Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Why Did The Alleged Heavy Smoke Trail From Flt 77
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Location > Pentagon
SPreston
There was no heavy white smoke trail above the lawn on the right in still frame #2 (impact) as shown in the faked videos. A dense white smoke trail would have lingered quite a few seconds 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 among the OCT defenders 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; speak up if you see the white smoke trail slowly dissipating into the air over several seconds 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?







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.

SPreston
Here are the five leaked still frames enlarged, focusing on the crucial right side. CIA dealt with this subject in thread Pentagon Video, ...Fake Frame?.

What does frame 2 (impact) look like?











The alleged heavy smoke trail which should have lingered is completely gone in <.5 seconds.

The video is faked. Interestingly, at the Zacarias Moussaoui show trial, they came up with two extra frames, (#5 impact and #6 impact zoomed) #5 oddly cropped at the top and also both dated/timed 32 hours late like the others. There seems to be fire erupting out of the building on the near left side (0:31 in video and does not appear on video 1). #6 appears to be #5 zoomed with the upper area restored.

Zacarias Moussaoui trial - Flight 77



SPreston
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT)
And sorry but the 5 frames do not equal 3 seconds in real time despite what the phony time stamp with the date of "9/12" says:


That is not real time and it's obvious the bogus counter is not counting real seconds.

Yes indeed. Many early investigators pointed out there were many missing frames between those five frames, beside the obvious missing frame. At 780 feet per second, the timespan between the first two frames would be less than one half of a second to cross the 640 feet of lawn, because the alleged aircraft is already halfway across the lawn in the first frame with less than 320 feet to go to the wall, and the other three frames would be correspondingly swift. Regardless, the heavy white smoke trail which was more visible than the alleged 757 aircraft from several hundred yards away, dissipated far too fast to be real.

QUOTE (Pentagon Building Performance Report - Page 14)
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.
QUOTE (Pentagon Building Performance Report - Page 12)
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the aircraft weighed approximately 181,520 lb and was traveling at 460 knots (780 ft/s) on a magnetic bearing of 70 degrees when it struck the Pentagon.The aircraft had on board approximately 36,200 lb (5,300 gal) of fuel at the time of impact.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf


These five frames with comments were posted within the Pentagon Building Performance Report

SPreston
The camera sure did get a good image of that heavy white smoke trail in the first leaked frame did it not? I also can see a bit of the heavy white smoke trail in the 2nd frame behind the gate box, but it is gone from the right side already in less than one half second. Where did it go? Do any Official Flight Path supporters think the smoke was flying across the lawn at 780 feet per second also?

Smoke has no mass to carry it across the lawn. Smoke is left behind. Smoke hangs in the air and dissipates with air movement. There was not much wind that day. That trail of heavy white smoke was so dense and thick, it was apparently easily visible to the lousy quality parking lot security camera eyes hundreds of yards away; actually much more visible than the alleged 757 aircraft itself. So how did that heavy ring of white smoke as large or larger than a 757 fuselage disappear in less than one half second?

That heavy white smoke trail to the right allegedly behind the 757 looks to be about the same length as the aircraft (the alleged aircraft looks much too small); a 757-200 is 155 feet long. Yet even at the right side of that 155 foot length of heavy white smoke, it does not appear to be dissipating even a small amount. It's shape is clearly defined even at the center and far right. Then it suddenly disappears, the whole 155 foot length of dense white smoke in the 2nd frame, and a new version appears behind the gate box. Magic. The parking lot videos are definitely faked.

Many different people have been researching and looking closely at the FBI altered Pentagon parking lot FOIA videos and leaked still frames taken from those videos. Let us remain aware that the dates and times on the stills are late by 32 hours, and these stills and videos were in the possession of the FBI for a long long time. Let us also remember that the FBI has a long history of political corruption and political insider favoritism, and a history of extensive evidence suppression and forgery reported by numerous whistleblowers.

These crops are taken from the 1000 x 665 resolution still frames posted in post #2. The stills are zoomed in 5X and the crops taken from that. For some strange reason, the white smoke trail appears to be on the near side of the fuselage, if there is actually an aircraft there behind the parking entrance box. Doubtful? Wasn't the white smoke supposed to be coming from the right engine?

Does anybody have a sensible explanation why that heavy white smoke trail would have disappeared in less than a half second? Photo shop?

This first crop from frame 1 shows the white smoke trail zoomed in 5X. Please noticed how clear and defined it is. Added in by photo shop?



This second crop from frame 2 shows the white smoke trail missing in action zoomed in 5X. There does seem to be some haze there, added in its place. But the haze has not drifted up, covering that dark background, as one would expect. Added in by photo shop?



This is a total fakery with the high explosive white color added to the fireball and the near side of the crontrol tower and hanger colored in a ridiculous fluorescent red. Why the graphics artist figured the control tower with large windows on three sides should be colored the same as the lesser windowed hanger is anybody's guess. Added in by photo shop?



Heliport control tower

lunk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cdJSHwtsIM

PENTASCAM 2.0
SPreston
Question: How did that alleged damaged starboard turbofan engine produce so much smoke in less than one second? Doesn't that seem impossible? The #3 light pole allegedly damages the engine causing a fuel or oil leak, which then starts to smoke providing a heavy trail of smoke, which is visible from the El Cheapo parking lot security video cameras several hundred yards away; all in less than one second. Nah that is not possible is it? More BS from the 9-11 perps? The very same video cameras by the way which could not make out the aircraft which is too small.





dMz
Since I stole SP's image from post #1, I thought that I should post this here:

Hey wait a minute, aren't they a DoD defense contractor?

http://www.integratedconsultants.com/ums.htm

"Unmanned Systems
Integrated Consultants, Inc., is actively involved in latest development of unmanned systems. Integrated Consultants, Inc.is directly involved in the development of an Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) through San Diego State University, San Diego."


http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16474
dMz
QUOTE (SPreston @ Nov 17 2008, 05:02 AM) *
The camera sure did get a good image of that heavy white smoke trail in the first leaked frame did it not? I also can see a bit of the heavy white smoke trail in the 2nd frame behind the gate box, but it is gone from the right side already in less than one half second. Where did it go? Do any Official Flight Path supporters think the smoke was flying across the lawn at 780 feet per second also?

