I usually don't post a prisonplanet page, but this one was so off-base that I decided to post it. It shows a modified Pentagon video clip with a 757 dubbed in at the wrong size, distance, and perspective. The tail appears to be at a height comparable to that of the Pentagon. The tail height of a 757 above ground is about 44 feet. The height of the Pentagon is about 77 feet. The dubbed video is obviously an attempt to try to dupe people into thinking that the aircraft seen in the unmodified video was too small and must have been a missile. http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/170506reallylook.htm A more accurate representation made by someone from a 911 forum (modified pentagon video with 757 dubbed in). The size of the 757 in these pics are reasonably consistent with how it would appear at the proper distance and perspective: Prisonplanet version: .
For anyone interested in jet engines, aerospace.org has an excellent page describing the engines of a 757. They also carefully go through the engine debris seen at the Pentagon and show it is consistent with components of a 757 engine. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml I'm sure the conspiracy advocates will claim a researcher at aerospace.org is a relative of Chertoff, or that the photos were faked, or that the engine parts were planted there by government agents, or that everyone involved is a liar. .
yeah all in all we can agree this video sucks...so why don't they release the videos from the ritz carleton and the gas station right across from the pentagon that recorded the entire thing and wasnt a shitty frame by frame camera.
So who blew that last picture up, Shaggie? That makes the plane look EVEN BIGGER than on the original, inaccurate (as you claim), edited piece taken from Prisonplanet! The picture that YOU posted is hosted on a private server, so what is the link to the original picture? You should make it clear that the picture isn't the same size as the one on the Prisonplanet site, and that you blew the picture up to add even more distortion to the distortion you are claiming. You talk about distortion when you are engaing in it yourself. What a hypocrite! The purpose of the doctored Jones footage was to show how easy it would be to FAKE video of a plane hitting the Pentagon if they wanted to. It had nothing to do with the implication that a missile hit the Pentagon. The DOJ could have released that SAME DOCTORED VIDEO Jones did, and most the public, including people like yourself, would buy it without question because it came from "official" government sources. And of course we know the government never lies. The purpose of the recent Pentagon footage wasn't to prove or disprove anything, rather stir up MORE debate amongst the believers and non-believers of the official government version of events. Jones believes that within six months to a year, more footage will be released that will be crystal clear, showing the plane crashing into the Pentagon. Jones believes the video would either be REAL or FAKE, but it would most likely be fake. (It would be so easy to fake it, as Jones proves.) This would serve to help discredit those pursuing the truth by bringing the debate to the forefront then crashing it down so all the non-believers can say "See, you were all wrong. You're just a bunch of conspiracy kooks." Jones has NEVER promoted, let alone focused on, the missile-hit-the Petagon theory, and has stated numerous times that he has no solid opinion about what happened to the Pentagon, other than that he feels we're not being told the truth. If anything, Jones tries to avoid the discussion/debate of the Pentagon attack in favor of more SOLID evidence, such as NORAD standing down and prior warnings to government officials.
Once again, the Pentagon is the MOST SURVEILLED BULIDING IN THE WORLD! There are hundreds, if not thousands of cameras in the immediate area of the Pentagon, located in different locations, capturing different angles. Even if (and that's a big IF) the video quality was no better, there are still better angles that would capture the plane better and for a longer period of time before impacting the building. As far as the best evidence regarding the Pentagon attack, I think it's the fact that the plane descended 7,000 feet in just under two minutes, while making a steep 270 degree turn from its approach angle only to hit the side of the Pentagon that was conveniently undergoing "renovation" at the time. It was, of course, on the opposite side of the building that people such as war criminal Donald Rumsfeld were on. Yet, like sheep, we're supposed to just go along with the government fairy tale that an Arab extremist with piss poor flying skills was able to pull this off, unhitched, in a Boeing 757. A handful of seasoned commercial pilots have come forth since 9/11 saying this would be IMPOSSIBLE for even the most experienced pilots to pull off in a 757, let alone patsy/CIA-asset, Hani Hanjour, who could not even fly a two-person CESNA. Shaggie will not address something like this, though. It goes against his agenda and the agenda of his CIA handlers.
This is the Pentagon we're talking about. Not 7-Eleven. Of course they have better surveillance capabilities.
That's interesting, because when Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press presented the pictures of the photographed engine rotor to Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce, Bollyn was told by a Rolls Royce spokesperson that: "it is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy."
i would agree that it is curious that the pentagon has so few cameras so not to record a direct attack. if anything one would expect that the pentagon would have more than a few decent cameras. maybe they just don't want to release the film.
Rat, I didn't alter the size of the aircraft in any of the photos. The one I posted was on prisonplanet. It shows a 757 that they dubbed in but at the wrong size to make it look very big so people would think the unaltered video showed a missile. I looked into the other two photos I posted. They were done by Russell Pickering. He dubbed in the pics of a 757 into the Pentagon video but in a way that is consistent with the distance the aircraft would be from the camera. The idea was to try to show what the aircraft would have looked like had the video not been so fuzzy. Pickering has since said that that the conspiracy groups shouldn't put too much more time in the missile theory and instead focus on issues such as WTC7. .
I'm sure the Pentagon has much better video and stills than what has been released, and I call for its release. The video won't necessarily be fuzzy just because the aircraft was going fast. A 1/200th shutter speed would only result in a blur of a few feet for the aircraft passing by a camera. If the camera is facing the oncoming aircraft, the picture would tend to have even less blur since the aircraft isn't moving across the field of view. The Pentagon looks bad either way on this. If they have better video (and I'm sure they do) they are guilty of being secretive about it. If they don't, they are incredibly backwards with their surveillance technology. .
Also, two frames per second doesn't mean that the shutter speed is one-half of a second. The shutter speed can be very high, depending on the quality of the camera. Some of the video of the south tower being hit shows the aircraft clearly, even though it was going over 600 mph, even in the case where the camera was fixed and the aircraft crossed the field of view. I would think a place like the Pentagon would want to have fast-shutter cameras in the event that something was launched at it. .
It stands to reason that it clearly wasn't from an AE3007H, which powers a global hawk. The size and shape of the compessor wheel are consistent with those seen in an RB211 turbofan, and so is the combustor case. We don't have to rely on quotes from Bollyn. Look it up yourself on the diagrams and match it with the pieces at the Pentagon. Let us know who the spokesman was that Bollyn spoke to. Maybe he/she wasn't familiar with all the details of the engines. I hope it wasn't Ben Chertoff's mom. .
