Convince me Arab Terrorists were on planes

[roundhead]

I am open minded to the suggestion that they were. However, i have serious doubts that any were.

Any evidence that would show these 18/19 guys were aboard these flights on 9/11 is appreciated.

What does seem to be the case is that there is zero convincing video evidence any of these guys boarded any of the four planes on 9/11.

We do have, seemingly, video evidence of Atta in Portland, but not at Logan, and there appears to be very controversial evidence of highjackers boarding at Dulles, that is at best unconvincing, and factually wrong in several areas.

No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001, And some "terrorists" who were initially said to have been on the planes were later proven to not have been, and replaced later wiith other names.

In short, i am having a problem with the bare bones evidence on the side of terorists boarding the planes, and the body of evidence which is out there which sugests they never boarded the "planes" at all.


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

[Jonnyclueless]

No.

You've already started your conclusion based on fabricated claims that are untrue, and you expect anyone to believe that you actually want to be convinced? Please don't waste our time. There are 100s of threads that already cover the evidence you are claiming to look for. But you're not really looking for any.

[beachnut]

Do you think we can, are you and learning on a first name basis?




Use the search function, this has been covered so many times in 7 years. 7 years and you can't find the terrorist names. Why?

[roundhead]

Johnny, from reading your ramblings on here, i submit you are one person who couldnt convince me on way or the other.

So, in short, your "no" answer represents perhaps the highwater mark of your contributions to this board thus far, as far as is apparent to me.

[CurtC]

No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001

That's quite a bold claim - can you back it up?

[Travis]

What would you consider valid evidence that they were on the planes?

[MikeW]

No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001
Here's what the Boston Globe published on September 14th 2001:

http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Flight_11_Manifest.gif


In addition they reported they'd obtained the manifest for Flight 175, which also contained the hijackers.

[Jonnyclueless]

Johnny, from reading your ramblings on here, i submit you are one person who couldnt convince me on way or the other.

So, in short, your "no" answer represents perhaps the highwater mark of your contributions to this board thus far, as far as is apparent to me.

Again, who are you kidding here pretending you want to be convinced or that you are remotely open to being convinced. You're not, you know it, and the context of your thread is dishonest to even imply so. The fact that the information you are looking for is easily found in a simple search here and that you start with false information proves your intent.

You call this a contribution? Ignoring the information here and pretending it doesn't exist? That's called trolling.

[16.5]

I am open minded to the suggestion that they were. However, i have serious doubts that any were.

No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001,

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

Good on ya mate! It is good to have an open mind, and I sense sincerity in your posts, so lets tuck in shall we?

Passenger manifests in 2001? Well, lets look at that, because it seems that you have confused manifests with lists of victims, so that is HUGE, would not you agree, good buddy?

But hell, don't listen to me, listen to a Truther!

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/9-11-misinformation-flight-passenger-lists-show-no-hijacker-names

Arabesque and I think you are a victim of disinfo from the Truther brigade, those rascals!

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

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.

[JamesB]

Why do you lie so much?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/14/national/main311268.shtml

The Boston Globe reported on its web site Thursday that it had obtained a copy of the complete manifest list of the planes hijacked from Boston.

The Globe said according to the manifest, Mohamed Atta, one of the suspected terrorists, was assigned seat 8D in business class on American Airlines Flight 11, directly across the aisle from Hollywood producer David Angell and his wife, Lynn, who were in seats 8A and 8B, respectively. Seated next to Atta in seat 8G was Abdul Alomari. FBI investigators have searched Alomari's home in Vero Beach.

The Globe reported the passenger list for United Air Lines Flight 175 shows that Marwan Alshehri got on the plane that left Boston and slammed into one of the Manhattan skyscrapers 15 minutes after Flight 11. An FAA pilot directory information spelled his name Marwan Alshehhi.

ETA: Oops, Mike beat me to it.

[roundhead]

This snip from Griffin is at the heart of my question. I am not hear to defend him. He has, IMO, made some mistakes along the way, so have others, including Nist among others.

Instead, i want to focus on his claims, and if they are in fact true. If they are not, point out why.

I quote Griffin, in part:


What about the passenger manifests, which list all the passengers on the flights? If the alleged hijackers purchased tickets and boarded the flights, their names would have been on the manifests for these flights. And we were told that they were. According to counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, the FBI told him at about 10:00 that morning that it recognized the names of some al-Qaeda operatives on passenger manifests it had received from the airlines.77 As to how the FBI itself acquired its list, Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, said to the 9/11 Commission in 2004:

On the morning of 9/11, through an evaluation of data related to the passenger manifest for the four terrorist hijacked aircraft, Customs Office of Intelligence was able to identify the likely terrorist hijackers. Within 45 minutes of the attacks, Customs forwarded the passenger lists with the names of the victims and 19 probable hijackers to the FBI and the intelligence community.78

Under questioning, Bonner added:

We were able to pull from the airlines the passenger manifest for each of the four flights. We ran the manifest through [our lookout] system. . . . [B]y 11:00 AM, I'd seen a sheet that essentially identified the 19 probable hijackers. And in fact, they turned out to be, based upon further follow-up in detailed investigation, to be the 19.79

Bonner's statement, however, is doubly problematic. In the first place, the initial FBI list, as reported by CNN on September 13 and 14, contained only 18 names.80 Why would that be if 19 men had already been identified on 9/11?

Second, several of the names on the FBI's first list, having quickly become problematic, were replaced by other names. For example, the previously discussed men named Bukhari, thought to be brothers, were replaced on American 11's list of hijackers by brothers named Waleed and Wail al-Shehri. Two other replacements for this flight were Satam al-Suqami, whose passport was allegedly found at Ground Zero, and Abdul al-Omari, who allegedly went to Portland with Atta the day before 9/11. Also, the initial list for American 77 did not include the name of Hani Hanjour, who would later be called the pilot of this flight. Rather, it contained a name that, after being read aloud by a CNN correspondent, was transcribed "Mosear Caned."81 All in all, the final list of 19 hijackers contained six names that were not on the original list of 18---a fact that contradicts Bonner's claim that by 11:00 AM on 9/11 his agency had identified 19 probable hijackers who, in fact, "turned out to be. . . the 19."

These replacements to the initial list also undermine the claim that Amy Sweeney, by giving the seat numbers of three of the hijackers to Michael Woodward of American Airlines, allowed him to identify Atta and two others. This second claim is impossible because the two others were Abdul al-Omari and Satam al-Suqami,82 and they were replacements for two men on the original list---who, like Adnan Bukhari, turned up alive after 9/11.83 Woodward could not possibly have identified men who were not added to the list until several days later.84

For all these reasons, the claim that the names of the 19 alleged hijackers were on the airlines' passenger manifests must be considered false

[Undesired Walrus]

I am open minded to the suggestion that they were. However, i have serious doubts that any were.

Any evidence that would show these 18/19 guys were aboard these flights on 9/11 is appreciated.

What does seem to be the case is that there is zero convincing video evidence any of these guys boarded any of the four planes on 9/11.

We do have, seemingly, video evidence of Atta in Portland, but not at Logan, and there appears to be very controversial evidence of highjackers boarding at Dulles, that is at best unconvincing, and factually wrong in several areas.

No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001, And some "terrorists" who were initially said to have been on the planes were later proven to not have been, and replaced later wiith other names.

In short, i am having a problem with the bare bones evidence on the side of terorists boarding the planes, and the body of evidence which is out there which sugests they never boarded the "planes" at all.


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

Ok, thanks for the open mind. As we both know, there is little chance we could find the remains of Atta and Marwan A.S, but they did find the remains of the hijackers at the crashsight of United 93. They also found the business card of Ziad Jarrah's uncle, with Ramzibinalshibh's (Who lived with Atta and Marwan A.S and is now on trial for 9/11) Hamburg address written on the back. I also believe they found the remains of the hijackers on Flight 77. We also have men chanting in Arabic 'Allah hu-Akbhar', and an Egyptian voice on Flight 11 telling the passangers to stay in their seats. Their car was left at the airport with extremist material in it. All of this fits with now-known Islamic fundamentalists with links to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden buying tickets for these planes and yes, appearing on the manifests. Who were radicals on those flights with strong links to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a man who planned the 'planes operation'? It wasn't Mark Bingham.

