As we all know the pro 757 impact people state that the smoke trail we see coming from the object in the video is white smoke produced by the right engine after it allegedly took in a piece of light pole. Missile people try to say it is a missile. And small plane people say it's a drone/military fighter firing a missile.

The real question is why didn't anyone of the "hundreds" of witnesses (yes that is an exaggeration) see the plane emit this vapor/smoke trail as it came over the highway?

Can you name one?

Very good point Scarecrow.

This is particularly absurd since a smoke trail would be more visible, span over a wide area, and linger.

Yet nobody mentions it AT ALL!

Not even the so called "light pole" witnesses.

However CIT has uncovered that there are no light pole witnesses.

Nobody is willing to state that they actually saw the light poles get clipped by the plane.

Of the few who mentioned the light poles in their published account, they only did so because they saw the poles on the ground after the fact. They merely deduced that they were hit.

Stephen McGraw, Joel Sucherman, Mike Walter, and Chad Brooks have all personally told us this.



McGraw's alleged real life view:


Even if they happened to miss the plane hitting the poles directly in front of them (while allegedly witnessing the "impact" even further away) it seems extremely odd that NONE of them mentioned the quite thick and obvious smoke trail as seen in the manipulated security video.

GREAT POINT!!!!

I mean Mike Walter even saw the wings of the 757 fold in along the body! :rolleyes:

So nobody can name even one?

Wow.

This is rather incredible.

None of the witnesses specifically mention actually seeing a 30 foot light pole spear the windshield of Lloyd's cab either.

I wonder how all of those route 27 witnesses could have seen the impact so clearly through all those trees while somehow missing a light pole spear Lloyd's windshield and the subsequent smoke trail that allegedly started billowing from the engine as a result?




Obviously they would have had a much better view of the poles, Lloyd's cab, and the smoke plume than anything else.



And why didn't integrated consultants animate the pole going through the cab?

Anyone?

Mike Walter where are you? :P

Great find Scarecrow !

Pretty odd indeed...

At the same time , its raise a question : Why did they put that white trail smoke in the video , if it was edited ?! I mean what was the purpose ? A fancy touch added by the infographist ?? A mere attempt to "make it look more credible" ?

If not ( If the smoke is real ) , like you said : why nobody spooked of it ?

Please tells me what you think of that :

If you watch closely to the video pics and the animation , the white smoke begins already to the ground ( almost ) level.

Taking this animation for reference :



The beginning of the smoke plume appears roughly at 80' after passing above the highway. ( Plane = 155' , engine near half-way. Also the distance between smoke beginning and the highway ) Like I said , notice the heigh of the smoke. Already at ground level. So if it came from a dommaged engine , that engine must be very close to the ground ! Plus the fact the plane going 400 mph. Of course the smoke would appears only after being strucked by a pole.

I'm not a specialist , but I think the smoke need at least a second to "form" and to "appears" behind the dommaged engine. ( Smoke is not like an explosion , its the result of a combustion. ) 400 mph means 587 feet per second !! In other words ; the engine must have been "damaged" at roughly 500' BEFORE passing over the highway ! Even if I'm wrong with the time of smoke creation , at 1/4 of a second is still 125' BEFORE passing over the highway -- At near groud level , by judging the height of the smoke.

Now look at this pic :



In this analysis , I'm surprised to discover that my quick calculations where pretty good. ( This guy calculate the impact of the engine on the pole at approx. 528' feet. )

But that's not the point. The plume being already at ground level , the engine must have been itself very damn close to the ground ( Impossible to dive that plane in a second , then leveled it to keep the path few inches above the ground...with a damaged engine !

So , the smoke indicated us that the plane should have been few inches above ground BEFORE impacting the pole. Likely to be the farest one. Then all the poles should have been clipped a no more than 10 or 12 feet high ! Pretty low for a 757...

Either that plane "drive" on weels for some distance on I-395 before crashing into the Pentagon .. ( LoL ) or it must have "magicaly" pass through the overpass.

In both case , the taxi cab would have been directly punched by the plane !

This picture illustrate the path over the first pole. But its too high for the actual smoke height.



