Why Did the Alleged Smoke Trail From Flt 77 Immediately Disappear From Both Videos?

Heavy white smoke trail depicted in frame 1 (plane) of FOIA parking lot video



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 heavy 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 heavy 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.





[edit on 11/18/08 by SPreston]

Here are the five leaked still frames enlarged, focusing on the crucial right side. Frame One has a very dense heavy white smoke trail at the far right.

What does frame 2 (impact) look like?

Frame One - plane

Frame Two - impact

Frame Three - #2 impact

Frame Four - #3 impact

Frame Five - #4 impact

The alleged heavy smoke trail which should have lingered is completely gone in

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?



Frame One (plane) crop Right side showing heavy white smoke trail

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?

Frame Two (impact) crop Right Side showing no smoke trail

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?

Frame Two (impact) Center showing graphics fakery

Heliport control tower




[edit on 11/18/08 by SPreston]

mabey The alleged heavy smoke trail was blown away by the force of the explosion

posted by WisdomInChains
mabey The alleged heavy smoke trail was blown away by the force of the explosion

Frame Two (impact) showing missing heavy white smoke trail



Perhaps? Is there any sign whatsoever that the effects of the alleged explosion have reached out that far; over 300 feet from the Pentagon wall? This is the very first stage of the alleged explosion. Some proponents have claimed the tail of the 757 is sticking out of the explosion although I have seen no sign of a 757 anywhere.

Frame Two (impact) Center showing initial high explosive like explosion - not jet fuel





Frame One (plane) crop Right side showing heavy white smoke trail

There is certainly no sign of a 757 in this Frame One (plane) crop is there. How can a heavy white smoke trail possibly be more clearly defined when zoomed in 5X, than a huge silver fuselage aircraft with a huge white tail with a big AA on it?



There seems to be some of that heavy white smoke trail (drawn in) at the center of this Frame Two (impact) crop.




[edit on 11/18/08 by SPreston]

What does this look like on the far right? A very poor cut & paste?



That little band of haze looks like cut & paste to me. Also remember that aircraft was allegedly flying at 535 mph (784 feet per second).






[edit on 11/18/08 by SPreston]

Yeah, it's a suspect video... Wasn't there a frame that is missing from the official security cam video, one that would've showed what went into the pentagon a bit more clearly?

wait, in your animation i see 19...21...22....23....

where's 20?

Isn't that the frame that would have showed the whatisit a bit more clearly?

That is not a 747!



[edit on 18-11-2008 by star in a jar]

[edit on 18-11-2008 by star in a jar]

[edit on 18-11-2008 by star in a jar]

Originally posted by star in a jar
Yeah, it's a suspect video... Wasn't there a frame that is missing from the official security cam video, one that would've showed what went into the pentagon a bit more clearly?

Yes at least one missing frame. Some video experts claim there are many missing frames in the leaked still frames, and then also later in the two 2006 FOIA videos.

I prefer to phrase your statement as 'one that would've showed what did not crash into the Pentagon a bit more clearly'.

Nope. You need not only engines but a plane also.

reply to post by SPreston


i thought this attack was in the am? The time stamp on the photos read 17:_:_ (5pm)

Hello,

You have a distance of approximately .10 miles (528 ft) from pole 4 to the impact point of the Pentagon. I believe it is pole 4 that caused the damage.

If flight 77 is traveling at 784 feet per second, then the time for someone to notice the curved smoke trail would very minimal. It seems to only appear for a couple seconds if that.

As far as the dissipation of the smoke trail. Anything I say would be a guess. Yes, the wind was not very strong, yet I would have to assume a plane traveling at 535 miles per hour would leave somewhat of a wake behind it. The massive explosion less than 2 seconds later would also I assume have to have an effect on this.

Looking at the stills posted from Spreston, there is clearly a light smoke trail that lingers after impact.

To suggest a "cut & paste" job is kind of silly. (IMO) You would think that if a government is planning a deception of this magnitude, the goverment would be a little more creative.

Have there been any professional analysis done on this video?

I still see the white smoke trailing long after the explosion. You have bad eyes or something. No disrespect.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
i thought this attack was in the am? The time stamp on the photos read 17:_:_ (5pm)

Yes indeed. The time/date stamps were inexplicably off by 32 hours (late); including on the two frames used in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. Allegedly only 5 frames were leaked to CNN in March 2002 and then the two videos released by FOIA lawsuit in May 2006. Nobody seems to know where the two extra still frames (#5 impact and #6 impact zoomed) at the Moussaoui trial came from. Of course the primary suspect has unlimited resources while it is investigating itself. Correct?

Zacarias Moussaoui trial exhibits - Flight 77 still frames - two extra plus some zoomed extras

Pentagon Parking Lot Video

posted by CameronFox
Looking at the stills posted from Spreston, there is clearly a light smoke trail that lingers after impact.