Smoke has no mass to carry it across the lawn. Smoke is left behind. Smoke hangs in the air and dissipates with air movement. There was not much wind that day. That trail of heavy white smoke was so dense and thick, it was apparently easily visible to the lousy quality parking lot security camera eyes hundreds of yards away; actually much more visible than the alleged 757 aircraft itself. So how did that heavy ring of white smoke as large or larger than a 757 fuselage disappear in less than one half second?

Here is a video of an authentic, "bird strike" damaged B757 engine and its "smoke" and other visual effects. (In the UK, Manchester Ringway to Lanzarote, I believe, but don't quote me on that).

ThomsonFly 757 bird strike & flames captured on video



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE...feature=related
--------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6606375.stm

Pilot lands jet after bird strike

EDIT: 29? Apr 2007 "0915 BST" (local time) is within 45 minutes of the alleged Pentagon "video," so the relative sunlight should be similar, too. According to the following sources, this Thomson birdstrike was a B757-200 series aircraft (just like AA77 was alleged to have been).

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

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Boe...Video-8457.html

Boeing 757-200 from Thomsonfly at Ringway/Manchester Intl Airport by Simon Lowe


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tLF-3d3PJk
SPreston
The artistic drawings in the Pentagon parking lot security videos sure do not look like the real thing do they? They look about as fake as the smoke trail drawings in the Integrated Consultants simulation; maybe the same artist. jthomas was that you?

Me thinks the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY should be dead by now.
Leslie Landry
I dont see the plane but i see the smoke. how can you see a "trail" of smoke before any "impact" in the frames but you dont see the plane ahead or beside the smoke. If this was true footage then i believe that if you can see the smoke, then you should be able to see the plane in this video.
paranoia
QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 23 2008, 08:52 AM) *
Since I stole SP's image from post #1, I thought that I should post this here:

Hey wait a minute, aren't they a DoD defense contractor?

http://www.integratedconsultants.com/ums.htm

"Unmanned Systems
Integrated Consultants, Inc., is actively involved in latest development of unmanned systems. Integrated Consultants, Inc.is directly involved in the development of an Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) through San Diego State University, San Diego."


http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16474



a couple of related threads:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&hl=aberzik
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=20587

pilotfly.gif
dMz
Does anyone else find it slightly unusual that the pseudo-skepti OGCT/MSM True Believer Faithful will cling so desperately to the [San Diego, likely USN/USMC] defense contractor Integrated Consultants Inc. SolidWorks and [engine-less Boeing, single floor Pentagon, and "beer cannon" WTC] Purdue "simulations", but anything at all done or presented either by or supportive of either Pilots' or CIT is a "cartoon," even before it has been publicly released? Wouldn't one usually view (and possibly re-view) something before penning a [usually a priori, hostile] "critique?"

I recently noticed a Randiite offensive (quite aptly named IMHO) against the animation produced by National Geographic, just as they have already hand-waved away the official [alleged FOIA] FAA-produced animation. Can they really be so deluded and/or naive as to believe their own faith-based, "groupthink" propaganda and rhetoric? [Mostly rhetorical- I do think that other err... factors... are in considerable effect.]

More on the "cartoon" inequity bias factor is at:

16.5 , Reheat, & John Farmer, Put Up, or Shut Up
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15871

The GL's Demand Flight Path & Math post #152:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761287

Addressing GL Arguments Regarding Noc Tech Paper
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15948

Addressing GL Arguments For North Path, Split from "9/11: The North Flight Path" in Latest News
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15861

I didn't find where I robbed SPreston's SolidWorks graphic to, but it was in an Integrated Consultants Inc. context (and I also found the Purdue links on one of the above threads as well).

EDIT2: Found my photo robbery at post #7:

Another Debunk?, doubting the FDR
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761135

EDIT1: On "Photoshop 4.0" and those DoD "5 frames video" see post #8 on this locked thread:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10758564

----------------
Randiite (and ATS) Google searches in evidence:
CODE
http://www.google.com/search?q=REF+P4T+pff+cartoon&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3aofficial
Omega892R09
QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 27 2009, 08:48 AM) *
ThomsonFly 757 bird strike & flames captured on video

Exactly as I mentioned elsewhere, black smoke not white.

As one would expect from imperfect combustion of hydrocarbons - soot - as anybody who has lit an oxy-acetylene torch knows.

A white vapour trail would be left by leaking fuel - ever watched an aircraft dumping fuel?

Well here is a picture from mine own web site:

dMz
An old McDonnell F4 Phantom II- that's a great photo O892! As I understood it, the Queen kept them in the air longer than we did on this side of the pond (as those of the USAF were "surplused" to Egypt, Greece, Iran, Israel, South Korea, Turkey, etc. in the interests of "Middle East peace"... rolleyes.gif )

I would have expected a "lightpole-induced fuel dump" to look more like this NASA CID photo from post #48, about last Halloween though:

What Brought Down the Light Poles?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10757557

[This in light of a generic, non-descript UK bird as opposed to a ground-mounted 247 lb. aluminum pole (of 1/8" [~ 3mm] wall thickness we were told IIRC) ].

EDIT: The original Integrated Consultants 6-min. video is available here:

911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.