Where is the Full Length Pentagon Video OF 911?

Originally posted by onlnpkr
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Here is the part of your link i referenced . My comments in parenthesis .

The FBI are talking about 85 videos, but this is just the result of an initial search that includes (for example) all videos obtained by the Washington Field Office. If we move on from that then the numbers begin to fall dramatically.

56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."

( OK, but what DID they show, inference being they showed a plane)

Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."

( But what DID they show , again FBI won't show us, but they must show something or they wouldn'y be keeping them from public disclosure .)

Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77."

( so now we have 12 videos that show nothing but the impact after the fact, and yet they remain classified, again i ask WHY? )

Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released.

( Hurray, they released ONE video that showed the impact. But why must the government limit evidence to " JUST THE IMPACT? and Don't we as the victims of 911 have a right to see at least one other video out of 84)

Again I have to question your motives Alfie, YOU don't WANT to know the TRUTH.

edit on 11-4-2012 by onlnpkr because: letters and grammar

Here you go; this is one of them, from the Citgo gas station just across the way from the Pentagon. AA 77 flew close to it. It's been on the net for years.

www.youtube.com...

What does it show ? people fueling their cars and paying for it; surprise surprise.

Originally posted by Alfie1
www.youtube.com...

What does it show ? people fueling their cars and paying for it; surprise surprise.

I wonder exactly what the truthers expected it to show?

Originally posted by onlnpkr
reply to post by Alfie1

 

"Yes, he clearly says "plane" as you say so I don't know why there is reference to "missile strike" in the clip title."

I guess some refer to a missile as a plane , But I notice you failed to comment on what he did say, which was that he clearly saw what was no more than a 20 passenger corporate jet with no markings on the side. He said he saw it hit the pentagon. www.youtube.com...

Why did you not comment on that aspect of his testimony Alfie

It is clear to me that you have no desire to discover the truth but instead have every desire to discredit the truth movement. That makes you a shill. Are you a shill for the Official Story Alfie

edit on 11-4-2012 by onlnpkr because: Link

Just so I have got this straight. In support of your contention that a missile hit the Pentagon the best witness you can come up with speaks of a corporate jet. And you explain away his reference to a plane as "" I guess some refer to a missile as a plane " brilliant, so every Pentagon witness is really a missile witness then ?

If you have a look at this helpful breakdown of Pentagon eyewitnesses there are in fact 2 witnesses to a corporate jet but there are scores to a large airliner and at least 23 of those specifically said it was American Airlines :-

911research.wtc7.net...

Now why would you ignore the vast majority of eye witness testimony in favour of one individual speaking of a corporate jet (which in any event doesn't support your missile story) ? That is a rhetorical question because we all know why, it is called " confirmation bias ".

And you say I don't want to discover the truth !

reply to post by Alfie1


First off, I never said it was a missile. In fact I linked a video that said it was a plane . Remember that this thread was about the lack of disclosure on the part of the Government as it relates to the 84 videos the fbi holds to this day that they wont release.
I see you have shown another and i understand that a third was released after years of foia request. Kudos to the Government for giving us 3 of 84.
So of the 84 videos held as evidence, the American public gets to see 3 of which none show a plane .

I saw the link you posted and while it is true that 22 saw an American Airlines plane and only 2 saw a commuter plane it is also true that 25 is the amount of witnesses who have said something that might point to the use of explosives or incendiaries. (White flash, powerful blast waves which blew people through the air, molten glass, burning aluminium, spreading debris over hundreds of yards back to where the plane came from, including 2 engines, the missing plane itself, etc.)
So although it is true that I may have a selective bias as I do not believe the Official Story, it would appear that you do also in support of the Official Story.

The problem , as I see it , is that you are comfortable claiming All is explained , while much of the pertinent evidence has yet to be released , as in the rest of the 80 plus videos pertaining to the pentagon .

If you don,t think that the government changes eyewitness testimony, I propose you look at this video . Johnny on the spot Architect corrects an eyewitness to conform to the Official story . www.youtube.com... ( important to remember that the Official story denies the exhistance of any explosives which is why the government chose not to look for explosives .

So in summation, the Government holds 85 videos from the public and after more than a decade chooses to release a few only after they were forced to by the judicial system, and none of the released videos shows a damn thing much less an american airlines flight 77 jumbo jet.

And yet ,you have NO problem in defense of that , not one question.

Yeah , I do question your motives.

reply to post by onlnpkr


The mistake you keep making is assuming that all 84/85 tapes relate to the Pentagon. As it made clear in the link I gave you earlier FBI Agent Maguire obtained all tapes "that might potentially be responsive to plaintiff's FOAI request " She did this by calling for tapes "sent directly to the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia and/or obtained by the FBI's Washington Field Office."

In fact some of the tapes turned out to be of the WTC and even a Kinkos in Florida and some were taken days after the event. Agent Maguire determined that the only footage of a plane and impact to the Pentagon was from the Pentagon security cameras that we have all seen. This wasn't a casual finding, she provided sworn testimony to a Court so if anyone can prove she lied she goes to jail . Have you any evidence she lied ?

