Convince me Arab Terrorists were on planes [Archive] - Page 3

Homeland Insurgency

1st October 2008, 07:46 PM

1) It was not "just collected" DNA.

Yeah that's right. What else was done?

2) Family DNA as compared to what? What would that tell you?

What did it tell you and your version of 9/11 and how 9/11 victim remains were identified?

I understand the difference- I fail to see why "family DNA" would build a more solid case than the work done by these agencies. If you compare the DNA of family members to samples recovered at the scene one could say that individuals with a strong or weak family relationship were on the planes. However, that's not only prone to false positives (other family members), it's highly prone to false negatives (unclear family associations, etc). If you compare the known DNA profiles to the family members DNA- that will only tell you that they possibly had a strong or weak family relationship (again prone to the same errors). It would not tell you if they were on the plane or that they were hijackers.

Right. But you have no problem with that very technique being used to identify victim remains. You fail to see the difference huh?

There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what DNA is- it does not identify your siblings or other family members. Upon a very detailed DNA analysis, experts can associate a strong or weak family relationship based on the similarity of certain characteristics. Comparing DNA to family members will not identify a specific person, nor will it tell you what crimes that person was involved in.

Well then I guess in your eyes none of the 9/11 victims were positively identified either. Now we're getting somewhere.

16.5

1st October 2008, 07:55 PM

Cripes, is this silly thread still going?

"Help tip the scales to one side or the other for me, i have a very open mind about this."

And within 40 posts, the freaking No Planer liar douchenozzle was proved to be a huge liar.

C'mon, folks, it is a no-planer thread. Let it go.

Homeland Insurgency

1st October 2008, 07:55 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/01/eveningnews/main1857671.shtml
The 9/11 hijackers, for example, used fraudulent documents to obtain real driver's licenses and state IDs, which enabled them to purchase airline tickets and enroll in flight schools.

So how did the real names of hijackers end up on the original manifests like some claim if the hijackers were known to use fraudulent documentation to purchase airline tickets?

And if they for some unknown reason used their real identification to purchase airline tickets for 9/11 then how were they traced to flight school that they enrolled in using fake identification?

16.5

1st October 2008, 08:09 PM

So how did the real names of hijackers end up on the original manifests like some claim if the hijackers were known to use fraudulent documentation to purchase airline tickets?

And if they for some unknown reason used their real identification to purchase airline tickets for 9/11 then how were they traced to flight school that they enrolled in using fake identification?

Because every single thing published in the press is one hundred percent accurate!

Jeepers, truther, grow a pair.

Cripes, at least quote from the 911 report (not because it is correct but at least you are quoting something authoritative)

Do it, truther!

/I realize I completely ignored my previous post.

pomeroo

1st October 2008, 08:44 PM

The "still alive" pilot is Abdulrahman al-Omari. His photo was mistakenly used in the CNN report I mentioned earlier:

http://www.911myths.com/images/a/af/ARAlomari1.jpg

He came forward to say he had nothing to do with it. An interview was shown on CNN, confirming this was a much older man who looked nothing like the hijacker:

http://www.911myths.com/images/e/e5/ARAlomari2.jpg

(More here. (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Abdulaziz_al-Omari_still_alive%3F))

And so this was all cleared up within two weeks of the attacks. Except for the truthers, of course, who carry on about it even now...

Mike, I've posted these links many times. He knows--trust me, he knows.

mchapman

1st October 2008, 08:48 PM

pomeroo

1st October 2008, 08:48 PM

Meuller made that quote TWICE to CNN. Who or where it is found on the internet dont mean squat.

The only point is, did he say that?

As he did, the quote speaks for itself, and is crystal clear.

If any of those guys had to be proved they crashed on those planes, it would fail in a court of law.

So in other words, there is no proff they were on the planes.

We KNOW no "hardcopy" evidence has been given to the public, we know only one"suspect" video exists, we know the Saudi Govt stated some of the 19 were not on the planes, so in sum, to say we know those guys got on the planes is speculation not backed by provable facts.

You've been caught lying again. In February 2002, the Saudi government acknowledged that its own investigation had confirmed that American intelligence had correctly identified the hijackers.

But, of course, you already knew that.

If you have a problem with Mueller's quote, spit it out and quit being a weasel.

The problem with the quote is that the FBI is quite certain it identified all nineteen hijackers--as you know.

mchapman

1st October 2008, 08:49 PM

And deep down you dont want to believe someone like you could and or would do such a horrible thing.That is understandable.
However you must face facts.they did it.and were praised for it in the islamic world as it is what the islamic book says to do!

What country are you from...I'm curious.

PS we call then RENTAL CARS.

Which book?

pomeroo

1st October 2008, 08:53 PM

Hey genius. Simple question, what is the full name, including middle name of the Al-Shehri in Morocco? Now what is the name of his brother?

Now what is the full name of the Al-Shehri the FBI reported?

I posted the 911myths.com link that disposes of this canard just the other day. Roundhead is one of the most dishonest members of a group that is defined by its dishonesty, but he's outdone himself in his shameful performance on this thread.

pomeroo

1st October 2008, 08:57 PM

He doesn't answer any questions anymore, he's just dumping links.

It's worse than that. His links are at least six years old. Can you imagine--conspiracy liars are still trying to peddle this thoroughly debunked rubbish in 2008?!

pomeroo

1st October 2008, 09:02 PM

Yeah that's right. What else was done?

What did it tell you and your version of 9/11 and how 9/11 victim remains were identified?

Right. But you have no problem with that very technique being used to identify victim remains. You fail to see the difference huh?

Well then I guess in your eyes none of the 9/11 victims were positively identified either. Now we're getting somewhere.

As always, your uninformed sophistry leads you to the conclusion that the FBI is part of your imaginary conspiracy. How did this happen? What evidence do you have (heh-heh--yeah, right)? Oh, I almost forgot--isn't it mathematically impossible that such a gigantic conspiracy would fail to unravel in seven years (hint: Yes)?

johnny karate

1st October 2008, 09:05 PM

No its unpatriotic to defend a lie that has taken this country down a terrible path.

You use a broad brush to paint those whose opinions and actions you disagree with, claiming that in doing so, they hate their country.

I'm just curious to know how you judge the patriotism of the firefighters you've accused of cowardice and complicity in the supposed 9/11 conspiracy.

Do you think they should get the same traitor's punishment that I'm sure you fantasize us receiving?

Totovader

1st October 2008, 09:07 PM

Yeah that's right. What else was done?

Wait... you know but you don't know?

What did it tell you and your version of 9/11 and how 9/11 victim remains were identified?

That's not an answer to my question. Again, my question was: "2) Family DNA as compared to what? What would that tell you?"

Right. But you have no problem with that very technique being used to identify victim remains. You fail to see the difference huh?

Um, you are the one who fails to see the difference. The victims are known. They had travel plans. They had families. They had destinations they never reached. In order to separate their final resting place from the sea of body parts and human remains- a match of family relations is good enough. We are not trying to identify unknown people to accuse them of crimes in the case of the victims. There's a difference- and you obviously don't get it. We need to be more confident in the case of the hijackers than we do with the victims- identifying the relationship is a simple way of confirming that the individual is not missing.

Oh- and it sort of requires that the family step forward (and- if there was some reason to doubt the claim- be able to provide a family history).

Well then I guess in your eyes none of the 9/11 victims were positively identified either. Now we're getting somewhere.

No- you're inserting a red herring. Identifying victims is a world of difference. You're shooting yourself in the foot- you're claiming that the victims were identified with a rock solid technique, and then turning around and claiming that a technique which is even more reliable does not identify the terrorists. How can you- on the one hand- accept the methods, conclusions, and science behind one and then reject the other without justification whatsoever? The gigantic leap you have to make over your own comments is astounding.

beachnut

1st October 2008, 09:07 PM

Let us not forget, that at least in one case for sure, the pilots had we know plenty of time to transmit highjack code,
Lies and junk. Your whole post is a fantasy interspersed with blatant lies like this.

The pilots were killed, what code is the "I am being killed code". You are a pathetic terrorist apologist without evidence to back your lies and fantasy ideas.

You got every single thing wrong. Are you trying hard to do that, or does it come easy for you to lie and make up stuff?

Totovader

1st October 2008, 09:09 PM

You absolutely have dismissed the DNA evidence: you claim- without any justification whatsoever- that the identity of the individuals with known profiles cannot possibly ever be confirmed. Your alternative method of "family DNA" would apparently only apply to one person- and doesn't tell you anything at all about the identity of the individual.

You have entirely ignored the issues surrounding the establishment of these identities, and clearly lack the information required to even present a valid rebuttal to the scientific evidence, here. You're in way over your head, so you just repeat yourself and pretend like you aren't looking over the evidence when you scream at the top of your lungs that it isn't there.

Since you have managed to dig quite a grave for yourself, let's see if you can now manage to bury yourself in it: you claim that fake IDs would have thrown off the trail of the FBI- a stupid claim in itself, but in this case it doesn't even make any sense. IF these individuals were using fake IDs (which they were not), then how could the FBI have established the profiles in the first place?

Your previous red herring on this question was insufficient- try actually answering the question (without making a complete fool of yourself).

Ready. Go.

