FBI Publishes 9-11 Pentagon Attack Photos on 3-23-17... With Faces Blacked Out

a reply to: facedye

When was the last time you cited any source.

I have cited three sources that
One) Used the scientific method to prove a large jet hit the pentagon.

Two) There is no proof of explosives planted at the pentagon, but evidence of a jet strike.

Three) The flight recorder data from flight 77 was authentic, supports the official flight path, and is supported by a majority of the eyewitnesses and radar data.

a reply to: facedye

I have also cited that individuals have enhanced the two frames that shows an object flying into the pentagon to show it was a large jet.

a reply to: neutronflux

stop replying to me.

a reply to: facedye

Then ask the moderators to ban me or don't post in a forum I am allowed to engage in?

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: D8Tee

your beliefs on this are without merit, substantiation, and realistic content.

That is of your opinion.

they are simply your hopes and suppositions. they do not hold up to scrutiny.

Others would say they do.

if you really can't answer my rebuttals with facts, or any relative citations, then maybe it's time for you to rethink your point of view to fit in line with *all* of the information we have available.

Tell me again how a cameras frame rate is directly linked to the video image captured by the recording device?
You accept no evidence given, you stick to your magical thinking that excludes anything foreign or new to you.

for your information, i have first hand experience with digital video, as well as tape and film. yikes! how embarrassing for you.

Can you please provide evidence to prove what you have said is true?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye


When the prime suspect(s) are conducting the investigation, doing the blaming, and releasing evidence as they see fit...yeah, people will have a lot of reasonable doubt, from that alone.

?

This is why the status quo considers conspiracy believers to be crackpots.

While it's true that there were several guv agencies investigated 9/11, those investigations were carried out by individuals. And by calling these individuals the "prime suspects", your so called reasonable doubt is judged by others to be Unreasonable, cuz they are tainted by bias from your "healthy dose of cynicism of the guv."

THAT would disqualify you as a juror in a hypothetical case.

There's proof of what I say: the staus quo hasn't changed, despite conspiracy believers belief that their doubts are reasonable.

Here's a clue : they're not.....

So like I said, in order to change things, to get new investigations going, or whatever else it might be that you seek, you need to bring extraordinary evidence to shake things up. Merely taking the imaginary moral high ground, as it appears you believe you are doing, will accomplish nothing and will relegate you (again, the royal you) to being nothing more than an obscure oddity of history.

So without this extraordinary evidence, you will fade into obscurity. I guess you're comfortable with this.....

originally posted by: MrBig2430

This is why the status quo considers conspiracy believers to be crackpots.

While it's true that there were several guv agencies investigated 9/11, those investigations were carried out by individuals. And by calling these individuals the "prime suspects", your so called reasonable doubt is judged by others to be Unreasonable, cuz they are tainted by bias from your "healthy dose of cynicism of the guv."

THAT would disqualify you as a juror in a hypothetical case.

There's proof of what I say: the staus quo hasn't changed, despite conspiracy believers belief that their doubts are reasonable.

Here's a clue : they're not.....

So like I said, in order to change things, to get new investigations going, or whatever else it might be that you seek, you need to bring extraordinary evidence to shake things up. Merely taking the imaginary moral high ground, as it appears you believe you are doing, will accomplish nothing and will relegate you (again, the royal you) to being nothing more than an obscure oddity of history.

So without this extraordinary evidence, you will fade into obscurity. I guess you're comfortable with this.....

Uh...I doubt there is anyone who doesn't have some opinion on 9/11. Those that blindingly support the official story would be eliminated as jurors by the defense in a hypothetical trial.

At least I am in the 25% who claims to 'not know.' I would be an ideal juror for a hypothetical trial...as ideal as either side could hope for.

The official story is inherently tainted NOT because I declare them 'potential suspects,' but because they are 'potential suspects.' Again, see the poll I posted a few pages back. Even pollsters have asked respondents if they think the U.S. government is behind the attacks.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MrBig2430

This is why the status quo considers conspiracy believers to be crackpots.

While it's true that there were several guv agencies investigated 9/11, those investigations were carried out by individuals. And by calling these individuals the "prime suspects", your so called reasonable doubt is judged by others to be Unreasonable, cuz they are tainted by bias from your "healthy dose of cynicism of the guv."

