What do they have to hide?
Many of us have heard claims of there being 85 cameras, which footage was taken by FBI, without releasing this footage. Supposedly they are from when AA77 hits Pentagon. So, why doesn't FBI release these videos? What do they have to hide? These are questions which have been repeated over and over in the past years.
I must admit that I didn't know which cameras these were or what they showed. I thought it was fair to ask them to be shown, as long as it would not mean any risk to the companies or organizations etc. who had the cameras. and of course it's really only "suspicious" if the footage from these cameras actually show something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon and the FBI withheld such information.
Information exists on these 85 videos, and several have been released
To my surprise, I saw a member of a Facebook-group I have about 9/11 post an archived link about these 85 videos (all are not from separate cameras). On the link, all 85 videos are listed with short information about each one. A caveat is that I did not count all of them to see that they were 85, but it seemed to be about 85 to me. Another caveat is that I cannot verify this information with another source, but the link shows documents in writing as pictures as well as the text with the information about each video.
If we assume that the information about the videos are correct, and that it is all 85 being written about on that link, then there really isn't much of a mystery there, and there is nothing of importance that we have not seen before, save for possibly one video or possibly group of images described at the end. That was the only one I have not seen myself at least. I don't know more information about that only video (or images) that shows something that I have not seen before. Would be interesting to know more about it. You can see the archived link about the 85 videos here.
I think it was the same member of my group (became unclear who had posted the first link in my group) who also posted 16 videos in a playlist on his youtube-channel. I do not know if all 85 videos are shown there, but I did see that the first youtube-link in that playlist appeared to be one video with copies just like it's described in the list over the 85 videos that one video was. To clarify, about 5 of the 85 videos are copies of another. I have not confirmed if it's the same one at this point though. It was one I had not seen before, but there was nothing new about the attack on that one.
You can see the playlist here, starting with the first video in the list.
What do the videos contain?
Turns out that several of the videos are not from the Pentagon, but from WTC actually. As I wrote above, some are copies (most are not). Many of them are tourist videos. Some are very short. Most of them show Pentagon after the attack has occured.
All of them were released as part of a FOIA request.
onsdag 11 mars 2015
söndag 8 mars 2015
Osama admits he did 9/11
but first things first... His supposed denial of responsibility...
Denial
Some have said that Osama denied responsibility in the beginning, but few say that the source of that is Karachi Daily Ummat in Pakistan, a country which has not always seemed to be very pro-USA or pro-West. That was proven when Osama found and killed there if not before. Karachi Daily Ummat is "believed to have close connections to Islamic groups in Afghanistan" according to an archived link from Ananova you can read here. Also, the newspaper says it "submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies". So, how much faith would you put in that? Me personally, I don't put any faith in this at all.
"Confession-video"
Then in December, 2001 already, Pentagon released a video showing Osama bin Laden talk about the 9/11-attacks and what his expectations were, that Atta was in charge etc. as you can see here. I linked the whole 59-minute video there. Over half (the latter part of the video) is of outdoor scenes seemingly unrelated. But in this full video, you can see the first parts when Osama and others enter the room and sit down before they begin talking about 9/11. It has subtitles.
So, this obviously contradicts his supposed "denial", where he also supposedly said it was against Islam to kill innocents, which is true, but he had advocated that it was "OK" to kill civlians (even going so far as calling it a "duty") in statements prior to 9/11, such as an edict from February 22, 1998, as you can read (among others) in this link from PBS's "Frontline". If you search for "civilians" there, it's the 4th hit of 5.
Claiming responsiblity
Finally, in 2004, Al Jazeera showed a video sent to them and published the transcript of said video, which you can see by clicking "Al Jazeera" above.
Fox News reported on this saying he for the first time claimed responsibility for the attacks, and also said why. This video was done prior to the election in 2004, and was likely an attempt to affect the outcome. Fox's link can be seen as sort of a "summary" of the speech and maybe "easier to read", which is why I link that too.
Likewise, CNN reported on this video, which was very special in that Osama admitted guilt concerning 9/11 for the first time. CNN's article can also be seen as sort of a "summary" of his speech for those that don't want to read the whole transcript.
Conclusion
This clearly shows that Osama at least claimed responsibility for 9/11. That, in itself is not proof positive of having commited 9/11, but a strong circumstantial piece of evidence I would say.
Obviously, one has to be aware that the video was to some large extent propaganda and Osama obviously had several purposes with releasing the video. All he said should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still interesting to hear it from himself.
It's also good to have this information to show truthers so they see that Osama indeed admitted to 9/11, while his supposed "denial" is very much in question.
Denial
Some have said that Osama denied responsibility in the beginning, but few say that the source of that is Karachi Daily Ummat in Pakistan, a country which has not always seemed to be very pro-USA or pro-West. That was proven when Osama found and killed there if not before. Karachi Daily Ummat is "believed to have close connections to Islamic groups in Afghanistan" according to an archived link from Ananova you can read here. Also, the newspaper says it "submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies". So, how much faith would you put in that? Me personally, I don't put any faith in this at all.
"Confession-video"
Then in December, 2001 already, Pentagon released a video showing Osama bin Laden talk about the 9/11-attacks and what his expectations were, that Atta was in charge etc. as you can see here. I linked the whole 59-minute video there. Over half (the latter part of the video) is of outdoor scenes seemingly unrelated. But in this full video, you can see the first parts when Osama and others enter the room and sit down before they begin talking about 9/11. It has subtitles.
