Why won't govt explain this mystery?

[booNyzarC]

If you had read what I quoted you would see that it was not me saying billions of cameras as a hypothetical. Another posted stated exactly as I was leading to. No amount of cameras would have made a difference. To some it seems security cams for important instalations were not common in 1991.

I hope that you even making ref to to a post Aquatus made in ref to a billion cams is a joke. Ya a billion cams

Just as you posting a site with 85 video ref was my fault as well that Aquatus called me on. Well well. The tail wags the dog.

I'm not sure what your issue is, but it is quite obvious that you have no clue about this subject and you blatantly disregard your own statements. Whatever the case, I'm done attempting to discuss the subject with you for the time being. I do wish you the best, but if you want to actually discuss this subject I suggest you learn a bit about it and own up to your own statements when called on them.

By the way, I didn't post a reference to 85 videos at the Pentagon. I posted a reference which debunked the myth which is commonly held about there being 84 videos of the event. You might want to read it. Here you go again. <-- that is a link. It is intended for you to click on it and read the page which magically appears in your browser after doing so...

[Q24]

By the way, I didn't post a reference to 85 videos at the Pentagon. I posted a reference which debunked the myth which is commonly held about there being 84 videos of the event. You might want to read it. Here you go again. <-- that is a link. It is intended for you to click on it and read the page which magically appears in your browser after doing so...

I’d like to see these five: -

“Five videotapes were recovered from the post-attack Pentagon crime scene and submitted to the FBI Laboratory in Quantico.“

Interesting… recovered from the crime scene?

It is not referring to the security cameras or gas station footage across the road – they are listed separately.

[quillius]

woops

Edited January 12, 2012 by quillius

[booNyzarC]

I’d like to see these five: -

“Five videotapes were recovered from the post-attack Pentagon crime scene and submitted to the FBI Laboratory in Quantico.“

Interesting… recovered from the crime scene?

It is not referring to the security cameras or gas station footage across the road – they are listed separately.

And there is no indication that they show the flight or the impact. In fact, according to Special Agent Maguire's statement we can determine that they do not have any indication of the flight or impact. Unless, of course, you think Maguire was lying.

For all we know these could have been tapes sitting out on a desk or something. I suppose you could submit an FOIA request for the tapes if you'd like.

[quillius]

And there is no indication that they show the flight or the impact. In fact, according to Special Agent Maguire's statement we can determine that they do not have any indication of the flight or impact. Unless, of course, you think Maguire was lying.

For all we know these could have been tapes sitting out on a desk or something. I suppose you could submit an FOIA request for the tapes if you'd like.

Hey Boon,

I was going over this earlier and I think the agent carefully avoids the use of the word 'flight'. She confirms no images/footage of 'impact' and/or crash site.

Off the top of my head there are 56 (?) that fall into category one - which include no image of 'building', does this mean they are pointed away from the pentagon? or does this simply mean that any footage from inside doesnt constitute 'the building' in said context?

[booNyzarC]

Hey Boon,

I was going over this earlier and I think the agent carefully avoids the use of the word 'flight'. She confirms no images/footage of 'impact' and/or crash site.

Off the top of my head there are 56 (?) that fall into category one - which include no image of 'building', does this mean they are pointed away from the pentagon? or does this simply mean that any footage from inside doesnt constitute 'the building' in said context?

Cheers quillius.

There are three criteria referenced:

1. Pentagon building
   
2. Pentagon crash site
   
3. Impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon
   

It doesn't really go into any more detail than that. The 56 videos referenced don't show any of those things, but in looking at the detailed list of videos, these are probably the various interviews, NY, NJ, FL, footage from the WTC events, etc...

[XxNightAngelusxX]

It was proven that the nose of that type of plane couldn't have made that hole, it was wayyy too small. There was no plane on the radar going towards the Pentagon, and no plane debris afterwards. There was NO PLANE period. The big hole was also too far down for that plane to have shoved its nose into, it would've hit a bunch of other things before it came anywhere near the Pentagon. It was part of the inside job, 9/11. The towers collapsed from the bottom, and that couldn't have happened with the planes just hitting the tops, never in a million years. The buildings were brought down by explosives.

