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

a reply to: Salander

It took you five years to discover an event that happened on live TV? Damned near every TV station was broadcasting the carnage that day, including the widely anticipated collapse of WTC 7......and you did not find out about it for five years?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

It took you five years to discover an event that happened on live TV? Damned near every TV station was broadcasting the carnage that day, including the widely anticipated collapse of WTC 7......and you did not find out about it for five years?

The fact is, many years after 911, many New Yorkers didn't know WTC 7 came down on 911, in fact more than half of the country didn't know.

People have to work for a living, and dont have the wonderful leisure time to go and do research on world events, like you and I.

a reply to: Informer1958

So? You are saying conspiracists with a biased argument purposely picked WTC 7 to push their pseudoscience in the hopes of taking advantage of rational persons.

a reply to: Informer1958

You also wouldn't believe the amount of conspiracists that don't know there was an attempt by the insurers to get out of paying the settlement for WTC 7. The lawsuit claimed WTC 7 was improperly designed. Don't you think the insurers would have gone after the building owners if there was evidence of CD? The insurance company lost thier court case.

www.metabunk.org...

Aegis and others seeking to recover losses against 7 WTC Co. and others for what they alleged was negligent design and maintenance of WTC 7 that contributed to the collapse of that tower.

How many times have you been pointed to the Aegis / WTC 7 lawsuit? Still waiting on you to discredit the technical side of the case?

a reply to: neutronflux

The member often makes outlandish claims without substantiating them when asked to provide citations.

a reply to: Informer1958

Two types of people claim they did not know 7 fell that day 1. People with the memory recall of a goldfish and 2. Liars

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

It took you five years to discover an event that happened on live TV? Damned near every TV station was broadcasting the carnage that day, including the widely anticipated collapse of WTC 7......and you did not find out about it for five years?

It's an easy explanation, and as Informer has mentioned, I know I'm not the only one.

In my case, I watched the events unfold on a TV at work, and another at a nearby snack bar. Once the towers went down, I walked away from the TV. I don't watch that much TV anyway, and I was so disgusted, in fact traumatized, that I did not turn the TV on again for a few days, so I was not watching at 5PM that afternoon.

It was only by accident that I even found out then.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

Thanks for your concern Mr. Big. I feel so much better. An Unhealthy dose of skepticism? As defined, I presume, by yourself?

Yes, ignorance can be scary, and indeed fatal to rational public discussion.

In my case, I actually DID believe the official story of 911, and defended it in various forums when it happened. Yep, I drank the KoolAid and believed the story, though I did have some questions.

It took me 5 years to discover that WTC7 had come down that afternoon, but when I discovered that fact I began to investigate. Lo and Behold, it turns out the closer I looked, the more obvious it became that no part of the story is true. No part of the story can be proved. Indeed, the preponderance of the evidence works against the official story.

I certainly don't expect anybody to believe me, nor do I care if anybody believes me. I understand how denial manifests in the human species. It is a substantial psychological effort to come to terms with the fact that one's government is very much the opposite of what one had been conditioned to believe.

Those who are curious, and honest with themselves, already know they were fooled that day. Those who still believe the official story simply WANT to believe the official story, for whatever reason. The open-minded and curious perceive the deception, the man in denial will likely go to his grave still believing the story.

No part can be proven? To who? You?

You've already boldly proclaimed that everyone in guv is a liar and therefore they can't be believed.

Fine.

So since this is a Pentagon thread, what would be proof - to you personally- that would prove that 77 hit the pentagon as reported in the "OS"?

I find it very interested that very few people on here, ever question anything about the OS, but only defend it.

Yet people who do not believe in the OS, do question all the events and for that we are attacked, doesn't matter what one believes.

The question to why faces are black-out in Pentagon photos is a validated fair question, yet I do not see any OS supporters questioning it, why is that?

I will be Flamed for just asking this very question.

originally posted by: Informer1958
I find it very interested that very few people on here, ever question anything about the OS, but only defend it.

Yet people who do not believe in the OS, do question all the events and for that we are attacked, doesn't matter what one believes.

The question to why faces are black-out in Pentagon photos is a validated fair question, yet I do not see any OS supporters questioning it, why is that?

I will be Flamed for just asking this very question.

I find it very interesting that you make claims that can't be supported by any evidence. Repeatedly.

Posted by Informer guy:

A&E forced NIST to change their outcome in the WTC 7 report, that the building fell faster than freefall for 2 seconds and the only scientific explanation that can explain that is demolition, nothing else scientifically has been proven.

How can you expect to make such claims and not be challenged?

Why is questioning what you say apparently off bounds?

