How fake news is created, re: 911 hijackers

Discussion in '9/11' started by Eleuthera, Dec 6, 2018.

  1. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,009
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bob0627 likes this.
  2. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male

    Indeed, Elais Davidson makes two errors here. That there are no authentic security video from 9/11, this is false.
    He also purports that some of the 9/11 hijackers are alive. BBC reported on some names, which they later on admit was based on error which they misspelled the names. All of the hijackers on board the planes are dead.
     
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,009
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry Adam, but many others have pointed out the 'wrong person' phenomenon since the very beginning. It's old news. So too the fact that the first passenger manifests released did not include the names of the presumed hijackers. Yes, people have rationalized that by saying "the list wasn't the passenger manifest, it was a list of victims', a typical rationalization for those defending a clearly bogus story, ESPECIALLY 17 years after the fact.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.
  5. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, the original flight manifests have not been publicly released. This has no bearing on the Dulles and Portland video being authentic. Plus the fact that the BBC made an error in their report concerning the 9/11 hijackers names. Here is their correction:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
     
  6. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male

    Ahh yes the 9/11 Consensus Panel. I had dialogue with them on Twitter regarding their obvious error suggesting the Dulles security video is somehow fake or that it was taken on another date. I showed them that they were in error. I will post a summary i did regarding the Dulles Security video which i posted on my Facebook profile.

    The Dulles Security Video which shows Khalid al-Mihdhar and Majed Moqued has been a point of controversy for certain truthers who claim that the video is a "fake". That it doesn't have a timestamp and that it could have shown them at a different day and time. There is however one finding which shows that the video in question was indeed taken on September 11th 2001. You will notice a woman in a white shirt, grey dress and has a red shoulder bag. She is holding a red kitty cargo holder as she retrieves it from the security checkpoint. That woman is Mari Rae Sopper. She had been escorted by her friend Jim Bailey, who worked with her at the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG) to the airport that morning.

    She had perished on board American Airlines Flight 77 as it crashed into the Pentagon. Moqed and al-Midhhar are in the outlines which are seen a mere 5 feet away from Sopper. No longer can one declare that the Dulles Security video is a "fake". I cant post videos here but here is a snippet from it.

    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/911vict…/mari-rae-sopper/

    mari-rae-sopper-carrying-her-cat.jpg
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,760
    Likes Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What hijackers? Any 'timely' (not 6 months after the fact) hijacker DNA to prove your claim?
    Of course not when fraud is involved.
    Only if you are hiding something, like fraud.
    WTG Truthers! Kudos for not buying their wooden nickels.
    Or simply had her name changed through the witness protection program, of which no one is privy to but the same gubmint that is responsible for the inside job.
    So convenient! Another 'coincidence' from the people too dumb to orchestrate 911..... looks like they fooled you!
    Sorry you can take your claim and no timestamp video to court and find out how fast a judge will hand you your ass! LOL

    Btw, did you see my post in the pentacon thread that totally demolishes your invincible light pole mower theory? 8)
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2019
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So far it seems to me by your posts that all your alleged 9/11 research of the 2 conflicting sides are heavily biased in favor of the OCT. As an aside, is the Pentagon issue the only one you've researched?

    Yet it's obvious the Consensus Panel wasn't moved enough by your alleged Twitter dialogue with them that there was any error or else they would have changed their published consensus on this issue.

    The fact that it does not have a timestamp is more than enough evidence that it is not authentic and that is the primary argument. Once there is enough evidence supporting that it is not authentic, its video contents are also suspect. And that is likely why your alleged dialogue with the Consensus Panel did not result in any changes.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2019
  9. saltydancin

    saltydancin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Seems rather a moot point hijackers may have used fake names to purchase airline tickets & access to the doomed flights in that fake news genre......
     
  10. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male

    I will take it point by point Bob.