[JamesB]

For all these reasons, the claim that the names of the 19 alleged hijackers were on the airlines' passenger manifests must be considered false

Uhh, no actually it doesn't.

[16.5]

This snip from Griffin is at the heart of my question. I am not hear to defend him. He has, IMO, made some mistakes along the way, so have others, including Nist among others.

Hey good buddy, lets slow down with the goal post moving!

Ha ha! I'm just kidding.

Say, maybe you can help us help you! It seems like Griffin is basing his books that he is selling on a preliminary report from CNN? Is that true?

That seems important, lets get right to the bottom of that!

[beachnut]

No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001, ...
FALSE

It was a reading comprehension test by the news agencies to fool 9/11 truthers and those who do not read to understand.

They tricked those 9/11 truth groups by saying "victims list".

The passengers and crew were victims, the murdering terrorist, who 9/11 truth apologize for, are the bad guys, NOT victims.

[MikeW]

Second, several of the names on the FBI's first list, having quickly become problematic, were replaced by other names.
Griffin is simply pretending that media reports constitute "the FBI's first list". And they don't. The FBI's actual first list is at http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm , and contains just the 19 hijackers that we know already.

Griffin is also pretending that, because people like the Bukharis were briefly suspects, that means they must have appeared on the manifest. That's equally false. How were the FBI to know initially that the "Mohamed Atta" on the manifest was his real name? In the first few days they considered several alternative possibilities, just as you'd expect. The idea that this shows "the claim that the names of the 19 alleged hijackers were on the airlines' passenger manifests must be considered false" is fantasy, even by Dr Griffin's dishonest standards.

[ElMondoHummus]

DRG's statements about the lists do not undo or even address the foundations of the evidence:


Martyrdom videos featuring the hijackers themselves.
Security video of hijackers in the airports.
DNA evidence retrieved from the crash sites matched to either family members or items left behind in cars, hotel rooms, etc.
That's all direct evidence. There's also supporting evidence in who they associated with, the fact that certain individuals engaged in flight training, etc.

No matter what DRG says about the lists, those pieces of evidence stand. Complaints about names changing on the initial lists establish nothing more than a lack of information and clarity in the early stages of the investigation; it does not disprove information gathered later.

[Jonnyclueless]

Let's see Griffin's manifest that he says was changed.

[roundhead]

Griffin is simply pretending that media reports constitute "the FBI's first list". And they don't. The FBI's actual first list is at http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm , and contains just the 19 hijackers that we know already.

Griffin is also pretending that, because people like the Bukharis were briefly suspects, that means they must have appeared on the manifest. That's equally false. How were the FBI to know initially that the "Mohamed Atta" on the manifest was his real name? In the first few days they considered several alternative possibilities, just as you'd expect. The idea that this shows "the claim that the names of the 19 alleged hijackers were on the airlines' passenger manifests must be considered false" is fantasy, even by Dr Griffin's dishonest standards.


As you claim the FBI is the "official" list provider, and the CNN story lists the FBI as its source, i fail to see any point you have raised.

I will cite the FBI quote again, it makes claer the "highjackers" were identified on 9/11 itself, the CNN story was several days LATER...


Under questioning, Bonner added:

We were able to pull from the airlines the passenger manifest for each of the four flights. We ran the manifest through [our lookout] system. . . . [B]y 11:00 AM, I'd seen a sheet that essentially identified the 19 probable hijackers. And in fact, they turned out to be, based upon further follow-up in detailed investigation, to be the 19.79



80. "FBI: Early Probe Results Show 18 Hijackers Took Part," CNN, 13 September 2001 (click here "List of Names of 18 Suspected Hijackers," CNN, 14 September 2001 (click here

[JamesB]

Griffin continues to ignore reality, pretending that the victims of a terrorist attack and the passengers on the plane, must be the same thing:

Kenney: One of the points that I think people are wondering about that probably could use some clarification is what is the difference between a passenger manifest and a victims list and whether there has been confusion about that. I am not sure that that is really the cornerstone of any of your arguments because you show how the government has changed the names and identities and so forth of the alleged hijackers so many times that regardless of whether the original list may have said it doesn't really matter, but still has that been a question do you think?

Griffin: Well you know, some people have started making that distinction. I am not sure that distinction wasn't just created after the fact that none of the manifests that the airlines put out at the time had any hijackers names or any Arab names whatsoever. But be that as it may, the fact remains that we have no evidence of any list that has the name on them. And we have evidence that when they say that they had identified the hijackers immediately that they are lying.

[twinstead]

So this thread appears to be an abject lesson in how somebody can base a conclusion on false information, then refuse to adjust his conclusion when it is shown to be false.

Interesting. And we're the sheep?

[16.5]

Hey Roundhead, lots of great info in this thread, hmmm?

I trust that you, like so many Truthers are growing more and more concerned that Griffin is a scum sucking liar? I mean, Cripes, he freaking cherry picks a CNN article while ignoring vast quantities of information issued hours later that corrects any initial confusion. What person in their right mind would believe Griffin after that?

Thanks for a great thread, sometimes it is nice to retread old ground if it shows that leaders of the Truth movement are freaking lying sleazeballs.

[JamesB]

Convince me Arab Terrorists were on planes

This appears to be a pointless thread. There is no convincing you. Any evidence that contradicts your viewpoint will just be dismissed as "faked by the FBI". Your beliefs are not falsifiable.

[ElMondoHummus]

FYI everyone, I was planning to check out "Perfect Soldiers (http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Soldiers-Hijackers-They-Were/dp/0060584696)" from my library later today. I've already read Ghost Wars and Looming Tower, and am in the process of reading a small gaggle of books (part of the reason my posting's been curtailed lately; there's only so many hours in the day!). Anyway, any of you all have any other book suggestions specifically regarding the hijackers or bin Laden himself?

Yes, this post is indeed on topic, albeit only partially; "Perfect Soldiers" is a book on the hijackers.

[MikeW]

I will cite the FBI quote again, it makes claer the "highjackers" were identified on 9/11 itself, the CNN story was several days LATER...
It's very simple.

You cannot assume that, just because the Bukhari's were listed as suspects, they must therefore have appeared on the manifest. It's entirely possible that the FBI believed two of the 19 were the Bukhari's using assumed names. And so naming them says nothing whatsoever about who appeared on the manifest. Griffin's claim is based on an entirely false premise.

[roundhead]

DRG's statements about the lists do not undo or even address the foundations of the evidence:


Martyrdom videos featuring the hijackers themselves.
Security video of hijackers in the airports.
DNA evidence retrieved from the crash sites matched to either family members or items left behind in cars, hotel rooms, etc.
That's all direct evidence. There's also supporting evidence in who they associated with, the fact that certain individuals engaged in flight training, etc.

No matter what DRG says about the lists, those pieces of evidence stand. Complaints about names changing on the initial lists establish nothing more than a lack of information and clarity in the early stages of the investigation; it does not disprove information gathered later.


1.Martyrdom....Guys eating pork, gambling, drinking, getting lap dances.....you fail

2. what videos, show one from an Airport the "terrorists boarded a 9/11 plane "from. And no the single one that exists, from "Dulles", magically ISNT timestamped, and identify's another guy who looks nothing like Hani, as Hani. You fail again
3. DNA evidence?? Surely you jest. Name one terrorists family member who has showed up to claim the remains. You fail again.

[R.Mackey]

Convince me there's a bigger liar anywhere in the Truth Movement than David Ray Griffin...

Seeing as he is a Christian, one would think he'd avoid violating the Ninth Commandment, but no.

[Hokulele]

Convince me that water doesn't really make things wet.

[JamesB]

1.Martyrdom....Guys eating pork, gambling, drinking, getting lap dances.....you fail


I am sure I have spent more time in Muslim countries than you, and met plenty of otherwise "devout Muslims" who watched porn, drank, met with prostitutes etc. You fail.

[Hyperviolet]

How about the reports from the victims who were on the actual flights.
These people told their loved ones that the plane had, indeed, been hijacked.

Faked phone calls, you might say?
But what about the very intimate details they shared with one another?

