No positive identification of planes?

[Sizzler]

I always assumed that pieces of the airplanes were positively identified by government agencies as belonging to the reported airplanes. But then I noticed this on 911blogger the other day. I find the whole post quite confusing as a whole. I've never been very interested in any conspiracy about drone planes or missles or faked plane reports but this has caught my attention.

"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"
http://911blogger.com/node/14406

So I'm proposing another round of JAQing (you know you love it)

Does this seriously mean what I think it does?

[johnny karate]

Let's assume for a minute that it is true. What does that prove or mean exactly?

See, what CTers try to imply with this is that maybe the planes that crashed on 9/11 weren't actually the planes we were told they were.

Which of course leaves these CTers in the awkward position of explaining what did happen to those planes and, more importantly, the people on board. I'm sure their grieving families would love to know.

[gumboot]

All this indicates, as reflected in the headline, is that the FBI did not make a specific effort to positively identify the aircraft.

This is, of course, unsurprising as the FBI would not have this task. The NTSB assisted the FBI with their investigations, and would have been the agency that would identify the flights. Therefore one would need to address the issue to the NTSB if you wanted to find out if any effort was made to positively identify the aircraft.

[Sizzler]

Let's assume for a minute that it is true. What does that prove or mean exactly?

See, what CTers try to imply with this is that maybe the planes that crashed on 9/11 weren't actually the planes we were told they were.

Which of course leaves these CTers in the awkward position of explaining what did happen to those planes and, more importantly, the people on board. I'm sure their grieving families would love to know.

I fully agree with you 100%. I think it is beyond reasonable to think the planes could have somehow been switched or something.

However, I was always under the assumption that the planes were positively identified. Is the quote I posted simply saying that they didn't write any of it down or that they never checked to see if the wreckage actually matched the real planes?

Do you understand my question? I know it is a bit confusing.

[8den]

I fully agree with you 100%. I think it is beyond reasonable to think the planes could have somehow been switched or something.
.

What on earth is beyond reasonable?

[Sizzler]

duplicate

[einsteen]

Ghost planes is really far-fetched, truthers should concentrate on more realistic things like secondary devices in buildings!

[Sizzler]

What on earth is beyond reasonable?

Bad choice of words. Been working for 9 hours without a lunch break.

insert highly unlikely. or, highly improbable. you get the point.

[peteweaver]

All the aeroplanes involved are identified on aviation-safety.net

[Quad4_72]

I will save you some headache here Sizzler. The planes that hit the towers were indeed Flights 11 and 175. Happy?

They were tracked on radar all the way up until they hit the towers.

[Sizzler]

I will save you some headache here Sizzler. The planes that hit the towers were indeed Flights 11 and 175. Happy?

They were tracked on radar all the way up until they hit the towers.

Yeah, I don't doubt that. And how would they even be able to identify 11 and 175 after such violent collapses and subsequent rubble fires.

But what about Shanksville and the Pentagon? They have pieces of those planes right? They just didn't document the identification process, right?

[DGM]

Yeah, I don't doubt that. And how would they even be able to identify 11 and 175 after such violent collapses and subsequent rubble fires.

But what about Shanksville and the Pentagon? They have pieces of those planes right? They just didn't document the identification process, right?
The FOIA request was specific to all four planes. They said they don't have that information. They recovered the FDR for both UA 93 ans AA 77 so that's confirmation of those two. It seems like a case of all or nothing.

[Myriad]

Sizzler, have you considered the equally important question of how did they positively identify the buildings?

The plane collisions damaged the "Pentagon" and "Tower 1" and "Tower 2." Once they were damaged, how could anyone tell what buildings they were any more? Damage can make a building look different! For instance, if you knocked the top third off the Chrysler Building, from a distance it would look a lot like one of the Twin Towers, would it not? And how do we know that the building they refer to as the "Pentagon" didn't have a sixth side that was removed by the impact -- or by some other means? Can we be sure that the burning structure we see in the videos is the Pentagon?

Once the towers collapsed, things become even more uncertain. How do they know for sure that the piles of rubble came from those exact buildings? Didn't the NIST report admit that they had difficult finding individual pieces of steel that could be exactly identified? The few pieces they did find could easily have been planted. Makes you think, doesn't it?

WTC7 was also damaged. How do we know that the damage didn't alter the address signs on the building, turning a "4" or a "279" into a "7"? Then, once it collapsed, it looked completely different. If you combed the witness reports, you can probably find someone who said that the buildings were "unrecognizable" after they collapsed. So, that pile of rubble could have come from any large building, such as the Hancock Tower in Boston. Can you find absolute proof that the Hancock Tower was still there on 9/12? Or that even if it was, it was the same building and not a hastily constructed exact copy?

Once you figure out and understand the answers to these questions, you'll find that the exact same answers apply to the planes on 9/11.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Reheat]

They problem with this line of thought is that the only people who ask about this type of identification are twoofers.

The NTSB and the USAF are the two major accident investigative bodies in the US. 9/11 was no accident. This is an important distinction as the purpose of identifying individual parts IS NOT to identify the aircraft, that is usually obvious as it is in the case of 9/11. The purpose for parts ID is to research those time change parts in the attempt to identify the cause of the accident and the role parts may have played in the cause. The 9/11 investigation was a criminal investigation, not a search for the cause of an accident. Both the NTSB and the FBI were involved in the investigation of the aircraft involved in 9/11 with the NTSB playing a minor role a the discretion of the FBI. It was not critical to identify parts by numbers as there was no need to do so. The crashes were intentional, not accidents.

At any rate the parts ID information is not usually available for public consumption anyway. It is not a public issue and does not need to be. In the case of the 9/11 aircraft twoofers have made it a significant issue as they have every single issue for which they don't have personal pwoof in an attempt to propagate the InSiDe JoOb BS.

In the case of UA93 and AA77 both FDR's were recovered and those FDR's have part numbers corresponding to the aircraft in which they are placed. Rest assured they are from their respective aircraft. In the case of AA77 pft has the raw data file and it show some 25 hours of that aircraft's previous history. They have even used it's previous day's engine shutdown and overnight parking at Dulles to calibrate the position data readout of the raw data file. They also have the animation for the last flight from Dulles to near the Pentagon. To continue to spout no positive ID is more evidence of the lunacy of the twoof.

The aircraft were those that we know they were and any allegation otherwise is to ignore reality.

[AMTMAN]

I fully agree with you 100%. I think it is beyond reasonable to think the planes could have somehow been switched or something.

However, I was always under the assumption that the planes were positively identified. Is the quote I posted simply saying that they didn't write any of it down or that they never checked to see if the wreckage actually matched the real planes?

Do you understand my question? I know it is a bit confusing.

Call United or American and ask them.

[X]

I always assumed that pieces of the airplanes were positively identified by government agencies as belonging to the reported airplanes. But then I noticed this on 911blogger the other day. I find the whole post quite confusing as a whole. I've never been very interested in any conspiracy about drone planes or missles or faked plane reports but this has caught my attention.

"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"
http://911blogger.com/node/14406

So I'm proposing another round of JAQing (you know you love it)

Does this seriously mean what I think it does?



It means they never had any doubt as to what aircraft were involved.

The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, ...

[GStan]

Sizzler, have you considered the equally important question of how did they positively identify the buildings?

The plane collisions damaged the "Pentagon" and "Tower 1" and "Tower 2." Once they were damaged, how could anyone tell what buildings they were any more? Damage can make a building look different! For instance, if you knocked the top third off the Chrysler Building, from a distance it would look a lot like one of the Twin Towers, would it not? And how do we know that the building they refer to as the "Pentagon" didn't have a sixth side that was removed by the impact -- or by some other means? Can we be sure that the burning structure we see in the videos is the Pentagon?

Once the towers collapsed, things become even more uncertain. How do they know for sure that the piles of rubble came from those exact buildings? Didn't the NIST report admit that they had difficult finding individual pieces of steel that could be exactly identified? The few pieces they did find could easily have been planted. Makes you think, doesn't it?

WTC7 was also damaged. How do we know that the damage didn't alter the address signs on the building, turning a "4" or a "279" into a "7"? Then, once it collapsed, it looked completely different. If you combed the witness reports, you can probably find someone who said that the buildings were "unrecognizable" after they collapsed. So, that pile of rubble could have come from any large building, such as the Hancock Tower in Boston. Can you find absolute proof that the Hancock Tower was still there on 9/12? Or that even if it was, it was the same building and not a hastily constructed exact copy?

Once you figure out and understand the answers to these questions, you'll find that the exact same answers apply to the planes on 9/11.

Respectfully,
Myriad

This is a great parallel. I would like to see a CTer answer these questions.

[Belz...]

Ghost planes is really far-fetched, truthers should concentrate on more realistic things like secondary devices in buildings!

Yeah, because THAT's realistic ! :rolleyes:

[1337m4n]

I always assumed that pieces of the airplanes were positively identified by government agencies as belonging to the reported airplanes. But then I noticed this on 911blogger the other day. I find the whole post quite confusing as a whole. I've never been very interested in any conspiracy about drone planes or missles or faked plane reports but this has caught my attention.

"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"
http://911blogger.com/node/14406

So I'm proposing another round of JAQing (you know you love it)

Does this seriously mean what I think it does?

You mean does it mean that there were no planes and that all the eyewitness accounts are faked and all the videos were faked?

No it does not.

[1337m4n]

Ghost planes is really far-fetched, truthers should concentrate on more realistic things like secondary devices in buildings Santa Claus!

Fix'd.

[Beerina]

I fully agree with you 100%. I think it is beyond reasonable to think the planes could have somehow been switched or something.

Why would the government buy different planes, then paint them to look like these? What's the point? They're the government. They can just buy some of these planes (and probably have dozens of them already) and use them.

Why use a mock-up when you have the resources to trivially use the real thing? That would just introduce more possibility of detection of your fraud, and not really save much money.

[Giggywig]

Ghost planes is really far-fetched, truthers should concentrate on more realistic things like secondary devices in buildings!
have you considered the possibility that everything happens as the OCT says, except that the 19 hijackers were Mexicans hired by Cheney and trained by the CIA? As Parker and Stone showed in their documentary "D-Yikes!" (SP 159, April 11, 2007), Mexicans can pass themselves off as Persians so well that even Persians will be fooled. And as everybody knows, there is no difference between Arabs and Persians.

[DGM]

have you considered the possibility that everything happens as the OCT says, except that the 19 hijackers were Mexicans hired by Cheney and trained by the CIA? As Parker and Stone showed in their documentary "D-Yikes!" (SP 159, April 11, 2007), Mexicans can pass themselves off as Persians so well that even Persians will be fooled. And as everybody knows, there is no difference between Arabs and Persians.



:eek:

[uk_dave]

have you considered the possibility that everything happens as the OCT says, except that the 19 hijackers were Mexicans hired by Cheney and trained by the CIA? As Parker and Stone showed in their documentary "D-Yikes!" (SP 159, April 11, 2007), Mexicans can pass themselves off as Persians so well that even Persians will be fooled. And as everybody knows, there is no difference between Arabs and Persians.

And there's no difference between French and Mexicans.

Sooooooooo.......

[Giggywig]

And there's no difference between French and Mexicans.

Sooooooooo.......
If you manage to link the jews in there somewhere, we're golden.

[beachnut]

I always assumed that pieces of the airplanes were positively identified by government agencies as belonging to the reported airplanes. But then I noticed this on 911blogger the other day. I find the whole post quite confusing as a whole. I've never been very interested in any conspiracy about drone planes or missles or faked plane reports but this has caught my attention.

"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"
http://911blogger.com/node/14406

So I'm proposing another round of JAQing (you know you love it)

Does this seriously mean what I think it does?
911blogger, a web site that posts lies and fails to use rational thought. Looks like they are just a misinformation web site to fool people who are gullible and lack knowledge on the appropriate topics. I feel sorry for all the posters there who display total ignorance on 9/11. Lots of woo there.

OMG, the FBI, NTSB, and the FAA used methods to identify flight 11, 175, 77, and 93. They are positively identified! Only people who lack rational thought, like many leaders of 9/11 truth who are selling false information, generate this kind of false flag news events to generate new interest in those too lacking in knowledge to know better.

It seems the only people who can not connect the dots are those who think they have connected the dots; 9/11 truth.

I knew they would post their own debunking; 9/11 truth always debunks their own lies if you read enough of their junk and use knowledge and judgment to correct the false implications.

I am encouraged by data that provides additional arguments to recruit new members; however, everything needs to be accelerated. The paramount issue is how to increase our numbers. The 9/11 Truth movement has taken an incremental approach, but in this 2008 election year the window of opportunity is at its most open. Let us each act to add one new member per week. Get out there and be brave!
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. The posters do not even know they are clueless!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447460d8430f0ca9.jpg

[Jonnyclueless]

Sizzler. Here's a made up situation to consider. Imagine some astronauts are working up in space. One somehow becomes untethered and floats off into space. Without his or her body, how can we identify who he was or that he died up there? Can the lack of a body be used to claim that he or she must not have died? And let's also pretend the incident was captured on TV as well.

[sts60]

Yeah, because THAT's realistic ! :rolleyes:
At the risk of derailing the thread, I find the notion of secondary devices quite realistic, and I even agreed, sort of, with ZENSMACK89 as to the believability of the general proposition.

Antipersonnel devices could be brought into the buildings with ease relative to controlled demolition charges (let alone the massive preparation associated with their use). Such secondary devices are very much in keeping with terrorist tactics. They could have been placed in stairwells not long before the calculated impacts of the airliners, and simple timers would have sufficed to give good probability of catching evacuating civilians and advancing first responders.

Now, I don't believe such devices were actually used. There is no real evidence for them, and I have no idea of what detection methods might have been used to keep out such man-portable devices. But the scenario is perfectly realistic.

(Actually, now that I think about it, they could have likely bypassed security. Dress in stolen or counterfeit police/fire uniforms, wait for the impacts, rush in during the confusion and panic, set the devices or just do the suicide-bomber routine. But again, there's no evidence for such a thing actually happening, and after all, it would have complicated the plot unnecessarily - why take the extra risk of detection using an approach for which the good guys are already watching, jeopardizing your novel and far more destructive attack?)

[DGM]

If you manage to link the jews in there somewhere, we're golden.
:eek::eek::eek:

[sts60]

have you considered the possibility that everything happens as the OCT says, except that the 19 hijackers were Mexicans hired by Cheney and trained by the CIA? As Parker and Stone showed in their documentary "D-Yikes!" (SP 159, April 11, 2007), Mexicans can pass themselves off as Persians so well that even Persians will be fooled. And as everybody knows, there is no difference between Arabs and Persians.And there's no difference between French and Mexicans.

Sooooooooo.......
Well, there was a little glitch. Cheney intended to pin it on Parisians, but the connection on the phone was a little bad... :p

The funny thing is I knew some folks from Syria (American citizens, mind you) who got a hard time coming back from Nogales because the border guards thought they were Mexican...

[twinstead]

The funny thing is I knew some folks from Syria (American citizens, mind you) who got a hard time coming back from Nogales because the border guards thought they were Mexican...

Hell, I used to be a construction worker in Tucson when I was a youngster, and I had a hard time often coming back from Nogales with long hair and a dark tan.

[JCM]

Sizzler, have you considered the equally important question of how did they positively identify the buildings?...
...you'll find that the exact same answers apply to the planes on 9/11.
False analogy. Nice logical fallacy

[DGM]

False analogy. Nice logical fallacy
How? explain. (hint your wrong)

[JCM]

Definition:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.
Buildings are stationary. Anything else?

