conspiracy theories have been
thoroughly debunked.

We have proof there was a plane and we have proof where it flew. It could not have hit the building.

But there is zero independent verifiable evidence for a missile of any sort and these theories have really set us back as far as progress goes.

We simply don't have time for theories any longer and we must focus only on independent verifiable evidence.

I hope you understand.

Craig

[tit2]

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/slide2.jpg

The hypothesis of Missile is based in particular on the image above which shows a white smoke vapour trail behind the explosion at pentagon. If no flying vehicle had hit the pentagon and if there had been only explosives that had been detonated, this white smoke vapour trail should not be visible.

[dMz]

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/slide2.jpg
(IMG:http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/slide2.jpg)
The hypothesis of Missile is based in particular on the image above which shows a white smoke vapour trail behind the explosion at pentagon. If no flying vehicle had hit the pentagon and if there had been only explosives that had been detonated, this white smoke vapour trail should not be visible.

Hi tit2,

While I thought the same thing for several years, my 2 questions there now- How do we know the DoD "security camera" photo(s) haven't been manipulated to add "white smoke vapor"?
2. If authentic, how do we know the "white smoke" was something inbound rather than outbound, relative to the West Pentagon wall?

[dMz]

Actually answering my own first question and looking at the "one of five" info embedded in that photo,

(IMG:http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/3348/pentseccamunclasssw5.th.jpg) (IMG:http://img291.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif)

(IMG:http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5344/pentsecphoto4sj7.th.jpg) (IMG:http://img88.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif)

Be sure to notice that "Photoshop 4.0" part above. That caption data says:
"ONE OF FIVE PHOTO SEQUENCE--This photo from a Pentagon surveillance camera obtained on Thursday, March 7, 2002, shows the fireball that resulted when the hijacked American Airlines plane slammed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11. The image had been made available to law enforcement to aid in the investigation. Officials could not immediately explain why the date typed near the bottom of each photograph is Sept. 12 and the time is written as 5:37 p.m. The attack happened at about 9:37 a.m. on Sept. 11. Officials said it was possible that the date and time were added the day after the attack when they may have been catalogued for investigative purposes. (AP Photo)" -- SH

Object Name: ATTACKS PENTAGON PHOTOS
Original Transmission Reference: NY132
WASHINGTON, DC, USA

Date created: 20020307
Time created: 000000+0500
Edit status: UNCLASSIFIED

Hmmm...

[tit2]

Hi tit2,

While I thought the same thing for several years, my 2 questions there now- How do we know the DoD "security camera" photo(s) haven't been manipulated to add "white smoke vapor"?
2. If authentic, how do we know the "white smoke" was something inbound rather than outbound, relative to the West Pentagon wall?

Hi dMole,

Concerning your first question,To my knowledge, the Boeing 757, unlike the Cruise Missiles, does not produce a trail of white smoke. So why authorities US would have manipulated the DoD "security camera" photo(s) to add this "white smoke vapor" ?

Another explanation for the "white smoke vapour trail" could be that an engine of the Boeing 757 was damaged when it hit a light pole. So, If no aerial vehicle had hit the Pentagon, the U.S. authorities could have added this "white smoke vapor" to convince people that a Boeing 757 had hit the light poles ?

[SPreston]

Hi dMole,

Concerning your first question,To my knowledge, the Boeing 757, unlike the Cruise Missiles, does not produce a trail of white smoke. So why authorities US would have manipulated the DoD "security camera" photo(s) to add this "white smoke vapor" ?

Another explanation for the "white smoke vapour trail" could be that an engine of the Boeing 757 was damaged when it hit a light pole. So, If no aerial vehicle had hit the Pentagon, the U.S. authorities could have added this "white smoke vapor" to convince people that a Boeing 757 had hit the light poles ?

There was no white smoke trail. A white smoke trail would have lingered a few minutes as it dissipated from the air. The white smoke trail should have lingered a long time in both videos. Smoke would not be traveling across the lawn at the speed of the aircraft and disappearing into the fireball, but would be left behind. There was not one eyewitness reporting the trail of white smoke lingering above the lawn. The videos are faked.

This post has been edited by SPreston: Nov 11 2008, 02:04 PM

[dMz]

Concerning your first question,To my knowledge, the Boeing 757, unlike the Cruise Missiles, does not produce a trail of white smoke. So why authorities US would have manipulated the DoD "security camera" photo(s) to add this "white smoke vapor" ?

