US releases hundreds of 9/11 attack photos,

[hang a left]

twenty-two videos to public... Developing...

www.rawstory.com

will update with link

[John Q. Citizen]

1. This should be interesting. Just in time for the upcoming anniversary.

I wonder how they selected what was to be released?

Is it everything they have?

[mirandapriestly]

2. No way will they release anything reveletory.eom.

[Generarth]

32. Direct links

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense.html

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

I did find a couple of files all lonely on their servers last night beginning with AQ, I suspect they were part of the 7 not released but unfortunately I couldn't get hold of them.

I've got all the pdfs and both the big video files although I havn't been able to open the video.zips. There's some interesting reading in the pdfs though. Moussaoui is a believer in the theory that 9/11 was done by the US government. He comes across as quite smart but hates the judge and doesn't really like his counsel.

Richard Reid on the other hand is an idiot.

[michael_1166]

3. I'm curious about the quality of their work

because by now they had almost 5 years to render their version of 9/11 on special fx supercomputers. Let's hope that at least they don't insult our intelligence with glaring f*ckups in their 'presentation'. Fasten your seat belts, could be an interesting evening...

[Clark2008]

7. Isn't that checkable?

I mean, folks with the proper equipment can check for changes in code with additions or subtractions in frames, can't they?

[FourScore]

4. I wonder if it is this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073100866.html

[hang a left]

5. Yes that looks like what it is. Here is a link

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Moussaoui_evidence_0801.html

[michael_1166]

6. Yes but it looks like server meltdown at the linked .gov site...

[FourScore]

8. Moderators:

Why in the world would this land in the 911 dungeon? I don't see anything conspiratorial about what is being posted here. Please move it back to GD. For goodness sakes, even rawstory has it as a headline.

[hang a left]

9. Thanks but...

I started the thread here knowing it would end up here anyway.

[FourScore]

10. Oh.

Sorry, Moderators. You're doin' a great job.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. So you openly admit to spamming GD. n/t

[mhatrw]

17. So you openly admit to trying be an unelected forum policeman. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Don't hate! n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

26. The disrupters have all but guaranteed that anything with

9/11 will be kicked off the most recent page and the greatest page.

You could be in the lounge and post that you were going to a concert on Sept 11th and thanks to the people with a rigid, unbending, mocking, small minded faith in the bush administration's story, it will end up here.


That's sad but true....

It used to be the same situation with the election forum. They had the same style of disputers and it took a long time for people looking to learn and share information about the Republican conspiracy to steal elections to to gain any traction at all.

I don't know why some people are so terrified of any idea which challenges their world view, but that's life in the ghetto we call earth, I guess.

[michael_1166]

11. self-delete

[smoogatz]

13. Skimmed through this stuff; appears to be LOTS of evidence

that supports parts of the official narrative: Qaeda operatives traced back to Hamburg, photos of Atta in the Portland airport, receipts for flight lessons, records of phone calls, on and on.

[mirandapriestly]

36. The Atta airport photos were edited

by a company named Avid technologies. They are owned by emc , the owner of which was Cheney's biggest campaign contributer. These new photos are even more obvious. I think they plopped different heads on whoever it was. Avid does a lot of defense work.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=97987&mesg_id=98593

[Jazz2006]

14. Interesting.

I presume that the bulk of these are the ones previously posted online by that media group who fought for the right to do so and posted them during Moussaoui’s trial, but it will be interesting to see (and hear) the ones that were NOT published at that time.

[Slaughtermeyer]

15. Not everything was released

From the Washington Post article:

Even with yesterday's Web posting, seven trial exhibits remain classified or under seal. They include a video presentation of the cockpit voice recorder of United Airlines Flight 93, whose passengers fought the hijackers and forced them to crash the plane into a field in Pennsylvania. Only a transcript of the recording is available online.

