Tuesday, May 16, 2006

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.

62 Comments:

At 16 May, 2006 09:03, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 09:20, Blogger James B. said...

many witnesses said it looked more like a small commuter plane

Many? Try 1. Everyone else in DC saw a 767.

 
At 16 May, 2006 09:28, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 16 May, 2006 09:30, Blogger ScottSl said...

Im now hearing a rumor of two videos.

Take it with a grain of salt. Its from the Loose Change board.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4227

 
At 16 May, 2006 09:44, Blogger nesNYC said...

Also, didn't the Pentagon have anti-missile batteries on the roof? Why didn't they hit this "plane" since they WERE tracking it?

 
At 16 May, 2006 09:49, Blogger ScottSl said...

I heard they had laser cannons. WTF!!

 
At 16 May, 2006 09:53, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 10:15, Blogger ScottSl said...

Yep its from two angles
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195702,00.html

 
At 16 May, 2006 10:31, Blogger BG said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 10:36, Blogger nesNYC said...

Unconfirmed but just heard the tapes only show the "nose cone" of the "plane."

 
At 16 May, 2006 10:36, Blogger BG said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 10:38, Blogger nesNYC said...

Also, one of the video we're getting is the security parking lot which has been already shown to have been altered.

 
At 16 May, 2006 10:48, Blogger nesNYC said...

LOL! Nice glare! hahahahaha..

 
At 16 May, 2006 10:50, Blogger nesNYC said...

Where's the gas station and the hotel tapes?

 
At 16 May, 2006 10:54, Blogger LT said...

And what will you do when they release them NES, claim that they are fakes too?

 
At 16 May, 2006 10:54, Blogger telescopemerc said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 10:58, Blogger nesNYC said...

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..

 
At 16 May, 2006 11:04, Blogger LT said...

"Once you learn the truth, you cannot unlearn the truth.."

And you sir apparantly can't learn anything...

 
At 16 May, 2006 11:16, Blogger Paul said...

I thought moonbats were leftie/liberal types. Am I mistaken?

 
At 16 May, 2006 11:17, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 11:26, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 11:32, Blogger Realist06 said...

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!

 
At 16 May, 2006 11:34, Blogger LT said...

u don't have to be a patriot to keep from being an idiot. After all the debunking of your claims that has gone on, after your main points are dismantled, after ADDITIONAL evidence is brought to light (release of this video), you continue to hold on to some crazy-ass, evidence lacking, theory (that changes everyday mind you) that the government was really behind 911. One question - why? Accept the facts. We all know that your saddened that they government really wasn't behind it, but the more you squirm, the more you end up looking quite foolish.

 
At 16 May, 2006 11:40, Blogger undense said...

LOL!
You guys shot your load a little too soon.

lol. Look who is talking. Your reading skills are questionable as well, assuming you even read the accompanying articles about the release.

It's already known that the video containing the 5 frames is one of the videos being released. However, the other video is previously unreleased footage and it hasn't been posted anywhere yet. So you might want to withold your premature e-proclamation until the video is actually available, or you will very likely end up looking foolish.

Oh, wait. Too late for that, eh? You already pulled the trigger to soon.

 
At 16 May, 2006 11:41, Blogger nesNYC said...

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 16 May, 2006 11:48, Blogger BG said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 11:51, Blogger Pat said...

If the clip at FoxNews is it, you're right, it's a little underwhelming.

 
At 16 May, 2006 11:51, Blogger Realist06 said...

"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!

 
At 16 May, 2006 11:57, Blogger telescopemerc said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 11:59, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 12:03, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 12:10, Blogger undense said...

"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.


You claimed it was the same video of the 5 frames. That information was already disclosed in the news articles on the videos being released. From the Fox News article:

One of the tapes is from a security camera that was used to produce five still shots on that day. That video, which takes pictures in half-second increments, shows the nose cone of the plane clearly entering the picture, then a blur and then a fireball.

The other video has not been posted yet, even at Fox News.

Try to keep up please.

 
At 16 May, 2006 12:14, Blogger undense said...

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?"

LOL. What is someone going to do if they knew about them? Fire a missile at them to take them out?

btw, there are no AM batteries at the Pentagon. However, nearly a year later Rumsfeld did station some mobile batteries around D.C., including one at the Pentagon. Now if the Pentagon already had such AM batteries, why would a mobile one need to be stationed there?

 
At 16 May, 2006 12:33, Blogger BG said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 12:42, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 12:44, Blogger undense said...