Linda Gronlund, passenger aboard UA93, phoned her sister, Elsa:
Elsa Strong says, "She said, 'Hi, Else, this is Lin. I just wanted to tell you how much I love you.' And she said, 'Please tell Mom and Dad how much I love them.' And then she got real calm and said, 'Now my will is in my safe and my safe is in my closet. and this is the combination.' And she just told me the combination of her safe. and then she just said, 'I don't know if I'm ever going to get a chance to tell you again in person how much I love you, but I'm really going to miss you.' And she said goodbye."

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

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.

Just thought I would quote myself with added emphasis...

[16.5]

1.Martyrdom....Guys eating pork, gambling, drinking, getting lap dances.....you fail

2. what videos, show one from an Airport the "terrorists boarded a 9/11 plane "from. And no the single one that exists, from "Dulles", magically ISNT timestamped, and identify's another guy who looks nothing like Hani, as Hani. You fail again
3. DNA evidence?? Surely you jest. Name one terrorists family member who has showed up to claim the remains. You fail again.


Hey Roundhead, good buddy, I took you at your word that you had an open mind. I dunno, it just seemed that this post was not exactly showing the broad open mind that one comes to expect from a Truther such as yourself.

So did you already plow through the Arabesque site I linked you to? He is a truther, you know that, correct?

But we must persevere! Right? So lets agree that Griffin was totally blowing wind up your skirts to whore his pathetic books, what do you say pal?

[twinstead]

roundhead you'd better bring your "A" game here. All you are doing is arguing from personal incredulity.

[MikeW]

the single one that exists, from "Dulles", magically ISNT timestamped, and identify's another guy who looks nothing like Hani, as Hani. You fail again
So you can prove there's a problem with the video? Go to it. It was submitted at the Moussaoui trial, after all. If you can show the Government presented a faked video then that would be a very big deal. Best get started.

By the way, that implication that the Dulles video doesn't show Hanjour has been shown false for years. What happened is the Associated Press ran this picture of the wrong man:

http://www.911myths.com/images/a/a6/Not_Hanjour.jpg

While MSNBC and others ran this one (from a video) of the right one:

http://www.911myths.com/images/f/fc/RealHanjour.jpg

All it shows is that the media sometimes make mistakes. More here (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hani_Hanjour_at_Dulles).

[roundhead]

Convince me there's a bigger liar anywhere in the Truth Movement than David Ray Griffin...

Seeing as he is a Christian, one would think he'd avoid violating the Ninth Commandment, but no.



Convince me that i should swallow a questionable story(at best)that is supported(and fabricated) by agency's who are at the beck and call of George Bush, a known and demonstratable liar, that has been proven to not have US interests anywhere near the top of his list, is inept, unrespected by the American public overwhelingly, and in short a failure as a representative my country.

The fact is GWB cant hold Griffin's jock when it comes to morality, and it aint even close.


So if it STRICTLY were to come down to trustworthiness, Bush is way at the back of the bus.

I am truly ashamed i voted for him.

[Btodd]

Here you go, roundhead.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/No_hijackers_on_the_passenger_manifests



Now, please return the favor and answer a question of mine. If the hijackers weren't on the planes, then I assume you think they were remote-controlled? That's really the only other option, implausible as it may be.

Are you willing to follow this where it leads? I don't want to hear the usual appeal to 'I don't have to know what happened to know what didn't happen', because that's merely an admission that finding out what happened really isn't your goal.

I hope I'm wrong.

[sleahead]

Second, several of the names on the FBI's first list, having quickly become problematic, were replaced by other names. For example, the previously discussed men named Bukhari,


As MikeW said, there was no list, just report on CNN which they swiftly corrected. In addition, Griffin would have us believe that the supposed conspirators would undertake the plot without having a carefully prepared list of names. Is that credible? Is it credible that their "list" would contain the name of a man who died in 2000 (Ameer Bukhari)?

[Hyperviolet]

Convince me that i should swallow a questionable story(at best)that is supported(and fabricated) by agency's who are at the beck and call of George Bush, a known and demonstratable liar, that has been proven to not have US interests anywhere near the top of his list, is inept, unrespected by the American public overwhelingly, and in short a failure as a representative my country.

The fact is GWB cant hold Griffin's jock when it comes to morality, and it aint even close.


So if it STRICTLY were to come down to trustworthiness, Bush is way at the back of the bus.

I am truly ashamed i voted for him.

Fortunately, the physical universe isn't dependent on your personal mistrust of George W. Bush.

And nothing you've written there is relevant to what actually happened on board AA11, UA175, AA77 and UA93.

You've been shown solid evidence: read it, and then come back with any perceived problems.

[16.5]

Convince me that i should swallow a questionable story(at best)that is supported(and fabricated) by agency's who are at the beck and call of George Bush, a known and demonstratable liar, that has been proven to not have US interests anywhere near the top of his list, is inept, unrespected by the American public overwhelingly, and in short a failure as a representative my country.

The fact is GWB cant hold Griffin's jock when it comes to morality, and it aint even close.


So if it STRICTLY were to come down to trustworthiness, Bush is way at the back of the bus.

I am truly ashamed i voted for him.

Good job everyone! An absolute complete truther meltdown in less than 40 posts!

Roundhead, it is delicious that you are talking about fabrications, when you made three incredible whoppers in this thread!

"This snip from Griffin is at the heart of my question. I am not hear [sic] to defend him."

"I am open minded to the suggestion that they were."

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

I'm finished with this guy.

[R.Mackey]

Convince me that i should swallow a questionable story(at best)that is supported(and fabricated) by agency's who are at the beck and call of George Bush, a known and demonstratable liar, that has been proven to not have US interests anywhere near the top of his list, is inept, unrespected by the American public overwhelingly, and in short a failure as a representative my country.

The fact is GWB cant hold Griffin's jock when it comes to morality, and it aint even close.


So if it STRICTLY were to come down to trustworthiness, Bush is way at the back of the bus.

I am truly ashamed i voted for him.

Convince me you can be convinced.

The notion that the entire "Official Theory" is a fabrication written at Bush's behest is intensely paranoid. It has been independently reviewed and, in places, replicated, you know.

And I voted against him twice, for what it's worth.

[ElMondoHummus]

1.Martyrdom....Guys eating pork, gambling, drinking, getting lap dances.....you fail

That does not contradict the fact that the hijackers made the videos. It merely demonstrates the lenghts they went to in order to try to fit into society.

Too many people have this impression that Islamic terrorists attempt to be pure holy warriors. The truth is shown to be otherwise. You should read more about them; Grace Burnam, kidnapped by muslim terrorists in the southern Philippines has commented on their ability to justify any deviation from pious muslim behavior on the grounds that they were "jihadis". Michael Totten, a blogger who's traveled parts of the Middle East, has noted that some of the best ham he's had was in Beruit, and not on the christian side of the city either. The point is that you cannot use a misunderstanding of what comprises proper behavoir to dismiss the very real video evidence the hijackers themselves made. The failure is yours, Roundhead.

2. what videos, show one from an Airport the "terrorists boarded a 9/11 plane "from. And no the single one that exists, from "Dulles", magically ISNT timestamped, and identify's another guy who looks nothing like Hani, as Hani. You fail again


No failure there. The videos were good enough to be used in court. Your dismissal of it is unfounded and illogical.

Regarding "looks nothing like Hani": Pre- and post-capture images of Khalid Shaik Mohammed don't look much alike either, but those are definitively demonstrated to be him. Besides which, that is merely your opinion. The video stands alongside the other evidence placing him at the airport, such as the passenger list you try to falsify and fail at, and all those pieces work together to establish his and other hijackers presences.

Again, the failure is yours. You do not demonstrate that the video is false; you merely argue from incredulity.


3. DNA evidence?? Surely you jest. Name one terrorists family member who has showed up to claim the remains. You fail again.

Non-sequitor. The family did not have to show up and claim remains for the DNA link to be established. DNA samples were taken from the vehicles they drove and the hotel rooms they stayed in, linked to records establishing them as being in those rooms or possessing those vehicles.

Instead of bragging about failure, how about avoiding it by making substantive arguments? The three you've put to text here have been nothing more than demonstrations of incredulity; they certainly don't rise to the level of negating the evidence.

ETA: Blaaaah! Why'd I say this:

...

DNA evidence retrieved from the crash sites matched to either family members or items left behind in cars, hotel rooms, etc.


