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

a reply to: MotherMayEye

How does innuendo of unreslead footage disprove the listed evidence that shows a jet hit the pentagon. It's a failure of logic to equate no footage equates to no DNA evidence.

How many convicted murders have been found guilty or acquitted on DNA evidence alone?

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
Oct 7, 2016

There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.

John D. Wyndham (PhD) studied under two Nobel Prize-winners in physics at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, U.K. and, in his early career, was a Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology. He is currently Coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. His research papers on 9/11 can be found there and on the website Scientific Method 9/11 for which he acts as Moderator.

a reply to: D8Tee

of course it matters with or without the video.

this is precisely my point. ALL of it matters, but we're only getting half of the picture, and you're already coming to conclusions. you'd be hard pressed to find a statement from me declaring that it was definitely a missile, and not a plane.

it could have been a plane. but the feds are clearly withholding footage. this much is obvious.

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?

ok.. yes, a security booth's purpose is to record vehicles coming through the security gate. what, then, would be the purpose of the multiple security cameras lining the roof?

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

you asked me to prove that i have experience with video and tape. i uploaded a picture of one of my own short films on tape. you even stated you didn't care how i proved that, but now all of a sudden that's not good enough for you?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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.

What concealment?

It's been gone over here many times, the tapes that show the impact have been released.

a reply to: D8Tee

ah, and the other ~80 tapes? not released, by way of the agency claiming it "didn't show the impact or didn't show a relative vantage point."

to you, this is enough.

to others, including the 9/11 families who were really the only reason there was any attempt at an investigation, this can be seen as concealment.

and.. these are just randomly compiled pieces of footage pertaining to the FOIA request.

the problem of what happened to the footage of the roof's security cameras still holds true and evident.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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.

What concealment?

It's been gone over here many times, the tapes that show the impact have been released.

For some, innuendo and/or speculation is evidence. Wonder how circumstantial evidence holds up in court?

Not a reply to anyone specific.

How dose innuendo of tapes overcome the listed evidence and cited sources that shows a large jet hit the pentagon.

Still waiting on a not specific person to provide a more credible cause of the damage at the pentagon on 9/11 than a jet?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

How does innuendo of unreslead footage disprove the listed evidence that shows a jet hit the pentagon. It's a failure of logic to equate no footage equates to no DNA evidence.

How many convicted murders have been found guilty or acquitted on DNA evidence alone?

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
Oct 7, 2016

There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.

John D. Wyndham (PhD) studied under two Nobel Prize-winners in physics at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, U.K. and, in his early career, was a Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology. He is currently Coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. His research papers on 9/11 can be found there and on the website Scientific Method 9/11 for which he acts as Moderator.

The concealment of evidence is evidence of consciousness of guilt. Like it or not. And, like it or not, without any good reason for concealing those videos, reasonable doubt is raised about OTHER evidence proffered by those concealing evidence.

If the concealed videos don't show anything...they are still evidence (which would allegedly support the official story). So why are they concealed? No good reason that I can think of. Therefore, I give the concealment a lot of evidentiary weight.

a reply to: D8Tee

What concealment?

It's been gone over here many times, the tapes that show the impact have been released.

Link to those tapes please?

I would love to see them.

P

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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.

What concealment?

It's been gone over here many times, the tapes that show the impact have been released.

And the footage of those cameras focused elsewhere are evidence, as well. According to OSers, they are evidence in support of the OS and the 'official' flight path.

So why is this evidence being concealed?

I can think of no good reason. Therefore, I give the concealment a lot of evidentiary weight IMPLICATING those concealing the videos.

If a more credible cause for the damage to the pentagon on 9/11 cannot be established to supersede the jet strike, what is there to debate? Tapes that have nothing to do with the bulk of evidence. They are a straw man argument!