One thing tit2,

US Air-launched (ALCM) cruise missiles shouldn't leave a white trail either, having "ONE F-107-WR-100 WILLIAMS TURBOFAN 600 LBS. THRUST
" jet engine. US Navy BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles use the same. Solid propellant rocket motors would be the likely candidates to leave a white trail, but I still think it's a red herring.

http://www.softwar.net/agm86.html

EDIT: I see about 5 months after-the-fact, if we can trust the date and "00:00 + 5 hours" timestamp (and wouldn't EST be -5 hours relative to London?).

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=263

[rob balsamo]

and "00:00 + 5 hours" timestamp (and wouldn't EST be -5 hours relative to London?).

September is still EDT. EDT+4 = GMT

[dMz]

March 7, 2002

Date created: 20020307
Time created: 000000+0500
Edit status: UNCLASSIFIED

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[SPreston]

There was no white smoke trail on the lawn as shown in the faked videos. A white smoke trail would have lingered a few minutes as it dissipated from the air. The white smoke trail should have lingered a long time in both videos. Smoke would not be traveling across the lawn at the speed of the aircraft and disappearing into the fireball, but would be left behind. There was not one eyewitness reporting the trail of white smoke lingering above the lawn. The videos are faked.

Does anybody see a trail of white smoke lingering in this faked parking lot video which the FBI released via FOIA lawsuit from its storeroom of 85+ confiscated 9-11 Pentagon area videos? Don't be shy 9-11 OCT supporters; speak up if you see the white smoke trail slowly dissipating into the air over several moments time. No?

Pentagon Parking Lot Security Camera Two



Here is how this shill for the 9-11 perpetrators presented to us in their ridiculous animation how the white trail of smoke should look. Can any of you fanatical defenders of the Official Flight 77 South Flight Path explain why there were no eyewitnesses to this fanciful white smoke trail? Anybody want to step up to the plate?

(IMG:http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x180/T-Guide/ICA-6.jpg)

(IMG:http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x180/T-Guide/ICA-8.jpg)



At least Integrated Consultants told the truth when they informed us in their hocus pocus animation that they were continuing the 9-11 psyops mission against the American public.

(IMG:http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/Integrated_Cons_3.jpg)

[dMz]

The earlier "missile" discussion was at:

What Actually Hit The Pentagon!, Hunting the Snark.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10422

[SPreston]

Look at the right side of each frame.

(IMG:http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/frames/boston.com/pentagon1_big.jpg)

(IMG:http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/pentagon_still_impact.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/frames/boston.com/pentagon3_big.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/frames/boston.com/pentagon4_big.jpg)

(IMG:http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/pentagon_still_4impact.jpg)

The alleged heavy smoke trail which should have lingered is completely gone in 2-3 seconds.

The video is faked.

[tit2]

Examples of "missile smoke trail":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1eEHAs284Q

CRUISE MISSILE (ONBOARD CAMERA)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf8kFyXFvoE

missile tank


For the pentagon, I suppose that the official explanation of "missile smoke trail" is given by this video "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77" which indicates:

"Lamp pole 3 is struck, causing luminary to enter starboard engine intake

lamp pole 4 is struck, smoke begins to billow from damaged engine."

Now a damaged engine of a commercial aircraft does not produce inevitably a white smoke. In the case signalled by the following video, apparently the smoke is black.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lpOXYdL9tE

plane engine catches fire in mid air


So for the pentagon, does it exist an official explanation specifying why the smoke is white?

This post has been edited by dMole: Dec 23 2008, 08:50 AM

Reason for edit: Embedded video, added titles for reference

[SPreston]

Examples of "missile smoke trail":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1eEHAs284Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf8kFyXFvoE

For the pentagon, I suppose that the official explanation of "missile smoke trail" is given by this video "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77" which indicates:

"Lamp pole 3 is struck, causing luminary to enter starboard engine intake

lamp pole 4 is struck, smoke begins to billow from damaged engine."

Now a damaged engine of a commercial aircraft does not produce inevitably a white smoke. In the case signalled by the following video, apparently the smoke is black.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lpOXYdL9tE

So for the pentagon, does it exist an official explanation specifying why the smoke is white?

