Confiscated videos

I have heard a lot about all of the videos that have been confiscated, and I think most people assume that the videos are all from the pentagon surveillance cameras. I found this list searching for flight 77 videos...


More
More
More
More
Source
Some of its not exactly what I/You/We were expecting, some of its more. I even notice they confiscated images from the pentagon taken on september 12th.

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 30/8/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Why do you think they were rummaging around in people's garbage in Wisconsin?

how could any of these videos damage national security? how can they explain that they simply won't release them? does anyone know what kind of response they send when they receive the foia requests for these videos? it seems blatantly obvious to me that the government is content with the dissatisfaction of the american population. they don't care if we don't believe their story, as long as we NEVER find out what really happened. if it's a security issue, why not show them to some members of the government and/or the 9-11 commission? hell, show them to ron paul.

i cant possibly imagine why they would hold any the tapes in question. Ongoing trial is supposed to be the reason to with-hold, i thought there was no trial going on now? will they cry 'ongoing investigation'?

who gave consent? theres actually a consent search on the first page. they took a pentagon tape that was dated 5 days after the attack...

they even got a tape from the DEA. they gave theirs up with no warrant...

i'd be very interested in seeing the hotel video and the dot video from that day. at least one of the poles that was 'knocked over' held a dot camera.

As much as OV'ers like to debunk I find this yet another subject that is 'debunker free'.

IMHO there is no legit reason to with-hold the tapes. The citgo tape was released when the trial was over. I dont want to commit a logical fallacy here but the citgo tape does not show a plane, and it was released when the trial was over. Why was the FOIA denied? It does not make any sense. the conclusion i am forced to come to is that the other video and still image evidence is damning to someone other than zacharias musuai (sp sorry). That's why the tapes were not released, and when his trial was over only two were released.

reply to post by jprophet420


I can understand why this is frustrating, but in and of itself, the withholding of tapes proves nothing.

And there is the further problem: as was the case with some of the footage released thus far, many CTers will claim it's been fabricated anyway.

Here is a statement from an FBi agent that a video from the Doubletree hotel had nothing on it.

i114.photobucket.com...

this brings up 2 questions,

1. Why was it taken if it had nothing on it.

2. Why did it take so many years for them to state there was nothing on it.

Originally posted by coughymachine

I can understand why this is frustrating, but in and of itself, the withholding of tapes proves nothing.

And there is the further problem: as was the case with some of the footage released thus far, many CTers will claim it's been fabricated anyway.

What don't you understand about the fact that withholding tapes and photos can be proof they are hiding something.

Well as long as the videos and photos can be verified by other means they will be accepted, problem is as long as they have had the videos they could have done anything they wanted to them.



[edit on 21-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1

I understand they can be proof that something is being hidden, of course I can. Maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough.

If the additional videos and/or photographs are ever released, then I think we can pretty much guarantee they will not contradict the 'official' account. They're not going to incriminate themselves, are they?

In which case, some CTers will always be left with the suspicion that the material has been manipulated. we have already seen this with the Pentagon security hut videos.

Originally posted by coughymachine\
If the additional videos and/or photographs are ever released, then I think we can pretty much guarantee they will not contradict the 'official' account. They're not going to incriminate themselves, are they?

But you do not know they will not contridict the official story.

There have been a lot of questions being rasied about the official story. In fact the more research i do the more questions i find, there are a lot more questions then answers.

First responders are comming out against the official story.

Military and government people are comming out against the official story even if it means they are military people are getting court martialled or the government people are being punished.



[edit on 21-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1

This is my view.

If photographic of video evidence contradicts the 'official' version, it either:

a) won't be released; or
b) will be manipulated before being released.

If photographic or video evidence supports the 'official' story and it's released, it will be dismissed as fakery.

It's rather like the WMD issue where Iraq was concerned. A lot of people argue that if a government cannot even contrive to manufacture evidence of WMD, then what are the chances it was involved in the planning of 9/11.

But the reality is that, given the overwhelming sense of anger and mistrust, any evidence that did turn up would have been dismissed as planted anyway. Alternatively, had they been caught planting it, the fallout would have been far worse than staying silent.

In other words, they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

Originally posted by coughymachine
If photographic or video evidence supports the 'official' story and it's released, it will be dismissed as fakery.

It's rather like the WMD issue where Iraq was concerned. A lot of people argue that if a government cannot even contrive to manufacture evidence of WMD, then what are the chances it was involved in the planning of 9/11.

If evidence supports the official story and can be verified, or at least does not look like it was really hacked up i think it would be accepted by most people.

Well we did find some things like the buried and hidden MIGs. Also we had some defectors report that most of the WMDs or material for WMDs were hidden or taken to Syria.

I have even seen a report that Russians may have helped moved material.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by jprophet420

 

I can understand why this is frustrating, but in and of itself, the withholding of tapes proves nothing.

And there is the further problem: as was the case with some of the footage released thus far, many CTers will claim it's been fabricated anyway.

however if the reason for not releasing the tapes is indeed a trial that is already over, it does prove that there is some sort of cover up.

I hate to say it but right now, unless someone can prove otherwise, that's where were at.

reply to post by jprophet420


If 9/11 was an inside job, then withholding the tapes might well have been considered a sound strategy, even if they show the plane hitting the building.

Think how much energy is expended discussing why the tapes haven't been released.

It's a neat distraction.