Why Are There No Witnesses..., to the smoke/vapor plume from the plane

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?

(Posted Image)

(Posted Image)

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.

(Posted Image)

McGraw's alleged real life view:
(Posted Image)

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?

(Posted Image)
(Posted Image)

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 :

(Posted Image)

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 :

(Posted Image)

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.

(Posted Image)

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...

(Posted Image)

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...

(Posted Image)
(Posted Image)


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

(Posted Image)

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...

(Posted Image)
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.

(Posted Image)

(Posted Image)

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.

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?

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.