You refuse to validate your evidence and continue to repeat the same nonsense.

It's very juvenile.

If this is indeed true, why don't you post your evidence?

Otherwise it's just yet another example of you posting BS and refusing to back it up.

It's dishonest and misleading.

Either admit you were mistaken or quit repeating the statement, please, bring some credibility to your postings.

a reply to: Informer1958

The question to why faces are black-out in Pentagon photos is a validated fair question, yet I do not see any OS supporters questioning it, why is that?

FBI doesn't want people to be able to identify the people that work for the agency maybe?

Seems a common sense kinda thing, but thats just me.

a reply to: Informer1958

Well, state what caused the damage at the pentagon. If you cannot put forth a theory what caused the damage, I guess you support a jet hitting the pentagon OS.


Thanks for proving a false narrative. It never has been about the OS for me! I really was curious if conspiracists had something?

Let's go back to my ignorant days believing everyone at ATS was about honest debate and truth. Cutting my teeth on thermite theory and Jones.

One, certain individuals (poke poke) do not hold themselves to the same standards they demand of "the official" records.

Jones and thermite was presented as bonafide theory and determined by the scientific method. But if a person exerts a little due diligence neglected by the conspiracists, one finds:

Jones's samples were attained by mail on the honor of the persons providing the samples up to five years after 9/11.

No clear chain of custody for the samples, nor proof the samples were properly preserved/isolated to prevent contamination.

Jones's experiments were never reproduced by individuals using better isolated and preserved WTC samples.

Jones never conducted his experiments in an inert atmosphere to prove his samples contained unreacted thermite as he claimed.

Jones's "peer review" was conducted by a publisher that was caught in pay for play, some of the peers that were used for the review provided assistance to Jones while he wrote the paper, and the peer review process skipped the referee and the paper was published without the referee's consent.

People with blind devotion to the thermite theory tried to present pictures of columns cut by thermal lance during WTC cleanup as columns cut by thermite.


I didn't know squat about the OS when I first started posting at ATS. My view of 9/11 theories was always through a posting at ATS, then working from whatever theory was presented to actual fact.

I was appalled in the pseudoscience of conspiracists, the facts not presented by conspiracists, quotes and pictures used out of context by conspiracists, that conspiracists do not hold their own to the same standards of the "OS", and nothing can be taken for granted when presented by Conspiracists.

The claim steel was just grabbed and shipped as quick as possible to China is another false narrative that comes to mind.

The removal of debris from the WTC was not haphazard. It was conducted methodologically out of fear the slurry wall would collapse. Engineers examined steel columns as the steel was extracted from the pile. Columns, welds, and broken hardware of interest were all identified and the items were shipped to lay down yards. The steel at the lay down yards underwent further examined, and samples taken. Columns documented. The columns, failed welds, and metallurgical analysis revealled no indication of being cut by charges nor thermite. Why? Because there was no steel cut by demolitions or thermite! (New thought! The failures of the WTC steel and hardware was all mechanical in the context of broken welds, connection flanges, and broken bolts. If it was CD by cutting charges, all the failures would not be mechanical in nature!)

Bottom line? Conspiracists willingness to present false data, false facts, the inability to police themselves, not able to prove thier case through the scientific method, the desperation for a smoking gun, and groups like AE9/11Truth unwillingness to engage in legal battles with the evil government just undelineds the true nature of conspiracy theories. People using sensational accusations for notoriety and to produce a consumer product. Not truth. And that makes me very sad.......

a reply to: MrBig2430

To me, valid proof would consist of video footage from pentagon cameras showing a 757 going across the lawn. To me, proof would be complete footage from the various civilian buildings nearby with their surveillance cameras.

To me, a legitimate and proper FDR record actually assigned to AA77, and of course the examination of all aircraft debris.

Also the discrepancies found regarding just where the Inertial system was actually done need to be resolved.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

To me, valid proof would consist of video footage from pentagon cameras showing a 757 going across the lawn. To me, proof would be complete footage from the various civilian buildings nearby with their surveillance cameras.

To me, a legitimate and proper FDR record actually assigned to AA77, and of course the examination of all aircraft debris.

Also the discrepancies found regarding just where the Inertial system was actually done need to be resolved.

Why would video footage be proof? I think that we can all agree that if you're right and we're being lied to about 9/11 then the video provided would be faked, and if you're wrong, we've all seen what they have.

Why would civilian footage be any different than above? If you're right it'll be faked and if you're wrong then it doesn't exist.

Why would another report on the FDr be proof? Same reasoning as above - if you're right it'll be faked and if you're wrong we've got what we've got.

