FBI Video Release

[BCR]

I received 2 DVD's from the FBI this morning as an interim release for FOIA 1078686-000. I have one converted to MPG and uploaded, but I'm trying to get the second one trimmed down in file size (wmv file) so that it can be accessed on the web (currently 700mb). I'll post a link for both, although the NE485 link may not be operative for a few hours while I trim it down.

These are the file descriptions as provided by the FBI. The witness face in NE418 is blurred out by the FBI Privacy review.

NE418 (http://aal77.com/fbi_vid/NE418.mpg) - One(1) VHS video cassette, Witness interviews near Pentagon after attack. (26 MB)

This witness claims he saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. No wait a minute, fly into the Pentagon, followed by a second white decoy jet. Whoops, wrong again, he says the second plane was a four-engine gray plane that veered off.

NE485 (http://aal77.com/fbi_vid/NE485.wmv) - One(1) VHS video cassette, labeled "9/11/2001", Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene obtained from Chief Mastin, Prince William County. (68 MB)

One interesting scene with the NTSB examining missile parts (or could those be plane parts?).

I highly recommend right-click, "save target as" due to the file size.

[A W Smith]

the second one ends at 3:57 yet the slider is not even half way across.

[BCR]

It is still uploading. Give it another 10 minutes and try again.

ETA: Both videos are uploaded, tested and ready to go.

[Mangoose]

Thanks again for getting this stuff out.

I recall seeing a few scenes of the second video before at least in part -- in incredibly compressed tiny Realplayer format. Would you mind posting frame grabs from the uncompressed 700mb file? I am interested in the following frames: 3:33 (light pole), 4:36 (fire on roof), 6:12, 6:16 (debris being sorted at the helipad), 8:06 (cordoned-off area of wreckage), 8:09 (NTSB agent), 10:03 (view of the Pentagon in the morning).

[BCR]

I'll pull those for you later this evening from the original DVD. The FedEx guy rang the doorbell early and interrupted my sleep. We old people need our rest, so after a good nap I'll get on it ;)

[BCR]

Thanks again for getting this stuff out.

I recall seeing a few scenes of the second video before at least in part -- in incredibly compressed tiny Realplayer format. Would you mind posting frame grabs from the uncompressed 700mb file? I am interested in the following frames: 3:33 (light pole), 4:36 (fire on roof), 6:12, 6:16 (debris being sorted at the helipad), 8:06 (cordoned-off area of wreckage), 8:09 (NTSB agent), 10:03 (view of the Pentagon in the morning).

Just an FYI, the "debris being sorted at the helipad" is firefighter gear.

http://aal77.com/jref/ne485_1.jpg

http://aal77.com/jref/ne485_2.jpg

http://aal77.com/jref/ne485_3.jpg

http://aal77.com/jref/ne485_4.jpg

http://aal77.com/jref/ne485_5.jpg

[Bobert]

Nwo operatives!!
Every single one of em!
wake up BUSH LOYALISTTM SHEEPLE!
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOBTM

[Blender Head]

Whatever happened to this camera?

http://www.trafficland.com/city/WAS/camera/740/

And why wasn't it on the FOIA hosted on the Fl77 dot info site?

[BCR]

The VDOT cameras do not record under normal operations. They have the capability when requested by law enforcement. The tower upon which the camera you linked is on was actually "clipped" or otherwise affected by the plane. According to the VDOT Smart Center Supervisor I talked to, the camera was knocked loose in its housing and was "hanging by a wire". So even if the cameras were recording, this particular camera was a “victim” of the encounter.

[Blender Head]

The VDOT cameras do not record under normal operations. They have the capability when requested by law enforcement. The tower upon which the camera you linked is on was actually "clipped" or otherwise affected by the plane. According to the VDOT Smart Center Supervisor I talked to, the camera was knocked loose in its housing and was "hanging by a wire". So even if the cameras were recording, this particular camera was a “victim” of the encounter.

That makes sense, I didn't think that camera was in Fl. 77's path. The resolution looks terrible, leaving me with the impression it'd be worse than the security booth footage even if it was recording.

[Mangoose]

Thanks for the frame grabs, great stuff.

[R.Mackey]

That makes sense, I didn't think that camera was in Fl. 77's path. The resolution looks terrible, leaving me with the impression it'd be worse than the security booth footage even if it was recording.

That camera has been mentioned here before. A lot of people confuse the VDOT mast (containing the camera) with the Virginia Highway Patrol radio tower (no camera, and a much bigger structure).

As near as we can tell, the aircraft did not hit the VHP tower, though it may have come closer to it, perhaps even brushed it. No way to tell. The VDOT mast, on the other hand, definitely bears a scuff mark (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2134065#post2134065) consistent with a wingtip.

__

Thanks for the video excerpts. To paraphrase the late, lamented pomeroo, the evidence that 9/11 Was an Inside Jerb just keeps not coming in. :D

[BCR]

To paraphrase the late, lamented pomeroo, the evidence that 9/11 Was an Inside Jerb just keeps not coming in. :D

Well, CMH also notified me today that they have finished the redactions on the remaining 20 or so audio interviews that I requested. Maybe the CIT flyover witness will be among them.

