A challlenge to those that support CIT

Originally posted by jthomas
Gavron, Ultima1 swears that none of can know that AA77 hit the Pentagon for lots of reasons but especially because "all of the information came from the media."

Why do you believers have to be so immature by putting words in other peoples mouths?

You cannot post evidecne that AA77 hit the Pentagon becasue most of the evidence has not been released.

Please show me any actual evidence that the media has put out that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Oh thats right you cannot.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show me any actual evidence that the media has put out that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Oh thats right you cannot.

Hang on, I thought you said the media was spreading lies. Now you want evidence from them? Do you trust evidence from the media then, ULTIMA1?

Originally posted by gavron
Hang on, I thought you said the media was spreading lies. Now you want evidence from them

The media has spread lies about what happened on 9/11 due to the fact that they have failed to show any actual evidence to support thier claims.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The media has spread lies about what happened on 9/11 due to the fact that they have failed to show any actual evidence to support thier claims.

I guess all those silly official public news conferences held by the investigating commitees live, every day or so after 9/11, those were all lies too?

Ultima,
Are you going to be taking the CIT evidence to a court anytime soon?

Originally posted by gavron
I guess all those silly official public news conferences held by the investigating commitees live, every day or so after 9/11, those were all lies too?

Did the conferences show any actual evidnece? Can you show any actual evidnece that the media has released?

Please read and try to understand the following question.

WHERE IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE FROM THE MEDIA ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Can you show any actual evidnece that the media has released?

There is a link at the top of these forums that shows television video, called the "9/11 Television Archive". The moderators were kind enough to sticky this important media evidence.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by gavron
There is a link at the top of these forums that shows television video, called the "9/11 Television Archive". The moderators were kind enough to sticky this important media evidence.

I was talking about actual evidence. For the third time.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I was talking about actual evidence. For the third time.

Physical evidence would be help by the investigating teams, whether it be the FBI or NTSB. When they release their official reports, they make them public. Until them, they are still considered evidence in an ongoing case and not subject to release, even with an FOIA request.

Video evidence? There is a link at the top of these forums that shows television video, called the "9/11 Television Archive". The moderators were kind enough to sticky this important media evidence.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hope that helps you out

Originally posted by gavron
Until them, they are still considered evidence in an ongoing case and not subject to release, even with an FOIA request.

I see you know nothing about FOIA request.

Video evidence? There is a link at the top of these forums that shows television video, called the "9/11 Television Archive".

As stated they do not have sources or information, photos and videos alone are not real evidnece.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I see you know nothing about FOIA request.

you might want to familiarize youself with the FBI FOIA, explanation of exemptions, SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552

As stated they do not have sources or information, photos and videos alone are not real evidnece.

Gosh, those poor cameramen working for the news crews and photogs, not getting paid by their papers or magazines? Just giving their videos or photos to the news stations for free?

Originally posted by gavron
you might want to familiarize youself with the FBI FOIA, explanation of exemptions, SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552

Thats funny the exemptions are not for the FBI they are for all FOPA request.

I happen to know the exemptions because unlike you and others on here i have actually filed FOIA request with the FBI and others.

Gosh, those poor cameramen working for the news crews and photogs, not getting paid by their papers or magazines?

Well i can see you do not even know what i am talking about when i stated having sources for photos and videos. I guess we can all tell how immature you really are now.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thats funny the exemptions are not for the FBI they are for all FOPA request.

You might want to check the FBIs FOIA site. they do link to that.

Well i can see you do not even know what i am talking about when i stated having sources for photos and videos

Yes, the news sources would have sources for their videos / photos on file.

Originally posted by gavron
You might want to check the FBIs FOIA site. they do link to that.

I will only state this 1 time, i am not going to keep repeating it over and over.

The exemptions for the FOIA request are for all agencies not just the FBI. I know because i have filled FOIA request with several agencies.

