911 inside job - for what?

[Likely Guy]

...it would be better for you to just concede that it is just your personal opinion, and one not based on any kind of available evidence, but rather on how you believe things should have been run...

Cz

I gathered that Stellar was inferring that it was his personal opinion.

No matter. There probably were a lot more cameras that were recorded that could have shown the exact same thing (although maybe in better detail).

For security reasons however, I can see why they didn't release them, if they existed. To quieten the rabid CT crowd, I sometimes wish they had, though I also realize that that would've had no effect on the end result.

Damned if you did, damned that you didn't, as it where.

This is just my personal opinion, of course.

[Czero 101]

I gathered that Stellar was inferring that it was his personal opinion.

Fair enough... I may have missed him expressing that, and if so, my apologies...

Cz

[Babe Ruth]

I don't think you appreciate what security really means. You may seem it to be needless, but others may view it as monitoring an avenue of approach to the building.

I don't think you appreciate what security really means. You may seem it to be needless, but others may view it as monitoring an avenue of approach to the building.

This might be the first issue that we have ever agreed upon!

[Babe Ruth]

Oh BR, you simply cannot admit you are wrong.

booNyzarC provided you with the tools via his own money to figure out why you are wrong yet he you continue to parade around in your ignorance blanket finding excuses.

The ACARS debate has been debunked 3 years ago. It is no longer debatable other than by the fringe who either never read booNyzarC's or Czero's input on it, or simply are in denial.

This response you posted is clearly an indication that you are willing to wallow in your own personal ignorance in the face of undeniable fact.

Nonsense. If the ACARS evidence had been "debunked" you would be comfortable and secure with that. As it stands, you appear rather the opposite when it's mentioned.

Even WITHOUT the ACARS data the Shanksville/93 story is impossible. Miller et al told it that day, and told it again 10 years later. There was no Boeing there, and all the evidence, photographic and witness statements, demonstrates that. ACARS proves it.

[Babe Ruth]

I do not claim the 9/11 was an inside job but the simulation shown above, and the whole clip from where is was generated from, is an open box with tons of questions.

I´m still wondering that there is just one (1) and just such poor video published about the impact of whatever into the Pentagon, one of the most sensitiv buildings in the world that likely is peppered by visual monitoring systems. By logic I cannot accept, that this clip is the onyl one that has been taken from the impact.

At least one person very skilled with computers has taken that video clip and by way of orthographic projection overlaid the actual dimensions of a 757. It shows that whatever flying object was in that little clip WAS NOT a 757.

The Boeing is so much bigger that it's not funny.

[toast]

Pure speculation on your part.

You may call that speculation. I call that doubt based on facts, means just one parking lot cam vid of very low quality.

First, you need to prove that there were exterior cameras

facing that exact portion of the lawn or wall. Then prove that the videos were recovered.

I don´t think so that I have to proof that. If I would be able to do so, I would have evidence. And if I don`t have evidence, I´m just and

simply still allowed to remark a doubt.

I'll give you a small hint, why would you post security cameras to

record a non essential area?

No Sir. Even if there was not really a need for I had a number of rhetoric trainings (in my language) during my lifetime already and I think

it was one of the early lessons with the content like : how to debilitate arguments with counter questions. But again, I cannot accept the argument, that the center of defence of the US and so of one of the biggest military powers in this world, is not visual security monitored as at least every average super market is monitored. There is no area of non essential security interest at the Pentagon building.

[LindaMC]