... in a thread discussing the hijackers? When I damn well know that the familial DNA matching was for the victims, not the hijackers?? Okay, that's my fault. I erred in saying that. Here's the clarification: The DNA matching process took remains from the wreck sites and compared them with DNA obtained from known places the hijackers were established to have been at. Identification flowed from that. As best as I can tell, no families contributed DNA to the identification process.

[beachnut]

I am truly ashamed i voted for him.

Your pure anti-intellectual pursuit proven with political drivel;
Why are you doing a poor job of apologizing for terrorists?

If you read things you sure don't understand them. DRG is a lair by proxy, he never says it, someone else said it.

[roundhead]

So you can prove there's a problem with the video? Go to it. It was submitted at the Moussaoui trial, after all. If you can show the Government presented a faked video then that would be a very big deal. Best get started.

By the way, that implication that the Dulles video doesn't show Hanjour has been shown false for years. What happened is the Associated Press ran this picture of the wrong man:

http://www.911myths.com/images/a/a6/Not_Hanjour.jpg

While MSNBC and others ran this one (from a video) of the right one:

http://www.911myths.com/images/f/fc/RealHanjour.jpg

All it shows is that the media sometimes make mistakes. More here (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hani_Hanjour_at_Dulles).


I dont doubt these guys have travelled by air at some point. I see no timestamp. Even a 7/11 video camera has a time stamp. Its ommision is troubling, at the very least.

Additionally, there is zero video evidence from the other three flights


So out of four flights, we have a grand total of one very dubious video, in total, that has no time stamp.

I think its fair to say that is extremely unconvining

[roundhead]

Your pure anti-intellectual pursuit proven with political drivel;
Why are you doing a poor job of apologizing for terrorists?

If you read things you sure don't understand them. DRG is a lair by proxy, he never says it, someone else said it.

Anybody who would attack my country and kill my fellow citizens gets no pass from me.

Unlike you, i use a time honored fact that my parents lovingly instilled in me many years ago at a young age.


And that is, you can only draw an opinion on somebody based on past performance. If i use this excellent advice, and apply it to 9/11, its very hard to support anything a proven(and continual) liar, like Bush, rolls out as truth.

The above fact makes me extremely sceptical of his(and his agency's) story regarding 9/11. One has to be mighty fanatical to believe the guy, in lieu of the gaping holes in the story, and again, his past actions and truthfulness.

To me, beingcalled a "truther" is in fact high praise. For i define that as meaning i have no intention than to get at the truth, wherever that leads.

[applecorped]

Nobody exists unless you have a video to prove otherwise.

[MikeW]

I dont doubt these guys have travelled by air at some point. I see no timestamp. Even a 7/11 video camera has a time stamp. Its ommision is troubling, at the very least.
Not the point, and you know it. Why is it that you keep making demonstrably false statements, then fail to acknowledge them when they're pointed out?

Don't worry, I know the answer. Which also tells me any further posts in this thread will be an utter waste of time, so I'll bow out now.

[Drudgewire]

roundhead, I need you to convince me the Smurfs didn't win the 2004 Super Bowl.

What? You say the very possibility is outside the realm of every known field of legitimate accepted science, recorded history, and all that aside is something which could only be believed by someone with no rational grasp of reality who instead chooses to fester in a fairy-tale world of their own making?

And for that matter, you consider the idea of even asking someone who is interested in serious debate to take part in such a task insulting and pathetic... especially considering how little I have to base my reasoning on (beyond either insanity or willful self-delusion) and how much evidence can be found in a matter of milliseconds which would make anyone other than the most hard-headed, not-in-any-way-willing-to-drop-their-belief-for-all-the-tea-in-China fanatics say "oh OK, you're right. What was I thinking?"

Well now we're even. vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv

[Mr.Herbert]

roundhead, I need you to convince me the Smurfs didn't win the 2004 Super Bowl.



Janet Jackson's nip slip won the 2004 Superbowl!! :D

[Drudgewire]

Janet Jackson's nip slip won the 2004 Superbowl!! :D


Yeah, and considering how kid-friendly the FCC turned the Super Bowl from that moment on you'd have a lot less trouble convincing me the Smurfs competed in 2005's. :mad:

[gc051360]

If you deny and/or ignore every piece of evidence that supports hi-jackers being on the planes, why should anyone trust that you are "open minded"??

eta: I also like the "If it isn't video taped, it never happened" aspect of the truth movement. And "If it is video taped.......it's a forgery"

[Jonnyclueless]

I would like to state once again that roundhead has made it perfectly clear that he has no intent to actually look for evidence that will convince him. He is simply trying to create redundant threads that have already been well covered.

If these guys want to support terrorists who murder, that's their business. But to make dishonest threads for the purpose of trolling is not cool to me. It's just a typical crackpot tactic along with "just asking questions".

It has been proven that the 19 hijackers were on those planes. It has been shown in court and proven in a court of law. It has been shown in the largest criminal investigation in the history of man. If Roundhead cares to show that someone or something else happened, then the burden is on him. Simply saying he doesn't agree with everything is not an argument, it's trolling.

[GeeMack]

Unlike you, i use a time honored fact that my parents lovingly instilled in me many years ago at a young age.


And that is, you can only draw an opinion on somebody based on past performance.


And your own past performance indicates a serious lack of sound judgement.

So if it STRICTLY were to come down to trustworthiness, Bush is way at the back of the bus.

I am truly ashamed i voted for him.


So clearly by even your own standards you certainly wouldn't expect anyone to accept your judgement, your doubts, about Arab terrorists being on the planes on 9/11.

[roundhead]

So, to sum things up thus far we have


One dubious non timestamped video

No other video evidence to support any of these guys got on 9/11 planes

FBI statements than can at best be described as confusing and ever changing

Devout Muslims(who in order to fit in, thats laughable, and if anything would draw more attention in public places) to guys who ate pork, partied, drew attenton to themselves.

As far as i know, not a single ticket stub, part of a boarding pass, etc, to show any of these guys boarded these "flights"

No squawks on any of 4 planes(a fact that taken by itself is extremely unlikely)Especially in liue of this trial shippet:

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.



On September 22, 2001, the BBC published an article by David Bamford entitled "Hijack "-Suspect' Alive in Morocco." It showed that the Waleed al-Shehri identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers was still alive. Explaining why the problem could not be dismissed as a case of mistaken identity, Bamford wrote:

His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack. He told Saudi journalists in Casablanca that . . . he has now been interviewed by the American authorities, who apologised for the misunderstanding.

Got CHA


In any case, the alleged hijackers could have been positively identified only if samples had been obtained from their relatives, and there is no indication that this occurred. Indeed, one can wonder why not. The FBI had lots of information about the men identified as the hijackers. They could easily have located relatives. And these relatives, most of whom reportedly did not believe that their own flesh and blood had been involved in the attacks, would have surely been willing to supply the needed DNA. Indeed, a story about Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of Flight 93, said: "Jarrah's family has indicated they would be willing to provide DNA samples to US researchers, . . . [but] the FBI has shown no interest thus far

[Jonnyclueless]

Now let's list all the evidence that it was an inside job and let's nit pick over that. how about it? Let's see how strong the creationism er I mean inside job evidence is.

[16.5]

Roundhead:

Are you really persisting in this after you have been exposed as a fraud?

Well good for you! Why bother making us make you look like a fraud when you are doing a damn fine job of it yourself.

Do continue!

[gc051360]

One dubious non timestamped video
What is dubious about it?

Devout Muslims(who in order to fit in, thats laughable, and if anything would draw more attention in public places) to guys who ate pork, partied, drew attenton to themselves.
Muslims can't be hypocrites?

I've never personally been to the mid east, but I've spoken with someone who's visited there. He claimed that almost every male, asked him to get them porn, and that almost every male asked him not to tell anyone else about it.

What exactly is the claim though? They ate pork, therefore they weren't muslim? Not terrorists? What is your point?

As far as i know, not a single ticket stub, part of a boarding pass, etc, to show any of these guys boarded these "flights"
they were on the flight manifests, which means they checked in...right?

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.
So what?

If you've been told to do something......it doesn't mean you'll do it in a hectic environment. That's why military people have to train until it becomes mind numbing. If it doesn't become instinctual, you won't work well in a hectic environment.