*bump yet again for mchapman

:talk038:

MikeW

1st October 2008, 09:50 PM

So how did the real names of hijackers end up on the original manifests like some claim if the hijackers were known to use fraudulent documentation to purchase airline tickets?

And if they for some unknown reason used their real identification to purchase airline tickets for 9/11 then how were they traced to flight school that they enrolled in using fake identification?
"Fraudulent documentation" does not mean "documents that include an alias". It means some of the hijackers had a guy provide them with a fake reference in order to get a driver's licence, for instance. Others obtained phony documents like an "international driver's license" (see http://8.12.42.31/2002/aug/01/nation/na-terror1). The documents were in their names, but were either obtained in some fraudulent way or weren't actually official documents at all.

Corsair 115

2nd October 2008, 12:20 AM

No its unpatriotic to defend a lie that has taken this country down a terrible path.Uh, what about all the non-Americans here who do not subscibe to 9/11 conspiracy foolishness?

funk de fino

2nd October 2008, 12:35 AM

Plese stop slurping and defending the official lie. Its false, and its unpatriotic for you to do so.

Have some backbone, and care about your country's direction.

I'm scottish, I am not politically motivated. I look at facts and evidence and come to my own conclusions. I am considerably brighter than 99% of truther I have come across and I do not lie about 911 facts.

Find something else to attack me for. Your facts are lies that you are repeating from liars sites. You have been fooled.

funk de fino

2nd October 2008, 12:38 AM

Ooh thats a tough question, and a very good one. Don't hold your breath for an answer.

the fact you think it is tough belies your ignorance

2nd October 2008, 12:39 AM

I'm scottish, I am not politically motivated. I look at facts and evidence and come to my own conclusions. I am considerably brighter than 99% of truther I have come across and I do not lie about 911 facts.
Find something else to attack me for. Your facts are lies that you are repeating from liars sites. You have been fooled.

humility is not your strongest point i see.
just take care it does not end up in overestimation :)

funk de fino

2nd October 2008, 12:41 AM

humility is not your strongest point i see.
just take care it does not end up in overestimation :)

Unfortunately it is true. Those that are brighter or as bright completely fail when it comes to logic and rationality however. The rest are mental cases.

ETA - again however there are many many others on this site who are much more bright than me who take time to give factual and reasoned and polite responses to truthers on here who are then abused and called shills and bushie lovers.

2nd October 2008, 12:59 AM

Unfortunately it is true. Those that are brighter or as bright completely fail when it comes to logic and rationality however. The rest are mental cases.

ETA - again however there are many many others on this site who are much more bright than me who take time to give factual and reasoned and polite responses to truthers on here who are then abused and called shills and bushie lovers.

yes i know i must stop call you people Shills the whole time, sorry, i try to stopp it :D

funk de fino

2nd October 2008, 01:25 AM

yes i know i must stop call you people Shills the whole time, sorry, i try to stopp it :D

read and comprehend posts before you reply please

2nd October 2008, 01:27 AM

read and comprehend posts before you reply please

you generalised truthers.
wnat to see how i get atacked here when i would generalize the duhbunkers?
Duhbunkers are Bushlovers....

funk de fino

2nd October 2008, 01:31 AM

you generalised truthers.
wnat to see how i get atacked here when i would generalize the duhbunkers?
Duhbunkers are Bushlovers....

No i never. You should learn to stop making accusations when you clearly misunderstand something due to your poor english.

Read the post in question again and try to look at it using correct english and you will see I am not generalising alll truthers. I will break it down for you again if you want into clear and concise parts so you get the message?

roundhead

2nd October 2008, 08:16 AM

Are you implying that the sooner the statements, the more accurate they are? I started a thread about that (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108147) a while back concerning a local event.

Are all of the statements that came after the initial statement "revisionism" (in the negative connotation that you've used it here)?

A great example.

Val Romero, an acknowledged expert in the field of demolition, stated publically and it was printed in a newspaper that the towers were demolished from explosives.

He certainly had looked at the event, and made this conclusion based on his experience as a expert, and took this stand publically.I take him at his word, i mean, hey you study the video, are an expert, and conclude they were demolished.

He later completely recanted te above belief, it surely cant be because he saw "different" video to change his mind.

I suggest his grants at the college he works at were threatened as a result of his first statement, and thus he recanted it.

This is a perfect example of what you requested.

Here is the original article:

'ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL' ~ "'EXPLOSIVES PLANTED IN TOWERS,' NEW MEXICO TECH EXPERT SAYS." By Olivier Uyttebrouck Journal Staff Writer

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.

Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said.

"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said.

Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.

Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.

Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.

(C) 2001, 'Albuquerque Journal,' Reprinted for Fair Use Only

Disbelief

2nd October 2008, 08:31 AM

Roundhead, I guess you believe that the flat earth is the center of the universe and the rest is revisionism.

Jonnyclueless

2nd October 2008, 08:45 AM

dtugg

2nd October 2008, 08:47 AM

Jonnyclueless

2nd October 2008, 08:50 AM

It's also pretty telling when someone like roundhaead will handwave engineering technical research backed by mathematics and well documented experiments in favor of an opinion o someone before they changed their mind. And at the same time dismissing the opinions o all the other demolition experts who unanimously agree it was not a controlled demolition.

At first roundhead dishonestly tries to imply that his view is based on someones expertise. yet he disagrees with all the other experts. So what is his conclusion based on since we rule out expertise? Simply by who makes statements that support a conspiracy theory and no by any actual facts or expertise.

roundhead

2nd October 2008, 09:11 AM

I have found zero evidence that a Val Romero has even worked at New Mexico Tech. And if he did, so what? What he supposedly said had been disputed by real experts that have very closely studied the collapse of the towers

Sorry, its Van Romero

Current Employment
Since 1997: Vice President for Research and Economic Development, New Mexico Tech.
Serves as chief official of the Research and Economic Development Division responsible for the encouragement, leadership, and support of research at the Institute and for the administrative and policy making activities of the division; offers dynamic research and administrative leadership to stimulate, coordinate, and provide support for the research at New Mexico Tech; acts as advocate for research within the Institute; serves as director of the Geophysical Research Center; manages the research support functions of the Research Division; serves as the Institute's representative and on-campus administrator for the Waste-Management Education and Research Consortium; acts as an external advocate and representative for New Mexico Tech's research activities; serves as mentor to new faculty to help them establish their research programs at the Institute; strongly encourages diversity and affirmative action; identifies research opportunities and actively encourages development of interdisciplinary research at the institute; ensures that high quality proposals are submitted by the Institute.

Previous Experience
1995-1997: Director, Energetic Materials Research & Testing Center, New Mexico Tech.
Direct and manage a multi-disciplinary team of scientists, engineers, and staff involved in RDT&E programs in energetic materials. EMRTC provides a working laboratory for conducting research in support of both government and commercial programs in the areas of ordnance, explosives, propellants and other energetic materials. Facilities include over 30 separate test sites, gun ranges and research labs located within a 32 square mile field laboratory. Developed and implemented counter-terrorist program that benefits research and academic programs.

roundhead

2nd October 2008, 09:18 AM

Roundhead, you just stated your logic perfectly.

Someone who is an expert sees just one video and makes an assumption that it was a CD. But when that person gets more data to make a better judgment he realizes that it was not a CD after all. This happens. And it shows that he is indeed an epert.

However, you use that as an opportunity to make up absurd conjecture and say that he was forced to change his mind. That's an outright LIE. You then go on by taking quotes from him BEFORE he realized his mistake and then quote mine further.

It's THIS kind of DISHONESTY that is the reason you, nor anyone else in the 9/11 cult movements or an of the 9/11 cult tabloids are taken seriously. Just because you scam artists go around calling it truth does not fool people into thinking it is just because you say so. When you make these blatant lies, YOU are the only one you are fooling. So when you wonder why no REAL media outlets take you seriously, and why the authorities don't take you seriously and why people call you nut jobs and what not. Please understand that THIS is the reason.

If you start being honest for a change, you won't have such a hard time.

He didnt say he watched"one video", you make an arguement from incredulity.

He stated he watched video broadcast from the networks. As this video is what everybody formed an opinion from, its telling he recanted his statement having nothing else to look at than he originally did.

Romero is a classic example of somebody who truthfully stated exactly what he saw, before Govt pressure shut him up. He had no idea that his opinion, as an expert, would put him in hot water, or else why change his opinion.
Its not like his opinion was blurted out hours after the event, the article appeared several day later.

The guy is a PHD, had several days to form his opinion, and expressed it. His opinion is shared by many.

His situation was/is many times repeated regarding 9/11. An opinion fatal to the OCT is expressed, then revisionism later sets in.Kinda scary.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 09:39 AM

you make an arguement from incredulity.

[...]

His situation was/is many times repeated regarding 9/11. An opinion fatal to the OCT is expressed, then revisionism later sets in.Kinda scary.

Don't pretend to speak our language, you look really stupid when you do that.

Claiming that a persons opinion, or educated observations, are not allowed to change because that's "revisionism" (which is not the proper use of the words, I might add- go back to your "morph" bastardization... it makes a little bit more sense of what you're trying to say).

