I’m surprised that OG hasn’t started a thread on this yet but apparently a second video tape of the plane/truck/missile/flying explosive elephant that hit the Pentagon circa 9/11 has been released due to a freedom of information requestion by Judicial Watch. Now, I’ve been trying for half an hour to get on the Judicial Watch website and, predictably, it’s jammed tighter than a nun’s c*nt on sunday. So I’m asking if any of you have seen it and if you have, what it shows. I’m not expecting anything earth-shattering, though the only existing film that I’ve seen could be a flying elephant as easily as a plane.
This is interesting…
I haven’t seen the tape yet either… but if I had to take a guess I would say it’s doctored. The problem is that technology is slowed down on the public level to stimulate the economy… it’s hard for the public to spot doctored things at first, so at first we just have to take it at face value…
I dunno… there is a lull right now in the media, perhaps this is the start of something new.
Hello F(r)iends,
The link appears to be working well. Pay close attention to the film starting at about 38 seconds and you get the best look of the plane approaching the building.
Of course you would. 
-Thirst
I have just seen the video released and they seem to think it might be a missile rather than a plane.
Not surprising at all…
of course Thirst won’t be surprised to hear me say that either.
Yeah, actually I just saw it on MSNBC earlier this night.
Basically it was a load of poo-sack.
I’ll tell you exactly what happened during the interview with “Pentagon employee” (can’t remeber his name…something that ended with ‘ski’)
Dan Abrams asked him about the video.
(this is a very rough memory, because I just got tanked)
The dude said, well the government released this video because of the ‘freedom of information act’.
Then they showed the video, the angle of the shot was pretty shtty, it was more obscure than the shot shown in the ‘conspiracy theory video’ (whatever it was called).
The guy said alot about the shot, about how you could see the silver streak, thus indicating that it was a fusaloge.
However he also said (suprisingly) that a Air-Force pilot was telling him after the impact, that to be able to keep the plane as close to the ground as the video indicated for as long as the pilot did, was an amazing feat.
Then the guy went on to say that he knew that there were conspiracy theorist that say that the explosion at the Pentagon was actually caused by a U.S. missle.
He said that there were rumors about other videos then the one that they had shown on the news (I’ve seen them, as I’m sure many of you have). He said that if these videos existed then we would have seen them.
Well I have seen the videos!!! And they look a lot different then the ones that the government released to the general public
He also said that these rumors were ridiculous and that eye-witenesses said that it was a plane that flew into the Pentagon
Well…to be honest I don’t quite know what to believe…but the footage that the Pentagon released was not the only footage of the event that exist…I know that for sure.
And they are denying this.
Why?
Well…you decide that…
I’m not surprised to see you two not surprised by each other. 
Ha, very good… 
Indeed, I’ve now seen the new video, which shows nothing that wasn’t on the old video.
judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml
On the 1st video the plane/elephant hits at about 1:27 through the 3 minute tape
On the 2nd it hits at about 25 seconds through the, again, 3 minute tape.
I have to say, the second one doesn’t reveal anything that we didn’t already know - a flying thing that looks like a plane or a missile hits the building and there’s an explosion. Now, not being an explosives expert I’m only speculating but the nature of the explosion looks to me more like a load of kerosene or somesuch exploding rather than a missile. I’ve seen bits of Gulf War footage of buildings being hit by missiles and they don’t tend to flare up like that whereas when planes explode they invariably go up like that (if they’ve got fuel). However, there’s no way anyone but an expert pilot could fly a plane of the stated size that close to the ground for that long and the hole in the side of the building prior to the collapse sure doesn’t look like a plane has hit it.
There are patches all over this story but there are also about 25 different versions of the story, all of which are partially (and none of which are wholly) borne out by the facts. It’s an odd one, I must say. The official line is obviously an incomplete record but official lines always are; this doesn’t necessarily imply a government conspiracy. All the conspiracy theories are as patchy and contradictory (if not more so) than the official story.
Maybe, through the most amazing coincidence conceivable, on the same day at the exact same time both events happened, both a plane that had been jihacked (sic) and a missile purporting to be a plane that had been hijacked struck the Pentagon. Maybe there was both a terrorist attack and a government conspiracy…
Hmm, correct me if I am wrong but surely 190 people died in the Pentagon hit? From my shody perspective that doesn’t look like a plane at all! Certainly nothing big enough to carry 190 people. I’m no giant fan of conspiarcy theories but that just didn’t look like the same kind of Aeroplane that flew into the trade towers. It looked much smaller. It was not instantly recognizable as a plane.
Hmmmm 
Hello F(r)iends,
A missile would have had a much more difficult time flying in at such an angle. It would have had to have been shot from a position that would be far too visible. It was a plane and the video appears to show a plane.
-Thirst
True.
That video is about as reliable as the footage of Geoff Hurst’s legendary 3rd goal in the 1966 World Cup final.
