Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Inquiry - Pentagon 9/11


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#31    Civilization

Civilization

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 58 posts
  • Joined:19 Feb 2006

Posted 18 March 2010 - 01:01 PM

**EDIT**

**You don't need to quote an entire large post just to add a single line.  Quote the relevant portions only.**

http://www.infowars....cross-the-line/

Edited by aquatus1, 18 March 2010 - 02:27 PM.

USE YOUR INTUITION FOR ONCE.

#32    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 March 2010 - 02:39 PM

View Postunit, on 18 March 2010 - 12:52 PM, said:

in the strained hope that there are still rational, cognitive, normal people left in our world..

all that is required is to show the footage.

Well, in the interest of rational, cognitive, research, wouldn't you first have to confirm that these videos exist, have something to show, and have been released through the normal channels?

Not saying they don't, but, rationally, you can't expect to make such a simple condition and pretend that other factors do not apply.  That's just a setup to saying that, because they "they" don't just show the footage, there must be hiding something.  Logically, it's a false condition that leads to an invalid conclusion.


#33    arglebargle

arglebargle

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,515 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 March 2010 - 03:18 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 18 March 2010 - 02:39 PM, said:

Well, in the interest of rational, cognitive, research, wouldn't you first have to confirm that these videos exist, have something to show, and have been released through the normal channels?

Not saying they don't, but, rationally, you can't expect to make such a simple condition and pretend that other factors do not apply.  That's just a setup to saying that, because they "they" don't just show the footage, there must be hiding something.  Logically, it's a false condition that leads to an invalid conclusion.

I'll have to agree with Aquatus here, because the problems start coming when you twist facts to suit theories rather than theories to suit facts, and while speculation is allowed, that distinction needs to be made clear, because as Aquatus says, you'll end up with invalid conclusions. This potentially makes us all look like clowns in my opinion, even if you may be right.

That being said, quite a few of the tapes that were confiscated have been confirmed. Not by me personally, but you can't expect over six billion people to do all the neccesary research, and not to mention the years of obtaining the expertise to verify these statements like when steel melts, etc. So you have to trust someone if you want to formulate an opinion, and I think it is quite credible even if it comes from let's say Alex Jones, that there were 20 something tapes (I believe he and others said 26, but I cannot remember at this time) confirmed by for example shop owners in the area or whatever, that knew they had cameras pointing in that direction, and that the FBI was there within minutes and collected the tapes usually before anyone got to see them, and the tapes have never been releaed, even though several famous conspiracy theorists have tried getting the tapes released. So has others as well.


#34    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 March 2010 - 04:02 PM

View PostRanyhyn, on 18 March 2010 - 03:18 PM, said:

That being said, quite a few of the tapes that were confiscated have been confirmed. Not by me personally, but you can't expect over six billion people to do all the neccesary research, and not to mention the years of obtaining the expertise to verify these statements like when steel melts, etc.

Of course.  That's what credibility is for; it gives you an idea how much to trust people.  But one has to be careful about what one is trusting others about.  For instance, there is no doubt that these tapes exist, in the physical sense.  The question is whether these tapes exist in the sense that they are the key to some sort of conspiracy.  In other words, do these tapes actually have anything worth revealing?  One cannot simply demand that a bunch of random security tapes be released.  One has to have a specific legal reason and explain what is supposed to be on that tape.  Again, I'm not saying that no one has done this, but I keep hearing that someone did, but when I ask for details on the matter, things start to peter out.

All I'm saying is that, since it has already been established that someone asked for the tapes, and we even have a couple of names, shouldn't we move past the "Just show us the videos." and find out why we haven't been shown the videos?  Because, while one conclusion may be "Because they are hiding something." another equally valid one is "There's nothing to see." and still another is "No one has actually filled out the paperwork properly."


#35    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 18 March 2010 - 05:47 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 18 March 2010 - 04:02 PM, said:

All I'm saying is that, since it has already been established that someone asked for the tapes, and we even have a couple of names, shouldn't we move past the "Just show us the videos." and find out why we haven't been shown the videos?  Because, while one conclusion may be "Because they are hiding something." another equally valid one is "There's nothing to see." and still another is "No one has actually filled out the paperwork properly."
If you read the FOIA requests and their responses then we see that the correct procedures have been followed in attempt to obtain copies of the 85 videotapes in possession of the FBI.  The official reason for non-release of all the videotapes is apparently that the impact was not captured in the footage.

After viewing descriptions that the FBI has provided of the 85 videotapes I believe it is likely correct that no others showed the flight path or impact.  Unfortunately the Pentagon rooftop cameras and VDOT highway cameras are not listed and so appear not to be included in the 85 tapes in the FBI’s possession.

