Pentagon Video a sham

Comment #7

pacattack05 — Wed, 17 May 2006 19:06:05 GMT

I just don't buy any of it. As far as alterations, these days anything can be doctored. They only found one engine core, HMMMMMMM

Comment #6

konane — Wed, 17 May 2006 18:52:28 GMT

Probably since those were not government/military cameras they didn't admit them into evidence. My understanding of any military still photos is that you have to make them with a film camera instead of digital because digitals can be altered. Probably something along those lines is their reasoning since it's a military thing. Also meant to mention that the hole made by Flight 93 when original photos were released wasn't anything but a hole with probably not over 10... [ More ]

Comment #5

pacattack05 — Wed, 17 May 2006 18:10:54 GMT

I'll give you that one, but why haven't the tapes of all the other cameras been released? The gas station, the Sheraton hotel, a camera showing 1-395, and I think a couple more. Click on the link in my blog entry after this blog, and see all the cameras.

Comment #4

konane — Wed, 17 May 2006 17:59:26 GMT

I checked Boortz.com this morning and since Neal is a pilot and owns/pilots one or more airplanes, he had nothing derogatory to say about the released video and seemed to consider the matter settled. My take is that given how many seconds between frames and the descending speed of that plane the blip shown on one video frame would be just about all you could see. Also upon impact with thick Pentagon walls that would effectively have collapsed the wings backward into the fuselag... [ More ]

Comment #3

time*treat — Wed, 17 May 2006 10:34:15 GMT

A small plane or a cruise missile with wings? ;-)

Comment #2

pacattack05 — Wed, 17 May 2006 07:00:36 GMT

Kitty knows me very well........

Comment #1

emilyg — Wed, 17 May 2006 06:41:13 GMT

interesting. thanks.

Original Blog Entry: Pentagon Video a sham

pacattack05 — Wed, 17 May 2006 05:27:20 GMT