[booNyzarC]

It was proven that the nose of that type of plane couldn't have made that hole, it was wayyy too small. There was no plane on the radar going towards the Pentagon, and no plane debris afterwards. There was NO PLANE period. The big hole was also too far down for that plane to have shoved its nose into, it would've hit a bunch of other things before it came anywhere near the Pentagon. It was part of the inside job, 9/11. The towers collapsed from the bottom, and that couldn't have happened with the planes just hitting the tops, never in a million years. The buildings were brought down by explosives.

None of this is true or substantiated. Sorry. Well, actually I'm not sorry. But even so, you've made a bunch of statements here which are simply not true and most definitely not proven.

[Czero 101]

It was proven that the nose of that type of plane couldn't have made that hole, it was wayyy too small.

What was too small? The Nose or the hole? Where's your evidence?

There was no plane on the radar going towards the Pentagon,

The NTSB Recorded Radar Data Study and the NTSB Flight Path Study - American Airlines Flight 77 disagree with you. Where's your evidence?

and no plane debris afterwards.

The photographs and eyewitness accounts of aircraft debris in and around the Pentagon disagree with you. Where's your evidence?

There was NO PLANE period.

The hundred or so eyewitnesses who describe an aircraft impacting the Pentagon disagree with you. Where's your evidence?

The big hole was also too far down for that plane to have shoved its nose into,

Which "big hole", exactly?

it would've hit a bunch of other things before it came anywhere near the Pentagon.

You mean things like the light poles, the temporary generator trailer and surrounding fencing, and the low concrete wall which were all hit be the aircraft before the aircraft hit the Pentagon itself?

It was part of the inside job, 9/11.

Unfounded speculation.

The towers collapsed from the bottom,

The photographic, video and eyewitness accounts all disagree with you.

The buildings were brought down by explosives.

Speculation on your part with no valid evidence to support it.

Cz

[RaptorBites]

It was proven that the nose of that type of plane couldn't have made that hole, it was wayyy too small. There was no plane on the radar going towards the Pentagon, and no plane debris afterwards. There was NO PLANE period. The big hole was also too far down for that plane to have shoved its nose into, it would've hit a bunch of other things before it came anywhere near the Pentagon. It was part of the inside job, 9/11. The towers collapsed from the bottom, and that couldn't have happened with the planes just hitting the tops, never in a million years. The buildings were brought down by explosives.

Wow, there are multiple threads on this board that prove you wrong otherwise, both from the truthers and the debunkers.

I am new as well but have been lurking around the forums long enough to have read through more than hundreds of pages of information being discussed about this same topic. Maybe you should read those first?

BTW Welcome NightAngelus

[Q24]

And there is no indication that they show the flight or the impact. In fact, according to Special Agent Maguire's statement we can determine that they do not have any indication of the flight or impact. Unless, of course, you think Maguire was lying.

For all we know these could have been tapes sitting out on a desk or something. I suppose you could submit an FOIA request for the tapes if you'd like.

I don’t like to leap down the “lying” path outside of the main players, though it would not be the first time the FBI supplied misinformation. I have no problem that Cheney, Black, Silverstein, etc (politicians, agents and billionaires) are lying in their cover-up of the false flag… but any random FBI agent? FBI staff in general have been instrumental in highlighting foreknowledge of the attack and how the Bush admin and CIA bin Laden unit ensured the operation went unhindered.

There is no need - as quillius pointed out, Maguire makes no reference to the flight path.

If those five videotapes recovered from the crime scene were from the Pentagon rooftop cameras, and were looking outward to view activity around the building, Maguire would be quite right the footage does not show the “crash site” or “impact of Flight 77”. Though it could still potentially go some way to determining the aircraft and where it flew (or did not) on approach.

We can each speculate, but do not know without viewing those five videotapes.

Scott Hodes made a FOIA request for all 85 of those videotapes in FBI possession, only for us to receive a drip-feed of selected footage. I suppose I could submit my own FOIA request, but do not think I’d have anymore success than those who have already done so.

[Babe Ruth]

Those are opinions, not facts, circumstantial or otherwise.

I'm guessing you're talking about the "nanothermite" flap... Sorry to disappoint, but the ONE study done on it - an incomplete one at that - does NOT equal proof.

Again... more opinions, not facts.

Cz

I'm sure you read the note Q provided regarding circumstantial evidence.

Don't know about you, but I watched TV that day and saw the video shot from different helicopters at Shanksville. I've seen quite a few crashed aircraft from helicopters in my life, and there was no Boeing at Shanksville. That was confirmed by coroner Miller and his several underlings. Perhaps you are not aware of that.

