-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Major News! Pentagon Video Release Disproves Government Story!
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 21:13:33 -0400
From: Les Jamieson jazzyday@earthlink.net
To: apfn@apfn.org
Today the Pentagon released what was touted as new video footage of what is supposed to be Flight 77 striking the building on 9/11 to Fox News. Leading up to the release commentators were saying this would conclusively disprove "conspiracy theorists" claims that no plane hit the Pentagon and it would be over, once and for all. I'm sure you'll see this on the news tonight and in coming days, as well as on sites like 9/11blogger.com and 911truth.org. After all the buildup, it turned out to be a huge anti-climax because there is no clear indication of a Boeing 767, there is a false claim that the plane hit the lawn and kicked up dirt, and much more.
Below is a letter to the Dayside program (Dayside@foxnews.com ) from Tim Paulson, and another one from myself. I urge everyone to take some of these points and blast your email lists, media, call-in shows, etc.
-----------------------------------
Dear Dayside hosts,
Having witnessed your presentation of the Department of Defense video of a "757 striking the Pentagon" I can only say I am beyond "underwhelmed," as you commentators admitted to feeling. I am outraged. There is no plane in that shot. Neither did your commentators say they saw one. Even the expert had to admit that if there was a "nosecone" visible, it wasn't apparent in the video we were all looking at. Futhermore, that expert went on to say he could see "dirt flying up" as if knocked into the air by the plane.
Why then don't we see the plane that "knocked the dirt" up? If we see the dirt, then the camera should also capture the plane that knocks the dirt up. Furthermore, the lawn in front of the Pentagon was left famously pristine--even though a 757 has its engines slung on the underside of the wing, where they would almost certainly strike the ground. More damning still, we see a contrail in the shot--the wisp of smoke that streaks along the ground at missile speed. Jet planes only leave contrails at high altitude, and even then, its the condensation of water particles that produces the contrail, not the engines, which burn clean at any altitude--kerosene fumes are invisible.
I say this as the author of How to Fly a 747 (John Muir Press, 1991) which I did in cooperation with Boeing. I witnessed a 747 close up, fully revved, no visible contrail at all. Nothing.
All of these things--the fact that we see no 70 foot high tail, no 40 foot in diameter fuselage but we do see a contrail--add up to proof that a plane DID NOT STRIKE THE PENTAGON.
The shoe is now on the other foot. Only a conspiracy theory nut job could insist that this video is evidence of a plane striking the Pentagon. I would ask such an individual--where is the plane? Why is there that white streak? And wait for the answer.
Which would not come. Because there is no reasonable explanation other than to say it was a missile--which does leave a contrail. Because like the Space Shuttle or any other rocket motor propelled device, missiles DO leave contrails.
And please. Tell me why you did not have a Pentagon spokesman to explain where the plane is in the tape. That's the reason they're showing it, putatively, to show the plane hitting the Pentagon. Where is Colin Powell with his pointer? Where's the Pentagon expert to circle the "nose cone" or whatever piece of the plane they claim to have captured on film?
Please address these questions. The public has a right to answers.
Timothy Paulson
--------------------------------
Dear Dayside hosts,
After more than 4 1/2 years of secrecy, a transparently fraudulent investigation, photos of an untouched lawn near the impact zone, testimony about Hani Janjour's terrible pilot skills by his flight instructor, a near impossible 270 degree turn while descending 7,000 feet within 2 minutes, there's no way the government can all of a sudden provide credible proof a plane hit the Pentagon. Furthermore, with no NTSB investigation, contrary to legal requirements, the whole case for a plane hitting the Pentagon is unsupportable. Let's remember, the government has lied about every reason for invading Iraq, issues of torture and rendition, Saddam's connection to 9/11, getting court orders for wiretaps, not knowing the levees in New Orleans would break, just to name a few. There is no reason to believe we've been told the truth about what really happened on 9/11. Just asked the 9/11 families who compiled 400 questions, most of which were ignored by the 9/11 Commission. Then try to explain how WTC7 collapsed at 5:20 PM in a freefall although it wasn't hit by any plane and why the media has been silent about it.
Les Jamieson
Brooklyn, NY
---------------------------------
Folks, this is a huge setback for the official deception. Let's do all we can to capitalize on it and end the tyranny of criminal, treasonous actions at the highest level of our government, military, media, and intelligence complex.
Truth will prevail,
Les
========================
Defense Secretary:
"and the missile to damage this building"
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed on 12 October 2001 by Lyric Wallwork Winik (yes, that's her real name), a columnist for Parade, the magazine that comes in many Sunday newspapers across the US. Although Parade is one of the most mainstream magazines imaginable (think People meets the Saturday Evening Post), Winik blindsided Rumsfeld with a question that few reporters/interviewers have the guts to ask:
"This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?"
Rumsfeld is apparently shaken by this young reporter's forthrightness. First, he admits what few else dare:
"There were lots of warnings."
Immediately after this sentence, though, the Secretary starts to qualify it. He subtly plays the "we didn't connect the dots" card:
"The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find."
Although he doesn't directly say it, it would seem that Rumsfeld is insinuating that the poor, understaffed, shoestring intelligence and defense establishments can't put together intelligence in a timely manner.
Now things get really bizarre. After admitting that there were plenty of warnings, he says it was up to the FBI and especially state and local law enforcement to deal with the imminent terrorist attack:
"And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues."
To sum up Rumsfeld's explanation: 1) The warnings were there; 2) the Defense Department and the intelligence community couldn't figure them out; but anyway 3) it was up to the FBI, state law enforcement, and local police to uncover and prevent the worst terrorist attack in US history.
And here's something to kick around. Still answering this question, Rumsfeld goes on to make a strange statement:
"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."
MORE:>>
- Re: Major News! Pentagon Video Release — Fri May 19 06:24
- 05/18/06 Lou Dobbs re: Illegals and Social Security — Thu May 18 23:58
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
