I've issued a challenge to the Citizen's Invetigation-ish thing. Anyone else feel free to offer assistance.
The Post
Note how the deflgration seems to have moved into the building and against it, indicating momentum and a certain angle. A 150-foot high rolling fireball that moved against the Pentagon at about the deflection angle expected on the official heading, injecting fire into the upper floors far to the north of impact. This was not caused by eplosives-laden bricks inside the spooky renovated area.

Craig responded "tap tap, t-tapitty tap" No need to speculate on how it happened, it's been proven it was faked.

It had to happen somehow, folks.

"But I do know that the suspect in question has access to the most advanced weaponry in the world including unknown technology."

Is that a Ranke quote?

Oh my.

It just goes to show you. They simply ignore all of the evidence and witnesses that don't support their imagined version of events. When they find a couple of people who make ANY kind of statement supporting their North Side Story they immediately conclude they have PROVEN the official version as false.

Very strange.

Yes that's Craig with the exotic weaponry. He won't mention space lasers or anyting, because we know where that gets you. So who knows.

To believe CIT, the perps just really really wanted us to think a plane hit the building, so they laid out all these deceptions. But forgot to damage the foundation, laid the light poles the wrong way, forgot to make the plane debris inside charred, didn't leave enough or big enough pieces, forgot to make the right wing damage continuous, and then proved uable to stop a substantial trickle of north path witnesses that unravel the whole thing once CIT gets their hands on the testimony. They can't control everything.

But they did the fireball right anyway. And who knows how?

Seriously, anyone?

Well since you seem to be able to prove it was caused by a 757 please do so with all the supporting evidence.

Please also include the source of the above images, the chain of custody of the video, and explain away the date/time anomaly on the original ones 'leaked' to the media.

BTW, your image is hilarious. The explosion that you believe was caused by a 757 blew out after it exploded inside the building. Looking at your research it almost appears your claim is the plane exploded on the way to the Pentagon and the explosion follows that momentum.

Is this "exotic weaponry" claim you are trying to attach to CIT your way of getting even for the 'debate'? :lol:

Perhaps you should call Craig & Aldo and discuss this new theory of yours. Please be sure to record and share it with us. I would love to hear that. :D

Mmmm - I'll pass on that challenge. I'm into this one right now. So whaddya got here?

That's hilarious. I'd think the evidence of forward movement would necesitate it coming at the building from outside. So if this was engineered from inside, that's a new wrinkle. It would have to crurve out to the left and back into the upper windows a couple hundred feet down the wall. That's some unique properties.

Maybe just a giant flamethrower cannon set to 'pulse,' passing through a turbine thing that ascelerates and shapes it, along with a packet of appropriate-looking plane debris to scatter naturally off the facade to the lawn. If you guys could just make this seem feasable enough, you could kill two fakery birds with one stone.

It's entirely possible. Fraction of a second. Would not have time to change course or anything, but it may've been less than intact as it hit.

Yeah, I tried to get or stay even in the debate but Craig is so tenacious.

Actually it's their theory, so I'd love to hear it explained too, which is why I offered the challenge they ain't touching yet.
Goot a debate w/Aldo poss. coming up. I'll sure mention it.
I'd debate you too, Dom, if you like.

Oh I will take this challenge:

Easy. Defense Department video editing directive 313-6, section 8:
"When altering video evidence to mislead the public, as will likely become necessary on occasion, always be sure to add a time stamp for the time the alteration was done. To include the actual time of the event you are trying to fake would be dishonest." :lol:

Seriously, I'm not sure - either the camera's clock and calendar were off or it was catalogged and stamped the next day. That might seem late but remember there were other pressing issues at the time.

It is absolutely not possible for the plane to explode pre-impact on the way towards the Pentagon creating the directional blast you claim is evident in the frame you posted (which 5 frames clearly debunks).

So if someone goes to the security at the Pentagon and says I need video 81 from 1/13/2007 from 5:00-7:00PM the footage isn't marked or is marked incorrectly or when security pulls that footage they put the current date & time on it?

I'm actually kind of disappointed that Craig & Aldo give you the time of day to be honest. You invent totally implausible conspiracy theories to protect an already unbelievable conspiracy theory. Planes apparently spontaneously combusting prior to impact on 9/11 and all your other nonsense. It's junk. It's not even as mildly entertaining as mach12 missiles shock wave knocking over light poles and a flyover and a later impact which hurt firefighters who responded to the missile attack. All witnessed by a cab driver who is already telling an impossible story. At least that is entertaining to read in a sick sort of way. You need to do better than spontaneously combusting planes. As for debating you, I wouldn't give you the time of day from what I have seen so far.