And while those 3 different videos from Shanksville were available on the internet for years, for about the last 2 years, they are no longer there. More circumstantial evidence.

The dust at WTC was analyzed and found to contain the chemicals that are produced by the thermite reaction. That is a fact, and perhaps you are simply not aware of it.

More circumstantial evidence.

[Babe Ruth]

It was proven that the nose of that type of plane couldn't have made that hole, it was wayyy too small. There was no plane on the radar going towards the Pentagon, and no plane debris afterwards. There was NO PLANE period. The big hole was also too far down for that plane to have shoved its nose into, it would've hit a bunch of other things before it came anywhere near the Pentagon. It was part of the inside job, 9/11. The towers collapsed from the bottom, and that couldn't have happened with the planes just hitting the tops, never in a million years. The buildings were brought down by explosives.

I think you and I are in agreement in general, but I think it is entirely possible that some sort of flying object/airplane hit the Pentagon, but clearly it was NOT a 757

[Babe Ruth]

Well, I am pretty sure people that use their brains know what happened....

Do we really want the Government spending more money to " explain " to the CT's what really happened.( a plane hit the building )

I am pretty sure 99.9% of the US is more than sick of seeing where our tax dollars go, adding making CT's happy will p*** most of us off even more......

The Government does not need to spend any of my tax dollars explaining the obvious.

It appears that your argument here, if that's what it is, is something to the effect that in the interest of frugal government, no money at all should be spent in proving the Official Conspiracy Theory to be true.

From a government that spends billions of dollars a year on DHS and TSA to, among other things, sexually assault children and grandmothers in wheelchairs, the cost to dig into its vaults and find the relevant video records would be negligible, and I think we both know that.

No sir, the reason the government won't do that is NOT to economize, but to protect the guilty. To show the videos would also blow the 10 year coverup and expose government lies.

CYA is the acronym those in government live by.

[Czero 101]

I'm sure you read the note Q provided regarding circumstantial evidence.

Yes, I read it, and I'm not doubting that there is circumstantial evidence. What I AM saying is that the statements you are making are of opinion only, and not of fact.

Don't know about you, but I watched TV that day and saw the video shot from different helicopters at Shanksville. I've seen quite a few crashed aircraft from helicopters in my life, and there was no Boeing at Shanksville. That was confirmed by coroner Miller and his several underlings. Perhaps you are not aware of that.

I am saying that your interpretation that there was "no 757 at Shanksville" is wrong.

Perhaps you can cite the specific words of Miller that specifically state that there was "no Boeing" at Shanksville. You'll forgive me if I don't trust your interpretation of his words.

The dust at WTC was analyzed and found to contain the chemicals that are produced by the thermite reaction. That is a fact, and perhaps you are simply not aware of it.

No, I am quite aware, and it is far frm a fact. I am familiar with the Harrit study that a lot of conspiracy theorist hold up as proof that the paint chips found in the dust were "nanothermite" despite the fact that Harrit's study concludes that his findings are merely "suggestive" of nano-thermite. There's also the fact that Harrit did not do sufficient tests that would conclusively prove that what he was studying was nano-thermite. And then there's the fact that the paper was submitted to a "pay-to-publish" journal with a very checkered history of its peer review process.

It has been discussed quite thoroughly here. Perhaps you should search for it.

Cz

Edited January 12, 2012 by Czero 101

[skyeagle409]

I think you and I are in agreement in general, but I think it is entirely possible that some sort of flying object/airplane hit the Pentagon, but clearly it was NOT a 757

On the contrary, the crash debris is in fact, from a B-757, and that coincides with the announcement from American Airlines that American 77, which was a B-757, had crashed at the Pentagon.

Edited January 12, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

It was proven that the nose of that type of plane couldn't have made that hole, it was wayyy too small. There was no plane on the radar going towards the Pentagon, and no plane debris afterwards. There was NO PLANE period.

You are wrong on all counts because the hole was made by a B-757 and we have debris inside and outside the Pentagon that came only from a B-757, which makes that point very clear.

Edited January 12, 2012 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

No sir, the reason the government won't do that is NOT to economize, but to protect the guilty.

Matter of opinion.

I would like to state something that most of the debunkers have already stated multiple times.

