Pentagon to Release Crash Video
From Allahpundit on Hotair, who politely mentions us.
Breaking: Video of plane hitting Pentagon on 9/11 to be released at 1 p.m.
By the Department of Defense, according to Fox News. We’ll have it here, of course.
Moonbats all over the web are already working on their theories on how the video was faked.
Update: Since I know this is going to get asked numerous times. The reason why this tape was not released sooner was because it was part of the Moussaoui trial. From Judicial Watch:
“This is in response to your December 14, 2004 Freedom of Information Act request, FOIA appeal of March 27, 2005, and complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,” wrote William Kammer, Chief of the Department of Defense, Office of Freedom of Information. “Now that the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui is over, we are able to complete your request and provide the video…”
Now that the trial is over, the CTs are free to have as much fun with the video as they want.
posted by James B. @ 8:43 AM
42 comments
42 Comments:
Look at the pictures of the damage. Whatever hit the Pentagon was painted to look like a commercial airliner and many witnesses said it looked more like a small commuter plane. That and the fact that it took so long to release should put what they are to release in question and scrutiny. This has to be tested independently to verify its authenticity. Also, the 5 frames that were initially released are a known fraud.
many witnesses said it looked more like a small commuter plane
Many? Try 1. Everyone else in DC saw a 767.
Also, didn't the Pentagon have anti-missile batteries on the roof? Why didn't they hit this "plane" since they WERE tracking it?
Also consider that it was at least an hour + since the first plane hit the WTC, the DoD MUST have been on high alert. There is NO way ANYTHING should have hit the military headquarters of the United States, NO WAY.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html?section=cnn_latest
Based on this vid:
CT (your designation) totally vindated. Anti CT left with nothing.
Unconfirmed but just heard the tapes only show the "nose cone" of the "plane."
Guys (behind this blog),
Think about this, please. The Pentagon has the perfect opportunity to release video that proves something happened like the 9/11 Commission said. Look what they released.
Be f**king reasonable and realise the govt. is lying.
Also, one of the video we're getting is the security parking lot which has been already shown to have been altered.
LOL! Nice glare! hahahahaha..
Where's the gas station and the hotel tapes?
Also, didn't the Pentagon have anti-missile batteries on the roof? Why didn't they hit this "plane" since they WERE tracking it?
How about: They don't have such batteries on the Pentagon. They are too close too a major airport for that to be even close to safe.
Guys (behind this blog),
Think about this, please. The Pentagon has the perfect opportunity to release video that proves something happened like the 9/11 Commission said. Look what they released.
Be f**king reasonable and realise the govt. is lying.
They can't realize the government is lying to them because they've been so thoroughly fooled that the government actually works in their interest any attack to it is an attack to them. Once they figure out that is not the case, they won't take attacks at the government as personal attacks at them. Once you learn the truth, you cannot unlearn the truth..
How about: They don't have such batteries on the Pentagon. They are too close too a major airport for that to be even close to safe.
That doesn't make sense. It's like saying the secret service shouldn't carry guns if the president is near children, basically, bullshit.
But run this trough you memory banks, Andrews AFB is only 5 minutes (flying time) from the Pentagon; it was an hour or more since the first trade tower was hit. Even if the Pentagon was not armed how does this "plane" hit the pentagon in the most restricted airspace in the NATION? Does that really make any sense? Not in my book. You should also note, the Pentagon knew airplanes could hit it, you can see their exercise here:
Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies - Nov. 2000
BTW, the release of this poor excuse of a video simply reinforces what opponents of the "official" conspiracy are saying.
And you sir apparantly can't learn anything...
It may seem that way if you look at certain things with patriotic blinders. Nazi Germany was full of that.
LOL!
You guys shot your load a little too soon.
The video is the SAME freaking video we've seen all along with the 5 frames! Proves absolutely NOTHING in fact it proves the government is GRASPING to try to quiet the Truth Movement!
Nice try boys but this one has backfired. No Plane!