If you can go to youtube and look at the videos of the twin towers imploding and bldg. #7 doing the same thing, you can tell it is not a thing that should have happened by a jet hitting it. Why did bldg. #7 come down? Explain that? You can see the charges go off before it implodes. I never thought it was an inside job, but the more I looked at it, the more it became apparent that it was. The Rothschilds, Morgans, Rockefellers, The Trilateral Commission and a host of other elites rule the world, which are Bilderbergs.. The Rothschilds have had their fingers in and have caused many tragedies before this, one was the Titanic. There were 640 Industrialists on that ship, and they all went down with it. They never found the captain of the Titanic. Think I'm crazy, but put together the pieces and they fit. The elites have been ruling for 300 years. Rothschilds during the war gave money to Hitler and the other side to make sure whichever side won the war, that they would be on their side. Hitler was a Bilderberg. Rothschilds start the wars, and our men and women lose their lives fighting in them. We are their slaves, we do their bidding and they make the money, they are the slave masters, we serve them, and they make the money in each war and our men and women come home destroyed with little pay to show with no limbs or worse. While Rothschilds laugh all the way to the bank. The Rothschilds make and break the stock market any time they want. They take their money out of the stocks when they want to destroy them and let them fall, and then they buy back into it when it is low and bring the price back up again. Yes it was about the banks on 9/11. There was gold in those twin towers that people wanted, and the only way to get them was to destroy the buildings. Do you think it was a mistake that truck loads of the twin towers remains were diverted elsewhere?

Edited December 29, 2013 by LindaMC

[Stellar]

Please quote exactly where I said they wouldn't have cameras on the exterior.... You'll note that I haven't said that, so please, if you're going to out words in my mouth, make sure they're ones that I've actually said.

You're suggesting that they pay someone to sit and monitor and keep videotaped footage from a camera / cameras focused on an empty field next to a busy highway.

I'm suggesting that such cameras exist in many places. And perhaps, if you so object to words beig "put in your mouth", you should stop doing the same? Nowhere did I speak of keeping videotapes, nor having a security guard sitting there with the sole job of watching an empty field!

I'm suggesting that you don't understand what you're talking about and that, while you may think that's how it should be done, that you have no actual evidence or reason beyond "I think that's how it should be done, so since it wasn't done that way, there's something foul afoot", otherwise known as the "If I Ran The Zoo" fallacy.

And I'm suggesting that you have no idea what you're talking about! I'm making a statement of my personal opinion. I do not see how stating my opinion makes anything a fallacy! I don't need hard evidence to have an opinion. If we are to talk on the subject of fallacies, wouldn't your argument that it's unlikely for them to have cameras facing outward be an argument out of ignorance? That is also a fallacy, is it not?

Regardless... Burden of Proof requires that you prove your point that there was surveillance on that wall that was / is being suppressed. No one here need prove you wrong or provide evidence to the contrary, you need to prove your point.

I am not required to prove my personal opinion to you, nor anyone here on this subject. Now, quite to the contrary of what most people here seem to mistakenly think the burden of proof is, the burden of proof applies to both sides--- anyone making any claim, whether it supports your position or not. It's important to always remover that lack of evidence is not evidence of absense, and a default position when evidence is lacking is neutrality, not opposition. If we are to sit here an require anyone voicing their opinion "prove it", then I suggest you "prove it" too. You think there's no cameras facing outwards, so prove it! After all, that is just as much of a "claim" as my opinion is.

Perhaps, if you can not prove your claim, you could concede that your position is based on nothing more than how you "think" security at the pentagon should be run.

Have a good day...

[Phaeton80]

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHAiB7tOeGo[/media]

Gotta love the reactions..

Special props to the adorable old lady calling in at 08:08.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Phaeton80

[Babe Ruth]

Awesome post Stellar!

[Babe Ruth]

Good to see people being active and speaking the truth, speaking the obvious.

And how afraid is the system when that happens.

[Czero 101]

I'm suggesting that such cameras exist in many places. And perhaps, if you so object to words beig "put in your mouth", you should stop doing the same? Nowhere did I speak of keeping videotapes, nor having a security guard sitting there with the sole job of watching an empty field!

You are suggesting that there should have been some sort of evidence of surveillance showing the aircraft other than what has already been presented. Given that the aircraft flew in from the direction of the empty field, any such surveillance would have had to be pointing in the direction of that empty field and / or the sky above it, would it not?

And if there was such surveillance, how could it be presented in evidence if not by the testimony of someone who has monitored it or by means of videotape?

So, by the mere suggestion that there had to have been surveillance showing the empty field and the approaching Flight 77, your opinion or position REQUIRES there to be either someone watching that screen or for there to be videotape of what that alleged camera may or may not have allegedly seen. My pointing that out is not putting words in your mouth, although you accusing me of such shows that you haven't thought through your opinion / position very thoroughly.