Do you understand that this rejects the scientific method? Your philosophy- if followed consistently- would necessarily have to reject things like racial equality, suffrage, a spherical Earth, physics, biology, etc. As others have pointed out, this absurd philosophy throws out just about every scientific discovery... assuming we didn't just stumble onto the truth accidentally.

This computer you're typing on... it wouldn't exist if your philosophy was correct. The ability- and necessity- for science to change with the evidence is the basis for human knowledge. In your pathetic attempts to hold on to your fantasy- you are left with no other option than to reject that.

Funny. Sad, but funny.

roundhead

2nd October 2008, 10:19 AM

Don't pretend to speak our language, you look really stupid when you do that.

Claiming that a persons opinion, or educated observations, are not allowed to change because that's "revisionism" (which is not the proper use of the words, I might add- go back to your "morph" bastardization... it makes a little bit more sense of what you're trying to say).

Do you understand that this rejects the scientific method? Your philosophy- if followed consistently- would necessarily have to reject things like racial equality, suffrage, a spherical Earth, physics, biology, etc. As others have pointed out, this absurd philosophy throws out just about every scientific discovery... assuming we didn't just stumble onto the truth accidentally.

This computer you're typing on... it wouldn't exist if your philosophy was correct. The ability- and necessity- for science to change with the evidence is the basis for human knowledge. In your pathetic attempts to hold on to your fantasy- you are left with no other option than to reject that.

Funny. Sad, but funny.

All the big words dont change my opinion.

Which is that Romero stated several days after 9/11 and watching news footage of the video it was a demolition.

Likely after threatening to have grant money yanked,(From the Pentagon who funded him) he changed his tune. That makes way more sense than the bile you spew.

Btw, whats "our language"..my education and lifes experiences are the equal of most anybody around this place.

And in common sense, its proven i am way ahead of the "JREF CURVE". This is demonstratable, because unlike you, i dont believe known liars like most of you do. Thats something even kids are taught.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 10:34 AM

All the big words dont change my opinion.

Which is that Romero stated several days after 9/11 and watching news footage of the video it was a demolition.

Likely after threatening to have grant money yanked,(From the Pentagon who funded him) he changed his tune. That makes way more sense than the bile you spew.

Btw, whats "our language"..my education and lifes experiences are the equal of most anybody around this place.

And in common sense, its proven i am way ahead of the "JREF CURVE". This is demonstratable, because unlike you, i dont believe known liars like most of you do. Thats something even kids are taught.

All the evidence won't change your opinion- that's the important part.

You replace critical thought with the word "likely" and then pretend it's evidence- that's not rational, and it certainly is not an education or "lifes experiences" [sic].

Let's see if we can really get to the core of the issue here, "roundhead".

What do you consider a liar? A person who does not tell the truth, correct?

And how did you arrive at the conclusion that Romero changed his story after being threatened that his grant money would be pulled- whatever that's supposed to mean?

Wait, you mean you have no evidence for that claim- and yet, you have no evidence for the claim that his story "was forcefully changed" either...

Doesn't that make you the liar? Aren't you the fraud? Help me understand this- if you're so vehemently against liars and see them as unpatriotic... then what does that make you? Are you allowed to lie because it allows you to hold onto your fantasy?

16.5

2nd October 2008, 10:51 AM

All the big words dont change my opinion.

And in common sense, its proven i am way ahead of the "JREF CURVE". This is demonstratable, because unlike you, i dont believe known liars like most of you do. Thats something even kids are taught.

Giggle! "known liars" hmm? I guess you are excluding yourself, because of the two major whoppers in your opening post about you having an open mind.

Or what about that patently false gif you posted in the video fakery thread?

Grizzly Bear

2nd October 2008, 11:00 AM

Giggle! "known liars" hmm? I guess you are excluding yourself, because of the two major whoppers in your opening post about you having an open mind.

Or what about that patently false gif you posted in the video fakery thread?

I think Egar put it best:

""These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the "reverse scientific method"… they determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.""
:)

roundhead

2nd October 2008, 11:11 AM

All the evidence won't change your opinion- that's the important part.

You replace critical thought with the word "likely" and then pretend it's evidence- that's not rational, and it certainly is not an education or "lifes experiences" [sic].

Let's see if we can really get to the core of the issue here, "roundhead".

What do you consider a liar? A person who does not tell the truth, correct?

And how did you arrive at the conclusion that Romero changed his story after being threatened that his grant money would be pulled- whatever that's supposed to mean?

Wait, you mean you have no evidence for that claim- and yet, you have no evidence for the claim that his story "was forcefully changed" either...

Doesn't that make you the liar? Aren't you the fraud? Help me understand this- if you're so vehemently against liars and see them as unpatriotic... then what does that make you? Are you allowed to lie because it allows you to hold onto your fantasy?

Yes, lets get to the core of it. Bush and his administration are know many time liars. This is fact.

These lies arent little ones, they have caused the death of thousands of people(this doesnt include the 9/11 attack).

I dont think anybody can say the above isnt true. The administration has blatantly lied, constantly, and these lies have gotten thousands killed.

That said, why would i believe a story, that is riddled with huge holes, which is trotted out, and defended/investigated by these very same people.
They are secretive, fear mongering, and generally not people who i consider to have our nations best interests in mind.

I would say my above thoughts represent(short of 9/11 reference)the opinion of the vast majority of America.

Where my views begin to differ, is my linkage to 9/11 and the known track record of Bush and his administration, and the believability of anythin they say.

9/11 attacks are in large part a mystery. I readilly admit that. My point is that their are enough holes, and contradictions, that somebody other than those in one way or another representating Bush should be who is tasked with looking into this.

That hasnt happened, the openness in what has been done is SADLY lacking.

In short, it should bother everybody that a known liar has basically called the shots regarding 9/11 investigations.

The 9/11 investigations to this point have had no independant oversight. Just like the plan trotted out initially by the Admin regarding this bailout. Close your eyes and give me a blank check.

Not me, they dont deserve, nor have they earned my trust to get a blank check on anything. I judge past performance, and its abysmal.

9/11 and its 3,000 deaths is the rock that has yet to be turned over. The fact the Govt is behind to some degree these deaths is scary to many,many people.

But turn over the rock we must, no matter what under it might bite us.

applecorped

2nd October 2008, 11:19 AM

:rolleyes:

HyJinX

2nd October 2008, 11:21 AM

I see your :rolleyes: and raise you a :eek::boggled::rolleyes::jaw-dropp:covereyes

roundhead

2nd October 2008, 11:23 AM

I think Egar put it best:

""These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the "reverse scientific method"… they determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.""
:)

I am not part of any movement.

My beliefs in the truth regarding 9/11 are ever evolving, and consider everything.

Unlike the vast majority here, i choose to give the least credence to somebody(Bush)who in my mind should be up on treasonous charges concerning Iraq that defends what happened on 9/11 as merely a screw up.

dtugg

2nd October 2008, 11:24 AM

So roundhead, basically your premise is now that since the Bush Administration lied about Iraq (they didn't lie though, they clearly believed the WMDs were there), they must be lying about 9/11? Does that sum it up?

I hate to break it to, but seven years later there are no huge holes in the story the government gives about 9/11. Just because the liar David Ray Griffin has sold like five different books on the subject to gullible idiots does not mean that anything that he says is true.

If you have any huge holes or lies made by the government regarding 9/11 that can be backed up by evidence that is not found on a 9/11 conspiracy site, I would love to hear it.

Ragnarok

2nd October 2008, 12:09 PM

Can this be confirmed or denied? Do we know whether all the families of the accused hijackers held funerals without the remains?

I know Drudgewire doesn't see it as a pertinent question, but I'll try it again just in case it was overlooked.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 12:16 PM

Yes, lets get to the core of it. Bush and his administration are know many time liars. This is fact.

These lies arent little ones, they have caused the death of thousands of people(this doesnt include the 9/11 attack).

I dont think anybody can say the above isnt true. The administration has blatantly lied, constantly, and these lies have gotten thousands killed.

That said, why would i believe a story, that is riddled with huge holes, which is trotted out, and defended/investigated by these very same people.
They are secretive, fear mongering, and generally not people who i consider to have our nations best interests in mind.

I would say my above thoughts represent(short of 9/11 reference)the opinion of the vast majority of America.

Where my views begin to differ, is my linkage to 9/11 and the known track record of Bush and his administration, and the believability of anythin they say.

9/11 attacks are in large part a mystery. I readilly admit that. My point is that their are enough holes, and contradictions, that somebody other than those in one way or another representating Bush should be who is tasked with looking into this.

That hasnt happened, the openness in what has been done is SADLY lacking.

In short, it should bother everybody that a known liar has basically called the shots regarding 9/11 investigations.

The 9/11 investigations to this point have had no independant oversight. Just like the plan trotted out initially by the Admin regarding this bailout. Close your eyes and give me a blank check.

Not me, they dont deserve, nor have they earned my trust to get a blank check on anything. I judge past performance, and its abysmal.

9/11 and its 3,000 deaths is the rock that has yet to be turned over. The fact the Govt is behind to some degree these deaths is scary to many,many people.

But turn over the rock we must, no matter what under it might bite us.

:wow2:

Nowhere in this long, incoherent, rambling mess of a post did you even begin to address the point I raised. I simply do not have the time to eat all the Cracker Jacks required to get the decoder ring necessary to decipher this post.

applecorped

2nd October 2008, 12:18 PM

nicepants

2nd October 2008, 02:04 PM

Romero stated several days after 9/11 and watching news footage of the video it was a demolition.