Also. Do you think they may have been busy with trying to fend them off, and also still fly the plane?

Got CHA
No. I believe that claim has been refuted here quite a bit, actually.

In any case, the alleged hijackers could have been positively identified only if samples had been obtained from their relatives, and there is no indication that this occurred
Why would that be needed? they had samples from the hotel rooms, and rent a car and whatnot.

[Btodd]

Roundhead, you never responded to my question about remote-controlled planes being the only other option if the hijackers weren't on board.

Since you've put on this air of sincerity about openness, then I want to know if you've pursued your own doubts. Your goal thus far seems to be goading those regulars here that you feel insulted by from past threads.

To you, I'm brand-new. If you're really after the Truth about what happened, then let's assume the hijackers weren't on board, and follow it out.

Are you willing to agree that a remote-controlled plane is the only other option? If not, then produce another option, and we can examine the plausibility / evidence for each, and compare them with the official story, and see where the weight of evidence lies.

So far, your goal appears to be finding a way to stick it to the official story, to the exclusion of any pursuit of the truth. Which makes you look like the average 9/11 denier. Are you?


Btodd

[PhantomWolf]

Devout Muslims(who in order to fit in, thats laughable, and if anything would draw more attention in public places) to guys who ate pork, partied, drew attenton to themselves.

This one keeps getting repeated and no one has jumped on it so I will. This claim comes through Daniel Hopsicker who interviewed Amanda Keller, a stripper that claimed she was Atta's girlfriend. This problem is that it was never true (http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060910/NEWS/609100466/1007/BUSINESS) her boyfriend wasn't Atta at all. The whole pork eating, cocaine using, partying image that many CT's still claim of them was entirely a fabrication based on someone else.

[PhantomWolf]

What is dubious about it?

It supports the "Offical Story"

[TexasJack]

So much for the open-mindedness. Your mind is closed and has been before you posted the OP. You are blinded, like virtually all truthers, by your agenda driven, I'll fit that square peg in around hole attitude from the beginning. Who do you think you're fooling?

[PhantomWolf]

No squawks on any of 4 planes(a fact that taken by itself is extremely unlikely)Especially in liue of this trial shippet:

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.

This one is rediculous. You have people armed with knives breaking into the cockpit and attacking you. You really think you are going to take time out to fiddle with a transponder switch?

Consider Flight 705 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705) The attack in this case lasted about 3 minutes during which none of the crew called the tower for help, nor activated the hijack code on the transponder. Why? They were too busy fighting for their lives, the same as the air crews on 9/11, the only difference is that the air crew on 705 managed to win because it was 3 against 1 and the hijacker had a hammer not a knife.

[16.5]

This one keeps getting repeated and no one has jumped on it so I will. This claim comes through Daniel Hopsicker who interviewed Amanda Keller, a stripper that claimed she was Atta's girlfriend. This problem is that it was never true (http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060910/NEWS/609100466/1007/BUSINESS) her boyfriend wasn't Atta at all. The whole pork eating, cocaine using, partying image that many CT's still claim of them was entirely a fabrication based on someone else.

Awww, PW! Man, you let that little cat out of the bag a little too early!

I was hoping that old Roundhead was going to run with that little freaking lie a few more posts before slamming him.

That is some first class research skills Roundhead!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65416

[roundhead]

What is dubious about it?


Muslims can't be hypocrites?

I've never personally been to the mid east, but I've spoken with someone who's visited there. He claimed that almost every male, asked him to get them porn, and that almost every male asked him not to tell anyone else about it.

What exactly is the claim though? They ate pork, therefore they weren't muslim? Not terrorists? What is your point?


they were on the flight manifests, which means they checked in...right?


So what?

If you've been told to do something......it doesn't mean you'll do it in a hectic environment. That's why military people have to train until it becomes mind numbing. If it doesn't become instinctual, you won't work well in a hectic environment.

Also. Do you think they may have been busy with trying to fend them off, and also still fly the plane?


No. I believe that claim has been refuted here quite a bit, actually.


Why would that be needed? they had samples from the hotel rooms, and rent a car and whatnot.




Not transmitting a highjack code In all 4 instances is so unlikely as to in and of itself throw up a huge red flag, especially in at least one scenario, two trained men had 30 seconds or so to do so. Its so unlikely its not funny. Other pilots could well have ad that much time or more, we dont know.No matter the time, boxcutter threat, whatever, all 4 not transmitting is way, way against the odds. And that is just one tiny piece.

No video evidence of any of these guys at the airports checking in(except at Dulles, and that is dubious at best)

Explain how a time stamp WOULDNT be on that video.If it supported them being there on the morning of 9/11 it wouldnt be chopped off

No evidence has surfaced(that would certainly shut me and many others up) of tickets, boarding passes, etc, in short stuff that the airlines WOULD DEFINATELY STILL OF HAD A FEW HOURS LATER, and at that point known the sigificance of it, and had it available to give to investigators.



Like GEEZ, that flight left our gate 90 minutes ago, save all the hard copy it might be needed to show who was on that flight,etc.

The fact not one paper proof of any of these guys tickets,etc has been rolled out is utterly fantastic. If i were wanting to shut up all this noise, i would produce paper proof, as they havent, it makes the story way less believable.


In fact, as all this evidence which woud be expected to be available magically isnt, and instead stuff that we wouldnt expect to have, like death notes, and unchecked luggage on flights that had time to make it on, and undamaged passports floating around in Manhattan do appear.

Its not just a little stink, its actually quite a stench.

Very obvious to me most JREF'ers get this kind of smell in their noses, they resort to clothespins, not checking to find the source of the odor.

I want to find the truth, i have grave doubts any of these guys were on the 4 planes, if there were even 4 planes, bu thats another day.

[PhantomWolf]

No evidence has surfaced(that would certainly shut me and many others up) of tickets, boarding passes, etc, in short stuff that the airlines WOULD DEFINATELY STILL OF HAD A FEW HOURS LATER, and at that point known the sigificance of it, and had it available to give to investigators.

So unless you have personally seen it, it doesn't exist? How do you know that these things haven't been handed over to the FBI?

[Jonnyclueless]

No it's NOT utterly unlikely. And is that your evidence? That your OPINION is that it's unlikely roundhead? how about you get in the pilots seat, have someone sneak up behind you and slit your throat and let's see how quickly you enter a hijack code. This is why you aren't taken seriously. Not only has it been proven more than likely, it would be pretty much impossible for pilots to have entered hijack codes.

Calling something dubious idiotic conjecture. Have you ever been on a plane Roundhead? Care to prove it?

Not all video has time stamps on it. Explain why it absolutely has to have a time stamp on it. perhaps you could cite the law?

No evidence has surfaced that will shut you up because you decided long before any evidence what you want to believe. You're a fraud and a crackpot.

And stop pretending there is anything that would shut up this "noise'. You don't want the truth, you want anything BUT the truth. The only thing you will accept are tin foil conspiracy theories and nothing less. Not the truth. And you can't back up your own beliefs with a single shred of evidence. Hence your need to use your biased opinion to share your doubt on evidence presented by REAL investigators rather than providing evidence to back up your own claims. You can't do it and you know it.

What evidence have you provided for any of your beliefs. And the fact that you doubt there were even 4 planes is absolutely laughable. Yeah you want truth...THAT is a laugh.

[beachnut]

Anybody who would attack my country and kill my fellow citizens gets no pass from me.

Unlike you, i use a time honored fact that my parents lovingly instilled in me many years ago at a young age.

And that is, you can only draw an opinion on somebody based on past performance. If i .... as truth.

The above fact makes me extremely sceptical of his(and his agency's) story regarding 9/11. ....
To me, beingcalled a "truther" is in fact high praise. For i define that as meaning i have no intention than to get at the truth, wherever that leads.
UBL said we would do it, and he did, you lack the ability to use logic. Even the terrorist who worked with the dead 19, the terrorist you are apologizing for out of ignorance on 9/11, take credit now, and laugh at people who can't grasp reality.

Where UBL says something he is not like your shallow rhetoric, spew some apple pie stuff and then spew stupid opinions.

Bring your fact game, we have never seen it yet.

