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

To support my claim... allow me to provide the following link.

www.pbs.org...

NOVA did an excellent analysis of the Columbia disaster. It shows how preconceived "common sense" notions about how the physical world behaves are unreliable in the face of real-world testing.

You may disagree about how Columbia was downed, but you may not argue that a piece of foam can put a hole in a piece of metal under the conditions indicated... which seems totally against common sense even to PhDs who witnessed it.

That's not a strawman argument. That's fact.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
To support my claim... allow me to provide the following link.
www.pbs.org...
NOVA did an excellent analysis of the Columbia disaster...

Unfortunately though, the Columbia disaster has nothing to do with this thread.

I don't see how a piece of foam has relevance to an alleged smoke trail across a lawn?

Originally posted by deltaboy
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]

Thank you Delta I'm glad that at least someone here is paying attention to the details.

I count 15 to 17 seconds past the first sighting of the smoke trail.

On the video, Spreston shows in his first OP, the "Pentagon parking cam1" video the first time you can see the smoke trail is at the 25 second mark. On the right hand side of the white post, that is supposedly blocking out most of the front part of F77, the smoke trail lingers in the air till the 40 second mark. It looked like it lingered on the left side of the white post for another two seconds, but it is hard to tell b/c it is mixed in with the smoke from the explosion and fire.

If you cant see this with your naked eye then I would think that either you need eye glasses or most likely that you need better resolution on your monitor, b/c it is very apparent.

Spreston, I do think you touch on one thing that has always bothered me.

How did Hani Hanjour fly a 757 jet (for the first time in his life were told) 2 feet off the ground?

If you think about it for one second.. This guy and his crew likely just killed a couple people. Now they are about to jump behind the controls of a giant 757 jet and fly it back to DC and crash it into the Pentagon. I think about the kinda stress this guy was dealing with , it must have been enormous. Then he comes up to his last three minutes of the flight. He has to make a large loop around a restricted air space all the while knowing that the WTC's have been hit by now and that he could be shot down. His heart must have been pounding out of his chest so loud he probably thought his hijacker friends next to him could hear it. But what does he do, he flies that jet like a pro 2 feet off the ground,after smacking into five light poles, all the while managing to evade every single camera within eye shot were told.

Truly amazing to say the least.

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


I agree with you about the airplane flying at that speed. I should know I’ve been a flightsim fanatic for ten years, and I do fly the boeing 757 and one thing I do know is at those speeds, if you pull up even just a tad, you can not just pull the yoke straight down its too mush stress on the airplane. However if this so call airplane did this imposable maneuver, then I know it could not have been set up on autopilots flight plan. In addition, it would have been imposable to fly that aircraft manually epically at those speeds. Those Boeing commercial airlines are not design to fly like F18 fighter jet.
What these so call witness are saying what they saw was imposable.

As retired Naval aviator and commercial airline pilot Ted Muga says:
"The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...

When a commercial airplane gets that high, it get very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.

***

Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible."

georgewashington.blogspot.com...


I just posted this in another thread to prove a point. I am so glade to see some people do see the logic behind this "impossible" feat.

reply to post by Stillresearchn911

Commercial Pilot and Aeronautical Engineer Explains Why Official 9/11 Story About Pentagon Is Bogus
Nila Sagadevan sets the record straight about Pentagon crash while 9/11 fringe movement meets Dec. 7 in Tampa for beginning of five-day rally.
6 Dec 2005
By Greg Szymanski


This in itself is an impossibility since the airplane would have been prevented from getting that close to the ground by a phenomenon termed 'ground effect'. This is a highly energized cushion of air located between the wings and the ground, whose energy increases in direct proportion to aircraft speed. Flying at 400 knots, 20 feet above the ground, in a commercial airliner is a flight domain never experienced by any pilot. This is why it is difficult to impress the impossibility of such a maneuver. The reaction of the energized ground effect layer simply would not have allowed the airplane to get that close to the ground for that long a distance at that great a speed. At around 100 knots this is obviously entirely possible — it happens every day during landings. At 400 knots in a 100-ton airliner — impossible.”

From the beginning of the supposed hijacking of Flight 77 and to its eventual crash into the Pentagon wall, Sagadevan presents a compelling case, essentially crushing the official story. He added, “What's also overlooked is the 'jet blast' from the airplane’s two powerful 50,000-lb-thrust engines. Coupled with the aircraft’s furious wake turbulence, this would have created a trailing tornado so powerful it would have tossed vehicles on Highway I-135, over which the aircraft flew, into the air like little toys.

“I really don’t understand how anyone could give the government’s story any credibility after seeing the original pictures taken of the small hole left in the Pentagon wall by whatever flew into it,” said Sagadevan. “I am not quite sure what type of aircraft it was, but it certainly wasn’t a 757 jetliner.”

Sagadevan is referring to the approximately 16-foot-diameter hole left in the Pentagon wall, illustrated on pictures taken right after the crash scene, but immediately taken out of circulation and never widely distributed by the news media to the American people.

“I think if someone just looks at the small hole and then looks at the size of 757, experts aren’t needed to determine it was impossible for the projectile to have been a massive 100-ton airliner, especially considering there was very little wreckage visible after the crash. Crashes of airliners produce vast debris fields. The Pentagon had virtually none”, added Sagadevan.

Regarding the Pentagon crash, there are so many holes in the story that it becomes, as the English say, rather a laughing matter, making one believe even the bungling Inspector Clouseau, made famous by Peter Sellers, could crack the case wide open if given half a chance.

But the problem is Inspector Clouseau and every other independent investigator haven’t been given the chance, leaving the case to be investigated and tried in the court of public opinion, a place where politicians like it and know they are safe from prosecution.

www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com...

