Anonymous goes "full 9/11 Truther"

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AnonyMason

The burden of proof is on you. I've provided scientific evidence and sound logic to the table. You have not.

Sorry but the burden is on you.
You are making the claim that they do have footage.
Now prove that the pentagon was actually using the new IP camera system in 2001.

Just about anyone working in government will attest to the ancient technology they hang onto.
That's what the 2.3 trillion was all about. Multiple old systems not being able to work together.

The defense industry has always been on the cutting edge of technology,

B52 our current front line heavy bomber since 1952.
AC130 Since 1968.
C5 Galaxy since 1970
T38 since 1961
CH47 Chinook since 1962
P3c Orion since 1962
USS Dallas nuke attack sub since 1981
USS Jacksonville nuke attack sub since 1981
USS Dwight D Eisenhower AC carrier since 1977
USS Ohio guided missile sub since 1981
M2 50 caliber machine gun still our main 50 cal since 1930's.
M9 pistol still in use since 1990.
M1911 pistol used for 75 years.

There is a ton of other equipment that dates back to WW2 that is still in service.
I suggest to you that the government doesn't change anything unless there is a compelling need to do so.
That includes camera systems.
PS all pentagon security is through a contracted outside company.

the burden of proof is on you here, since you're outright claiming that they did not have adequate cameras to provide more footage to the public.

you're actively ignoring my direct objections to you as well, which is very telling.

let's play a game: how many cameras can you spot?







so what's your point, then? that their own cameras were turned off? how about the cameras inside the hallways?

how in the world is the burden of proof not on you after you're clearly trying to argue against the obvious?

a reply to: facedye

so what's your point, then? that their own cameras were turned off? how about the cameras inside the hallways?

how in the world is the burden of proof not on you after you're clearly trying to argue against the obvious?

They said they didn't have any other cameras that recorded the impact.
So you must prove that:
1. They had functional cameras pointed at the impact site.
2. These cameras were hooked up to recording devices.
3. The recording devices were operating at the time of impact.
Me I'll trust them on this one.
Too many bother eye witnesses saw the plane hit.

Also hallway cameras would only show chaos not a plane.
Besides we have video of planes hitting WTC and people still don't believe it.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: facedye

so what's your point, then? that their own cameras were turned off? how about the cameras inside the hallways?

how in the world is the burden of proof not on you after you're clearly trying to argue against the obvious?

They said they didn't have any other cameras that recorded the impact.
So you must prove that:
1. They had functional cameras pointed at the impact site.
2. These cameras were hooked up to recording devices.
3. The recording devices were operating at the time of impact.
Me I'll trust them on this one.
Too many bother eye witnesses saw the plane hit.

Also hallway cameras would only show chaos not a plane.
Besides we have video of planes hitting WTC and people still don't believe it.

so even though you see SEVERAL cameras right around the impact site, you still maintain (because of the OS) that:

1. Their cameras were not working.
2. Even if they were operable, nobody turned them on.
3. Even if they were operable and working, they weren't recording the event (even though the security gate was).

looks like the burden of proof is COMPLETELY on you.

1. Who says their cameras weren't working?
2. Who says they weren't on?
3. Who says they weren't recording the event?

you just used a really important word too - "trust."

so do you trust that the cameras weren't working/plugged in/recording, or do you KNOW?

I think your point of view is 150% evasive and apologetic for something you're not even questioning.

EDIT: I mean, they also said we have to go into Iraq because they have WMDs/ties to 9/11/plans to destroy America/hate us for our freedom.

all of this is categorically false. even people who confide in the OS still maintain that these issues are flat out untrue.

so you put your faith and trust in an organization that swindles the American people into non-instigated war? just because they said so, it must be the truth because they have no reason to lie? even though the administration lies through its teeth on a daily basis?

your trust seems to be extremely without merit and poorly thought out.

a reply to: samkent

And I'll ask again: You said you could see a plane in the video I provided. Can please tell me where, and at what time stamp during the video you see that plane?

Also in the images provided can you please point out to me to wreckage of that plane around the Pentagon?

a reply to: facedye

Sorry, double post.

a reply to: facedye

If the Pentagon was targeted to destroy records, why would video recordings survive and the records would not?

For the Pentagon theory to pan out, there needs to be two factions. The corrupt and those finding the corruption. So, just the one attack on the Pentagon took out all those fighting corruption. Wouldn't the narrative of the Pentagon attacking the Pentagon lead to a wide spread conflict with in the Pentagon and military?

a reply to: samkent

Provide a good explanation for the accounting on those trillions....otherwise you are just another internet know it all.....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

If the Pentagon was targeted to destroy records, why would video recordings survive and the records would not?