As the above posted put, this "video" today proves nothing. You guys should stop taking it so personally and use your brains for a second. You'll see though the bullshit as well.
At this point, (as was true when this blog appeared), there are really only two possibilities:
1) The people behind this blog are so emotionally attached to the propaganda of 9/11 that they can't think straight, or
2) The people behind this blog have an interest in misleading and not presenting a reasonable discussion.
My bet would be on #2.
If the clip at FoxNews is it, you're right, it's a little underwhelming.
"undense" you're certainly not living up to your name.
MSNBC and Fox News are already analyzing the "new" videos that have just been "released".
Same as it never was.
No Plane. Nice try!
That doesn't make sense. It's like saying the secret service shouldn't carry guns if the president is near children, basically, bullshit.
Fine then. Prove otherwise. Show me when the AM batteries are/were installed. Produce pictures of them. There are plenty of pictures of the Pentagon, show me where they appear in those pictures. Put up or shut up.
The people behind this blog have an interest in misleading and not presenting a reasonable discussion.
Apparently, what BG means by "reasonable discussion", is anything really. As long as it goes along with their ever changing theories as to "what really happened". Question those theories in the slightest, and all of a sudden you're an unthinking shill for the goverment.
Show me when the AM batteries are/were installed. Produce pictures of them. There are plenty of pictures of the Pentagon, show me where they appear in those pictures. Put up or shut up.
All we have are eyewitness accounts of these anti-missile batteries. I don't actually have any proof. But why would the Pentagon disclose if they did or didn't, wouldn't that compromise "national security?"
But the more important question you're not EVEN addressing; Why were no fighter scrambled from Andrews AFB? They had plenty of time.
Chad,
In your comment, you've got me wrong.
I agree that Loose Change is a flawed video. I'm not knocking this blog for saying wait a sec. I agree with "wait a sec."
However, saying 'wait a sec', is not the primary import of this blog. Note the NAME of the blog!
The commentary from this blog that slams "Loose Change" is simplistic and indefensible if one's goal is trying to find out the Truth of 9/11.
The other video has not been posted yet, even at Fox News.
Yes it has, it's the video with the glare and supposedly "close" than the first video with the 5 still frames.
To clarify, the second video is the video with the green glare. This angle is supposedly closer than the first video.
The first video is the one is the one that the 5 frames were released way back... That also got released in its entirety today.
I hate to interject sense into an irrational emotional discussion... but why the hell would the conspirators fire a missile at the Pentagon when they'd just hijacked a perfectly good airplane? Wouldn't it be easier (and considerably more sensible) to just crash an actual airliner? Just as effective and eliminates the need for messy cover ups. Or do we think these government conspirators are murderous imbeciles?
Or are y'all suggesting that the plane wasn't hijacked and Sentor whats-his-name's wife and all the rest of the dead passengers and crew were imaginary pod people?
As any law enforcement pro will tell you: you want to show someone guilt of a crime you need to show MMO (means, motive, opportunity). Just what is the motive for using a missile instead of an airplane? C'mon, it's not like you're saying these alleged government conspirators were squeamish about committing mass murder!
Think about it - it's like someone deciding to hire a hit man to kill their wife, buying a shotgun for the job and then stabbing her to death and CLAIMING she was shot with a shotgun. It just doesn't make sense.
www.puh-leeze.blogspot.com
Re: MeToo
The part of your discussion in your comment that is based on there being "hijacked" planes and "hijackers" is working on a premise that is, in light of all the evidence we have at present, a very shakey one.
Undense:
I'm not here to say that I know better than you what your experience has been with various individuals vis-a-vis 9/11 truth.
I am here to say that none of what you write in your comment has the slightest bearing on research that has been put forth by Tarpley, Griffin, Reynolds, etc. etc. etc.
undense, fox & msnbc have been showing the video today. It's slightly different- but still no plane. Basically the same as the 5 clips we have all seen with an additional clip that they are claiming shows the nose of the plane, but it could be anything.
