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

a reply to: Wolfenz

LOL I see that your Forgetting that The World Trade center 1 n 2 were Designed to Hold up after a Airliner 707 hit it ! How would I know ? hmm Beacuse I Know Personaly some of the Iron Workers that Built Them !

care to further explain the design?

It was designed to hold up after an impact with a 707.

In the design specs what is said about this design, does it say if its designed to hold up an impact of a plane traveling at 500 miles an hour with full fuel tanks?

Was it designed for the more logical scenario of a plane coming to land at one 3 major airport, traveling at a slower speed with less weight from having use much more fuel?

I see that your Forgetting that The World Trade center 1 n 2 were Designed to Hold up after a Airliner 707 hit it ! How would I know ? hmm Beacuse I Know Personaly some of the Iron Workers that Built Them !

Totally meaningless point.

a reply to: pinch1435

yes, I know what kinds of materials I'm talking about.

the entire contents of the pentagon building is what "slowed it down."

please cite the reading material and any supporting documents you know of that explain the process you mentioned in your post. go ahead and post the official simulation as well that one is exceptionally laughable.

a reply to: neutronflux
And that´s the point where you put the fanatics (like you, but on the other side) with the reasonable people into one basket. My observation may not count much but if one thing is for sure, the "truther" thing always works. Associate and tag someone with the name truther and try to ridicule.

and another thing is sure...it applies to the current politics and to this: Unreasonable people always need to put others into baskets/drawers.
"You don´t like to hold my kitten? Why do you hate kittens?".
"You question the official story? You disrespect the ones that died!"


Back to topic:
Why not release the damn video. Why? If they would have released the video(s) that they evidently collected from all the surrounding cameras, this particular conspiracy could be set aside. Until someone cries fake, of course but that comes if you wait 16(!) years...

a reply to: facedye
Nowhere did the FBI or Department of Defense claim to have 85 videos of the Pentagon impact in its possession. The agent said that she thought the FBI had 85 videos related to 9/11 in its possession. This was the result of an initial database search. 56 of these tapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the impact area, or the impact itself. The agent watched the remaining 29 videos, only one of which showed the impact (the parking lot footage).

a reply to: D8Tee

oh.. oh the agency said so?

...well I guess we'll just have to take them at their word! they're typically very forthcoming.

"hey we took a look at the requested information you requested from us. we have about 80 tapes related to your request, but don't worry about it, there's nothing in there you don't already know about. there's certainly nothing in there that sheds more light on the impact."

my eyes can't roll hard enough.

shame on me for believing you don't just take the agencies at their word.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: D8Tee

oh.. oh the agency said so?

...well I guess we'll just have to take them at their word! they're typically very forthcoming.

"hey we took a look at the requested information you requested from us. we have about 80 tapes related to your request, but don't worry about it, there's nothing in there you don't already know about. there's certainly nothing in there that sheds more light on the impact."

my eyes can't roll hard enough.

shame on me for believing you don't just take the agencies at their word.

O.K. I ask this of you, how many tapes did the FBI actually seize?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: neutronflux

Already listed enough reasons.

I have better things to do than repeat myself and try to educate you. 'Reasonable doubt' is THE one and only test. it cannot be brushed aside for being redundant.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: neutronflux

Already listed enough reasons.

I have better things to do than repeat myself and try to educate you. 'Reasonable doubt' is THE one and only test. it cannot be brushed aside for being redundant.

Reasonable doubt ALSO considers the judgment of a "reasonable person".

What happens when your doubts are not reasonable? The same thing that happens when a moon landing hoaxer says that they are being reasonable. They are dismissed for having insufficient evidence to counter the status quo.

This is your predicament : you believe yourself to be a reasonable person, with reasonable doubts. You are going against the status quo. To change the (15 yr old now) status quo, you must bring some extraordinary evidence to change it, or like the moon landing hoaxers, what you claim to be reasonable doubt will be judged to be mere crackpottery and dismissed.