To suggest a "cut & paste" job is kind of silly. (IMO) You would think that if a government is planning a deception of this magnitude, the goverment would be a little more creative.

posted by deltaboy
I still see the white smoke trailing long after the explosion. You have bad eyes or something. No disrespect.

To comment on the graphic abilities of the primary suspect is really guesswork and self-defeating. I tend to steer away from arguing from incredulity at what OUR government might do or not do. Corrupt politicians seem to have no limitations.

However I will blow that area up on three frames. To me the second frame looks like photoshopping and a sloppy cut & paste job. The first frame looks much too clearly defined to be a heavy smoke trail captured by a cheap parking lot video camera a few hundred yards away. It too looks like a photoshop with too perfect a smoke trail drawn in or pasted in.





Here we go; I blew up three original leaked still frames to 5X (5000 x 3325) and cropped the right side out of each where that heavy white smoke trail is. I used the frames posted in my 2nd post above on this thread. See what you think. Remember, at an official 784 fps, there is less than 0.5 seconds between the first two frames.







It seems to me that the graphics artist that worked on the animation for Integrated Consultants might have also done the graphics for the Pentagon parking lot videos. Anybody else think so?








[edit on 11/18/08 by SPreston]

My opinion is a missile dose not leaves the same kind of smoke trail; furthermore, that is why the Feds gave us nothing. They are hiding their missile; if that was an airplane, we should see an airplane!

Where is the plane?
The Government “is” the cause of all these 911 conspiracies theories, because they will not show us the proof in this video, that this is the said airplane. With all those cameras that were, taping that morning this is the garbage this Government is going to give us. The Government did not volunteer to let the public see these videos, Judicial Watch sued the Government under the freedom of information act. Because many people were not buying into the Government 911 lies.

My opinion is a missile was lunch in the pentagon, where, and how, I do not know, however one thing that is true, there was another airplanes flying over or around the pentagon when the impact happened here is another video in slow motions showing the Government *AIRPLANE*.
www.metacafe.com...

Just another consideration. A 757 aircraft wing hung engine sits about 3 feet off the ground when sitting on its landing gear and the center of that engine is about 7 feet off the ground. At the same time, the top of the tail stabilizer sits 44 feet 6 inches off the ground. According to the official Pentagon Building Performance Report, the aircraft flew level across the lawn in the video and about 1 ft 11 inches above the ground. (top of fuselage 20 feet above ground which would put bottom of engines at level flight 1 foot 11 inches above ground level)



Assuming the heavy white smoke trail in the Frame One (plane) still is coming out of the right wing engine, then the tail of the alleged 757 should be sticking up about 31 feet above the top edge of the heavy white smoke trail. Does anybody see anything resembling a huge 757 tail stabilizer sticking that high up into the air? I'm figuring the rough diameter of that heavy white smoke trail at about 12-13 feet. The top edge should be about 3.5 times as tall as the top edge of the heavy white smoke trail. No? Anybody?



I sure don't see it. I see a puny little appendage of some sort; but no 757 tail. So where is it? Do we need to be wearing our 9-11 OCT Special Specs to see it?

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.

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.
www.fire.nist.gov...

[edit on 11/18/08 by SPreston]

I'm going to answer the question posed in your title.

The concussion from the explosion.

Unfortunately there's not enough data to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, however you can scale down the event and test it for yourself in an afternoon.

Video tape it and post it on YouTube. I'd be interested to see the results.

posted by cogburn
I'm going to answer the question posed in your title.

The concussion from the explosion.

Unfortunately there's not enough data to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, however you can scale down the event and test it for yourself in an afternoon.

Video tape it and post it on YouTube. I'd be interested to see the results.

Nah, won't work. In the 2nd frame (impact) which takes place less than 0.5 seconds after the first frame (plane), the graphics artist has drawn in another heavy white smoke trail which is behind that center parking entrance box and just to the right of the high explosive blast. The concussion from an explosive would have removed (dissipated) that heavy smoke first before the heavy white smoke trail on the far right in the 1st frame (plane). I expect I have sufficiently proven my argument to any open-minded person.

It could be a wingtip vortex, like this:

reply to post by SPreston


To a scientific person who bases opinions in hard measurable facts, no.

Analysis of still frames of video (that are not even a full 30fps) of an event is in no way, at all, ever a substitute for a physical test.

If that were true we'd never have to recreate accidents that were on video.

Careful with the descriptive terms or Hal9000 will kill this thread, too.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by cogburn]

posted by cogburn
To a scientific person who bases opinions in hard measurable facts, no.

Analysis of still frames of video (that are not even a full 30fps) of an event is in no way, at all, ever a substitute for a physical test.

If that were true we'd never have to recreate accidents that were on video.

No, you play your silly games with your strawman argument. These videos and the still frames are what we have; so that is what I will use.