|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
 Posted - 05/08/2007 : 08:48:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
There is no doubt in my mind that flight 77 hit the pentagon. The eyewitnesses, the wreckage, the dna, the total pointlessness of staging the event. It all leads top the conclusion that a plane hit. I just wish the government would release all the videos they have so we can perhaps put that to bed and not distract from other issues.
Which videos haven't been released? And what were the reasons given for their not being released?
Apparently they have 84. There is no reason not to reales them.
How do we know that they have 84? And where is some sort of official acknowledgment that said tapes aren't going to be released? I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this, since there is almost certainly a benign reason for this.
Its actually 85. This page
http://www.rense.com/general69/91185.htm
has details of the appeals made to the FBI to release them. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
 |
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 08:51:02 [Permalink]
|
Heres the denial letter from the FBI:
 |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 08:54:28 [Permalink]
|
This page has every document in the case:
http://www.flight77.info/documents.htm |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 09:00:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
There is no reason not to reales them.
The reason is written in the very letter you posted. The reasons stated are:TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Section 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:
...
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are—
...
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information
(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,
...
(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy...
- US Code Collection Took all of ten seconds to find. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 09:09:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
There is no reason not to reales them.
The reason is written in the very letter you posted. The reasons stated are:TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Section 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:
...
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are—
...
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information
(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,
...
(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy...
- US Code Collection Took all of ten seconds to find.
No you posted the rules. How do they apply to the security cameras at the pentagon. They released one camera, why not the rest? |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 09:25:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
No you posted the rules. How do they apply to the security cameras at the pentagon. They released one camera, why not the rest?
Wel, perhaps because the "records or information [were] compiled for law enforcement purposes [...] to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings..."
How could that be? I have no idea, but then again I haven't spoken with the FBI on the matter. Either way, though, this hardly seems nefarious.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 09:27:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
No you posted the rules.
No, the reasons they gave for denying the request were that giving up the info would interfere with law enforcement proceedings and/or invade someone's privacy. You are free, of course, to not accept those reasons, but to suggest that no reason was given is simply a denial of reality (not that I'd be surprised if you did that again).quote:
How do they apply to the security cameras at the pentagon. They released one camera, why not the rest?
According to the government, doing so would have interfered with law enforcement proceedings and/or invaded someone's privacy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 10:18:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
No you posted the rules.
No, the reasons they gave for denying the request were that giving up the info would interfere with law enforcement proceedings and/or invade someone's privacy. You are free, of course, to not accept those reasons, but to suggest that no reason was given is simply a denial of reality (not that I'd be surprised if you did that again).quote:
How do they apply to the security cameras at the pentagon. They released one camera, why not the rest?
According to the government, doing so would have interfered with law enforcement proceedings and/or invaded someone's privacy.
Which proceedings and whos privacy?
What makes you automatically trust the FBI's motives? When will you apply your skepticism to their denial? |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 10:36:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
No you posted the rules.
No, the reasons they gave for denying the request were that giving up the info would interfere with law enforcement proceedings and/or invade someone's privacy. You are free, of course, to not accept those reasons, but to suggest that no reason was given is simply a denial of reality (not that I'd be surprised if you did that again).quote:
How do they apply to the security cameras at the pentagon. They released one camera, why not the rest?
According to the government, doing so would have interfered with law enforcement proceedings and/or invaded someone's privacy.
Which proceedings and whos privacy?
What makes you automatically trust the FBI's motives? When will you apply your skepticism to their denial?
Well, it would be interesting to get more information on the appeal, but the site you linked was rather cluttered and I couldn't find where that was discussed. In any case, this wouldn't be the first time that the FBI used this clause in the FIA to refuse to turn over evidence. And what reason is there to not assume that what we're told has some grounding in the truth, even if-- in the hypothetical case that we learned why the request was refused-- you disagree with their assessment re proceedings and/or privacy? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 10:40:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
Which proceedings and whos privacy?
Submit a FOIA request and see if you can find out.quote:
What makes you automatically trust the FBI's motives? When will you apply your skepticism to their denial?
All I said was that contrary to your earlier implication, they did, in fact, offer reasons for not releasing the videos. I never said that they were good reasons, or that I "trust" their motives. You're just making that stuff up.
But this is just another example of the false dichotomies that pervade your thinking. Either I have to agree with you that there were "no reasons" for not releasing the videos, or I automatically trust the government and am unskeptical of its motives. No other possibilities spring to your mind. I'm either with you or against you.
The truth is that I'm just a realist, and understand that whether or not the government is trying to hide a conspiracy of theirs, or even if they're completely innocent of complicity in the events of 9/11, they're not ever going to tell you what prceedings or whose privacy. The very idea that they might do so is ludicrous, as it would interfere with the proceedings and/or invade someone's privacy. Is that a Catch-22? You bet, but not everything about the government can be transparent, nor should it be. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 10:50:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
j911ob:
What makes you automatically trust the FBI's motives? When will you apply your skepticism to their denial?
You trust testimonials: anecdotal evidence.
You trust a physicist who wrote a paper that is outside of his area of expertise: argument from authority
I could go on. Why do you persist in the use of these kinds of fallacies? A skeptic could spot them a mile away.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 10:51:03 [Permalink]
|
| DaveW please provide my quote where I said they did not offer reasons. I said no such thing. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 10:52:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
j911ob:
What makes you automatically trust the FBI's motives? When will you apply your skepticism to their denial?
You trust testimonials: anecdotal evidence.
You trust a physicist who wrote a paper that is outside of his area of expertise: argument from authority
I could go on. Why do you persist in the use of these kinds of fallacies? A skeptic could spot them a mile away.
So then you agree we can eliminate all the eyewitness testimony supporting the official story. Good.
Please explain how this is outside Jones' area of expertise. Please tell me what his area of expertise is. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 11:09:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
DaveW please provide my quote where I said they did not offer reasons. I said no such thing.
If I said that you said it, I was being careless. I was actually trying to be careful to say that you suggested or implied it.
But that's neither here nor there. Let's go back to your bald assertions that I automatically trust the FBI and am unskeptical about them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 11:22:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
j911ob said here::
The forum has now threatened me that if i start any more threads there I will be banned. I started 2 threads about 2 different subjects. They are worse than randi's mob!
That's a lie. I said “You guys have started enough threads on 9/11 to hold us for a while.” That would be the three of you who decided to set us straight on 9/11 and started 5 threads on the subject. I did not single you out. If that little misrepresentation of my warning is indicative of your over all honesty, well, what can I surmise? You sir, are indeed a liar.
As for being worse than the Randi site, you are probably right about that in terms of being your worst nightmare. We are far more focused even if we are “clowns” who need a good dismantling…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
A plane hit the pentagon.