Why would an examination of the aircraft debris be proof? If you're right we'll get parts faked from other crashes that match the "OS" and if you're not we wont be able to examine any for whatever reason, if it's still in storage and available.

Why would a redo of the inertial guidance discrepancies be proof? If you're right whoever is doing the examination will be bought off and will say the inertial discrepancies are within error bounds and if you're wrong we will never get any examination or the exact same statements.

Do you see where I'm going with these questions? All the evidence that you wish to see is in the hands of the guv. If you're right they will give/fake whatever backs their story and/or buy off/ threaten/ whatever to get whatever entity that you deem to be neutral to back their story cuz that's how this and ALL crazy conspiracies work. And if you're wrong, we will get what we have now OR your neutral entity will agree with the "OS" if something new DOES come available.

I see Zero chance that the guv providing anything will give you the proof you seek.

And all this gets back to my original statement- you MUST trust that there are some honest individuals in guv that would bring any of this proof that you seek into the light of day if you want to prove to yourself that your rampant mistrust in the GUV is valid. And realistically, that's what conspiracy theories are all about- self validation that your fringe beliefs aren't as crazy as some of us tell you.

I'm open to hearing how you think that the guv will be supplying incriminating evidence if you ask nicely, but I don't see how anyone can hold that belief without doing some pro quality mental gymnastics backed by an unhealthy dose of cognitive dissonance.

And I guess I should really point out just how silly your statement about how no one in guv can be trusted and ask one more question - do you believe that we went to and walked on the moon ? Or is the guv lying about that too?

a reply to: MrBig2430


You asked, I answered.

What we're seeing now is faked, the story is fake.

I'm saying that IF it really was AA77 that struck the building, THEN the video record would reflect that. Of course the only video record we have been shown is the parking lot camera, and whatever it recorded was NOT a 757.

You asked, I answered.

Yes, I see where you're going with those questions. Yes, I do. You are desperate to try to make the official story plausible, but it's not working. Silly questions suggest efforts to change the subject, and reveal the weaknesses of the official story.

The government will not revisit the Warren Commission Report, it will not revisit the assassination of MLK, and it will not revisit 911. That much is certain.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


Yes, I see where you're going with those questions. Yes, I do. You are desperate to try to make the official story plausible, but it's not working.

I think the point was more that you've clearly made up your mind and firmly closed and bolted it behind you.

And you've got the nerve to call yourself skeptical

a reply to: Salander

Yes, I see where you're going with those questions. Yes, I do. You are desperate to try to make the official story plausible, but it's not working. Silly questions suggest efforts to change the subject, and reveal the weaknesses of the official story.

Yes, it is true, the OS is a great big fat lie.

As you have witnessed on this thread, the only things the OS supporters can do in defending their narratives, is insult you, for exposing it, and having a difference of opinions.

Thank God, these people do not get to control the narratives outside of ATS.

a reply to: Informer1958

Coming from a guy that repeatedly says things such as this:

A&E forced NIST to change their outcome in the WTC 7 report, that the building fell faster than freefall for 2 seconds and the only scientific explanation that can explain that is demolition, nothing else scientifically has been proven.

And refuses to provide any evidence that the statement is based in fact, not sure what you think you are exposing other than a whole lot of your own BS.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430



I'm saying that IF it really was AA77 that struck the building, THEN the video record would reflect that.

You believe this to be true, but have no evidence that backs it up.

This is the pro level mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance that I talked about.

Think this through for once. If they're lying then they'd fake a video that CLEARLY shows a 757. This is what YOUR feverish fantasy says. Yet they didn't.

That leaves us with the "OS" being true.

Yes, I see where you're going with those questions. Yes, I do.

No you don't.

I'm pointing out that if you're right, then asking for evidence is useless cuz they'd just go on lying.

For some odd reason, you don't see this simple truth.

I suppose that you and all other crazy 9/11 conspiracy believers just want to make yourselves feel better and not feel useless?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Salander

Yes, I see where you're going with those questions. Yes, I do. You are desperate to try to make the official story plausible, but it's not working. Silly questions suggest efforts to change the subject, and reveal the weaknesses of the official story.

Yes, it is true, the OS is a great big fat lie.

As you have witnessed on this thread, the only things the OS supporters can do in defending their narratives, is insult you, for exposing it, and having a difference of opinions.

Thank God, these people do not get to control the narratives outside of ATS.

You clearly don't get the obvious point either.

If you're right, then asking for evidence from the guv is clearly useless and realistically just amounts to trolling ATS.

That is, unless you honestly believe that they will comply and incriminate themselves. This actually wouldn't surprise me since every crazy 9/11 conspiracy believer that I've read has a rather naive and childish grasp on reality.