The White Smoke after the second hit... what is it?

[Lucas]

Having just finished watching "In Plane Sight" for the first time, I'm thinking that most of his crap has been thoroughly debunked or ridiculed (e.g. the "pod" theory).

There is however one question that is raised in the video that I haven't seen an explanation to - white smoke coming from somewhere between the Twins and WTC7. This smoke is seen approximately 1 minute after the second plane hit the south tower.

Does anyone know if there was something to it, an official explanation, anything?

Here's a pic of what I'm talking about, on 911studies:
911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

I linked to that URL from my SFT#1 (check my post called "Make or Break" Questions) about the WTC7 missile theory, but honestly I didn't think much of it. I'm wondering myself right now why I didn't ask myself this question before!

[Redtail]

That's the South tower collapsing. They show a grainy pic of the North tower from the corner to give the illusion of two buildings.

[babazaroni]

Von Kleist, the maker of In Plane Sight has withdrawn this claim in the directors cut edition.

He has also made a retraction video of sorts where he chooses to focus on wondering why he was so savaged by all, even ct'ers.

qcBIjzJ-zhE

[Disinfo Agent]

It is funny, that this huge Cloud (which allegedly was visible prior to the collapse) is supposedly only visible from this particular angle. This is the rising cloud from the collapsing south tower. It would be obvious, when they would have shown the actual video and not only still frames of it. And this footage was not shown "once and then never again". I saw it on the CNN Pipeline on 9/11/06

[CHF]

The fact that they don't show a video is revealing.

But in the photo you can see smoke and debris pouring down to the right of the North Tower.

In other words, it's the South Tower falling.

Apparently the kooks think it was a rocket strike or a bomb that produced a 50+ story cloud and no one noticed except the brillaint kids at 911 Studies.

Morons.

[HeyLeroy]

Hey, Lucas, good to see you here.

In the left pic, look to the right of the tower in the foreground; you can see that the cloud of dust/smoke is already at the level of the lower buildings. This picture was definitely not taken "one minute" after the South Tower was hit.

ETA: Look at the frame-grabs down the right side of this page for a better understandin of how it's the collapsing tower dust cloud and not some mysterious explosion from the ground: http://911studies.com/911photostudies116.htm

[Pardalis]

Another lie from the Truth Movement? It's uncanny!

[parky76]

if that picture was taken a minute after the 2nd plane hit...we would have all seen it. we would all know about it. we would all have figured it out. but we didnt see it right after the 2nd hit..we saw it as the building was coming down.

ug

[HeyLeroy]

More nuttiness from the same site, in his other photoanalysis:

http://911studies.com/911photostudies12.htm

He seems to assert that there are at least two people hidden by the white-shirt guy, blue-shirt guy and beret guy.

To me, it looks like only one person. That person is either walking or jogging from left to right.

I'll go point-by-point to refute his analysis:

Not a thigh, but the bent right calf of the person hidden. Lower left leg and shoe of hidden person. Shadow of right leg. Going under the sidewalk; huh? Shirt and butt of hidden person (notice the feet are cut off; it's difficult to determine depth perception. I'm guessing the photographer had a longer lens on his camera, and beret guy is not as close to white-shirt/blue-shirt guys as he appears. Notice the relative height of his belt buckle in relation to blue-shirt, and the thickness of his legs). Head of hidden person.

My analysis: one person, not two.

Also notice the closely cropped picture of the kneeling man with what mr. white asserts is a bloodstain on his shirt, and compare it to the bigger picture here: http://911studies.com/911photostudies3.htm.
The supposed 'bloodstain' is a combination of sunlight reflecting off the red stretcher and shadow, distorted by video compression artifacting.

I guess mr. white wanted to get a few blurry fire-truck pics in between these two pics so we'd forget about the stretcher.

[Pardalis]

My god, and what about this one?

http://911studies.com/911photostudies25.htm

The giant can opener conspiracy now... :rolleyes:

[Lucas]

Hey, Leroy! Thanks for the link, man.

Oooookkk... I think I'm starting to understand now. The thing is, I was seeing the two towers still standing in the picture, because I see a big white vertical line straight down the middle of it, my eyes didn't register that the damage was inconsistent with the positions the planes hit. Now that you tell me that the south tower is falling, I can see that it's just an idiot that put the wrong time on the pics (probably on purpose - the ahole!)


It's kind of weird how it looks though, really. If the south tower was still standing this would be a real mystery, but since it's now obvious that the picture was taken after the south tower collapse, it's easily explained.

Thanks guys, I guess I was seeing things :P

[gumboot]

Hey, Leroy! Thanks for the link, man.

