Thread: F**k the Troops

Caprisun,
Nice of you to simply redicule my arguments; A clever way to avoiding having to bring good, solid counter arguements. However that's not what discussion is about is it? It's all about arguements.
So where are yours? Let me urge you a little.


Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?
Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?
Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?


Are you here to participate in a political discussion? Or are you merely here to pass your judgement on other people's opinions?
If you TRUELY wan't to redicule me, for whatever reason that makes you feel good, then bring good counter arguements that disprove mine.

Originally Posted by SKA

Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?
Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?
Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?

Ill have a go as well.

1. I do not believe most governments do so, which is why they need checks such as constant re-election and educated citizens

2. I dont think they are anymore than very influential, but that is still too much for me

3. Mainstream media is full of bias, but if you havnt noticed, it has all been against the war for the past 4 or so years.

tkdyo

Concerning 1.
That would off course only secure the people's interrests if they were given the choice between actual ideological politicians representing their opinions, rather than corrupted puppets. So I guess you're saying you believe in truthfull, unmanipulated, honoust politics. Am I right? I guess the 2 of us couldn't possibly disagree more than on this one.

Concerning 2. Have you noticed how most people are easily corrupted? How they whore themselves for money? How are politicians any less vurnerable for such corruption? I mean they have such power, they could get away with alot more than you and me.
Who do you think help them to power? Who do you think finances their campaigns?
What chance does a Politician stand without a good PR machine and campaign?


Concerning 3. There is no longer any need for Corporations to have the people's support for the war: The damage's been done. So as not to raise unnececairy suspisions their Media channels speak along with public opinion against the war.
All the corporate governing system desires is to be able to stay in Iraq and continue stealing the Resources from the Iraqi people to make profits.

Well the new excuse to stay there and continue the robbery is to tell people through the Media: "Oh well we landed the country in total Anarchy. We can't just abbandon the Iraqi people? We need to help them rebuild their country and protect them against terrorist insurgients" Don't forget that rebuilding a destroyed nation is million dollar business to Energy-corporations, Infrastructure and construction corporations. It is a nice side-profit to the main goal: The Oil.

Sure. Why would they care what we think of the war? As long as the public thinks that "Our troops should stay there" for whatever reason, they can continue plundering the country's resources.


Let me add another question for you, caprisun and others who disagree with me:

4. Do you really think the series of plane attacks on 9/11 were unforeseen by american intelligence and carried out by anti-american terrorists?

Originally Posted by SKA

tkdyo

Concerning 1.
That would off course only secure the people's interrests if they were given the choice between actual ideological politicians representing their opinions, rather than corrupted puppets. So I guess you're saying you believe in truthfull, unmanipulated, honoust politics. Am I right? I guess the 2 of us couldn't possibly disagree more than on this one.

actually we agree quite a bit. I know almost all politicians have their own reasons and means for running, which is why there has to be elections so often, so that they are forced to keep the people happy. This, of course will work must easier if the populace is better educated...

Originally Posted by SKA

Concerning 2. Have you noticed how most people are easily corrupted? How they whore themselves for money? How are politicians any less vurnerable for such corruption? I mean they have such power, they could get away with alot more than you and me.
Who do you think help them to power? Who do you think finances their campaigns?
What chance does a Politician stand without a good PR machine and campaign?

exactly why I believe companies have more influence then they should, you are preaching to the choir on this one. I only say influence because in the end it is still the politicians decision.

Originally Posted by SKA

Concerning 3. There is no longer any need for Corporations to have the people's support for the war: The damage's been done. So as not to raise unnececairy suspisions their Media channels speak along with public opinion against the war.
All the corporate governing system desires is to be able to stay in Iraq and continue stealing the Resources from the Iraqi people to make profits.

Well the new excuse to stay there and continue the robbery is to tell people through the Media: "Oh well we landed the country in total Anarchy. We can't just abbandon the Iraqi people? We need to help them rebuild their country and protect them against terrorist insurgients" Don't forget that rebuilding a destroyed nation is million dollar business to Energy-corporations, Infrastructure and construction corporations. It is a nice side-profit to the main goal: The Oil.

