Pentagon: DOD Fake Photos on 9/11

[Craig W]

[Hombre]

[Sasha]

I do not believe a 757 smashed in the Pentagon. The dimensions of the target are far too small for any airliner that size. Period end of that story. The photo analysis is just that, a look at badly photoshpped mosaics for the official story.

BFN is a shill site as far as 9/11 is concerned. Or most of the current/active membershipL ook at the swarm tactics, then lace posts with bullshit and leads off to nowehere.

None of my other posts get any feedback like this or in this manner. Funny?

The CIA Rat's Nest topic is missing many names. Very informative read, but it falls short in exposing all. Yes it throws out the marginalised, but lacks names and pointers to the more cupable.

Starting to wonder what's what with this angle of attack? Is BFN just another Prison Planet? Infowars.com? No one answered any of my dierect questions. The structure used on my 9/11 posts reminds me of labrynth of bullshit you try to follow on AboveTopSecret

I have doubts now.

[Sasha]

You're right. That rusty guardrail - not rusty guardrail in some of the photos is a horrible job and should never have been let out to the public. Jack White's photo analysis is great. I have no problems with what he points out. The DoD photoshopping was done very badly - too busy trying to get DNA samples together.

I should direct my shill claims against some of the responders, not BFN or Fintan Dunne in particular. He has not responded to any of these specific posts made by me. My mistake, forgive me for that.

[Craig W]

Sasha, White's analysis is poor on so many counts I'm really surprised you think it otherwise. Off the top of my head:

1) It's very badly structured. There are no page numbers, no index, no summary, and importantly no references, so we have no idea where these photos are from (or indeed if they have been tampered with since originally taken).

2) There are very few explanatory diagrams (overhead plans, sideviews, etc) and the labelling of the pictures is sloppy and difficult to understand.

3) He makes much play of the "missing" guard rail and yet provides no evidence that it was ever there before 911, merely assuming that it was. In fact his sole evidence for the existence of the rail is an aerial shot taken "several days later", appearing to show a thin rail. However, he makes no effort to firmly identify the triage area as being the same location as the "mysterious" guard rail. Moreover, he gives no consideration to the possibility that the rail may have been erected after 911 (perhaps as a result of the events). He simply jumps to the conclusion that its claimed absence on the day is evidence of photo fakery.

4) Similarly, he assumes that the green strip of grass is evidence of fakery and overlooks any other possibility, for example, that it has been re-turfed recently.

5) He makes overblown and/or confusing claims for the "anomalies" he apparently sees in the pictures. For example, in one instance White highlights a vehicle that, shock horror, appears to be in a different location in another photo. Perhaps someone should inform Whte that it is in the nature of vehicles that they occasionally move.

6) He overlooks the different times at which photos may have been taken, apparently considerng that things should always be in the same place ad have identical appearance (shading, relative position, etc).

7) He uses self-referential and circuitous logic. For example, in the photo of the lady with the nice legs he concludes that it must be a fake because she cannot be sitting there because that is where the guard rail is (you know, the one for which he provides almost no evidence, doesn't consider its erection after 911, and makes no attempt to locate). And again, he makes no attempt to clearly locate her position relative to the claimed guard rail. (Due to the photo being a close-up with only grass as background, she could be anywhere).

He highlights a yellow and black sign which is next to a tall pole in one shot and a similar sign which is next to a shorter pole in another. Making no attempt to locate the items or prove they are the same, and overlooking the possiblity that they may be different poles, White again jumps to the conclusion that they are evidence of fakery.

9) When "analysing" the different colours of the explosions he overlooks the obvious possibility that the colour mix of the Pentagon security camera shot is massively exaggerating the orangey-redness of the explosion image (as strongly suggested by the glaring redness of the traffic cones seen in the same shot). Again White jumps to a totally baseless concluson (this time that the colour differences between shots of the WTC2 and Pentagon impact explosion indicated that the latter was not a jet).

10) In "Chapter 9a" White says there is "something very suspicious" about the two images of firetruck 61, which he claims show trucks of different lengths. However, it seems he is deliberately attempting to mislead as he says the lower picture is "from directly side-on". In fact, anyon with eyes can see that the lower, "too short", picture is not a side-on view but that the rear end of the truck is mitted out of shot to the left hence making it appear shorter (hence fitting White's conclusion) that the truck in the other image. There is nothing anomalous with the two pictures as far as I can see, only with White's spin. This error/lie alone makes me think White may belong to the CIA Rat's Nest. If not then he is at least totally incomptent and not to be relied on.

I could go on at length but life is too short. To sum up, this "analysis" is not evidence of skullduggery, only of White's incompetence in this instance. Given these and other flaws I conclude that it is worthless in any investigation.

I can't believe I've just wasted my time on this crap.

[Sasha]

I disagree.

All I needed was the guardrail and the photoshopped grass along the path. Then I ask why do this bad photoshop job, release it?? To start the disinfo immmediately. Especially on the net. It was Arabs right? They must have opened a sweat shop photoshop studio in DC or NY just prior and quickly whipped off these bad photo jobs.

Just like Arabs wired the WTC pre 9/11 for conventional demo. Or Hani Hanjour eyes wide looking skyward, flying into the Pentagon muahahaha...good god

How did these dudes get on any airplanes and not be on one flight manifest? One hidden CCTV that exist in all airports used?

Fake photos are still fake photos.

Like steel is still steel with or with out fire retardant and a hydrocarbon is still a hydrocarbon. The steel melts at 2800 degrees and the hydrocarbon burns at 600 degrees.

The Pentagon is the weak link in the chain (after that 20ft hole in Pennsylvania). The Pentagon was staged.

I refer you to this:

No Cellphone pics
No video
Justa bunch of sell out chump TV or media whore eyewitnesses

[Sasha]

Addendum to above:

I refer you to this:
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=66621&highlight=#66621

No Cellphone pics
No video
Justa bunch of sell out chump TV or media whore eyewitnesses