[Blender Head]

That camera has been mentioned here before. A lot of people confuse the VDOT mast (containing the camera) with the Virginia Highway Patrol radio tower (no camera, and a much bigger structure).

As near as we can tell, the aircraft did not hit the VHP tower, though it may have come closer to it, perhaps even brushed it. No way to tell. The VDOT mast, on the other hand, definitely bears a scuff mark (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2134065#post2134065) consistent with a wingtip.

Thanks for the link.

For clarification, was the damage to the VDOT mast the reason that the camera I linked to did not record or am I more confused than I should be?

Thanks again.

[BCR]

No, VDOT advises that their cameras are not set up to record under normal circumstances.

[dtugg]

911files, I have to say that you are the man! Too bad that everything that you present is fake/lies, otherwise everything it (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4351153&postcount=1276) says is a delusion. And we know that isn't possible.

[Blender Head]

No, VDOT advises that their cameras are not set up to record under normal circumstances.

They would say that, wouldn't they?

[BCR]

8g7E96sgsB8

Looks like Craig decided to post one of the videos on YouTube without crediting the source. He makes the following comments:

This newly released 10 minute video came via FOIA from the FBI. It's late in the day and doesn't reveal much but it does expose how the trees block the view of the alleged impact point for most anyone who could have possibly seen the plane on the official flight path. There are some odd fires still raging on the roof of the building even though the plane was supposed to have entered on the bottom floor.

I know that JREF is the source because there is more to the original video and it is the segment that I posted here :D

[BCR]

Just for those who are unaware of the history on these videos. Scott Bingham originally filed suit against the DoJ to obtain the release of videos in the possession of the FBI. Through his efforts, the Citgo and Doubletree videos were released. During discovery, he obtained a list of other videos in their possession. These two videos were released as a result of Scott's continued efforts and a suit I filed for specific videos related to the Pentagon attack.

This is not an easy process folks, and I really do resent CIT posting one of them on YouTube without crediting the source. If they have a problem with me, they could at least credit Scott who has invested many years and large sums of money to secure their release.

[BCR]

-pc9KGwoSf8

Tape 2 of 1B-1B647, tourist on Route27 at overpass. Camera borrowed by AP reporter. This is a really crummy YouTube version. As always, a link to the full mpg file is available to JREF'rs (just pm me).

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

I received 2 DVD's from the FBI this morning as an interim release for FOIA 1078686-000. I have one converted to MPG and uploaded, but I'm trying to get the second one trimmed down in file size (wmv file) so that it can be accessed on the web (currently 700mb). I'll post a link for both, although the NE485 link may not be operative for a few hours while I trim it down.

These are the file descriptions as provided by the FBI. The witness face in NE418 is blurred out by the FBI Privacy review.

NE418 (http://aal77.com/fbi_vid/NE418.mpg) - One(1) VHS video cassette, Witness interviews near Pentagon after attack. (26 MB)

This witness claims he saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. No wait a minute, fly into the Pentagon, followed by a second white decoy jet. Whoops, wrong again, he says the second plane was a four-engine gray plane that veered off.

NE485 (http://aal77.com/fbi_vid/NE485.wmv) - One(1) VHS video cassette, labeled "9/11/2001", Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene obtained from Chief Mastin, Prince William County. (68 MB)

One interesting scene with the NTSB examining missile parts (or could those be plane parts?).

I highly recommend right-click, "save target as" due to the file size.

So you're saying... what? That neither video shows the plane-sized hologram ghosting into eventual nothingness over and beyond the Pentagon, a tiny (but clearly audible) trademarked Industrial Light & Magic *chime* sounding in the final frames...?!?

Lousy NWO shill. Come the Revolution, baby. ;)

[Mangoose]

Was there a Tape 1 of 1B-1B647? Too bad this guy didn't point the camera more to the left and catch Lloyd England planting those light poles. :rolleyes:

[BCR]

I'm still looking for that elusive hologram, but I have not found it yet (my brothers at the FBI did a good edit job). They sent me 5 more vids yesterday and I'm working on getting them up ASAP. I did a seperate thread for the DEA video, but the other 4 I'll post here.

The past few weeks I have earned my NWO shill pay fer sure :)

[BCR]

Was there a Tape 1 of 1B-1B647? Too bad this guy didn't point the camera more to the left and catch Lloyd England planting those light poles. :rolleyes:

Yes sir, there is. It is longer and I'm getting it up to YouTube now. Should be ready in a few.

[twinstead]

This is not an easy process folks, and I really do resent CIT posting one of them on YouTube without crediting the source. If they have a problem with me, they could at least credit Scott who has invested many years and large sums of money to secure their release.

Wow. That pretty much appears to be par for the course for CIT and others like them. Let other people do all the work.

[BCR]

mL_gjlJQYaE

Here is the second part of the earlier video. The sound works on this one and an AP reporter takes the camera in fairly close to the impact area.