[rwguinn]

Definition:

Proof:

Buildings are stationary. Anything else?
The only way he's wrong is that buildings, besides numbers, have position available to identify them.
Aircraft under the ATC system have the same situation--Identify by numbers AND position.
Next objection?

[DGM]

Definition:

Proof:

Buildings are stationary. Anything else?
It's about the identification of an object not whether the objects were the same.

[JCM]

Not all of the planes involved in 9/11 were tracked under the ATC system for the full duration of their flights and thus those not tracked were not identified by position

[DGM]

Not all of the planes involved in 9/11 were tracked under the ATC system for the full duration of their flights and thus those not tracked were not identified by position
The FDR was recovered from the one that wasn't. Next.

[JCM]

(hint) FDR does not = plane

[JCM]

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B planes and buildings are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A planes has property P unidentified, so also B buildings must have property P unidentified. An analogy fails when the two objects, A planes and B buildings, are different buildings are stationary in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

[rwguinn]

(hint) FDR does not = plane

still batting .000 for the twoofer squad, I see.
Just cuzit has the right numbers on it =/= right address.
FDR(correct serial number) + (wreckage of type) + (dna of known persons aboard) +( no other missing aircraft)=yepper, budy, that was the one.

[DGM]

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B planes and buildings are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A planes has property P unidentified, so also B buildings must have property P unidentified. An analogy fails when the two objects, A planes and B buildings, are different buildings are stationary in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Keep repeating it maybe you'll convince yourself.

[JCM]

Keep repeating it maybe you'll convince yourself.
Show me how I am wrong? Logically that is

[Jonnyclueless]

That was a perfect analogy. Don't let the not so bright try to tell you otherwise.

And BTW, I guess if planes are destroyed while stationary it changes everything huh? lol.

[JCM]

still batting .000 for the twoofer squad, I see.
Ad Hominem please stick to the argument
Just cuzit has the right numbers on it =/= right address.
FDR(correct serial number) + (wreckage of type) + (dna of known persons aboard) +( no other missing aircraft)=yepper, budy, that was the one.
In a logical equation a FDR does not = a plane
(dna of known persons aboard)
Nice claim care to back it up with the posting of laboratory results?

[JCM]

Don't let the not so bright try to tell you otherwise.
Ad Hominem please stick to the argument
I guess if planes are destroyed while stationary it changes everything
They would be identifiable spatially so yes it would change the logical equation

[Jonnyclueless]

What JCM won't acknowledge is that the evidence for the plane is not any one part, but a large sum of parts. The parts of the plane, the black box, the witnesses, the phone calls form the planes, the RADAR, the paper trails, and we could go on for days with the list of things that all identify the planes.

But to these idiots, if there isn't a serial number of every part identified, then there's no proof. This is denial at its finest.

[Arus808]

In a logical equation a FDR does not = a plane

no that is a logical fallacy. A plane contains many parts. parts include: seats, bulkhead, engines, landing gear, etc, and not to mentions cockpit and instruments; within the cockpit, there is the FDR. Care to explain how the ASSOCIATED FDR within the plane, can be removed prior to crash? Remember, said FDR is recording ALL events happening on the plane that is about to crash.



Nice claim care to back it up with the posting of laboratory results?
why are you stuck in 2002?
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011220shanksville1220p2.asp

The coroner's assessment came yesterday as he confirmed that the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory has used DNA samples to match recovered remains with the last of 40 crew members and passengers aboard the hijacked jetliner 14 weeks ago when it slammed into a recovered strip mine at around 500 mph.

[Jonnyclueless]

Ad Hominem please stick to the argument

They would be identifiable spatially so yes it would change the logical equation


Learn to use something other than calling Ad Hominem.

No it would NOT change the logical equation. Not in the least bit.

[JCM]

Jonnyclueless the only thing I am addressing is the false analogy presented

[JCM]

Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory
Any independent non-governmental laboratory DNA identification?

[JCM]

But to these idiots
Ad Hominem please stick to the argument
Learn to use something other than calling Ad Hominem.
Learn to stop using them

[Arus808]

now you're being obtuse. The Armed forced DNA laboratory handles CIVIL matters as well to DNA . If you have a problem with their results, petition to get a private company to do the DNA testings. Oh, well, its going to cost you a few million dollars.


YOu asked for:
"Nice claim care to back it up with the posting of laboratory results?"

You're moving goalposts, and we dont like people who play games

[16.5]

"still batting .000 for the twoofer squad, I see.
Ad Hominem please stick to the argument."

That is not an ad hominem. That is somewhat of an insult.

Insult: You are a moron.
Ad Hom: Your analysis is wrong because you are a moron.

[lapman]

Any independent non-governmental laboratory DNA identification?
If such existed, you wouldn't accept that either. So what's your point?

[Jonnyclueless]

Jonnyclueless the only thing I am addressing is the false analogy presented


No, yo9u're pretending it's a false analogy. it isn't. You want it to be because it proves these claims absurd. Now go back to pretending everything is an ad hom attack.

[Jonnyclueless]

And now he thinks all the DNA testing was done at governmental labs? So clearly we are dealing with someone here who doesn't have all the facts.

[JCM]

The Armed forced DNA laboratory handles CIVIL matters as well to DNA
Is it not under the chain of command of the president of the united states?
If you have a problem with their results, petition to get a private company to do the DNA testings
Is the DNA evidence still viable after all this time?

Your link mentions nothing of chain of custody of the DNA remains.

And what about physical evidence of the plane itself? Vaporized? And yet DNA remains of 40 victims was recovered? Makes chain of custody and exactly where and from what the remains were recovered all the more relevant

[Arus808]

I such existed, you wouldn't accept that either. So what's your point?


Notice his backpeddling? first he asks for laboratory results (no specific laboratory, but just results) provided a link to a newspaper discussing the laboratory that did the DNA testing, and he ignores it, by asking for independent-non government laboratory.

[MG1962]

I really am struggling to see what the issue here is. If a dispatcher sends school bus 38 on route 4 But some how writes down school bus 39. And said school bus crashes killing all on board, those people are still dead, the accidendent still happened.

If it turns out that the wrong registered airframe was used on Flght 11 or 77 or whatever. The plane was still commercial flight XXX the passengers are all still those who purchased tickets on flight XXX The plain flys the route designated to XXX - The plane still crashes at destination XXX

[JCM]

"still batting .000 for the twoofer squad, I see.
Ad Hominem please stick to the argument."

That is not an ad hominem. That is somewhat of an insult.

Insult: You are a moron.
Ad Hom: Your analysis is wrong because you are a moron.
Ad Hominem or Insult I believe both are unwelcome here and are violations of the TOS of the forums?

And now he thinks all the DNA testing was done at governmental labs?
Being the Armed Forces DNA laboratory I would think it would ultimately be under the chain of command of the president of the united states?

[Arus808]

Is it not under the chain of command of the president of the united states?

so what? You forget that such "chain of custody" for the DNA and testing, was used in the Mossaoui Trial. You know, where they found him guilty? If it could be used in COURT, that means the results were TRUSTED and not compromised.


Is the DNA evidence still viable after all this time?
You have the laboratory's name, you can ask them.


Your link mentions nothing of chain of custody of the DNA remains.Its a news artcile. such "details" do not matter to news articles. IT does hwoever matter to the TRIAL that uses such evidence, which IT WAS Used in the Mossaoui Trial. Care to make up more excuses?

And what about physical evidence of the plane itself?that it hit the ground AT very high speed, which burried most of the debris into the ground. Or are you ignoring the evidnece again?


Vaporized? If by vaporized that 3 -15 feet of plane debris were left behind, you have an odd definition of "vaporized"

And yet DNA remains of 40 victims was recovered?which proves you have no freaking idea of what you are talking about. If they can find remains in a totally burned out building, they can find remains burried 12-20 feet in the ground.

Please someone post that pic of the bucket of bones found at Flight 93's crash site.


Makes chain of custody and exactly where and from what the remains were recovered all the more relevantMossaoui Trial. All the evidence was admitted into that trial.

[Arus808]

Being the Armed Forces DNA laboratory I would think it would ultimately be under the chain of command of the president of the united states?

then you'd be 100% wrong. Care to actually do some research before posting "what you believe".

[JCM]

I really am struggling to see what the issue here is.
The false analogy presented by Myriad and the posters who refuse to accept it as such
At least that's my issue

[rwguinn]

Ad Hominem or Insult I believe both are unwelcome here and are violations of the TOS of the forums?
Insults are frowned on. Attacks are forbidden.

The truth merely hurts for a bit

An ad Hom attack would be, contrary to the prior post:
"You can't believe his analysis because he is a idiot holocost denier"


Being the Armed Forces DNA laboratory I would think it would ultimately be under the chain of command of the president of the united states?
at least you made contact with the ball... finally
That's what "Commander in Chief" means...

ETA--BTW--your argument there, :Being the Armed Forces DNA laboratory I would think it would ultimately be under the chain of command of the president of the united states?" would be Ad Hom if apllied to an individual.

[JCM]

then you'd be 100% wrong. Care to actually do some research before posting "what you believe".
They are under no obligation to obey commands given by the Pres of the US?

[JCM]

Being the Armed Forces DNA laboratory I would think it would ultimately be under the chain of command of the president of the united states?
Arus808:
then you'd be 100% wrong.
rwguinn
That's what "Commander in Chief" means...
Who is right?

[JCM]

Insults are frowned on. Attacks are forbidden.
How can one differentiate between the two?

[Arus808]

JCM. are these what you considered vaporized?

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/1269/p2000611fullns0.jpg
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/557/p2000621fullxt1.jpg
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/3862/shanksvillebooklargebp1.jpg
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/848/flight93enginefullinitva4.jpg
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/2488/shanksvillefinalsweep2fcu9.jpg
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/7263/p200068po1.jpg
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9557/p200069jn5.jpg


so if they can find these:
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/4108/humanremainsshanksvilleto2.jpg

what makes you think they couldn't get DNA?



more "vaporized" evidence:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/PA00101.html
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/PA00103-2.html
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/PA00103-3.html
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/PA00105-08.html
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/PA00108.html
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/PA00109.html

[calebprime]

"still batting .000 for the twoofer squad, I see.
Ad Hominem please stick to the argument."

That is not an ad hominem. That is somewhat of an insult.

Insult: You are a moron.
Ad Hom: Your analysis is wrong because you are a moron.

I was going to make the same point. not an ad hom.

And, in some situations, ad hom is ok, as in a court of law, when an attorney is attacking the credibility of a witness by attacking his/her character, background, etc.

So, it would be an ad hom to discredit Steven Jones on the subject of 911 by reminding people that he believes Jesus came to the New World, but it would make some sense.

Or, to discredit Kary Mullis on the subject of AIDS because he believes in extra-terrestrials, takes LSD, supported OJ, and holds many other contrarian views. The argument goes to his desire to hold a novel opinion at all costs.

eta: however, the looser usage, meaning any kind of personal attack, is gaining ground, according to this:

http://www.answers.com/topic/ad-hominem

[fezzic]

I would agree with Sizzler's OP for the most part. Merely that the government didn't document the process, if any was used, to identify the aircraft. The reason was that it was considered obvious and collateral evidence confirmed the assumption and that is quite reasonable.

I don't read anything more into the OP than the implication that there was no process (formal or otherwise) or that, if there was a process, it was just not documented.

[1337m4n]

The false analogy presented by Myriad and the posters who refuse to accept it as such
At least that's my issue

Except you have failed to show how it is a bad analogy. I'm sure you're very proud of yourself for your ability to type "logical fallacies" into Google and sift through the list so you can nitpick every time somebody disagrees with you. Really, it must take a lot of skill and intelligence to do that. But it's just not that simple. You have to actually explain WHY the analogy is wrong.

Here let me give you an example:

Good Analogy: Apples are like oranges [in a discussion about the food pyramid]

Fallacious Analogy: Apples are like oranges [in a discussion about colors]

Notice both analogies are the same; the context is the only determining factor.

Now. Please explain in clear detail WHY Myriad's analogy is fallacious.

[Billdave2]

They are under no obligation to obey commands given by the Pres of the US?

How would these orders be given? in writing? or just a quick phone call? and what happens if the first person he calls refueses to play along? Does he get disappeared? How many more people does this add to the conspiracy that still hasn't had one single person come forward?

[JCM]

JCM. are these what you considered vaporized?
Amazingly no sight of the 8 ton titanium steel engines? And those scraps of a plane; any identifiable markings?

[rwguinn]

Except you have failed to show how it is a bad analogy. I'm sure you're very proud of yourself for your ability to type "logical fallacies" into Google and sift through the list so you can nitpick every time somebody disagrees with you. Really, it must take a lot of skill and intelligence to do that. But it's just not that simple. You have to actually explain WHY the analogy is wrong.

Here let me give you an example:

Good Analogy: Apples are like oranges [in a discussion about the food pyramid]

Fallacious Analogy: Apples are like oranges [in a discussion about colors]

Notice both analogies are the same; the context is the only determining factor.

Now. Please explain in clear detail WHY Myriad's analogy is fallacious.

I wonder if the dude's ever been in a place where a Tornado has come through. Position and numbers are no indicators.
"Why is that house listed as destroyed--It's there. just a few shingles missing!"

Well, the roof is from across the street, and rest of the building is from next door...

[Arus808]

Amazingly no sight of the 8 ton titanium steel
engines?

amazing that you;d think they be "intact" in "whole" or whatever., What makesy ou think they are indesctructible (btw, only the blades were titanium, the rest of the engines are made of steel and aluminum)

And those scraps of a plane; any identifiable markings?yes. Seeing that these images and information was used in court, how are you going to resolve this little problem of yours?


edit to add: I also notice that you ignored the bucket of bones. you know, stuff that would have DNA on them to extract from.

Keep on moving those goal posts. Surely they must be very heavy.

[WildCat]

Amazingly no sight of the 8 ton titanium steel engines?
What do you think that thing is next to the shovel?

And those scraps of a plane; any identifiable markings?
Looks like AA colors to me.

How far do you intend to carry that goal post JCM?

[JCM]

Now. Please explain in clear detail WHY Myriad's analogy is fallacious.
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B planes and buildings are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A planes has property P unidentified, so also B buildings must have property P unidentified. An analogy fails when the two objects, A planes and B buildings, are different buildings are stationary in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Myriad is claiming the buildings are as unidentifiable as the planes because they have both been damaged. My assertion is that this is a false analogy because the buildings were stationary whereas the planes were not making the planes identifiability less concrete than the buildings

[Arus808]

then your analogy is faulty. please read his analogy over again.

[DGM]

Amazingly no sight of the 8 ton titanium steel engines? And those scraps of a plane; any identifiable markings?
Yep. The FDR. You just don't get it do you?

And to add there was a picture of an engine part (they're modular you know)

[JCM]

edit to add: I also notice that you ignored the bucket of bones
I also notice you ignored
Being the Armed Forces DNA laboratory I would think it would ultimately be under the chain of command of the president of the united states?
Arus808:
Quote:
then you'd be 100% wrong.
rwguinn
Quote:
That's what "Commander in Chief" means...
Who is right?

[JCM]

Yep. The FRD.
Which could not have been taken from the plane prior to its hijacking and planted on the scene?

