Fireball Fakery

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.

(Posted Image)

(Posted Image)

(Posted Image)

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.

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.

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.

(Posted Image)

(Posted Image)

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?

(Posted Image)

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.

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.

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.

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

(Posted Image)

(Posted Image)

(Posted Image)

(Posted Image)

Someone really needs to make a collection of all of the comedic statements of CIT. These guys are gold for comedy.

Loose Change Final Cut was very well done, and I congratulate the filmmakers. Unlike the factually challenged claims of CIT, Final Cut has a very strong basis in FACT and CONFIRMED evidence.

The insinuation that CIT is being "censored" from LFC is absurd; an outright lie.

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.

(Posted Image)

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.