[Mangoose]

Wow, that last part sure was fascinating. Quite hard to take it all in. The first part is clearly the tourist video that the AP reporter partially taped over. So the sound is lacking in the original of part 2 as well?

[BCR]

No, the sound is on the original. That is why I say the YouTube versions are crappy. By the way, the Tape 1 original has finished uploading.

[Mangoose]

What horrific sound. I've never heard clipping as bad as this. It makes it hard to understand what is being said. In another thread, you mentioned an amateur newly released video mentioning the light poles....is it this one or another? Do you have more info on where to find that reference?

I see that the reporter and the tourist have a conversation at one point about the plane. "It was a plane?" "Yep I saw it coming down" "I thought I seen it back there too."

[BCR]

In one of the next two that I'll be uploading tonight, the cameraman has a good shot of a light fixture on the pavement. It exhibits a shatter/debris field consistent with impact with the pavement from above. It is not something you would see if the light was "planted". Further, the debris from it in the lane would have been moved significantly if it had been "planted" the night before and had cars driving over it all night/morning.

[BCR]

I have two additional FBI vids uploaded in raw form. I will not be converting these to crappy YouTubes, but anyone interested in them may send me a pm and I will provide links for your download pleasure for the mpg's.

[16.5]

I have two additional FBI vids uploaded in raw form. I will not be converting these to crappy YouTubes, but anyone interested in them may send me a pm and I will provide links for your download pleasure for the mpg's.

Anything of any interest in 'em?

[BCR]

Nothing other than what I explained to Mangoose above. One is a pool video from 9/11 pm, and the other is similar to the two already posted, but better quality. I did not see anything in them that was not already seen in other videos of the area post-impact. I have not however viewed them in great detail as yet.

[BCR]

MercBezerk really enjoyed the videos at YouTube:

Wow. That certainly disproved the north side and the flyover/flyby. What a joke. But I know, "John", it's all about producing a bulk of info and data supportive of the official story or imply it is supportive while you act like you are a veteran researcher that worked closely with us. You just keep reiterating how you are an "engineer" and handle "statistical processing", produce some fancy graphs and charts and use big "engineering" terms. Then you sound authoritative and genuine huh?

It flew away. Ask Roosevelt Roberts.

Have you even heard the phone you made with Craig? F*cking busted. You aren't even a good spy. "Collaborate" instead of "corroborate", "Vent" instead of "vet". You sound like a coked out ,brain dead CIA op. No you sound like a bumbling George Bush, "see I'm an engineer, I speak in engineerin' terms. I don't listen to witnesses, I pretend they don't matter while I reinforce the official data that is being piped thru me. I act as if there nothin' wrong with the data while I casually support it."

I am so glad someone appreciates the new materials :D

[scissorhands]

Amazing footage, 911files.
But I cant see any MIB planting debris, just firefighters?

[16.5]

MercBezerk really enjoyed the videos at YouTube:
I am so glad someone appreciates the new materials :D

Cripes, what the hell is wrong with Aldo? Fat on the brain?

[RedIbis]

mL_gjlJQYaE

Here is the second part of the earlier video. The sound works on this one and an AP reporter takes the camera in fairly close to the impact area.

Incredible footage. Thanks for posting. Just a question, do you see any wreckage from Flight 77 in that clip?

[T.A.M.]

Do you see any dead bodies? No? Well there are some there, some inside. But how can that be if you can't see them on the video???

TAM:)

[BCR]

Thanks. Yes, I do see some debris, but most of it would be expect in the helipad area. It hit the wall at an angle and what did not penetrate would have fanned out to the left. We can see that in videos of that area of the lawn and in the DCA ASR data. After impact, the airborne debris field is picked up in that area as well.

It is a phenomenon that I missed when I was examining the unexplained light source on the Citgo video. I am now inclined to think that it is somehow related, but I have not had a chance to work on that in recent months. Maybe after I get all of this new stuff processed and up I'll go back to that problem.

[RedIbis]

Do you see any dead bodies? No? Well there are some there, some inside. But how can that be if you can't see them on the video???

TAM:)

I'm not asking about the bodies, I'm asking about the plane.

[RedIbis]

We can see that in videos

Please post a link to that.

[Bobert]

The dance has begun.
Can I be your Ginger Rogers, Red?

[BCR]

Please post a link to that.

Well, I have provided download links to the other videos to JREF members, but only by pm. But this thread starts with one. Guessed you missed that one.

Darn, Mangoose even posted images from the video of the debris pile.

[RedIbis]

Well, I have provided download links to the other videos to JREF members, but only by pm. But this thread starts with one. Guessed you missed that one.

Darn, Mangoose even posted images from the video of the debris pile.

I saw your pics in #6, didn't see any Mongoose pics, what is the post #?

[T.A.M.]

