It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 32
74
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

That sure is a nice find. Confirms what a lot of us have been saying for a long time. But, you are right, some folks still will not believe it.




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: facedye

Testimony
There is testimony from the Maintenance Team Chief who was responsible for the cameras and recording equipment at the Pentagon if you care to read it?



I read through that entire exchange - why exactly do you find this important or notable? what exactly do you believe this provides clarification on?


A picture of a videotape is not proof. Can you not transfer it to another medium and upload it to the web? Is that beyond your ability? I am not giving you my post office box number, it could be a plot to steal my identity.


this is so comical - I paid literally no attention to you until you replied to me in this thread, and now all of a sudden you're worried I'm going to steal your identity?

how about this: I'm not going to give you a link to my short video on the web - you might use my information as a plot to steal my identity.

edit on 6-4-2017 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: D8Tee

A sworn testimony detailing the whole system, how it worked, what wasn't working, every bone of contention covered. Surely no-one will be arguing over that.

Well I feel some will but they're behind the 8 ball now


I find it ironic that conspiracies never extend their investigation into all aspects of 9/11, act shocked when you provide information that contradicts their biased view, while making allegations rational people are blind to the truth.

What is the conspiracists' motto? Innuendo, speculation, and YouTube good enough to accuse the in flight pilot that gives an account of a large silver jet hitting the pentagon, local citizens, individuals, families that buried the dead of flight 77, local firefighters, local EMTs, reporters, local coroner, DNA lab technicians, clean up crews, recovery teams, work crews, security camera technicians, persons that analyze flight recorder data, radar technicians, air port staff, air traffic controllers, American Airlines staff, forensic experts, CIA, FBI, the militant arm of the National Transportation Safety Board, the militant arm of NIST, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and NORAD are part of a murderous conspiracy.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Individuals worked to highlight the available footage to show it images a large jet.

Its been proven by testimony and fulfilled freedom of information requests there is no more flight 77 footage to release.

And you will not take a stance on a theory to supersede a large jet hit the pentagon?

You only have, "your comical". You only have failed attempts belittling others and character assassination.

Care to list a fact concerning the pentagon?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
Its been proven by testimony and fulfilled freedom of information requests there is no more flight 77 footage to release.



This is not testimony and so it has zero evidentiary value. It was an interview. Testimony is given under solemn oath.

Besides...I have reasonable doubts about this part:



Is he referring to THIS camera?



Close up:



It sure doesn't look "destroyed" to me.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What evidence do you have all flight 77 video is not released?

How does your suspicion there might be unreleased video discredit anything? There is no logic in your train of thought.

And the real issue is you have no theory to supersede large jet strike verified by human remains, jet wreckage, damage to the pentagon, death certificates, DNA testing, radar data, flight recorder data, and a 100 plus eyewitness accounts.

Again, please list names of who is lying? If you have no evidence of individuals lying, that means your claims are unsubstantiated and slanderous.

There have been sources cited there is no more footage to release, sources cited using scientific method to show a large jet hit the pentagon, sources cited the flight recorder data backed by radar and eyewitnesses backs the official flight path.

For you to have a case, cite a source since 2016 there is more footage to release.

Start discrediting the 100 plus individuals person by person that attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon.

Discredit the cited source that uses the scientific method to show a large jet hit the pentagon.

Discredit the source cited that flight 77's flight recorder data is authentic and backs the official flight path.

Discredit that source cited that there is no proof explosives used at the pentagon, and the damage is consistent with a large jet strike.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

All I am saying for this argument is a large jet hit the pentagon.

PROVE me wrong!
edit on 6-4-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

It's funny but not surprising, that after so many years of doubts expressed about video records NOT provided by the pentagon, they start finding/fielding "experts" to explain why. LOL



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Any proof something other than a large jet hit the pentagon?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

There is ample proof that something other than AA77 hit the building.

More precisely, there is NO proof that AA77 hit the building.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What evidence do you have all flight 77 video is not released?


I want to see all the videos confiscated by the FBI -- regardless of what they claim the videos show. If they show nothing -- THEY ARE STILL EVIDENCE. And allegedly they are evidence to SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL STORY and the official flight path.

They are still evidence if they show AA77, a missile, or nothing at all.

And that evidence has been concealed. 'Concealment of evidence' is ALSO evidence...evidence of consciousness of guilt on the part of those concealing it. Because there is no good reason to conceal those unreleased confiscated videos, I give the 'act of concealing them' a lot of evidentiary weight. You don't.

Understand the above before you ask me one more time about wanting to see "videos of AA77." I want to see ALL of the confiscated videos -- they are ALL evidence...ALL OF THEM.

The evidence they exist was already posted a few times. See this comment: Link



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

This testimony was given in 2006.
history.defense.gov...

It's been around awhile. Thanks for missleading innuendo based on presenting no facts.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye

history.defense.gov...

Here's some testimony about the pentagon recordings that may interest you.


Again, that is not testimony. Testimony is given under solemn oath. THAT is an interview with the *cough* interesting label of being an 'Oral History.'

Interviews and 'oral histories' have zero evidentiary weight.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

How does a rant on what you cannot substantiate discredit a large pentagon jet strike.

Hint, it doesn't.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

This testimony was given in 2006.
history.defense.gov...

It's been around awhile. Thanks for missleading innuendo based on presenting no facts.


AND, once more, that is NOT "testimony." Testimony is given under solemn oath. THAT is an interview/'Oral History.'

Interviews and 'oral histories' have zero evidentiary weight.

Talk about misleading innuendo!



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye

history.defense.gov...

Here's some testimony about the pentagon recordings that may interest you.


Again, that is not testimony. Testimony is given under solemn oath. THAT is an interview with the *cough* interesting label of being an 'Oral History.'

Interviews and 'oral histories' have zero evidentiary weight.


It's a first hand account by a person. It's credible until you can discredit the account. If you are saying they are not credible without proof, then that's a slanderous implication.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well, they have much value as instruments of propaganda....




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

How does a rant on what you cannot substantiate discredit a large pentagon jet strike.

Hint, it doesn't.


But I can have reasonable doubts about it based on questionable evidence, lack of evidence, concealment of evidence, and poor quality of evidence.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well, they have much value as instruments of propaganda....



Exactly.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye

history.defense.gov...

Here's some testimony about the pentagon recordings that may interest you.


Again, that is not testimony. Testimony is given under solemn oath. THAT is an interview with the *cough* interesting label of being an 'Oral History.'

Interviews and 'oral histories' have zero evidentiary weight.


It's a first hand account by a person. It's credible until you can discredit the account. If you are saying they are not credible without proof, then that's a slanderous implication.


I can disregard it entirely because it was NOT given under oath. It has zero evidentiary value.


edit on 6-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join