[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: Pentagon Attack Footage The Suppression of Video Footage of the Pentagon Attack The Suppression of Video Footage of the Pentagon Attack It is striking that there is neither video footage nor any photographic evidence in the public domain showing a jetliner approaching or crashing into the Pentagon. As of May, 2006, the only video footage of the crash that has been released are clips from two Pentagon security cameras north of the crash site, one the source of 5 frames leaked in 2002. With the release of the two video clips, the Pentagon claims to have supplied all of the footage it has of the attack. Although the number and positions of security cameras monitoring the Pentagon is not public knowledge, it seems unlikely that only two security cameras captured the attack. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of security cameras ringing the huge building that is the heart of the United States military establishment? Videos Outside the Pentagon Seized The Sheraton National Hotel may be the hotel from which the FBI seized a CCTV recording. Not only has the government refused to release footage that would clearly show how the Pentagon was attacked, it has also seized footage not belonging to the military. The FBI confiscated video recordings from several private businesses near the Pentagon in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Those recordings, if they still exist, might provide decisive evidence about the attack. * The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack. 1 * The FBI visited the Citgo gas station southwest of the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack. 2 The NEXCOMM/CITGO gas station is just under the flightpath of the aircraft involved in the Pentagon attack. In addition it is likely there is other video footage that was either destroyed or is being withheld, given that the trajectory of the attack plane took it low over a large part of Arlington, Virginia. Lawsuits to Obtain Videos At least two plaintiffs have attempted to obtain videos seized by the FBI, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The first, documented at Flight77.info, began with a request to the FBI in October of 2004. The second, undertaken by the Judicial Watch, Inc. began with a request to the Department of Defense (DOD) in December of 2004. Following is a timeline of the requests and subsequent lawsuits. Entries relating to the second case are distinguished with dates colored gray. * October 14, 2004: Scott A. Hodes, on behalf of his client Scott Bingham, sends a request to David Hardy of the FBI requesting any videos "that may have captured the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001". The request letter mentions videotapes from the Citgo Gas Station and the Sheraton National Hotel. (1) Video camera recordings obtained by federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from a Nexcomm/Citgo gas station in the vicinity of the Pentagon on or about September 11, 2001. (2) Pentagon security video camera recording(s) showing Flight 77 strike and/or hit and/or crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. (3) Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) video camera recording(s) obtained by any federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and/or the VDOT "Smart Traffic Center" on or about September 11, 2001. References 1. Inside the Ring, The Gertz Files, 9/21/01 [cached] Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 119.
#3. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator (#0)
Recursive (don't work) Outdated data from nine years ago Junk website Host document is not available. [Not Found The requested URL /cache/pentagon/evidence/cnn_doubletreevideo_files/sitecnncnn_pagetypearticlecnn_position160x600_rgtcnn_rollupworl. was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.] In effect, O_I, your thread agenda is just a shallow ring around the TWOOFER_FAERIE™ you know what..... your data sucks the BIG_ONE. However, in all fairness about security cameras ... do you know what their FPS is? I know what the Pentagon's is: 56FPS... now, I expect both references @ your 3 and 4 to be slower. Do you know what that means? Yes..... it *IS* probable they didn't capture a jet flying at 500MPH in any frame. Anyone want to debate?
If the links are dead the links are dead. The article was written some time back. So, given your use of Argumentum Ad Hominem and attacking dead links a Strawman Argument you actually have no rebuttal other than to attack side issues, but the facts remain. Anyone can do a search and find fresh links. Likely the URL's may have changed in the last couple of years. However, that is a side issue and what you are attacking is a side issue i.e., a Strawman Argument because you cannot refute the information provided in the body of the article. As is frequently the case you have no case.
So, given your use of Argumentum Ad Hominem and attacking dead links a Strawman Argument you actually have no rebuttal other than to attack side issues, but the facts remain. So now even if no factual data is provided, an Argument Ad Hominem is deemed to have taken place because "Anyone can do a search and find fresh links." Does this ploy apply to your searching for all the facts you've posted regarding Hanjour license piloting certification, and his physical presence on Flight 77 confirmed by passenger records and admissions of Arabs about helping him get ID that allowed him to get onto the airplane? In other words, OInk was engaging in an Argumentum AD Hominem" because "anyone can do a search and find the fresh links" that you took the trouble to research then post? Somehow I think OInk is going to come up with a reason why that is not actually true - because in this instance he will be on the receiving end of the Argumentum Ad Hominem charge.
that is a whole lot of verbiage to tell us that you, bucky and the rest of the liar movement have nothing.
It is your fellow Half Tw00fer OInk who explicitly states - when found with zero working links giving supporting data - that it's irrelevant, because the links already exist, and anybody can find them so he doesn't really have to support anything he says.
That's not true. Guess what that statement makes you look like besides irrational. Can you spell l-i-a-r? Better if you recant and quickly.
when found with zero working links giving supporting data That's not true. Guess what that statement makes you look like besides irrational The statement was made that it is not neccesary to produce working sources because they're out there somewhere. That's not true.
#123. To: AGAviator, GreyLmist, Original_Intent, all (#119)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||