When noob truthers embarrass themselves, unseen debunkers emerge from everywhere

Did you just notice that when new truthers post something wrong, lots of people you don't even know are watching this forum (or who post here very seldom) step in to humiliate them, all at once? The otherwise quiet monitors of this forum always play smart with the newcomers.

By the way, there's lots of stupid 'truthers' indeed, just as there are lots of stupid debunkers who curiously always agree with each other in perfect harmony unlike the truthers. A noticeable thing is that truthers often if not always disagree with each other. So I say that truthers are the ones who make mature debate, who question everything. But that's not the main point. The main point is that it often happens with people to use the wrong arguments & and have the wrong motivation for the right thing.

It doesn't even matter if truthers disagree with each other. They are simply united onto the same avenue towards more transparency. They don't like sensational stories, they just demand transparency and the so called country of freedom denies them that. Is that too much to ask for? They are denied seeing the plane wreckage (a first in commercial aviation history - check it for yourself), they are denied seeing the Pentagon footage (some 85 video recordings from 85 different cameras, officially admitted to by the FBI). They are denied the cockpit voice recording of UA93.

Most severe of all is that parts of the 9/11 'Commission' testimonies were erased or took place behind closed doors and the so called commission admits to that. I'll just post a new thread about some extreme oddities that surround 9/11.

 

Yes, the Internet has been infiltrated for and by people with lucrative interests who would absolutely prefer their misdeeds to remain obscure and they pay for it with Public Relations Security, which as in any other career, there are always people lining up to do the work to collect the check so they can live and pay for the (*)(*)(*)(*) they have, want & need.

And ask yourself, why is there a small representation of Political Debate Message Boards? Similarly, why do those boards have a rigorous daily backup scheme? And lastly, since NSL's are the craze these days, what's the probability that one or more have been put upon Political Debate Message Boards, including this one?

 

what constitutes a "NOOB TRUTHER"?

I B curious.......

 

so very true.great facts by both of you.whats really odd is my experice is I notice i will post facts on 9/11 at other message boards in the middle of the night when few of the regulars are posting and you will see someone come out of NOWHERE who hasnt even posted any posts on anything at that site and then just dissapear.

they'll just talk about all the stuff you have posted on 9/11 and after that defending the official version and after that,they dissapear and when they do come back a few days later,its only about 9/11,nothing else.You never see truthers do that.thats no surprise that happens though,thats how the government operates.

 

A noob truther is an ineperienced truther who discussed old bogus crap, who doesn't anticipate the debunker tactics, who doesn't give them the answer before they formulate the question (as you have to do with some crafty hypocrites), who lets discussions go their way, rather than keep it clean and simple and stick in ther face only the evidence that matters, who knows how to select the matters of discussion where there is no room for speculation and imagination that would be disregarded in a court, where debunkers may very well be right in not accepting them. Just like in court, Both sides may be right in certain areas of the issue. By the way, notice that debunkers only love to deal with inexperienced truthers and to the experienced they only give brief answers like 'that ain't true'.

 

'debunker tactics'?...what,like the truth,not some wild conspiracy?

 

You know, provable, documented facts.

 

Please put the tinfoil down a moment and think about what you're saying. The only people with proven "lucrative interests" interest in the "truth" movement are Alex Jones, Richard Gage, and other truther related companies and projects dedicated to fleecing their followers. As for public relations/marketing, weren't the CIT loons part of a marketing firm? There's your "lucrative interest" right there.

A phrase about glass houses comes to mind...

And a ____ and his _____ are soon parted.

 

Why was the FBI sued in court and lost to the hotel manager from whom they confiscated videotapes because his security cameras were pointing towards the Pentagon and recorded the explosion? Why do they admit to having classified 85 videotapes from 85 security cameras at the Pentagon? You call that documented? Confiscating security footage from a business owner WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT?? You call that democracy?

 

More rumor?...why would a 'hotel manager' sue the fbi?

 

It's even been on the news many years ago.

 

Why would a 'manager' sue them,and not the owner?

And why would the cameras be pointed at the pentagon,and NOT the hotel?

 

Time I spend on the internet wouldn't be as fun without you. A manager might be the owner as well. A manager can be responsible and in total charge for everything while the other is away. Or maybe CNN got the wrong wording.

Watch the video that the FBI had to return and you'll understand why (time marker 0:37). Hotels also have parking lots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUNngyhZQrk
It's been on CNN.