I'm not asking about the bodies, I'm asking about the plane.

you get my point though. Unless I am guessing wrong on your not so subtle attempt to once again proclaim that the absence of plane parts in the video is some form of proof that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

My point is that there were bodies within the debris of the pentagon crash site, yet you do not see them on that video. But they were there at the site. Similarly, even though the video may show no plane parts, that does not mean they were not there, at the crash site.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

you get my point though. Unless I am guessing wrong on your not so subtle attempt to once again proclaim that the absence of plane parts in the video is some form of proof that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

My point is that there were bodies within the debris of the pentagon crash site, yet you do not see them on that video. But they were there at the site. Similarly, even though the video may show no plane parts, that does not mean they were not there, at the crash site.

TAM:)

But if the bodies were inside the bldg then we wouldn't expect to see them in the video. Unless nearly all of Flight 77 entered the bldg or disintegrated upon impact, it should be visible in the video.

[T.A.M.]

not really. That video does not (A) cover the entire crash site (by a long shot) or (B) cover it in close up.

TAM:)

[BCR]

I saw your pics in #6, didn't see any Mongoose pics, what is the post #?

You are correct, I posted at Mangoose's request. And please don't play dumb on me, you have been around here long enough to see plenty of photographs and video of the debris field in the helipad and northwest lawn area.

[Bell]

I have two additional FBI vids uploaded in raw form. I will not be converting these to crappy YouTubes, but anyone interested in them may send me a pm and I will provide links for your download pleasure for the mpg's.

Mr. Farmer, thank your for your fast response to my PM requesting the "Over the Navy Annex, north of Citgo, up and over the Pentagon" video. Thanks for the file. Truly amazing stuff! :eek:

[BCR]

Yeah, wazn't that cool!

[16.5]

I'm not asking about the bodies, I'm asking about the plane.

I can truther.

Say, truther, why don't you give us your calculations of the size of the plane's debris you would expect to see and the comparison to the resolution of that you tube video.

C'mon Truther, do it!

Nevertheless, visible fuselage debris is visible in that low res video.

As such, and as always, FAIL.

[Mangoose]

Just for fun, I stitched together multiple frames from the video to make panoramic or more complete views of some interesting scenes (these incorporate elements from at least a dozen frames).

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3223/shortened.jpg

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/6738/shortened2.jpg

They're not perfect but I think they're pretty interesting. The first image was pretty hard to make as only small portions of this scene are glimpsed in any particular frame, and because of movement the parts didn't fit together all that well (plus there was some empty space). This is the first scene in the video, taken just minutes after the crash.

[RedIbis]

You are correct, I posted at Mangoose's request. And please don't play dumb on me, you have been around here long enough to see plenty of photographs and video of the debris field in the helipad and northwest lawn area.

I've seen photos of some scrap show me what you call a debris field.

[johnny karate]

Incredible footage. Thanks for posting. Just a question, do you see any wreckage from Flight 77 in that clip?

I'd like to make it clear that by RedIbis asking this question he is in no way, shape of form claiming Flight 77 did not crash at The Pentagon. He's far too clever to say such a silly thing. He's merely asking a perfectly innocent question.

[johnny karate]

I've seen photos of some scrap show me what you call a debris field.

Once again, it needs to be pointed out that there is absolutely nothing suspect in RedIbis' motivation for making this statement. He just wants to see the debris field because he has an inquisitive nature. I know this because of observing the integrity and intellectual honesty in how RedIbis comports himself on this forum.

[BCR]

Sorry Ibis, I don't go out of my way to fulfill requests by those who are here just to play games. Do your own research; there is plenty of photographic and video evidence out there. I will however post you a graphic showing you where to look for it based on simple Newtonian physics.

http://aal77.com/jref/debris_field.jpg

Approaching the wall at an angle, the wall will exert a normal force equal to the force component of the plane which is perpendicular to the wall. The force of the plane which is parallel with the wall will diminish due to frictional forces, but in general debris that does not penetrate the building will have a resultant vector which is equal to or greater than the angle of the force vector of the plane. So the "debris field" should be found in the general vicinity of the helipad and lawn beyond.

Now I ask you, where was the segment of plane with red lettering on it found? Do you now understand why there is no debris on the lawn from the vantage point of these videos along the flight path? You should now understand the gif below and why the DCA ASR is picking up airborne debris in the same area immediately after impact.

http://aal77.com/jref/dca_impact.gif

After this, the prevailing wind blows the airborne debris towards the south until the larger segments make it back to the ground. In other words, I've modeled the location of the debris field, now go see if the model matches with observation (look up a few photos, Ingersoll's are the best). Also be aware that the yellow ellipse is only the center and debris will extend out from it with diminishing frequency.

[RedIbis]

Sorry Ibis, I don't go out of my way to fulfill requests by those who are here just to play games. Do your own research; there is plenty of photographic and video evidence out there. I will however post you a graphic showing you where to look for it based on simple Newtonian physics.

http://aal77.com/jref/debris_field.jpg

Approaching the wall at an angle, the wall will exert a normal force equal to the force component of the plane which is perpendicular to the wall. The force of the plane which is parallel with the wall will diminish due to frictional forces, but in general debris that does not penetrate the building will have a resultant vector which is equal to or greater than the angle of the force vector of the plane. So the "debris field" should be found in the general vicinity of the helipad and lawn beyond.

