We know for a fact that all the outside perimeter videos and photos were confiscated within minutes after the hit.
Securing evidence promptly pending a criminal investigation is normal. You simply insist without evidence that it must be for some other purpose. Affirmed consequent.
Over 5 years later, none of them have been released.
This has already been discussed ad nauseam. Another affirmed consequent.
And how many video cameras would have been in normal day-to-day operation, in and around the Pentagon itself on 9/11?
Begging the question.
They are obviously claiming that only one caught anything on tape...
Begging the question that there should be more.
...the few frames they have released that essentially show nothing.
Begging the question that the video should have shown more.
First hand reports in the immediate aftermath said there was virtually nothing on site that indicated a 757 had crashed there...
Cherry-picking. You were provided other first-hand reports that confirmed the presence of aircraft wreckage.
Has the FAA / NTSB done a mandatory accident investigation?
Non-sequitur; this was not an accident.
Have they re-constructed the plane in a hangar?
For what purpose?
This is just one of your standard vague, handwaving comparisons. Because other accident investigations sometimes reconstruct the aircraft, this one "should" have too. Knee-jerk assumption: not all investigations require reconstruction. For what specific purpose do you claim AA-77 should have been reconstructed?
Again, taking it as being a military operation, there is the distinct advantage of being able to support your claim with planted witnesses from within your ranks.
Wishful thinking. You're simply offering excuses for why the evidence differs from your belief.
Despite this, the Pentagon witnesses still gave widely varying and often conflicting accounts of what hit the building.
Variance and conflict is normal in eyewitness testimony. The majority of the testimony is consistent. Further, you now have a tautology.
You make enormous presumptive leaps about evidence you say should be available but supposedly isn't, and about the nature of evidence you have neither seen nor heard. Pure FUD.
|