Sure. Why would they care what we think of the war? As long as the public thinks that "Our troops should stay there" for whatever reason, they can continue plundering the country's resources.

but the majority of our people DONT think they should stay there, and the media encourages this. I have a great disdain for mainstream media. One great example is Glen Beck, he flips on a dime depending on the network hes on. Also...well if we did leave right now, just pulled out what do you think WOULD happen?

Edit: 4th question that wasnt in there before Obviously, there is evidence that they had wind of the plot, but I blame the general ego trip that our government was on as well as the ridiculous bureaucracy in our government for the fail to stop it. Also, I still cant believe 3 planes full of people really were intimidated by friggin box knifes, thats just pathetic.

Originally Posted by SKA

Caprisun,
Nice of you to simply redicule my arguments; A clever way to avoiding having to bring good, solid counter arguements. However that's not what discussion is about is it? It's all about arguements.
So where are yours? Let me urge you a little.


Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?
Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?
Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?


Are you here to participate in a political discussion? Or are you merely here to pass your judgement on other people's opinions?
If you TRUELY wan't to redicule me, for whatever reason that makes you feel good, then bring good counter arguements that disprove mine.

You don't have an argument, that's my point. As soon as you make a valid point I might be so inclined as to provide a thoughtful response. I have been here since the beginning of this thread arguing my viewpoints. I have answered all three of your questions within the last page and a half, which leads me to believe you haven't read any of this discussion, which means we are probably going to start repeating things that have already been said.

"1. Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?"

There is no universal answer to this question. Anybody who simply answers yes or no has not delved deep enough into the issue. Believe it or not, I do think some politicians are genuine, honest people, others are clearly not. The government itself, the collection of it's employees, works to better the country. Do shady deals with third-world warlords benefit our people? Maybe, maybe not. Every government is different. Some purposefully neglect their own populations, while others really do work for a better standard of living. America falls into the latter category.

"2. Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?"

Yes? That's an odd way to word that.

"3. Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?"

Absolutely not. I do hold a great deal of contempt for certain forms of news media in America. Truthful? Yes, in regard to reporting false news stories. Objective? No, not very often.

"4. Do you really think the series of plane attacks on 9/11 were unforeseen by american intelligence and carried out by anti-american terrorists?"

I don't like where this is going at all. Of course it was carried out by anti-American terrorists, I don't want to argue about any conspiracy theories. There may have been intelligence to suggest that an attack was being planned but it is too easy for you to say in hindsight that it should have been caught. There are too many variables involved. There is evidence that intelligence agencies new terrorists were interested in using airplanes as a weapon, but they obviously did not know the extent of the plan.

"Are you here to participate in a political discussion? Or are you merely here to pass your judgement on other people's opinions?
If you TRUELY wan't to redicule me, for whatever reason that makes you feel good, then bring good counter arguements that disprove mine."

I present your debut post in this thread:

"You are far too gullable. The load of shit they made you believe. You and masses of the world's populace.
You should have nicknamed yourself Universal MindLESSNESS instead."

This was said in response to a man who had already made several logical arguments for feeling the way he does. Further evidence that you did not read any previous posts before entering the discussion. Was I wrong in my assertions?

"And why is it you're not sure John Perkins is to be trusted? I see nothing that suggests he would be lying."

I did a little research, it seems he doesn't have the best reputation. Even his old boss thinks he's delusional.

"And why is it you're not sure John Perkins is to be trusted? I see nothing that suggests he would be lying."

I did a little research, it seems he doesn't have the best reputation. Even his old boss thinks he's delusional.

That doesn't say a damn thing. It could either mean he indeed is delusional and fantasizing his ass of bringing his entire country's integrety in question. Or it could mean that he speaks the truth and those that wish to keep covered up what he wants to reveal are running a smear campaign against him to make him lose credibility. So it doesn't conclude anything at all.
Still I don't see why you think such a "conspiracy" as John Perkins "suggests" is really that far-fetched. human history is nothing but conspiracy and mass-deceit. Seems to fall in line perfectly to make sense.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You don't have an argument, that's my point. As soon as you make a valid point I might be so inclined as to provide a thoughtful response. I have been here since the beginning of this thread arguing my viewpoints. I have answered all three of your questions within the last page and a half, which leads me to believe you haven't read any of this discussion, which means we are probably going to start repeating things that have already been said.

Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?

There is no universal answer to this question. Anybody who simply answers yes or no has not delved deep enough into the issue. Believe it or not, I do think some politicians are genuine, honest people, others are clearly not. The government itself, the collection of it's emplyees, works to better the country. Do shady deals with third world war lords benefit our people? Maybe, maybe not. Every government is different. Some purposefully neglect their own populations, while others really do work for a better standard of living. America falls into the latter category.

Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?

Yes? That's an odd way to word that.

Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?

Absolutely not. I do hold a great deal of contempt for certain forms of news media in America. Truthful? Yes, in regard to reporting false news stories. Objective? No, not very often.

Are you here to participate in a political discussion? Or are you merely here to pass your judgement on other people's opinions?
If you TRUELY wan't to redicule me, for whatever reason that makes you feel good, then bring good counter arguements that disprove mine.

I present your debut post in this thread:

"You are far too gullable. The load of shit they made you believe. You and masses of the world's populace.
You should have nicknamed yourself Universal MindLESSNESS instead."

This was said in response to a man who had already made several logical arguments for feeling the way he does. Further evidence that you did not read any previous posts before entering the discussion. Was I wrong in my assertions?

And I have apologised to him. But thanks for reminding me.


So what I jumped into the end of this discussion. If you participate in a 4 page discussion, do you read all posts?
I just reacted on one of the last posts in it. To Universal Mind's post.

I did present arguements.
If you consider my points to be too unserious to respond to then that defeats the very meaning of a discussion.

I'm disagreeing with tkdyo, but we actually are having a discussion. I take his point of view serious enough to respond to it and vice versa. You would make for a better discussion-participant if you were to actually take my arguements serious, like he did.



So okay you do not believe "conspiracy theories".
Don't you think it was a little strange how 2 towers designed to withstand a boeing crash came down like a house of cards though?
And how the hell did that 3d WTC building suddenly collapse in on itself in exactly the way a they do in a controlled demolition?
Doesn't the OBVIOUS evidence that demolition charges were used to bring 3 of the WTC buildings down trouble you at least a bit?
And are you not puzzled about the airplane that supposedly hit the Pentagon? It left a very small, clean hole. Not a trace of Airplane wreckage was found.
They claimed to have ID-ed corpses of the passengers of that supposed airplane while they also claimed the airplane wreckage was missing because it would have completely vaporised.
So the crash would have vaporised a complete airplane; hull, engines and everything, yet it did leave enough of the passengers bodies intact to be IDed?
And let's not even mention the clearly (and poorly) staged airplane crash near Pittsburg.

Sure I know it is very populair to redicule Zeitgeist, but the Zeitgesit documentairies do present undeniable evidence that Demolition charges were used to bring the 3 WTC buildings down.
Have you seen the Zeitgeist documentairy? I've once seen another docu on TV about this as well. They really do raise some unnerving questions.

How does this not sound like a seriously questionable explanation of the events on 9/11?

Originally Posted by SKA

And I have apologised to him.


So what I jumped into the end of this discussion. If you participate in a 4 page discussion, do you read all posts?
I just reacted on one of the last posts in it.

I did present arguements. Extensively.
If you consider my points to be too unserious to respond to then you shouldn't be discussing anything at all.

I'm disagreeing with tkdyo, but we actually are having a discussion. I take his point of view serious enough to respond to it and vice versa. You would make for a better discussion-participant if you were to actually take my arguements serious, like he did.

You have no argument. You have incoherent, far-fetched assertions. What am I supposed to say to that? I answered your questions, were they supposed to prove something?

Sure.
You're right we don't know what exactly happened on 9/11 and the circulating theories(yes even your own theory as to what happened) are all speculative, but what can be safely said is that whatever happened is NOT at all what we were all told by the media had happened.
Off course people come with conspiracy theories. They want to fill in the gaps. They know they've been lied to (at least some of the more analytical, vigilant people) and they're looking for answers.


