No the burden is on you to provide a source that they did. No one has a need to prove a negative which you are asking them to do. - - - Updated - - - No it was not and no you cannot.
Sure I can, and they DID exist. http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_15.htm From the link: The government and the defenders of the 'official story' have complained bitterly about all the questioning and 'wild conjecture' put forth in the work of these school teachers and 'unemployed hacks' of the 9/11 truth movement. They have even argued that it is wholly irresponsible to critique the official narrative without first stating the exact details of the counter narrative. But it is not the responsibility of the investigators of a crime to first come up with the detailed specifics of how a crime is pulled off. Any investigation starts by identifying the fact that a crime has been committed. Compiling a list of persons who most benefited from that crime, identifying suspects who had the means, sophistication, and motivation to carry out the crime. Then those suspects are questioned, opportunity to present alibis is given, and suspects are systematically cleared. If a suspect in a criminal investigation gives a story riddled with inconsistencies, lies, nonsensical statements, conflicting testimony, and details that defy scientific logic and available evidence, the suspect cannot defend himself by ridiculing the investigator that he has not come up with a specific and comprehensive counter-narrative. It is the responsibility of the suspect to explain any incriminating details that conflict with his given narrative. In regards to the Pentagon and Flight 77, the government and its defenders could, if they wished, put all the wild speculation as to the specifics of that event to rest. Surrounding the Pentagon, as one would expect with a building of its stature, sit numerous video cameras. On the morning of September 11, they were positioned at an adjacent gas station, on top of neighboring hotels, mounted atop an array of different lamp posts running along I-395 that encircle the building, and scattered across other buildings and positions within clear view of the Pentagon. All of those video cameras recorded the specific event of an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon on the morning of September 11. But the government will release none of those videos. The only thing they have released is a short burst of non-sequential still-frames that shows virtually nothing. Click here to view this supposed conclusive video evidence, and see if you can find the 757. Why would the government release five individual, non-sequential still frames to the public, and not whole video clips of the event? What logical reason, besides suppression of what the full videos would show, can there be for this behavior? Some have suggested the government perhaps does not want to upset the public with more traumatic footage. Besides the fact that we are all adults who have, by now, seen far worse than a plane flying into the Pentagon, they did choose to release those individual five frames. So again, why those five frames? For a full, calm, sober analysis of this video and all things related to the Pentagon, again click here. To be clear, full videos do exist. The FBI, by its own admission, has 83 such videos. They confiscated all of them shortly after the impact of Flight 77. "A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon (the Sheraton) may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation. (Also) the attack occurred close to the Pentagon's heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance, including video monitoring." (Washington Times, 9/21/01) The FBI also confiscated a video camera from the local Citgo gas station that sits just outside the Pentagon. The employee on duty that morning was Jose Velasquez. "Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. 'I've never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.'" Why is the FBI so concerned with a gas station's video camera, there 'within minutes', when a giant airliner has just flown into the Pentagon, the building is burning, people are dying, and confirmed reports are detailing a fourth hijacked plane still airborne and flying toward an unknown target? Undoubtedly, the confiscated videos show conclusive evidence as to the type of aircraft, and the manner in which it flew, that crashed into the Pentagon. If the government and the defenders of the 'official story' want to clear up some of the confusion and speculation that is racing around regarding Flight 77, why not just release the confiscated videos and be done with it? These are the types of questions that a serious, independent investigation into the matter would have asked. But so far, the government has not been held accountable to explain its incriminating behavior. This refusal to release the videos (and all the other definitive information that is being withheld in regards to so many details of 9/11) is, in fact, the very behavior that creates the speculation the government claims to so abhor in the first place. Investigators interested in coming up with a more logical narrative as to the actual events of 9/11 are given no choice except to speculate when the official given story conflicts with existing evidence and makes no sense. Which is why so many people who have investigated the crash at the Pentagon refuse to believe that it was AA Flight 77 flown by Hani Hanjour that actually smashed into the western wall. Was it a missile? Was it a military plane dressed up as a civilian airliner - just like the government had planned with Operation Northwoods back in the early 1960s? Could the plane somehow have been swapped in the confusion and convenience of its transponder being turned off? Could the 'AA 77' that hit the Pentagon have been a military 'drone' or large 'global hawk missile' painted in the colors of an American Airlines jet? If it was a military plane transponding a friendly military beacon, this would explain why the aircraft did not alert the Pentagon's surface-to-air missile defense system that has been reported in place and fully operational on the morning of 9/11. Was it any of the possibilities raised on this site? We don't know. And again, this is just natural speculation that inevitably arises when pertinent information is purposely withheld from the public. And whether any of this speculation is accurate or not is insignificant. What is significant is that the government's narrative as to the events of Flight 77, and its crash into the Pentagon, makes no sense. And since they told the story in the first place, it is their responsibility to fill any gaping holes endemic to that given narrative. But instead of answering the reasonable questions that have arisen surrounding the bizarre event, the defenders of the 'official story' complain, spin, hem, haw, and ridicule the questioners for being irresponsible and unpatriotic. This behavior, and their refusal to release at least 83 videos detailing what did happen at the Pentagon on 9/11, only feeds the suspicion and speculation they claim objection to. The evidence clearly WAS there so, your argument fails miserably. Any brave soul want to admit that there is a problem here? (The trained text assassins, aside please though, for now)
Blogs aren't evidence, Boss, especially when they don't provide sources. I thought you claimed the Secret Service confiscated videos? Your blog link says that isn't true ... Why do you contradict your own claim? Guess you'll swallow anything, huh?