[jhunter1163]

A Boeing 757 costs $65-$80 million. A 767 costs from $125 million to $150 million. So, taking figures in the middle of each range, we arrive at something around $400 million worth of aircraft. That's a lot of money, in anyone's book. You'd think that UA's and AA's insurers would be damn sure that those were the aircraft destroyed before they shelled out that kind of money.

[rwguinn]

Myriad is claiming the buildings are as unidentifiable as the planes because they have both been damaged. My assertion is that this is a false analogy because the buildings were stationary whereas the planes were not making the planes identifiability less concrete than the buildings
:hb: :hb:

What does "Stationary" have to do with anything? It is just another identification datum...

[uk_dave]

Nice claim care to back it up with the posting of laboratory results?

What difference would that make?

Lab results can be faked.

Surely you need to be present while the testing is carried out.

But wait. That's no good either. The person doing the testing might lie to you.

I guess the only thing left is to not believe anything told to you unless you do the testing yourself.

Of course for that you'd need training....and then the person training you might be a 'bad guy'.....so, I guess it's going to have to be a youtube video presentation by someone you've never ever heard of before but you implicitly trust because they seem like nice people and they say what you want to hear.

[lapman]

Which could not have been taken from the plane prior to its hijacking and planted on the scene?
And some how planted there in front of everyone. The numbers of people that are "in on it" keeps growing and growing. Of course, let's not forget that at the Pentagon, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.


2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.


I guess all that is meaningless because there are no serial numbers.

[Arus808]

Which could not have been taken from the plane prior to its hijacking and planted on the scene?

No it couldn't have, seeing as the transcripts show that the FDR recorded on the plane up until impact:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200056T.pdf

Seriously you're being very disgusting and pathetic.

Impact time of Flight 93: 10:06 am
Ending of transcript from the FDR: 10:03 am.

Please provide proof that 3 minutes before crash, the FDR was removed, and then planted after the crash.

[DGM]

Which could not have been taken from the plane prior to its hijacking and planted on the scene?
How many tens of thousands of people are in on your grand scheme?

[1337m4n]

Amazingly no sight of the 8 ton titanium steel engines?

Are you blind? Look at the pictures again.

[1337m4n]

Which could not have been taken from the plane prior to its hijacking and planted on the scene?

But JCM, I thought your whole issue with the "official story" was that there were NO identifying plane parts. Now we present you with one, and what do you do? You claim that it is faked.

I'm only gonna ask this once:

What the heck do you want from us?

[LastChild]

No positive identification of planes?

No positive? How about any kind of identification?

[JCM]

No it couldn't have, seeing as the transcripts show that the FDR recorded on the plane up until impact:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...n/P200056T.pdf

Seriously you're being very disgusting and pathetic.

Impact time of Flight 93: 10:06 am
Ending of transcript from the FDR: 10:03 am.

Please provide proof that 3 minutes before crash, the FDR was removed, and then planted after the crash.

Why would it have to thave been done in those three minutes. Why could all the data not have been forged?

And who is right Arus808 you or rwguinn?

And how can you tell the difference between an insult and an attack?

How many tens of thousands of people are in on your grand scheme?
Why would it take so many?

[DGM]

Why would it take so many?

Because you keep adding people faking/evidence in three places. You need to add anyone that was connected with that activity. Anyone that may have seen it (masterminds wouldn't risk being uncovered so they would have to include/eliminate them). Thousands at ground zero, Pentagon and Shanksville clean-up. They all add up if you want to keep faking things.

[AMTMAN]

Amazingly no sight of the 8 ton titanium steel engines? And those scraps of a plane; any identifiable markings?

In order for anyone to believe that they were not AA and UAL aircraft one has to believe they were both in on it. Care to expalin why they would wan to be in on something that bankrupted one and nearly bankrupted the other?

[AMTMAN]

No positive? How about any kind of identification?

Well there's this piece of wrekage from 93 that has UAL's color scheme on it.

< http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:P200062-1.jpg >

Here's part of a power supply for teh emregency lights from 77.

< http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:P911_debris_serial.jpg >

Here's the l/h landing gear from 77.

< http://www.911myths.com/images/d/d2/Pentagon_Debris_13.jpg >

Here's part of 77 with AA lettering on it.

< http://www.911myths.com/images/d/d6/P911_fuselage.jpg >

Now do you have anything that shows it's not an AA or UAL aircraft? Or are you going to resort to the standard cop out of not having any theories?

[uk_dave]

No positive? How about any kind of identification?

What evidence would you believe?

Unless you collected the evidence yourself and you carried out the identification then no identification can be said to be valid.

Of course, to do this you'd need to be trained over a period of time and have the ability to recognise the wreckage you had found. But for this to happen you have to have someone else educate you and that person might be a 'bad guy'.

Back to those nice people on youtube, I guess.

[Arus808]

Why would it have to thave been done in those three minutes. Why could all the data not have been forged?

provide proof of this claim or retract it. Because you cant make this without support, and unfortunately for you, The FDR and CVR were found BOTH in teh crater, made by flight 93. Care to actually use that nogging of yours to address the your logical fallacies?

Your backpeddling continues.

And who is right Arus808 you or rwguinn?

What aspect? We are both right. The commander in cheif (the prez) is wholey in charge of our military. doesn't mean he has final say over EVEYRTHING the military does. What a scientific laboratory does, the prez will have no claim over its findings.

[rwguinn]

Why would it have to thave been done in those three minutes. Why could all the data not have been forged?

And who is right Arus808 you or rwguinn?

And how can you tell the difference between an insult and an attack?


Why would it take so many?
http://www.afip.org/leadership.html
I said you got a piece of the ball, laddie--not a hit.
The Lab is Joint Service, which makes the President CiC.
It is funded by Congress
The Director is a Civilian--Civil service--which makes her subject to Congressional oversight
The scientists are.. well... scientists...

[LastChild]

What evidence would you believe?

What have you got?

Unless you collected the evidence yourself and you carried out the identification then no identification can be said to be valid.

Well show me what you got.

Of course, to do this you'd need to be trained over a period of time and have the ability to recognise the wreckage you had found. But for this to happen you have to have someone else educate you and that person might be a 'bad guy'.

Do you know of someone like this good or bad that can produce any kind of identification of the 9/11 planes?

Back to those nice people on youtube, I guess.

Well if you have nothing you can say so. You wouldn’t be the only debunker with nothing. I promise it's okay.

[funk de fino]

Amazingly no sight of the 8 ton titanium steel engines? And those scraps of a plane; any identifiable markings?

They are not 8 ton, stop lying.

Dont get into aircraft arguments with people like myself and AMTMAN who are or were actual aircraft techs. You will only make yourself look even more foolish.

[funk de fino]

Why would it have to thave been done in those three minutes. Why could all the data not have been forged?


By who? The same people who took away all the passengers and crew and murdered them?

[LastChild]

Well there's this piece of wrekage from 93 that has UAL's color scheme on it.

< http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:P200062-1.jpg >

Here's part of a power supply for teh emregency lights from 77.

< http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:P911_debris_serial.jpg >

Here's the l/h landing gear from 77.

< http://www.911myths.com/images/d/d2/Pentagon_Debris_13.jpg >

Here's part of 77 with AA lettering on it.

< http://www.911myths.com/images/d/d6/P911_fuselage.jpg >

Now do you have anything that shows it's not an AA or UAL aircraft? Or are you going to resort to the standard cop out of not having any theories?

Hmmmm.... this is identification of what crashed where on 9/11?

Do you have enough wreckage there to even account for one plane?

Were UAL and AA the only airlines that had these kind of planes and only two a piece?

Does no one else in the world have a can of paint a make a logo with?

Did someone claim that a couple UAL and AA planes didn't go missing on 9/11 or just that they weren't identified to be what hit at any of the crash sites?

Well that’s just a couple of question one might have with your identification process if one were permitted to ask the right people and actually get some answers. I would have about 800 more questions for you but what’s the point? You don’t have anything so why bother.

[funk de fino]

LC

Why dont you just ask AA and UAL if they were their planes and stop jaqing off?

The zenmask has slipped kiddo and the irony is you slate the debunkers for having no life and being obsessed with truthers yet are here as a sock which is sadder by far.

[Jonnyclueless]

The false analogy presented by Myriad and the posters who refuse to accept it as such
At least that's my issue

And you of course are wrong. Move on.

[Jonnyclueless]

Why would it have to thave been done in those three minutes. Why could all the data not have been forged?

And who is right Arus808 you or rwguinn?

And how can you tell the difference between an insult and an attack?


Why would it take so many?

So now your argument is nothing but conjecture. That does along with your claim that a perfectly acceptable analogy is false. Just because you wish something to be so does not make it reality.

You want to claim the DNA was faked, you want to claim the FDR was faked, then PROVE IT. Don't come here with empty conjecture and speculation because the evidence doesn't fit your pre-determined conclusions. PROVE IT.

[Redtail]

Hmmmm.... this is identification of what crashed where on 9/11?

Do you have enough wreckage there to even account for one plane?
In those few photos? No.

Were UAL and AA the only airlines that had these kind of planes and only two a piece?
No, then none of the other had their planes hijacked that day so...

Does no one else in the world have a can of paint a make a logo with?
Plenty of people do.

Did someone claim that a couple UAL and AA planes didn't go missing on 9/11 or just that they weren't identified to be what hit at any of the crash sites?
Both claims are wrong.

Well that’s just a couple of question one might have with your identification process if one were permitted to ask the right people and actually get some answers. I would have about 800 more questions for you but what’s the point? You don’t have anything so why bother.

Yep we don't have anything... What's holding up the new investigation again?

[LastChild]

LC

Why dont you just ask AA and UAL if they were their planes and stop jaqing off?

The zenmask has slipped kiddo and the irony is you slate the debunkers for having no life and being obsessed with truthers yet are here as a sock which is sadder by far.

It sounds like you identify socks the same way you identify planes. No evidence.

[LastChild]

Yep we don't have anything... What's holding up the new investigation again?

The same people who obstructed the first one.

[PhantomWolf]

The thing I find the wierdest about the "no-planes" brigade is that it was the Airlines who told the FAA where and which planes had crashed (UAL being a tad faster at it that AA, but still) AA stated that it iwas Flight 11 that hit WTC1 and Flight 77 that hit the pentagon. UAL told the FAA within minutes that Flight 175 had been the plane involved with WTC 2 and that Flight 93 was down. They knew it because their own systems were tracking the planes and they knew what they were doing from the moment they took off until they crashed. If they'd actually been willing to talk to the FAA more about what their systems were showing up rather then locking down the information and refusing to release it, what was happening out in the rest of the system might have dramatically changed since for instance AA knew that Flight 77 wasn't down while the FAA was conducting search and resuce for its crashsite.

The whole "No Planes" brigade have to claim that both sets of management and staff of AA and UAL were in on 9/11 because if they weren't there is no way to spoof them into thinking their planes had crashed when they did.

[PhantomWolf]

The same people who obstructed the first one.

Oh? How are they stopping you organising and conducting an investigation? Or do you think that the Government, who has already done numerous investigations, none of which you accept, should do another one, which you won't accept when it gives the same result as the others.

[Myriad]

What's holding up the new investigation again?


The same people who obstructed the first one.


So, that's you, apparently. (But how did you obstruct the first one? That's a new claim.)

Remember, we were discussing this on another thread, when you suddenly seemed to lose interest? It was just after I explained to you the political reality that the Truth Movement has created in the U.S., in which no politician can speak out in favor of even the most reasonable investigation into government conduct concerning 9/11, without becoming associated with the agenda of a fringe group that exonerates mass-murdering terrorists. Which would be political suicide.

So, how are you planning to undo this damage that's been done by the movement you support, so that investigation of 9/11 can become a politically viable proposition again? Or are you hoping someone else will, while you keep doing your best to make it worse and keep the neocons politically shielded?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Redtail]

The same people who obstructed the first one.

How are they obstructing it?

[LastChild]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

"As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction."- Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission. January 2, 2008

[HyJinX]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

"As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction."- Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission. January 2, 2008

Sooooo...are you saying that Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

[AMTMAN]

Do you have enough wreckage there to even account for one plane?

.


What in your professional opinion is "enough" wreckage? Oh that's right you can't have a professional opinion about it because you have no idea what you are talking about. That's why you believe people like Captain Russ Wittenberg without question. Even though he says things that make no sense and basically accuse his own airline of either being in on it or being completely clueless.

[PhantomWolf]

Oh I get it, the CIA is stopping you from forming your own investigation. Umm, how? Have they rounded up everyone that can help you out and locked them up? Why aren't you out there organising a new investigation if that is what you claim is so desparately needed? Surely that is a better waste of your time than posting here.

[gc051360]

Members of the truth movement claim to want a new investigation.

But, any investigation done by any government agency, will be dismissed by these people.

So, they would not take a new investigation seriously if done by the government, which is what they are asking for.

No effort has been made by them to conduct an independent investigation of their own.

All of this leads me to think, that they do not want a new investigation, and are content to just talk on internet forums, and make youtube videos.

Now, why would they be so content with this complacence, if they thought 9-11 was actually an inside job? The government has murdered 3000 of it's own citizens, and the only action is to make a youtube video?

Now, that leads me to believe that members of the truth movement, do not believe 9-11 was an inside job, but engage in this sort of activity, to embellish their own views of themselves as secret internet investigators, above the system, and exposing corruption. They know it's BS, but they're trying to convince themselves that they are important, to cover up their own social inadequacies.

ETA: That's the only conclusion I've come up with that makes sense. I don't see any other possible explanation, for the discrepancy between what they are alleging, and what they are doing about it.

[AMTMAN]

Hmmmm.... this is identification of what crashed where on 9/11?

Do you have enough wreckage there to even account for one plane?

Were UAL and AA the only airlines that had these kind of planes and only two a piece?

Does no one else in the world have a can of paint a make a logo with?



I thought you had no theories? This sounds an awfully like a theory to me. The theory being that it was four non-AA/UAL aircraft painted up to look like AA/UAL aircraft. Care to expand on that or are you going to run and hide and not answer my questions?

I've noticed when truthers are asked about AA and UAL's part in all this they usually go silent. You see its one thing to accuse the government. However it’s something entirely different to accuse two companies of being involved. One company which was bankrupted by 9-11 and the other nearly so. So how about it Last Child. Care to explain AA and UAL's part in all this. Or are you going to hide behind the old "I have no theories line"? Even though you pretty much just gave one.

[Jonnyclueless]

Can someone ask LC what his proof is that someone just painted the logos on the planes?

[PhantomWolf]

I thought you had no theories? This sounds an awfully like a theory to me. The theory being that it was four non-AA/UAL aircraft painted up to look like AA/UAL aircraft. Care to expand on that or are you going to run and hide and not answer my questions?

I've noticed when truthers are asked about AA and UAL's part in all this they usually go silent. You see its one thing to accuse the government. However it’s something entirely different to accuse two companies of being involved. One company which was bankrupted by 9-11 and the other nearly so. So how about it Las Child. Care to explain AA and UAL's part in all this. Or are you going to hide behind the old "I have no theories line"? Even though you pretty much just gave one.

Under the CTs claims the Airlines MUST have been in on it, they can't not have been. They were tracking the planes, they'd know if they were switched or crashed elsewhere. They informed the FAA of the flights involved with the crashes. They have the passanger lists. They had the remains of the planes returned to them. They could not be ignorant to any conspiracy, it's that simply.