I for one find the "conspiracy" theory alot more likely than the story we were all presented by the media.
The simple truth is we will never completely find out. Thanks to the FBI confiscating all wreckage and footage that holds the only conclusive evidence as to what exactly happened on 9/11.
Why have they refused to share this evidence with the public to this day?
A series of small explosions was clearly visable and hearable going down the length of the twin towers, RIGHT before they collapsed in on themselves.
And do you know what expertise and precision work it takes to demolish a building to collapse in on itself? And you actually believe that a plane crashing into a building causes it to collapse in on itself perfectly? Did you know the steal beams were cut diagonally, just like they would in a demolition-job? They even found traces of a common demolition-explosive/incendairy on ground zero. Kerosine ablaze would still not have cause the entire steel structure to give way as easily as it did, but this demolition-explosive is especially made to cut through very thick steel beams.

However don't you find any of that even slightly suspicious?

Originally Posted by SKA

Sure.
You're right we don't know what exactly happened on 9/11 and the circulating theories(yes even your own theory as to what happened) are all speculative, but what can be safely said is that whatever happened is NOT at all what we were all told by the media had happened.
Off course people come with conspiracy theories. They want to fill in the gaps. They know they've been lied to (at least some of the more analytical, vigilant people) and they're looking for answers.


I for one find the "conspiracy" theory alot more likely than the story we were all presented by the media.
The simple truth is we will never completely find out. Thanks to the FBI confiscating all wreckage and footage that holds the only conclusive evidence as to what exactly happened on 9/11.
Why have they refused to share this evidence with the public to this day?
A series of small explosions was clearly visable and hearable going down the length of the twin towers, RIGHT before they collapsed in on themselves.
And do you know what expertise and precision work it takes to demolish a building to collapse in on itself? And you actually believe that a plane crashing into a building causes it to collapse in on itself perfectly? Did you know the steal beams were cut diagonally, just like they would in a demolition-job? They even found traces of a common demolition-explosive/incendairy on ground zero. Kerosine ablaze would still not have cause the entire steel structure to give way as easily as it did, but this demolition-explosive is especially made to cut through very thick steel beams.

However don't you find any of that even slightly suspicious?

I thought I said I wasn't going to argue about conspiracy theories, yet you proceeded to write a rather large response about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. We were talking about the American military, the inevitability of war, and the history of Empires. You know, sane topics. Everything you mentioned above has been thoroghly and unequivocally proven false on multiple occasions by experts, note the emphasis on "experts." This is completely irrelevant to the topic. I believe there is even a thread on this site completely dedicated to criticizing Zeitgeist, you should go there.

"Have you seen the Zeitgeist documentairy? I've once seen another docu on TV about this as well. They really do raise some unnerving questions."

No, no they don't.

"That doesn't say a damn thing. It could either mean he indeed is delusional and fantasizing his ass of bringing his entire country's integrety in question. Or it could mean that he speaks the truth and those that wish to keep covered up what he wants to reveal are running a smear campaign against him to make him lose credibility. So it doesn't conclude anything at all.
Still I don't see why you think such a "conspiracy" as John Perkins "suggests" is really that far-fetched. human history is nothing but conspiracy and mass-deceit. Seems to fall in line perfectly to make sense."

It seems you have a mind that is prone to conspiracy theories. The criticisms I read were written by journalists and economists from all ends of the political spectrum, don't be so quick to call it a smear campaign. Even an editorial reviewer from amazon.com said this "Gathering evidence is not Perkins's strong suit. Typically, a shadowy figure pulls him aside, insists on anonymity, then reveals all. Critics will rightfully accuse Perkins of dreadful journalism and a taste for conspiracy theories."

Originally Posted by SKA

So okay you do not believe "conspiracy theories".
Don't you think it was a little strange how 2 towers designed to withstand a boeing crash came down like a house of cards though?
And how the hell did that 3d WTC building suddenly collapse in on itself in exactly the way a they do in a controlled demolition?
Doesn't the OBVIOUS evidence that demolition charges were used to bring 3 of the WTC buildings down trouble you at least a bit?
And are you not puzzled about the airplane that supposedly hit the Pentagon? It left a very small, clean hole. Not a trace of Airplane wreckage was found.
They claimed to have ID-ed corpses of the passengers of that supposed airplane while they also claimed the airplane wreckage was missing because it would have completely vaporised.
So the crash would have vaporised a complete airplane; hull, engines and everything, yet it did leave enough of the passengers bodies intact to be IDed?
And let's not even mention the clearly (and poorly) staged airplane crash near Pittsburg.

