pentagon crash video, released Options

[nickluto]

the tail height (from belly to tip of tail fin, with gear retracted) of a 757 is 14.9 yards or 44.7 feet tall.

the pentagon is 77 feet tall....

i just dont see how the object in the picture is anywhere near 58% (this is assuming that the object was flying just inches above the ground, ignoring the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the ground at ~600mph) the height of the pentagon...even considering the perspective difference.

granted, the object (half of it) can only be seen in 1 frame. it goes from tip to about midway through, and the next frame shows the explosion with what seems to be the tail part sticking out.

the "new" video is nothing more than the extension of the previous 5 frames released right after 9/11

edit: not to mention the "contrails" or vapor trails that are seen coming from the object (they obviously aren't) . this only occurs at high altitudes with passenger jets due to the engine exhaust pushing the frigidly cold air past it's saturation point, forming little clouds.

Why the exhaust trail? missles are rockets, different from jet engines because they carry their own oxygen supply onboard which is usually liquid (very cold) so that the tank can carry more fuel in less space.

and yeah, the video quality sucks, so can't really be sure.

8 frames after impact, the contrast goes way up. shockwave??

Not sure if its a missle at all (i dont think so), but it could be a smaller civilian or military jet plane. the nose looks a lot like a learjet 45, Cessna Citation X, or a Dassault Falcon 2000 private plane

[Seeker]

another theory is that a smaller remote controlled drone plane hit the pentagon rather than a missile, which seems more plausible. one thing is for certain, and that's that it wasn't a boeing 757

[Testm0nkey]

i blasted through the pentagon in my computer chair from the sky and ran away real quick like

[Seeker]

possible

[dauss]

Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/...F-8006R-001.jpg




Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/...F-8006R-002.jpg




Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/...F-8006R-003.jpg

Where's the plane? Seats? Corpses?

[pysex]

that video is bs.....


they've already released that one before with like 5 frames taken out of it


if they're releasing the whole video now that moussa;slkdjfeieiiieieieieieiei is in prison then release the videos from the hi-res/high frame rate cameras on the hotel, gas station, and txdot station......

[dauss]

well if they did that it would prove that it wasn't an american airlines plane that hit.

[Junsui]

well if they did that it would prove that it wasn't an american airlines plane that hit.

Exactly! It was the Flight of the Navigator!

[John6.7]

For the people who think it's not a plane... Where did the 4th plane go?

[nickluto]

Section 8 of Project Northwoods

[FORSAKENR320]

[nickluto]

Why is this such a radical idea?

In the Spanish-American war the USS Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor, Cuba (which was later highly theorized to be an inside job) was used as justification for intervention in Cuba and liberation of the Phillippines.

In WWI, the sinking of the Lusitania (a passenger vessel that was later learned to have weapons, ammo, and food for the british war effort, unbeknownst to the crew/passengers) was cited as the cause for US intervention

In WW2, there was Pearl Harbor, which a lot of people theorize the U.S. knew about but was just lackidasical to respond to.

In vietnam there was the Gulf Of Tonkin incident that was later thought to be a total hoax, no US war ship was shot at and if it was, probably by US munitions.

And in the War in the middle east, terrorism is being used.

This may or may not be a conspiracy, but given what has happened in the past, why is this such a "radical" idea?

as a matter of fact, as logic would have it, i should think that YOU were the fringe lunatics given the record of planned conspiritorial attacks v. genuine provocation.

[Junsui]

It's not a "radical" idea. I just like my theory better.

[nickluto]

It's not a "radical" idea. I just like my theory better.

True. To each his/her own.

[Seeker]

Why is this such a radical idea?

In the Spanish-American war the USS Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor, Cuba (which was later highly theorized to be an inside job) was used as justification for intervention in Cuba and liberation of the Phillippines.

In WWI, the sinking of the Lusitania (a passenger vessel that was later learned to have weapons, ammo, and food for the british war effort, unbeknownst to the crew/passengers) was cited as the cause for US intervention

In WW2, there was Pearl Harbor, which a lot of people theorize the U.S. knew about but was just lackidasical to respond to.

In vietnam there was the Gulf Of Tonkin incident that was later thought to be a total hoax, no US war ship was shot at and if it was, probably by US munitions.

And in the War in the middle east, terrorism is being used.

This may or may not be a conspiracy, but given what has happened in the past, why is this such a "radical" idea?

as a matter of fact, as logic would have it, i should think that YOU were the fringe lunatics given the record of planned conspiritorial attacks v. genuine provocation.

congratulations, you actually study history and try not to repeat the same mistakes, most people don't