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: 34
73
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye




All of the available evidence supports an airliner having hit the Pentagon, you don't agree?


No...the 'evidence' we have seen is pretty much worthless or not evidence, at all, for reasons forementioned.




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Here are oral history of FDNY members at the WTC on 9/11

graphics8.nytimes.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


No...the 'evidence' we have seen is pretty much worthless or not evidence, at all, for reasons forementioned.
Instead of wishing for something that is not going to happen (full access to all CIA and FBI databases), why not try making a case with the evidence you have.

It's a sign of a failed argument that people have to resort to "well maybe there's something we don't know, and since they won't tell us, then that proves it!"

The physical evidence indicates a plane hit the pentagon. The wing impacts and the column damage prove it was not a missile. So the evidence just becomes "there MUST have been more video that showed something".

All of these eyewitnesses are lying?
There are plenty more, but it's just oral history, not a sworn statement so you will reject it right?

What about your online poll, were people sworn to tell the truth before they answered the questions?

Steve Anderson:Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

Deb Anlauf:
Anlauf was watching TV coverage of the Trade Center burning shortly before 9:30 a.m. when she decided to return to her 14th-floor room from another part of the hotel. Once in her room, she heard a "loud roar" and looked out the window to see what was going on. "Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."
Arlington police transmission:
Motor 11: There is visible smoke coming from that area...high, visible smoke.
Dispatcher: Motor 11 direct.
Motor 14: Motor 14, it was an American Airlines plane, uh, headed eastbound over the Pike (Columbia Pike highway), possibly toward the Pentagon.
Dispatcher: 10-4. Cruiser 50 direct.

David Battle:
Earlier Tuesday, Battle, an office worker at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."

Gary Bauer:
I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine. I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.

Maurice Bease:
Sergeant Maurice L. Bease had worked around Marine aviation long enough to know what a fly-by was, and it sounded like one as he stood outside his office near the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Turning around expecting to see a fighter jet fly over, he saw only a split-second glimpse of a white commercial airliner streaking low toward the building, and him! He did not even have time to duck before it plowed into the side of the Pentagon around the corner and about 200 yards from where he stood. Immediately, a ball of flame shot up the side of the building, followed by smoke, lots of it.

Paul Begala:
Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said he witnessed an explosion near the Pentagon. "It was a huge fireball, a huge, orange fireball," he said in an interview on his mobile phone.

Mickey Bell:
Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. He wandered around Arlington in his truck and tried to make wireless phone calls. He ended up back at Singleton´s headquarters in Gaithersburg two hours later, according to President Singleton, not remembering much. The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened.

Susan Bergen:
Susan Bergen was sitting in a hotel room near the Pentagon on Tuesday morning, glued to TV news coverage of the World Trade Center attack. Out of the corner of her eye, she saw a plane outside the window of her 11th floor room. She turned just in time to see a big jetliner skim the treetops and slam into the side of the Pentagon, less than a half mile from her hotel room. It looked like the plane sped up just before hitting the building, she said.

Brian Birdwell:
LTC Brian Birdwell. He was just heading back down the hall to his office when the building exploded in front of him. ... Once they stabilized Brian, they transferred him to George Washington Hospital where...the best, cutting edge burn doctor in the U.S. The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: D8Tee

Here are oral history of FDNY members at the WTC on 9/11

graphics8.nytimes.com...



At least you had the honesty to call them 'oral histories' and not 'testimony.'



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Thank you for the link.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Well, the federal rules of evidence do give evidentiary weight to the act of concealing evidence, regardless of whether you like it or not. And they also do not allow unsworn, unquestioned statements as supporting evidence whether you like it or not.

Get over it. It is what it is...and it's a GOOD thing it is what it is.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye




All of the available evidence supports an airliner having hit the Pentagon, you don't agree?


No...the 'evidence' we have seen is pretty much worthless or not evidence, at all, for reasons forementioned.

Is there evidence that disputes a plane having hit the pentagon?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
double post
edit on 6-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: D8Tee

Well, the federal rules of evidence do give evidentiary weight to the act of concealing evidence, regardless of whether you like it or not. And they also do not allow unsworn, unquestioned statements as supporting evidence whether you like it or not.

Get over it. It is what it is...and it's a GOOD thing it is what it is.


LOLing @ you now hanging your hat upon supposed "concealment" of evidence.