It seems we are all onto a loser with the lack of video footage – no proof it was Flight 77 and no proof it wasn’t.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#36    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 18 March 2010 - 05:56 PM

View PostQ24, on 18 March 2010 - 05:47 PM, said:

If you read the FOIA requests and their responses then we see that the correct procedures have been followed in attempt to obtain copies of the 85 videotapes in possession of the FBI.  The official reason for non-release of all the videotapes is apparently that the impact was not captured in the footage.

After viewing descriptions that the FBI has provided of the 85 videotapes I believe it is likely correct that no others showed the flight path or impact.  Unfortunately the Pentagon rooftop cameras and VDOT highway cameras are not listed and so appear not to be included in the 85 tapes in the FBI’s possession.

It seems we are all onto a loser with the lack of video footage – no proof it was Flight 77 and no proof it wasn’t.

Ofcourse, if the pentagon attack is not as he official story describes, it makes perfect sense that those behind the cover up wouldn't want the tapes revealed. Something to think about though- if the impact was truly not on the footage, why is that? Could it be that they are subtly admitting that the impact never took place?

Edited by Scott G, 18 March 2010 - 06:01 PM.


#37    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 March 2010 - 06:02 PM

View PostScott G, on 18 March 2010 - 05:56 PM, said:

Something to think about though- if the impact was truly not footage, why is that? Could it be that they are subtly admitting that the impact never took place?

...

Why would they subtly admit that?


#38    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 18 March 2010 - 06:06 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 18 March 2010 - 06:02 PM, said:

...

Why would they subtly admit that?

Because it may get out eventually anyway. Because the person who denied access to the videos is riddled by their conscience. Because there was a mess up. There are many possibilities. I can't think of a single good reason for with-holding the tapes if there's nothing to hide. If they show no impact, why is that? And most importantly, why can't they show us these videos of nothing occurring? Because, ofcourse, something -did- occur. There were immense explosions at the pentagon, the biggest one about 10 minutes -after- the alleged impact, and this is the one that brought down a lot of the facade; before that, there was just a small hole in the pentagon facade. So many questions, so few answers.


#39    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,045 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 18 March 2010 - 06:27 PM

View PostScott G, on 18 March 2010 - 05:56 PM, said:

Ofcourse, if the pentagon attack is not as he official story describes, it makes perfect sense that those behind the cover up wouldn't want the tapes revealed. Something to think about though- if the impact was truly not on the footage, why is that? Could it be that they are subtly admitting that the impact never took place?
Perhaps the cameras were off, intentionally or not. Perhaps they were pointed the wrong way.  Perhaps their frame rate was too slow to catch something moving that fast.  Perhaps the cameras are decoys, they look like cameras but the real cameras are in different, secret locations.  In the case of the latter, releasing the video could be a breach of national security.

I had heard that the videos were originally withheld due to being evidence for a trial.  One of those, Mousaoui, (I probably spelled that wrong) already took place and some were released after.  Are they anticipating more trials?

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#40    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 March 2010 - 06:28 PM

So, hypothetically, if they released a bunch of videos that showed a green lawn, a green lawn, a green lawn, then suddenly black static, followed by nothing...

Do you figure that would be the end of the camera questions?


#41    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 18 March 2010 - 10:26 PM

View Postfrenat, on 18 March 2010 - 06:27 PM, said:

Perhaps the cameras were off, intentionally or not. Perhaps they were pointed the wrong way.  Perhaps their frame rate was too slow to catch something moving that fast.  Perhaps the cameras are decoys, they look like cameras but the real cameras are in different, secret locations.  In the case of the latter, releasing the video could be a breach of national security.

Or perhaps they're covering up the truth. Of the options you mentioned, the only one that could possibly be an excuse for not revealing the tapes is the idea that the cameras were decoy cameras. However, I think that with many, if not all, of the tapes, this isn't a feasible possibility. I remember a story of Hotel Employees seeing a video that apparently showed the pentagon explosion, only to have the FBI confiscate it as they were watching it. It would certainly be interesting to know what they saw, but I've never heard any of them speak. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps the thread I started, "Mysterious 9/11 Deaths" is something you might wish to contemplate.

View Postfrenat, on 18 March 2010 - 06:27 PM, said:

I had heard that the videos were originally withheld due to being evidence for a trial.  One of those, Mousaoui, (I probably spelled that wrong) already took place and some were released after.  Are they anticipating more trials?

I'm not sure. What I do know, however, is that none of the tapes that were released have revealed any evidence of a plane flying through. I've also never heard of any of the video recorders having malfunctioned.  Perhaps the reason no plane was seen was because no plane flew in the area and the North side witnesses are telling the truth. Pilots for 9/11 Truth using trigonmetric equations that are beyond me but which you might be interested in, has determined that it's impossible for the plane to have crashed into the building in the way it did from -any- flight path as well.


