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: 35
72
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

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.


Of course it's a possibility. But so is every other thing that could possibly fill that redacted space.

Bet money or not, the entire document is worthless without that redacted portion. I want to know what she was actually swearing to.

ETA: Honestly, the fact that all of the information regarding those videos leads pretty much nowhere makes it all the more suspicious.

Just release the video tapes. That what 'full disclosure' is. I can't weigh redacted evidence in favor of those redacting it.


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




posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee

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.


Of course it's a possibility. But so is every other thing that could possibly fill that redacted space.

Bet money or not, the entire document is worthless without that redacted portion. I want to know what she was actually swearing to.

ETA: Honestly, the fact that all of the information regarding those videos leads pretty much nowhere makes it all the more suspicious.

Just release the video tapes. That what 'full disclosure' is. I can't weigh redacted evidence in favor of those redacting it.

What difference would it make to you if you had the unredacted version anyways? You'd just latch onto something else. How would disclosing the agents personal details possibly help you. If you were to sneak into the FBI's stash of paperwork and find the unredacted version and it was just her personal details, then what?

You find a reason for all evidence to be worthless, if you had an unredacted version you would find a way to say it's worthless wouldn't you?
edit on 7-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee

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.


Of course it's a possibility. But so is every other thing that could possibly fill that redacted space.

Bet money or not, the entire document is worthless without that redacted portion. I want to know what she was actually swearing to.

ETA: Honestly, the fact that all of the information regarding those videos leads pretty much nowhere makes it all the more suspicious.

Just release the video tapes. That what 'full disclosure' is. I can't weigh redacted evidence in favor of those redacting it.

What difference would it make to you if you had the unredacted version anyways? You'd just latch onto something else. How would disclosing the agents personal details possibly help you. If you were to sneak into the FBI's stash of paperwork and find the unredacted version and it was just her personal details, then what?

You find a reason for all evidence to be worthless, if you had an unredacted version you would find a way to say it's worthless wouldn't you?


Truthfully, 16 years of not releasing those videos has rendered them worthless now. So is the information floated to explain what was on them.

There really isn't much evidence that could be released that will change anyone's mind, now.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee

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.


Of course it's a possibility. But so is every other thing that could possibly fill that redacted space.

Bet money or not, the entire document is worthless without that redacted portion. I want to know what she was actually swearing to.

ETA: Honestly, the fact that all of the information regarding those videos leads pretty much nowhere makes it all the more suspicious.

Just release the video tapes. That what 'full disclosure' is. I can't weigh redacted evidence in favor of those redacting it.

What difference would it make to you if you had the unredacted version anyways? You'd just latch onto something else. How would disclosing the agents personal details possibly help you. If you were to sneak into the FBI's stash of paperwork and find the unredacted version and it was just her personal details, then what?

You find a reason for all evidence to be worthless, if you had an unredacted version you would find a way to say it's worthless wouldn't you?


Truthfully, 16 years of not releasing those videos has rendered them worthless now. So is the information floated to explain what was on them.

There really isn't much evidence that could be released that will change anyone's mind, now.

The Maguire Declaration is a sworn statement that indicates the videos that show the impact have been released, you will not believe it soley because one part (probaly personal information on the agent) is redacted. That is unreasonable.
1. If the declaration was not redacted you would have to concede that the FBI hold no unreleased video of the Pentagon impact right?
2. The information is redacted so you can claim it says anything.
edit on 7-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee

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.


Of course it's a possibility. But so is every other thing that could possibly fill that redacted space.

Bet money or not, the entire document is worthless without that redacted portion. I want to know what she was actually swearing to.

ETA: Honestly, the fact that all of the information regarding those videos leads pretty much nowhere makes it all the more suspicious.

Just release the video tapes. That what 'full disclosure' is. I can't weigh redacted evidence in favor of those redacting it.

What difference would it make to you if you had the unredacted version anyways? You'd just latch onto something else. How would disclosing the agents personal details possibly help you. If you were to sneak into the FBI's stash of paperwork and find the unredacted version and it was just her personal details, then what?

You find a reason for all evidence to be worthless, if you had an unredacted version you would find a way to say it's worthless wouldn't you?


Truthfully, 16 years of not releasing those videos has rendered them worthless now. So is the information floated to explain what was on them.

There really isn't much evidence that could be released that will change anyone's mind, now.



Just be honest for a change and admit that no evidence will change your mind.

So far, you're throwing away diverse and converging lines of evidence - radar, dna, damage paths, eyewitness accounts, etc. And at the present saying that videos that are reported to be - and not by some shadowy "FBI" entity but by the PERSON that signed that affidavit - unresponsive to the FOIA request, should be released anyways.