And I'm suggesting that you have no idea what you're talking about! I'm making a statement of my personal opinion. I do not see how stating my opinion makes anything a fallacy! I don't need hard evidence to have an opinion. If we are to talk on the subject of fallacies, wouldn't your argument that it's unlikely for them to have cameras facing outward be an argument out of ignorance? That is also a fallacy, is it not?

As I mentioned before, if somewhere you have mentioned that you were merely expressing your opinion, and I missed it, then mea cupla.

However, if you are expecting me to not hold you to any standards of evidence or fair and logical debate based upon the "I'm only presenting my opinion" defense, then please stop taking your lead from BR and don't hypocritically accuse me of fallacies for doing the same as you are.

I am not required to prove my personal opinion to you, nor anyone here on this subject. Now, quite to the contrary of what most people here seem to mistakenly think the burden of proof is, the burden of proof applies to both sides--- anyone making any claim, whether it supports your position or not. It's important to always remover that lack of evidence is not evidence of absense, and a default position when evidence is lacking is neutrality, not opposition. If we are to sit here an require anyone voicing their opinion "prove it", then I suggest you "prove it" too. You think there's no cameras facing outwards, so prove it! After all, that is just as much of a "claim" as my opinion is.

Perhaps, if you can not prove your claim, you could concede that your position is based on nothing more than how you "think" security at the pentagon should be run.

Again, please stop taking your lead from BR and actually learn what the requirements of the Burden of Proof are.

Burden of Proof required that those making the claim against the accepted truth / fact MUST present evidence to support their claim or concede that their claim is baseless, and that the accepted fact / truth requires no defense or further proof or "re-proving". The phrase most commonly used to exemplify the Burden of Proof is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence / proof"

Accepted Fact: There was no surveillance on the Pentagon that showed Flight 77's approach to and impact into the Pentagon other than what has already been presented.

Extraordinary claim: There must have been other surveillance on the Pentagon that must have shown the aircraft approaching / impacting. The Pentagon is the central hub for the US Military and as such must have an over abundance of surveillance on the exterior. The fact that no other footage showing Flight 77 has surfaced is evidence of / proof of a coverup.

Like it or not, and whinge about it as much as you like, you are required to prove your assertion, where as the Accepted Fact is the Accepted Fact - whether you agree with or not make no difference whatsoever - requires no defense or further proof. Me or someone else showing the obvious flaws in your opinion / or position is not defense of the Accepted Fact, it is merely exposing the shortcomings of an ill-conceived opinion / position.

Cz

Edited December 29, 2013 by Czero 101

[Stellar]

Ugh, I'm looking over my post and finding all sorts of typos. I should never post from my iPhone.

[The Silver Thong]

So explain the reason 86 videoes-cameras where taken by the FBI and never released. If it`s because they only show people mowing the lawn why not release them and shut this topic down. That would be the logical thing to do.

Edited December 29, 2013 by The Silver Thong

[The Silver Thong]

Ugh, I'm looking over my post and finding all sorts of typos. I should never post from my iPhone.

Your post came off just fine Stellar, and a good one at that.

[skyeagle409]

Good to see people being active and speaking the truth, speaking the obvious.

And that is, NO explosives, much less nuclear bombs, were used during the 9/11 terrorist attack.

[skyeagle409]

So explain the reason 86 videoes-cameras where taken by the FBI and never released. If it`s because they only show people mowing the lawn why not release them and shut this topic down.

I have to disagree. For an example, we have videos of American 11 and United 175 slamming into the WTC buildings yet there are those who continue to insist that no aircraft struck those buildings. Check it out.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXr_sGrUFO4[/media]

I see no problem with the FBI whisking away video cameras for an investigation. Videos are not required to determine that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon besause we have communication tapes, radar and FDR data, and B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon.

In addition, we have the announcement from American Airlines.

Edited December 29, 2013 by skyeagle409

[The Silver Thong]

And that is, NO explosives, much less nuclear bombs, were used during the 9/11 terrorist attack.