Wow...are we back to this guy, again?!

"I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building, I only said that's what it looked like."
- Van Romero

The paper published a retraction on 9/22.

beachnut

2nd October 2008, 02:18 PM

But turn over the rock we must, no matter what under it might bite us.

Darn you got bitten an indeterminate number of times by the beasties of ignorance on all 9/11 issues.

Next time choose the correct rock to turn over.

roundhead

2nd October 2008, 02:46 PM

Wow...are we back to this guy, again?!

"I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building, I only said that's what it looked like."
- Van Romero

The paper published a retraction on 9/22.

His statement in his local paper is (which is printed daily)was made on the 14th.
The retraction wasnt posted till over a week later.

He said exactly what he said, took a lot of heat from the Pentagon about it, and a "semi retraction" was printed over a week later.

If the story misrepresented his statement, why wasnt it retracted the very next day, a phone call could have done it.

In fact the retraction article is mighty short on actual statements attributed to him specifically.

I think Romero is a great American:confused:

nicepants

2nd October 2008, 03:13 PM

His statement in his local paper is (which is printed daily)was made on the 14th.
The retraction wasnt posted till over a week later.

He said exactly what he said,

Romero stated that he was mis-quoted, so did the paper. Only conspiracy theorists (who weren't there for the interview) claim otherwise.

took a lot of heat from the Pentagon about it,

Speculating, I see.
Let's think about this for a minute.....in what grand conspiracy theory is it necessary for Romero to be "shut up"? If he, to this day, still claimed that he believed there were explosives in the towers, or that they were CD...would it matter? Why isn't the Pentagon trying to shut up Danny Jowenko, who claimed that WTC7 was a CD?

If the story misrepresented his statement, why wasnt it retracted the very next day, a phone call could have done it.

I don't work at that newspaper, so I don't know what their policies are regarding retractions. If you have a question about that perhaps you should contact them directly. I do know that retractions aren't always issued within 24 hours.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 05:45 PM

"Fraudulent documentation" does not mean "documents that include an alias". It means some of the hijackers had a guy provide them with a fake reference in order to get a driver's licence, for instance. Others obtained phony documents like an "international driver's license" (see http://8.12.42.31/2002/aug/01/nation/na-terror1). The documents were in their names, but were either obtained in some fraudulent way or weren't actually official documents at all.

Oh please...

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

Khalid Almihdhar -Alias: Sannan Al-Makki; Khalid Bin Muhammad; 'Addallah Al-Mihdhar; Khalid Mohammad Al-Saqaf

Majed Moqed - Alias: Majed M.GH Moqed; Majed Moqed, Majed Mashaan Moqed

Nawaf Alhazmi - Alias: Nawaf Al-Hazmi; Nawaf Al Hazmi; Nawaf M.S. Al Hazmi

Hani Hanjour -Alias: Hani Saleh Hanjour; Hani Saleh; Hani Hanjour, Hani Saleh H. Hanjour

Mohamed Atta -Alias: Mehan Atta; Mohammad El Amir; Muhammad Atta; Mohamed El Sayed; Mohamed Elsayed; Muhammad Muhammad Al Amir Awag Al Sayyid Atta; Muhammad Muhammad Al-Amir Awad Al Sayad

Marwan Al-Shehhi -Alias: Marwan Yusif Muhammad Rashid Al-Shehi; Marwan Yusif Muhammad Rashid Lakrab Al-Shihhi; Abu Abdullah

Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad -Alias: Fayez Ahmad; Banihammad Fayez Abu Dhabi Banihammad; Fayez Rashid Ahmed; Banihammad Fayez; Rasid Ahmed Hassen Alqadi; Abu Dhabi Banihammad
Ahmed Fayez; Faez Ahmed

Ahmed Alghamdi -Alias: Ahmed Salah Alghamdi

Hamza Alghamdi -Alias: Hamza Al-Ghamdi; Hamza Ghamdi; Hamzah Alghamdi;
Hamza Alghamdi Saleh

Mohand Alshehri -Alias: Mohammed Alshehhi; Mohamd Alshehri; Mohald Alshehri

Saeed Alghamdi -Alias: Abdul Rahman Saed Alghamdi; Ali S Alghamdi; Al- Gamdi; Saad M.S. Al Ghamdi; Sadda Al Ghamdi; Saheed Al-Ghamdi; Seed Al Ghamdi

Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi - Alias: Ahmed Alhaznawi

Ahmed Alnami -Alias: Ali Ahmed Alnami; Ahmed A. Al-Nami; Ahmed Al- Nawi

Ziad Samir Jarrah -Alias: Zaid Jarrahi; Zaid Samr Jarrah; Ziad S. Jarrah; Ziad Jarrah Jarrat, Ziad Samir Jarrahi

pomeroo

2nd October 2008, 05:45 PM

Are you for real??

If person A uses person Bs ID then the FBI will think the DNA sample is from person B and person B will be the named hijacker, even though person A hijacked the plane.

Come on dude. You are clearly not unintelligent. You know exactly what I am saying.

You are parroting almost word-for-word the sophistry employed by one of your fellow liars a few months ago. Tell us: are you challenging the methodologies employed by law enforcement agencies all over the world? Have you discovered new principles that work better? Are you claiming that the FBI, for unfathomable reasons, falsifed evidence on an unprecedentedly massive scale?

You really must stop this embarrassingly foolish effort. Either show us why the FBI's methods are no longer valid, by implication accepting that no evidence in a criminal case can ever be valid, or demonstrate that the FBI somehow became the private secret police of the Bush-Cheney crime family.

pomeroo

2nd October 2008, 05:48 PM

pomeroo

2nd October 2008, 05:58 PM

Yes, lets get to the core of it. Bush and his administration are know many time liars. This is fact.

These lies arent little ones, they have caused the death of thousands of people(this doesnt include the 9/11 attack).

I dont think anybody can say the above isnt true. The administration has blatantly lied, constantly, and these lies have gotten thousands killed.

I can certainly state that the above isn't true. You are a shameless, egregious liar. Yet, you accuse others of lying without a shred of evidence. You have never come close to identifying a lie told by Bush and you never will.

That said, why would i believe a story, that is riddled with huge holes, which is trotted out, and defended/investigated by these very same people.

Yet, you are completely incapable of pointing out even a tiny hole in the mainstream account. You embrace uncritically the preposterous lies of the evil movement you serve. Yes, the fantasy movement's nonsense is indeed riddled with contradictions and wild implausibilities, but you don't care.

They are secretive, fear mongering, and generally not people who i consider to have our nations best interests in mind.

I would say my above thoughts represent(short of 9/11 reference)the opinion of the vast majority of America.

They are representative of those afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Where my views begin to differ, is my linkage to 9/11 and the known track record of Bush and his administration, and the believability of anythin they say.

9/11 attacks are in large part a mystery. I readilly admit that. My point is that their are enough holes, and contradictions, that somebody other than those in one way or another representating Bush should be who is tasked with looking into this.

That hasnt happened, the openness in what has been done is SADLY lacking.

Your own often-repeated falsehoods merely establish that you are a liar. They do nothing to question the credibility of anyone else.

In short, it should bother everybody that a known liar has basically called the shots regarding 9/11 investigations.

The 9/11 investigations to this point have had no independant oversight. Just like the plan trotted out initially by the Admin regarding this bailout. Close your eyes and give me a blank check.

Not me, they dont deserve, nor have they earned my trust to get a blank check on anything. I judge past performance, and its abysmal.

You remain an ineducable liar. The 9/11 Commission contained, as you know, several highly-partisan Democrats whose principal goal was to exonerate Clinton's fecklessness and lay all of the blame on Bush. Do you seriously dream that you can con anybody here?

9/11 and its 3,000 deaths is the rock that has yet to be turned over. The fact the Govt is behind to some degree these deaths is scary to many,many people.

But turn over the rock we must, no matter what under it might bite us.

Yes, for eight years Clinton avoided the problem. Bush disappointed many voters who expected better from him. You apologists for the jihadists are a disgrace.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 06:04 PM

Your latest dishonesty has been exposed. See post #555. Explain why the principles of investigation employed by all law enforcement agencies are no longer valid.

Whether or not their principles are valid or not isn't really the point here although you could brush up on the FBI and their accusations against people like Hatfield and Anthrax or Pearl and the Olympic bombing before you go insinuating about their infallibility in your mind.

The point here is the evidence or lack there of.

twinstead

2nd October 2008, 06:06 PM

Roundhead is a poster boy for illustrating that for him at least, this issue has nothing to do with evidence and facts and everything to do with politics and ideology.

Hint, Roundhead. Ideologues make terrible investigators

twinstead

2nd October 2008, 06:08 PM

johnny karate

2nd October 2008, 06:35 PM

A great example.

Val Romero, an acknowledged expert in the field of demolition, stated publically and it was printed in a newspaper that the towers were demolished from explosives.

He certainly had looked at the event, and made this conclusion based on his experience as a expert, and took this stand publically.I take him at his word, i mean, hey you study the video, are an expert, and conclude they were demolished.