Terrorcell doesnt understand that, he never has...

He even thinks the plane would have been over or near the road long enough to blow cars away just like what happens when you place said cars right behind a plane thats sitting on a runway at full chat....

For him thats just more evidence of a flyover.

So, the perps thought of a convincing fireball, made sure the debris would follow an approppriate deflection angle when they pressed the button, kept that in mind when they chose which lightpoles to fake, and finally they flew north of the citgo travelling over the Pentagon at a near perpendicular angle that makes a mockery of all the work (fake damage from exotic weaponry) on the ground.

Thats CIT in a nutshell for ya...

RedDawn nailed it..
Every farfetched details can be use to 'prove' the flyover, but it sure as hell doesnt work the other way around..

Doesn't look far to the north of impact to me. The footage is fake, anyway. The explosion brightens everything in view, including the shadows, but, doesn't create any shadows of its own.





http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=16433

Can you draw the shadow where you would expect it?

You can see the edge of the protective lens in this shot but not in the first one you posted, what happened with that?

The pictures weren't cut the same way after they were copied and pasted to Microsoft Paint. Or whatever they used.

So I talked to Craig.

Adam here is clearly twisting his statements to make it look like he said it was made with exotic weaponry. ATS - You can see that for yourself here.

CIT has not made any claim that any type of exotic weaponry was used in any attack on 9/11. This is clearly an attempt to discredit the work being brought forward not that CIT is unfamiliar with these types of tactics.

At the above link Craig clearly states and I quote: (please don't report me for this enigma)

And I completely agree with that statement. There are all kinds of possibilities though to what is going on here. There may have been incendiaries on the roof for example.

The fireball went upwards more than anything else as expected. The fireball in the doctored video was likely enhanced anyway. It's certainly not valid evidence worth postulating weaponry over.

And the fact that a real fireball existed does NOT support the notion that this video is valid, untouched evidence. I would like to know the original source, the reason for the incorrect timestamps, and the chain of custody.

Blahbitty blahbitty blah...

The footage was altered. The footage was faked. The witnesses that don't support my theory are lying and/or plants. The DNA evidence is planted. Etc, etc, etc...

ANYTHING that destroys your fantasy you simply dismiss.

Dom, you and Avenger and the CIT crew are simply either in major denial or in need of meds.

My sig of Avenger is a perfect example of the mentality in place with you guys.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes: You're just mad cause you can never come up with a good counter-argument.

Love to go for the insults. Never worked for you before and it won't work now.

I can back up what I say. The explosion brightens the screen, but casts no shadow. The footage is fake.

Red Dawn, much like RacerX, you excel at contributing nothing to this thread.

Adam came in and intentionally spread 'exotic weaponry' disinfo about CIT in an attempt to discredit the team and it's work. It has been proven that he is the one engaging in questionable actions with an obvious agenda.

I expect this thread will draw unwarranted attacks which always fail to address the initial topic at hand. Distract, damage, and destroy. The objectives of good disinformation. And of course the usual list of suspects are all in attendance. Although I am still awaiting the arrival of one more. :rolleyes:

Terrorcell:

Craig also called me with the same concern. He never said exotic weaponry of course. That was my flourish. Is it inaccurate?

Depends on what you mean by exotic. It can't be identified yet, but is surely at the hands of the high-tech perps. It wouldn't really have to be very exotic, however, just unusual. Some kind of super-flamethrower plus debris catapult is most likely. Not too high tech. There are issues about where it would have to be placed, at what angle, and where it could be hidden so no one would see it. Not having mapped it all out yet, I can't say how plausible it all is. If we find the scene set-up isn't right for your standard flame cannon/debris catapult set-up, we might have to consider something more truly exotic.

So just to clarify, talk of 'exotic weaponry' was me making fun of Craig, not his admission.

I don't apologize for saying it, just for any misunderstanding as to what they were actually saying, which is that the Pentagon was burned by a giant fireball engineered against its facade by an unknown means as part of the fakery program.

That's it for tonight and until Saturday night. Happy Thanksgiving all.

Are you out of your mind?? A debris catapult? Explosives will "catapult" debris just fine.

Making fun or just lying?

Just lying.

Some more good shots of the fire damage

How about you get back on topic, huh? You would just love to start a lot of infighting.

Yeah, the fireball should've exploded outward through the impact hole first, then the fireball should've risen upwards a few seconds later, like at the World Trade Center.