For the Pentagon theory to pan out, there needs to be two factions. The corrupt and those finding the corruption. So, just the one attack on the Pentagon took out all those fighting corruption. Wouldn't the narrative of the Pentagon attacking the Pentagon lead to a wide spread conflict with in the Pentagon and military?

have i ever stated that the pentagon was targeted to destroy records? careful.

why are you automatically jumping to reason out something you don't quite understand due to concealment of evidence?

why are you not equally as suspicious of the federal government's confiscation of 3rd party tapes capturing the incident?



when an FOIA request was submitted for the tapes, it was found out that there are 85 VIDEO TAPES CAPTURING THE EVENT.

you can literally see the list of them in that documentary around the 17:25 mark.

get your head out of the sand.

Pentagon Tapes Confiscated by FBI

Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

I'll repeat that in case it didn't sink in: not only did they confiscate this man's footage, but they have *85 tapes of the event.*

how many have you seen?

what about this is still a "theory" to you? these are cold, hard facts.

Complete List Of Pentagon Tapes On 9/11

a reply to: facedye
No. There were not 85 videos capturing the event. There was one.

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." 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." Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77." Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released.

www.911myths.com...

Is this the one you are talking about?

Video from security camera at Citgo Gas Station, 801 S. Joyce Street, Arlington, Virginia. Submitted to FAVIAU to determine if video showed impact of plane into Pentagon. Determined not to show impact. Obtained by FBI on 9/11/2001.

a reply to: Phage

oh, right, because the FBI said so?

LOL, i knew there'd be a good chance you'd chime in with that.

let's just take their word for it right? like we took their word for there being weapons of mass destruction in iraq, etc., etc.?

a reply to: facedye
I didn't know the FBI was involved with the claims of WMD in Iraq.

The Pentagon security camera footage was then released at the Moussaoui trial, but of course cleared up nothing at all. The Citgo and Doubletree footage followed, but didn't show the impact site.

a reply to: Phage

oof, you're weaving an extremely weak position.

is the FBI a completely sovereign entity from the federal government? is there zero chance for collusion?

so let's just take their word for it that the 85 tapes show what they say they show? even though an FOIA request was made for the footage themselves?

how in the world do you buy this?

EDIT: in response to the video you just posted, where are the rest of the 84?

a reply to: facedye

how in the world do you buy this?

Because, rather than disbelieving everything just because it comes from the government, I exercise critical thinking skills.

Those same skills told me that the WMD case was very, very weak. I didn't believe it for a second, thanks in great part to the information we had from the UN inspectors prior to the glossy 8x10's with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one saying what each one was.

EDIT: in response to the video you just posted, where are the rest of the 84?

Did you read the inventory of them?

a reply to: Phage

so let's break this down:

- you say you use critical thinking skills, but fully trust the FBI to tell you the truth by describing what's on the 85 tapes that were requested in their entirety.

- you state the WMD case is "very weak," which to me is a tacit confirmation you thought it was total BS. so did i. so did the rest of the world.

- you'd rather not disbelieve something when it comes to the government, and at the same time would rather fully believe them when they conceal evidence and leave you with a "description of what's on the tape."

of course i read the inventory. why do you think this bothers me so much?

so check out this progress of events:

-> FOIA request for releasing all pentagon related 9/11 tapes is submitted.

-> FBI states they found 85 related videos related to that request.

-> FBI does not release the tapes, and instead provides descriptions of what they say is or is not on them.

are you really about to take their descriptions on the inventory at face value?

a reply to: facedye

-> FBI states they found 85 related videos related to that request.

Which you interpret to mean:

they have *85 tapes of the event.*

Critical thinking?

.I subsequently searched a series of FBI evidence databases, including the FBI's Electronic Case File system and the FBI's Investigative Case Management System, and determined that the FBI possessed eighty-five (85) videotapes that might be potentially responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request.

a reply to: Phage

they do have 85 tapes of the event. these 85 tapes, regardless if they show the impact or not, are *related to the FOIA request to release all footage.*

how are you using your critical thinking by literally seeing that the FBI did not comply with the FOIA request and instead simply told us what was on those tapes?

a reply to: facedye

they do have 85 tapes of the event.

How do you know this?

how are you using your critical thinking by literally seeing that the FBI did not comply with the FOIA request and instead simply told us what was on those tapes?

Maybe because the FOIA request was for videos showing the event.

a reply to: Phage

what do you think "we have found 85 tapes related to that request" means?

a reply to: facedye
You have misquoted.

It's right there in the response.

and determined that the FBI possessed eighty-five (85) videotapes that might be potentially responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request.

"Might be potentially responsive." It was determined that they were not.