that question puzzled me quit a bit i wonder why they would report that they were installing locked doors on the planes?
Beats me. I never even heard of such a thing until after 9/11. (And they sure DO look different now.)
for five years, i flew at least six times a week. the cockpit doors looked like cardboard almost...sliding plywood deals. needless to say...after 9/11 i became MUCH more vigilant as to who even LOOKED toward the cockpit. pilots arent secure enough.
why would anyone need to be in the cockpit besides the pilot, copilot and navigater? after the trio gets into the cockpit lock the door
Really? FOIA requests must be submitted in writing, however a plaintiff does not have to appear in court. (i) (ii)
The point is not the legality of what they're doing but your own complacency. You belong much better in 1930s Germany where the German population was 100% for the government regardless of their transparent criminal acts.
Hi, perplexity. Earlier, we discussed the confiscation and classification of material evidence, right? And the means to secure the release of that evidence, right? If that's not FOIA requests, then kindly explain. ... Contests? Refusal Notices? ... I assure you that FOIA's can also be appealed, including the very one you so cavalierly "thought not" about earlier.
So complacency extends only so far as those who do or do not concern themselves with what happened? But you, surely, the upstanding citizen is not complacent because you know that the FBI is not under obligation to show those videos, and everyone lived happily ever after. The original purpose of this thread was the "gaping" hole in the Pentagon, and we've strayed quite far from it. If you want to interpret my post as an ad hominem attack, you're only dodging the true fact of the matter. That being that you can know the legal whatnots of what the FBI has done, but the true resolution would lie in why they have done this.. a fact which you're quite keen to avoid.
What exactly constitutes proof to you 'perplexity' (that the confiscated videos weren't made available to the 9/11 Commission)? Name it. I'm not going to guess what you will not "yet notice" next. Acknowledge that you have read and understand why the FOIA which I have shown you (about the specific cameras we are now discussing) was denied. Title 5, United States Code, Section 552 (b) (7) (A) ... And please clarify the following, if it wasn't just a deliberate distraction: I've provided you with a link directly to the DOJ's FOIA URL already. WOW- here it is again. ... Then we'll move forward with your little quid-pro-quo game here, where, after you receive satisfactory "proof" that the Kean-Hamilton Commission did not have the video materials in question at their disposal, you will then explain why that was so, as originally put to you.
kean himself stated that the bush administration have not provide some material that the commission requested
if this video has been released then why hasn't anyone seen it? the fbi (or whoever) would be doing themselves a favor if they released it
i feel the burden of proof is on the government to prove a airplane crashed into the pentagon. so far i have not seen any proof of such a crash
Name it. Second Request. I've already presented evidence to you which you have deliberately ignored. That's right, I won't be wasting any more time your way after this. You aren't responisble at all, so far. You are the one who has complained and antagonized the central point that multiple public and private videos of the Pentagon attack of 9/11/2001 were promptly seized and classified by agents claiming to work for the FBI, and you have overlooked evidence to that effect. Look at the Kean-Hamilton Commission Report (third request); there is no mention of the materials (absence), observe the FOIA request from Mr. Gersten; videos are acknowledged to exist but to have been classified immediately; depositions from first hand witnesses which Mr. Gersten (atty) has in his possession detail the seizures of video from Citgo and the Sheraton National and threats from the FBI agents who walked out with them; those videos exist, and there is no mention of them having been transferred to ANY of Zelikow's 7 teams because they weren't. If your rebuttal is that "yes they were" then prove it; you'd be the first. If your rebuttal is simply that "you see no evidence" it is because you haven't looked. I have sourced every point to you, and you seemingly can't deal with those facts and what I have shown that they mean. ... There is no logical present day reason to withold these tapes since they are declared as being classififed 5-552-b-7-A, unless they are improperly so classified, and it is even more baffling that the FBI has invoked the "Right to Privacy" on behalf of Osama bin Laden. Our Neo-Con Government's apologists won't be explaining that either, naturally.
Perplexity this has become juvenile, and your fear of being wrong is quite immature also. So once again the FBI can legally withhold the evidence (that's the beef you have w/ leopold and qwerty), but you don't really seem to care (this is what conflict you have with me) because so far after all your posts you seem to believe that they are doing the right thing?
Indeed, HA. And had this poster looked, "5-552-b-7-A" is exempt from FOIA disclosure because of "ongoing investigation"... which if this is so, then the FBI has not concluded the Pentagon crash investigation! Which is odd for at least two reasons: either they are still trying to identify the hijackers (unlikely), or they are simply "stonewalling" (for any number of reasons; logical to fantastic), which is their prerogative...