    1. Actually my research has made me quite skeptical of the Official account. I delve far deeper than just the basics. I study the geo-political, Middle East affairs, the intelligence fields, religious fundamentalism as well as the Foreign Lobby institute. One look at my Facebook profile (which i will link below) and maybe you will come to an understanding of me better.

    https://www.facebook.com/AdamFitz1969

    2. Well that would be to their fault. The Dulles security video is undoubtedly authentic, Mari Rae Sopper is seen in the video and right behind her are Khalid al-Mihdhar and Majed Moqed. Their opinion on the issue of the Dulles security video is false.

    3. The timestamp was removed to get a better clearer picture of what they are seeing. I dont need the timestamp to know the vdieo was taken on 9/11, as i previously stated regarding Mari Rae Sopper. The video is authentic.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2019
  11. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,009
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fake manifests have very much to do with the Dulles and Portland videos--they are all fake, just like the rest of the official narrative. Cheney and Bush testimony NOT under oath and behind closed doors are very much in character with the rest of the official narrative--it's a cover-up. Or, as Kean and Hamilton noted, their investigation was set up to fail.

    The purpose of the "government investigation" was very much like the Warren Commission. They were both formed to protect the guilty parties and to misinform the public.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet all your posts thus far are in support of the official account. You have yet to post something significantly challenging the official 9/11 account and that makes me quite skeptical of your claim.

    Yet you contradict your own authenticity claim in your very next point. Furthermore, you have no valid basis with which to prove authenticity, just your unsupported claim. Hint, it isn't just about video content. To prove authenticity, the video must be physically forensically analyzed and must carry a reliable chain of custody. There is no evidence that that was ever done.

    So your own belief is that the video was doctored and is therefore unreliable. The question is then what else about the video is doctored?

    (also see my recent post about the Daubert test - http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/9-11-the-legal-initiative.500060/page-6 )

    It's not about what YOU need, it's about what is necessary to support an authenticity claim.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  13. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    #1. "Yet all your posts thus far are in support of the official account. You have yet to post something significantly challenging the official 9/11 account and that makes me quite skeptical of your claim."

    The basics are what happened. 4 planes were hijacked, they all crashed at WTC, Pentagon and Shanskville. Thats the basics, and the only constant i agree with on the Official Account. I have yet to see a thread where anything else, not shocking actually, is being discussed (the finer details). Maybe i will create one later this evening.

    #2. Yet you contradict your own authenticity claim in your very next point. Furthermore, you have no valid basis with which to prove authenticity, just your unsupported claim. Hint, it isn't just about video content. To prove authenticity, the video must be physically forensically analyzed and must carry a reliable chain of custody. There is no evidence that that was ever done"

    No contradiction is held here Bob. The Dulles security video as well as Dulles employees are evidence that the hijackers were there and so were the passengers. Mari Rae Sopper is plainly seen in the #2 security checkpoint, along with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.Even Mari Rae Soppers mother (Marion Kormiack) verifies the video. The technical stuff about being "forensically analyzed" is redundant.

    #3. "So your own belief is that the video was doctored and is therefore unreliable. The question is then what else about the video is doctored?"

    The video was not doctored in any way. The timestamp can be removed, since this is a copy, to get a better view of the video. The problem you are having now iis abundance of claims you will suddenly have to prove if you go forward with them.

    #4. "It's not about what YOU need, it's about what is necessary to support an authenticity claim."

    Indeed it is, however with that being said, the Dulles security video is without question authentic. As i have provided evidence for it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  14. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    You will now have to show evidence that the Portland and Dulles security video are fake. I think you should take one point at a time to make and we can discuss it, and go forward with others once its done.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not "basic". It may be basic in OCT land and to you but it's all disputable and been disputed for years. What is basic is what I cited, that 9/11 happened, there were over 3,000 casualties and several buildings were destroyed in lower Manhattan and the Pentagon. These are the most basic points that I'm sure everyone in his/her right mind can agree on.