[AMTMAN]

Under the CTs claims the Airlines MUST have been in on it, they can't not have been. They were tracking the planes, they'd know if they were switched or crashed elsewhere. They informed the FAA of the flights involved with the crashes. They have the passanger lists. They had the remains of the planes returned to them. They could not be ignorant to any conspiracy, it's that simply.

My point exactly. The only truther I have come across so far that will answer is Aldo and all he said was "maybe". But then again he said a small plane launched missiles at the North Tower.

[LastChild]

I thought you had no theories? This sounds an awfully like a theory to me. The theory being that it was four non-AA/UAL aircraft painted up to look like AA/UAL aircraft. Care to expand on that or are you going to run and hide and not answer my questions?

I've noticed when truthers are asked about AA and UAL's part in all this they usually go silent. You see its one thing to accuse the government. However it’s something entirely different to accuse two companies of being involved. One company which was bankrupted by 9-11 and the other nearly so. So how about it Last Child. Care to explain AA and UAL's part in all this. Or are you going to hide behind the old "I have no theories line"? Even though you pretty much just gave one.

I don't have a theory. I have the fact that you can't show how the planes were identified. Remember the OP? Or would you like to get away from that?

[PhantomWolf]

I don't have a theory. I have the fact that you can't show how the planes were identified. Remember the OP? Or would you like to get away from that?

The Airlines identified them. Are you going to claim they lied to the FAA?

[A W Smith]

You do realise that personal effects of the passengers were recovered and returned to the victims families (http://onlineathens.com/stories/091104/new_20040911030.shtml)?

and while we are at it.

what is incorrect on these two pages?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pentagonattackpage2

[rwguinn]

The Airlines identified them. Are you going to claim they lied to the FAA?
All you young whippersnappers:
You probably don't remember the old TV show "Adam 12"
According to my Uncle, who was a Lt. with LAPD at the time, one particular segment was done accurately:
An officer radioed in a n "Officer Down" call, but didn't ID. In order to find out who it was, and thus a likely location for the missing guy(s), they did a "roll call" over the radio. The one who didn't answer was their missing guy, by the process of elimination.
That is how things are done in real life (read: anywhere other than mom and dad's basement).
The process of elimination works for missing stuff. If it ain't there, it's missing, amazingly enough.

[PhantomWolf]

All you young whippersnappers:
You probably don't remember the old TV show "Adam 12"
According to my Uncle, who was a Lt. with LAPD at the time, one particular segment was done accurately:
An officer radioed in a n "Officer Down" call, but didn't ID. In order to find out who it was, and thus a likely location for the missing guy(s), they did a "roll call" over the radio. The one who didn't answer was their missing guy, by the process of elimination.
That is how things are done in real life (read: anywhere other than mom and dad's basement).
The process of elimination works for missing stuff. If it ain't there, it's missing, amazingly enough.

Interesting story, however both airlines had real time data streaming from the planes, they knew more about what was going on than the FAA did. They knew the instant all 4 planes crashed because the data stopped.

[Arus808]

JCM , I see that you have ignored this again. please address this:



so if they can find these:
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/4108/humanremainsshanksvilleto2.jpg

what makes you think they couldn't get DNA?





Im serious. They found bones at the crash site. What makes you think they couldn't get DNA?

[AMTMAN]

I don't have a theory. I have the fact that you can't show how the planes were identified. Remember the OP? Or would you like to get away from that?

True to form you went and hid behind the old "I don't have a theory" cop out. Even though you preety much gave one earlier. Like PhantomWolf said the airlines themselves ID them. Are you going to say they are in on it as well? Or are you going to run and hide behind your excuse?

[pomeroo]

Any independent non-governmental laboratory DNA identification?


At least you have a sense of humor. Did you have any particular private DNA-identification labs in mind? You were pretending to ask a serious question, right?

[Jonnyclueless]

LC can't have a theory because as soon as he does he ends up proving himself wrong. So he does the little dance and jig.

[pomeroo]

I don't have a theory. I have the fact that you can't show how the planes were identified. Remember the OP? Or would you like to get away from that?


Well, you really do have the fact that the airlines involved were missing four planes. By the oddest coincidence, they happen to be the planes that crashed on 9/11/01. Would you care to explain how the missing planes, the ones that crashed on the day of the jihadist attacks, were actually different planes? No, we didn't think you would. How about telling us how many planes did vanish on 9/11? No, you won't do that. Could you tell us why United and American signed off on a crime that financially devastated the airlines industry? No, you won't be attempting that. How about telling us how the remains of the passengers ended up at the crash sites? No, not that either.

Although it's not your style to say anything that turns out to be true, when you wrote that you don't have a theory, you weren't kidding.

[gc051360]

So.

We've got the airline missing 4 planes, that are the planes that are claimed to be involved in 9-11.

They didn't lose any other planes that day.

By process of elimination, it leads me to believe, that those 4 planes missing....were the 4 that crashed. Especially since, the airline would have to track the plane.

Now, ignoring all the DNA evidence, and the plane wreckage and all of that stuff. What is the problem with this piece of evidence? This seems like enough to me, to prove what planes crashed. And, if they weren't the planes that crashed, are the airlines mistaken, or lying? What leads you to believe they would be mistaken, what leads you to believe they would be lying?

[funk de fino]

It sounds like you identify socks the same way you identify planes. No evidence.

Incorrect

I have evidence you are a sock but I do not have proof.

I am an ex aircraft technician, I have forgotten more about aircraft than you will ever know.

[deep]

Members of the truth movement claim to want a new investigation.

But, any investigation done by any government agency, will be dismissed by these people.

So, they would not take a new investigation seriously if done by the government, which is what they are asking for.

No effort has been made by them to conduct an independent investigation of their own.


I'm not sure what sort of investigation you expect the 9/11 truth movement to conduct, but most of the critically important evidence is not available to the general public - with the denied FOIA claims to prove it. Until that evidence is released, it would be impossible for any civilian to conduct a thorough investigation of their own.

That being said, pelase check out the site listed below:

http://journalof911studies.org

There are dozens of 9/11-related research papers posted there. That's as close as you can get to a "new investigation" until the above-mentioned evidence is released.

I won't bother responding to the remainder of your claims, since they were all contingent on that one unsound observation.

[DGM]

I'm not sure what sort of investigation you expect the 9/11 truth movement to conduct, but most of the critically important evidence is not available to the general public - with the denied FOIA claims to prove it. Until that evidence is released, it would be impossible for any civilian to conduct a thorough investigation of their own.

That being said, pelase check out the site listed below:

http://journalof911studies.org

There are dozens of 9/11-related research papers posted there. That's as close as you can get to a "new investigation" until the above-mentioned evidence is released.

I won't bother responding to the remainder of your claims, since they were all contingent on that one unsound observation.
Then how do real investigative journalists expose large conspiracies?

[deep]

How about telling us how the remains of the passengers ended up at the crash sites? No, not that either.


How about telling us how you know the remains of the passengers ended up at the crash site? Is it because you saw them with your own eyes? Or is it because that's what you were told by the US Government?

Some of us feel the need to reconcile what we're told with what we've seen, especially in situations where there have already been numerous other contradictions. If you don't feel that same need - fine - but don't ask questions about the remains of the passengers like they were pictured on the front page of every US newspaper.

[deep]

Then how do real investigative journalists expose large conspiracies?


I don't know, perhaps you should phone your local news station or consult Wikipedia.

[DGM]

How about telling us how you know the remains of the passengers ended up at the crash site? Is it because you saw them with your own eyes? Or is it because that's what you were told by the US Government?

Some of us feel the need to reconcile what we're told with what we've seen, especially in situations where there have already been numerous other contradictions. If you don't feel that same need - fine - but don't ask questions about the remains of the passengers like they were pictured on the front page of every US newspaper.
Why don't you ask some of the people involved in collecting said remains? Were they "in on it" too? This is the type of thing you could investigate but refuse to. Why? are you afraid you might prove belief to be false?

[tsig]

I'm not sure what sort of investigation you expect the 9/11 truth movement to conduct, but most of the critically important evidence is not available to the general public - with the denied FOIA claims to prove it. Until that evidence is released, it would be impossible for any civilian to conduct a thorough investigation of their own.

That being said, pelase check out the site listed below:

http://journalof911studies.org

There are dozens of 9/11-related research papers posted there. That's as close as you can get to a "new investigation" until the above-mentioned evidence is released.

I won't bother responding to the remainder of your claims, since they were all contingent on that one unsound observation.

It would have to be a rectal exam.

[DGM]

I don't know, perhaps you should phone your local news station or consult Wikipedia.
I see you need me to tell you. They talk to people and don't go passing out allegations before doing all of their research. Screaming "9/11 was an inside job" is going to make potential (real) whistle blowers run for cover. You guy's have no clue how to get information from people. "You can attract more flies with honey than vinegar", a lesson your "movement will never understand.

[pomeroo]

How about telling us how you know the remains of the passengers ended up at the crash site? Is it because you saw them with your own eyes? Or is it because that's what you were told by the US Government?


I know that the remains of the passengers ended up at the crash sites because I'm not prepared to dismiss a comprehensive investigation conducted by several agencies as a fraud just to keep alive a deranged fantasy. As the results of the investigation are inconvenient to your delusion, you must pretend that everyone is part of your imaginary conspiracy. If you wave away every bit of evidence as fake, then there is no point in investigating crimes. We require no police or FBI. There is no hope of ever solving any crime, as all evidence will be discounted as planted.

Have we established that you take the position that all of the agencies participating in the massive investigation were part of your imaginary conspiracy?



Some of us feel the need to reconcile what we're told with what we've seen, especially in situations where there have already been numerous other contradictions. If you don't feel that same need - fine - but don't ask questions about the remains of the passengers like they were pictured on the front page of every US newspaper.


Presumably you know as much about forensic science as twoofers typically know about all technical matters relating to the events of 9/11, i.e., absolutely nothing. On what basis do you distrust the findings of the various law-enforcement agencies?

[deep]

I see you need me to tell you. They talk to people and don't go passing out allegations before doing all of their research. Screaming "9/11 was an inside job" is going to make potential (real) whistle blowers run for cover. You guy's have no clue how to get information from people. "You can attract more flies with honey than vinegar", a lesson your "movement will never understand.


What on earth are you talking about? Whistle blowers? Getting information from people? May I remind you that we're talking about an investigation into the deaths of 3,000 people, not some claim of sexual discrimination at the local Burger King. Either the evidence is public, or it's not. Right now, it's not.

Oh, and regarding your reference to "my movement" - I suggest you get your facts straight. I have just as much of an affiliation with the 9/11 truth movement as you do. Not everybody who believes a new investigation is warranted runs around in black t-shirts passing out Loose Change DVDs. Sooner or later, you and the rest of the debunkers are going to have to face that not-so-convenient fact.

[8den]

I'm not sure what sort of investigation you expect the 9/11 truth movement to conduct, but most of the critically important evidence is not available to the general public - with the denied FOIA claims to prove it. Until that evidence is released, it would be impossible for any civilian to conduct a thorough investigation of their own.

That being said, pelase check out the site listed below:

http://journalof911studies.org

There are dozens of 9/11-related research papers posted there. That's as close as you can get to a "new investigation" until the above-mentioned evidence is released.

I won't bother responding to the remainder of your claims, since they were all contingent on that one unsound observation.

I'm sorry I'm utterly confused. You don't find the "official" story credible because we haven't seen the actual evidence with our own eyes. So how can you put any weight into the JONES 911 reports? Did the people who wrote them see the evidence with their own eyes? Why do you find these reports credible?

[DGM]

What on earth are you talking about? Whistle blowers? Getting information from people? May I remind you that we're talking about an investigation into the deaths of 3,000 people, not some claim of sexual discrimination at the local Burger King. Either the evidence is public, or it's not. Right now, it's not.

Oh, and regarding your reference to "my movement" - I suggest you get your facts straight. I have just as much of an affiliation with the 9/11 truth movement as you do. Not everybody who believes a new investigation is warranted runs around in black t-shirts passing out Loose Change DVDs. Sooner or later, you and the rest of the debunkers are going to have to face that not-so-convenient fact.
What difference does it make what the conspiracy is? It's still real live people (many) that would know about it.

Can I assume then that you don't believe in controlled demolition or any of that crap?

[Jonnyclueless]

Because the biggest investigation ever conducted in this country is not enough. They need another one. One conducted by people who aren't capable of conducting one so as to expose the only people who CAN conduct an investigation. Based on...Based on...um....

[deep]

I know that the remains of the passengers ended up at the crash sites because I'm not prepared to dismiss a comprehensive investigation conducted by several agencies as a fraud just to keep alive a deranged fantasy. As the results of the investigation are inconvenient to your delusion, you must pretend that everyone is part of your imaginary conspiracy. If you wave away every bit of evidence as fake, then there is no point in investigating crimes. We require no police or FBI. There is no hope of ever solving any crime, as all evidence will be discounted as planted.


Right, you're not prepared to dismiss what you've been told, regardless of whether or not it matches with that you observed, because in doing so you would be allowing a brick to be thrown through the window of your current worldview.

That's why whenever you start running low on excuses for ignoring something, you start comparing truthers to Nazis, or simply repeating over and over again that this just a delusion, a fantasy, imaginary, or fake. You'll literally say or do anything to preserve that worldview you're so fond of.

Sooner or later, you're going to have to face the music and adapt your worldview. You can't make excuses and Nazi-comparisons forever.

[GStan]

What on earth are you talking about? Whistle blowers? Getting information from people? May I remind you that we're talking about an investigation into the deaths of 3,000 people, not some claim of sexual discrimination at the local Burger King. Either the evidence is public, or it's not. Right now, it's not.

Yes we are talking about the deaths of 3,000 people. And there are hundreds of thousands of employees, probably millions, who work for the entities you imply are guilty of carrying out, and/or covering up 9/11. I find it interesting that in order for your implications to be true, those entities, through the hiring of those millions of employees, managed to avoid hiring a single person with a conscience. How was Watergate uncovered? Hell, no one even died and duty led W. Mark Felt to Woodward and Bernstein. As you mentioned, we are talking about the deaths of 3,000 people. Perhaps they just haven't been privy to any information that they could blow the whistle on. Right. The Truthers have uncovered something so obvious, just by watching YouTube videos, yet not a single one of these millions of employees could find evidence of it, despite the fact that they actually work side by side with the conspirators everyday.

Ask questions. That's how you acquire wisdom and knowledge.
Ignore the answers. That's how you become stupid.

Oh, and regarding your reference to "my movement" - I suggest you get your facts straight. I have just as much of an affiliation with the 9/11 truth movement as you do. Not everybody who believes a new investigation is warranted runs around in black t-shirts passing out Loose Change DVDs. Sooner or later, you and the rest of the debunkers are going to have to face that not-so-convenient fact.

Indeed. Please make one statement of fact that suggests 9/11 was not carried out by 19 jihadists.

Ask questions. That's how you acquire wisdom and knowledge.
Ignore the answers. That's how you become stupid.

[Billdave2]

Right, you're not prepared to dismiss what you've been told, regardless of whether or not it matches with that you observed, because in doing so you would be allowing a brick to be thrown through the window of your current worldview.

That's why whenever you start running low on excuses for ignoring something, you start comparing truthers to Nazis, or simply repeating over and over again that this just a delusion, a fantasy, imaginary, or fake. You'll literally say or do anything to preserve that worldview you're so fond of.