[16.5]

Its not just a little stink, its actually quite a stench.Very obvious to me most JREF'ers get this kind of smell in their noses, they resort to clothespins, not checking to find the source of the odor.


But we did find where the stench was coming from! It was from Atta's pork sandwich that he left over at Amanda Keller's house!

Hee hee hee!

PWNED!

[Pinch]

I am sure I have spent more time in Muslim countries than you, and met plenty of otherwise "devout Muslims" who watched porn, drank, met with prostitutes etc. You fail.

Whether or not the pork eating and lapdancing happened or not, it has been seen occasionally in suicide bombers - they know they'll be in the arms of Allah and their 72 virgins in a very short time because of their martyrdom so they take advantage of the hedonistic elements of life here on earth before they blow themselves to pieces.

[PhantomWolf]

undamaged passports floating around in Manhattan

I know that a lot of other stuff survived the crashes as well, licences, a frequent flyer card, IDs, and even mail. Most of it was damaged in some way. Does anyone have any knowledge of exactly how "undamaged" the passport was?

[CHF]

OK, let's pretend that no terrorists appear on the list of victims...er, I mean the manifests.

So what does that mean?

The guv staged 9/11 and forgot to put the fake terrorists on the flight manifests???

[nicepants]

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

Your scales are clearly already tipped. Since you seem to believe any evidence that disagrees with your currently-held beliefs is false, please explain, in detail, what specific evidence you require in order to "tip the scales" in the other direction.

[lapman]

2. what videos, show one from an Airport the "terrorists boarded a 9/11 plane "from. And no the single one that exists, from "Dulles", magically ISNT timestamped, and identify's another guy who looks nothing like Hani, as Hani. You fail againPlease provide the videos that show all the other passengers.

[roundhead]

OK, let's pretend that no terrorists appear on the list of victims...er, I mean the manifests.

So what does that mean?

The guv staged 9/11 and forgot to put the fake terrorists on the flight manifests???


No, it just means that who ever they "invented" to be on the planes sure better not turn up later and say they werent. Even with media control, there are plenty of holes in that dike

Its seems there was indeed a problem with even this easy task.


Its much easier to lie and say they were on there, than produce any hardcopy evidence that PROVES they were.

If they were on there, a wealth of evidence would prove it, most of which i have alluded to.

My guess is that if the FBI had ANY hardcopy boarding/ticketing info on these guys we would have seen it eons ago.

Kinda like if they had any video evidence of 77 hitting the Pentagon, we would have seen it eons ago.

A pattern here, invent missleading info, till its uncovered, then jump to another lilly pad and start all over.

All this stuff could be easily put to bed if evidence was trotted out that any sane person would expect should be available.
The fact that you supposed "sceptics" on here dont consider this problematic, is ample evidence of your true "scepticism"

[HyJinX]

The fact not one paper proof of any of these guys tickets,etc has been rolled out is utterly fantastic. If i were wanting to shut up all this noise, i would produce paper proof, as they havent, it makes the story way less believable.

:rolleyes: delusions of grandeur

If my back yard was the world...the truth movement, as it exists today, wouldn't equal one blade of grass. Trust me...there is no noise from the truthy fanclub.

[JamesB]

OK, let's pretend that no terrorists appear on the list of victims...er, I mean the manifests.

So what does that mean?

The guv staged 9/11 and forgot to put the fake terrorists on the flight manifests???

Sorry, it was a really busy week. I was trying to figure out how to launder the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld gave me, busy hiding the missiles on the top of hte Pentagon, the wife kept on bugging me to clean the garage.... I completely forgot to do this until late September.

[HyJinX]

So...from what I can gather from your posts, you're a no planer, no terrorist, fly over believer. Is that true?

Why don't you tell us what you believe because I get the feeling that you might deny that 9/11 ever happened or is even a day on the calendar.

[Polaris]

1.Martyrdom....Guys eating pork, gambling, drinking, getting lap dances.....you fail

2. what videos, show one from an Airport the "terrorists boarded a 9/11 plane "from. And no the single one that exists, from "Dulles", magically ISNT timestamped, and identify's another guy who looks nothing like Hani, as Hani. You fail again
3. DNA evidence?? Surely you jest. Name one terrorists family member who has showed up to claim the remains. You fail again.

Would you be convinced if we were to build a time machine and put you on board Flight 11?

[dudalb]

I guess the Truthers have finally realised everybody is wise to the "I'm only asking questions" ploy and have created "I am open to" to replace it.

[roundhead]

I kno i have shined a rather large flashlight on the cockroach that is the OCT, so instead of jumping from one issue to another, lets flesh out one at a time.


Lets start with the Dulles video


Why does it not have a time stamp visible on it?

Either it never had one, or it was cropped off i cant think of another possibility.I cant think of any compelling reason it would be cropped off, unless its time/date dodnt fit a narrative its supposed to support.


Would it be normal for surveilance cameras at a major airport to not have a timestamp on their video?

[Thunder]

roundhead- why should we take the time to convince you of something that you clearly do not want to believe in? (for whatever personal reasons).

why dont you instead convince us that you truly have an open mind and are willing to look at all evidence with an unbiased..yet critical view.

but i guess everyone has already asked this. what a waste.

[Furcifer]

Why does it not have a time stamp visible on it?



Time stamps are too easily faked. If there was a time stamp, well that would be a sure sign it was faked.

[dudalb]

I kno i have shined a rather large flashlight on the cockroach that is the OCT,


:deadhorse

Same crap we have heard a few thousand times before.
At least it seems like a few thousand times.

[TexasJack]

:deadhorse

Same crap we have heard a few thousand times before.
At least it seems like a few thousand times.

Actually, is been at least a few thousand times.

[nicepants]

Lets start with the Dulles video


Why does it not have a time stamp visible on it?

Either it never had one, or it was cropped off

I cant think of any compelling reason it would be cropped off, unless its time/date dodnt fit a narrative its supposed to support.

The timestamp could easily be "cropped" out if a digital zoom was performed in order to enlarge a specific part of the frame.


Would it be normal for surveilance cameras at a major airport to not have a timestamp on their video?

Currently? Probably not
On 9/11? I don't know.....you'd have to view the ORIGINAL footage to know whether the timestamp existed or not.

Bumpitty bump:

explain, in detail, what specific evidence you require in order to "tip the scales" in the other direction.

[pomeroo]

Here's what the Boston Globe published on September 14th 2001:

http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Flight_11_Manifest.gif


In addition they reported they'd obtained the manifest for Flight 175, which also contained the hijackers.


Mike, with all due respect (and that's a helluva a lot of respect!), this particular poster understands perfectly well that the names and seating positions of the hijackers appear on the passenger manifests. He's read it here many, many times. He has started an absolutely worthless thread to hear himself blather about a subject that has been worn to rags.

NOTHING could persuade him that the jihadists were on the planes they hijacked.

[pomeroo]

Griffin is simply pretending that media reports constitute "the FBI's first list". And they don't. The FBI's actual first list is at http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm , and contains just the 19 hijackers that we know already.

Griffin is also pretending that, because people like the Bukharis were briefly suspects, that means they must have appeared on the manifest. That's equally false. How were the FBI to know initially that the "Mohamed Atta" on the manifest was his real name? In the first few days they considered several alternative possibilities, just as you'd expect. The idea that this shows "the claim that the names of the 19 alleged hijackers were on the airlines' passenger manifests must be considered false" is fantasy, even by Dr Griffin's dishonest standards.


Through my personal dealings with the man, I have concluded that David Ray Griffin is a contemptible liar and a thoroughgoing charlatan. There are times, however, when even I am amazed at the extent of his dishonesty.

[bje]

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

First, would you be willing to prove that you exist, roundhead? How do we know you are a real person and not a computer bot, for instance?

I have no evidence you actually exist; all I see is words written on a computer screen. How do I know you're not an NWO agent, or an Arab hijacker?

If you can prove to us that you actually exist, then we can continue. But you are going to have to give us some pretty convincing evidence. How do you propose to do that?

[pomeroo]

Convince me that i should swallow a questionable story(at best)that is supported(and fabricated) by agency's who are at the beck and call of George Bush, a known and demonstratable liar, that has been proven to not have US interests anywhere near the top of his list, is inept, unrespected by the American public overwhelingly, and in short a failure as a representative my country.