Lame.

You nor any other conspiracy believer has any right to see videos. You might be one of those weirdos that feel entitled to have whatever you want because you somehow deserve it, I don't know. But I assure you that is not the case.

And besides, what a strange way to conceal videos from the public by announcing their existence in the first place. I guess this is a good idea to an irrational person, but agai, I can assure you that it isn't. If the intent is to conceal some video, then you wouldn't know about its existence. Agree?



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=22106152]MotherMayEye

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?



Why do I bother responding to you?

Cuz your argument is really really ripe low hanging fruit.

You believe that you have reasonable doubts, yet if that were true, there would be public action, either here or in another country, away from any influence of TPTB here in the US. No conspiracy believer can deny this.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430

Yeah...I pretty much did in my last comment. The federal government has had 16 years to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and they failed.

My civil liberties were compromised under the Patriot Act. My taxes were used to fund wars I don't support based on false and flimsy evidence and connections to 9/11. You say I have no right to feel entitled to see all the evidence, I say that I don't care about your opinion.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Tell me again how the redaction makes a difference in the Maguire Declaration.

If it wasn't redacted you would give it credibility?

Why do you hinge your claims on something you cannot have?

If only you had an unretacted version, everything would make sense ....
edit on 7-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

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.

Maybe it would say this?

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



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Link, please, and I will let you know what I think...



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: D8Tee

Link, please, and I will let you know what I think...

If that was what it would have said if it hadn't been redacted would it change anything for you?

Just be honest for a change and admit no amount of evidence will change your mind.


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



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: D8Tee

Link, please, and I will let you know what I think...




I can only interpret this comment to mean you have waved your white flag.

Seen and mercy given.

Moving on.




posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: D8Tee

Link, please, and I will let you know what I think...




I can only interpret this comment to mean you have waved your white flag.

Seen and mercy given.

Moving on.



I asked for a link and you were super-weird about that request and didn't post one.

I figured it was best to avoid getting sucked into anymore of your weirdness.Have a nice weekend.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy

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?


Yea, I realize that, it's why I said it's an excerpt right?



ex·cerpt
noun
ˈekˌsərpt/
1.
a short extract from a film, broadcast, or piece of music or writing.
synonyms: extract, part, section, piece, portion, snippet, clip, bit, sample; More


How bout if you want to watch the original you find it yourself.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: D8Tee

Link, please, and I will let you know what I think...




I can only interpret this comment to mean you have waved your white flag.

Seen and mercy given.

Moving on.



I asked for a link and you were super-weird about that request and didn't post one.

I figured it was best to avoid getting sucked into anymore of your weirdness.Have a nice weekend.


You've made your position clear, you don't trust any of the evidence.

You wouldn't answer a question as to what difference an unretracted declaration would make.

If you are incapable of finding the unredacted version, it doesn't matter, as it will make no difference to you anyways.

Your research skills suck, it's no wonder you can't make heads nor tales of what happened that day.

How is the following being 'super weird'?



If that was what it would have said if it hadn't been redacted would it change anything for you?

Just be honest for a change and admit no amount of evidence will change your mind.

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



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Nonsense.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox

originally posted by: Wolfenz

yet a Soviet Astronaught Charred remains made it Back to Earth from Reentery

you think of all those Bodies from the Airliner
at lease some parts of them would be left.
to find.


Cosmonaut



yeah thanks for that , LOL

I should of known better,



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430

Think about this--what happened on 911 was the result of a conspiracy. Like it or not, if one chooses to use word definitions, it was a conspiracy.

The only question is just who the actual conspirators were? Were they 19 arabs with box cutters, OR was it somebody else.

Either way, it was a conspiracy.

You should consider stop using the word, or use it as the language and dictionaries demand.

One either believes the official conspiracy theory, or one is skeptical
of that theory.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: loveguy

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?


Yea, I realize that, it's why I said it's an excerpt right?



ex·cerpt
noun
ˈekˌsərpt/
1.
a short extract from a film, broadcast, or piece of music or writing.
synonyms: extract, part, section, piece, portion, snippet, clip, bit, sample; More


How bout if you want to watch the original you find it yourself.

Beam me back to late 2001 and I'll be happy to take part in the conspiracy.
I'll get a big promotion just like every one else who dropped the ball of justice for the sake of a better slice of public funds for me and mine, because nothing else will suffice my greedy belly. /sarcasm



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: D8Tee

Nonsense.

The evidence is all nonsense?

How do you refute it?




top topics



 
72
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join