Comment: -

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: LOL (see in situ)

-

In reply to AnCap

I'll have to read through the links you provided.

I partly agree with what you said about me. Yes, my belief that 'she lies and is a liar' is based on “feelings,” or as would be a more correct definition, based on being able to correctly read people.

Sibel, during her deposition, clearly exhibits several tell tale signs of a person who's lying and she does so throughout. ie. Her many mannerism and body language cues. Although there is voluminous information online, you could use this compilation as a primer:

http://www.wikihow.com/Detect-Lies

A few choice quotes from the above link.

Detecting Lies in Body Language Tics

(3)“Watch out for fidgeting. A sign that someone is lying is that they fidget, either with their own body or with random things around them. Fidgeting results from nervous energy produced by a fear of being found out. In order to release the nervous energy, liars often fidget with a chair, a handkerchief, or a part of their body.” [Note: Fidgeting with her cup, arms, hair, face, etc.]
(7)“Notice the behavior of other body parts. Watch the person's hands, arms and legs. In a non-stressful situation, people tend to be comfortable and take up space by being expansive in hand and arm movements, perhaps sprawling their legs comfortably. In a lying person, these parts of the body will tend to be limited, stiff, and self-directed.[4] The person's hands may touch his or her face, ear, or the back of the neck. Folded arms, interlocked legs and lack of hand movements can be a sign of not wanting to give away information.”
- “Liars tend to avoid hand gestures that we consider a normal part of discussion or conversation.” [note: Sibel is mostly motionless throughout her testimony, her arms crossed or hands clasped; very minimal body language emphasis to what she's saying.]
- “Grooming behaviors are common in liars, such as playing with hair” [note: And also in Sibel's case, along with her hair, unnecessarily primping her eyebrows; other upkeep of her lying face “mask.”]

Tips

-Some people are extremely experienced or even professional liars. He or she has told their made up story so many times that they are actually believable, getting all their days, dates and times down perfectly! In reality, our memories are reformed a little every time we retell them, so making up memories to deceive oneself isn't so unusual either. Sometimes, you may need to simply accept that you can't catch every lie all the time.

When you've finished reading through the entire list, re-watch Sibel's deposition. And as I have already said, watch neutrally. Myself, I won't watch again. I don't trust her, don't want to listen to her.

My belief is also based on when I watched her deposition and was trying to corroborate a lot of what she said (and I am fast using the internet,) there wasn't supporting documentation or information for a lot of her claims.

A lot of what she said was presented with a, “just trust me.” No thank you. If you feel so inclined, perhaps you could fact check then provide ALL supporting documentation for all of her many non-corroboratble claims. Good luck.

In 2006, regarding 9/11 Truth (in this case Twoof,) I called out both Jim Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds as being lying frauds - well before anyone else had. After Fetzer | Reynolds showed more of their fraudulence, what I had pointed out became widely acknowledged as truth.

Jim Fetzer went on to start yapping about “no planes at the WTC” to “exotic space weapons caused the WTC towers' destruction.” Pure, purposeful disinformation. Morgan Reynolds, from the Bush administration 1st term, also said as much.

See this about Fetzer, any of his replies are by 'Jim' or 'James Ha':

http://911blogger.com/news/2006-09-25/easily-showing-jim-fet...

I don't have the links regarding Reynolds. I forgot my 911Blogger password and don't have access anymore to the email account I used for that site. I haven't used that site for years. I also can't search through 911Blogger by my user name (for comments) because my user name there was symbols and isn't searchable.

However, this was a quickly written reply of mine regarding Reynolds:

http://911blogger.com/news/2006-09-25/easily-showing-jim-fet...