Nano thermite was found.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/active-thermitic-material-discovered-in-dust-from-the-9-11-world-trade-center-catastrophe/13049

[The Silver Thong]

I have to disagree. For an example, we have videos of American 11 and United 175 slamming into the WTC buildings yet there are those who continue to insist that no aircraft struck those buildings. Check it out.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXr_sGrUFO4[/media]

I see no problem with the FBI whisking away video cameras for an investigation. Videos are not required to determine that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon besause we have communication tapes, radar and FDR data, and B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon.

In addition, we have the announcement from American Airlines.

Don`t qoute my posts where I have made no such claim as no planes hit the towers. Very underhanded tactic imo to push your agenda.

[Czero 101]

So explain the reason 86 videoes-cameras where taken by the FBI and never released. If it`s because they only show people mowing the lawn why not release them and shut this topic down. That would be the logical thing to do.

There was a website called Flight77.info that is now defunct that had the following information regarding those videos:

The videos taken from the Pentagon area after the 9/11 attacks were mentioned in the Maguire declaration, where FBI Special Agent, Jacqueline Maguire responded (see below) to a request from Scott Bingham.

In Summary:

• She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
  
• Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
  
• Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
  
• The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
  
• No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.
  

I'm sure there are other sites that will have more detailed information, however I am not able to access them from where I am currently posting from.

ETA...

Here's the Web Archive link to the old Flight77.info page that provides a detailed explanation of the videos in question:

http://web.archive.o...o/85videos.html

From that page:

85 videos

A list of all the videotapes is available, which shows many of these videotapes do not have footage of the Pentagon at all. Instead, many have footage of the WTC, some are security video tapes taken from a Kinko's in Florida, etc. Some that show the Pentagon were taken days after the attacks, and some in the evening of 9/11/2001.

The security camera footage taken from around the Pentagon included the Citgo, the Doubletree, and the Pentagon parking lot. There was also video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Another video came from a DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. The camera was repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon.

Footage taken after the attack included home video filmed by a tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera, and video taken by a NBC4 Washington reporter.

A complete list of the videos and original documents are below.

Cz

Edited December 29, 2013 by Czero 101

[skyeagle409]

Nano thermite was found.

http://www.globalres...tastrophe/13049

I have to say that not even thermite nor thermate were capable of bringing down the WTC buildings. You only have to look at the inner core and the facade of the WTC buildings to make a determination that there was no way thermite or thermate could have brought down those buildings.

I might add that the ingredients of thermite, aluminum and iron oxide, were already present in other materials used within the WTC buildings and nothing to do with thermite. I also might add that Richard Gage and Steven Jones were caught lying.

Edited December 29, 2013 by skyeagle409

[The Silver Thong]

There was a website called Flight77.info that is now defunct that had the following information regarding those videos:

I'm sure there are other sites that will have more detailed information, however I am not able to access them from where I am currently posting from.

Cz

So why not release the tapes or are we to go on there word alone.

[The Silver Thong]

I have to say that not even thermite nor thermate were capable of bringing down the WTC buildings. You only have to look at the inner core and the facade of the WTC buildings to make a determination that there was no way thermite or thermate could have brought down those buildings.

I might add that the ingredients of thermite, aluminum and iron oxide, were already present in other materials used within the WTC buildings and nothing to do with thermite. I also might add that Richard Gage and Steven Jones were caught lying.

The US government has been caught lying hundreds of times and you believe them lol Fact, Nano thermite or super thermite was found. Military grade exploives.

[skyeagle409]

Don`t qoute my posts where I have made no such claim as no planes hit the towers. Very underhanded tactic imo to push your agenda.

I am not implying that you have said such a thing, however, the hype over video cameras at the Pentagon is unfounded. You implied that releasing all of the video cameras would shut down the argument, but I disagreed because we have a number of video cameras of American 11 and United 175, yet the argument continues over those aircraft and WTC1 and WTC2.

If the video images at the Pentagon were released, then conspiracist would come back and claim the videos were doctored.

Edited December 29, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

The US government has been caught lying hundreds of times and you believe them lol

9/11 conspiracist have lied many times and continue to lie and yet you believe them.

Fact, Nano thermite or super thermite was found. Military grade exploives.

False! As proof that you are incorrect, try to post your evidence and I will show you why it is not prudent to rely on 9/11 conspiracist who have a habit of spewing disinformation and misinformation and lies on the Internet

.