Now I ask you, where was the segment of plane with red lettering on it found? Do you no understand why there is no debris on the lawn from the vantage point of these videos along the flight path? You should now understand the gif below and why the DCA ASR is picking up airborne debris in the same area immediately after impact.

http://aal77.com/jref/dca_impact.gif

After this, the prevailing wind blows the airborne debris towards the south until the larger segments make it back to the ground. In other words, I've modeled the location of the debris field, now go see if the model matches with observation (look up a few photos, Ingersoll's are the best). Also be aware that the yellow ellipse is only the center and debris will extend out from it with diminishing frequency.

So you'll come up with this long post, complete with diagrams, but you won't simply post a photo of this debris field.

[BCR]

Nope

[16.5]

Nope

Ya think he missed this part of your post?

"Sorry Ibis, I don't go out of my way to fulfill requests by those who are here just to play games."

Anyhow, if he was serious, he'd already be pouring through the hi res video he asked you to send to him.

What? He did not ask for it?

Oh my stars!

[BCR]

Ya think he missed this part of your post?


Yep. He asked where the debris was. Rather than showing him a picture, I simply made a prediction where the debris would be found if a plane hit the Pentagon. You may not be aware, but some claim that one did not and the debris was planted. So, I modeled and made a prediction. He now needs to Google "Ingersoll" and see if observation matches the prediction. Simple stuff really.

[johnny karate]

So you'll come up with this long post, complete with diagrams, but you won't simply post a photo of this debris field.

I can't stress enough that this isn't just some cheap game of sophistry RedIbis is playing. He's not trying to be clever. He has a genuine desire to see a photo of that debris field, and is of course conducting himself in the same honest and straightforward manner in which he always does.

[RedIbis]

Yep. He asked where the debris was. Rather than showing him a picture, I simply made a prediction where the debris would be found if a plane hit the Pentagon. You may not be aware, but some claim that one did not and the debris was planted. So, I modeled and made a prediction. He now needs to Google "Ingersoll" and see if observation matches the prediction. Simple stuff really.

Picture 13? The twisted scrap, is that your debris field?

[Mangoose]

I know of at least 40 different pieces of debris outside the Pentagon that have characteristics typical of AA aircraft parts (e.g. lime-green primer, rows of rivets, shiny aluminum skin, red paint on metal, red lettering, struts and other parts), 36 of these were photographed in the area delineated by 911files. Amongst these are many, many other smaller pieces that cannot be described at the detail resolved in the extant images, but which probably contain a large proportion of similar aircraft fragments.

[Hokulele]

Picture 13? The twisted scrap, is that your debris field?


What were you expecting and why?

[BCR]

Google "Ingersoll" you lazy twoofer...do I have to do all the work for you.

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

Google "Ingersoll" you lazy twoofer...do I have to do all the work for you.

"Daddy, why won't you do my homework for me? Huh? Why won'cha? Huh, Dadddy? WHYYYYYYYYYY -- ?!?":D

[johnny karate]

Picture 13? The twisted scrap, is that your debris field?

RedIbis asks this question because he is sincerely curious. He is unclear about certain details of the Pentagon crash site and wishes to be better informed. Once he receives reasonable answers to his queries, he will accept them and and move on. He is not at all engaging in a ridiculous and entirely transparent exercise of intellectual dishonesty. Anyone who has read his posts knows that such behavior would be beneath him.

[Mangoose]

But if the bodies were inside the bldg then we wouldn't expect to see them in the video. Unless nearly all of Flight 77 entered the bldg or disintegrated upon impact, it should be visible in the video.

Yes, nearly all of AA77 entered the building (as the outer part of the wings and the vertical stabilizer accounted for only a fraction of the mass of the plane) AND it disintegrated upon impact. Therefore, by your own criteria, not much of it should be visible in videos and photos documenting the lawn and heliport.

[Mangoose]

Some photographed pieces of debris. Bear in mind that publicly released photos by no means exhaustively document the extent of the debris. The asterisked debris are those photographed in the heliport and northwest lawn area:

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/2141/debris2.jpg

[BCR]

See, now you had to go mess up his homework assignment :)

[DavidJames]

See, now you had to go mess up his homework assignment :)
It doesn't matter, he won't believe it anyway.

[T.A.M.]

It doesn't matter, he won't believe it anyway.

Agreed. Unless the plane sits on the front lawn in 4 or less pieces, then OBVIOUSLY any debris is PLANTED/FAKED!!!

TAM;)

[Sunstealer]

I wonder how many man hours it took the NWO to manufacture and then twist and deform all that material. Maybe they just crashed another aircraft in the desert and took that material. Some of it would be quite heavy too so they would need to truck it in and then use hoists to position bits knowing full well that each part would be documented. They did this all in daylight before anyone arrived on the scene and even managed to plant heavy landing gear inside the building which would have been extremely dangerous. Very impressive.

[DavidJames]

Agreed. Unless the plane sits on the front lawn in 4 or less pieces, then OBVIOUSLY any debris is PLANTED/FAKED!!!