Sooner or later, you're going to have to face the music and adapt your worldview. You can't make excuses and Nazi-comparisons forever.

If you have some real evidence that hasn't already been debunked to death I would love to see it. If not I haven't seen anything that doesn't match, so I have no reason to dimiss what I have been told.

[SDC]

Right, you're not prepared to dismiss what you've been told, regardless of whether or not it matches with that you observed, because in doing so you would be allowing a brick to be thrown through the window of your current worldview.

That's why whenever you start running low on excuses for ignoring something, you start comparing truthers to Nazis, or simply repeating over and over again that this just a delusion, a fantasy, imaginary, or fake. You'll literally say or do anything to preserve that worldview you're so fond of.

Sooner or later, you're going to have to face the music and adapt your worldview. You can't make excuses and Nazi-comparisons forever.

Dibs! DIBS!! I claim Godwin's law. Where's my million dollars ... uh, make that about 5,000 Euros ... from Randi??

Oh. It's a different claim and contest. Nuts. Sorry.

[Dave Rogers]

Right, you're not prepared to dismiss what you've been told, regardless of whether or not it matches with that you observed, because in doing so you would be allowing a brick to be thrown through the window of your current worldview.

Could you point out what it is that you personally have observed that doesn't match with the identification of the Flight 77 victims at the Pentagon from DNA analysis?

Dave

[GStan]

Right, you're not prepared to dismiss what you've been told, regardless of whether or not it matches with that you observed, because in doing so you would be allowing a brick to be thrown through the window of your current worldview.

That's why whenever you start running low on excuses for ignoring something, you start comparing truthers to Nazis, or simply repeating over and over again that this just a delusion, a fantasy, imaginary, or fake. You'll literally say or do anything to preserve that worldview you're so fond of.

Sooner or later, you're going to have to face the music and adapt your worldview. You can't make excuses and Nazi-comparisons forever.

An idea that is supported by zero evidence is a delusion, a fantasy, imaginary or fake. When you put forth some supporting evidence, it will cease to be a delusion. Sooner or later you are going to have to face the music and adapt your worldview.

[Jonnyclueless]

Right, you're not prepared to dismiss what you've been told, regardless of whether or not it matches with that you observed, because in doing so you would be allowing a brick to be thrown through the window of your current worldview.

That's why whenever you start running low on excuses for ignoring something, you start comparing truthers to Nazis, or simply repeating over and over again that this just a delusion, a fantasy, imaginary, or fake. You'll literally say or do anything to preserve that worldview you're so fond of.

Sooner or later, you're going to have to face the music and adapt your worldview. You can't make excuses and Nazi-comparisons forever.

Well, unless you can show a serial number, how can you possibly prove that the brick was thrown thought the window? Please answer that for me.

[deep]

Could you point out what it is that you personally have observed that doesn't match with the identification of the Flight 77 victims at the Pentagon from DNA analysis?


Sure - it's not so much a problem with the DNA identification itself, but what came before the DNA identification.

There are still too many unanswered questions about the actual crash (e.g., what crashed) to accept that claim at face value. I'm not going to rehash all of those unanswered questions, because it was probably derail this discussion.

Either way, I'm not claiming that a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon. It very well may have - the problem is, there's no way to confirm that with the evidence made available to the general public. So until they do that (e.g., release a security camera video that actually shows the plane), claims about DNA evidence are a bit premature.

If they established that a commercial airliner did in fact hit the Pentagon, I would accept their claim about the DNA evidence without giving it another thought.

[SDC]

Bosh. And if there is no video which meets your requirements? Evidently there is none. You are really stating that you don't accept any evidence you don't like. Well, I'm just glad you are not on any jury or investigation committee.

Go organize your own investigation. By the standards you present, it won't be hard. "I'll be the judge, and I'll be the jury" (said cunning old Fury)/ "I'll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death." (May not be exact. Didn't bother to look it up this time.)

[A W Smith]

I'm not sure what sort of investigation you expect the 9/11 truth movement to conduct, but most of the critically important evidence is not available to the general public - with the denied FOIA claims to prove it. Until that evidence is released, it would be impossible for any civilian to conduct a thorough investigation of their own.

That being said, pelase check out the site listed below:

http://journalof911studies.org

There are dozens of 9/11-related research papers posted there. That's as close as you can get to a "new investigation" until the above-mentioned evidence is released.

I won't bother responding to the remainder of your claims, since they were all contingent on that one unsound observation.

You have contacted how many of these people? They are members of the "general public" are they not?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/listofresponders&investigators
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.
Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E.
Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E.
Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E.
Amy Zelson Mundorff
Anamaria Bonilla, S.E.
Andrew McConnell, S.E.
Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E.
Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E.
Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist
Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E.
Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D.
Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E.
Arlan Dobson, FEMA Region 2 DAS
Arthur Schuerman, FDNY (ret.)
August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
Bernie Denke US&R Structural Specialist
Bill Cote
Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E.
Bill Crowley, special agent, FBI
Bill Daly, senior vice president, Control Risks Group
Bill Scott (Capt. USAF, Ret.), Rocky Mountain bureau chief, Aviation Week
Bill Uher, NASA Langley Research Center
Bob Gray (I.U.O.E.)
Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E.
Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E.
Brian Lyons, Tully
Brian McElhatten, S.E.
Brian Smith (Col.), Chief Deputy Medical Examiner, Dover AFB
Charles Hirsch, M.D.
Charles J. Carter, AISC
Charles Thornton, P.E.
Charlie Vitchers
Christopher E. Marrion, P.E.
Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC
Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D., Purdue University
Chuck Guardia, S.E.
D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E.
Dan Doyle (IW 40)
Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E.
Dan Koch Jr.
Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E
Daniele Veneziano, P.E.
David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report
David Davidowitz, ConEd
David Hoy, S.E.
David Leach, USACE
David M. Parks, ME
David Peraza, P.E., S.E.
David Ranlet
David Schomburg
David Sharp, S.E.
David T. Biggs, P.E.
Dean Koutsoubis, S.E.
Dean Tills, P.E.
Delbert Boring, P.E.
Dennis Clark (IST)
Dennis Dirkmaat, Ph.D.
Dennis Mileti, Ph.D.
Dennis Smith
Dick Posthauer, S.E.
Donald Friedman, P.E.
Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Ed Jacoby Jr., director, New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.
Ed McGinley, P.E.
Ed Plaugher, Chief, Arlington FD
Edward A. Flynn, Arlington Police Chief
Edward Depaola, S.E.
Edward M. DePaola, P.E.
Edward Stinnette, Chief, FCFD
Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E.
Farid Alfawakhiri Ph.D., P.E.
FDNY Battalion Chief Frank Vallebuono
FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale
FDNY Chief Frank Cruthers
FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
FDNY Chief Joseph Callan
FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro
FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
FDNY Firefighter Sam Melisi
Forman Williams, Ph.D., P.E.
Francis J. Lombardi, P.E.
Frank Gayle, Sc.D.
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology
Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA
Gary Steficek, S.E.
Gary Suson
Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA
George Tamaro, P.E., S.E.
Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Gerald Wellman US&R Structural Specialist
Glenn Corbett, technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee
Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA
Guylene Proulx, Ph.D.
H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E.
Hal Bidlack, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Ph.D.
Harold E. Nelson, P.E., FSFP.E.
Harry Martin, AISC
J. David Frost, Ph.D., P.E.
Jack Brown Deputy Chief Loudoun County (Va.) Fire Rescue Department
Jack Messagno, WTC project Manager (Tully)
James A. Rossberg, P.E.
James Chastain US&R Structural Specialist
James H. Fahey, S.E.
James Lord, FSFP.E.
James Milke, Ph.D., P.E.
James Quintiere, Ph.D., P.E.
Jan Szumanski, IUOE
Jason Averill, FSFP.E.
Jeff Rienbold dir.,, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service
Jeffrey Hartman, S.E.
Jim Abadie, Bovis
Joel Meyerowitz
John Fisher, Ph.D., P.E.,
John Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John Hodgens, FDNY (ret.)
John J. Zils, P.E., S.E.
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John Lekstutis, P.E.
John M. Hanson, Ph.D, P.E.
John McArdle NYPD/ESU (DTC)
John Moran, NYPD/ESU (NTC)
John O'Connell
John Odermatt (NYC OEM)
John Ruddy, P.E., S.E.
John W. Fisher, P.E.
Jon Magnusson, P.E., S.E.
John Ryan, PAPD
Jonathan Barnett, Ph.D
Joo-Eun Lee P.E., S.E.
Joseph C. Gehlen, P.E., S.E.
Jozef Van Dyck, P.E.
Juan Paulo Morla, S.E.
Karl Koch III
Karl Koch IV
Kaspar Willam, P.E., S.E.
Kenneth Holden
Kent Watts
Kevin Brennan, OSHA
Kevin Malley, FDNY (ret.)
Ken Hays, executive vice president, Masonry Arts
Kevin Terry, S.E.
Kurt Gustafson, P.E., S.E.
Larry Keating (IW 40)
Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E.
Lawrence Griffis, P.E.
Leo J. Titus, P.E.
Leonard M. Joseph, P.E.
Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E.
Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
Lou Mendes, P.E., S.E.
Louis Errichiello, S.E.
Manny Velivasakis, P.E.
Mark Blair
Mark Kucera, USACE
Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene
Mark Tamaro, P.E
Mark Volpe, IW 40
Marty Corcoran
Matthew G. Yerkey, P.E., S.E.
Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)
Merle E. Brander, P.E.
Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Michael Burton, P.E.
Michael Dallal
Michael Hessheimer, S.E.
Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D., ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes
Michael Tylk, P.E., S.E.
Mike Banker, FDNY Capt. (SOC)
Mike Marscio, P.E.
Miroslav Sulc,, P.E., S.E.
Mohammed Ettouney
Morgan Hurley, FSFP.E.
Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.
Nick Carcich
Norman Groner, Ph.D.
Pablo Lopez, P.E., S.E.
Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul Sledzik
Paul Tertell, P.E.
Pete Bakersky
Peter Chipchase, S.E.
Peter Rinaldi, P.E.
Pia Hoffman
Rajani Nair, S.E.
Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E
Randy Lawson
Raul Maestre, P.E., S.E.
Raymond F. Messer, P.E.
Reidar Bjorhovde, Ph.D., P.E
Richard Bukowski P.E., FSFP.E.
Richard G. Gewain, P.E., S.E.
Richard Gann, Ph.D.
Richard Garlock, P.E., S.E.
Richard Kahler US&R Structural Specialist
Robert Clarke, S.E.
Robert C. Sinn, P.E., S.E.
Robert F. Duval (NFPA)
Robert Frances US&R Structural Specialist
Robert J. McNamara, P.E., S.E.
Robert L. Parker, Ph.D.
Robert Ratay, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Robert Shaler, M.D.
Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E
Robert Solomon, P.E.
Robert Wills, AISC
Ron Dokell, president, Demolition Consultants
Ronald Greeley, Ph.D.
Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E.
Ronald J. LaMere, P.E.
Ronald Rehm, Ph.D.
Ronald Spadafora, FDNY D.A.C
Ruben M. Zallen, P.E.
Russell "Rusty" Dodge Jr, Asst. Chief, Fort Belvoir FD
S. Shyam Sunder, P.E., S.E.
Saw-Teen See, P.E.
Shankar Nair. P.E., S.E.
Shawn Kelly, Arlington County Fire Marshal
Skip Aldous, Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
Socrates Ioannides, P.E., S.E.
Sonny Scarff
Stan Murphy, P.E.
Stephen Cauffman
Steve Douglass, image analysis consultant, Aviation Week
Steve Rasweiler, FDNY B.C. (SOC)
Stuart Foltz, P.E.
Terry Sullivan, Bovis
Theodore Galambos, P.E.
Theodore Krauthammer, Ph.D., P.E.
Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.
Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.
Thomas Hawkins Jr, Chief, AFD
Thomas Schlafly, AISC
Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation
Todd Ude, P.E., S.E.
Tom Scarangello, P.E.
Tom Stanton (IST)
Tony Beale, P.E.
Valentine Junker
Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E.
Victor Hare, P.E.
Vincent Dunn, FDNY (ret.)
W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
W. Lee Evey
Wallace Miller
William Baker, P.E., S.E
William Grosshandler, Ph.D., ME
William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA
William McGuire, P.E.
Willie Quinlan, IW
Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.
Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., S.E.

[Dave Rogers]

Sure - it's not so much a problem with the DNA identification itself, but what came before the DNA identification.

There are still too many unanswered questions about the actual crash (e.g., what crashed) to accept that claim at face value. I'm not going to rehash all of those unanswered questions, because it was probably derail this discussion.

Either way, I'm not claiming that a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon. It very well may have - the problem is, there's no way to confirm that with the evidence made available to the general public. So until they do that (e.g., release a security camera video that actually shows the plane), claims about DNA evidence are a bit premature.

If they established that a commercial airliner did in fact hit the Pentagon, I would accept their claim about the DNA evidence without giving it another thought.

You haven't answered the question. You've just said that you aren't convinced by the evidence that's been provided. Could you point out what it is that you personally have observed that doesn't match with the identification of the Flight 77 victims at the Pentagon from DNA analysis? Alternatively, if you can't do so, could you admit that your comment,

Right, you're not prepared to dismiss what you've been told, regardless of whether or not it matches with that you observed, because in doing so you would be allowing a brick to be thrown through the window of your current worldview.


is irrelevant and argumentative?

Dave

[deep]

Bosh. And if there is no video which meets your requirements? Evidently there is none. You are really stating that you don't accept any evidence you don't like. Well, I'm just glad you are not on any jury or investigation committee.

Go organize your own investigation. By the standards you present, it won't be hard. "I'll be the judge, and I'll be the jury" (said cunning old Fury)/ "I'll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death." (May not be exact. Didn't bother to look it up this time.)


Even if the video isn't absolutely clear, as long as they make an effort to be open and honest about it (i.e., transparent), I would most likely be satisfied. For example, they say something along the lines of:

"There were twelve cameras pointed at that side of the Pentagon between the DOT & Pentagon security, and here are all of the relevant clips from all twelve cameras. They aren't very clear, but at least you can see what happened to to wings of the plane."

There are many other ways to reach an agreeable middle-ground.. right now, there's nothing.

[deep]

You haven't answered the question. You've just said that you aren't convinced by the evidence that's been provided. Could you point out what it is that you personally have observed that doesn't match with the identification of the Flight 77 victims at the Pentagon from DNA analysis? Alternatively, if you can't do so, could you admit that your comment,


I've personally observed the exterior of the Pentagon after the crash. It didn't appear as if a commercial airliner had crashed. Etc, etc.

If there was no commercial airliner, how can there be victims? If there are no victims, how can there be DNA?

[DGM]

Even if the video isn't absolutely clear, as long as they make an effort to be open and honest about it (i.e., transparent), I would most likely be satisfied. For example, they say something along the lines of:

"There were twelve cameras pointed at that side of the Pentagon between the DOT & Pentagon security, and here are all of the relevant clips from all twelve cameras. They aren't very clear, but at least you can see what happened to to wings of the plane."

There are many other ways to reach an agreeable middle-ground.. right now, there's nothing.
All you need to do is look at the physical evidence that was collected by real people you could talk to. Is it a case of you want it laid out on the internet so you don't need to do any work? If you don't trust the story go talk to the people that collected the evidence to make the story. It's really very simple.

[lapman]

It very well may have - the problem is, there's no way to confirm that with the evidence made available to the general public. So until they do that (e.g., release a security camera video that actually shows the plane), claims about DNA evidence are a bit premature.