Sure I know it is very populair to redicule Zeitgeist, but the Zeitgesit documentairies do present undeniable evidence that Demolition charges were used to bring the 3 WTC buildings down.
Have you seen the Zeitgeist documentairy? I've once seen another docu on TV about this as well. They really do raise some unnerving questions.

How does this not sound like a seriously questionable explanation of the events on 9/11?

I assume this was directed to me since I was mentioned beforehand

I did in fact watch the entire Zeitgeist documentary. I dont ridicule it because its cool...just because the only evidence he has is circumstantial. I ask you read this link about counter evidence to the movie. I have read it all, but it is too much to summarize. I will say though, that I believe our government did fail for many reasons, just two of which I said on the last page, there is no way around that.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/art...eist/part-two/

note, you dont have to read the 1st or 3rd page as those are on the non 9/11 parts of the film.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I assume this was directed to me since I was mentioned beforehand

I did in fact watch the entire Zeitgeist documentary. I dont ridicule it because its cool...just because the only evidence he has is circumstantial. I ask you read this link about counter evidence to the movie. I have read it all, but it is too much to summarize. I will say though, that I believe our government did fail for many reasons, just two of which I said on the last page, there is no way around that.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/art...eist/part-two/

note, you dont have to read the 1st or 3rd page as those are on the non 9/11 parts of the film.

Actually I adressed Caprisun, but feel free to show me what has moved you to believe that 9/11 was indeed a genuine terror attack.

See CapriSun? This is why I took tkdyo as an example; Here he comes with counter arguements. That's alot more constructive than simply stating I have no worthwhile arguements and rediculing me.

I am more than willing to not simply dismiss his counter arguements as "rubbish"(as you dismissed my arguements, even completely denied their existance).

I will check it out and if I find the arguements compelling enough then I see no reason as to why I shouldn't change my mind about 9/11.

There's alot you could learn from tkdyo.


--------------------


I read the debunking 9/11 myth page. And to be honost I'm not impressed.



In fact I find these explanations so weak that it only serves to reinforce my beliefs that 9/11 indeed was an inside job.
They try far too desperately to disporve every single point Zeitgeist made about 9/11. I haven't checked the rest of the pages attempting to debunk Zeitgeist (yet), but you cannot take a documentairy and debunk every single point they make without agreeing with at least some points made in it. It is too complete of a crackdown on Zeitgeist.

Also this guy(s?) uses sources that I do not at all deem trustworthy and objective. Mainstream media channels.
Very sloppy.

The Pentagon video that was supposed to prove it indeed was an airplain was very vague and inconclusive. I must say that whatever struck the pentagon much rather had the speed of a jetfighter or missile than a huge Boeing. It moved far too fast to be visable; Boeings fly relatively slow. Also the size of whatever it was that hit the pentagon looked like at least 1/8th the size of a Boeing. You see the impact took place relatively close to the camera so you would have expected to see a HUGE body slam into it, yet you can only see a very small white stripe.
I suggest you take a good look at that video and you'll see it was NOTHING like a boeing.

Furthermore they try to dispell the fact that the twin towers were supposed to withstand Boeing impacts. They say it was designed to survive a 747 impact flying at low speed with little fuel. That is about the weakest "explanation" I've read. What kind of engineers build a building to survive the impact of a Boeing, but only a 747 flying at low speed and with little fuel? Isn't the point of engineering to prepare for the worst? What an airhead would an engineer be consider a Boeing747 impact into a building's design, yet not consider the possibility that it might fly in at full speed with full fuel tanks? I don't see how an accidentally crashing airplane would not fly in at full speed, with full kerosine tanks. Very sloppy "explanation" don't you think?