[...] I wrote at 911Blogger at least a few times in June 2006 that Morgan Reynolds is an agent of disinformation and destruction, months before he started proudly promoting, supporting and propagating "no planes at the WTC" or "no commercial airliners at the WTC". When I wrote that, months prior to him outting himself, nobody at 911Blogger wanted to believe me. And now, after late-August, the general concensus is that Reynolds is a fraud and/or agent of some sort. Even though I was already strongly suspicious of Reynolds before June 2006 -- since he came from the Bush administration, and early on in his "9/11 truth" articles, he was pushing "hologram missiles at the WTC" bull s h i t -- it was in June, I believe, when Kevin Barrett had Reynolds come to the University of Wisconsin to give a "9/11 truth presentation", that I concluded absolutely that Reynolds is an agent. I even wrote that in June at 911Blogger (paraphrasing) "anyone who watches that video and doesn't see that Reynolds is an agent of disinformation and destruction, didn't actually watch"

A reply years later by 'kdub,' about Fetzer:

http://911blogger.com/news/2006-09-25/easily-showing-jim-fet...

Look at ugly attacks on this thread and no one answers for Fetzer's inaccuracies. And look at the juvenile attacks coming from the people insisting there was no plane at the pentagon. It's very clear what Fetzer turned out to be. We need to learn from these experiences in the movement. Sorry to bring back an old thread, but it speaks to the pentagon discussions that have been going on lately as well as how hurtful and divisive dis-information can be to the 9/11 truth movement.

I'm not trained in lie detection, however in most instances I am very good at spotting liars. That doesn't mean I'm always correct, I'm not infallible. But in the case of former government employees turned “truthers,” especially former intel or counterintel, erring on the side of extra caution isn't erroring. Also I don't believe Sibel is a good liar (no academy award for her,) I see right through her.

In reply to sharkhearted

So you think I'm a “troll”? How foolishly naive of you, but it isn't surprising and I don't blame you. I know where you are in your 9/11 Truth quest - you're just starting.

You, from your own admission have only been really paying attention to 9/11 conspiracy since mid-2012, or if my memory is incorrect, late-2012. You're in the “initial truther stage,” and with that comes a significant fallacy: You already think of yourself as some kind of expert. The truth is, you aren't.

Also when you threaten people, saying stupid things such as (paraphrasing) “here is my email, contact me, I'll tell you where I live, come say it to my face and we could talk about this!” you present yourself as intellectually weak.

Having to resort to threats of violence, whether from anger that isn't being channeled properly, or as diversion for a lack of knowledge, doesn't make you right. The irony is that I used to say the exact same sort of “threats” circa ~2003-2004. Quit it.

As I have already told you, I have been paying attention to 9/11 conspiracy since May 2003. I am almost 10 years ahead of you.

In September 2006, for the 5th anniversary of 9/11, I wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper. During that month, the newspaper didn't publish anything about 9/11, not the anniversary, the attacks, conspiracy, etc. Nothing, except my letter.

I won't tell you the paper's name - I don't feel like telling you my location - but it is a nationally recognized, multi-year winner of a prominent award for being the best newspaper in the entire country, with a 2006 weekly readership of more than 10,000.

And like I said, the ONLY thing they published during September 2006 about 9/11, was my letter Exposing the official cover-up. They didn't publish any reply letter challenging it either.

Read for yourself:

http://i.imgur.com/6ql4LBc.jpg

Words of a “troll”? Smarten up.

There are several persons of influence and power in 9/11 Truth (and Twoof) who will manipulate you purposely, that you'll believe and trust because you think they're on your side. Just because a person says some things you agree with, says or supports things that you have already concluded, or says things you just want to believe to be true, doesn't mean they are on your side.

Wisdom. ;)

To anybody reading

I have no benefit to steering you about 9/11, other than trying to lead you away from those who I believe would mislead you (or those who have tried to, or have mislead me.) I don't work for any government, I haven't worked for any government. I have no association or membership with any intel agencies and agents, counterintel agencies and agents, etc. I also don't get paid any money or any type of currency or anything else for posting anything at the DailyPaul website. I'm not a “troll,” “shill,” “spook,” etc. Also I'm not trying to sell you anything, such as a memoir (ahem, Ms. Edmonds.)