Oooookkk... I think I'm starting to understand now. The thing is, I was seeing the two towers still standing in the picture, because I see a big white vertical line straight down the middle of it, my eyes didn't register that the damage was inconsistent with the positions the planes hit. Now that you tell me that the south tower is falling, I can see that it's just an idiot that put the wrong time on the pics (probably on purpose - the ahole!)


Look at the dimensions. That line down the middle is the corner of WTC1. If that were both towers, they would be ridiculously skinny. I doubt a building of those dimensions would stand.

What's REALLY funny is in the top right picture they label both halves of the tower as WTC1, and label what is clearly a cloud of smoke, absent of a building, as WTC2.

-Gumboot

[The Demon's Head]

In Plane Site has been heavily criticized by other truthers and truth movement organizations. It is a badly made video.

[Lucas]

In Plane Site has been heavily criticized by other truthers and truth movement organizations. It is a badly made video.

Just about as badly as LC, I guess. The guy does have the appeal of "maturity", what he says sounds good, though we know it's mostly crap.

[gumboot]

Just about as badly as LC, I guess. The guy does have the appeal of "maturity", what he says sounds good, though we know it's mostly crap.


In Plane Site is a far inferior documentary, I believe.

When I saw it I debunked it just by watching it. A lot of their "evidence" is purely poor photographic interpretation.

In contrast Loose Change actually presents "evidence" of some things - in the form of newspaper articles, quotes from people on the scene, etc...

Although some aspects of Loose Change never fooled me, there were other aspects I had to look into before I could discredit.

-Gumboot

[MaGZ]

Having just finished watching "In Plane Sight" for the first time, I'm thinking that most of his crap has been thoroughly debunked or ridiculed (e.g. the "pod" theory).

There is however one question that is raised in the video that I haven't seen an explanation to - white smoke coming from somewhere between the Twins and WTC7. This smoke is seen approximately 1 minute after the second plane hit the south tower.

Does anyone know if there was something to it, an official explanation, anything?

Here's a pic of what I'm talking about, on 911studies:
911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

I linked to that URL from my SFT#1 (check my post called "Make or Break" Questions) about the WTC7 missile theory, but honestly I didn't think much of it. I'm wondering myself right now why I didn't ask myself this question before!

The white smoke cloud is the result of the blast from the missile that hit WTC 7 at 9:03. You can also see the white smoke cloud in the Naudet documentary 9/11.

If others think the cloud is the result of the fall of WTC 2 then why does it also appear in the Naudet documentary moments after the second plane hit WTC 2?

The white cloud
http://911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

[Gravy]

The white smoke cloud is the result of the blast from the missile that hit WTC 7 at 9:03. You can also see the white smoke cloud in the Naudet documentary 9/11.

If others think the cloud is the result of the fall of WTC 2 then why does it also appear in the Naudet documentary moments after the second plane hit WTC 2?

The white cloud
http://911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058Still won't watch this video, Ma Grand Zed? I've asked you to SIX TIMES. http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/

Some people are satisfied with neo-Nazi CocoaPuffs, but not rational people.

[Lucas]

MaGZ, why don't you stop annoying everyone with your stupid idiotic and easily refutable theory?

Just look at this picture, you moron:
WTC7 Intact during South Tower collapse (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc40_small.JPG)

Can't you just shut the f**k up now?

[MaGZ]

MaGZ, why don't you stop annoying everyone with your stupid idiotic and easily refutable theory?

Just look at this picture, you moron:
WTC7 Intact during South Tower collapse (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc40_small.JPG)

Can't you just shut the f**k up now?

You asked a question about the white cloud. Watch the Naudet documentary and you will see the white cloud.

[Gravy]

You asked a question about the white cloud. Watch the Naudet documentary and you will see the white cloud.

SEVENTH TIME

Still won't watch this video, MaGrandZed? http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/

Rational people disdain neo-Nazi CocoaPuffs. So should you.

[Pyrrho]

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058
Thought I'd seen that "missile" photo somewhere before. Thoroughly debunked many times over.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=33

Also try a search here for "paranormal bird" or "paranormal hat".

The "missile" is a bird flying by relatively close to the camera, which is focused on the towers.

[MaGZ]

Thought I'd seen that "missile" photo somewhere before. Thoroughly debunked many times over.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=33

Also try a search here for "paranormal bird" or "paranormal hat".

The "missile" is a bird flying by relatively close to the camera, which is focused on the towers.

It doesn't look like a bird to me.
http://www.public-action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/3/flash91.htm

[Gravy]

It doesn't look like a bird to me.
http://www.public-action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/3/flash91.htm

EIGHTH TIME

Gonna watch the video I've linked to seven times, which shows the entire event and demonstrates that your claims are completely false? Or are you unable to handle it? If the latter, please go away. We can't fix your illness.