And they also claim that large buildings just tend to collapse that way. Is that why you think it is considered such a delicate, expert's job to demolish a building and prevent it from damaging surrounding buildings?
Nonsense. Go ask a demolition expert that demolishes obsolete buildings.




This looks like sanity and realism to you? It looks like a poor cover up job to me.
"Go back to sleep people, everything is under control" is written all over that site.

Originally Posted by SKA

I read the debunking 9/11 myth page. And to be honost I'm not impressed.



In fact I find these explanations so weak that it only serves to reinforce my beliefs that 9/11 indeed was an inside job.
They try far too desperately to disporve every single point Zeitgeist made about 9/11. I haven't checked the rest of the pages attempting to debunk Zeitgeist (yet), but you cannot take a documentairy and debunk every single point they make without agreeing with at least some points made in it. It is too complete of a crackdown on Zeitgeist.

Also this guy(s?) uses sources that I do not at all deem trustworthy and objective. Mainstream media channels.
Very sloppy.

The Pentagon video that was supposed to prove it indeed was an airplain was very vague and inconclusive. I must say that whatever struck the pentagon much rather had the speed of a jetfighter or missile than a huge Boeing. It moved far too fast to be visable; Boeings fly relatively slow. Also the size of whatever it was that hit the pentagon looked like at least 1/8th the size of a Boeing. You see the impact took place relatively close to the camera so you would have expected to see a HUGE body slam into it, yet you can only see a very small white stripe.
I suggest you take a good look at that video and you'll see it was NOTHING like a boeing.



And they also claim that large buildings just tend to collapse that way. Is that why you think it is considered such a delicate, expert's job to demolish a building and prevent it from damaging surrounding buildings?
Nonsense. Go ask a demolition expert that demolishes obsolete buildings.




This looks like sanity and realism to you? It looks like a poor cover up job to me.
"Go back to sleep people, everything is under control" is written all over that site.

first, thank you for taking the time to actually read it, many do not.

I guess it may seem desperate to cover them up, but to me it just shows they wanted to be thorough and not leave certain things uncovered.

I did watch the pentagon security cam, and it looked like a plane to me. However, the tapes are too blurry to tell in any event. I dont think 500 mph is too slow for a cam that only refreshes every few seconds to catch, and 500mph is just a cruising speed, I highly doubt the pilot was flying that slow.

I have talked to some demolition experts as well, my friend's step dad is one actually, and he thinks the opposite. So many beams were taken out by the planes that it doesnt seem unreasonable to me to believe they would fall straight down.

It does very much seem like realism to me. more real than, say, half the US's constructional engineers not crying out about how unrealistic the buildings fall was.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

first, thank you for taking the time to actually read it, many do not.

I guess it may seem desperate to cover them up, but to me it just shows they wanted to be thorough and not leave certain things uncovered.

I did watch the pentagon security cam, and it looked like a plane to me. However, the tapes are too blurry to tell in any event. I dont think 500 mph is too slow for a cam that only refreshes every few seconds to catch, and 500mph is just a cruising speed, I highly doubt the pilot was flying that slow.

I have talked to some demolition experts as well, my friend's step dad is one actually, and he thinks the opposite. So many beams were taken out by the planes that it doesnt seem unreasonable to me to believe they would fall straight down.

It does very much seem like realism to me. more real than, say, half the US's constructional engineers not crying out about how unrealistic the buildings fall was.

Concerning the Pentagon. Okay if indeed the camera was a low tech one that refreshed every couple of seconds it could be possible to miss the actual plane. But the video shows a police car passing by and it did not look laggy. In wasn't a perfect stream either, but it streamed pretty smooth. Smooth enough to be able to notice something as HUGE as a boeing comming in from the right.
This was the only video that was published and it doesn't prove or disprove anything really. It is a vague video where no airplane can be seen at all. Just a vague thin white shape and then an explosion.

However there were so much more cameras that filmed the Pentagon event. Surely some of them would have captured conclusive footage of an airplane flying into the building. Or maybe something other than a Boeing?

The FBI has confiscated all the tapes of these cameras and refuses to publicise them.

Why? What was on those tapes that they do not want us to see?