He later completely recanted te above belief, it surely cant be because he saw "different" video to change his mind.

I suggest his grants at the college he works at were threatened as a result of his first statement, and thus he recanted it.

I'm just curious to know if your contempt for Van Romero extends to the entire American controlled demolition industry since not a single person from that industry has come forward to claim any controlled demolitions took place on 9/11.

In much the same manner that you believe the FDNY are all cowards, do you also interpret the the total lack of controlled demolition claims from experts in that industry as cowardice on their part?

defaultdotxbe

2nd October 2008, 07:28 PM

Oh please...

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm
did you even read the names? almost all of them are just different spellings of the same name (you realize arabic doesnt use the latin alphabet, right?) or the addition of a middle initial and/or name

if nothing else, all but maybe 3 of them had no alias other than their real name

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 08:04 PM

did you even read the names? almost all of them are just different spellings of the same name (you realize arabic doesnt use the latin alphabet, right?) or the addition of a middle initial and/or name

if nothing else, all but maybe 3 of them had no alias other than their real name

lol

I guess it's too bad for the investigation the hijackers weren't named Jones or Smith. There would have been no need for DNA evidence then huh?

What is your point? Did they use aliases or not? Why? For the fun of it? Did they forget how to spell their names the genius pilots? Why didn't they spell it the same way every time if it makes no difference? Why have an alias at all if it makes no difference? Why have an alias or multiple ones and not use one of them to commit the crime of the century?

The FBI says those are aliases. Are they lying now? When do you and your story decide when the FBI is lying or telling the truth?

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 08:12 PM

lol

I guess it's too bad for the investigation the hijackers weren't named Jones or Smith. There would have been no need for DNA evidence then huh?

What is your point? Did they use aliases or not? Why? For the fun of it? Did they forget how to spell their names the genius pilots? Why didn't they spell it the same way every time if it makes no difference? Why have an alias at all if it makes no difference? Why have an alias or multiple ones and not use one of them to commit the crime of the century?

The FBI says those are aliases. Are they lying now? When do you and your story decide when the FBI is lying or telling the truth?

Have you ever looked at your own credit report? Many many people have aliases- it's not an alternate identity, it's an alias... it's a different way of spelling your name, or going by an alternate or shortened version of your name. Many people do not choose their own aliases- especially foreigners. Misspellings or bad data entry, forms being filled out incorrectly, transposing the name entirely, or shortened storage for parts of the name result in various data discrepancies. These are kept so that individuals with alternate spellings of their name can be found.

It is not- in any way- an indication that a person is trying to hide or be malicious. It's simply a byproduct of our data entry society.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 08:15 PM

Have you ever looked at your own credit report? Many many people have aliases- it's not an alternate identity, it's an alias... it's a different way of spelling your name, or going by an alternate or shortened version of your name. Many people do not choose their own aliases- especially foreigners. Misspellings or bad data entry, forms being filled out incorrectly, transposing the name entirely, or shortened storage for parts of the name result in various data discrepancies. These are kept so that individuals with alternate spellings of their name can be found.

It is not- in any way- an indication that a person is trying to hide or be malicious. It's simply a byproduct of our data entry society.

So is it your assertion that none of the hijackers used aliases to deceive?

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 08:18 PM

Interesting you brought up those cases. Why is it you know about them? Here's a clue: they weren't discovered by intrepid googlevestigators posting evidence on the interwebs.

Yeah right. I guess a couple of suicides could have kept me from discovering it also.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 08:22 PM

So is it your assertion that none of the hijackers used aliases to deceive?

How the crap did you get that out of the information I just gave you? The only way you can hold on to your fantasy is to invent absurd strawmen?

I never said that the existence of aliases means that the terrorists were not trying to deceive. I said that the existence of aliases does not- in any way- indicate an intent to deceive. I know, because I see it all the time. An alias is an alias- it's not an alternate identity. An alternate identity (unless approved by a judge) is likely an intent to deceive.

The terrorists- for the most part- used their actual names. My understanding is that they were trying to blend in and not draw any attention to their actions. Since they had not broken any laws (AFIAK) until the point of hijacking the planes- they had no reason to hide their identity. This- of course- is just my opinion, but I believe that intelligence experts also believe this to be the case.

The conclusions you have drawn based on the fact that they have aliases is not at all consistent with the truth.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 08:26 PM

His statement in his local paper is (which is printed daily)was made on the 14th.
The retraction wasnt posted till over a week later.

He said exactly what he said, took a lot of heat from the Pentagon about it, and a "semi retraction" was printed over a week later.

If the story misrepresented his statement, why wasnt it retracted the very next day, a phone call could have done it.

In fact the retraction article is mighty short on actual statements attributed to him specifically.

I think Romero is a great American:confused:

Don't forget Romero's appointment from Bush after he publiclly made his revisionism. He was also quite alarmed by the email he received for his first publicly made expert oppinion that claimes explosive devices.

Boy I would have liked to read some of those.

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

JUNE 4, 2002

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

johnny karate

2nd October 2008, 08:29 PM

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth

Well who wouldn't cover-up the ruthless murder of 3,000 innocent people for a plum job like that!

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 08:31 PM

Don't forget Romero's appointment from Bush after he publiclly made his revisionism. He was also quite alarmed by the email he received for his first publicly made expert oppinion that claimes explosive devices.

Boy I would have liked to read some of those.

Are you suggesting that Romero was bought off by an appointment to a study group?

How much money are we talking about, here? How much did he receive to- as you insinuate- hide the deaths of thousands?

If you have to speculate, just give me a number that it would take for you to cover up the murder of 3000 people by our own government... and then multiply it times 2 because you're not as good of a person as Romero.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 08:33 PM

How the crap did you get that out of the information I just gave you? The only way you can hold on to your fantasy is to invent absurd strawmen?

I never said that the existence of aliases means that the terrorists were not trying to deceive. I said that the existence of aliases does not- in any way- indicate an intent to deceive. I know, because I see it all the time. An alias is an alias- it's not an alternate identity. An alternate identity (unless approved by a judge) is likely an intent to deceive.

The terrorists- for the most part- used their actual names. My understanding is that they were trying to blend in and not draw any attention to their actions. Since they had not broken any laws (AFIAK) until the point of hijacking the planes- they had no reason to hide their identity. This- of course- is just my opinion, but I believe that intelligence experts also believe this to be the case.

The conclusions you have drawn based on the fact that they have aliases is not at all consistent with the truth.

Good. They used aliases to deceive.

But they didn't use any on 9/11? Wouldn't that be the most opportune time to use that alias? Why did they even need aliases if no one knew who they were anyway? And is there also no one else in the Middle East named those aliases or a different spelling of those aliases?

I mean how many possible people are we talking about now?

Are you not seeing at all how a DNA match to a family member might be a little better then a match to a steering wheel?

pomeroo

2nd October 2008, 08:37 PM

Whether or not their principles are valid or not isn't really the point here although you could brush up on the FBI and their accusations against people like Hatfield and Anthrax or Pearl and the Olympic bombing before you go insinuating about their infallibility in your mind.

The point here is the evidence or lack there of.

You liars always get tripped up on the same points. Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, regards the FBI as infallible. Your clumsy strawman falls down in a light breeze.

The point here is the principles of forensic investigation that are used by law enforcement agencies all over the world. You seem to believe that those principles are no longer operative. Your fantasy compels you to accuse the FBI of being incompetent to conduct the investigation that determined the identities of the hijackers. To date, you have produced no evidence for your absurd, wildly implausible beliefs. You have displayed no understanding whatever of the methods used by law enforcement agencies. Over seven thousand FBI agents were detailed to the massive, multi-agency investigation that "solved" the mystery of 9/11. Using the techniques they have developed over the decades, including newer additions to their arsenal such as DNA analysis, bureau agents matched names on flight manifests to physical evidence found at hotels and in rental cars. You claim that they made errors--errors that you cannot specify, as you don't know what you're talking about. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 08:37 PM

Are you suggesting that Romero was bought off by an appointment to a study group?

How much money are we talking about, here? How much did he receive to- as you insinuate- hide the deaths of thousands?

If you have to speculate, just give me a number that it would take for you to cover up the murder of 3000 people by our own government... and then multiply it times 2 because you're not as good of a person as Romero.

I'm pointing to what he said first, how he changed it second (maybe out of fear based on some of his statements), and how he fell into a promotion later.

Jump to all the conclusions you like. You wouldn't be the first one.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 08:40 PM

Good. They used aliases to deceive.

As I said before, you have no basis with which to draw that conclusion. If you got that out of what I posted- you didn't read the information at all.

But they didn't use any on 9/11? Wouldn't that be the most opportune time to use that alias? Why did they even need aliases if no one knew who they were anyway? And is there also no one else in the Middle East named those aliases or a different spelling of those aliases?

Go back and read what I wrote- you obviously failed to do this properly the first time.

I mean how many possible people are we talking about now?

Are you not seeing at all how a DNA match to a family member might be a little better then a match to a steering wheel?

How? You haven't told me how it would be better- or why that technique would confirm an identity, let alone the commission of a serious crime.

If you think you have a better method for DNA testing, then I suggest you write a paper and change the face of law enforcement. Until then, try to at least back up your claims.

pomeroo

2nd October 2008, 08:41 PM

Good. They used aliases to deceive.