Note the falling debris at the bottom of that fireball. That tells you that shot was not taken immediately after impact. The fireball is just beginning to rise after the outward explosion.

Wasn't my intent, but I think you have a point. I retract my comment and apologize. Civility even in the face of hostility, distortions, and disruption is the right way to do things in my opinion.

Of course, I do not retract my praise for LCFC, which is a solid and praiseworthy effort. Great Job!

As for getting back to the subject at hand....

Is it not correct that the fire damage aligns with an expected south of CITGO gas station impact approach?

There is some interesting damage on the roof, and side of the Pentagon.

The fire pattern is actually square and looks man-made to me. There was a thread made about it here.

But, like I was saying, the fireball in the surveillance video seems to be in too much of a hurry to go upward instead of outward. It should have taken a few seconds to go upward. And it should have gone upward slowly. At least that's how it happened at the towers.

You see, that's where you and your ilk go wrong.

"It should have taken a few seconds to go upwards..."

"It should have gone upward slowly..."

You and all of us are laymen.

Do you possess some kind of credentials other than internet viewing that enables you to give a professional opinion on what it "should have done?"


Of course not. That's an argument from incredulity. Also know as an argument from personal ignorance.

"The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Isn't that what happened at the World Trade Center? Why should the fireball at the Pentagon behave any differently?

Show me somebody with credentials with a professional opinion of what it should have done.

Its hard to make a direct comparison between the two events.

The WTC fireball (second impact) mostly came out of the building not from the impact hole but directly from its own 'punch out hole'... not sure I'm saying it correctly but I'm sure we all understand each others...

The Pentagon fireball was generated by a plane that was already in the process of being destroyed (multiple lightpoles hits, generator hit), the video we have really is just an inadequate bunch of stills, and the building is obviously different, and the plane was smaller and significantly lighter on fuel.

Theres likely more stuff that makes the comparison irrelevant but then again that shouldve been obvious before you mentionned it..

Same thing, man.

Each frame was supposed to be one second apart, which indicates that this fireball was in a pretty big hurry to get to the top of that roof. And the crazy thing is it doesn't just go upward, but, it also curls backwards onto the top of the roof.

How does less fuel cause the fireball to travel upward and backwards so fast?

And, again, why does this explosion not create a double shadow effect? It significantly brightens the whole area, including the area where it should have cast a shadow. It's as if the light from the explosion passes right through this object like it was a hologram. But, to the sunlight it's a solid object.

The videos are very poor fakes; the explosions on the videos are fakes; the lack of shadows from the fake explosions prove faked videos; the crash of a 757 Flight 77 was impossible as scripted and faked; the silly light pole through the windshield was faked; the mainstream media witnesses and USA Today reporters were faked witnesses and paid liars.
The real flight to set the faked scene North of the Citgo and subsequent flyover and exit to the west was real. Isn't this all obvious? :D

I can tell you that this is probably digital footage. If you invert the colors the discrepancy of the light from the explosion makes the light diffusion look airbrushed. There's also three black objects at the top of the fireball's projection. The fireball does indeed look like it wraps around the building.

The other anomaly is at the edge of the fireball on the right side. That side is another color under inverted colors than the entire fireball is itself. I'll look at some other fireball pictures from Hollywood explosions later and compare them. I won't post again here unless I find something out of the ordinary between this fireball, and the others. Feel free to investigate this on your own though instead of waiting around for what someone else may do.

The Faked and Fraudulent Pentagon Security Videos
What was the illustrator trying to draw here? A plane? A missile? Superman?

White super hot explosion temperature which jet fuel could never attain and no shadows
from the super bright image in the foreground, even though the sun was overpowered
and the area brightened by the alleged blast. Where did the white heat come from? Magic?
Explosives? Helipad building has strange red image on side away from the blast.

Very poorly drawn almost cartoonish image and still no shadows in foreground.
Notice these last three images were given a darker foreground color than the first.
yet the sun is unobstructed. Why then no shadows from the alleged burning jet fuel?

Much better drawing of the explosive cloud. Still no shadows in foreground.

Much better drawn image, but still a fake and still no shadows in the foreground.
Remember, somehow those undamaged and unmelted polyethelene cable spools
survived inside this huge faked jet fuel explosion.

Easy. That shit is smoke that poured out the expansion joints or whatever seams exactly bound that square, man-made portion of the structure. That's the result of all the fires inside spreading in both direstions and has nothing to do with what happened on the building's face, roof, etc. immediately after impact.

Do you truly not see that?

And for you and Errorsell;

Please do not accuse me of lying unless you have caught me lying.
The answer: making fun as I said. I never said Craig said exotic weaponry. No "quotes."