If they established that a commercial airliner did in fact hit the Pentagon, I would accept their claim about the DNA evidence without giving it another thought. So the 26 eyewitnesses that specifically state that it was an American Airlines commercial airliner are not enough? What about the 39 other eyewitnesses that specifically saw a large airliner crash into the Pentagon? This is supported by the publicly available photos of the aircraft debris which none of you can produce any evidence that they came from another aircraft.

[GStan]

Sure - it's not so much a problem with the DNA identification itself, but what came before the DNA identification.

There are still too many unanswered questions about the actual crash (e.g., what crashed) to accept that claim at face value. I'm not going to rehash all of those unanswered questions, because it was probably derail this discussion.

Either way, I'm not claiming that a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon. It very well may have - the problem is, there's no way to confirm that with the evidence made available to the general public. So until they do that (e.g., release a security camera video that actually shows the plane), claims about DNA evidence are a bit premature.

If they established that a commercial airliner did in fact hit the Pentagon, I would accept their claim about the DNA evidence without giving it another thought.

It has been established that a commercial airliner, American Airlines 77, did hit the Pentagon. All evidence supports it. No evidence contradicts it.

American Airlines confirms, (they were tracking them you know), that they lost tracking on flight 77 in the area of the Pentagon and flight 11 in the area of the WTC. They lost no other planes on 9/11. These are facts. Your job, as a pursuer of truth is to find some evidence that American Airlines is lying about the planes that were lost.

More than 100 witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon. The details of their accounts have been shared with you in this thread already. The accounts are wholly consistent with AA77 hitting the Pentagon. They in no way contradict each other and in no way suggest that anything other than AA77 hit the Pentagon. This is a fact. Your job is to find some evidence that these witnesses were substantially mistaken, or that they were coerced to lie by the conspirators or that a large volume of witnesses that would contradict these 100 witnesses has been silenced by the conspirators.

The DNA found inside the crash site belongs to the passengers known to have boarded AA77. This is a fact. If you wish to show that it is not a fact, your job is to find some shred of evidence that a) no DNA was actually found at the scene, or b) DNA was planted at the scene, or c) the DNA tests were forged, and/or d) that flight 77 passengers were disposed of in some other manner at a location other than the Pentagon. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of different people worked at the Pentagon cleanup operation. The volume of people that would have to be in on, or keeping quiet about, or completely oblivious to this conspiracy is quite large.

Passenger effects and plane parts were recovered from the Pentagon. Everything recovered was wholly consistent with AA77 hitting the Pentagon. There are even photos of parts that include the AA logo on them. Nothing was found to suggest that anything other than AA77 hit the Pentagon. This is a fact. Your job is to find some evidence that these items were not actually found at the scene or that they were planted there, or that they actually belong to some flight other than AA77. Again, the volume of people that would have to be in on, or keeping quiet about, or completely oblivious to this conspiracy is quite large.

You have quite alot of work to do. Please try to remember that merely suggesting that something is not impossible does not constitute evidence. Could something other than AA77 have hit the Pentagon? Sure, but the entirety of the evidence shows that it actually was AA77. If you were a rational person, you would acknowledge that the evidence shows AA77 did hit the Pentagon. The only way you will get a rational person to believe that something else hit the Pentagon is to produce some actual evidence that the existing evidence was faked, all of it. Merely suggesting that it is possible to fake it is worthless. Best of luck in your pursuit of truth.

[A W Smith]

All you need to do is look at the physical evidence that was collected by real people you could talk to. Is it a case of you want it laid out on the internet so you don't need to do any work? If you don't trust the story go talk to the people that collected the evidence to make the story. It's really very simple.


And deep44. Here is that list again. When will you be contacting them?

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.
Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E.
Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E.
Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E.
Amy Zelson Mundorff
Anamaria Bonilla, S.E.
Andrew McConnell, S.E.
Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E.
Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E.
Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist
Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E.
Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D.
Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E.
Arlan Dobson, FEMA Region 2 DAS
Arthur Schuerman, FDNY (ret.)
August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
Bernie Denke US&R Structural Specialist
Bill Cote
Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E.
Bill Crowley, special agent, FBI
Bill Daly, senior vice president, Control Risks Group
Bill Scott (Capt. USAF, Ret.), Rocky Mountain bureau chief, Aviation Week
Bill Uher, NASA Langley Research Center
Bob Gray (I.U.O.E.)
Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E.
Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E.
Brian Lyons, Tully
Brian McElhatten, S.E.
Brian Smith (Col.), Chief Deputy Medical Examiner, Dover AFB
Charles Hirsch, M.D.
Charles J. Carter, AISC
Charles Thornton, P.E.
Charlie Vitchers
Christopher E. Marrion, P.E.
Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC
Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D., Purdue University
Chuck Guardia, S.E.
D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E.
Dan Doyle (IW 40)
Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E.
Dan Koch Jr.
Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E
Daniele Veneziano, P.E.
David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report
David Davidowitz, ConEd
David Hoy, S.E.
David Leach, USACE
David M. Parks, ME
David Peraza, P.E., S.E.
David Ranlet
David Schomburg
David Sharp, S.E.
David T. Biggs, P.E.
Dean Koutsoubis, S.E.
Dean Tills, P.E.
Delbert Boring, P.E.
Dennis Clark (IST)
Dennis Dirkmaat, Ph.D.
Dennis Mileti, Ph.D.
Dennis Smith
Dick Posthauer, S.E.
Donald Friedman, P.E.
Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Ed Jacoby Jr., director, New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.
Ed McGinley, P.E.
Ed Plaugher, Chief, Arlington FD
Edward A. Flynn, Arlington Police Chief
Edward Depaola, S.E.
Edward M. DePaola, P.E.
Edward Stinnette, Chief, FCFD
Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E.
Farid Alfawakhiri Ph.D., P.E.
FDNY Battalion Chief Frank Vallebuono
FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale
FDNY Chief Frank Cruthers
FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
FDNY Chief Joseph Callan
FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro
FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
FDNY Firefighter Sam Melisi
Forman Williams, Ph.D., P.E.
Francis J. Lombardi, P.E.
Frank Gayle, Sc.D.
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology
Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA
Gary Steficek, S.E.
Gary Suson
Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA
George Tamaro, P.E., S.E.
Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Gerald Wellman US&R Structural Specialist
Glenn Corbett, technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee
Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA
Guylene Proulx, Ph.D.
H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E.
Hal Bidlack, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Ph.D.
Harold E. Nelson, P.E., FSFP.E.
Harry Martin, AISC
J. David Frost, Ph.D., P.E.
Jack Brown Deputy Chief Loudoun County (Va.) Fire Rescue Department
Jack Messagno, WTC project Manager (Tully)
James A. Rossberg, P.E.
James Chastain US&R Structural Specialist
James H. Fahey, S.E.
James Lord, FSFP.E.
James Milke, Ph.D., P.E.
James Quintiere, Ph.D., P.E.
Jan Szumanski, IUOE
Jason Averill, FSFP.E.
Jeff Rienbold dir.,, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service
Jeffrey Hartman, S.E.
Jim Abadie, Bovis
Joel Meyerowitz
John Fisher, Ph.D., P.E.,
John Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John Hodgens, FDNY (ret.)
John J. Zils, P.E., S.E.
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John Lekstutis, P.E.
John M. Hanson, Ph.D, P.E.
John McArdle NYPD/ESU (DTC)
John Moran, NYPD/ESU (NTC)
John O'Connell
John Odermatt (NYC OEM)
John Ruddy, P.E., S.E.
John W. Fisher, P.E.
Jon Magnusson, P.E., S.E.
John Ryan, PAPD
Jonathan Barnett, Ph.D
Joo-Eun Lee P.E., S.E.
Joseph C. Gehlen, P.E., S.E.
Jozef Van Dyck, P.E.
Juan Paulo Morla, S.E.
Karl Koch III
Karl Koch IV
Kaspar Willam, P.E., S.E.
Kenneth Holden
Kent Watts
Kevin Brennan, OSHA
Kevin Malley, FDNY (ret.)
Ken Hays, executive vice president, Masonry Arts
Kevin Terry, S.E.
Kurt Gustafson, P.E., S.E.
Larry Keating (IW 40)
Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E.
Lawrence Griffis, P.E.
Leo J. Titus, P.E.
Leonard M. Joseph, P.E.
Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E.
Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
Lou Mendes, P.E., S.E.
Louis Errichiello, S.E.
Manny Velivasakis, P.E.
Mark Blair
Mark Kucera, USACE
Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene
Mark Tamaro, P.E
Mark Volpe, IW 40
Marty Corcoran
Matthew G. Yerkey, P.E., S.E.
Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)
Merle E. Brander, P.E.
Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Michael Burton, P.E.
Michael Dallal
Michael Hessheimer, S.E.
Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D., ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes
Michael Tylk, P.E., S.E.
Mike Banker, FDNY Capt. (SOC)
Mike Marscio, P.E.
Miroslav Sulc,, P.E., S.E.
Mohammed Ettouney
Morgan Hurley, FSFP.E.
Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.
Nick Carcich
Norman Groner, Ph.D.
Pablo Lopez, P.E., S.E.
Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul Sledzik
Paul Tertell, P.E.
Pete Bakersky
Peter Chipchase, S.E.
Peter Rinaldi, P.E.
Pia Hoffman
Rajani Nair, S.E.
Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E
Randy Lawson
Raul Maestre, P.E., S.E.
Raymond F. Messer, P.E.
Reidar Bjorhovde, Ph.D., P.E
Richard Bukowski P.E., FSFP.E.
Richard G. Gewain, P.E., S.E.
Richard Gann, Ph.D.
Richard Garlock, P.E., S.E.
Richard Kahler US&R Structural Specialist
Robert Clarke, S.E.
Robert C. Sinn, P.E., S.E.
Robert F. Duval (NFPA)
Robert Frances US&R Structural Specialist
Robert J. McNamara, P.E., S.E.
Robert L. Parker, Ph.D.
Robert Ratay, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Robert Shaler, M.D.
Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E
Robert Solomon, P.E.
Robert Wills, AISC
Ron Dokell, president, Demolition Consultants
Ronald Greeley, Ph.D.
Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E.
Ronald J. LaMere, P.E.
Ronald Rehm, Ph.D.
Ronald Spadafora, FDNY D.A.C
Ruben M. Zallen, P.E.
Russell "Rusty" Dodge Jr, Asst. Chief, Fort Belvoir FD
S. Shyam Sunder, P.E., S.E.
Saw-Teen See, P.E.
Shankar Nair. P.E., S.E.
Shawn Kelly, Arlington County Fire Marshal
Skip Aldous, Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
Socrates Ioannides, P.E., S.E.
Sonny Scarff
Stan Murphy, P.E.
Stephen Cauffman
Steve Douglass, image analysis consultant, Aviation Week
Steve Rasweiler, FDNY B.C. (SOC)
Stuart Foltz, P.E.
Terry Sullivan, Bovis
Theodore Galambos, P.E.
Theodore Krauthammer, Ph.D., P.E.
Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.
Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.
Thomas Hawkins Jr, Chief, AFD
Thomas Schlafly, AISC
Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation
Todd Ude, P.E., S.E.
Tom Scarangello, P.E.
Tom Stanton (IST)
Tony Beale, P.E.
Valentine Junker
Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E.
Victor Hare, P.E.
Vincent Dunn, FDNY (ret.)
W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
W. Lee Evey
Wallace Miller
William Baker, P.E., S.E
William Grosshandler, Ph.D., ME
William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA
William McGuire, P.E.
Willie Quinlan, IW
Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.
Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., S.E.

[Billdave2]

Even if the video isn't absolutely clear, as long as they make an effort to be open and honest about it (i.e., transparent), I would most likely be satisfied. For example, they say something along the lines of:

"There were twelve cameras pointed at that side of the Pentagon between the DOT & Pentagon security, and here are all of the relevant clips from all twelve cameras. They aren't very clear, but at least you can see what happened to to wings of the plane."

There are many other ways to reach an agreeable middle-ground.. right now, there's nothing.

I am still waiting on that evidence that doesn't match.

And in your scenario if they release all these pictures from cameras that were not pointed in the right direction to see anything and only take a snapshot every few seconds and these pictures (surprise, surprise) don't show anything you are going to say "See Inside Job !!111elentyone!1!!1" when the fact is you have seen alll the relevant pictures, you have seen the debris, the DNA evidence the eyewitness accounts and you still need "pictures or it didn't happen". There are no pictures of lots of things we know to be true, Washington crossing the Delaware, the Norman Invasion of England, and every single thing that happened before cameras. Do you think none of that happened?

[beachnut]

I'm not sure what sort of investigation you expect the 9/11 truth movement to conduct, but most of the critically important evidence is not available to the general public - with the denied FOIA claims to prove it. Until that evidence is released, it would be impossible for any civilian to conduct a thorough investigation of their own.

That being said, pelase check out the site listed below:

http://journalof911studies.org

There are dozens of 9/11-related research papers posted there. That's as close as you can get to a "new investigation" until the above-mentioned evidence is released.

I won't bother responding to the remainder of your claims, since they were all contingent on that one unsound observation.
All those papers are false information except for those exposing the journal of 9/11 studies as a fraud. Jones started that journal so he could publish his made up theory of thermite. Due to lack of knowledge people present the http://journalof911studies.org (http://journalof911studies.org/) as evidence. But if you check each paper, there is only talk, failed calculations, political tripe, hearsay, and misinformation on 9/11.

Since you have read and know the http://journalof911studies.org (http://journalof911studies.org/) . If you believe the tripe they published, you have no real knowledge about 9/11.

I've personally observed the outside of the Pentagon after the crash. It didn't appear that a commercial airliner crashed.

If there was no commercial airliner, how can there be victims? If there are no victims, how can there be DNA?
Oh, how close did you get; you are not very observant are you? I could see aircraft parts just like you see at accident sites. You must of missed the fine details of lots of aircraft parts. You therefore have no clue what an aircraft accident at 463 KIAS looks like. Do you? No, you do not, the only people who usually see high speed impacts like 77, 11, 175, and 93 are in the Air Force like me. Sorry you lack the experience to understand 9/11, but you should gain some knowledge before you continue to expose your lack of knowledge on impacts and all things 9/11. Study...

[lapman]

I've personally observed the exterior of the Pentagon after the crash. It didn't appear as if a commercial airliner had crashed. Etc, etc.

If there was no commercial airliner, how can there be victims? If there are no victims, how can there be DNA?
How many crash sites have you observed where an airliner crashed into a building at over 400mph to know what to look for?

[deep]

An idea that is supported by zero evidence is a delusion, a fantasy, imaginary or fake. When you put forth some supporting evidence, it will cease to be a delusion. Sooner or later you are going to have to face the music and adapt your worldview.


That's cute, but do you understand why you're able to continue believing that there is "zero evidence"? It's because you have standards for evaluating evidence that give you the option of rejecting whatever you feel like rejecting.

Let's see.. any expert who disagrees with you is crazy. That right there eliminates most possible sources of 'evidence'.

Then there's the confused eye-witness, or the unqualified eye-witness. Anybody who sees something that doesn't fit in with your view of things was confused, not qualified to see whatever it was they saw, or just some insane attention-seeking conspiracy theorist.

So I'm not surprised that you still believe there is "zero evidence". It will probably remain that way, too, as long as you're using the above-mentioned criteria for evaluating 'evidence'.