But they didn't use any on 9/11? Wouldn't that be the most opportune time to use that alias? Why did they even need aliases if no one knew who they were anyway? And is there also no one else in the Middle East named those aliases or a different spelling of those aliases?

I mean how many possible people are we talking about now?

Are you not seeing at all how a DNA match to a family member might be a little better then a match to a steering wheel?

Uh, are you not seeing that a match of DNA found on a steering wheel, in a hotel room, and at the crash site of a hijacked plane might be pretty damn good at showing the presence of the same person?

Yes, you see it, but you are willing to lie.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 08:41 PM

Well who wouldn't cover-up the ruthless murder of 3,000 innocent people for a plum job like that!

What did he have to cover-up other then opening his own mouth by opening it again? Then he didn't need to be frightened by those scary emails ever again.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 08:44 PM

Uh, are you not seeing that a match of DNA found on a steering wheel, in a hotel room, and at the crash site of a hijacked plane might be pretty damn good at showing the presence of the same person?

Yes, you see it, but you are willing to lie.

Oh I see that fine. But is that a person or a signature that was used to rent the car or the room?

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 08:46 PM

I'm pointing to what he said first, how he changed it second (maybe out of fear based on some of his statements), and how he fell into a promotion later.

Jump to all the conclusions you like. You wouldn't be the first one.

Absolutely pathetic. You don't even have the guts to come out and say it. You know that if you actually pushed that senseless libel, you would have to back it up.

You're a sad individual.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 08:48 PM

Oh I see that fine. But is that a person or a signature that was used to rent the car or the room?

What you and your comrades can't seem to answer is- if the hijackers had managed to fool the Federal Bureau of Investigation with fake names- then how could they have gotten to the car in the first place? You are thinking backwards- which seems to come naturally to you- but in this case the claim of fake names is entirely irrelevant: they searched for the known locations of the individuals, not some kind of a google name search or mass DNA testing of every hotel and rented car.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 08:50 PM

As I said before, you have no basis with which to draw that conclusion. If you got that out of what I posted- you didn't read the information at all.

Go back and read what I wrote- you obviously failed to do this properly the first time.

How? You haven't told me how it would be better- or why that technique would confirm an identity, let alone the commission of a serious crime.

If you think you have a better method for DNA testing, then I suggest you write a paper and change the face of law enforcement. Until then, try to at least back up your claims.

If you can't see the difference in getting even just a close match to a family member as opposed to just getting a match to something rented by thousands of people with unconfirmed identification then you might as well be arguing that the passengers weren't positively identified also.

pomeroo

2nd October 2008, 08:51 PM

Oh I see that fine. But is that a person or a signature that was used to rent the car or the room?

Again, such a simplistic question would never occur to people who actually work in law enforcement. They always miss things that are obvious to angry, low-IQ adolescents. The FBI no doubt concluded that it had identified the hijackers without satisfying themselves that the DNA found at all three sites matched the person or persons who rented the rooms, drove the cars, and boarded the planes. They did DNA testing but kind of forgot to check out anything else.

Quite a persuasive case you've concocted, Sherlock.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 08:57 PM

What you and your comrades can't seem to answer is- if the hijackers had managed to fool the Federal Bureau of Investigation with fake names- then how could they have gotten to the car in the first place? You are thinking backwards- which seems to come naturally to you- but in this case the claim of fake names is entirely irrelevant: they searched for the known locations of the individuals, not some kind of a google name search or mass DNA testing of every hotel and rented car.

No they didn't. For one they were tipped to a car left at the airport. That's not an individual that's a car tipped to them by... who knows?

Conveniently the car had the mail order two boxtops Acme Terrorist kit left inside of it.

This is not identification. This is comedy.

Jonnyclueless

2nd October 2008, 08:59 PM

He didnt say he watched"one video", you make an arguement from incredulity.

He stated he watched video broadcast from the networks. As this video is what everybody formed an opinion from, its telling he recanted his statement having nothing else to look at than he originally did.

Romero is a classic example of somebody who truthfully stated exactly what he saw, before Govt pressure shut him up. He had no idea that his opinion, as an expert, would put him in hot water, or else why change his opinion.
Its not like his opinion was blurted out hours after the event, the article appeared several day later.

The guy is a PHD, had several days to form his opinion, and expressed it. His opinion is shared by many.

His situation was/is many times repeated regarding 9/11. An opinion fatal to the OCT is expressed, then revisionism later sets in.Kinda scary.

Me pointing out that he made an opinion based on some early video is incredulity, yet you MAKING UP (LYING) the reason he changed his mind is not? You're a flat out liar and fraud as proven by this alone and yet you accuse others of incredulity?

And no, the video is ABSOLUTELY NOT what everyone else made their opinion on. Many demolition experts were there on the scene to make their decision. Many looked at all the engineering studies to make up their opinion. The reason this guy had a wrong opinion at first was because of having limited information. Once he got the information that others had, he changed his mind. Please stop lying.

He is NOT someone who truthfuly stated what he saw. he made a quick opinion on insufficient data. And you, the fraud you are handwave everyone and everything else in favor of testimony from someone who has insufficient data and even handwave that person's opinion when they DO get more data. That is what makes you a fraud.

You said the government told him to shut up. ***********THIS IS A LIE**********

Unless you can prove your claim of the government shutting him up, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Saying his opinion is shared by many others IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE.

PLEASE STOP LYING.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 09:02 PM

If you can't see the difference in getting even just a close match to a family member as opposed to just getting a match to something rented by thousands of people with unconfirmed identification then you might as well be arguing that the passengers weren't positively identified also.

I've already addressed that claim.

What you continue to ignore is how this method would be more reliable. The fact that a match was found using the known profiles of the hijackers is rock solid. To claim that there's more than an infinitesimally small chance that there is a false positive here because "many people use a rental car" is not only a lie- but it demonstrates a significant amount of ignorance on the techniques used to track down the identities of these hijackers.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 09:03 PM

Me pointing out that he made an opinion based on some early video is incredulity, yet you MAKING UP (LYING) the reason he changed his mind is not? You're a flat out liar and fraud as proven by this alone and yet you accuse others of incredulity?

And no, the video is ABSOLUTELY NOT what everyone else made their opinion on. Many demolition experts were there on the scene to make their decision. Many looked at all the engineering studies to make up their opinion. The reason this guy had a wrong opinion at first was because of having limited information. Once he got the information that others had, he changed his mind. Please stop lying.

He is NOT someone who truthfuly stated what he saw. he made a quick opinion on insufficient data. And you, the fraud you are handwave everyone and everything else in favor of testimony from someone who has insufficient data and even handwave that person's opinion when they DO get more data. That is what makes you a fraud.

You said the government told him to shut up. ***********THIS IS A LIE**********

Unless you can prove your claim of the government shutting him up, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Saying his opinion is shared by many others IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE.

PLEASE STOP LYING.

Romero stated an opinion based on his expertise.

Romero then made a very frightened retraction.

Romero then got an appointment by Bush himself.

Romero doesn't open his mouth anymore.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 09:03 PM

No they didn't. For one they were tipped to a car left at the airport. That's not an individual that's a car tipped to them by... who knows?

Conveniently the car had the mail order two boxtops Acme Terrorist kit left inside of it.

This is not identification. This is comedy.

That's not an answer- that's a dodge.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 09:05 PM

I've already addressed that claim.

What you continue to ignore is how this method would be more reliable. The fact that a match was found using the known profiles of the hijackers is rock solid. To claim that there's more than an infinitesimally small chance that there is a false positive here because "many people use a rental car" is not only a lie- but it demonstrates a significant amount of ignorance on the techniques used to track down the identities of these hijackers.

Clarify what you mean by known profile.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 09:09 PM

That's not an answer- that's a dodge.

Dodge? Actually I think it may have been a Hyundai . And Hyundai's are everywhere these days. Not exactly narrowing it down there are you?

Jonnyclueless

2nd October 2008, 09:10 PM

Romero stated an opinion based on his expertise.

Base on insufficient data. Expertise does nto matter if you don't have enough data. Someone isn't right just because they have expertise. And likewise you dismiss all the other experts. Why do you dis miss all the other experts. Why is their expertise not good enough for you?

Because you determining who is right or wrong is not based on any facts, truth, or expertise. It's based ONLY on which ones support your crackpot theories.

Romero then made a very frightened retraction.

***********YOU ARE LYING AGAIN ******************

Romero then got an appointment by Bush himself.

************CONJECTURE****************

Romero doesn't open his mouth anymore.

************YOU ARE LYING AGAIN**************

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 09:11 PM

Clarify what you mean by known profile.

Tracing back the suspects steps.

Now answer the question. How can a fake name change a persons DNA?

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 09:14 PM

Dodge? Actually I think it may have been a Hyundai . And Hyundai's are everywhere these days. Not exactly narrowing it down there are you?

Narrowing it down? Yes, I think I am. You're a scam artist. You pose as someone who is interested in the facts and the truth, but when it comes time to concede to reality, you dance around like an idiot and make accusations.

You're a pathetic liar- but instead of being embarrassed by that, you post stupid little one liners to dodge the issue and divert attention away from your absurd accusations.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 09:25 PM

Tracing back the suspects steps.