Telling the world that there's 85 videos and then telling them what's on them, and then releasing the footage relative to the FOIA request isn't "concealment." To a reasonable person, this is full disclosure. An UNreasonable person thinks this is suspicious.

This is yet another reason why your belief that you have "reasonable" doubt is wrong.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes, the lack of evidence for an airliner having struck the pentagon.




posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrBig2430
Telling the world that there's 85 videos and then telling them what's on them, and then releasing the footage relative to the FOIA request isn't "concealment." To a reasonable person, this is full disclosure. An UNreasonable person thinks this is suspicious.




Ah. So telling the public what is on the videos, but not actually making the videos public is 'full disclosure' to you.

LOL away.

It doesn't change my mind that it is the exact opposite of 'full disclosure:' It's concealment.

I don't care if you believe the official story, why on earth do you care if I find much reasonable doubt? It's really none of your concern. Do you feel insecure in your beliefs and need me to validate them?



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes, the lack of evidence for an airliner having struck the pentagon.

Radar data, wreckage, bodies, and witness statements all show a 757 hit the pentagon, have you not come across this evidence yet?



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye




Ah. So telling the public what is on the videos, but not actually making the videos public is 'full disclosure' to you.

To a reasonable person, yes it is full disclosure.

Notice on the FOAI request response, on the last page, it's signed and dated by the agent, is it not valid in your eyes?
“I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct."

You wanted copies of blank video tapes or video tapes that did not show the Pentagon impact?

That seems unreasonable to most people.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Well there's one testified to....that only leaves 80+ videos in question.

BTW, do have a link to this? I'd like read the entire thing.
edit on 7-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Link




Well there's one testified to....that only leaves 80+ videos in question.


You would have to read the entire document to come to that conclusion would you not?

Document is near the bottom of the page.


edit on 7-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Why is her personal statement redacted?

ETA: Does an unredacted version exist? That's strange. For all I know the redacted personal statement says, "All of the following is complete buIIsh*t..."

How odd.
edit on 7-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye




Ah. So telling the public what is on the videos, but not actually making the videos public is 'full disclosure' to you.

To a reasonable person, yes it is full disclosure.

Notice on the FOAI request response, on the last page, it's signed and dated by the agent, is it not valid in your eyes?
“I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct."

You wanted copies of blank video tapes or video tapes that did not show the Pentagon impact?

That seems unreasonable to most people.



Perjury would be the agent admitting the plane was what hit the pentagon, the vid din't show the plane in question, it showed something else. Why then not render for public scrutiny?



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: D8Tee

Why is her personal statement redacted?

ETA: Does an unredacted version exist? That's strange. For all I know the redacted personal statement says, "All of the following is complete buIIsh*t..."

How odd.
The FBI has the unredacted version.

I'd bet money on it being personal information that would not be pertinent to the FOI request and doesn't need to be made public, do you agree thats a possibility?

Your idea that it says all the following is complete BS seems very unreasonable to most rational individuals.
edit on 7-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye




Ah. So telling the public what is on the videos, but not actually making the videos public is 'full disclosure' to you.

To a reasonable person, yes it is full disclosure.

Notice on the FOAI request response, on the last page, it's signed and dated by the agent, is it not valid in your eyes?
“I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct."

You wanted copies of blank video tapes or video tapes that did not show the Pentagon impact?

That seems unreasonable to most people.



Perjury would be the agent admitting the plane was what hit the pentagon, the vid din't show the plane in question, it showed something else. Why then not render for public scrutiny?

The entire document is linked a couple posts previous, you can't read the last page and expect to make any kind of conclusion from it.

The video you are referring to was released.

Here is an excerpt.




posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye




Ah. So telling the public what is on the videos, but not actually making the videos public is 'full disclosure' to you.

To a reasonable person, yes it is full disclosure.

Notice on the FOAI request response, on the last page, it's signed and dated by the agent, is it not valid in your eyes?
“I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct."

You wanted copies of blank video tapes or video tapes that did not show the Pentagon impact?

That seems unreasonable to most people.



Perjury would be the agent admitting the plane was what hit the pentagon, the vid din't show the plane in question, it showed something else. Why then not render for public scrutiny?

The entire document is linked a couple posts previous, you can't read the last page and expect to make any kind of conclusion from it.

The video you are referring to was released.

Here is an excerpt.


You do realize the video you posted has a cnn ticker along the bottom?

Let's have an uncut version, please?



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join