When I read this I knew the man knew what he was talking about ..so true.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by cogburn
To support my claim... allow me to provide the following link.
www.pbs.org...
NOVA did an excellent analysis of the Columbia disaster...

Unfortunately though, the Columbia disaster has nothing to do with this thread.

I don't see how a piece of foam has relevance to an alleged smoke trail across a lawn?

I was responding to the argument that suggesting physical test was a "strawman argument".

However... If you give me a few moments I'll give you all something to scream over.

I can see the tail sticking right behind the box, before it wasn't there, suddenly it was there. And based on the height that the whole plane should be showing you should remember to compare the building from the distance to the plane that is also crashing into the distance. The further the building is the smaller it looks. The further the plane is, the smaller it looks.

What I want to know is why the pictures and video say sept. 12 and they're titled "plane" "impact #1" "impact #2" and so on. it's like subliminal messages, if it says plane it must be a plane?

posted by Shocka
What I want to know is why the pictures and video say sept. 12 and they're titled "plane" "impact #1" "impact #2" and so on. it's like subliminal messages, if it says plane it must be a plane?

You got it. Most boob tube addicts are easily led and a 'plane' title is considered quite adequate to OUR government. The fanatical 9-11 perp defenders think it is wonderful and the ultimate truth. The date/time stamps were off 32 hours on the original leaked 5 frames back in March 2002. Date/time stamps do not even appear on the official videos released via FOIA in 2006. Somehow, two more still frames with date/time stamps off 32 hours miraculously appeared at the Zacarias Moussaoui show trial.

Flight 77 still frames

posted by deltaboy
I can see the tail sticking right behind the box, before it wasn't there, suddenly it was there. And based on the height that the whole plane should be showing you should remember to compare the building from the distance to the plane that is also crashing into the distance. The further the building is the smaller it looks. The further the plane is, the smaller it looks.

Come on. Use some common sense. That heavy white smoke trail officially came out of the right wing engine after it was allegedly damaged by the #4 light pole. Of course turbofan jet engines do not eject heavy white smoke when damaged. But we will ignore that fact for now. That heavy white smoke trail gives a good indicator as to what size the 44 foot 6 inch 757 tail stabilizer should appear rising above it. What you are calling a tail needs to be twice as tall as what you think you see.



Original Frame 1 (plane) image zoomed to 5000 x 3325






[edit on 11/19/08 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


Hi Spreston,

Just curious. What leads you to believe that the engine would not release white smoke upon striking an object like a light pole? Any comparisons to other similar accidents, investigations, etc?

Thank you

Originally posted by SPreston
Come on. Use some common sense. That heavy white smoke trail officially came out of the right wing engine after it was allegedly damaged by the #4 light pole.

Can you tell me which official report says this? I'm not aware of any.

Of course turbofan jet engines do not eject heavy white smoke when damaged. But we will ignore that fact for now.

Can you show some evidence for this please?

That heavy white smoke trail gives a good indicator as to what size the 44 foot 6 inch 757 tail stabilizer should appear rising above it. What you are calling a tail needs to be twice as tall as what you think you see.

What ratio should the smoke height be to the tail? Can you show how you derived this figure please?

I apologise for having to just cut your post into 3 and ask for the source for each one, but I don't know what you're basing your claims on for any of these.

posted by CameronFox
Hi Spreston,

Just curious. What leads you to believe that the engine would not release white smoke upon striking an object like a light pole? Any comparisons to other similar accidents, investigations, etc?

Thank you

Turbofan engines do not produce white smoke. Jet A fuel (kerosene) does not burn white nor produce white smoke. Jet A burns at an orange/yellow heat level and emits black/brown/reddish/dark gray smoke or no smoke depending on its oxygen levels and burning efficiency. Regardless a damaged turbofan would not produce such dense heavy white smoke as allegedly picked up by poor quality video cameras from several hundred yards away. That would be a huge quantity of smoke judging by its apparent density, and the human eye would be much more capable of seeing it fully, yet out of the alleged hundreds of eyewitnesses near the Pentagon, not one reported seeing this dense heavy white smoke trail which is supposedly as long as the alleged aircraft and as large in diameter as the aircraft fuselage. Nobody.







[edit on 11/19/08 by SPreston]

Video taken from


Time :17

Time :19

Time :19 Red circle above the box, nothing there except a tree.

Time :24

Time :24 Red circle above the box, a large fin showing up.


Fix link to video

[edit on 19-11-2008 by deltaboy]

posted by deltaboy
Time :19 Red circle above the box, nothing there except a tree.

Time :24 Red circle above the box, a large fin showing up.

So what is your point? The doggone graphics artist drew in the tail fin too small? It is obvious isn't it? Go ahead. Admit it. It won't hurt. Fraud committed against the American people by their own government. What else is new?

The videos are faked. No aircraft ever did impact the Pentagon. It would be impossible because the real aircraft was Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and coming towards the damage area at the wrong angle.



[edit on 11/19/08 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


Tail fin too small? Look at the fin and compare it to the building from that distance on the camera. I guess the Pentagon building is small as well.

Remember that the plane was coming at an angle prior to crashing.

reply to post by deltaboy


Please, show us proof that this is a tail of a Boeing 757? One can assume it is however I don’t see anything that resembles a huge tail on anything. There really is not anything that is clearly identifiable.

reply to post by cashlink


Well then it must be a shark's fin or a missile's fin that requires a near height of 50 ft in contrast to the height of the Pentagon.

reply to post by deltaboy


Where do you get fifty feet from? How do you know it is not a shark fin?
Where is “your” proof that this is an airplane?
I do “not” see an airplane.
If you want to debate, then you mush show your sources, this is not just a chat box.
You are in a debating forum, so please answer some of my questions, and stop making statements, with out backing them up thank you.