Based on what? Tips? Tips from who?

Now answer the question. How can a fake name change a persons DNA?

It doesn't have to. How does DNA matched to a fake name registered to a rental identify a real person?

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 09:32 PM

Narrowing it down? Yes, I think I am. You're a scam artist. You pose as someone who is interested in the facts and the truth, but when it comes time to concede to reality, you dance around like an idiot and make accusations.

You're a pathetic liar- but instead of being embarrassed by that, you post stupid little one liners to dodge the issue and divert attention away from your absurd accusations.

No you are the one dodging and are now angry because you have been exposed. I've answered everything you have come with.

Given your statements in this thread tell me how you know the passengers were DNA identified? Tell me why they bothered to DNA identify them at all if what you claim is true?

To listen to this crap you spew you would think that no rape case, body identification, or someone released from prison, was ever based on DNA evidence alone.

People have been sent to prison based on the same circumstantial evidence you claim identifies the hijackers alone only to released later based on DNA alone.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 09:36 PM

Based on what? Tips? Tips from who?

Based on investigative research. Ya know, like in the real world. The agents go around and interview people, trace the steps of the perps, review tapes, ask friends and neighbors. I'm sure you've seen it on TV.

Going off on some tangent about how "anonymous tips from some unknown source = conspiracy" is stupid and ill advised. You've created enough speculation in this thread to last a life time with your accusations of Van Romero keeping quiet on the murder of 3000 people so he could get a job in a study group...

It doesn't have to. How does DNA matched to a fake name registered to a rental identify a real person?

Because the person is the person- using a fake name is irrelevant when DNA is involved. DNA doesn't have a fake name.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 09:40 PM

No you are the one dodging and are now angry because you have been exposed. I've answered everything you have come with.

Kiddo- you disgust me- don't confuse that with anger. I have nothing to be angry about. If you think you've "exposed me", then you are sorely mistaken.

Given your statements in this thread tell me how you know the passengers were DNA identified? Tell me why they bothered to DNA identify them at all if what you claim is true?

Why wouldn't they- and what does that have to do with anything here?

To listen to this crap you spew you would think that no rape case, body identification, or someone released from prison, was ever based on DNA evidence alone.

Again, you're on some tangent I'm not going to bother to follow. If you find it impossible to answer my question and stick to the topic- then just say so.

People have been sent to prison based on the same circumstantial evidence you claim identifies the hijackers alone only to released later based on DNA alone.

Um, in case you weren't aware- THE DNA MATCHED IN THIS CASE. That's not circumstantial.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 09:40 PM

***********YOU ARE LYING AGAIN ******************

************CONJECTURE****************

************YOU ARE LYING AGAIN**************

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal/

Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.

"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."

He was VERY upset He wasn't TRYING to say anything.

LOL

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 09:43 PM

Um, in case you weren't aware- THE DNA MATCHED IN THIS CASE. That's not circumstantial.

Matched what? A profile? Circumstantial.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 09:44 PM

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal/

Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.

"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."

He was VERY upset He wasn't TRYING to say anything.

LOL

Try and keep your lies straight and your posts relevant. It will make for a much easier conversation.

Being upset about something is not "making a frightened retraction".

You lied- you lied because you're a coward and a fraud. Now you're trying to justify that lie with another one. At some point maybe you'll learn- but until then it would be best if you slow down and think about how bad you're looking.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 09:47 PM

Matched what? A profile? Circumstantial.

Circumstantial just because you say so, I guess? Evidence and facts are just so damaging to your case that you can't even recognize when you've buried yourself in *****.

You said that people have been exonerated from DNA evidence- from cases based on circumstantial evidence. In your haste- you thought this was a good analogy. Unfortunately for your fantasy, you seem to have neglected that in this case the DNA from the suspects matched the DNA at the crash sites.

Only on your fantasy planet is that called circumstantial.

Homeland Insurgency

2nd October 2008, 09:48 PM

Try and keep your lies straight and your posts relevant. It will make for a much easier conversation.

Being upset about something is not "making a frightened retraction".

You lied- you lied because you're a coward and a fraud. Now you're trying to justify that lie with another one. At some point maybe you'll learn- but until then it would be best if you slow down and think about how bad you're looking.

To you are obviously very upset and frightened right now. Unfortunately I had to report you for name calling.

Good night.

Jonnyclueless

2nd October 2008, 09:51 PM

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal/

Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.

"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."

He was VERY upset He wasn't TRYING to say anything.

LOL

Now you're lying again. Just a second ago you claimed he WAS saying something. And now you're trying to fraudulently imply that he is upset because of what he said. Anyone that gets threatening and harrassing mail from crackpots is going to be upset. Upset because o the crackpots. And as we all know, when someone puts their name out there saying anything that goes against the crackpots, the crackpots start harassing and threatening people. This being a movement that touts the word 'truth'. Truth in these cases being another word for LIE.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 09:51 PM

How? You haven't told me how it would be better- or why that technique would confirm an identity, let alone the commission of a serious crime.

If you think you have a better method for DNA testing, then I suggest you write a paper and change the face of law enforcement. Until then, try to at least back up your claims.

HI - you avoided this question before, much like your comrades did.

Do you have an answer, or not? You still seem to believe that "family DNA" is more reliable than an FBI investigation which confirms the timeline and identity of the hijackers through DNA matching.

I'm wondering if you can explain how the SOP for any type of investigation is flawed- and what should replace it.

Totovader

2nd October 2008, 09:59 PM

To you are obviously very upset and frightened right now. Unfortunately I had to report you for name calling.

Good night.

That's your prerogative- however it doesn't excuse you from having to address the issues and back up your claims.

Again- my personal feelings about your pathetic lies and your disgusting attitude are not resulting in anger. I don't think you have the ability to anger me- but what you are doing is disgusting and pathetic: you are ignoring the facts and the evidence, and instead lying about the events in order to hold on to your precious little fantasy. When that fantasy is challenged, you come up with all sorts of accusations and make yourself look like a fool in the process. When that behavior is exposed, you lash out at others and actually have the audacity to claim that it's other people who are ignoring you- and it's other people who just don't get it.

Take a look again at what you said about Van Romero. Tell me if your comments reflect the behavior of an honest person. Re-read what you said about aliases- notice how you didn't even address the question, and tell me if that is conducive to someone who concedes to reality. It's pretty clear that you're a liar- so I'm wondering how you even justify your behavior at this point... how you can act like a wounded dog when you've been the one mauling this entire thread.

chillzero

3rd October 2008, 04:40 AM

Stop bickering. Keep the thread civil adn on topic.

MarkyX

3rd October 2008, 05:10 AM

And no, the video is ABSOLUTELY NOT what everyone else made their opinion on. Many demolition experts were there on the scene to make their decision. Many looked at all the engineering studies to make up their opinion. The reason this guy had a wrong opinion at first was because of having limited information. Once he got the information that others had, he changed his mind. Please stop lying.

You also forgot to mention that not a single person in Ground Zero found any traces of bombs in any of the debris. Not even the "eyewitnesses" that side with the 9/11 deniers ever mention about finding a bomb in the debris or any sort of detention cord.

9/11 deniers can argue all day about so-called experts or how the building should have collapsed, but in the end the physical evidence is all that matters. No bombs in the debris = building wasn't blown up.

nicepants

3rd October 2008, 07:03 AM

Romero stated an opinion based on his expertise.

The paper then mis-quoted him

Romero The newspaper then made a very frightened retraction.

Romero then got an appointment by Bush himself.

Romero doesn't open his mouth anymore told his story to Popular Mechanics.

Fixed those for you.

roundhead

3rd October 2008, 08:32 AM

Lies and junk. Your whole post is a fantasy interspersed with blatant lies like this.

The pilots were killed, what code is the "I am being killed code". You are a pathetic terrorist apologist without evidence to back your lies and fantasy ideas.

You got every single thing wrong. Are you trying hard to do that, or does it come easy for you to lie and make up stuff?

Your the liar....From Griffin:

And its referenced

That would have been all the more true of the pilots on United Flight 93, given the (purported) tapes from this flight. A reporter at the Moussaoui trial, where these tapes had been played, wrote:

In those tapes, the pilots shouted as hijackers broke into the cockpit. "Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!" a pilot screamed in the first tape. In the second tape, 30 seconds later, a pilot shouted: "Mayday! Get out of here! Get out of here!"108

According to these tapes, therefore, the pilots were still alive and coherent 30 seconds after realizing that hijackers were breaking into the cockpit. And yet in all that time, neither of them did the most important thing they had been trained to do---turn the transponder to 7500.

The 108(source)108. Richard A. Serrano, "Heroism, Fatalism Aboard Flight 93," Los Angeles Times, 12 April 2006
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20723.htm

Added quote tags and link. Do not quote material without making it clear it is quoted, and citing the source

So in this case we know the pilots had plenty of time to transmit highjack codes.

We dont know in the three other cases that they didnt have time as well, they well could have.