[GStan]

I've personally observed the exterior of the Pentagon after the crash. It didn't appear as if a commercial airliner had crashed. Etc, etc.

If there was no commercial airliner, how can there be victims? If there are no victims, how can there be DNA?

On what relevant expertise in the area of airline crashes and building construction are you basing this assessment? What are your credentials?

Or are you arguing from personal incredulity?

[twinstead]

Of course. This is how the DNA is explained away: I looked at the Pentagon and it didn't appear as if a commercial airliner had crashed. Since no airliner hit the Pentagon, there were no victims, therefore the DNA evidence must be planted.

Beautiful :boggled:

[Jonnyclueless]

Right, you're not prepared to dismiss what you've been told, regardless of whether or not it matches with that you observed, because in doing so you would be allowing a brick to be thrown through the window of your current worldview.

That's why whenever you start running low on excuses for ignoring something, you start comparing truthers to Nazis, or simply repeating over and over again that this just a delusion, a fantasy, imaginary, or fake. You'll literally say or do anything to preserve that worldview you're so fond of.

Sooner or later, you're going to have to face the music and adapt your worldview. You can't make excuses and Nazi-comparisons forever.

Once again.

Well, unless you can show a serial number, how can you possibly prove that the brick was thrown thought the window? Please answer that for me.

[GStan]

That's cute, but do you understand why you're able to continue believing that there is "zero evidence"? It's because you have standards for evaluating evidence that give you the option of rejecting whatever you feel like rejecting.
Let's see.. any expert who disagrees with you is crazy. That right there eliminates most possible sources of 'evidence'.

Then there's the confused eye-witness, or the unqualified eye-witness. Anybody who sees something that doesn't fit in with your view of things was confused, not qualified to see whatever it was they saw, or just some insane attention-seeking conspiracy theorist.

So I'm not surprised that you still believe there is "zero evidence". It will probably remain that way, too, as long as you're using the above-mentioned criteria for evaluating 'evidence'.

Stundied

[lapman]

BTW, I did email the NTSB about how often they use serial numbers to identify crashed aircraft. The response was:
NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon.

Susan xxxxxxxxxxx
Information Specialist
NTSB
Records Management Division
490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW
Washington, DC 20594
202-314-6551So, not only do they rarely use serial numbers, they only use the ones of major components when they do. Since there are so many sources that point to which aircraft crashed where, why would they need to use serial numbers?

[aggle-rithm]

Of course. This is how the DNA is explained away: I looked at the Pentagon and it didn't appear as if a commercial airliner had crashed. Since no airliner hit the Pentagon, there were no victims, therefore the DNA evidence must be planted.

Beautiful :boggled:

It's the first time a variation of the Weak Anthropic Principle has been used to prove a conspiracy.

We're making history here, folks!

;)

[twinstead]

Actually, IMO it's a good thing that no serial numbers were needed; if there was a record of matching serial numbers it would be just one more piece of evidence, out of the HUGE amount that exists already, that the truthers would have to hand wave away as if it doesn't exist.

This makes it easier on them.

[deep]

How many crash sites have you observed where an airliner crashed into a building at over 400mph to know what to look for?


Two.

[DGM]

BTW, I did email the NTSB about how often they use serial numbers to identify crashed aircraft. The response was:
So, not only do they rarely use serial numbers, they only use the ones of major components when they do. Since there are so many sources that point to which aircraft crashed where, why would they need to use serial numbers?
Basically the only time they would do that would be if the identity of the aircraft was in question. On 9/11 this was not the case.

[deep]

Stundied


So are you denying that you do those things I listed?

[twinstead]

Two.

So, you must be an expert. Have you contacted some of your colleagues who were there that day to chastise them for not knowing what they are talking about? I would, since in your expert opinion there was no plane crash that day.

While you're at it, maybe some of those first responders and eye witnesses would like to know they were totally fooled. I mean, as an expert you must have some influence, right.

Here we have it folks. A REAL expert who was there and whose professional opinion, after inspecting the damage, is that no airliner hit the Pentagon.

STOP THE PRESSES!!

[twinstead]

So are you denying that you do those things I listed?

Not sure what he would say, but everything you said in that post could be attributed to you. You realize there are experts who think the official story fits the available evidence best. You must think THEY are crazy, right?

And the eye witnesses who SAW a plane hit the Pentagon must be simply confused, right?

Can you say PROJECTION?

[GStan]

That's cute, but do you understand why you're able to continue believing that there is "zero evidence"? It's because you have standards for evaluating evidence that give you the option of rejecting whatever you feel like rejecting.

Let's see.. any expert who disagrees with you is crazy. That right there eliminates most possible sources of 'evidence'.

Then there's the confused eye-witness, or the unqualified eye-witness. Anybody who sees something that doesn't fit in with your view of things was confused, not qualified to see whatever it was they saw, or just some insane attention-seeking conspiracy theorist.

So I'm not surprised that you still believe there is "zero evidence". It will probably remain that way, too, as long as you're using the above-mentioned criteria for evaluating 'evidence'.

The truth movement has no standards for evaluating evidence, and that is why they hate that others, who do not support their predetermined conclusions about 9/11, actually do have such standards.

Please post one piece of evidence that I or any other member here has rejected simply 'because we feel like it'.

[lapman]

Two.
And those would be?

[GStan]

StundiedSo are you denying that you do those things I listed?

No, I was off in another thread highlighting the humor of the things you listed.

[deep]

Basically the only time they would do that would be if the identity of the aircraft was in question. On 9/11 this was not the case.


You seem to be missing the point. The FBI claimed publicly that they did identify the aircraft using serial numbers -- and you guys have been parroting that in your arguments for as long as I can remember.

It's an example of a claim that could not be independently verified -- and it eventually turned out to be false.

[deep]

And those would be?


WTC1 & WTC2.

edit: regardless, even if I hadn't seen the planes impact those two buildings, it's not difficult to visualize what a crash like that would look like in the most basic sense.

[rwguinn]

That's cute, but do you understand why you're able to continue believing that there is "zero evidence"? It's because you have standards for evaluating evidence that give you the option of rejecting whatever you feel like rejecting.

Let's see.. any expert who disagrees with you is crazy. That right there eliminates most possible sources of 'evidence'.

Then there's the confused eye-witness, or the unqualified eye-witness. Anybody who sees something that doesn't fit in with your view of things was confused, not qualified to see whatever it was they saw, or just some insane attention-seeking conspiracy theorist.

So I'm not surprised that you still believe there is "zero evidence". It will probably remain that way, too, as long as you're using the above-mentioned criteria for evaluating 'evidence'.

Show me an expert who has a degree in Civil, Mechanical or structural engineering, or in architecture/architectural engineering, who has, in the past 10 years 1. Performed actual analysis on steel structures as a part of his/her job, or 2. Actually designed and/or constructed steel-framed or concrete/steel composite buildings, and I might listen.
Pose analysis by Teologans, Psychologists, and physicists sucked in by "cold Fusion", and I laugh.
You have no experts

[DGM]

You seem to be missing the point. The FBI claimed publicly that they did identify the aircraft using serial numbers -- and you guys have been parroting that in your arguments for as long as I can remember.

It's an example of a claim that could not be independently verified -- and it eventually turned out to be false.
Where did they say that? The only time I know of is the ID of the data recorders.(2- AA77/2-UA93)

[Jonnyclueless]

You seem to be missing the point. The FBI claimed publicly that they did identify the aircraft using serial numbers -- and you guys have been parroting that in your arguments for as long as I can remember.

It's an example of a claim that could not be independently verified -- and it eventually turned out to be false.


So what you are saying is that normally in all other FBI investigations all the evidence is and can be independently verified?

I know you keep intentionally avoiding answer questions, but I will keep trying.

[lapman]

WTC1 & WTC2.

edit: regardless, even if I hadn't seen the planes impact those two buildings, it's not difficult to visualize what a crash like that would look like in the most basic sense.
So you think that reinforced concrete would react to the crash like lite steel. Yet there were no pieces of any aircraft that points to an airliner on both those crashes. Only an outline of something that hit the towers. So, without actually seeing the airliners fly into the towers, how would you know the actual type of aircraft?

[Jonnyclueless]

"The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated"

[Dave Rogers]

WTC1 & WTC2.

So you're starting from two crash sites where no large airliner parts were visible in photographs of the impact points on the buildings, and from that you're concluding that there may not have been an airliner impact at the Pentagon because no large airliner parts were visible in photographs of the impact point on the building?

What, specifically, about the difference between the appearance of the site of the WTC crashes and the appearance of the site of the Pentagon crash makes you suspect that there was no airliner involved in the latter?

edit: regardless, even if I hadn't seen the planes impact those two buildings, it's not difficult to visualize what a crash like that would look like in the most basic sense.

You assume that it's not difficult, but, not having compared your visualisation with reality, how can you validate your assumption?

Dave

[Jonnyclueless]

So you think that reinforced concrete would react to the crash like lite steel. Yet there were no pieces of any aircraft that points to an airliner on both those crashes. Only an outline of something that hit the towers. So, without actually seeing the airliners fly into the towers, how would you know the actual type of aircraft?

Here in lies the problem. You don't know what you are talking about because there were many plane parts recovered. Not to mention the planes were seen n person and on video. They were seen on RADAR. The DNA of victims from the planes were found. Calls form those planes were made. belongings of the passengers and crews were found.

Now if you want to claim that it wasn't those planes, then you need to explain how between the time those planes took off and the time that the buildings were hit, the bodies of the passengers, the belongings, and the parts from those planes arrived there.

[Dave Rogers]

You seem to be missing the point. The FBI claimed publicly that they did identify the aircraft using serial numbers -- and you guys have been parroting that in your arguments for as long as I can remember.

Links please.

Dave

[Billdave2]

That's cute, but do you understand why you're able to continue believing that there is "zero evidence"? It's because you have standards for evaluating evidence that give you the option of rejecting whatever you feel like rejecting.

Let's see.. any expert who disagrees with you is crazy. That right there eliminates most possible sources of 'evidence'.

Then there's the confused eye-witness, or the unqualified eye-witness. Anybody who sees something that doesn't fit in with your view of things was confused, not qualified to see whatever it was they saw, or just some insane attention-seeking conspiracy theorist.

So I'm not surprised that you still believe there is "zero evidence". It will probably remain that way, too, as long as you're using the above-mentioned criteria for evaluating 'evidence'.


For the third time I will ask. Please present this evidence. If it is not true that there is zero evidence please comply with the many request here to share it.

[uk_dave]

WTC1 & WTC2.

edit: regardless, even if I hadn't seen the planes impact those two buildings, it's not difficult to visualize what a crash like that would look like in the most basic sense.

Absolute bollocks.

Are you a friend of Killtown? He doesn't believe the Sandia test crash of a phantom Jet into a solid concrete wall.

Killtown has a problem visualizing what such a crash 'would look like'. Do you share his personal incredulity? Or are you a better visualizer than dear old demented Killtown?

[deep]

Show me an expert who has a degree in Civil, Mechanical or structural engineering, or in architecture/architectural engineering, who has, in the past 10 years 1. Performed actual analysis on steel structures as a part of his/her job, or 2. Actually designed and/or constructed steel-framed or concrete/steel composite buildings, and I might listen.
Pose analysis by Teologans, Psychologists, and physicists sucked in by "cold Fusion", and I laugh.
You have no experts


Richard Gage is working on a steel framed mid-rise building in Las Vegas right now, or starting very soon (I don't remember which - he mentioned it during a radio interview about a week ago).

I look forward to your updated requirements (perhaps you could exclude anybody with a first name starting with 'R'?).

[Billdave2]

WTC1 & WTC2.

edit: regardless, even if I hadn't seen the planes impact those two buildings, it's not difficult to visualize what a crash like that would look like in the most basic sense.

Quick how do I nominate something for a stundie? I have never done it before. Of coarse since I have never done it before that means I can't ever do it, Right?:D

[uk_dave]

Richard Gage is working on a steel framed mid-rise building in Las Vegas right now, or starting very soon (I don't remember which - he mentioned it during a radio interview about a week ago).

I look forward to your updated requirements (perhaps you could exclude anybody with a first name starting with 'R'?).

Scary thought. Hope he doesn't scrimp on the fireproofing.

Maybe you could ask him? Ask him if his (is it his design or is he just detailing a few services for someone else?) design includes fire protection to the structural steelwork and if so, why. Ok?

[doctoraudit]

If you are the evil New World Order, and you want the world to believe a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, you better have a pretty compelling reason not to actually crash a 757 into the Pentagon.

[Jonnyclueless]

Richard Gage is working on a steel framed mid-rise building in Las Vegas right now, or starting very soon (I don't remember which - he mentioned it during a radio interview about a week ago).

I look forward to your updated requirements (perhaps you could exclude anybody with a first name starting with 'R'?).

Still won't answer any questions huh?

And so Gage is engineering this building?

[Jonnyclueless]

If you are the evil New World Order, and you want the world to believe a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, you better have a pretty compelling reason not to actually crash a 757 into the Pentagon.

But what if you are a HUGE james bond fan and have a thing for needlessly overly complex plans?

[Pardalis]

wrong thread

[Jonnyclueless]

On a related note, my father too is an architect and one that has worked on many very large high rise buildings/towers, etc (He was Trumps head architect) . He laughs every time he hears about these conspiracy claims. he also says that as soon as he saw how the planes had hit those buildings his response was "Oh those things are going down". And his expertise far exceeds Gage.

[uk_dave]

On a related note, my father too is an architect and one that has worked on many very large high rise buildings/towers, etc (He was Trumps head architect) . He laughs every time he hears about these conspiracy claims. he also says that as soon as he saw how the planes had hit those buildings his response was "Oh those things are going down". And his expertise far exceeds Gage.

So he's to blame for that hair?:D

Likewise I have several close friends who are structural engineers. Raising 'truther' arguments to them is always good for a laugh.

[aggle-rithm]

Richard Gage is working on a steel framed mid-rise building in Las Vegas right now, or starting very soon (I don't remember which - he mentioned it during a radio interview about a week ago).


Steel work? Engineering? Making coffee? Installing the plumbing?

"Working" can mean a lot of things.

Perhaps he's standing in front of the construction site, handing out those cards with nekkid wimmin on them?

[rwguinn]

Richard Gage is working on a steel framed mid-rise building in Las Vegas right now, or starting very soon (I don't remember which - he mentioned it during a radio interview about a week ago).

I look forward to your updated requirements (perhaps you could exclude anybody with a first name starting with 'R'?).
Evidence?

[funk de fino]

Even if the video isn't absolutely clear, as long as they make an effort to be open and honest about it (i.e., transparent), I would most likely be satisfied. For example, they say something along the lines of:

"There were twelve cameras pointed at that side of the Pentagon between the DOT & Pentagon security, and here are all of the relevant clips from all twelve cameras. They aren't very clear, but at least you can see what happened to to wings of the plane."

There are many other ways to reach an agreeable middle-ground.. right now, there's nothing.

I believe thay actually said that the camera images they released were the only ones to show anything involving the plane. Why do you not believe them?

[Sparky]

Richard Gage is working on a steel framed mid-rise building in Las Vegas right now, or starting very soon .

You do realize that a mid-rise building cannot exceed 75' from the level of FD access (ground) to the floor level of the highest level of human occupancy per present day building codes? That means 8 floors maximum. Hardly the same thing...

[Bobert]

Yeah, I don't doubt that. And how would they even be able to identify 11 and 175 after such violent collapses and subsequent rubble fires.