TAM;)Actually, I still don't think he'd believe it. Maybe I'm jaded, but I believe someone who considers 9/11 to be an "inside job", and is exposed to a site like this and remains a CTist for more then a few weeks, will never change their mind.

Sites like this are helpful, but it can't help those that don't want help, or can't be helped.

[Disbelief]

Actually, I still don't think he'd believe it. Maybe I'm jaded, but I believe someone who considers 9/11 to be an "inside job", and is exposed to a site like this and remains a CTist for more then a few weeks, will never change their mind.

Sites like this are helpful, but it can't help those that don't want help, or can't be helped.

And if there was clear video, especially released now, he would talk about how "convenient" it is to have such a clear picture of the attack.

[Pardalis]

We're talking about the plane.

I'm not asking about the bodies, I'm asking about the plane.

Why not talk about the bodies and the DNA?

Oh, right, it's easier to deny pieces of metal than pieces of people.

[T.A.M.]

Why not talk about the bodies and the DNA?

Oh, right, it's easier to deny pieces of metal than pieces of people.

shouldn't be that hard (to deny the body parts and DNA), I mean Dom Dimaggio just put a paper proposing exactly that (that there were no body parts at the shanksville site).

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

And if there was clear video, especially released now, he would talk about how "convenient" it is to have such a clear picture of the attack.

Except you don't have a clear picture of that.

[BCR]

Except you don't have a clear picture of that.

I dont' have a clear picture of you either, but I'm fairly certain that there is human sitting in front of a computer somewhere typing under the name RedIbis....but then again....

[beachnut]

Except you don't have a clear picture of that.

The DNA, the debris, the damage, the witnesses, the FDR, these video made in a free country where anyone can film, photo, an event constitute clear evidence of the terrorist attacking the Pentagon. It was so complicated they had but two steps and those two steps too simple for 911Truth to grasp. We have a group of people unable to understand reality.

The terrorist had a simple plan, kill pilots, fly into buildings. Your 911Truth apology for terrorist society has thousands involved in such a convoluted idiot scheme they have found me guilty and some of you friends in 911Truth are going to hang me when idiots rule the earth.

If there were a clearer picture you would make up some delusion of hologram, fake, planted, etc, as your inability to reason continued so you can apologize for terrorist and not help understand 911, or figure it out.

A blind person can understand 911, what is your excuse for supporting delusions and not understanding 911?

[RedIbis]

I dont' have a clear picture of you either, but I'm fairly certain that there is human sitting in front of a computer somewhere typing under the name RedIbis....but then again....

No, it's actually a red ibis. I use my prominent beak to peck out my posts.

[johnny karate]

Except you don't have a clear picture of that.

RedIbis is merely making a statement of fact regarding pictures in the possesion of one specific person. He is not implying such a picture does not exist nor is he implying that the absence of a picture indicates the subject of said picture does not exist. He knows that would be an incredibly stupid thing to suggest. RedIbis only wishes to engage in lively debate in the intellectually honest manner in which he always does, and I for one applaud his noble efforts.

[johnny karate]

Editing for civility/Rule 12.

[Bobert]

:dl:

[Tweeter]

Off-topic content removed.

[Disbelief]

Except you don't have a clear picture of that.

Let me help you out here Red (bolding added).

And if there was clear video, especially released now, he would talk about how "convenient" it is to have such a clear picture of the attack.

By using the word if, I was making this a hypothetical situation. Since your reading comprehension appears to be lacking, maybe I just need to say it in plain English. No matter what evidence is shown to you, you will find a way to discredit it so you can stay in your little fantasy world. You have demonstrated this repeatedly, and appear to lack the capacity to actually learn anything.

[Crazytimes]

I received 2 DVD's from the FBI this morning as an interim release for FOIA 1078686-000. I have one converted to MPG and uploaded, but I'm trying to get the second one trimmed down in file size (wmv file) so that it can be accessed on the web (currently 700mb). I'll post a link for both, although the NE485 link may not be operative for a few hours while I trim it down.

These are the file descriptions as provided by the FBI. The witness face in NE418 is blurred out by the FBI Privacy review.

NE418 (http://aal77.com/fbi_vid/NE418.mpg) - One(1) VHS video cassette, Witness interviews near Pentagon after attack. (26 MB)

This witness claims he saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. No wait a minute, fly into the Pentagon, followed by a second white decoy jet. Whoops, wrong again, he says the second plane was a four-engine gray plane that veered off.

NE485 (http://aal77.com/fbi_vid/NE485.wmv) - One(1) VHS video cassette, labeled "9/11/2001", Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene obtained from Chief Mastin, Prince William County. (68 MB)

One interesting scene with the NTSB examining missile parts (or could those be plane parts?).

I highly recommend right-click, "save target as" due to the file size.

Quick question 911files. I sent you a PM about this. Or if anyone else knows. What is the explanation for the witness in the first video you linked seeing a plane following flight 77 towards the pentagon ?

[BCR]

GOFER06 - A C-130. Has been discussed/debated to death here and elsewhere. Perhaps Boone870 or Mangoose would like to link some of their work on the subject for you.