 

Then the cameras would be focused on the lot,and the'yd say 'the owner'NOT the manager


besides,there wasn't anything that could be clearly resolved in that 'video'

 

Perhaps I should have been more specific, then, I was referring to $hills, you know, people that are hired & paid to say certain things on the Internet. Want to deny that fact of life too? Quick, put on your tin foil helmet that obstructs reality.

 

Shoooooot,I only WISH I were paid....

 

They say the hotel manager was simply the one they interviewed. That of course leaves room for the possibility that the owner was the one that sued the FBI, as you say, while the manager just gave an interview to CNN.

But they wouldn't know that would they? They wouldn't know what's on the videos unless they confiscated them before the business owners might have had a chance to take the videos away. The question is why did they confiscate so much private electronic surveillance stuff from around the Pentagon without a search warrant??

They just confiscated everything to make sure there is no video recording of what came into the Pentagon. They didn't just confiscate the footage belonging to the Sheraton National Hotel (I believe that's what its name is), but from the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station as well, and from Virginia Department of Transportation traffic cameras, one of which has a perfect view over the Pentagon facade that got hit. The gas station owner complained about the FBI ripping the cameras off the wall and breaking into his office without an explanation.

 

more unsubstantiated rumor and assumption?

You really don't know what warrants were issued.do you?

You say none,any proof?

really,do better next time

 

They came within some 10 minutes after the explosion. It takes longer than that to issue a search warrant (unless they had it prepared beforehand), in which case the lawsuit would not have happened obviously. Are you going to deny that the FBI lost in court to a common citizen? Whether they had some sort of warrant or justification is even less important. What is important is that a federal judge ruled that the FBI broke the law on the fateful day of 9/11.

 

What federal judge? What ruling?

 

Federal judge Paul L. Friedman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_L._Friedman

Here's your rulig and the entire trial started by attorney Scott Hodes:

October 14, 2004: Scott A. Hodes, on behalf of his client Scott Bingham, sends a request to David Hardy of the FBI requesting any videos "that may have captured the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001". The request letter mentions videotapes from the Citgo Gas Station and the Sheraton National Hotel.

November 3, 2004: The FBI replies to Bingham's request stating that their search "revealed no record responsive to your FOIA request".

November 17, 2004: Hodes files an appeal of Bingham's FOIA request with the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ), citing evidence that the videotapes mentioned in the original request exist.

December 15, 2004: Christopher J. Farrell of Judicial Watch, Inc. writes to James Hogan in the Office of Freedom of Information/Security Review of the DOD requesting that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOD, and FBI produce:
any and all agency records concerning, relating to, or reflecting the following subjects:

(1) Video camera recordings obtained by federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from a Nexcomm/Citgo gas station in the vicinity of the Pentagon on or about September 11, 2001.

(2) Pentagon security video camera recording(s) showing Flight 77 strike and/or hit and/or crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

(3) Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) video camera recording(s) obtained by any federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and/or the VDOT "Smart Traffic Center" on or about September 11, 2001.
March 7, 2005: The DOJ replies to Hodes' November 17 appeal, admitting that it did possess records responsive to the request but that it could release the records because such a release "could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings."

January 26, 2005: The DOD advises Judicial Watch, Inc. that it possesses a videotape responsive to the December 15, 2004 request but declines to produce the videotape, citing U.S.C 552(b)(7)(A).

March 8, 2005: Bingham's attorney files a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia stating that the FBI is in violation of the FOIA for "failing to adequately respond to plaintiff's FOIA request, including failing to adequately search for and release records that the plaintiff believes the agency is in possession of, and for failing to timely respond to the plaintiff's administrative appeal."

April 18, 2005: The DOJ files a response to Bingham's March 8 lawsuit denying the plaintiff's request and asking the judge to dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.

April 19, 2005: District Judge Paul L. Friedman orders the defendants to file a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in the case brought by Bingham on or before June 21, 2005.
June 10, 2005: The DOD denies Judicial Watch's administrative appeal, claiming that the video is exempt as part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui.

August 1, 2005: Jeffrey D. Kahn, an attorney for the DOJ's Civil Division files a 23-page MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Scans of the document are posted on Flight77.info.

August 29, 2005: Hodes files a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and a STATEMENT OF FACT ON WHICH THERE EXIST A GENUINE ISSUE TO BE LITIGATED in response to the DOJ's motion for summary judgment.

September 9, 2005: Kahn files a REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.

