|
New 9/11 Footage (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Why wont the government release their video surveillance of the attack on the Pentagon? Why wouldn't they prove their innocence? |
the only people that need the video proof are the ones that dismiss all the other evidence ;) i mean, isnt the fact that all the people from flight 77 have disappeared proof enough? |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
the only people that need the video proof are the ones that dismiss all the other evidence ;) i mean, isnt the fact that all the people from flight 77 have disappeared proof enough? |
No.
It doesn't take much effort to "eliminate" or falsify a group of people. Where is the substantial evidence?
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY wont they release the videos?? What are they trying to hide?
Why aren't the families of the victims demanding to see those videos? Isn't it their right, and the right of the nation to see the proof that they have?
Is it ethically sound to withhold videos of an attack on the Pentagon when there are so many people who were directly affected for the rest of their lives because of it? When there are so many people who have lost faith in their country because of it?
Why wouldn't they release the video to strengthen the nations belief in them? Does it really make sense to abstain from releasing the videos when it only looks bad on the gov't? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
No.
It doesn't take much effort to "eliminate" or falsify a group of people.
|
oh come now. a plane with passengers, that had puchased their tickets, been checked onto the plane by staff, head-counted etc could be falsified? how would that ever hold up under examination by ANYONE?
so, they kidnap the flight full of people (people with mobile phones and everything) take them to a secret base, shoot all the people and hide the plane, then fire a missile at the pentagon, and before anyone
gets there sprinkle pieces of destroyed aircraft all over the place?
i mean, seriously ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Where is the substantial evidence? |
all the bodies & personal effects that were recovered at the crash site. by the numerous pieces of plane debris found in and around the pentagon. the fact that there were HUNDREDS of witnesses, including a reporter that were in traffic when the plane flew a short distance above the ground above them. by the lamp posts that were knocked down by the flight path of the plane into the building.
thats enough for me. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
LOL, well to be honest with you, that's the thing, I don't know a lot, and that's why I am asking. A lot of things seem strange to me, and I have been reading a lot of "debunking" stuff, as well as "theories" so I am confused.
Why wont the government release their video surveillance of the attack on the Pentagon? Why wouldn't they prove their innocence? |
Like the Citgo video? Yea that's been released.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/5965.shtml
Making inferences based upon one-sided or incomplete data is a classic logical fallacy. For example, if you choose to excercise your 5th amendment rights to remain silent you "must be guilty." If you take offense to increased civil rights surveillance violations you "must be hiding an illegal activity" (otherwise you wouldn't care right?). These are all inferences that are not supported by the data. I would caution you from drawing unsubstantiated conclusions from what evidence you do or do not see. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh come now. a plane with passengers, that had puchased their tickets, been checked onto the plane by staff, head-counted etc could be falsified? how would that ever hold up under examination by ANYONE?
so, they kidnap the flight full of people (people with mobile phones and everything) take them to a secret base, shoot all the people and hide the plane, then fire a missile at the pentagon, and before anyone
gets there sprinkle pieces of destroyed aircraft all over the place?
i mean, seriously ;)
all the bodies & personal effects that were recovered at the crash site. by the numerous pieces of plane debris found in and around the pentagon. the fact that there were HUNDREDS of witnesses, including a reporter that were in traffic when the plane flew a short distance above the ground above them. by the lamp posts that were knocked down by the flight path of the plane into the building.
thats enough for me. |
I'm not questioning whether the plane actually hit it or not, I want to know why they wont release the video. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I'm not questioning whether the plane actually hit it or not, I want to know why they wont release the video. |
who says they have a better video than whats already been shown? ive seen this claimed over and over but its never been substantiated as far as i am aware. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Like the Citgo video? Yea that's been released.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/5965.shtml
Making inferences based upon one-sided or incomplete data is a classic logical fallacy. For example, if you choose to excercise your 5th amendment rights to remain silent you "must be guilty." If you take offense to increased civil rights surveillance violations you "must be hiding an illegal activity" (otherwise you wouldn't care right?). These are all inferences that are not supported by the data. I would caution you from drawing unsubstantiated conclusions from what evidence you do or do not see. |
That video is dated wrong, was released 5 years after the attack, was almost impossible to decipher details, and quite possibly could have been taken from pretty much any convenience store.
If the government was trying to hide something, you don't think they would make the effort to be sure it wasn't revealed?
Talk about naivete... why did the government IMMEDIATELY confiscate the video afterward?
P.S. You are making the conclusion that I am making a conclusion. I'm not.
I am simply asking why they choose not to reveal video that could quite possibly restore the nations faith in their leaders, that could settle millions of minds. What is the gain for them not to show it? What is the loss to show it? |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
who says they have a better video than whats already been shown? ive seen this claimed over and over but its never been substantiated as far as i am aware. |
You honestly don't think that a government building with hundreds of surveillance cameras all over the property doesn't have better video than the 5 FRAMES they released?
5 Frames of which did not show anything beside the explosion.
If they have 5 frames, there is DEFINITELY more. Why wont they show us anything else? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
You honestly don't think that a government building with hundreds of surveillance cameras all over the property doesn't have better video than the 5 FRAMES they released?
5 Frames of which did not show anything beside the explosion.
If they have 5 frames, there is DEFINITELY more. Why wont they show us anything else? |
how do you know? youre making an assumption about the video surveillance and video in general. why would they have a video pointing up and into the sky on that particular angle? considering where the plane came from and the fact that the surveillance from the front gate seemed pretty average (in terms of frame rate) why do you automatically ASSUME theres better video out there?
now, even assuming there is, what could POSSIBLY be on that tape that the government wouldnt want anyone to see? a plane flying into the pentagon- do you think we're gonna see a freeze-frame of one of bush's cronies behind the stick or something? theres nothing that could possibly be in that video that could hurt the government unless theres a video of a missile, which it clearly wasnt.
you cant just ask "why wont they show the video" without having some kind of idea what you think MIGHT be there. answering "i dont know" isnt a very good response. |
|
|
| DJFreaq |
[sarcasm]Bah who cares anymore. :rolleyes: [/sarcasm]
Let history teach us the lesson that we never learn from history. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
how do you know? youre making an assumption about the video surveillance and video in general. why would they have a video pointing up and into the sky on that particular angle? considering where the plane came from and the fact that the surveillance from the front gate seemed pretty average (in terms of frame rate) why do you automatically ASSUME theres better video out there?
now, even assuming there is, what could POSSIBLY be on that tape that the government wouldnt want anyone to see? a plane flying into the pentagon- do you think we're gonna see a freeze-frame of one of bush's cronies behind the stick or something? theres nothing that could possibly be in that video that could hurt the government unless theres a video of a missile, which it clearly wasnt.
you cant just ask "why wont they show the video" without having some kind of idea what you think MIGHT be there. answering "i dont know" isnt a very good response. |
That's completely untrue. You don't need to make assumptions to ask "why". That is a ridiculous notion. "I don't know" is the reason why human beings started asking "why" in the first place.
As I said;
100's of video surveillance cameras
5 frames released, all of which show nothing of relevance
confiscated gas station video
Does it seem realistic to you that there is NOTHING else beside those 5 frames? Which by the way, they released after denying having ANY video capture at all, proving they lied initially.
Why are you so willing to accept what you have been told, with the bare minimum in proof? |
|
|
| DJFreaq |
| Like I said above. 9/11 is SOOO 5 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