The "ground effect" is also oftenly discuss. Many pilots explain that is impossible to go that fast , at that height without crashing. Some debunkers sites like this one :

[URL=http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/groundeffect.html[/URL] argue that it is possible , if the pilot nose down to compensate for ground effect... Hard to imagine a 400 mph 757 already at less than 10 feet can nose down further !! ;-)

Furthermore , they showed us clip of low-altitude 757... These planes aren't at 400 mph. Most likely under 100 mph. And not flying at 10 feet

That's not what I have stated...

Notice how the left engine in the flight path lines up with the 3 light poles...



Look at that for a minute. The right wingtip lines up to scuff the VDOT mast, wingspan takes out all of the light poles,
lightpoles cause port-side (left) engine damage (smoke), and the starboard-side (right) engine lines right up with
the damage done to the generator trailor and the Pentagon, all the way to the C-Ring (not including the C-ring hole).
Furthermore, the right engine lines up with the damage seen here...





The right engine also lines up with the tree damage seen here...



Look again at the topographical photo above of the incoming 757 flightpath to get a perspective as to how the starboard-side
engine lines up with the tree damage as well as the generator trailor and all of the other physical evidence.

That generator is not shattered......the top aint even sheared off for having a 6ton engine slice through it.

It is warped from intense heat.

Finrod,

Remember the video was leaked and no one knew where it came from?

The footage has a frame missing...


19, (20?), 21, 22, 23

And the objectand it's plume in the video does not cast a shadow on the ground even though it 15, to then 6 ft above ground.

Yes, it was very clever of them to stage a "damage flight path"... very clever.

But where are the real, hard evidence of the alleged B 757 ?

Still to this day... after 6 years... none.

Yes, and it was after French investigator Thierry Meyssan’s (2002) book showed the improbability of the official account.

(and in fact then suddenly more "debris" photo showed up also)

Any witnesses yet?

Anybody?

If you see a plane hit a building...would you be focusing on smoke from an engine or the five-story high fireball that happened a split second after? Just a question.

People are human. Nobody in their right mind would care about a smoking engine if asked "what happened." They would focus on the absolute horrific situation.

You would have too.

What about Penny Elgas? She gave an extremely detailed account. Is she in her right mind?

Seems pretty detailed to me, but, I don't see anything about smoke from the engine.
She talks about a debris cloud from the impact circling the fuselage from both sides or some crap. Nothing about smoke from the engine, though. She also doesn't say anything about any light poles. It was one of the light poles that caused the engine damage, right? I wonder why she left that out.

So....you apparently think she is full of "crap" so why bring her up?

I'm not sure why she didn't bring up a smoking engine either. Maybe the cataclysmic events in front of her and in NY had something to do with it?

Just a hunch. :rolleyes:

Because she is full of crap.

Another reason I brought her up is that her account of events is extremely detailed because she supposedly had this adrenaline rush that allowed her to see everything in super slow motion. She claims it seemed to float like a paper glider, that 'GENTLY ROCKED and SLOWLY GLIDED straight into the Pentagon'. She claims she saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage and that it wrapped around both sides of the fuselage criss-crossed at the bottom then came back up again. Don't you that's kind of a strange story? How does debris circle a fuselage from both sides like that? She goes into extreme detail about everything else, but nothing about light poles or smoke from an engine. Oh, but she's very descriptive about churning bits of debris from the Pentagon wall. She sees the wing disappear into the building. She sees the tail slip into the building. How does she see the tail slip into the building when the tail would have been too big?

Maybe she didn't see the smoking engine because she is full of crap.

You seem to not have a clue about making an argument.

Exactly. She didn't see ANY of it because she is full of crap. Maybe you already know she is full of crap because I sure don't see you trying to defend that crazy-ass story of hers.

Can't anybody find one?

You would definitely notice a 757 "smoking" as it was about to crash. ESPECIALLY IF YOU SAW THE WINGS FOLD IN THROUGH THE TREES BLOCKING YOUR VIEW.......

Maybe Mike Walter? :P

Not even Arabesque can find one.

Bump for Raven.

You can choose not to believe the witnesses but you can't state "there were none."

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentago...evidencesummary

The following excerpts are from longer quotes in the links above.

Steve Riskus: "I could see the "American Airlines" logo...It knocked over a few light poles in its way."