THAT would disqualify you as a juror in a hypothetical case.

There's proof of what I say: the staus quo hasn't changed, despite conspiracy believers belief that their doubts are reasonable.

Here's a clue : they're not.....

So like I said, in order to change things, to get new investigations going, or whatever else it might be that you seek, you need to bring extraordinary evidence to shake things up. Merely taking the imaginary moral high ground, as it appears you believe you are doing, will accomplish nothing and will relegate you (again, the royal you) to being nothing more than an obscure oddity of history.

So without this extraordinary evidence, you will fade into obscurity. I guess you're comfortable with this.....

The official story is inherently tainted NOT because I declare them 'potential suspects,' but because they are 'potential suspects.'

No, you specifically stated that the investigations were carried by "potential suspects."

Therefore, you are calling all of those individuals potential suspects. You clearly realize your error and are now attempting to back track, but that won't work.

Nor will your repeated attempt to climb up on some self imagined moral high ground. We can all see you're doing it, so don't deny. The repeated calls to your reasonableness is therefore exposed as a fraud. A lie. And all can see it.

ETA: Oops, I was wrong. They aren't POTENTIAL suspects, according to you, they are PRIME suspects.

That makes it even worse now...

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MrBig2430

This is why the status quo considers conspiracy believers to be crackpots.

While it's true that there were several guv agencies investigated 9/11, those investigations were carried out by individuals. And by calling these individuals the "prime suspects", your so called reasonable doubt is judged by others to be Unreasonable, cuz they are tainted by bias from your "healthy dose of cynicism of the guv."

THAT would disqualify you as a juror in a hypothetical case.

There's proof of what I say: the staus quo hasn't changed, despite conspiracy believers belief that their doubts are reasonable.

Here's a clue : they're not.....

So like I said, in order to change things, to get new investigations going, or whatever else it might be that you seek, you need to bring extraordinary evidence to shake things up. Merely taking the imaginary moral high ground, as it appears you believe you are doing, will accomplish nothing and will relegate you (again, the royal you) to being nothing more than an obscure oddity of history.

So without this extraordinary evidence, you will fade into obscurity. I guess you're comfortable with this.....

The official story is inherently tainted NOT because I declare them 'potential suspects,' but because they are 'potential suspects.'

No, you specifically stated that the investigations were carried by "potential suspects."

Therefore, you are calling all of those individuals potential suspects. You clearly realize your error and are now attempting to back track, but that won't work.

Nor will your repeated attempt to climb up on some self imagined moral high ground. We can all see you're doing it, so don't deny. The repeated calls to your reasonableness is therefore exposed as a fraud. A lie. And all can see it.

Well, yeah. That's because they are. They were long before I realized it, too.

And, again...it's evidenced in the polling that's been done...here's an example:



Not my invention. So...WTH "error" are you talking about? And, "moral high ground?" You drifted into some incoherent, desperate ramble, there.

I am allowed to have my own reasonable doubts.


ETA: "Potential" and/or "prime"....The U.S. government is one of three possible suspects polled on and widely investigated (formally and informally)...that makes them "prime" AND "potential" suspects. They are both prime and potential suspects...not because I say so...but because MANY people say so AND because they had the motive, means, and opportunity to have perpetrated the events of 9/11.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MrBig2430

This is why the status quo considers conspiracy believers to be crackpots.

While it's true that there were several guv agencies investigated 9/11, those investigations were carried out by individuals. And by calling these individuals the "prime suspects", your so called reasonable doubt is judged by others to be Unreasonable, cuz they are tainted by bias from your "healthy dose of cynicism of the guv."

THAT would disqualify you as a juror in a hypothetical case.

There's proof of what I say: the staus quo hasn't changed, despite conspiracy believers belief that their doubts are reasonable.

Here's a clue : they're not.....

So like I said, in order to change things, to get new investigations going, or whatever else it might be that you seek, you need to bring extraordinary evidence to shake things up. Merely taking the imaginary moral high ground, as it appears you believe you are doing, will accomplish nothing and will relegate you (again, the royal you) to being nothing more than an obscure oddity of history.

So without this extraordinary evidence, you will fade into obscurity. I guess you're comfortable with this.....

The official story is inherently tainted NOT because I declare them 'potential suspects,' but because they are 'potential suspects.'