Yes, the news sources would have sources for their videos / photos on file.

All the photos and videos i have seen so far have no sources.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The exemptions for the FOIA request are for all agencies not just the FBI. I know because i have filled FOIA request with several agencies.

Thank you for agreeing with me. That the FBI would follow these same exemptions. That is why some data is not available, due to the ongoing investigation. Once the official reports are released, perhaps you will get the information that apperently is upsetting you so much.

All the photos and videos i have seen so far have no sources.

The videos that have line MSN or CNN on it, gosh, wonder what those sources are?

Originally posted by gavron
Thank you for agreeing with me.

I have not agreed with you, you are too immature to understand.

The videos that have line MSN or CNN on it, gosh, wonder what those sources are?

Its so funny that you are so immature that you do not know what sources i am refering to. I will state this once and only once so pay attention.


1. None of the photos/videos posted by the believers have the name of photographer.

2. None of the photos/vidoes posted by the believers have the time they were taken.

3. None of the photos/videos posted by the believers have the location they were taken.


[edit on 3-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have not agreed with you, you are too immature to understand.

Actually, you have agreed with me. You might want to go back and re-read your replies then, but your post was agreeing with what I stated 100%.

1. None of the photos/videos posted by the believers have the name of photographer.

Actually, the major media sources would have the name of the photog/videographer on file. Do you not know anything about how the news media works? Apparently you think everything being broadcast/printed is by anonymous photographers/videographers. Gosh, they wouldnt be on their payroll now, would they?

2. None of the photos/vidoes posted by the believers have the time they were taken.

I may be taking a leap here, but the videos of the WTC towers falling might have been taken on 9/11. I could be wrong though

3. None of the photos/videos posted by the believers have the location they were taken.

I believe they would have been taken at, oh I dont know, New York, the Pentagon, and in Penn? There may have been some pics from Rome, that Niagara Falls trip, some aborigines, and a couple of baby hippos too

Originally posted by gavron
Actually, you have agreed with me. You might want to go back and re-read your replies then, but your post was agreeing with what I stated 100%.

No, i did not agree with you becasue you keep ignoring the fact that the EPA requested the flyover.

Actually, the major media sources would have the name of the photog/videographer on file. Do you not know anything about how the news media works? Apparently you think everything being broadcast/printed is by anonymous photographers/videographers. Gosh, they wouldnt be on their payroll now, would they?


I may be taking a leap here, but the videos of the WTC towers falling might have been taken on 9/11. I could be wrong though

I believe they would have been taken at, oh I dont know, New York, the Pentagon, and in Penn? There may have been some pics from Rome, that Niagara Falls trip, some aborigines, and a couple of baby hippos too

But since the photos and videos i have seen do not have that information then they cannot be considered evidence. Its a very simple, basic componet of evidence.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, i did not agree with you becasue you keep ignoring the fact that the EPA requested the flyover.

Wrong thread, we were discussing this:

Thank you for agreeing with me. That the FBI would follow these same exemptions. That is why some data is not available, due to the ongoing investigation. Once the official reports are released, perhaps you will get the information that apperently is upsetting you so much.

But since the photos and videos i have seen do not have that information then they cannot be considered evidence. Its a very simple, basic componet of evidence.

Actually, the information would be made to all official investigating parties. Those photos/videos that were used in the Moussaoui trial would have been shot down easily by the defense if they didnt have sources. Apparently they were considered evidence there.

Maybe not by your standards though, in the court of ULTIMA1.

Originally posted by gavron
That the FBI would follow these same exemptions.

But the exemptions were not just for the FBI as your post suggested.

Actually, the information would be made to all official investigating parties. Those photos/videos that were used in the Moussaoui trial would have been shot down easily by the defense if they didnt have sources. Apparently they were considered evidence there.

Too bad you cannot show me the sources for those photos that were used at trial.

Still waiting to see any photos/vidoes with sources that support the official story.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]