[beachnut]

Quick question 911files. I sent you a PM about this. Or if anyone else knows. What is the explanation for the witness in the first video you linked seeing a plane following flight 77 towards the pentagon ?
GOFER06 - A C-130. Has been discussed/debated to death here and elsewhere. Perhaps Boone870 or Mangoose would like to link some of their work on the subject for you.
The 130 was asked by ATC to follow the plane not talking to ATC, that had flown right in front of GOFER06 descending and turning toward the Pentagon. So 06 followed 77 and turned next to the Pentagon and then flew home.

[Crazytimes]

Thanks all. That is what I was looking for.

[BCR]

Here is a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120994&highlight=gofer06) Reheat did on the subject.

[911kongen]

Why did not the vdot camera, a cross the street, get flight 77 on film?

[BCR]

Two reasons.

1) The VDOT cameras do not record unless law enforcement requests it for a special circumstance.

2) The camera pole you are referring to was affected by the plane (wing clip or vibration) and knocked the camera loose in its housing (according to VDOT). The camera was effectively off-line as a result.

[ULTIMA1]

2) The camera pole you are referring to was affected by the plane (wing clip or vibration) and knocked the camera loose in its housing (according to VDOT). The camera was effectively off-line as a result.


So if the camera was effected by wing clip or vibration it would show a flight path of the plane. Also if was a wing clip there should be evidence.

[BCR]

So if the camera was effected by wing clip or vibration it would show a flight path of the plane. Also if was a wing clip there should be evidence.

Talk to VDOT about it (I did). And you are not a very good investigoogler if you have not found the picture of the abrasion on the VDOT pole (hint: Ingersoll).

[ULTIMA1]

And you are not a very good investigoogler if you have not found the picture of the abrasion on the VDOT pole (hint: Ingersoll).

So if was a wing clip there should be evidence for the crime scence investigation. Correct?

Also it would show flight path of the plane.

Edited for Rule 11

[BCR]

There is, and it is posted here at JREF. Start investigoogling!

[T.A.M.]

I am going to ask the mods to merge this thread with one of the other "Pentagon Camera" Threads.

TAM:)

[BCR]

Works for me TAM. It'll make it easier for U1 to find what he needs.

[BCR]

U1, no one believes you. Sorry, but someone had to tell you. You are simply an internet troll trying to cause trouble and see how many posts you can do. You are not worth my time putting together anything because you would not believe it anyways and come up with some stupid line about how the FBI only investigated for 5 days.

The VDOT pole has been discussed at length here at JREF (including photos). Go find the material for yourself.

[jhunter1163]

This thread should have been shut down after post 2. The camera WAS NOT RECORDING. The end, thanks for playing, here's your lovely parting gift, and thanks to 911files for the shutdown. But no. Invincible ignorance strikes again.

[BCR]

Bump for Trombone

Thank you! Do you have a link to the discussion? I dont find if when i search the forum..

The material is scattered all over the forum. I bumped this thread since it is devoted to the FBI video releases related to the Pentagon.

To expand the discussion, according to the VDOT Smart Center supervisor, the camera pole was vibrated hard enough to knock the camera off of it's mounting inside it's enclosure and left "hanging by a cable".

http://aal77.com/jref/pentagon_damage.jpg

Note the scraped area on the pole circled.

Here is the list (http://aal77.com/fbi_vid/fbi_videos.pdf) of videos the FBI took into evidence. Nothing from the VDOT.

DEA HQ Security Camera Footage (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136666)

[911kongen]

U1, no one believes you. Sorry, but someone had to tell you. You are simply an internet troll trying to cause trouble and see how many posts you can do. You are not worth my time putting together anything because you would not believe it anyways and come up with some stupid line about how the FBI only investigated for 5 days.

The VDOT pole has been discussed at length here at JREF (including photos). Go find the material for yourself.

Thank you! Do you have a link to the discussion? I dont find if when i search the forum..

[BCR]

Thank you! Do you have a link to the discussion? I dont find if when i search the forum..

I responded on the FBI Video Release (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133064) thread. As you can tell from the last few posts, we all see the kill shot coming for this thread.

[911kongen]

Bump for Trombone



The material is scattered all over the forum. I bumped this thread since it is devoted to the FBI video releases related to the Pentagon.

To expand the discussion, according to the VDOT Smart Center supervisor, the camera pole was vibrated hard enough to knock the camera off of it's mounting inside it's enclosure and left "hanging by a cable".
[/URL]

Not that i dont believe you, but do you have some links to confirm that the camera was knocked down? Or that the camera only records when there is an incident? I have tried to send them mail about it, so I can have some written confirmations on it.. conspiracy nuts dont like it when we say, thats what vdot said..

[BCR]

Not that i dont believe you, but do you have some links to confirm that the camera was knocked down? Or that the camera only records when there is an incident? I have tried to send them mail about it, so I can have some written confirmations on it.. conspiracy nuts dont like it when we say, thats what vdot said..

Trombone, take it for what it is worth. That is what VDOT says. If you don't believe it, then do like I did and go to Arlington and interview them. I am only the reporter.