Mark Bright: "...at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down."

Mike Walter: "...it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there. It was an American Airlines jet."

Rodney Washington: "...knocking over light poles"

Kirk Milburn: "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles."

Afework Hagos: "It hit some lampposts on the way in."

Kat Gaines: saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles

D.S. Khavkin: "First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles"
Wanda Ramey: "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.

Penny Elgas: A piece of American Airlines Flight 77 was torn from the plane as it clipped a light pole. It landed in her car. Now in Smithsonian Institution's 9/11 collection.

This thread is not about the light poles and all of these witnesses have been covered.

NONE have been confirmed to have seen the light poles get hit and in fact NONE of the ones you listed even say that they "saw" the light poles get hit.

Mike Walter does not claim to have seen the plane hit the poles.

Kirk Milburn and DS Khavkin are confirmed to have not been in a position to even be able to physically see them get hit.

In light of all this and since we have direct confirmation from Sucherman, Brooks, McGraw, and Walter that they only saw the poles on the ground after the fact and that they have been erroneously sourced as having seen the light poles get hit we can not assume that any of these hearsay reports are reporting that any of these witnesses literally saw the light poles get clipped by the plane.

Because the precedence for deduction of this detail by so many witnesses has been firmly established we must have direct confirmation from the witness that they claim they actually SAW it happened before we can consider it valid evidence.

Hearsay is not evidence.

Craig...hersay isn't evidence but your word contradicting the eyewitnesses RedDawn brought up is evidence? That is what you call bias...

Perhaps you didn't understand the words I typed.

Please read them again but to help you I will re-iterate:

We have established a very strong precedence for the fact that alleged "light pole witnesses" merely deduced that they saw the poles and have been erroneously sourced.

Because so many key alleged "light pole witnesses" have already directly said this and in light of the north side evidence it's clear that we can not accept hearsay reports of alleged light pole witnesses out of hand.

They must be confirmed otherwise these hearsay reports are far from significant enough to come even close to counter the north side evidence.

Hearsay is not evidence.

First-hand testimony is.

I understood what you wrote so please cut the condesending bullshit or did you already forget the warning we all were given? You are discounting the eyewitnesses RedDawn listed on NOTHING more than your say. That is heresay. No evidence. If it is evidence, please take it to court and we will all see. You game?

Again I'd like someone to tell me how much time the plane had to actually emit smoke.

From the first lamp pole hit?

How can something of that importance like this be omitted this far in a thread covering that issue?

Hmmmhh...

Transparent.

Why is that so important?

Obviously it wouldn't be for more than about a second.

But the smoke trail would still exist after the plane hit the building and would linger and dissipate over time.

It is quite thick in the security video.

Surely someone would have noticed it.

Around 1sec iirc, or it could've been 1.5 but I don't think it was 2.

I agree with undertow that it probably only existed for a second or so.

And Craig, what makes you think (assume) the smoke trail would be visable/apparent after the plane hit the buiding? Don't you think that HUGE explosion would be the thing that every witness would then be looking at?

Also, I noticed you said "after the plane hit the building..."

So, I guess that means you have abandoned your flyover theory and admit the plane hit the building. That's a good first step...

Also, please don't bitch about me addressing the light pole witnesses in this thread when I simply responded to something you said IN THIS THREAD.

YOU BROUGHT IT UP in the second post of the thread!

There was no smoke plume.

The plane did not hit the building.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss why nobody reported it if there hypothetically was a smoke plume.

Way to be disingenuous.

I did not say it 'only existed' for 1 sec. I was commenting on "how much time the plane had to actually emit smoke."

A big difference.

My mistake.

I meant it only existed for a second or so BEFORE the impact.

After the impact, I don't think anybody would have been concentrating on it to notice how long it remained.

They wouldn't need to "concentrate" on it to notice it at all.

Surely somebody would have noticed a big thick smoke plume billowing out of the plane that lingered and dissipated after the alleged impact.

Let me know when you find someone who claims they saw this.

Will do.

As soon as you let me know when you find someone who claims they saw a flyover.

The notion that nobody reported a plane that flew over the Pentagon is entirely false.

That question is addressed in detail in this thread.

Please stay on topic.