Pentagon Video to be released today

[robertdreed]

75 <p></p><i></i>

[dugoboy]

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757" target="top"><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--></a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>a 757 is 44 ft tall<br><br>124 ft wingspan.<br><br>picture of the exact jet:<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/AA757.JPG" target="top"><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">AA757.JPG</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--></a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>you tell me.<br><br>robertdreed what are you doing? <p>___________________________________________<br>"BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dugoboy@rigorousintuition>dugoboy</A> at: 5/17/06 12:14 pm<br></i>

[NavnDansk]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1206560&mesg_id=1206560">www.democraticunderground...id=1206560</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>Interesting DU Thread:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Did I just hear Wolfie correctly on CNN?... <br> <br> ...Did he say the Pentagon has admitted removing some frames from the footage of that security camera showing something hitting the Pentagon? Unless I heard wrong, he went on to state it was because the image it did capture would likely have fueled conspiracy theory and they didn't want to do that. Then he just moved right on like that was nothing unusual or worthy of any additional comment, not even a pause.<br><br>Someone tell me I just dreamed what I saw on CNN. INCREDIBLE.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[dugoboy]

i could explode with laughter.<br><br>one thing can all do if forward this link: <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml" target="top">www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br>to everyone we know. email it to everyone. the video itself makes people question.<br><br>i am currently listening to Alex Jones on his radio show, he is interviewing one of the main guys from Judicial Watch. they really do seem to be the real deal. Alex asked him if he thought the pentagon released these pictures on purpose, he said yes. Alex made the point that the government never released the videos that security cameras caught during the oklahoma city bombing, something like 12 of them exist. 84 or so tapes exist that caught the 'plane' crashing into the pentagon. <br><br>we'll see.. <p>___________________________________________<br>"BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dugoboy@rigorousintuition>dugoboy</A> at: 5/17/06 12:26 pm<br></i>

[StarmanSkye]

-- Just to throw this out-there -- I've read speculation, allegedly with 'some' circumstantial evidence, that the Boeing's tail may have broken-off on impact and catapulted over the Pentagon facade, and landed in pieces on one of the inner-ring roofs and/or the interior ground-spaces. <br><br>To note: The perspective makes it look like the Boeing tail is higher than than the Pentagon, but it's not. In the original 4-frame video 'leaked', one can even see what looks like a chunk of debris that could be the tail and/or parts of it.<br><br>But what's the real deal with the 'leaked' Pentagon video frames, anyway? Why hasn't the Pentagon/White House gone after THAT unauthorized release of classified info, what SURELY must be among the most closely-held video the Pentagon controls? Just goes to show how much a psyop everything about officially 'explaining' 911 is. Shameless lies and manipulation by a government that has utterly lost its credibility and betrayed its citizens, now entirely deserving of our distrust and utmost well-earned contempt.<br><br>Starman <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

It doesn't even look like an image of a 757 in that gif.<br>A 757 would seem to be much longer.<br><br>Whatever that plane is, it's too stout to be a 757 - no?<br><br>I'm concerned that a stouter plane hitting the Pentagon further in toward the viewer than the actual impact zone is designed to make the plane look bigger in comparison to the building. I just want it to be true to scale, I wary of Prison Planet (or whoever made that gif) altering the specs to strengthen the "no-plane" case.<br><br>I'm willing to consider a "no-plane" theory, though.<br>As long as the evidence is unmanipulated. <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

they dont have to worry about the answers.<br><br>Thomas Pynchon <p></p><i></i>

[thrulookingglass]

No, it's not quite to scale. The pentagon is 77ft high. A gear down 757 sits at 44.5ft high (wheels to the tip of the verticle stabilizer/rudder)... <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

No, it's not quite to scale. The pentagon is 77ft high. A gear down 757 sits at 44.5ft high (wheels to <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>the tip of the verticle stabilizer/rudder</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->)...<br><br>That's the high point on the tail?<br>If so, then that gif sucks.<br>In it, the tail is as high as the Pentagon.<br>Granted the wheels would have been some feet off the ground.<br>But not over 30 feet, right? <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per...graphical)</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

Um, RDR, I had already mentioned that.<br><br>The question is <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>how much</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> it's been foreshortened?<br><br>And would a proper perspective still make the "plane" in the footage released yesterday look laughable? <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

see post #81. <p></p><i></i>

[NavnDansk]

That is a great piece of evidence about James McIntyre lying, Banned from DU (I was banned about a month ago, I think for quoting too much scripture or for linking to Feb. 2004 issue of Village Voice about John Kerry covering up eyewitness evidence of POWs and MIAs still in Vietnam to aid GHW Bush, see also KISS THE BOYS GOOD-BYE)<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. <br><br>The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Sounds like controlled demolition to me. What is McIntyre's motive for lying, threats or bribes or both? <p></p><i></i>

[dugoboy]

the pentagon walls are 900 ft length wise. this means its 6 or 7 boeing 757's across. so theres that. <p>___________________________________________<br>"BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dugoboy@rigorousintuition>dugoboy</A> at: 5/17/06 1:02 pm<br></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>see post #81.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>How cute.<br><br>Come on man, be real. <p></p><i></i>