Show me a video with a plane and we can talk.
undense: Bush and his ilk are evil, lying, wastes of breath who have broken the law, damaged our democracy and are inarguably the worst leaders this nation has ever know... but I still think "Loose Change" is a load of crap.
bg: okay, I'll bite. If the planes weren't hijacked, what happened to the passengers and crew?
All we have are eyewitness accounts of these anti-missile batteries. I don't actually have any proof. But why would the Pentagon disclose if they did or didn't, wouldn't that compromise "national security?"
I'll take that as another example that you are talking out of your ass.
I voted for badnarik last time too undense.
I'm surprised since you didn't fall for the laughable Bush/Kerry sharade that you are falling for the government's coverup on 9/11.
undense:
You complete ignorance of Griffin and Tarpley is showing loud and clear. Griffin and Tarpley don't definitively say that there were missiles anywhere.
A huge amount of the 9/11 Truth movement has not been about specific alternatives; it has been about wanting questions to be looked at, and once the 9/11 Commission clearly was a cover-up Commission, ratcheting up the indignation of not getting answers.
I understand the movie Loose Change and it's creators have been associated with certain contentions. However, if you really look as the big picture you would join in supporting the rest of us who have legitimate questions rather than figure how to torpedo Loose Change.
MeToo:
About the alleged hijackings. The evidence that disputes the "official hijacking stories" is large and convincing. I need to find a good way to give you links and references that distills it down to the essense, in respect to your time.
I don't claim, and I don't think anyone that disputes the hijackings does have specifics that explains who, what, when, where... who is dead, who is alive. Although I think it's reasonable to question how the coroners did their work, I'm not saying I know that any one person is alive that is alleded to be dead.
There have been, of course, reports of hijackers still alive, including Atta. However, since there seems to have been 3 "Atta's" over the period of 1998 to 2001, perhaps the idea that one is still alive is not contradictory.
I imagine you'll want details that you can sink your teeth into. I'll I boil it down and get back to you within the week.
I get the impression that you really haven't taken the time needed looking to see that anomolies and the contradictions in the evidence are more intracate than is usually talked about. Given the complications versus the confines of a 2 hr Movie, it's not surprising that Loose Change didn't take-on many areas.
It is mind bending when one tries to stare it all in the eye. There are clearly undiscovered pieces. If you have already, for example, taken any time looking at Bldg 7, and you dont' find it fishy, I doubt any amount of evidence is going to wake you up.
As you start looking at the various accounts, and treatments, several things fall out:
1) There is a "psyop" team of disinformation that is quite active. I'm referring to the Pop. Mechanics piece, as well as action "in the street".
2) The 9/11 Commission was a fraud.
3) The MSM is clearly controlled by those managing the Cover-Up.
4) Even the Scholars for 9/11 Truth seem to have questionable members (meaning members that may sabotage).
fresh air:
Sir / Madam: Please take the time to have an issue or a point to your post before using this space simply to insult.
Specifically, what do you disagree with in Webster Tarpley' Book: 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA
undense,
I think you and I agree on some things, and I see the point you are tying to make.
In the context of this blog, which is a bad faith effort at it's heart, I believe it's reasonable to point out that much of what is discussed here is beyond a fair debate: The anti-Loose Change posts are kin to the political hit pieces that we are all familiar with.
This blog is misguided. Those behind would seem to wish that the real murderers behind 9/11 get off scotch-free. The ignorance on the part of any one individual may be accidently, but the moral implications of the 9/11 Cover Up would seem to call for strong push back. That is my intention.
This is about the soul of our Nation.
As promised, links that explain why I think the hijacking story is bunk:
This first link, I think, was way before Nico Haupt realised LIHOP was bunk.
UQ Wire: Tracking All Hijackers (LIHOP Series).
911 : The lost War drill ? (Chapter 6-8).
Tracking the alleged hijackers and their doubles.
Buried beneath an avalanche of lies
How the hell can you really tell valid criticism from clever deception?