But what about Shanksville and the Pentagon? They have pieces of those planes right? They just didn't document the identification process, right?

That is Truther Detective 101 LOOK AND SEARCH for 1 miniscule thinig to prove an inside job.
Dont you think that the radar account along with what 100's of thousands of people WITNESSING the planes hit would substantiate?

[Jonnyclueless]

Steel work? Engineering? Making coffee? Installing the plumbing?

"Working" can mean a lot of things.

Perhaps he's standing in front of the construction site, handing out those cards with nekkid wimmin on them?

Kitchen remodeling?

[GStan]

That's cute, but do you understand why you're able to continue believing that there is "zero evidence"? It's because you have standards for evaluating evidence that give you the option of rejecting whatever you feel like rejecting.

Let's see.. any expert who disagrees with you is crazy. That right there eliminates most possible sources of 'evidence'.

Then there's the confused eye-witness, or the unqualified eye-witness. Anybody who sees something that doesn't fit in with your view of things was confused, not qualified to see whatever it was they saw, or just some insane attention-seeking conspiracy theorist.

So I'm not surprised that you still believe there is "zero evidence". It will probably remain that way, too, as long as you're using the above-mentioned criteria for evaluating 'evidence'.

Still waiting for one piece of evidence that has been rejected by me or any other debunker simply 'because we feel like it'.

[rwguinn]

Richard Gage is working on a steel framed mid-rise building in Las Vegas right now, or starting very soon (I don't remember which - he mentioned it during a radio interview about a week ago).

I look forward to your updated requirements (perhaps you could exclude anybody with a first name starting with 'R'?).

Repeating:
Evidence?
Other than your/his word?

[Sparky]

Richard Gage is working on a steel framed mid-rise building in Las Vegas right now, or starting very soon (I don't remember which - he mentioned it during a radio interview about a week ago).



Can you provide the name of the project he is supposed to be working on? The Nevada building codes being what they are, I'm willing to bet that project is steel-reinforced concrete and not a steel-framed structure.

[Billdave2]

On a related note, my father too is an architect and one that has worked on many very large high rise buildings/towers, etc (He was Trumps head architect) . He laughs every time he hears about these conspiracy claims. he also says that as soon as he saw how the planes had hit those buildings his response was "Oh those things are going down". And his expertise far exceeds Gage.

So your father knew they were going to fall before they did? That must mean he was in on it too! Just what all the truthers have been waiting on real evidence!:D

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm caught red handed! Well since the cat is out of the band, I'll spill the beans. He and Larry were having an argument . My dad kept insisting they push it, while the firefighters insisted pulling it. Ultimately the firefighters won.

[DGM]

I'm caught red handed! Well since the cat is out of the band, I'll spill the beans. He and Larry were having an argument . My dad kept insisting they push it, while the firefighters insisted pulling it. Ultimately the firefighters won.
Jonny, you are so losing your corner NWO office and pie rations.

Dibs on them!!!!!!!

[Jonnyclueless]

I'll make up for it on Hawiian shirt friday after I sign up a friend for free!

[Billdave2]

I'm caught red handed! Well since the cat is out of the band, I'll spill the beans. He and Larry were having an argument . My dad kept insisting they push it, while the firefighters insisted pulling it. Ultimately the firefighters won.

And since your dad worked for Trump, he must be in on too!

A-ha, I have figured it out. Trump did to clear way for his new "Trump World Trade Center" It will be Yooge!

[PhantomWolf]

deep44, at about 10:30am on the 11th of September, 2001, American Airlines confirmed that one of their aircraft, Flight 77, had crashed into the Pentagon. They had been tracking the plane since take off using their onboard systems so they knew if this was true or not. WERE THEY LYING?

[PhantomWolf]

deep44, at about 10:15am on the 11th of September, 2001, United Airlines confirmed that one of their aircraft, Flight 93, had crashed near Shanksville. They had been tracking the plane since take off using their onboard systems so they knew if this was true or not. WERE THEY LYING?

[LastChild]

deep44, at about 10:30am on the 11th of September, 2001, American Airlines confirmed that one of their aircraft, Flight 77, had crashed into the Pentagon. They had been tracking the plane since take off using their onboard systems so they knew if this was true or not. WERE THEY LYING?

Maybe they were mistaken. Were they tracking the same transponder code since take-off? And didn't one of the ATC at one point mistakenly think they were tracking a military plane because of how it was maneuvering?

[DGM]

Maybe they were mistaken. Were they tracking the same transponder code since take-off? And didn't one of the ATC at one point mistakenly think they were tracking a military plane because of how it was maneuvering?
They track plane telemetry with their own system.

[PhantomWolf]

Maybe they were mistaken. Were they tracking the same transponder code since take-off?

The Airlines don't use transponders to track the aircraft, they have a separate system that gives them different data. They knew what the planes were doing from take off to impact. Were they lying when they confirmed the Flights and crashes? Where they lying when about getting the plane parts back? (95% of the plane in at least the case of Flight 93)

And didn't one of the ATC at one point mistakenly think they were tracking a military plane because of how it was maneuvering?

You mean because it was doing things at speeds that an ordinary passanger plane generally wouldn't because it would result in a rather uncomfortable ride for the passangers? I don't think that the Hijackers really worried about making the ride uncomfortable for the passangers.

[LastChild]

They track plane telemetry with their own system.

Source this.

[LastChild]

The Airlines don't use transponders to track the aircraft, they have a separate system that gives them different data. They knew what the planes were doing from take off to impact. Were they lying when they confirmed the Flights and crashes? Where they lying when about getting the plane parts back? (95% of the plane in at least the case of Flight 93)

Source what they did and how this identifies the plane.

You mean because it was doing things at speeds that an ordinary passanger plane generally wouldn't because it would result in a rather uncomfortable ride for the passangers? I don't think that the Hijackers really worried about making the ride uncomfortable for the passangers.

I don't think the ATC was sure what they were tracking at the time.

[DGM]

Source this.
The system is the predecessor to what a lot of over the road trucking companies use now. It's satellite based. You can look it up.

I'm sitting down to dinner now and if I get around to it I'll do it latter.

[PhantomWolf]

Source what they did and how this identifies the plane.

I'll let one of the airplane techs cover this, they know way more about the systems that I do. It looks like DGM already has it underway.

I don't think the ATC was sure what they were tracking at the time.

They were tracking an unknown blip that was travelling at high speeds and doing a turn that would put any passangers in a very uncomfortable position. Thus they made the assumptions that a sane commerical pilot wouldn't a) do that to his passangers and b) break the speed restrictions at that altitude because in their words "it would be unsafe" and so they concluded it was military. The assumptions however are invalid when used on people that have no care about what discomfort their flying will cause to passangers or how unsafe their turns and speed are because they are about to crash the plane into a building. As such the conclusion is also obviously invalid.

[Sparky]

Source this.

"Air Transportation Systems Engineering" By George L. Donohue

[PhantomWolf]

Source what they did and how this identifies the plane.

Here's a similar system (http://www.intelisys.ca/content/amelia/track.asp)

[AMTMAN]

Source what they did and how this identifies the plane.
.

AA and UAL seem to think it was their aircraft. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? No you don't.

[twinstead]

AA and UAL seem to think it was their aircraft. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? No you don't.

Yup. Obviously the conspiracy reaches the upper echelon of AA an UAL. Unless of course those companies tend to loose planes.

[AMTMAN]

I'll let one of the airplane techs cover this, they know way more about the systems that I do. It looks like DGM already has it underway.

I'm guessing you are refering to ACARS.

[AMTMAN]

Yup. Obviously the conspiracy reaches the upper echelon of AA an UAL. Unless of course those companies tend to loose planes.

Must be, airlines don't just misplace multi-million dollar pices of equipment. But since Last Child has no clue on how airlines operate he must believe they they did.

[PhantomWolf]

I'm guessing you are refering to ACARS.

Looks about right from what I have heard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communication_Addressing_and_Reporting_Sy stem). Since you work with it, can you expand on what data AA would have known about Flight 11 and 77 other then that they were still in the air until impact. Since it seems to be linked to the FMS I'm assuming you can get position and flight data too?

[pomeroo]

Right, you're not prepared to dismiss what you've been told, regardless of whether or not it matches with that you observed, because in doing so you would be allowing a brick to be thrown through the window of your current worldview.


Your thinking is seriously flawed (well, duh!--you are a fantasist) and you seem incapable of following your own reasoning to a conclusion. You suggest that I should be prepared to dismiss the results of a massive, multi-agency investigation, but you never get around to explaining why. What is the source of your doubt? Has the fantasy movement produced anything at all, one shred of real evidence, that contradicts the findings of the real researchers? We all understand that the answer is a resounding "NO." You imply that you have "observed" something that undermines the conclusions reached by the original investigation. But in reality, you have observed nothing. Do you really reject the results of all criminal investigations (remember, with a large enough conspiracy, the evidence can always be faked)?



That's why whenever you start running low on excuses for ignoring something, you start comparing truthers to Nazis, or simply repeating over and over again that this just a delusion, a fantasy, imaginary, or fake. You'll literally say or do anything to preserve that worldview you're so fond of.

Sooner or later, you're going to have to face the music and adapt your worldview. You can't make excuses and Nazi-comparisons forever.



No, we rationalists will not say anything to maintain our position. We won't tell lies, unlike you and your fellow fantasists. Twoofers bear comparisons with Nazis in their uncritical embrace of bogus science and their mindless desire to scapegoat innocent people. The fantasy movement is built entirely on hatred, whether of America viewed as a whole or of the American government, and ignorance. The falsehoods promoted by conspiracy liars are not honest errors. They are pernicious lies designed to absolve the jihadists of all wrongdoing.

Insanely, you pretend that the people who regularly expose your evil movement's stupid lies will eventually have to "face the music." When do you frauds face the music? You've shrieked hysterically for over six years without producing a thing. One after another, your cherished myths have been utterly destroyed. You are left with wrangling over semantics and pathetically claiming that the hijacked planes were not identified by serial number. Everyone gets the idea that if parts with serial numbers had survived, your side would have reflexively branded them as fakes. The Penta-conmen pretend, after all, that finding Flight 77's FDR in the Pentagon somehow proves that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. Such breathtaking asininity and dishonesty speaks volumes about the worldview of people who cling to their belief in an imaginary conspiracy.

[pomeroo]

Richard Gage is working on a steel framed mid-rise building in Las Vegas right now, or starting very soon (I don't remember which - he mentioned it during a radio interview about a week ago).

I look forward to your updated requirements (perhaps you could exclude anybody with a first name starting with 'R'?).


Gage is a cowardly fraud who refuses to debate well-informed rationalists. He has brought nothing original to the table, just a farrago of nonsense culled from thoroughly debunked rubbish invented by other charlatans.

Can we assume that you reject the videos of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower? If you do, I have a little surprise in store for you late in April.

[Corsair 115]

Maybe they were mistaken.How often do you think an airline company would be mistaken about one of its expensive pieces of hardware? Not to mention being mistaken about the crew and passengers that hardware carried? Do you have any idea of the complexities involved with airline scheduling of its flights and crews?

I believe the phrase "grasping at straws" would accurately describe your comment.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by deep44 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2blues/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3541718#post3541718)
Richard Gage is working on a steel framed mid-rise building in Las Vegas right now, or starting very soon (I don't remember which - he mentioned it during a radio interview about a week ago).

I look forward to your updated requirements (perhaps you could exclude anybody with a first name starting with 'R'?).

Repeating:
Evidence?
Other than your/his word?

Wanna try to get some evidence, here?

[LastChild]

AA and UAL seem to think it was their aircraft. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? No you don't.

We all know what they apparently thought. I want to know what they positively knew and how. Now I can’t find anything that seems to cover flight 93 and telemetry and how it worked that day. That’s all. I've looked at the link so far but don't see anything on how it played into 9/11 and positively identifying the planes.

[AZCat]

Richard Gage is working on a steel framed mid-rise building in Las Vegas right now, or starting very soon (I don't remember which - he mentioned it during a radio interview about a week ago).

I look forward to your updated requirements (perhaps you could exclude anybody with a first name starting with 'R'?).

He may be, but there's a world of difference between "working on" and being the architect of record. See, Richard has a small problem - he's not registered with the Nevada State Board of Architecture (listing of A-G registrants (http://nsbaidrd.state.nv.us/Rosters/ArchsA-G_020508.htm)). Either he's lying, or he's working under someone else, which means absolutely nothing. He could be designing parts of the building or merely fetching the morning's coffee.

[PhantomWolf]

We all know what they apparently thought. I want to know what positively knew and how. Now I can’t find anything that seems to cover flight 93 and telemetry and how it worked that day. That’s all. I've looked at the link so far but don't see anything on how it played into 9/11 and positively identifying the planes.

You don't think that having the realtime data from the engines and FMS for each plane suddenly stop at the exact time and position of the crashes might have given them some clue to where and when and which plane?

[LastChild]

You don't think that having the realtime data from the engines and FMS for each plane suddenly stop at the exact time and position of the crashes might have given them some clue to where and when and which plane?

How does it identify which plane it's tracking?

[PhantomWolf]

How does it identify which plane it's tracking?

Gee I wonder. Might there be a code or another system built into the ACARS system to distingush one plane from another. Nah, that'd be a totally dumb idea wouldn't it.

[Jonnyclueless]

"How does it identify which plane it's tracking?"

With two tin cans and a string connecting them.

[LastChild]

Gee I wonder. Might there be a code or another system built into the ACARS system to distingush one plane from another. Nah, that'd be a totally dumb idea wouldn't it.

I don't know might there? Source it and how it worked on 9/11. You did read this somewhere didn't you?

[WildCat]

I don't know might there? Source it and how it worked on 9/11. You did read this somewhere didn't you?
LC, does your internet not come with Google? Or does it only connect to youtube, truther sites, and the JREF?

[Confuseling]

"How does it identify which plane it's tracking?"

With two tin cans and a string connecting them.

Scientology! :alien012:

[LastChild]

So it doesn't positively identify the plane? Why didn't you just say so?

[Jonnyclueless]

LC, does your internet not come with Google? Or does it only connect to youtube, truther sites, and the JREF?


2 tin cans and a string connecting them.

[PhantomWolf]

I don't know might there? Source it and how it worked on 9/11. You did read this somewhere didn't you?

No, I don't have the technical readouts on how the ACARS system works, I have a basic idea of what it does. Why would you need the techinal readouts of the programme to determine if it could distingush planes from each other when the system wouldn't work if it couldn't? The whole idea of the system is to give the Airline data on their aircraft while it's in the air and to allow them to give it information directly. If it couldn't distingust one plane from anothr it would be useless. It doesn't take a moron to figure that out. Once again you seem to have to reduce details to a minicle point to try and claim victory when something can't be explained to that point (though I'm sure that ANTMAN or one of the others probably can get you the instruction manual if needed) rather then use your brain and a bit of logic about things. Why is this?

[PhantomWolf]

So it doesn't positively identify the plane? Why didn't you just say so?

If it didn't positively id the plane then the system would be useless. How else would the Airline know what plane was sending them what data? Think about it bit. You have a brain, use it.

[LastChild]

If it didn't positively id the plane then the system would be useless. How else would the Airline know what plane was sending them what data? Think about it bit. You have a brain, use it.

So then tell me how brainiac. You do know don't you? I'm really interested. Tell me how it worked on 9/11.