So, this obviously contradicts his supposed "denial", where he also supposedly said it was against Islam to kill innocents, which is true, but he had advocated that it was "OK" to kill civlians (even going so far as calling it a "duty") in statements prior to 9/11, such as an edict from February 22, 1998, as you can read (among others) in this link from PBS's "Frontline". If you search for "civilians" there, it's the 4th hit of 5.
Claiming responsiblity
Finally, in 2004, Al Jazeera showed a video sent to them and published the transcript of said video, which you can see by clicking "Al Jazeera" above.
Fox News reported on this saying he for the first time claimed responsibility for the attacks, and also said why. This video was done prior to the election in 2004, and was likely an attempt to affect the outcome. Fox's link can be seen as sort of a "summary" of the speech and maybe "easier to read", which is why I link that too.
Likewise, CNN reported on this video, which was very special in that Osama admitted guilt concerning 9/11 for the first time. CNN's article can also be seen as sort of a "summary" of his speech for those that don't want to read the whole transcript.
Conclusion
This clearly shows that Osama at least claimed responsibility for 9/11. That, in itself is not proof positive of having commited 9/11, but a strong circumstantial piece of evidence I would say.
Obviously, one has to be aware that the video was to some large extent propaganda and Osama obviously had several purposes with releasing the video. All he said should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still interesting to hear it from himself.
It's also good to have this information to show truthers so they see that Osama indeed admitted to 9/11, while his supposed "denial" is very much in question.
lördag 7 mars 2015
Israel, mural truck and Odigo-warnings, the truth
Mural truck
So, we've heard many many times about a truck with supposedly painted on it a mural showing a plane diving into New York City and exploding. Supposedly 2 Israelis drove this van. Some think it even exploded, carrying explosives. Hence, Israel is seen as a huge suspect in 9/11 by some(often people with a certain "bent" so to speak).
So, what's up with all that?
Well, according to this document about "Lessons learned in the 9-11 terrorist attacks", MTI report 02-06, it says among other things that the truck was "rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English". It does not say that they were (or were not) Israeli.
They called out the bomb squad and detained the occupants while searching the truck.
However, they concluded something which truthers never mention, namely that "The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck."! You can search the document linked above for "delivery truck" and you can see the paragraph for yourself.
That's it. No explosion, no bombs, uncertain if they were Israelis or not. Nothing there.
Odigo-warnings
2 workers at Odigo, an Israeli messaging service from my understanding, received a warning of the 9/11-attacks 2 hours prior to the attacks. They were based in USA, in New York. Also had an office in Israel.
This warning was seen by some as Israel having pre-knowledge, warning their workers. So, Israel sort of got the blame for this too. or, it was just used to make it seem like several knew in advance, why didn't they stop it etc..
Rarely people say what I wrote above, that they got the warning 2 hours prior to the WTC attack. Most of the time, it's said that they got a warning and that it was an Israeli company.
Nor is it usually said that these workers got this message from people they didn't know. This messaging service let people who don't know you message you.
Nor do people usually bring up that the company cooperated with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI in trying to find out who the senders were as you can read here.
For all we know, it could have been AQ, or AQ-affiliated people who wanted to scare Israelis this way, but that's speculation on my behalf. Regardless, it does not say that Israelis or this company was involved.
Final words
Just wanted to spread this information about these 2 events. The information is out there, but may be sort of "buried" to some extent so I thought I'd try to help bring it to the fore so it could be straightened out a bit. Let's not blame Israelis, Israel, or Jews unfairly.
So, we've heard many many times about a truck with supposedly painted on it a mural showing a plane diving into New York City and exploding. Supposedly 2 Israelis drove this van. Some think it even exploded, carrying explosives. Hence, Israel is seen as a huge suspect in 9/11 by some(often people with a certain "bent" so to speak).
So, what's up with all that?
Well, according to this document about "Lessons learned in the 9-11 terrorist attacks", MTI report 02-06, it says among other things that the truck was "rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English". It does not say that they were (or were not) Israeli.
They called out the bomb squad and detained the occupants while searching the truck.
However, they concluded something which truthers never mention, namely that "The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck."! You can search the document linked above for "delivery truck" and you can see the paragraph for yourself.
That's it. No explosion, no bombs, uncertain if they were Israelis or not. Nothing there.
Odigo-warnings
2 workers at Odigo, an Israeli messaging service from my understanding, received a warning of the 9/11-attacks 2 hours prior to the attacks. They were based in USA, in New York. Also had an office in Israel.
This warning was seen by some as Israel having pre-knowledge, warning their workers. So, Israel sort of got the blame for this too. or, it was just used to make it seem like several knew in advance, why didn't they stop it etc..
Rarely people say what I wrote above, that they got the warning 2 hours prior to the WTC attack. Most of the time, it's said that they got a warning and that it was an Israeli company.
Nor is it usually said that these workers got this message from people they didn't know. This messaging service let people who don't know you message you.
Nor do people usually bring up that the company cooperated with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI in trying to find out who the senders were as you can read here.
For all we know, it could have been AQ, or AQ-affiliated people who wanted to scare Israelis this way, but that's speculation on my behalf. Regardless, it does not say that Israelis or this company was involved.
Final words
Just wanted to spread this information about these 2 events. The information is out there, but may be sort of "buried" to some extent so I thought I'd try to help bring it to the fore so it could be straightened out a bit. Let's not blame Israelis, Israel, or Jews unfairly.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)