No, you specifically stated that the investigations were carried by "potential suspects."

Therefore, you are calling all of those individuals potential suspects. You clearly realize your error and are now attempting to back track, but that won't work.

Nor will your repeated attempt to climb up on some self imagined moral high ground. We can all see you're doing it, so don't deny. The repeated calls to your reasonableness is therefore exposed as a fraud. A lie. And all can see it.

Well, yeah. That's because they are. They were long before I realized it, too.

And, again...it's evidenced in the polling that's been done...here's an example:

Not my invention. So...WTH "error" are you talking about? And, "moral high ground?" You drifted into some incoherent, desperate ramble, there.

I am allowed to have my own reasonable doubts.


ETA: "Potential" and/or "prime"....The U.S. government is one of three possible suspects polled on and widely investigated (formally and informally)...that makes them "prime" AND "potential" suspects. They are both prime and potential suspects...not because I say so...but because MANY people say so AND because they had the motive, means, and opportunity to have perpetrated the events of 9/11.

Can you provide a link to your actual poll please, not just the chart but the poll itself with the questions that were asked, polling methods, sample size etc.

originally posted by: [post=22099196]MotherMayEye

I am allowed to have my own reasonable doubts.


.

Well there's the problem.

The world has judged your doubts to be Unreasonable. The proof, again, is that the status quo hasn't changed, nor will it.

Just like moon hoaxers. You believe yourself to be reasonable. The world doesn't.

a reply to: D8Tee

I did a few pages back...but here it is again: Link

originally posted by: [post=22099220]D8Tee
Can you provide a link to your actual poll please, not just the chart but the poll itself with the questions that were asked.

It's nothing but a crutch to prop up unreasonable doubt.

And ignores that asking a question about 9/11 skews results to attract 9/11 conspiracy believers. Truly reasonable people would consider wasting time on even answering a waste of time and not respond.

I'd imagine that a poll about the moon landings would also attract moon hoaxers and skew results. I wouldn't bother answering this poll either.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: [post=22099196]MotherMayEye

I am allowed to have my own reasonable doubts.


.

Well there's the problem.

The world has judged your doubts to be Unreasonable. The proof, again, is that the status quo hasn't changed, nor will it.

Just like moon hoaxers. You believe yourself to be reasonable. The world doesn't.

LOL. And do you have a link to the "WORLD" poll/vote you conducted that "judged my doubts as unreasonable?"

More ridiculous claims from OSers.

ETA: "Everyone in the world believes me!!!! MEEEEEE!!!!"

You are so silly.

a reply to: facedye

What was going to stop them? The FOURTEEN fighters we had for continental air defense that day? And how were they going to do that...especially when it was not until the second jet hit that they knew we were under attack...at which point the other two jets were basically an unlabeled blip on a radar screen and hundreds of miles from the nearest alert fighter. So, what was going to stop them? Again, there were not a lot of apparatuses that they had to subvert. It does not take a genius to figure out where the US Air Force has alert fighters and adjust your plans accordingly in regards to what aircraft to hijack. This goes back to the mistaken belief that the United States had some massive air defense system, which is just not true for 2001. And even today, it is not unheard of for an aircraft to go 45 minutes before an intercept after ATC notices there is a problem.

2.Legitimate to believe that 19 hijackers to hijack four jets vs the couple thousand Americans? Yes, actually it is. The hijackers...had to hijack four airplanes. For the idiotic conspiracy theories, you need crews in the hundreds to wire the WTC buildings for demolition. You need the hundreds of police, fire and rescue workers to ignore the det cord/wiring that would have been draped throughout the debris field after the buildings came down. Pennsylvania would need the fewest numbers, but even then it would have to be the several dozen people who first responded to the scene and ignored the folks seeding the airliner parts all over the field. At the Pentagon, you would again need to ensure that no one outside of the conspirators were on the highways alongside the Pentagon (during rush hour mind you), you would need to have the Lincoln Memorial blocked off since its a direct line of sight to the impact zone of Flight 77...pesky tourists. Hell, you could not even have had the ground crews at Arlington National Cemetery at work, across the highway. Then the fire crews that were on scene within minutes...it is funny how many times people trot out the photo of the two firetrucks with very little debris around them and then claim that it was AFTER that photo that the debris showed up. They never seem to realize that it means that the fire departments were conspirators (nor will they ever admit that the camera was pointed to the right of the debris field on the lawn). Then the rescue crews who were crawling in and around what was left of Flight 77 in the Pentagon..they would have to be conspirators as well. The people at the Reagan National Metro stop, who had close to ringside seats to Flight 77's last seconds would have to be conspirators too, as well as the Tower Crew at Reagan National who had actual ringside seats....What you fail to realize is just how many people were actually in the vicinity that day and were witnesses...mainly because there was absolutely no way for them to all be tracked down to make witness statements. So, yes, it is actually more legitimate to believe the 19 hijackers than the cast of thousands necessary to make the conspiracy theories a reality.