If the"planes" didnt have highjackers on them, there would be no need to transmit thse codes.

funk de fino

3rd October 2008, 09:00 AM

Your the liar....From Griffin:

Griffin is probaly one of the biggest liars on this planet

ElMondoHummus

3rd October 2008, 09:13 AM

In those tapes, the pilots shouted as hijackers broke into the cockpit. "Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!" a pilot screamed in the first tape. In the second tape, 30 seconds later, a pilot shouted: "Mayday! Get out of here! Get out of here!"108

According to these tapes, therefore, the pilots were still alive and coherent 30 seconds after realizing that hijackers were breaking into the cockpit.

You realize, don't you, that an entirely reasonable reading of that information is that the pilots were too busy dealing with the hijackers to change the transponder code? After all, the hijackers were breaking into the cockpit at the time, and obviously by what the pilot shouted the second time, were already in.

And while this splits hairs, it's worth asking: Did they know the break in attempt was a hijacking, or merely the act of a deranged passenger trying to enter the cockpit? From my layman's point of view, one does not necessarily mean the other; I don't know whether or not it's considered a "hijacking" attempt until the miscreants start trying to take control. If it's not, it could be that the decision to only declare an emergency with their Mayday call and not a hijacking was conscious on the part of the pilots? CheapShot, Beechnut, and anyone else familiar with the protocol: Back then, was forced entry into the cockpit considered enough to be called a hijack, and therefore require a pilot to change the transponder code? I imagine that nowadays it is, but we have to look through the eyes of the pilots and how they were trained back then to properly evaluate this claim. My point here is that the 30 second interval Roundhead is bringing up may be due to intentional delay by the pilots to solve the situation locally first. But I don't know; you guys need to tell me how pilots are supposed to proceed in cases like this.

funk de fino

3rd October 2008, 09:16 AM

CVR has been accepted as evidence in a trial. End of discussion. It proves they were on the plane. If they were not then the Zacharias lawyers would have moved to strike it from the evidence.

twinstead

3rd October 2008, 09:17 AM

It doesn't matter how the pilots were supposed to act. They didn't act in such a way that satisfies Roundhead, therefore Inside Job!!!111!!!!!

ElMondoHummus

3rd October 2008, 09:25 AM

CVR has been accepted as evidence in a trial. End of discussion. It proves they were on the plane. If they were not then the Zacharias lawyers would have moved to strike it from the evidence.

Of course, of course. That's absolutely correct, and I agree in full.

And even though you were directing that post at Roundhead (as far as I can tell): For my part, I was just pursuing the issue academically. Of course there's not any real and reasonable doubt about the events. But in the spirit of trying to raise the level and tone of discussions in this forum, I'm trying to treat questions reasonably. Which is why I crafted the reply that I did; now that the question is raised, what was a pilot's mindset back then? And what was required behavior? Again, if the issue is the 30 second gap during which a pilot supposedly has plenty of time to change a transponder, then it helps to know what a pilot's expectations are when someone tries to break into the cockpit. Was any such incursion automatically considered a hijacking, and automatically requiring transponder reconfiguration on the pilots part?

Even if the conspiracy fantasy is foolish, it's still possible to learn from it. And I'm just trying to salvage some semblence of learning from an otherwise foolish proposition.

Travis

3rd October 2008, 08:49 PM

Ragnarok

4th October 2008, 11:53 AM

Earlier in the thread, roundhead said this

No highjackers families have stepped forward, even discretely, to claim any remains.

to which I replied,
Can this be confirmed or denied? Do we know whether all the families of the accused hijackers held funerals without the remains?

Am I being purposefully ignored, or does someone want to attempt an answer?

defaultdotxbe

4th October 2008, 12:43 PM

Earlier in the thread, roundhead said this

to which I replied,

Am I being purposefully ignored, or does someone want to attempt an answer?
well depending on how discretely they stepped forward theres no reason roundhead would even know about it

Tin Foil Timothy

4th October 2008, 02:54 PM

Why do we have to convince you? The majority of people worldwide accept there were Arab terrorists on the planes - who cares what you think?

Seriously, why? What are you going to do if we don't? Start a new investigation? Bring down the Government and start a revolution? Or are you just going to keep braying for attention on a (relatively) tiny internet forum?

I bet if you were being honest with yourself, you'd admit you don't want us to convince you.

If you want to be convinced - convince yourself. Do the research - start with links you can find on this site.

Interesting you have the following in your signature?

The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Homeland Insurgency

4th October 2008, 06:27 PM

That's your prerogative- however it doesn't excuse you from having to address the issues and back up your claims.

Again- my personal feelings about your pathetic lies and your disgusting attitude are not resulting in anger. I don't think you have the ability to anger me- but what you are doing is disgusting and pathetic: you are ignoring the facts and the evidence, and instead lying about the events in order to hold on to your precious little fantasy. When that fantasy is challenged, you come up with all sorts of accusations and make yourself look like a fool in the process. When that behavior is exposed, you lash out at others and actually have the audacity to claim that it's other people who are ignoring you- and it's other people who just don't get it.

Take a look again at what you said about Van Romero. Tell me if your comments reflect the behavior of an honest person. Re-read what you said about aliases- notice how you didn't even address the question, and tell me if that is conducive to someone who concedes to reality. It's pretty clear that you're a liar- so I'm wondering how you even justify your behavior at this point... how you can act like a wounded dog when you've been the one mauling this entire thread.

Oh I'm not the wounded dog here by any stretch of the phrase. I am merely trying to point out the difference between matching some suspect DNA to the suspected family member as opposed to matching some unknown DNA to some other unknown DNA.

Are you getting it yet?

pomeroo

4th October 2008, 07:54 PM

Oh I'm not the wounded dog here by any stretch of the phrase. I am merely trying to point out the difference between matching some suspect DNA to the suspected family member as opposed to matching some unknown DNA to some other unknown DNA.

Are you getting it yet?

We understand that you and other liars who try this deception don't get it. Either you have discovered a major flaw in the methodology employed by every law enforcement agency on the planet or you don't know what you're talking about. You are claiming that the investigative techniques used by the FBI are invalid. How did you determine this? The FBI determined that the men who rented the rooms and the cars were on the the hijacked planes. What did they overlook? Why do you refuse to contact the bureau and inform them of your epochal discovery?

pomeroo

4th October 2008, 07:56 PM

Your the liar....From Griffin:

And its referenced

The 108(source)108. Richard A. Serrano, "Heroism, Fatalism Aboard Flight 93," Los Angeles Times, 12 April 2006
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20723.htm

Added quote tags and link. Do not quote material without making it clear it is quoted, and citing the source

So in this case we know the pilots had plenty of time to transmit highjack codes.

We dont know in the three other cases that they didnt have time as well, they well could have.

If the"planes" didnt have highjackers on them, there would be no need to transmit thse codes.

The crude liar Roundhead cites the egregious liar David Ray Griffin to falsely accuse an honest poster of lying. Gotta love it!

UPDATE: funk got there first.

Totovader

4th October 2008, 10:32 PM

Oh I'm not the wounded dog here by any stretch of the phrase. I am merely trying to point out the difference between matching some suspect DNA to the suspected family member as opposed to matching some unknown DNA to some other unknown DNA.

Are you getting it yet?

Pomeroo pretty much put you into your place on this one, but just in case you want to dodge my question again- here it is:

HI - you avoided this question before, much like your comrades did.

Do you have an answer, or not? You still seem to believe that "family DNA" is more reliable than an FBI investigation which confirms the timeline and identity of the hijackers through DNA matching.

I'm wondering if you can explain how the SOP for any type of investigation is flawed- and what should replace it.

Ragnarok

5th October 2008, 03:51 AM

well depending on how discretely they stepped forward theres no reason roundhead would even know about it

It's discreetly, but nevermind! Forget about roundhead, let's pretend I'm asking the question. Does anyone know how many of the hijackers families held funerals for their missing sons? Or if any of the families made discreet requests about body remains? Or if any of them even accept that their children died in the biggest crime of the 21st century? These are interesting questions if your mind isn't stuck in "Screw those murderous bastards!" mode.

defaultdotxbe

5th October 2008, 12:35 PM

It's discreetly, but nevermind! Forget about roundhead, let's pretend I'm asking the question. Does anyone know how many of the hijackers families held funerals for their missing sons? Or if any of the families made discreet requests about body remains? Or if any of them even accept that their children died in the biggest crime of the 21st century? These are interesting questions if your mind isn't stuck in "Screw those murderous bastards!" mode.
all but one interview ive seen seems to indicate they accept (and even applaud) their sons deaths as martyrs (IIRC one father even had a small shrine to his son with a picture of the towers burning)

Cl1mh4224rd

5th October 2008, 12:44 PM

Does anyone know how many of the hijackers families held funerals for their missing sons?

That's likely to be a "no" answer. For instance, does anyone know if the families of foreign nationals held funerals for their missing loved ones? It's a rather personal matter of those in a foreign country. I mean, hell... does anyone know how many American families held a funeral for their loved ones lost on 9/11?

You can assume that they all did, but the strict answer is, "No."

Or if any of the families made discreet requests about body remains?

Again, "No." For similar reasons outlined above.

Or if any of them even accept that their children died in the biggest crime of the 21st century?

I vaguely recall there being acceptance by at least one family, but I can't find anything to support that at the moment, so I'm going, again, with, "No."

On the other side of the coin, however, there's seems to be only one man, Ziad Al-Jarrah's uncle, that has publicly expressed his disbelief that his nephew was involved.