You may not have seen another released tape from the Doubletrees Hotel which does show a fireball in the distance :-

www.youtube.com...

Isn't this videotape business a red herring ? After all, in order to be a "no-planer" at the Pentagon you have to already ignore the eyewitnesses, radar tracks, air traffic control tapes, aircraft wreckage, dna identified body parts. Any new footage now would immediately be dubbed "fake" and you know it.

reply to post by onlnpkr

56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."

( OK, but what DID they show, inference being they showed a plane)

You are reading something into it that is not there.

It has been explained on here before but it is not registering with you.

The FBI cannot release something that they do not own. Not in this modern age.
If they suspected your personal computer had information revelant to a case and confiscated it what would you do if they released every single file to the public?
What about those pictures of your wife that she really wasn't comfortable with you taking?
What would you do if they released the contents of all your emails for the past 2 years?
It's one thing to release an excerpt that directly relates to the investigation but not every single thing.

And what makes you think that 84 cameras from different businesses were pointed at the impact point?

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl

 

A great deal of speculation has surrounded reports that on the morning of september 11th, 2001 the FBI visited two private businesses near the pentagon and confiscated several security camera video tapes.

The first is said to be the Cigto gas station with several security cameras aimed in the direction of the pentagon. Flight 77 flew directly over the gas station at an altitude of roughly 50 feet, less than 3 seconds from impact.
infowars.net...

DING DING DING ALEX JONES ALERT

You just quoted Alex Jones as if he were an actual credible source of information. You lose the debate by default.



I said it before and I'll say it again- the only thing fueling these conspiracy stories are the crackpots and con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy websites...and some of them are more crackpot than others.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by onlnpkr
They look like they may have been part of a smaller plane . www.tomflocco.com...

And you believe such garbage?

You missed this bit....

Curiously, a large piece of wreckage was found in the entry hole; but the public was kept from closely observing what appears to be a sheared-off piece of wing from a much smaller jet than a Boeing 757. A group of military personnel and federal officials in suits tightly covered the piece of wreckage with a blue tarp and carried it away to a waiting truck

That "blue tarp" was a tent that was being carried in, not out....

That site is full of such garbage!

Wasn't Tom Flocco the guy who tried to circulate the internet hoax that one of the passengers on flight 77 was alive and arrested on the Italian-Polish border with millions of Italian Lira? When it was pointed out that a) Italy doesn't use Lira anymore, they use Euros, and b) Italy doesn't border with Poland, he did a backspin and tried to claim he was actually fed disinformation by gov't secret agents.

Good GOD these conspiracy theorists have to WANT these conspiracy hoaxes to be real, for them to swallow them with such religious fervor. If anyone in the gov't were caught outright lying like the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites do, they'd pounce on them like Whitney Houston on a row of coc aine.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I said it before and I'll say it again- the only thing fueling these conspiracy stories are the crackpots and con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy websites...and some of them are more crackpot than others.

Another great example of someone on this board deeming a "truther" as a "loon".


I'm guessing the 9/11 Commission is nothing more than a bunch of loons as well? The 9/11 Commission was clearly lied to by government agencies and we're considered crazy for not believing the official story just like them?

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington. In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center. Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania. These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

reply to post by homervb


Nobody is going to argue too much about the ancient art of covering your back flourishing in the aftermath of 9/11.

It's a long long way from there to an "inside job" though.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by homervb

 

Nobody is going to argue too much about the ancient art of covering your back flourishing in the aftermath of 9/11.

It's a long long way from there to an "inside job" though.

I never correlated that news story with the "inside job" angle. I said that truthers are bashed for not believing & defending the official story meanwhile the credibility of the official story is doubted by the 9/11 comission themselves. You guys are defending a flawed story generated by the government while we offer various theories and are considered "loons" automatically. Do you not see what I'm getting at here?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by homervb

 

Nobody is going to argue too much about the ancient art of covering your back flourishing in the aftermath of 9/11.

It's a long long way from there to an "inside job" though.

I never correlated that news story with the "inside job" angle. I said that truthers are bashed for not believing & defending the official story meanwhile the credibility of the official story is doubted by the 9/11 comission themselves. You guys are defending a flawed story generated by the government while we offer various theories and are considered "loons" automatically. Do you not see what I'm getting at here?

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I said it before and I'll say it again- the only thing fueling these conspiracy stories are the crackpots and con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy websites...and some of them are more crackpot than others.

Another great example of someone on this board deeming a "truther" as a "loon".


I'm guessing the 9/11 Commission is nothing more than a bunch of loons as well? The 9/11 Commission was clearly lied to by government agencies and we're considered crazy for not believing the official story just like them?

Please don't put words in my mouth. Technically, I'm the real truther here, not you, as I genuinely want to learn the facts behind the 9/11 attack, and so far, the facts are showing there's more to the story than what the gov't is admitting. My personal view is that it was sheer gov't incompetence and arrogance in the belief we were immune to attack that allowed the attack to succeed, and I want to know how many more banana peels the gov't slipped on so that this won't happen again. If the gov't can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without tripping over their own shadows then there's sure as shootin' more goofups they don't want to admit to because they know they're going to be hanged for allowing 3000 people to die. Perhaps I'm guilty of wanting to steer the findings in the direction I want it to go every bit the same way you people are, but at least I can give you as many examples of gov't incompetence as you woudl like. Can you give me even one example where anyone was able to successfully sneak into an occupied building and plant secret controlled demolitions without any of the occupants noticing?

