FBI Publishes 9-11 Pentagon Attack Photos on 3-23-17... With Faces Blacked Out

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

2 things:

1. looks like you don't understand the concept of hijacking interceptions. looks like you also don't have a clue as to what some of the 9/11 war games were all about. let me spoil it for you - they were running drills for airplane hijackings.

2. instead of taking a close look at my previous response to you, you chose to go off on a tangent as to why you believe 19 hijackers can do this but thousands of americans can't. unfortunately, my entire point and consequent questions raised flew hiiiiigh above & over your head. i can repeat them for you in a simpler manner if you'd like.

a reply to: facedye

you can't substantiate your own opinions. that's why you responded with the statement that you think your opinions are "most likely the case."

Correct, I said it's most likely the case, not sure why you have a problem with that. Disprove to me that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars. You can't. It's most likely the case that there is not, but you cannot provide me evidence there is not now can you?

Why don't you prove your hypothesis and go visit some building you consider may be a potential terrorist target? Go count the number of cameras you see that are specifically pointing away from the building in a direction where they will potentially record a similar style of attack?

Or would such a visit be pointless because, even now, no security operation would waste a camera to do such a thing?

If a building is under threat, a camera to record an air attack is a waste of money. A radar system and anti-aircraft missiles are what is required. Not a camera.

sure, would you like a copy of my short films digitally or on tape?

Substantiate your claim somehow, I don't care how.

originally posted by: neutronflux
You don't get closer to the truth by being hung up on the misconception there might be better footage for example..

You have framed (some) of my reasonable doubts as if they were not based on actual evidence because the evidence is 'unknown' after having been CONCEALED.

You *think* concealed evidence cannot be considered as evidence, when, in fact, CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE is evidence:

Acts that conceal, corrupt, or destroy evidence can be considered spoliation of evidence and/or tampering with evidence. Spoliation is usually the civil-law/due-process variant, may involve intent or negligence, may affect the outcome of a case in which the evidence is material, and may or may not result in criminal prosecution. Tampering is usually the criminal law variant in which a person alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys evidence to interfere with a law-enforcement, governmental, or regulatory investigation, and is usually defined as a crime. Parallel construction is the creation of an untruthful, but plausible, explanation for how the evidence came to be held, which hides its true origins, either to protect sources and methods used, or to avoid the evidence being excluded as unlawfully obtained. Depending on the circumstances, acts to conceal or destroy evidence or misrepresent its true origins might be considered both tampering and spoliation.

A jury may assign whatever evidentiary value they want to the 'concealment' of evidence. If they want to assume that 'X' concealed evidence implicates those concealing it...they may do so.

Let's consider the CCTV footage confiscated by the FBI -- however much there is -- under that light. There may not be anything on any of the 80+ (whatever) videos confiscated by the FBI that would shed light on the events of 9/11. HOWEVER, the mere fact that they have been concealed entitles me (as a person deliberating the federal government's case) the option of assuming whatever is on those video recordings must be seriously damning to those concealing it.

That's how concealment of evidence works in the U.S. criminal justice system.

Concealment IS evidence...evidence that the concealer is hiding something and that is admissible evidence of a "guilty conscience."

It would be very convenient for suspects to admittedly hide evidence and claim the concealed evidence would vindicate them if it was shown or prove nothing (either way), but that is NOT how the rules of evidence work in federal courts.

And, lastly, if I can assume the federal government is concealing evidence that implicates them, I am not obligated to believe they are above TAMPERING with evidence either.

If any evidence could be tampered with, then I do not give it much evidentiary weight.

^All of this is "reasonable" according to the federal rules of evidence.

a reply to: facedye

1. Looks like I don't understand the concept??....lol. Okay. Spent the last 10 years of my career with an Air Guard unit that performed ASA duties. Yeah, been a part of it, well aware of the procedures. The war games, had nothing to do with it as the units on alert duty, did not participate in the war games. The jets sit hot cocked, with the pilots close by for their alert period. You don't leave the alert area, you do not do anything with the jets, other than reload their comsec gear every 12 hours. There are no drills, there are no missions, there are no war games. When you are on alert duty, you sit there and wait for the word to launch.

2. Sure, a crew of thousands could have pulled it off. The chances of it all working and everyone keeping their mouths shut. ZERO.

a reply to: facedye

The drill arguments again. I work at a business that runs drills. What conspiracy are we involved in?

Do you have any idea how often just individual ships, subs, units, and commands run drills. Do you have any idea the different types of classroom, walk throughs, mock exercises, and live fire exercises that are scheduled weekly, monthly, semiannually, annually, and biannually? Drills required for certification and development readiness. Reserve units have "drill" weekend.

Occupational health and safety require certain types of civilian plants to run drills.

How is readiness through training and drills a conspiracy.

Are you saying a missile was launched during a classroom exercise???

a reply to: D8Tee

my hypothesis? it's not really a hypothesis. there were 4+ cameras lining the roof of the pentagon. there's no proof, no statements, no recorded documents, nor any public testimony about the status of those cameras, and what they were capturing.

if you can't show me anything that substantiates *what you yourself are asserting,* then there's no reason for me to take your point of view seriously.

