Truth Movement Numbers

[A Sharp Major]

At the time of writing this site has 1174 members, quite an increase in the numbers in February when I last commented on membership (then less than 300).

Now before anyone starts rejoicing (well some of you have started) and giving A Sharp Major the finger (I'm talking to you snarling Ally) sort the members by posts made.

Zero posts 597
Zero posts (membership over three months) 300 +
Shills, critics, agents etc, not known.
Multiple log ons, not known
One post 115
Ally 1 (but see multiple log ons.)

So the growth in membership doesn't really reflect anything.

[ian neal]

No you are right of course. I wouldn't claim that the number of registrations here means so much. This forum does what it does. Some find it useful, some don't. Some stick around, some don't.

However you shouldn't imagine that all active 9/11 truth campaigners in Britain register here or consider it worthwhile posting here frequently.

Or that the number of active campaigners reflects the total level of support for a new investigation amongst the wider public. You only have to look at the various US polls (which are representative) to know that awareness and support is considerable and growing all the time. (Zogby, CBS, etc)

So you can mock from illuminati HQ, but you and your fellow critics wouldn't even be bother trying to 'debunk' us unless you were concerned about something

[Pikey]

Nice to know your continuing to monitor the progress of the 911 truth movement here, A Sharp Major

And theres the 884 people who have signed the petition on the front page!

And when are you and your associates going to put some evidence on here which substantiates the official conspiracy theory of 911, like Flight 77 that Boeing 757 captured by the numerous cameras surrounding the Pentagon! Maybe then we can end our quest for the truth of 911.

Xmas is coming soon so maybe your gonna give us the evidence then

[Echo]

just because people don't post doesn't mean that they don't read whats on the forum.

[blackcat]

[Bushwacker]

[blackcat]

[telecasterisation]

blackcat wrote

[A Sharp Major]

Pikey boasted

[telecasterisation]

A Sharp Major wrote;

Why would a camera fitted for the security of a hotel car park be pointed at the Pentagon?

Good question, but you misunderstand or simply ignore the concept of a 'flight path'.

If you took some time and did some research (this was painstakingly covered in microscopic detail on the American equivalent of this site - they even went and interviewed hotel and filling station staff and the taxi driver Lloyd England), you would realise that most of the cameras cover the approach route of the approaching 'whatever' that hit The Pentagon.

These total somewhere in excess of 70 and cover a very wide range of views and from memory, it was established from those that are still in-situ, some 40+ would have captured the 'whatever' as it flew past assuming it indeed travelled along the accepted route.

As for the point you raise about the cameras being linked to actual recording devices, I can only comment on what was said by one member of a hotel who stated that they had to keep the 'tapes' from both inside the hotel and the car park for 4 weeks for insurance purposes should something arise that might need future screening. Is this true? I don't know, but it does point to certain establishments actually recording.

My guess about the possible release of the tapes? Assuming they show something damning, obviously they will not be released, the government will not shoot themselves in the foot regardless of any freedom of information legislation or whatever. The FBI (or whoever took the tapes on the day), will deny it was them - how are you going to prove otherwise?

The video tapes will never see the light of day in their original undoctored format UNLESS they show the aircraft stated in the official version. Anything else on the tape and you can forget they exist/ed.

[chek]

[Bushwacker]

CCTV cameras are positioned for a purpose, and that purpose is not usually to film overflying aircraft, however low. The Citigo gas station cameras were trained on the forecourt and shop, as you would expect, and car park cameras are usually up on poles looking down. It seems unlikely they would capture anything at all, unless they were high enough to get something in the background. The one on the car park barrier at the Pentagon was obviously low down and meant to capture vehicles, but because it was aimed horizontally, picked up Flight 77 in the background.

I have to say that I can see no reason for the FBI to drag their heels still longer over releasing the Doubletree Inn video, other than obsessional secrecy. They have had 5 years to study it, and there are no pending cases. Even from a conspiracist viewpoint, if they were going to fake a video, they have had five years to do so, and would then presumably be keen to publicise their work, and a release before the mid-terms might have been of marginal benefit to Bush. Whatever is on the video, or not on it, no arguments are going to be settled by it, of course.