Debunked: Cruise Missile painted like American Airlines

[Mick]

I saw this fake photo on Facebook:



You'd think that nobody would fall for such a thing. But they do, and some even go as far as to suggest that this is what hit the Pentagon on 9/11

But it's a fake image, here's the original:



And that's actually a crop of this larger image:


Then there's this fake image:


Which similarly has a blank original:

[QuestionEverything]

...or the blank images are the photoshopped ones. How does anyone know which came first. Photoshop can work wonders. But, in fact, photoshopping the missile solid grey to cover up the American Airlines decorations would be far easier than photoshopping it to make it look like an AA plane.

[Mick]

...or the blank images are the photoshopped ones. How does anyone know which came first. Photoshop can work wonders. But, in fact, photoshopping the missile solid grey to cover up the American Airlines decorations would be far easier than photoshopping it to make it look like an AA plane.

The fake (AA) images are smaller and lower resolution than the originals. They also have the black bars added over the eyes.

There's also evidence of poor photoshopping in the fakes, where the straps are left with a grey border, and the yellow line has been blended in with the AA livery.



The second fake image also has blending issues, and the tail logo is incorrect (it should not have text underneath).

[anthonyc31]

Good job, Mick.

Why not apply the EXACT same logic you used to successfully debunk these photos, to debunk the bullshit story of "planes" on 9/11? That is to say, you examined the pixels of these photos closely enough to see that unfortunate errors were made by the graphic artist. In this case, I think one of the big winning points here is the "red stripe" shown to be painted over the yellow strap, which physically holds the missile down. That is utterly impossible, so that along with the other mistakes should be enough to debunk these photos.

So why not apply your SAME attention to detail and logic shown here, to the famous "NOSED OUT" video that was seen on TV by billions of people. That famous video everyone saw on TV that day clearly shows a "plane" breaking through the front corner of WTC2 (south west corner to be exact) with its nose coming out the other side of the WTC2, in tact. Just much like the red paint on this missile cannot possibly be covering the yellow strap, since the yellow strap is exterior to (i.e. on top of) the missile. Only in the case of the video, its the opposite. The physical south west corner of WTC2, which is seen "in front" of the alleged crash point into WTC2, should not show it's angle breaking. Yet, sure as you proved that these photos cannot be real, your same logic proves that the WTC2 "plane crash" must also be fake, no matter that it was on "TV", and no matter how many people saw the video. Those two facts don't magically correct the glaring errors in the video, and physical impossibilities of that footage.

I suspect that you and your team already know all about the NOSED OUT video, but just in case, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

No reply is needed. I've retired from arguing with people about 9/11, i just wanted to commend you on doing a good job of debunking this photo and hope you or maybe others will use your same logic and same techniques to debunk to infamous WTC2 "plane" crash on 9/11.

Best of luck, Mick.

[Mick]

Why not apply the EXACT same logic you used to successfully debunk these photos, to debunk the bullshit story of "planes" on 9/11?

Because it's a waste of time, and possibly counter-productive. No-planers are generally immune to logic, because they have their minds made up. It's an isolated fringe theory with no chance of spreading. And if I take it seriously then the more conventional truthers will accuse me of associating them with such theories (which they often considerer made up by the PTB to discredit the community).

[JRBids]

Good job, Mick.

Why not apply the EXACT same logic you used to successfully debunk these photos, to debunk the bullshit story of "planes" on 9/11? That is to say, you examined the pixels of these photos closely enough to see that unfortunate errors were made by the graphic artist. In this case, I think one of the big winning points here is the "red stripe" shown to be painted over the yellow strap, which physically holds the missile down. That is utterly impossible, so that along with the other mistakes should be enough to debunk these photos.

So why not apply your SAME attention to detail and logic shown here, to the famous "NOSED OUT" video that was seen on TV by billions of people. That famous video everyone saw on TV that day clearly shows a "plane" breaking through the front corner of WTC2 (south west corner to be exact) with its nose coming out the other side of the WTC2, in tact. Just much like the red paint on this missile cannot possibly be covering the yellow strap, since the yellow strap is exterior to (i.e. on top of) the missile. Only in the case of the video, its the opposite. The physical south west corner of WTC2, which is seen "in front" of the alleged crash point into WTC2, should not show it's angle breaking. Yet, sure as you proved that these photos cannot be real, your same logic proves that the WTC2 "plane crash" must also be fake, no matter that it was on "TV", and no matter how many people saw the video. Those two facts don't magically correct the glaring errors in the video, and physical impossibilities of that footage.

I suspect that you and your team already know all about the NOSED OUT video, but just in case, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

No reply is needed. I've retired from arguing with people about 9/11, i just wanted to commend you on doing a good job of debunking this photo and hope you or maybe others will use your same logic and same techniques to debunk to infamous WTC2 "plane" crash on 9/11.

Best of luck, Mick.

Anthony, do you serious believe no planes hit the trade centers? If so, where do you think the missing people from the planes that took off went to?

[Rafterman]

Good job, Mick.

Why not apply the EXACT same logic you used to successfully debunk these photos, to debunk the bullshit story of "planes" on 9/11? That is to say, you examined the pixels of these photos closely enough to see that unfortunate errors were made by the graphic artist. In this case, I think one of the big winning points here is the "red stripe" shown to be painted over the yellow strap, which physically holds the missile down. That is utterly impossible, so that along with the other mistakes should be enough to debunk these photos.

So why not apply your SAME attention to detail and logic shown here, to the famous "NOSED OUT" video that was seen on TV by billions of people. That famous video everyone saw on TV that day clearly shows a "plane" breaking through the front corner of WTC2 (south west corner to be exact) with its nose coming out the other side of the WTC2, in tact. Just much like the red paint on this missile cannot possibly be covering the yellow strap, since the yellow strap is exterior to (i.e. on top of) the missile. Only in the case of the video, its the opposite. The physical south west corner of WTC2, which is seen "in front" of the alleged crash point into WTC2, should not show it's angle breaking. Yet, sure as you proved that these photos cannot be real, your same logic proves that the WTC2 "plane crash" must also be fake, no matter that it was on "TV", and no matter how many people saw the video. Those two facts don't magically correct the glaring errors in the video, and physical impossibilities of that footage.

I suspect that you and your team already know all about the NOSED OUT video, but just in case, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

No reply is needed. I've retired from arguing with people about 9/11, i just wanted to commend you on doing a good job of debunking this photo and hope you or maybe others will use your same logic and same techniques to debunk to infamous WTC2 "plane" crash on 9/11.

Best of luck, Mick.

Anthony,
I don't need to see a video or have some anonymous You Tube poster tell me what to think because I saw it first hand.