Are you comfortable with this? Cuz this is where you (the royal you) stand.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

A quick question if I may: when analyzing and investigating problems and processes, what value do you assign to the statement made by the heads of an investigatory board if they say about their commission, "we were set up to fail"?

Does that mean anything to you, or do you just blow it off as being completely irrelevant?

You are wrong on this question. Bush and Cheney deflected and rejected calls for an investigation, for almost 2 years. They finally had to cave to political pressure, and appointed Henry Kissinger to head the investigation. The Jersey Girls called them on it, were allowed to ask some questions of Kissinger, and he stepped down. Kean and Hamilton assumed command, closely supervised by Philip Zelikow, for the White House.


Press For Truth is the documentary film regarding that process. You can find it on the internet. Watch it, you will learn much.

originally posted by: carewemust
This image is of part of the plane fuselage.
vault.fbi.gov...

I guess that eliminates the missile theory.

Airplanes are made with titanium so I'm pretty sure that's just garbage thrown on the ground because there would be way more debris since titanium has a high melting temp.

originally posted by: jkm1864

originally posted by: carewemust
This image is of part of the plane fuselage.
vault.fbi.gov...

I guess that eliminates the missile theory.

Airplanes are made with titanium so I'm pretty sure that's just garbage thrown on the ground because there would be way more debris since titanium has a high melting temp.

And BTW where are the damn wing holes and the large engines?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes, for anyone with a curious mind that has studied the available facts, the debate has long been over. The official story cannot withstand even the most superficial scrutiny. The efforts made by the government to suppress facts and coverup the truth far exceeded any effort to find the truth.

a reply to: D8Tee

this problem has two facets.

1. the seizure of ~80 tapes from the FBI happened over the course of time, and those tapes *are not public.* they were the result of what's known as "The Maguire Declaration," which as you already know, went a little something like this:

-> "hey I'd like to see any footage you have showing the pentagon impact."

-> "hey, so we have about 85 tapes that are relevant to that request, but we're just going to describe them to you because there's nothing relevant to your request."

The Maguire Declaration

so, correct me if I'm wrong but.. an FOIA request was submitted for any and all footage of the pentagon impact. the response was a list of itemized notes as to what the videos retrieved reportedly contained. the dishonesty here is very subtle, but very real.

2. the FBI seizures and descriptions may as well be irrelevant. what we're looking for is the footage from the pentagon's security cameras themselves. as of today, and as far as I've been able to find, there's an entire moratorium on this subject, prompting responses like "well how do you know they were turned on?" from people who side with the official story.

this is foolishness. if someone here can prove that the cameras were not operating, were not active, nor were they recording the event, that's one thing. we can, at the very least, chalk that up to severe and incompetent negligence.

however, nobody here who's claiming that the cameras were "turned away, not operable, and not recording the impact" can prove what they're saying. by all means, these are BASELESS assertions. am I wrong about that?

originally posted by: jkm1864

originally posted by: carewemust
This image is of part of the plane fuselage.
vault.fbi.gov...

I guess that eliminates the missile theory.

Airplanes are made with titanium so I'm pretty sure that's just garbage thrown on the ground because there would be way more debris since titanium has a high melting temp.

Can you tell me what parts of the aircraft are made of titanium?

a reply to: facedye

1. the seizure of ~80 tapes from the FBI happened over the course of time

The Doubletree Hotel and Citgo videos have all been publicly released years ago. Those videos were in fact released in response to the 2004 FOIA request. None of them show the impact, simply because it wasn't in the vantage point. The Department of Defense released the only footage it had of the impact, and it clearly shows a Boeing 757 once you account for the fish-eyes lens distortion, and compare with a 757 model.
There are no corroborated accounts of confiscated footage outside of Citgo, Doubletree and the parking lot tapes. We can thus dismiss your supposed "extra video tapes" as unsupported speculation. The claim that "85 videotapes" were confiscated is a distortion of an FBI agent's reply to the 2004 FOIA request.
There's a fourth alleged seizure of footage from "a hotel" near the Pentagon, which is either Sheraton (unconfirmed) or Doubletree. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack, and this claim is consistent with the FBI agent's reply.