    From your posts it's obvious you agree with the OCT on a lot more than that.

    Then you're either not reading any of the ones that dispute the official account in fine detail or you're in denial.

    Feel free.

    You're asking for reverse burden of proof. You have already been shown in detail how they're highly suspect. The US government has not shown in any legitimate way how they're authentic. The burden of proof is on the US government, NO ONE else, not the Consensus Panel, not Eleuthera, not you and not me.
     
  16. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    #1. "That's not "basic". It may be basic in OCT land and to you but it's all disputable and been disputed for years. What is basic is what I cited, that 9/11 happened, there were over 3,000 casualties and several buildings were destroyed in lower Manhattan and the Pentagon. These are the most basic points that I'm sure everyone in his/her right mind can agree on."

    There is nothing "disputable" regarding 4 planes being hijacked and all 4 crashing at WTC, Pentagon and Shanskville. The evidence is clearly showing these scenarios took place. You however have what exactly, denial? Yes 2,996 people were killed on 9/11.

    #2. "From your posts it's obvious you agree with the OCT on a lot more than that."

    It clear you are projecting an opinion which shows your ignorance about me.

    #3. "Then you're either not reading any of the ones that dispute the official account in fine detail or you're in denial."

    No one disputes the account that a plane impacted the Pentagon. No one that was right there. Not a single person.

    #4. "You're asking for reverse burden of proof. You have already been shown in detail how they're highly suspect. The US government has not shown in any legitimate way how they're authentic. The burden of proof is on the US government, NO ONE else, not the Consensus Panel, not Eleuthera, not you and not me."

    I already showed irrefutable proof that the Dulles security camera was authentic by identifying the people in said video. Its now up to you to disprove said evidence which you clearly cannot.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For YOU because you're not disputing any of it. This entire section of the forum (along with a ton of literature) contradicts your claim that there nothing disputable with respect to the above.

    The "evidence" YOU decided "clearly" shows to YOU these scenarios took place. It has all been disputed.

    I don't have anything for you. The evidence (mountains of it) shows the entire official account is being disputed. I am not the source of any 9/11 evidence, it exists on its own with or without me and with or without you.

    According to the official narrative it is the official number. Even that is in dispute. And many more died from various other related causes following 9/11.

    Call it what you want I can only go by your posts in this section of the forum that you've written thus far. I know nothing more about you other than what you write and it's clear to me you're just another run of the mill OCT defender. You have yet to write a post that shows me otherwise.

    That's incorrect, there are eyewitness accounts from people who question that a plane impacted the Pentagon.

    You haven't shown me any such thing and in fact contradicted your own claim.

    That's 100% false. The burden of proof is not on me for anything about 9/11 nor is it on you. Nor can anyone prove a negative, this is illogical whole cloth on your part.
     
  18. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    #1. "For YOU because you're not disputing any of it. This entire section of the forum (along with a ton of literature) contradicts your claim that there nothing disputable with respect to the above."

    There is noting that contradicts my statement regarding the Dulles video being a "fake". In fact, all you have done is simply disagree with its content but so what. What you will need is corroborating evidence. If the Dulles video is "faked" prove it. But you won't be able to because you cannot get around the fact that Dulles airline employees had seen some of the hijackers and gave them boarding passes, plus the fact that Mari Rae Sopper, a victim of Flight 77 is seen in the video. You cannot get around this fact.

    #2. "The "evidence" YOU decided "clearly" shows to YOU these scenarios took place. It has all been disputed."

    The evidence i provided has been disputed verbally by you yes, but again so what. You need to show evidence (empirical) that contardicts my statement. If you did you would have provided this long before i came on the scene.

    #3. "I don't have anything for you. The evidence (mountains of it) shows the entire official account is being disputed. I am not the source of any 9/11 evidence, it exists on its own with or without me and with or without you."