It appears that the Pentagon parking lot videos were produced/edited with the smoke trail so that Integrated Consultants could run with its animation "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77" showing the right engine damaged and emitting white smoke, which would supposedly make an aircraft impact with the Pentagon somehow more convincing. For some reason there were no eyewitnesses to the white smoke trail; which logically should have hung over the lawn for a short length of time, and should have been easily visible from a long distance away.

No. Damaged turbofan engines do not emit white smoke. The official Pentagon Building Performance Report makes no mention of the white smoke trail, even though they show frames of the parking lot security videos with the white smoke in them. Alleged eyewitnesses appear to be in the proper position to easily view a white smoke trail; but they do not mention it.

Quite obviously there was no white smoke trail and the videos were faked/altered.

1.4 THE CRASH
At 9:38 a.m. on September 11 an airliner was flown into the first story of the Pentagon.The impact occurred in the renovated portion of the building approximately 140 ft to the south of the boundary between the renovated section and the next section scheduled to be renovated. (Figure 1.2, a photograph taken by a security camera, shows the plane impacting the building at ground level.) The aircraft sliced through the building into the section not yet renovated. The impact and the fire initiated by the fuel in the airplane that immediately spread widely in the structure took the lives of all 64 people aboard the aircraft and 125 occupants of the Pentagon.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

Frank Probst
As he approached the heliport (figure 3.2) he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him. According to the Arlington County after-action report (Arlington County, 2002), this occurred at 9:38 a.m. The aircraft pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building, and leveled off. Probst hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator that provides backup power to Wedge 1.The right engine took out the chainlink fence and posts surrounding the generator. The left engine struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building. As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down twice. Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him.The diesel fuel for the portable generator ignited while he was running. He noted only fire and smoke within the building at the point of impact. Security personnel herded him and others to the south, and he did not witness the subsequent partial collapse of the building.

Don Mason
The plane approached low, flying directly over him and possibly clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him, and struck three light poles between him and the building. He saw his colleague Frank Probst directly in the plane’s path, and he witnessed a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by the right wing.The aircraft struck the building between the heliport fire station and the generator, its left wing slightly lower than its right wing. As the plane entered the building, he recalled seeing the tail of the plane. The fireball that erupted upon the plane’s impact rose above the structure. Mason then noticed flames coming from the windows to the left of the point of impact and observed small pieces of the facade falling to the ground. Law enforcement personnel moved Mason’s vehicle and other traffic on, and he did not witness the subsequent partial collapse of the building.

Rich Fitzharris
He was in the Modular Office Compound at the time of the crash and rushed to the site on foot, arriving before the partial collapse. He recalls that the building—near the area of impact—was in flames, and he remembers seeing small pieces of debris, the largest of which might have been part of an engine shroud. He was at the heliport when a portion of the structure collapsed. The collapse initiated at the fifth floor along the building expansion joint, proceeded continuously and was completed within a few seconds. According to the Arlington County after-action report, this occurred at 9:57 a.m., or 19 minutes after impact.

3.3 SECURITY CAMERA PHOTOGRAPHS
A Pentagon security camera located near the northwest corner of the building recorded the aircraft as it approached the building. Five photographs (figures 3.3 through 3.7), taken approximately one second apart, show the approaching aircraft and the ensuing fireball associated with the initial impact.The first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image of the aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon.Two photographs (figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken.

6.1 IMPACT DAMAGE
The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building, at or slightly below the second-story slab. Eyewitness accounts and photographs taken by a security camera suggest that the aircraft was flying on nearly a level path essentially at grade level for several hundred feet immediately prior to impact. Gashes in the facade above the second-floor slab between column lines 18 and 20 to the south of the collapse area suggest that the aircraft had rolled slightly to the left as it entered the building.

[Paul]

I have a question when did the missile hit the pentagon theory first appear? Did the missile hit the pentagon
theory first appear when the security camera footage was released showing what is supposed to be flight 77 hitting the pentagon video, as talked about in the posts?

[dMz]

Although I usually assign "Snopes" a bit less credibility than the (self-surveyed) International M$M Paul, here's what my quick search found:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

EDIT: Related thread at:

Snopes.com, 9/11, The Pentagon,, and cherrypicking the issues
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=3680

where Sanders links to:

http://911review.org/Wiki/snopespentagonrumor.html