The fact is GWB cant hold Griffin's jock when it comes to morality, and it aint even close.


So if it STRICTLY were to come down to trustworthiness, Bush is way at the back of the bus.

I am truly ashamed i voted for him.


1. Your claim that the FBI is, for unfathomable reasons, at "the beck and call of George Bush" is nonsense. There isn't a shred of evidence to support your falsehood. Why would the Democrats in the bureau allow themselves to used for criminal acts by a man they oppose?

2. You have never come close to presenting an unambiguous lie told by Bush and you never will.

3. Griffin has been caught lying many times.

4. You certainly never voted for Bush.

[pomeroo]

So, to sum things up thus far we have


One dubious non timestamped video

No other video evidence to support any of these guys got on 9/11 planes

FBI statements than can at best be described as confusing and ever changing

Devout Muslims(who in order to fit in, thats laughable, and if anything would draw more attention in public places) to guys who ate pork, partied, drew attenton to themselves.

As far as i know, not a single ticket stub, part of a boarding pass, etc, to show any of these guys boarded these "flights"

No squawks on any of 4 planes(a fact that taken by itself is extremely unlikely)Especially in liue of this trial shippet:

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.



On September 22, 2001, the BBC published an article by David Bamford entitled "Hijack "-Suspect' Alive in Morocco." It showed that the Waleed al-Shehri identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers was still alive. Explaining why the problem could not be dismissed as a case of mistaken identity, Bamford wrote:

His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack. He told Saudi journalists in Casablanca that . . . he has now been interviewed by the American authorities, who apologised for the misunderstanding.

Got CHA


In any case, the alleged hijackers could have been positively identified only if samples had been obtained from their relatives, and there is no indication that this occurred. Indeed, one can wonder why not. The FBI had lots of information about the men identified as the hijackers. They could easily have located relatives. And these relatives, most of whom reportedly did not believe that their own flesh and blood had been involved in the attacks, would have surely been willing to supply the needed DNA. Indeed, a story about Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of Flight 93, said: "Jarrah's family has indicated they would be willing to provide DNA samples to US researchers, . . . [but] the FBI has shown no interest thus far


Mike W. wisely bowed out. It falls to me, then, to point out, redundantly, that the poster with many names is one of the most egregious liars in a movement built on lies:

http://911myths.com/html/waleed_al-shehri_still_alive.html

[Undesired Walrus]

Pom, what were you doing at ground zero on 9/11 with a microphone in your hand? There is a video of you floating around.

As to roundhead, why was the card of Ziad Jarrah's uncle, with Ramzibinalshibh's Hamburg address written on the back, found in the remains of United 93 if Jarrah wasn't on the plane?

[pomeroo]

Pom, what were you doing at ground zero on 9/11 with a microphone in your hand? There is a video of you floating around.

As to roundhead, why was the card of Ziad Jarrah's uncle, with Ramzibinalshibh's Hamburg address written on the back, found in the remains of United 93 if Jarrah wasn't on the plane?


I was interviewing loons for a two-part 'Hardfire' examination of the fantasy movement. I started out asking if anyone could supply me with a coherent narrative of the events of 9/11/01. You already know the answer.

According to the producer, the shows should be viewable on Google next week. I will keep you posted.

[defaultdotxbe]

flight 93 CVR transcript showing text translated from arabic:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/flight93_transcript.pdf


boarding lists from all 4 flights showing hijacker's names:

http://xbehome.com/jref/911_Boarding_List.zip

[Quad4_72]

Why even post evidence? It is going to be ignored, so what's the point?

[nicepants]

Roundhead-

Since you request that we "convince" you...you'll need to be specific about what would convince you. Otherwise we're just guessing and every time someone presents something you will respond with what boils down to "that doesn't convince me".

If you are sincere in your request, this should be an easy question to answer. If, however, you aren't being open-minded...if you're just trying to stir the pot, I suspect you'll find that the answer to my question isn't quite so simple.

You want to be convinced? What will convince you?

[pomeroo]

Why even post evidence? It is going to be ignored, so what's the point?


Apart from all of the extremely specific evidence which, as you suggest, will be ignored, there is that maddening question that rationalists ask and fantasists wave away. Why would the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy name a real flesh-and-blood human as a hijacker and then allow him to live? The sheer stupidity involved is mind-boggling. Just as the idiots of the CIT can't begin to explain why their imaginary super-villians would fail to plant FDRs with data that supports the "official" account, other loons insist that some of the hijackers are still alive, but can't imagine why that should be the case. Interestingly, they make no effort to account for the jihadists even they acknowledge to have died on 9/11.

Total cognitive dissonance.

[johnny karate]

roundhead, what is your explanation why no one from the airlines have come forward to say that no Arabs boarded the 9/11 flights? Is it because you think they are all cowards the way you believe the FDNY to be cowards?

[ElMondoHummus]

I kno i have shined a rather large flashlight on the cockroach that is the OCT, so instead of jumping from one issue to another, lets flesh out one at a time.


Lets start with the Dulles video


Why does it not have a time stamp visible on it?

Either it never had one, or it was cropped off i cant think of another possibility.I cant think of any compelling reason it would be cropped off, unless its time/date dodnt fit a narrative its supposed to support.


Would it be normal for surveilance cameras at a major airport to not have a timestamp on their video?

First of all, there is precedent (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3740775198345613206&ei=YIrdSOqCL5SM-QGi2LWVCw&q=atm+robbery&vt=lf) for security cameras (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-760629461349259318&ei=EJDdSMWNA4Po-AHf2-2ZCw&q=security+camera+video&vt=lf) to not have timestamps (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4648307797173503091&ei=bovdSNvQKKGI-gGR3qmiCw&q=airport+security+camera&vt=lf) (Ignore the fact that the last linked video claims there's a UFO; the point is that it's a security camera with no timestamp. And it's even at an airport!).

Here's another, also at an airport:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=397695065363619535&ei=8IrdSOCkIIuE-wHQoPycCw&q=airport+security+camera&vt=lf

And have we forgotten that the famous Pentagon security video of Flight 77's impact (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8675908827809295746&ei=I43dSIOWOpnc-AGg79yYCw&q=pentagon+security+camera+911&vt=lf) also didn't have a timestamp?

But regardless, this objection to this video is irrelevant. Ignoring that the lack of a timestamp proves exactly nothing, and that there's precedent for security cameras to not have timestamps, the fact is that this video was accepted by a criminal court for the Moussaoui trial, and was accepted by the defense as well (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/ST00002.pdf). This objection is irrelevant. The tape has been authenticated. Post authentication doubt requires far more substance to be legitimate than some trivial objection about timestamping.

[kookbreaker]

Raise your hand anyone who is surprised that the OP was completely disingenuous.

[gc051360]

Why does it not have a time stamp visible on it?

Zoomed in to show the hi-jacker in better detail?

Either it never had one, or it was cropped off i cant think of another possibility.I cant think of any compelling reason it would be cropped off, unless its time/date dodnt fit a narrative its supposed to support.
It's not hard to fake a time stamp you know.

And I have no doubt that if that video were time stamped, you'd suddenly realize that point.

It's not like the whole "hi-jackers hi-jacked plane" evidence rests on one little video tape.

We've got them on the flight manifests, right? In order to get on the flight manifest you need to check in, right? In order to check in, you need a ticket, right? Just because someone hasn't knocked on your door and said "here's the tickets from the 19 hi-jackers" doesn't mean those tickets don't exist, or that you can automatically assume they don't exist....especially when you have the flight manifests, and you have DNA evidence of the hi-jackers on at least one of the crashed planes (not sure if there's more).

Plus, aren't there phone calls from one of the planes that mention hi-jackers?

eta a couple things that caught my eye:

If they were on there, a wealth of evidence would prove it, most of which i have alluded to.
See. But there is a wealth of evidence. Just because you pretend it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it's not there.

All this stuff could be easily put to bed if evidence was trotted out that any sane person would expect should be available.
It is put to bed.

Rational people look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that hi-jackers were on those flights.

Your irrational objections are not the rule.

[chillzero]

Roundhead,
If you don't believe there were any hijackers on the plane, and by extension that it was not hijackers who flew them into the towers, then can you please tell me what your explanation is for how the planes flew into the towers?