[Jazz2006]

16. Yes, I read the article.

And have been pondering what a "video presentation of the cockpit voice recorder" is supposed to mean. My initial reaction to that line in the story is that it sounds bogus to me. By that, I mean that it sounds like a "dramatization" unless there was an actual video camera running at the time, and I have never heard of there being live video on the aircraft before. If it is not an actual, live, authentic video created contemporaneously with the events, it should not - in my view - have been admitted into evidence at trial.

But it will still be interesting to see and hear the other Exhibits that were not published during the trial.

[soulcore]

19. Maybe a video of the families listening and reacting to the tape? eom

[Jazz2006]

21. I haven't been able to get it to load yet so I don't know... Have you?

If so, please do tell.

I'm just saying that I don't like the sound of the description as a "video representation" because it sounds like something that was not contemporaneous with the events, etc. as set out in my prior post.

[soulcore]

22. That particular video is still sealed.

I'm downloading some others now.

[Jazz2006]

23. Yes. Right you are.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my post above. I realize that there are 7 exhibits still sealed and the video described above is one of them... I got a bit sidetracked in the midst of replying to your post above suggesting that it was a 'reaction' video, but I realize now that you were just tossing a supposition out there about what it *might* be.

Maybe you're missing my point, and maybe I'm missing yours, but my point is that I don't like the idea that there is a "video representation" of something that was admitted into evidence at trial which has been deemed "classified" if it was not a contemporaneous video of actual events taken at the time, particularly since there has been no indication previously that there were any contemporaneous videos shot on the aircraft.

If it wasn't contemporaneous, I fail to see how or why it should be classified.

[Make7]

24. video presentation of the cockpit voice recorder

My initial thought is that they may have incorporated information from the radar data, and perhaps the flight data recorder, to help explain at what point in the flight the recorded voice data was occurring.

- Make7

[Jazz2006]

25. Perhaps, but

it's described as a "video presentation" and that title troubles me from a legal perspective.

Maybe I'm reading too much into the description at present, (there are lots of descriptions among the hundreds I've seen previously that were also poorly crafted) but still.... "video presentation" just sets off all kinds of alarms for me in lawyer mode and, as you know, I am not a tinhatter.

[Make7]

27. I don't know, I just thought that was a possibility. ( n/t )

[Norrin Radd]

29. It's better to be a tinhatter, than a madhatter, or

an asshatter.

[Jazz2006]

30. Really? Do tell.

Most tinhatters appear to also be madhatters and asshats, so that seems an unusual thing for you to say.

So do feel free to step up and say what you meant.

Edit: typo.

[Norrin Radd]

38. My post said what I meant to say, initially. n/t

[greyl]

31. Why do you think that? nt

[Jazz2006]

28. Oh, it is definitely a possibility (edit: meant to respond to #27)

(but rather than move it, just changed the subject line)

Certainly as much a possibility as my initial take on the description, as none of us knows anything about the contents yet.

I'm just troubled about the word "presentation" because it suggests to me that it's not an "original" and no matter whether it's a conglomerate of info garnered from the radar data and flight data and other things or other things, I don't like the sound of the word "presentation" for purposes of evidence at admitted at trial.

That said, if it were presented at sentencing rather than as evidence on the trial proper, that could/would be different. As it stands at the moment, it's impossible to tell.

[soulcore]

18. Are any of the 85+ security camera tapes from the pentagon available yet?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[mhatrw]

33. Where is the information from Flight 93's FLIGHT DATA RECORDER?

Where are the security video tapes from the hotel and gas station near the Pentagon that the FBI consfiscated?

Where is the Ed Felt's 911 call from the bathroom of Flight 93?

[mirandapriestly]

34. Does Anyone else think

Moussaoui's UK drivers license doesn't look like him?

[mirandapriestly]

35. his other pics, with one smiling

It doesn't really make any sense for it to be someone else, it just doesn't look like him.









the UK dl:

[mirandapriestly]

37. never mind, I found more that look like that

he just seems like a different person. His mother thought he was drugged at the "trial", he probably was...