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: 36
74
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Where's the link?

You seem to think that sworn testimony is open to doubt...for you anyway: Link

But others aren't allowed the same doubts?

If the Climate Accountability Institute concealed evidence of Michael Mann's affiliation...that would make his testimony 100% true and above questioning, eh?

Ridiculous. Unbelievable!!!

What an absolute hypocrite you are.




posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: D8Tee

Where's the link?

You seem to think that sworn testimony is open to doubt...for you anyway: Link

But others aren't allowed the same doubts?

Ridiculous. Unbelievable!!!

What an absolute hypocrite you are.


What are you talking about?



If the Climate Accountability Institute concealed evidence of Michael Mann's affiliation...that would make his testimony 100% true and above questioning, eh?

I have no idea what you are getting at actually, are you saying the Climate Accountability Institute concealed evidence?

You'll have to clarify what you are trying to make a point on.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Thick. But I am happy to explain.

You recently authored a thread on how Michael Mann lied during SWORN TESTIMONY to Congress about being affiliated with the Climate Accountability Institute: Link to your thread

You based it on evidence from the Climate Accountability Institute's website stating he was on their Council of Advisors, rather than simply taking Mann at his sworn word.

Yet, you begrudge me the same right to doubt sworn testimony.

The act of concealing evidence IS evidence against those concealing the evidence. I give that evidence weight, much like you give the Climate Accountability Institute's website evidentiary weight. AND if the Climate Accountability Institute CONCEALED evidence of Mann's affiliation...would you insist that his sworn testimony was 100% true and not to be doubted?

NO WAY. Because the evidence shows he is lying.

So does the evidence of the 'act of concealment,' regarding those confiscated videos. It casts reasonable doubt on any sworn testimony coming from a government source about those 85+ tapes confiscated. The evidence speaks for itself...not some testimony about what it may or may not show.



edit on 8-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

IOW, sworn testimony really doesn't amount to much when there is evidence that can/could speak for itself.

In the case of 9/11, it's concealed. That does not prove sworn statements about it are truthful.

You called Mann a "a slimy little lying weasel."

Wha? He gave sworn testimony under oath...that makes everything he says true...amiright?

edit on 8-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Mann's own CV stated he was on the board of advisors for that organization.
The Climate Accountability Institute and Mann could try to deny it all day long, that ploy is not going to work. He's associated with them.

SNIPPED



Yet, you begrudge me the same right to doubt sworn testimony.

So does the evidence of the 'act of concealment.'
The tapes with the impact event at the Pentagon have been released.
Provide some proof of concealment.
edit on 8-4-2017 by DrumsRfun because: Snipped personal snipe


(post by MotherMayEye removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


The concealment has been proven multiple times in this thread. You posted a list of all the confiscated tapes yourself and the *cough* sworn testimony telling everyone what's on them so they don't ever actually need to see that evidence (which supposedly supports the OS).
Only four of the tapes tapes that had to do with the Pentagon were confiscated.

Seriously you don't want to learn anything, you keep repeating the same old tired claims.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye


The concealment has been proven multiple times in this thread. You posted a list of all the confiscated tapes yourself and the *cough* sworn testimony telling everyone what's on them so they don't ever actually need to see that evidence (which supposedly supports the OS).
Only four of the tapes tapes that had to do with the Pentagon were confiscated.

Seriously you don't want to learn anything, you keep repeating the same old tired claims.


Could not care less how you try to spin things.

You already posted a giant list of all kinds of confiscated tapes that supposedly support the OS. Videos that allegedly captured nothing at the Penatgon (56 IIRC, more than 80 total that were confiscated). Videos that, therefore, allegedly are evidence to support the official story's flight path.

ALL of them are evidence...whether they show a plane, missile, or nothing at all.

And, all but three or four are still classified/concealed.

Spin back to..."Bu'h all that show Pentagon impact have been disclosed."

They aren't the only videos that are evidence. Every video confiscated is evidence.


edit on 8-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You've obviously not read the link that I provided earlier with the 'giant list'.

Don't you get it?

Most of those tapes had nothing to do with the Pentagon?

Why would a FOI request asking for tapes of the Pentagon impact allow for the release of videos filmed in New York or other locations?

Are you that geographically challenged that you don't understand that a camera in New York will not be able to film the Pentagon?

You continue to amaze the people that read this thread with your beating of a dead horse.

Carry on.

In complying with the FOIA request, the FBI released the relevant footage it had. This is how we got the Doubletree and Citgo videos. Up until 2006 we only had the five-frame Pentagon video (which is the only tape the Pentagon has which clearly depicts the crash).
edit on 8-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

You wrote: "Why would a FOI request asking for tapes of the Pentagon impact allow for the release of videos filmed in New York or other locations? "

Just exactly as I predicted your spin would be.

I have stated multiple times, in this thread, that ALL THE VIDEOS CONFISCATED ARE EVIDENCE. Regardless of what they show or what the federal government claims they show.

Neutronflux asked me to draft a sample FOIA for what I would like to see and I did so:


This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

I request that a copy of the following videos be provided to me:

All video footage confiscated by the FBI as part of the investigation of the attacks on 9/11.

In order to help to determine my status to assess fees, you should know that I am a member of the public and will help disseminate the video records requested online to make them accessible to others. The video records I request will not be used for commercial purposes.

I request a waiver of all fees for this request, however, should the cost of gathering these records be burdensome to the federal government, please alert me to any excessive costs so that I may have the opportunity to cover them.

Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in my commercial interest. Many in the public seek a greater understanding of the events of 9/11.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,

My Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code


But, let me guess...you are going to respond, AGAIN, with "all the videos showing the Pentagon impact have been released."



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Very unreasonable to think that your request would be met with anything that resulted in a video of the Pentagon impact being released don't you think?

Why don't you go back over the list of the videos and see which ones would show anything of interest to you?

I'd like to see which ones you want released.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   
ATTENTION!!!!!

Stick to the topic.

  • Go after the ball not the player.



  • posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 12:10 AM
    link   

    originally posted by: Salander
    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.



    True. It was an actual conspiracy.


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


    Nope, the so called OS is an actual conspiracy. 19 dead terrorists, KSM, and maybe a couple more conspired. It is not a theory. it is a proven and accepted fact by all rational and reasonable people.

    Those that believe that there were no planes at the Pentagon, and such lunacy are the ones with a conspiracy theory fantasy.

    edit on 9-4-2017 by MrBig2430 because: (no reason given)



    posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 12:23 AM
    link   

    originally posted by: MotherMayEye
    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.



    Not to rational and reasonable people.


    My civil liberties were compromised under the Patriot Act.


    I haven't noticed any change.


    My taxes were used to fund wars I don't support based on false and flimsy evidence and connections to 9/11.


    Agree on Iraq. Afghanistan is a different story though. Ample evidence and connections to 9/11 for that.


    You say I have no right to feel entitled to see all the evidence, I say that I don't care about your opinion.



    The law says you have no right to get whatever you want. Only the entitled think otherwise.


    Also, you have side stepped the obvious point I've made - it is not logical, if the goal is to conceal evidence, to first admit that it exists and then deny access to what's on it.

    It is more logical, and more in step with conspiracy belief methods, that TPTB would never volunteer that videos exist.

    Also, it is illogical to ignore and deny multiple lines of evidence that I and others have laid out and then expect anyone to believe that you would accept video evidence.

    It IS logical to assume that you would ignore that or discount it, just as you have done the rest of the evidence.

    Reminder - when I say "you" and am responding to your post, I am referring to all crazy conspiracy believers.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    74
    << 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

    log in

    join