a reply to: MrBig2430

Instead of looking at the evidence that a plane hit the pentagon, we are supposed to disprove that missile hit it? Absurd.

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy, coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.


He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.

originally posted by: [post=22099239]MotherMayEye


LOL. And do you have a link to the "WORLD" poll/vote you conducted that "judged my doubts as unreasonable?"

.

Polls are useless.

The results are in and you are being ignored. You are fading into obscurity. Hope you're comfortable with that.

a reply to: D8Tee

you can't substantiate your own opinions. that's why you responded with the statement that you think your opinions are "most likely the case."

i don't really care what other people have to say about your opinion when you yourself can't even present a coherent argument to support it.

Tell me again how a cameras frame rate is directly linked to the video image captured by the recording device? You accept no evidence given, you stick to your magical thinking that excludes anything foreign or new to you.

what in the world are you talking about? let's not muddy up this exchange. what i am and have been saying to you is that the cameras lining the roof of the pentagon, had they been recording the event, *regardless of shutter speed and framerate,* will be able to provide AMPLE triangulation of the object that hit the pentagon - be it a plane, a drone, a missile, etc.

this is not magical thinking. this is a fact. when you say magical thinking, seriously, what are you talking about?

as far as i can tell, you know that there were a multitude of cameras lining the roof because there are plenty photos showing this to be true. you can't prove they weren't working, and simply decide to defer to the official story. you simply decide to sit back and say "wellp, guess there really is no more footage regardless of those cameras."

i say again - you know there were cameras lining the roof, and you know you can't prove that they didn't record the impact.there's nothing magical about my thinking when i assert that had these cameras been recording the impact, we wouldn't have to have this conversation.

Can you please provide evidence to prove what you have said is true?

sure, would you like a copy of my short films digitally or on tape?

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: [post=22099239]MotherMayEye


LOL. And do you have a link to the "WORLD" poll/vote you conducted that "judged my doubts as unreasonable?"

.

Polls are useless.

The results are in and you are being ignored. You are fading into obscurity. Hope you're comfortable with that.

*strokes your ego*

Oh, noes, I am so devastated to hear the world has made up its mind about me and you had the burden to carry this message to me!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You don't get closer to the truth by being hung up on the misconception there might be better footage for example. There is responsible doubt better footage exists.

You don't get to the truth by denying the more than adequate evidence a jet hit the pentagon.

Can you supersede the large jet at the pentagon with something more credible?

Saying they didn't look for evidence of a missile or cordite is a straw man argument.

Investigations are conducted by what the evidence shows. Not by taking the pieces and trying to smash them into a missile narrative. Then taking the pieces to smash them into a cordite narrative to see if it looks better.

Why didn't the investigation check for acid attack, wind shear, earthquakes, sink holes, hundreds of people with hammers, hurricanes, leaking gas line, leaking gas tank, flour mill explosion, tornadoes, sonic attack, microwave attack, tsunami, suicide vest, car bomb, meteorite strike, falling space junk......

Because it's biased and impractical to try to go make a case by theoretical cause by cause. It's much more efficient and scientific to go only where the evidence points too.


Being hung up there might be footage somehow disproves radar / flight recorder data (error of logic), or the false missile theory, has ground the USA to a hault to getting to the true failures on 9/11.

You don't get to the truth by pushing false narratives. Sorry. The truth movement is its own worst enemy. (Or its desperation for a smoking gun or true messiah?)

Now back to stolen missiles, holograms, lasers, drones, thermite, dustification, energy waves, nuke bombs in diesel tanks, fire extinguisher bombs, thermite ceiling tiles, fizzle no flash bombs.......