It's been posted before as to the technical aspects of catching a plane in flight with the CCD systems that were in used. You've read it and chosen to ignore it or perhaps don't understand it.

a reply to: D8Tee

ok, with all due respect, now you just sound like any regular 'ol disinformation agent. you're taking the bait hook, line and sinker.

None of them show the impact, simply because it wasn't in the vantage point. The Department of Defense released the only footage it had of the impact, and it clearly shows a Boeing 757 once you account for the fish-eyes lens distortion, and compare with a 757 model.

- we get to decide whether or not it's the proper vantage point, not the agencies we're questioning. are you saying that they simply did not release the footage because of the vantage point? this is completely illogical. that new hotel video that recently came out sheds light on absolutely nothing, and was still released. this blows your assertion out of the water entirely. no vantage point? no problem, everyone would still like to see it for themselves. that's the point of the request.



- "clearly shows a 757"? no, it clearly doesn't. if it clearly showed a 757, we wouldn't have to have this drawn out discussion.

It's been posted before as to the technical aspects of catching a plane in flight with the CCD systems that were in used. You've read it and chosen to ignore it or perhaps don't understand it.

I don't put much blind faith into what's being reported by the very same agencies and organizations that I'm distrustful of. I'm sure you've already deduced as much.

I didn't choose to ignore it, nor do I misunderstand it. I'm simply calling on them to put their money where their mouth is and release what they are withholding.

your response is heavy on conjecture, as well as personal opinions without substantiation, but severely light on facts.

I ask again (what is it now, the third time?) - can you show me anything confirming that the pentagon's own security cameras were not working, turned away, or not actively recording the event?

if not, then kindly take your head out of the sand. looks like it's pretty deep in as is.

a reply to: facedye
A 2004 FOIA request asked for footage depicting the crash of Flight 77. The agent who replied to the FOIA request determined that the FBI "was in possession of eighty-five videotapes related to 9/11". It then went on to categorize what was contained on 29 of the tapes she reviewed personally. (The other 56 cropped up in an initial database search and didn't even show the Pentagon building).
16 of those 29 tapes showed the Pentagon, but "did not show the Pentagon crash site nor the impact into the Pentagon." Of the remaining 13 videos, 12 showed the Pentagon only after the impact. That leaves just one tape: the parking lot footage. Which was released. 14 years ago. The other videos weren't released, because those did not fulfill the claimant's request. The person asked for footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, and the closest tapes to that request that the agent could find were the Doubletree and Citgo tapes (i.e. it captured when the impact happened, but not directly).
In other words, the agent was simply itemizing the tapes she thought the FBI had, and excluded the ones which weren't relevant to the person's request.
Somehow, no-planers read the quotation above, and got the idea that the FBI confiscated 85 tapes that showed clear footage of the impact. This is how the "confiscated tapes" claim got started: from a misreading of a reply to a FOIA request.
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).

a reply to: D8Tee

ok I take that back.. not a disinfo agent, just a broken record.

how are you dodging my direct question to you so blatantly? LOL, I even made it all colorful for you to draw attention!

thanks for confirming that you can't show me any source, however weak or strong, that states the pentagon's own security cameras were inoperable, turned away, or not recording the impact.

a reply to: MrBig2430

In your opinion.

To be legally qualified for jury service, an individual must:

be a United States citizen;
be at least 18 years of age;
reside primarily in the judicial district for one year;
be adequately proficient in English to satisfactorily complete the juror qualification form;
have no disqualifying mental or physical condition;
not currently be subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; and
never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored)

I qualify to be a juror and am considered a 'reasonable person,' by the standards of federal courts.

Link

I do not believe that my deliberations on a hypothetical jury, which refused to find in favor of the federal government's case, would be "dismissed as mere crackpottery"

You think far too highly of yourself. The test is very high..."beyond a reasonable doubt."