Furthermore, if you are not going to accept the answer, then please don't ask the question.

[911kongen]

Trombone, take it for what it is worth. That is what VDOT says. If you don't believe it, then do like I did and go to Arlington and interview them. I am only the reporter.

Furthermore, if you are not going to accept the answer, then please don't ask the question.

Dude, I was just wondering if you have any evidence for this. I believe you, but it woud be nice to have it confirmed. Im hoping to get a respond form vdot soon. Then we have a mail confirming it.. For all i knew, you all ready had this mail or something. Anyway i found a youtube video interviewing vdot. There they confirmed that they only record when they are asked to.. Cant link to it..

[apathoid]

What would be the odds of actually seeing anything anyways, even if the camera was recording? The frame rate cant be very high, and the plane might have been in the field of view for..what..1/10th of a second?

[911kongen]

What would be the odds of actually seeing anything anyways, even if the camera was recording? The frame rate cant be very high, and the plane might have been in the field of view for..what..1/10th of a second?

I agree!

[911kongen]

Heres a link to a interview with Vdot; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqgmoC7wrDk

[BCR]

Yes, thank you for posting CIT video which we have seen 1,000 times too often.

[Mangoose]

There you go.

CRAIG RANKE: And you only record after an accident?
VDOT EMPLOYEE: If .... if we were asked by a law enforcement agency to do so. We don't. We have the capability of recording; we don't unless we were asked to. Even if we recorded everything we would be in court all the time, you know, "Did you see this, did you see that? Was it recorded? Was it filmed?" It's easier not to record it.
CRAIG RANKE: Right.
VDOT EMPLOYEE: Only if it already happened, though, it's after the fact. It already happened.

[911kongen]

Yes, thank you for posting CIT video which we have seen 1,000 times too often.

I dident see you post this.. All you said was, take my word for it. I whant to show conspiracy nuts real evidence! Not just, "Take my word for it".

If your word is all you got, the conspiracy dudes will go nuts.

[BCR]

I dident see you post this.. All you said was, take my word for it. I whant to show conspiracy nuts real evidence! Not just, "Take my word for it".

If your word is all you got, the conspiracy dudes will go nuts.

Well Trombone, I am not so sure you are not a 'conspiracy dude' and there is absolutely NOTHING new in your question. And by posting 'conspiracy dudes' videos tends to reinforce that for me. Your statement is full of baloney anyways. News media accounts are the favorite fodder for 'conspiracy dudes'. They interview someone, and someone answers as such. Unlike CIT, I don't go around recording people without their knowledge and posting it on the internet. I have hundreds of email communications with the State of Virginia and VDOT. I have recorded phone calls. But because of CIT (the people who's video you just posted), I have to keep those in my private records so that their employees are not abused (like the Mossad agent who CIT does not like what she saw).

I have no interest is appeasing 'conspiracy dudes'. They believe what they want to believe. But ask a question, I'll tell you what I know. If you don't like the answer, then screaming 'liar' is not the way to get more information.

By the way, I did not say 'take my word for it'. I said go ask them yourself. Better yet, pick up a phone. They are listed in the yellow pages.

Trombone, take it for what it is worth. That is what VDOT says. If you don't believe it, then do like I did and go to Arlington and interview them. I am only the reporter.

[911kongen]

Well I told you that I believe you. I said that in my first post. I just asked if you have any source on it other then your word. You dident! Thats OK! Im not calling you a liar because of that.. its you who just think that i call you a liar.. a little paranoia ?

I had a debate going on a forum about this, and I knew that saying, Vdot said it to this guy, or that vdot said it to me on the phone woud NOT be strong evidence to them.. So I was looking for some other evidence. I asked if you had any, and you got all bananas, calling me conspiracy dude. Please grow up. Im not asking you to release anything.. im not calling you a liar.. i dont think there is anything new in my question.. so.. what is your problem? Having a bad day?

[beachnut]

Two reasons.

1) The VDOT cameras do not record unless law enforcement requests it for a special circumstance.

2) The camera pole you are referring to was affected by the plane (wing clip or vibration) and knocked the camera loose in its housing (according to VDOT). The camera was effectively off-line as a result.

Irony; CIT confirms this in their idiot investigation.

[BCR]

Well I told you that I believe you. I said that in my first post. I just asked if you have any source on it other then your word. You dident! Thats OK! Im not calling you a liar because of that.. its you who just think that i call you a liar.. a little paranoia ?

I had a debate going on a forum about this, and I knew that saying, Vdot said it to this guy, or that vdot said it to me on the phone woud NOT be strong evidence to them.. So I was looking for some other evidence. I asked if you had any, and you got all bananas, calling me conspiracy dude. Please grow up. Im not asking you to release anything.. im not calling you a liar.. i dont think there is anything new in my question.. so.. what is your problem? Having a bad day?

Nope, just tired of dealing with 'conspiracy dudes' who are too lazy to do their own research.

[BCR]

Irony; CIT confirms this in their idiot investigation.

Beach, remind me not to answer any more questions for newbies...