There is also that traffic cam operated by, I believe the Virgina authorities and on a typical morning there would be not only the people who work for the state watching the video but members of the press who would broadcast the morning traffic report. Have any of these people been interviewed, and if so, where is the result of that interview?
The FBI confiscated 83 videos. That was the point. Your is to run interference only. You have a fine Navy day now, okay?
You said Secret Service. Now you change to FBI. Can you tell the difference? Do you know the fate of those videos? The contents were all released to the public and the videos returned to their owners. You conveniently left that part out. Your handlers must be proud, Boss.
All 83 showed no plane hitting the Pentagon? That what you want to project? I will not respond any more to your intentional, misleading (and irrelevant) interference running that you engage in daily. Enjoy reading your own ridiculous derailing rhetoric if you like. I'll no longer participate with you.
Run away, boy. The evidence is present, so away you run. Again. Full details on all of the videos here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080208102217/http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html More details on the situation at http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos
http://www.511virginia.org/ Look up the "traffic cam" link at the website there are cameras that have a view of Hwy 395 near the PENTAGON the alleged "FLT77" would have had to cross 395 on its way to the PENTAGON. The VDOT claims they do not record these images, however for the purpose of traffic condition reporting, there are people with eyes on those monitors, and somebody would have seen something, however the official 9/11 commission did not ask for any testimony from any Virginia Dept. of Transportation people. so what do we have here?
The original question ( at least from me ... ) was about the possible testimony from people who were watching the monitors for the HWY 395 traffic cam for the location near the Pentagon, I had talked with the Virgina DOT soon after 9/11/2001 and they told me that they don't record the traffic cams, the live video is all there is, so if any INFORMATION were to be had, it would have to be by way of interviewing people who were watching the live video at the time. Funny how the 9/11 commission just spaced this one.
upon reviewing the link, I see "Videos received on 10/15/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected from surveillance cameras at multiple Kinko's in South Florida." WHY is it even included in the list, that is video from kinko's surveillance cameras in South Florida? also, where is the either testimony or video for the Virginia Dept. of Transportation camera that had a view of hwy 395? what?
to examine the WHY bit, given that the whole hijacked airliners bit was a complete fabrication, the result must be examined and in response to alleged airliner hijackings, the Authority freaks, created DHS & TSA thus implementing a total shake-down of travelers in a way that subjects citizens to a "Guilty until proven innocent" sort of condition. The TSA alleges that the CONSTITUTION does not apply at airports, how screwed-up is that? We have the "Patriot UNNATURAL Act" and others that alleged to be for the protection of the citizens but in fact provide handles for the authorities to act against anyone who dares dissent against the establishment. The other rather convenient bit was the fact that the twin towers were white elephants, they were designed & built in the 60's & early 70's and had outlived their usefulness, there were lots of problems, the buildings were only marginally occupied and they had some asbestos insulation that is very expensive to remove, the buildings did not have modern wiring for internet + power to run huge server farms. and the city was not about to consent to having a controlled demolition of the towers because a CD would release quantities of asbestos into the air, and the city could not handle the liability involved in having any quantity of asbestos released into the air in Manhattan. Bush was able to use the event as a popularity boost to get the people behind him so he could start wars of aggression ( what typically follows FALSE FLAG ATTACKS ) The fact that the administration got public consent to violate international law and a host of treaties by implementing "enhanced interrogation techniques" ( that is torture ) and really people attempt to blame this whole explanation upon the fact that certain factions "hate Bush" NO NOT EVEN CLOSE! there is fundamentally no difference between the Donkey & Elephant, Just look at the continuation of policy between the Bush/Cheney administration and Mr. Hope&Change ...... what?
This is what I meant when I said that 100% certainty about the allegation of no evidence to support the inside job position. are U really and truly 100% certain that there isn't any proof if the inside job position?
Yes. If there were such evidence you would have been demonstrating it long ago rather than speculating and calling it evidence.