If a building is under threat, a camera to record an air attack is a waste of money. A radar system and anti-aircraft missiles are what is required. Not a camera.

oh so the cameras were just there for show, then? in that case, why was the security booth recording anything at all? LOL, by your logic, it's a waste of time and resources!

Substantiate your claim somehow, I don't care how.

Larger Size

a reply to: neutronflux

stop replying to me.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok, prove what is concealed?

Your logic is false.

Prove how it invalidates the eyewitness accounts, the documented wreckage, the documented remains, death certificates. DNA ID, release of remains for burial, the downed light poles, the large entrance hole made into the pentagon.

Please do tell where the evidence leads. If you cannot state a case to supersede the large jet impact, then you don't have a better case.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok, prove what is concealed?

Your logic is false.

Prove how it invalidates the eyewitness accounts, the documented wreckage, the documented remains, death certificates. DNA ID, release of remains for burial, the downed light poles, the large entrance hole made into the pentagon.

Please do tell where the evidence leads. If you cannot state a case to supersede the large jet impact, then you don't have a better case.

Prove what? That the FBI confiscated video footage that has not been made public?

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

stop replying to me.

Reply

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok, prove what is concealed?

Your logic is false.

Prove how it invalidates the eyewitness accounts, the documented wreckage, the documented remains, death certificates. DNA ID, release of remains for burial, the downed light poles, the large entrance hole made into the pentagon.

Please do tell where the evidence leads. If you cannot state a case to supersede the large jet impact, then you don't have a better case.

If I can assume any evidence that's being concealed is damning to those concealing it (and I can), then that sets of a chain of REASONABLE doubts...including doubts about the integrity of all kinds of evidence proffered by the FBI.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

And I cited a source that said there is reasonable doubt there is any footage left to release.

How does your theory discredit any of the listed physical evidence?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

stop replying to me.

Reply

Just stop. You two disagree. Respectfully disagree and move on. There is no ignore function on ATS, and we are all passionate about what we think.

Stop antagonizing. He asked you to stop responding. Can't you just do that?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's just baby steps. I am only arguing the only possible cause of the damage to the pentagon on 9/11 was a large jet.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

And I cited a source that said there is reasonable doubt there is any footage left to release.

How does your theory discredit any of the listed physical evidence?

Ha...

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.

Link


THOSE ARE ALL EVIDENCE, regardless of whether they show a plane, missile, or nothing at all. If they show nothing, at all...then they would, conceivably, be evidence of the official story flight path...or evidence of some other scenario.

They are all evidence.

Concealing them is also evidence. I know you haven't taken that approach to weighing the evidentiary value of the concealment of that evidence. I have. And I don't feel bad for that.

a reply to: facedye
An American Airlines plane was missing.
Something crashed into the Pentagon.
Parts of the plane that was missing were found inside the Pentagon.
Passengers from the plane were found inside the Pentagon.
Witnesses describe seeing an American Airlines plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Does none of this matter without a video of it happening?

oh so the cameras were just there for show, then? in that case, why was the security booth recording anything at all? LOL, by your logic, it's a waste of time and resources!

You can come up with no reason for there to be a security camera at a security booth? hmmm... Maybe it was to record the vehicles coming thru the security gate? Could we agree on that?

for your information, i have first hand experience with digital video, as well as tape and film. yikes! how embarrassing for you.

A picture of a videotape is enough to substantiate your claim?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

stop replying to me.

Reply

Just stop. You two disagree. Respectfully disagree and move on. There is no ignore function on ATS, and we are all passionate about what we think.

Stop antagonizing. He asked you to stop responding. Can't you just do that?

So he can spread his half baked ideas unchallenged? Doesn't work like that, he can report his posts to the moderators if he feels there is a problem with a poster. It's a public board, we don't get to pick and chose who replies to who.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

THOSE ARE ALL EVIDENCE, regardless of whether they show a plane, missile, or nothing at all. If they show nothing, at all...then they would, conceivably, be evidence of the official story flight path...or evidence of some other scenario.

They are all evidence.

Concealing them is also evidence. I know you haven't taken that approach to weighing the evidentiary value of the concealment of that evidence. I have. And I don't feel bad for that.

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".

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

stop replying to me.

Reply

Just stop. You two disagree. Respectfully disagree and move on. There is no ignore function on ATS, and we are all passionate about what we think.

Stop antagonizing. He asked you to stop responding. Can't you just do that?

So he can spread his half baked ideas unchallenged? Doesn't work like that, he can report his posts to the moderators if he feels there is a problem with a poster. It's a public board, we don't get to pick and chose who replies to who.

They were bickering. Nothing substantive was coming from their conversation.

You think, "Reply," is a substantive comment?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: MotherMayEye

THOSE ARE ALL EVIDENCE, regardless of whether they show a plane, missile, or nothing at all. If they show nothing, at all...then they would, conceivably, be evidence of the official story flight path...or evidence of some other scenario.

They are all evidence.

Concealing them is also evidence. I know you haven't taken that approach to weighing the evidentiary value of the concealment of that evidence. I have. And I don't feel bad for that.

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.

I have. Concealment of evidence IS evidence of consciousness of guilt. As there is no good reason to withhold any of the confiscated videos and a great interest in seeing them, I give the concealment of the videos a lot of evidentiary weight.