Let's go with how the tapes configure into a large jet hitting the pentagon.

originally posted by: neutronflux
If a more credible cause for the damage to the pentagon on 9/11 cannot be established to supersede the jet strike, what is there to debate? Tapes that have nothing to do with the bulk of evidence. They are a straw man argument!

Let's go with how the tapes configure into a large jet hitting the pentagon.

You go with that.

I still wonder what's being concealed.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

What evidence do you have there is still unreleased footage. What would the court order look like?

Hey! Federal Government. Release those tapes / footage I have no proof exists in which I cannot specify to address which tapes I require?

a reply to: facedye

ok.. yes, a security booth's purpose is to record vehicles coming through the security gate. what, then, would be the purpose of the multiple security cameras lining the roof?

The cameras would be to capture people walking on the Pentagon grounds. Cameras tracking vehicles would be near roads or parking lots to capture vehicles. You don't track people and cars from distant cameras, you use the closest cam and switch to the next closest as the target moves.

By using the closest cam all the time the cam is more likely to be pointed towards the ground more and not out into the distance. So cameras on the side of the pentagon would be more likely to be pointed down and not out onto the horizon.

It is highly unlikely they were set up with the intention of capturing an incoming airplane or missile.

you asked me to prove that i have experience with video and tape. i uploaded a picture of one of my own short film on tape. you even stated you didn't care how i proved that, but now all of a sudden that's not good enough for you?

If I show you a picture of a plane, does that prove I'm a pilot?

What footage is left?

www.judicialwatch.org...

Judicial Watch v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No.06-1135)

November 11, 2011
Judicial Watch lawsuit to obtain previously unseen footage of Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, seeking all records pertaining to camera recordings from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation.On May 16, 2006, Judicial Watch forced the Department of Defense to release video footage of American Airlines flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11. The videos had been kept secret by the DoD until Judicial Watch filed the FOIA request and, eventually, a lawsuit stating that the DoD had “no legal basis” to refuse release of the footage. On September 15, 2006, Judicial Watch released videos from the CITGO gas station near the Pentagon, which was released by the FBI in response to the FOIA request.Judicial Watch is committed to completing the public record of the 9/11 attacks.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What evidence do you have there is still unreleased footage. What would the court order look like?

Hey! Federal Government. Release those tapes / footage I have no proof exists in which I cannot specify to address which tapes I require?

Whatevs.

www.flight77.info..." target="_blank" class="postlink">A FLIPPING list of all the videotapes is available, which shows many of these videotapes do not have footage of the Pentagon at all.

A list shows that...not the actual videos. And, yet, they are all still evidence for or against the official story.


ETA: You will have to quote my comment and copy the link. It's from the waybackmachine and it won't post correctly.

originally posted by: neutronflux
What footage is left?

80-something other videos.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: neutronflux

80-something other videos.

Are you saying all the freedom of information acts to release all the pentagon security footage has been denied?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: neutronflux

80-something other videos.

Are you saying all the freedom of information acts to release all the pentagon security footage has been denied?

Ah, they've been released then. Please link to all those videos. I have always been curious about them!

a reply to: MotherMayEye
This all seems like another last-resort point. No explosive tests, no steel tests, no video footage. This is what the truther arguments boils down to. There is no actual evidence of it being an inside job, so once all the physics has been explained, then all that is left is simply walking as far as you can go, and then calling the point where you can walk no more "suspicious".

If you had the video, then you'd just want the next thing along the road.

If there were explosive tests, then they would want different tests.

If the simulation data was released, they would claim it is faked, and ask for unrestricted access to the computer archives.

If the steel were tested then they would claim the wrong steel was tested.

There's always going to be some desired evidence that :

A) No longer exists
B) Is secret
C) Never existed

So the 9/11 truth movement is NEVER going to stop. No matter what.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I am just pointing out there have been lawsuits and freedom of information acts to release flight 77 crash footage. For as I know, they have been fulfilled.

If you wanted to push the issue, what would your freedom of information act request look like? What is left to ask for?