Where's your evidence?

To show the videos would also blow the 10 year coverup and expose government lies.

Or it could show a plane hitting the Pentagon at which point you would say that the video was edited to show a plane.

Like Czero said in a thread topic before.

What if the government did come out with the video and an official statement. Would you still cry foul? I think so.

Edited January 12, 2012 by RaptorBites

[Q24]

No sir, the reason the government won't do that is NOT to economize, but to protect the guilty.

Agreed.

It is known that Bush did not want a 9/11 investigation at all.

It is estimated that more was spent on investigation of the Lewinsky scandal than combined 9/11 investigations.

NIST investigation… $23.4 million

9/11 Commission funding… $12 million

Lewinsky scandal… $40 million

Afghanistan and Iraq wars… $1,291 billion

Heh, priorities.

[skyeagle409]

Don't know about you, but I watched TV that day and saw the video shot from different helicopters at Shanksville. I've seen quite a few crashed aircraft from helicopters in my life, and there was no Boeing at Shanksville. That was confirmed by coroner Miller and his several underlings. Perhaps you are not aware of that.

Perhaps, you were unaware that Miller and others have confirmed the recovery of bodies from the crash site

Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller

The coroner's assessment came yesterday as he confirmed that the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory has used DNA samples to match recovered remains with the last of 40 crew members and passengers aboard the hijacked jetliner 14 weeks ago when it slammed into a recovered strip mine at around 500 mph.

Miller has kept control of the crash site, under watch by security guards hired by United Airlines, expecting a possible final search for remains in the spring.

Remains of passengers and crew identified so far should be released in February to families or for burial, entombment or cremation in the Somerset County area, depending on families' preferences, Miller said. Unidentified remains, yielding no DNA information, will be "treated properly," probably interred or entombed in the county, according to the coroner.This is where hijackers and victims get different treatment.Death certificates for the 40 victims list their deaths as homicides. The hijackers' death certificates, not released yet, call their deaths suicides. The four hijackers' remains will stay in FBI custody in case they prove important to the evolving investigation.

First Responders and Investigators at the Crash Scene see Aircraft Wreckage, Body Parts, Fires, Smell Jet Fuel

At Shanksville, which was by far the smallest of the three 9/11 crash scenes, over 1,100 people from 74 agencies and organizations worked at the scene. Including civilian volunteers, many of whom joined an organized effort to collect aircraft parts, the number of crash scene workers reaches well over 1,500.

My link

My link

What we have, is that the coroner you used as a reference has confrmed that passenger and crew remains from Unted 93 were recovered from the Shanksvile crash site and have been identified. As I have said before, you spend too much time retaining misinformation from those 9/11 conspiracy websites.,

Edited January 12, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

No sir, the reason the government won't do that is NOT to economize, but to protect the guilty. To show the videos would also blow the 10 year coverup and expose government lies.

You have failed to realize that American and United Airlines have confirmed that United 175, United 93, American 77, and American 11, involved the loss of their aircraft in the 9/11 attacks, and remember, United and American Airlines are not what you would call, government agencies.

[skyeagle409]

I think you and I are in agreement in general, but I think it is entirely possible that some sort of flying object/airplane hit the Pentagon, but clearly it was NOT a 757

On the contrary, you have been proven wrong on many occasions and to prove my point once agiain.

Edited January 13, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

The dust at WTC was analyzed and found to contain the chemicals that are produced by the thermite reaction. That is a fact, and perhaps you are simply not aware of it.

More circumstantial evidence.

Perhaps you were unaware that the dust collected at the sites did not indicate the presence of explosives.

[quillius]

Cheers quillius.There are three criteria referenced:

1. Pentagon building
2. Pentagon crash site
3. Impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon

It doesn't really go into any more detail than that. The 56 videos referenced don't show any of those things, but in looking at the detailed list of videos, these are probably the various interviews, NY, NJ, FL, footage from the WTC events, etc...

Cheers Boon, and yes I agree with the fact that the above three criterion were referenced, but my point was (as Q24 pointed out) that she uses wording very carefully to exclude a 'flight path' option. This however, can easily be coincidental in that respect and I do appreciate the point you made in regards to the videos also including interviews.

[Von Bismarck]

Perhaps you were unaware that the dust collected at the sites did not indicate the presence of explosives.

Thermite is not explosive