September 26, 2005: Hodes files a request seeking "copies of 85 videotapes in the possession of the FBI described in the declaration of Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire dated September 7, 2005.

October 20, 2005: The DOJ sends a letter to Hodes claiming that the requested material is exempt.

October 24, 2005: Hodes appeals the DOJ's October 20 claim that its material is exempt.

February 22, 2006: Judicial Watch, Inc. files a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department of Defense for its refusal to disclose records sought under the FOIA request.

May 5, 2006: Judge Friedman orders the defendants to show cause on or before May 26, 2006 why their motion for summary judgment should not be denied as moot, noting that the criminal proceedings against Moussaoui have ended.

May 16, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains two videos from the DOD, and posts them on their website. The site is down for about half of the day due to demand.

September 15, 2006: Judicial Watch announces the release of video from CITGO gas station. 3 The video consists mostly of views of the interior of the gas station and does not appear to capture the attack.

December 2, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains a video recording from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington. The video, which does not include a view of the Pentagon's facade, shows an explosion but does not capture an approaching jetliner. 4

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html

 

This dead horse still being beaten? The videos were released in 2006. 8 years ago. Do catch up. You can download them from here:

http://911datasets.org/index.php/Main_Page

Or search them on youtube, they've been there for 8 years as well, even the CITGO footage. I guess your keen powers of research missed that one because you were too busy being spoon fed garbage instead of actually doing the work to look for it yourself.

As for the "85 videos pointed at the Pentagon". Yet another deliberate misinterpretation of facts you truthers are known so famously for.





http://web.archive.org/web/20080208102217/http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html

As it happens, they did release video which showed AAL77;





And for the other 98% of the evidence showing AAL77 hit the Pentagon;

http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/

Consider the dead horse beaten

 

How about traffic camera 740? Maybe you can show me the videotape from this one camera. Maybe you can even go further and show links to all the confiscated tapes from traffic cameras belonging to the Department of Transportation which were confiscated as well. The DT is a governmental institution so the videos are kind of property of the United States. Figures.

I knew of the CITGO videos being returned. I didn't think it was worth mentioning it.

But why confiscate them in the first place? Did you notice that we were not discussing the availability of the civilian videos but the reasons why they were confiscated? Confiscated without quite following the legal procedures, pretty much by harassing the concerned businesses? Why confiscate so much stuff and even more so why confiscate it illegally while the Pentagon was on fire? These FBI crews were not responding to a crisis, they were responding to a situation away from the crisis. Sounds more like the behavior of a police state.

Why were Department of Public Safety walking on the Pentagin lawn and compromising the crime scene by removing bits of the alleged AA77 wreckage with their bare hands, just in the minutes after the crash? Sounds like a desperate attempt to hide evidence of the wrong craft coming into the right building.

But how do you know she's not lying? How do you know they're not pointing at other videos, naming them the 85 ones? Sounds strange that the request was for Pentagon crash videos and yet your link says the videos include videos of the WTC?

98% of UFO pictures that you can find on the internet are higher quality than this.

 

If you had bothered to do your own research (by clicking the first link I provided), you would have found the work order and receipts for the installation of those cameras. You would also see those cameras were installed in 2003. Suffice to say, there were no traffic cameras there in 2001.

Of course you didn't, because that undermines your entire argument, so its better for you to conveniently leave it out, just like the good, fair and balanced seeker of truth you are . Figures.

If someone crashed a car into your house, and you found out 3 of your neighbors had cameras which may have been pointing at your house, would you go ask for those cameras? You should also note a lot of the footage was given to the FBI to assist in their investigation. You are forgetting all footage was returned to their owners.

I see you also ignore the remainder of my blog that contains the other 98% of evidence AAL77 hit the Pentagon. What a good, balanced, hard researching, open truth seeker you must be..

Try again - http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/

 

Please paste the link.

My argument that some videos were literally stolen, so without a legal basis stands. Convenient to leave out? They weren't pointed at the Pentagon at all so why discuss them? I'd leave the entire 9/11 debate out if it had been more convincing and if my country hadn't contributed with 30000 troops and many land vehicles in 13 years to the Middle eastern wars which cost my developing country a lot and if I didn't fear that corporate crooks are gonna take over the world.

I would ask but I wouldn't take them by force and I wouldn't damage or destroy my neighbor's surveillance system in the process.

What has that got to do with anything?

I think I read that before but I will take another look some time tomorrow.