#42    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 18 March 2010 - 10:28 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 18 March 2010 - 06:28 PM, said:

So, hypothetically, if they released a bunch of videos that showed a green lawn, a green lawn, a green lawn, then suddenly black static, followed by nothing...

Do you figure that would be the end of the camera questions?

Ofcourse not; the question would immediately arrise, why no plane before the static? There's also the issue that most of the cameras wouldn't have been within damage range of the explosions at the pentagon. There is also, ofcourse, the point of the tapes that -were- released and yet show no plane flying through their field of view...


#43    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 18 March 2010 - 11:26 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 18 March 2010 - 06:28 PM, said:

So, hypothetically, if they released a bunch of videos that showed a green lawn, a green lawn, a green lawn, then suddenly black static, followed by nothing...

Do you figure that would be the end of the camera questions?
Questions will always linger over the video cameras until either 1) quality footage of the airliner is released and/or 2) every single piece of footage that could reasonably be expected to have recorded the flight path is made public.  Even then, it will never truly be over until authorities identify all four of the aircraft involved on 9/11.

  • Flight 11 and Flight 175 are the only land-based crashes in world aviation history where the black boxes were (supposedly) never recovered.
    Link

  • Flight 77 and Flight 93 are virtually the only two crashes in the past 20 years of U.S. aviation history for which FDR identifying serial numbers have not been published.
    Link

  • In response to a FOIA request to ascertain the 9/11 aircraft identifications through unique serial numbers, the NTSB stated, “Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn’t have any records regarding the above requested information”.
    Link

  • In response to a FOIA request to ascertain the 9/11 aircraft identifications through unique serial numbers, the FBI stated, “RIDS has been unable to locate any FBI records responsive to your request”.
    Link

These aircraft have simply never been identified – it is an unprecedented and unacceptable failing by authorities in such a vital case.  There is no proof of the aircraft identities; there is no evidence of the aircraft identities; there is no record of the aircraft identities; the NTSB do not know the aircraft identities; the FBI do not know the aircraft identities; nobody knows the aircraft identities.  Do you realise the magnitude of that?  This issue is of vital importance to the entire basis of the official story.

Of course there are fundamental questions and it will never be over until they are answered.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#44    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,045 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 19 March 2010 - 12:23 AM

View PostScott G, on 18 March 2010 - 10:26 PM, said:

Or perhaps they're covering up the truth. Of the options you mentioned, the only one that could possibly be an excuse for not revealing the tapes is the idea that the cameras were decoy cameras. However, I think that with many, if not all, of the tapes, this isn't a feasible possibility.
I was only commenting on why some videos may not show the crash.  

View PostScott G, on 18 March 2010 - 10:26 PM, said:

I remember a story of Hotel Employees seeing a video that apparently showed the pentagon explosion, only to have the FBI confiscate it as they were watching it. It would certainly be interesting to know what they saw, but I've never heard any of them speak. Why do you suppose that is?
I wouldn't be surprised if their story was exaggerated.  Wasn't a video released from the hotel?



View PostScott G, on 18 March 2010 - 10:26 PM, said:

I'm not sure. What I do know, however, is that none of the tapes that were released have revealed any evidence of a plane flying through.
I don't agree.  The videos that were first released/leaked from the parking area do appear to show a plane.  While the frame rate is not fast enough (only about a frame per second) to definitively show the plane, there is a white patch that could be smoke from an engine as well as a plane shaped blur directly in front of it.  Given the frame and scan rate of the camera that is about what I would expect it to capture.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#45    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 19 March 2010 - 12:51 AM

View Postfrenat, on 19 March 2010 - 12:23 AM, said:

I don't agree.  The videos that were first released/leaked from the parking area do appear to show a plane.  While the frame rate is not fast enough (only about a frame per second) to definitively show the plane, there is a white patch that could be smoke from an engine as well as a plane shaped blur directly in front of it.  Given the frame and scan rate of the camera that is about what I would expect it to capture.
I’d go one further and say that the footage does definitively show a plane (at the very least a large flying object with a stabilizing fin).  The white patch mislead a lot of people, myself included, in that they believed that was the plane itself when in fact it is smoke or fuel from a damaged engine/wing, probably caused by clipping the light poles on approach.  To find the plane, we have to know where to look: -




The first close-up shows the full plane and in the second close-up the fin is clearly visible.  I suspect that the object appears dark due to the camera exposure?

Now if someone could just show that was the same Flight 77 that departed Dulles……

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users