How To Steal An Airliner *AND* Fake A Hijacking
Ok, I'm aware that this group of links will convince no one if they have failed to be swayed. My point is to defend myself against being called crazy.
I don't claim you have to agree with me on any of these points. If you would simply agree that there is every reason in the world to believe that we have not been told the truth by the 9/11 Commission. That's all I'm asking for. If there is anyone over 30 years old that doesn't know about the Kissinger appt. as the head of the Commission and doesn't flinch, you simply have no credibility, no sense of ways power and mischief in the world.
I don't say that from a logic stand point there is a cold case. No reasonable person has ever said that a few details provide a cold case. Likewise, no reasonable person would demand a cold case in order to agree with the need for a real investigation.
If anyone reading this now hasn't taken the time to put together the fake bin Laden audios / videos, the fake Berg beheading, the Anthrax, the Patriot Act, the cowed Congress, the Katrina failure on purpose, if you haven't agonized for years seeing the inconsistencies, seeing the latest book by Clark Kent Ervin (yes, that's his name) explaining how the Homeland Security Dept. was a joke under Tom Ridge. If you haven't had enough awareness to see that something was terribly wrong, then nothing I can present can get through your thick skull.
bg: Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my post. Still, no matter how much fact checking you do you're going to find inconsistencies. That's the nature of the beast (especially a beast as big as this one!) I could look into just about anyone's story regarding just about any event and find inconsistencies.
Add to that the normal level of government secrecy and butt-covering and the natural contradictions of eyewitness accounts recorded both in the heat of the moment and in faulty recollections later and you're bound to find nuggets of juicy conjecture.
And I'm all for holding the government's feet to the fire and demanding answers. (Hooray for FOIA and the ACLU!!!)
But logically, the idea that Sept. 11th was a massive government conspiracy – especially based on the "evidence" that Loose Change presents - just doesn't hold. As far as I'm concerned, these simple questions blow "Loose Change" to bits:
Conspirators in a Sept 11 attack are clearly not squeamish about killing large numbers of people to acheive their goal... so why not just crash planes into buildings? Why bother to go to all the trouble of fake hijackings, offloading passengers, fake crash sites and black boxes and phone calls, prewiring buildings to collapse, launching missiles, etc, etc, etc... and all those other unneccessary complications?
Now, you want to argue that the Sept. 11 hijackers were in the employ of the gov't and not working for Al Qaeda, you might have a reasonable argument. (If you could back it up.) But all the rest of that crap about sneaking into the WTC and planting charges so it could be demolished and shuttling victims to Ohio to be "disappeared" and deliberately crashing an extra plane in a field in Pennsylvania (which contributes precisely nothing to the alleged war effort) is all just so much bull.
(Still, I'd be interested to see the details you mentioned. You can send them to me at my little anti-Loose Change blog, which is linked to my user name above. I'll look forward to hearing from you!!)
BG, again. I just don't understand how you can sit there and innocently claim that you're "just asking questions", and then drop something like Those behind [this blog] would seem to wish that the real murderers behind 9/11 get off scotch-free as though you know for a fact who's right and who's wrong.
I've met a guy just like you right outside my building a block and a half away from Ground Zero a month ago. And I get a huge kick out of how willing certain CTs like yourself are to kick other more "radical" CTs to the curb in an attempt to appear more mainstream and rational.
The fact of the matter is you're all crazy.
Why was my comment deleted? I stated quite well that your repeated reliance on witnesses is without merit. According to the rules of logical argumentation, you are compelled to cede the point and cease your reliance on witness testimony. You may use anything else which is still valid, of course.
"No coverup has been proven. Not a shred of hard evidence has been provided, only speculation."
Funny, the Official Conspiracy Theory has yet to be proven either.
Pentagon new video analysis here
Judicial Watch is a far right wing group who started off just to get Clinton.
More on them here...
Judicial watch Saudi flight
Post a Comment
<< Home