    Right you dont have anything besides your admission that you are against the facts of what happened that day. look if there were "mountains" of evidence just on the Pentagon issue alone..you wouldnt be this hesitant to show it. I agree with you however that the evidence (what is known) will exist on its own.....but people will accept it or not.

    #4. "That's incorrect, there are eyewitness accounts from people who question that a plane impacted the Pentagon."

    Not from anyone outside the building. Thats a fact.

    #5. "That's 100% false. The burden of proof is not on me for anything about 9/11 nor is it on you. Nor can anyone prove a negative, this is illogical whole cloth on your part."

    The proof that a plane impacted the Pentagon has long ago been presented by me. Its now up to you to show contradicting evidence. You are in trouble here.

    #6. "Call it what you want I can only go by your posts in this section of the forum that you've written thus far. I know nothing more about you other than what you write and it's clear to me you're just another run of the mill OCT defender. You have yet to write a post that shows me otherwise"

    Again, you are merely projecting an opinion about me..and its false.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  19. saltydancin

    saltydancin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Where's the Greaseman when you need him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90; probably now theorizing this Air Florida crash was a practice run for 9/11 some 19 years earlier as he got fired on air calling to purchase one way tickets to the 14th St bridge as if no plane ended up in the Potomac at all. Certainly had enough news crews then with lesser quality equipment, but if one's ever wet waded fly fishing upstream in the Potomac River during Indian Summer; the waters aren't anywhere close to that warm in January when there's usually far less spectators. Maybe should have called for a one way ticket to the Pentagon back then, or maybe there's still time......
     
  20. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,009
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No Adam, YOU will have to show they are legitimate. We're talking about the FBI here--an organization notorious for its political involvement since it began many years ago. Why should that bureau be trusted or believed?
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  21. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male

    I already have. By pointing out one of the victims of the planes impact. Just saying you dont believe it isnt contradicting evidence.
     
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,009
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That you are so credulous as to believe fake evidence is a hallmark of those who still believe the official fantasy 17 years later. That you believe government propagandists does not mean that we all do.

    I am not so afflicted.
     
  23. Adam Fitzgerald

    Adam Fitzgerald Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Just because you claim it is fake wont make it fake. Unless you have empirical evidence to suggest it.
     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,009
    Likes Received:
    2,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just because you believe it is true does not make it true. We were all deceived in 2001. Many now understand that, but some don't and likely never will understand they were tricked.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,251
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's difficult to respond to your post when you are responding to the wrong quote and changing the point of my argument on top of that. What you quoted is NOT about the video, it's about your claim that there's nothing disputable with the alleged 4 planes and the hijackings as officially claimed. Please review your own posts, you're confusing 2 different issues.

    You've made claims about evidence that YOU decided coincides with the official narrative. There is a vast amount of literature that disagrees, questions or suspects that the evidence shows the official narrative is correct and I agree with quite a bit of that literature. In other words, it has all been disputed and that is not even debatable. You are in denial (or pretend to be).

    This is clearly false. I am not against the facts of what happened that day nor have I ever been. The facts of what happened that day are indisputable. The problem is no one knows what the actual facts of what happened that day are. The official 9/11 narrative does not represent the facts of what happened that day, it is a phony story designed to coverup the facts of 9/11 targeted for the gullible. This is supported by a mountain of evidence that I've written numerous posts on. That evidence is not mine, it stands on its own merit. And it seems to me you and others like you are attempting to defend and promote the official narrative as fact.

    You have not shown proof of anything about 9/11 despite your boast. You are not the source for 9/11 proof of any kind and never will be.

    False again. The burden of proof is not on me no matter how much you want it to be so. Nor can anyone prove a negative.

    Is that a joke? In trouble with what exactly? This is merely a discussion forum, not a place anyone should fear some kind of retribution.

    In fact your newest thread confirms 100% my opinion of you. It is so incredibly biased in favor of the official narrative and against those who don't believe it that I consider it wholesale indoctrinated propaganda trash.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.

Share This Page