Reply #85: Not true that: "we do know how much the camera distorted the faraway stuff

[dick_eastman]

We see clearly the non-distorted contours of buildings in the background -- consistently in proper proportion in all five clips.

AND we see the smoke in frame one, followed a the subsequent frames each showing that same location without distortion or anamoly.

And we see that the smoke to the right of the yellow parking-machine in the first frame is in line with the smoke trail that continues to the left leading into the white-hot missile explosion.

AND we have the clear shape of the tail fin above and behind the parking-machine -- distinct enough to show the presence of some kind of marking as well as the angles of the edges of the wing (the standard efficient form consistent with most jet aircraft today including both the Boeing 757 and the F-16 -- but the point is that the tail fin is clearly seen and it is a smaller and less distinct feature than the smoke.

AND in the extreme closeup we see holes in the smoke with dark high-contrast buildings in the background through the holes.

The camera is not an issue -- it is true in every detail both close-up and in the distance, including in the location where the missile plume had been but where background buildings are clearly shown in the subsequent shots.

Endless trivial quibble -- all that you know to be frivolous -- all that you have raised to me on half-a-dozen forums before this -- never to follow up once answered -- merely throwing up flak to confuse and throw off discussants.

You work to arguments at once, Harvey. Suggesting, but never committing, that it is not smoke, but rather an anamoly in the recording in one post. Then, that the smoke is real but that it is the result of hitting one of the poles in a second pole --

ignoring the details of witness accounts

ignoring the other evidence that puts the Boeing approaching the Pentagon across Washington Blvd from west to east to the north of those poles that were downed by the killer jet (which blew all but perhaps one of them down) -- the Boeing definitely coming over the SHeraton, over the Annex, and over the gas station and north of Riskus who saw it nearly pass directly over him etc.

You need to state your claim as to what happened Harvey, so we can test your assumptions and your deductions from the evidence.

Why is there no fuselage seen sticking out from behind to the left of the parking-machine given the size of the tail fin clearly visible? Remember, the Boeing is long enough to have seven of its tail fins along its back, Stegosaurus style, while the narrow parking-machine with the tail fin sticking out above it from behind is all 1/5th the width of the parking-machine -- there should have been, had the killer jet owning that tail fin been a Boeing 757, 2/7ths of that shiny aluminum fuselage with the red and white stripes along the side, prominently sticking out in the direct morning sunlight.

You acknowledge nothing. You commit to no position -- just innuendo questions, insinuating but never wanting to commit to a definite explanation. Yes, planes have been known to smoke. But missiles are known to make exactly this kind of smoke and exactly the kind of explosion that followed -- and the smoke is following the tail in exactly the right position for an F-16 missile firing -- and wintesses did see the missile firing all of a sudden appear and interpret its appearance as the "Boeing" crashing first into the grass and then bouncing into the building -- as even Pentagon spokesmen were saying in the beginning.

===========

RON -- OIL SMOKES NOT GASOLINE -- EVER OWN A CAR?



Endless quibbling and baseless indirection of tossed out overly general insinuating questions for the purpose of forstalling a conclusions and movement to the next step, viz., polticialization of the established fact.


Discussants do not have to be convinced that on various occasions airplanes have emitted smoke in emergencies --

the missile was fired after the poles were passed -- the smoke from the missile appearing suddenly over the lawn giving witnesses, in the split second of observation, the stimulus basis for their response confused interpretation that the plane crashed on the grass and bounced into the building -- the missile firing i.e., smoke and rocket fire suddenly beneith a plane less than eight feet above the ground, not being accurately proceessed by witnesses in the short time abailable.

Smoke of this density and positioning relative to the plane and matching perfectly the smoke trail of an air-to-ground missile is inconsistent with a leaking jet-fuel kerosene. No witnesses on Washington Blvd or in the cloverleaf interchange remarked being sprayed by falling fuel or smelling jet fuel or seeing the plane smoking during its approach before the perceived mid-lawn "crash and bounce" that never happened.

I grant that planes smoke when they hit things in flight. I grant that lamp posts were brought down. But in the case of the killer jet -- the smoke appeared suddenly while the plane over the lawn (interpreted as a crash into the grass) consistent with the sudden firing of the air-to-ground missile -- which matches the initial white-hot explosion and the damage to the first-floor of the structure (the way pillar #15 is blasted away with the rods still standing -- see

http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/wolfowitz_9-11_involvement/vwp?.dir=/&.dnm=proof+no+starboard+engine+hit.jpg&.src=gr&.view=t&.hires=t