Back on topic briefly:
[QUOTE]Are you out of your mind?? A debris catapult? Explosives will "catapult" debris just fine.[//QUOTE]
Out of my mind or just making fun? Certainly, there is a directional explosive quality to the fireball. Explosives are indeed maore likely for part of it. That's one worthwhile speculation.

And this stuff about comparing the WTC impacts and Pentagon impact, there are many important diff. I'm too tired to catalog. That might just be why they look different. If you want to make a relevant comparioson, you need to know all the differences and correct for them before deciding one shows what 'would' happen while the other doesn't.

And about the fireball not casting shadows, there are colpax optics involved I don't fully get, but I say it does cast shadows. Here's something to chew on.

A silhouette is a type of shadow, in that one side is lit and the other not - but here any fireball shadow would blend into the building's larger one. I like the shadow cast across the lawn. That's a new shadow associated with the fireball. Compare to visible solar shadow angles. Further evidence that the blast is of little overall light value compared to the sun. What it has is density and internal brilliance, but it doesn't radiate well and IMO should not be exppected to cast noticable shadows as far away as you're looking.

But it making a silhouette of things between its bright dense core and the camera, and casting its own shadow where its core blots the sun, I can certainly see.

Just my .02 and not to be dogmatic.

Oh, and the shadows behave as they should - the silhouettes dim and dull, while the fireball rises and expands, its shadow lengthens and thickens.


So again, IF they faked it, would they do it right, or wrong? Ultimately it's a matter of faith, as all 'evidence' of fakery I've seen has proven dubious at best under closer scrutiny. It looks right IMO, but that doesn't mean it isn't fake.

Apparently, you didn't bother clicking on the link.



That is NOT smoke that poured from the expansion joints. Can YOU truly not see that?

Just give one good reason why that fireball would behave like that.

A fireball shadow? How does a light source create a shadow of itself?

You have only succeeded in pointing out yet another anomaly.

Response to Arabesque
Arabesque: good photos and taks for contributing to the thread.

Immediate Significance:
Avenger: these photos help show why there was a square of burns seen from above. I wasn't white right calling it smoke seeping out. Rather it seems the gray gabled roof material was far more fire-susceptible than the flat stuff over each ring. That gabled roof runs in a square form over that area. This is what's burned. It does not seem to have burned up from within; most burns up here seem superficial, like it was coated with some flammable material and just sucked the rolling firball to it, smoldered that layer off, and then snuffed out. And yes, it forms an 'unnatural' square, actually a common form in architecture.

True enuff as I said above. After reviewing that thread and this photo and the others, it's pretty clear we''re seeing the singed surface of the gabled roof section. So what is this supposed to demonstrate, even if it were suspicious?

Like what exactly? Remind me again of the precise problem you're seeing and I'll look into it.

The SUN creates this shadow, silly. A light-emitting object will cast a shadow if it's dimmer than the light casting against it. Try with a well-charged glow stick and a desk lamp. It glows, may even cast a faint discernable shadow when all lights are off, but turn the lamp on and watch the glow shadows disappear and the still-glowing stick will cast a shadow where it blocks the lamp's rays.

Sure, a fireball is way brighter than a glow stick, but the sun is way way brighter than a desk lamp, so the comparison is relevant. If you can think of a better, more appropriate experiment, leem know and I'll try it and take some pictures.

This is a photo from 9/12/2001, after fires that were nearly completely controlled after the initial event, were permitted to rage out of control for well over 24 hours. Note the burned out Jeep Grand Cherokee that appears white. After the initial event, that once black Jeep Grand Cherokee showed little physical damage or fire damage. The fire damage to the Jeep Grand Cherokee, most of the damage to the Foam truck in the picture and to much of the rest of the Pentagon occurred long after the initial event.


Pictured below is the Same Jeep Grand Cherokee that appears in the picture above after it was allowed to burn uncontrolled very close to the Pentagon with what one might assume was a full tank of gasoline. Note the collapsed wall at the Pentagon in the photo below. The wall collapsed at 10:15 a.m.

A glow stick? A glow stick is a solid object, Ok? And that fireball just might be a little brighter than that glow stick. I think it should do a little more than cast a "faint discernable shadow". If it's bright enough to light up everything in the camera's view, then it's bright enough to cast shadows. You say the sunlight is brighter than the fireball. So how does the fireball make everything in the camera frame brighter?

And I still can't believe you compared that fireball to a glow stick. How about a candle flame instead? Does a candle flame cast a shadow?