Any CSI fans (?)

n0spam4me

n0spam4me

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
291
I'm not a total TV freak, but at least I know what CSI is.
I bring up CSI in reference to evidence supression.
Any time there is an effort to hide anything, that is suppress evidence,
this sets off alarms with the investigators. Ok, who has something to hide and why?

I point this out, because the Bush administration is guilty of THEFT of video tape from the Virginia DOT. WHY would they hide a video recording of a Boeing 757 on its way to crash into the PENTAGON? unless maybe it was NOT a Boeing 757?

Hey look there, its the Emperor in his birthday suit!
 
Werbung:
Pherhaps you would like to enlighten us all on how something other than a 757 can hit the Pentagon within plain sight of one of the busiest sections of interstate in America, just a stones throw away from a huge airport, and still have hundreds of eye witness reports come in that it actually is a 757.
 
he raises a FINE POINT if theyve Nothing to hide............
just release the tapes? simple end of story.........but they continue to hide the tapes?
 
The tapes that they have released have only confirmed everything they are saying.
 
Rokerijdude11 said:
really? so your telling me you see a 757 in the released tapes?I find that very telling
Click to expand...

I think that the video from the Pentagon shows a big white blur, which is just what one would expect to appear on a video with the frame rate of the one that was filming the impact. Just exactly what video is the government withholding that you think would prove anything?

If you really want to know why the government took the video in the first place, keep in mind that the government was building a criminal case at the time. Once the government charged and convicted Moussaoui, they released the Pentagon video. If they hadn't done so, Moussaoui would have had a legitimate appeal that the jury pool had been tainted.
 
Dave said:
I think that the video from the Pentagon shows a big white blur, which is just what one would expect to appear on a video with the frame rate of the one that was filming the impact. Just exactly what video is the government withholding that you think would prove anything?

If you really want to know why the government took the video in the first place, keep in mind that the government was building a criminal case at the time. Once the government charged and convicted Moussaoui, they released the Pentagon video. If they hadn't done so, Moussaoui would have had a legitimate appeal that the jury pool had been tainted.
Click to expand...

Sorry pal I dont buy what your selling .......technology isnt stuck in 1970


like i said they have a multitude of tapes none of which has been released

they are concealing something or they would simply put an end to it with actual proof beyond a white blur as you claim to see
 
Rokerijdude11 said:
Sorry pal I dont buy what your selling .......technology isnt stuck in 1970


like i said they have a multitude of tapes none of which has been released

they are concealing something or they would simply put an end to it with actual proof beyond a white blur as you claim to see
Click to expand...

Actually, a ton of tapes have been released. Do a little research on the subject. What do you claim to see in the Pentagon video? Or I should ask, what do you think should be visible of an object traveling over 500MPH with a security camera with a poor framerate? These cameras aren't designed to get a quality view of something traveling that fast. Not many cameras in the world are, and even fewer cameras marketed for security purposes are.
 
Dave said:
Actually, a ton of tapes have been released. Do a little research on the subject. What do you claim to see in the Pentagon video? Or I should ask, what do you think should be visible of an object traveling over 500MPH with a security camera with a poor framerate? These cameras aren't designed to get a quality view of something traveling that fast. Not many cameras in the world are, and even fewer cameras marketed for security purposes are.
Click to expand...
as i stated Im not Buying what your selling

ive seen all the pentagon tapes Im not convinced sorry
 
Rokerijdude11 said:
as i stated Im not Buying what your selling

ive seen all the pentagon tapes Im not convinced sorry
Click to expand...

You're not buying the facts? That an object moving at 500 mph hit the Pentagon? That the cameras that captured images of it happening have very poor frame rates? That cameras that are designed to capture video of things moving that fast aren't used for security purposes? What exactly is it that you "aren't buying"?
 
I think he spent all his money on foil for his hat. Couldn't afford any facts after that splurge... :-\

That being said, negative proof annoys me...a lot. You can't prove something by inference when absolutely no proof exists. Especially when proof otherwise exists that you discount with a plethora of ways that no scientist would consider.
 
r0beph said:
I think he spent all his money on foil for his hat. Couldn't afford any facts after that splurge... :-\

That being said, negative proof annoys me...a lot. You can't prove something by inference when absolutely no proof exists. Especially when proof otherwise exists that you discount with a plethora of ways that no scientist would consider.
Click to expand...

I never stated i had any proof of anything? i said i dont buy his views.pretty simple I hate inferrance too

kettle meet pot
 
Werbung:


Write your reply...

Similar threads

K
The "Global War on Terror" Fifty questions on 9/11 that still needs to be Answered
Replies
4
Views
2K
Phoenix68
Phoenix68
Back
Top