Hello F(r)iends,
People watch grainy videos of big foot and UFO’s and to them that is proof that these things exist. People hear testimony from the locals about what they saw and they get wet just thinking of the possibilities that aliens may soon land on our planet. But when it comes to 9/11, if the testimony does not shine a negative light on the government, then everything is doctored and the witnesses are CIA operatives, and Bush is out to get you. So, I agree. This video might just be as reliable as all the other “evidence” out there…
-Thirst
Explain.
Missiles are quite accurate these days (ie the 70’s). A lazer guided missle can hit the doorknob on a standard door.
Not accurate enough?
Why would the Government take the risk of launching a missile into the Pentagon, when it would only take one rogue tourist to capture it on film to expose the cover-up? 
Doesn’t seem too bright to me.
Having said that, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Government knew the attacks were going to take place, and didn’t act on intelligence they had. It seems this was the case in the tragic Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland in 1998. MI5 apparently knew about the planned bombing months in advance, but somehow failed to act on it.
Anyone who claims to see a plane or a missile in that one frame of footage either has a more daring imagination than myself, or better eye sight.
Hello F(r)iends,
It’s not about accuracy, it’s about trajectory.
No matter how well they would tag the facility, for the missile to come in at a side impact, it would be extremely unlikely that it was shot from the jet or from some distant location. Which means it would likely have to be a ground launch and from a location where the side impact is plausible and most direct.
-Thirst
Correct me if I’m wrong but the relatively flat impact of the object into the pentagon does not rule out a missile since available cruise missile technologies (the American Tomahawk for one) can be programmed to hug the ground using terrain following systems.
This would allow it to impact the building at a relatively flat trajectory, would it not?
I’m not claiming that it was a missile, just that the fact that it came in low and flat does not conclusively prove it wasn’t a missile.
cheers,
gemty
Hello F(r)iends,
LONG RANGE MISSILE LAUNCHES:
. 
. 
SHORT RANGE MISSILE LAUNCHES:
. 
MISSILE TRAJECTORY:
. 
. 
MISSILE RADAR:
Simply put, long range missiles are designed for overhead impact. Even close range missiles follow a particular arc-like trajectory. But a close range missile launch risks witnesses. Unless no one noticed a tank in the neighborhood… A rocket launcher is unlikely to cause the type of damage we saw. Flat impact is possible, but extremely difficult and has a lot of exposure. Why risk this in a conspiracy? Why not just fake hijack the plane which would be easier and make it more difficult to accept a possible conspiracy.
-Thirst
Thirst,
Of course, that’s the main problem with the missile theory, that you would have to fire it from about half a mile away from the Pentagon to be able to do it, and that’s really, really obvious.
Then there’s the issue of why so many people saw a plane. If this was some sort of mock-up then the thing that would most interest me is how they managed to produce the illusion of a plane, particularly the sound.
On the other hand, that hole in the Pentagon sure doesn’t look like a plane has hit it and there’s the issue of where the hell the plane went (in pieces, obviously) after the impact.
Like I say, it’s an odd one and the evidence that we have is somewhat contradictory and very patchy.
True, but there’s far more at stake with 9/11. It was, tenuously, used as the justification for two wars in the Middle East. It was used as a diplomatic tool by the US both in terms of putting pressure on the UN and the whole ‘you’re either with us or against us’ line that came out of the White House quicker than you could say ‘Global Jewish Conspiracy’. It has been cited time and again as the reason why Guantanamo Bay is still open despite being one of the most corrupt and violent facilities that I’ve ever heard of. There’s a lot more at stake than Bigfoot.
There’s also a ‘pure media’ element to all this - 9/11 is the most photgraphed incident of all time (so we think) and there’s a certain theory that says that the more actual accounts (photographic, grammatic, whatever) of an event, the more the number of differing interpretations of that event. Personally I don’t believe that the equation is always accurate but in this case one can use it effectively.
Gemty,
I’m not sure what he’s talking about. A tomahawk could easily do this. It’s not the 40’s.
There is the issue of eye witness accounts of a plane, but I’m wondering just how much of that was disinformation. It’s easy for the media to say ‘eye witnesses’ but where are they? quotes anyone?
I’m waiting for the tape of the republicans in the doctored winnebago…
oh it must be out there, they strapped an airplane’s nose cone on the front of it so it would trick the cameras into thinking it was a plane…
the bomb on board must have done the damage to the pentagon…
yeah, yeah, and the hundreds of people that were supposed to have died on the plane were wisked away to a special vacation spot… no, too complicated… they must have been eliminated by bush himself in a mini mass grave behind the lincoln memorial…
it is an evil bush conspiracy just so bush could go to war for oil… oil that we still don’t have… oh damn… have to cook up another incident now…
it is soo obvious that any clear minded left wing sympathizer could immediately embrase this as truth…
-Imp