Yes it has, it's the video with the glare and supposedly "close" than the first video with the 5 still frames.

It's posted there now. CNN has it as well and so does Allahpundit and this site. When I posted my comment it was still not available though.

 
At 16 May, 2006 12:46, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 12:46, Blogger MeToo said...

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

 
At 16 May, 2006 12:58, Blogger undense said...

bg,

To find truth it must be approached in an unbiased manner. Every single 9/11 conspriacy theorist I have ever seen is an administration basher. It would seem more like they are trying to validate their distaste for Bush and cast aspersions on the current US administration than actually seek any truth of the matter.

Besides, when facts are presented to them they either ignore them entirely or "cherry pick" and quote mine, the same behavior they supposedly despise from Bush. This blog has demonstrated their propensity for doing that repeatedly.

You can't discover or substantiate facts by doing that. You can only look deceptive and dishonest.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:01, Blogger BG said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:05, Blogger BG said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:10, Blogger Realist06 said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:11, Blogger MeToo said...

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?

 
At 16 May, 2006 13:23, Blogger telescopemerc said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:02, Blogger undense said...

bg,

When Tarpley, Griffin, at al can conclusively answer this question - Since when do missiles use 757 turbofans and wheels? - they might have a case. Until then, all this nonsense is nothing but that, nonsense.

Nor am I any kind of supporter of this admin. I voted for Badnarik last time around. I'm just saying that discovering truth requires that you approach a subject without a bias, and I've yet to see that from the conspiracy folks. They don't seem to be looking for truth. They seem to be looking for validation for their hate.

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:11, Blogger Realist06 said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:28, Blogger undense said...

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.

No coverup has been proven. Not a shred of hard evidence has been provided, only speculation.

Not only that, but it suggests that this bumbling, inept admin could successfully pull off a plan that had to involve hundreds if not thousands of people all working in secret without anyone else noticing. Yet not a single person has stepped forward to provide any proof they were involved in this supposed coverup. The Bush admin can't even keep their career professionals in the CIA from leaking like sieves. How are they going to keep the folks involved in this quiet?

And Kerry? He was a worse schmuck than Bush. If you want a coverup then ask yourself why he still hasn't released his military records freely for public scrutiny.

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:54, Blogger BG said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:56, Blogger Fresh Air said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 16 May, 2006 14:57, Blogger Fresh Air said...

BG, you are a complete clown. You have ignored all of the physical and recorded evidence and introduced your tinfoil variety as supposedly dispositive of this allegedly complex government plot that, besides being terribly risky and cruel, would seem to benefit a rather small number of people, if anyone.

In fact, I can't actually name anyone who would benefit by the "government" (which one, by the way, there are thousands of different entities, you know--? No, you don't!) using secret agents to fly passenger airplanes into buildings. I'm sure you have some crackpot theory there, too.

You really are out of your mind. So are you nesnyc. I wonder how you guys sleep at night with all the jackboots stomping under your window?

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:01, Blogger Fresh Air said...

Geezus, Pat & James, you guys have really got a bad infestation of lunar rodents. Somebody must have blown the silent whistle. They are echolocating over here to dump loads of nitrogen-enriched commentary.

Erudite, too. Freaking lunatics should be locked up so they don't hurt themselves.

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:06, Blogger undense said...

bg,

When you reply with "clearly" and other such absolutes, you come off as yet another of the CT lemmings.

Besides that, most of this conspiracy consists of "Bbbbut there are unanswered questions." Then when those questions get answered you aren't satisfied. Instead you just create new questions, many of them completely ignorant of physics and engineering, or often straw men arguments.

You're not seeking truth. In your own mind you have already made your conclusion. You're looking for converts to what you believe, as if it's some kind of religion. So please stop jerking us all around about your search for truth. That's nothing more than another lame straw man.

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:22, Blogger BG said...

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).

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:33, Blogger BG said...

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

 
At 16 May, 2006 15:54, Blogger BG said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 16:40, Blogger BG said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 16:42, Blogger MeToo said...

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!!)

 
At 16 May, 2006 20:41, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 16 May, 2006 22:02, Blogger RanDomino said...

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.

 
At 17 May, 2006 10:15, Blogger Realist06 said...

"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.

 
At 20 May, 2006 07:11, Blogger sumy23 said...

This blog is for defending corruption.

If you post any real info on this blog they will just delete your post. They really only encourage weak info. Anything that they can't debunk gets deleted. Dont waste your time here.

 
At 03 March, 2007 12:40, Blogger batcave911 said...

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

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home