You're certainly not loons and you're certainly not stupid, and most of you are quite intelligent and articulate. You simply don't know that you're being lied to by a bunch of internet crackpots and con artists and it's their "the gov't is constantly plotting to murder us all" horse [censored] that's getting you all wound up over this abject paranoia. You yourselves are merely the victims in their con.

Originally posted by homervb
I never correlated that news story with the "inside job" angle. I said that truthers are bashed for not believing & defending the official story meanwhile the credibility of the official story is doubted by the 9/11 comission themselves. You guys are defending a flawed story generated by the government while we offer various theories and are considered "loons" automatically. Do you not see what I'm getting at here?

I think one of the big points is that the evidence of cover-up/conspiracy does not automatically validate the various theories people have come up with over the years. In my personal opinion, I think certain individuals within the government planned the attack and helped it come to fruition, but I've seen no evidence for any of the conspiracies chatted about on ATS (missiles, demolitions, etc.)

reply to post by homervb

You guys are defending a flawed story generated by the government while we offer various theories and are considered "loons" automatically.

Out of all the buildings and all four planes has any alternate theory been substantiated?

Just one?

Originally posted by homervb



I never correlated that news story with the "inside job" angle. I said that truthers are bashed for not believing & defending the official story meanwhile the credibility of the official story is doubted by the 9/11 comission themselves. You guys are defending a flawed story generated by the government while we offer various theories and are considered "loons" automatically. Do you not see what I'm getting at here?

Utterly wrong. A literal definition of a strawman. Truthers demand that debunkers defend something they call "The OS" when in fact almost all debunkers are concerned with debunking spurious theories of demolition, missiles and so on.

I've never encountered a debunker who believes the government didn't cover their asses. That doesn't make them all Truthers.

Im surprised that no personal video's of the pentagon has come out. We saw how many people were recording the towers get hit. Isn't the Pentagon just as much as a tourist attraction and people recording or documenting there visit to the Pentagon?

reply to post by Alchemst7

Im surprised that no personal video's of the pentagon has come out. We saw how many people were recording the towers get hit. Isn't the Pentagon just as much as a tourist attraction and people recording or documenting there visit to the Pentagon?

The towers were in Lower Manhattan, one of the most desenly populated places in the world. The Pentagon is a fairly isolated section south of D.C. surrounded by highways and and an airport. Plus, and I am not sure of this, but I don't think the official tourists are allowed to film on the tours. Also, it was only 10:00 in the morning.

Originally posted by Alchemst7
Im surprised that no personal video's of the pentagon has come out. We saw how many people were recording the towers get hit. Isn't the Pentagon just as much as a tourist attraction and people recording or documenting there visit to the Pentagon?

There was hardly any coverage of the North Tower being hit although the Towers were an iconic symbol of New York. Just the Naudet video and, I think, just a few frames from a time lapse camera. The only reason there is so much coverage of the South Tower available is because so many were watching and filming the North Tower on fire when it was struck.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Please don't put words in my mouth. Technically, I'm the real truther here, not you, as I genuinely want to learn the facts behind the 9/11 attack, and so far, the facts are showing there's more to the story than what the gov't is admitting. My personal view is that it was sheer gov't incompetence and arrogance in the belief we were immune to attack that allowed the attack to succeed, and I want to know how many more banana peels the gov't slipped on so that this won't happen again.

There were a lot of slip ups in the gov't, the DoD/FAA/local law enforcement struggled to respond to what was going on, I totally agree with you. I know they didn't just sit back and watch lol I'm not one of those truthers that thinks EVERYONE was in on it. I understand that idea is ridiculous considering you have all those people in local law enforcement, FAA, DoD, etc. But with those slip ups come concerning events such as the FBI blocking the investigation into Saudi Arabia funding 9/11.

Senators accuse Saudi Arabia of 9/11 involvement

This isn't a slip up, it's a cover up. It's guarding something of value to the government. Those funding 9/11 are initially being protected by our government. Can we agree on this? If not, then what other motive would there be to hide this?

Can you give me even one example where anyone was able to successfully sneak into an occupied building and plant secret controlled demolitions without any of the occupants noticing?

One example off the top of my head? No, but I can acknowledge that it's possible instead of writing it off as crazy, stupid, and/or ridiculous.

You're certainly not loons and you're certainly not stupid, and most of you are quite intelligent and articulate. You simply don't know that you're being lied to by a bunch of internet crackpots and con artists and it's their "the gov't is constantly plotting to murder us all" horse [censored] that's getting you all wound up over this abject paranoia. You yourselves are merely the victims in their con.

All wound up? Honestly, I sense the most hostility on this forum from you and a couple of others. The people who are defending the official story on this forum are the first ones to use the words loon, crazy, nutjobs, whackos, etc. I'm not saying it's a defense mechanism but it appears to be since every thread tends to end up with someone being called a nutjob.