[eeyore1954]

I am open minded to the suggestion that they were. However, i have serious doubts that any were.

Any evidence that would show these 18/19 guys were aboard these flights on 9/11 is appreciated.

What does seem to be the case is that there is zero convincing video evidence any of these guys boarded any of the four planes on 9/11.

We do have, seemingly, video evidence of Atta in Portland, but not at Logan, and there appears to be very controversial evidence of highjackers boarding at Dulles, that is at best unconvincing, and factually wrong in several areas.

No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001, And some "terrorists" who were initially said to have been on the planes were later proven to not have been, and replaced later wiith other names.

In short, i am having a problem with the bare bones evidence on the side of terorists boarding the planes, and the body of evidence which is out there which sugests they never boarded the "planes" at all.


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


i haven't read more than the first couple of posts but based upon Roundheads other posts where he always demonstrates a great deal of openmindedness I would offer this as the only proof that would convince him.
Rounhead would have to teleport himself through time and space and speak to the hijackers while on each plane. I am sure that would not be enough so next he would want to see their ID's. He would still probably not be convinced so maybe he would have to go back in time and see each of them at family gatherings so he could be sure they are who they claim they are.
Oh wait forget it I still don't think he would believe it After all Dr Griffin says it wasn't them.
Maybe if he could do a vulcan mind meld with them on the planes. Nah CNN released a statement and we know that CNN statements must always be infallible (except when they say something against a truther belief),,,,

Oh I give up

[Cl1mh4224rd]

i haven't read more than the first couple of posts but based upon Roundheads other posts where he always demonstrates a great deal of openmindedness I would offer this as the only proof that would convince him.
Rounhead would have to teleport himself through time and space and speak to the hijackers while on each plane. I am sure that would not be enough so next he would want to see their ID's. He would still probably not be convinced so maybe he would have to go back in time and see each of them at family gatherings so he could be sure they are who they claim they are.
Oh wait forget it I still don't think he would believe it After all Dr Griffin says it wasn't them.
Maybe if he could do a vulcan mind meld with them on the planes. Nah CNN released a statement and we know that CNN statements must always be infallible (except when they say something against a truther belief),,,,

Oh I give up



Heh. I was going to suggest something similar, except that it would only give birth and reinforce the notion that it was all just an act put on to fool him, but he would of course be "open minded" to the possibility that it wasn't...

[Travis]

1. Your claim that the FBI is, for unfathomable reasons, at "the beck and call of George Bush" is nonsense. There isn't a shred of evidence to support your falsehood. Why would the Democrats in the bureau allow themselves to used for criminal acts by a man they oppose?

In Truther world every time a new President is elected all the members of the FBI are fired, all 12,700 of them, and the entire organization has to be built back up from scratch with every single one of them being horrible sycophantic "yes-men" to the new President.

[roundhead]

Roundhead, you never responded to my question about remote-controlled planes being the only other option if the hijackers weren't on board.

Since you've put on this air of sincerity about openness, then I want to know if you've pursued your own doubts. Your goal thus far seems to be goading those regulars here that you feel insulted by from past threads.

To you, I'm brand-new. If you're really after the Truth about what happened, then let's assume the hijackers weren't on board, and follow it out.

Are you willing to agree that a remote-controlled plane is the only other option? If not, then produce another option, and we can examine the plausibility / evidence for each, and compare them with the official story, and see where the weight of evidence lies.

So far, your goal appears to be finding a way to stick it to the official story, to the exclusion of any pursuit of the truth. Which makes you look like the average 9/11 denier. Are you?


Btodd



Another option is that planes were not used. Its an option that definately needs more focus.

[roundhead]

Time stamps are too easily faked. If there was a time stamp, well that would be a sure sign it was faked.


I cant believe you typed that with a straight face:boggled:


If ever there was a "stundie" slam dunk, this would have to take the cake.

[roundhead]

Roundhead,
If you don't believe there were any hijackers on the plane, and by extension that it was not hijackers who flew them into the towers, then can you please tell me what your explanation is for how the planes flew into the towers?



There are obviously two other options

1. they indeed did fly into the towers, and were not flown by highjackers.
2. they in fact did not fly into the towers, and were a "video psych op"

I am unsure of which of these two is correct, but i am sharpening occam's razor and intend to lay it squarely across both possibilities.

[chillzero]

1. they indeed did fly into the towers, and were not flown by highjackers.
2. they in fact did not fly into the towers, and were a "video psych op"
3. hijackers flew the planes into the towers

I am unsure of which of these two is correct, but i am sharpening occam's razor and intend to lay it squarely across both possibilities.

umm... you speak of occam's razor... and it leads you to discount option 3, in favour of either of the other 2 options? Really?

[TexasJack]

There are obviously two other options

1. they indeed did fly into the towers, and were not flown by highjackers.
2. they in fact did not fly into the towers, and were a "video psych op"

I am unsure of which of these two is correct, but i am sharpening occam's razor and intend to lay it squarely across both possibilities.

LOL, thanks for your "theories", everyone move along now, nothing to see here.

[roundhead]

roundhead, what is your explanation why no one from the airlines have come forward to say that no Arabs boarded the 9/11 flights? Is it because you think they are all cowards the way you believe the FDNY to be cowards?


Where is your evidence they did board??

[roundhead]

3. hijackers flew the planes into the towers



umm... you speak of occam's razor... and it leads you to discount option 3, in favour of either of the other 2 options? Really?

You asked what OTHER options there were, if highjackers didnt fly the planes, or did you forget YOUR question, which i answered.

[chillzero]

You asked what OTHER options there were, if highjackers didnt fly the planes, or did you forget YOUR question, which i answered.

I didn't forget, no.
In fact - if you look at my post, I quoted it, acknowledged it, and then asked another question based on the answer you gave. That's actually how discussion works, quite often.

Perhaps you could address my question? Why is option 3 the least likely?

[bje]

Where is your evidence they did board??

Why won't you present us with evidence that you exist, roundhead?

[ElMondoHummus]

There are obviously two other options

1. they indeed did fly into the towers, and were not flown by highjackers.


There is absolutely zero evidence of this, and much evidence falsifying it in the form of accidental radio contact, witness statements given in cell and airphone calls, ATC radar data demonstrating inexperienced pilots who were incapable of maintaining smooth flight, and CVR evidence.


2. they in fact did not fly into the towers, and were a "video psych op"


And this thesis not only has the same amount of supporting evidence as the first one, it is far more ridiculous.


I am unsure of which of these two is correct, but i am sharpening occam's razor and intend to lay it squarely across both possibilities.

Neither are correct. You cannot ignore established and mutually supporting threads of evidence in an attempt to forward an unsupported thesis. The fact that you find problems with the video and subscribe to DRG's ideas about the flight manifests ignore the fact that those pieces of evidence were validated in other ways, again, mutually support the conclusions, and do not contradict other pieces of evidence nor require absurd explanations to make work. Whereas the two theses you present not only have zero supporting evidence, they contradict established evidence and require much bending over to make plausible. If you want to invoke Occam's Razon, then keep in mind that you are applying the concept incorrectly. The more outrageous explanations - yours - are the ones that the Razon cuts away first.

[ElMondoHummus]

Another option is that planes were not used. Its an option that definately needs more focus.

This thesis, too, has already been falsified.

[Jonnyclueless]

It's funny how conspiracy theorists try so hard to dismiss real evidence and replace it with absolutely impossible scenarios that have no credibility at all. This is one of the tell tale signs of fraud.

There isn't video evidence of the hijackers boarding the planes (as there isn't video of anyone ever boarding planes), but it could likely be a video psycho op. Am I on candid camera?

[TjW]

I am open minded to the suggestion that they were. However, i have serious doubts that any were.


Having read the thread, this is obviously some strange new usage of the words "open minded", with which I was previously unfamiliar.

[roundhead]

Video i have seen, supposedly legit(or so it was legit on 9/11 as major networks ran it)is that a plane literally managed to enter a tower with nary a scratch.

I fully expected to see wreckage at the face of the building upon plane impact. There simply was not. This seems to violate Newtons third law of motion. The "plane" contacted the exterior box columns of the building, and vanished inside the building without a scratch on it. I find this mighty troubling.
It doesn't matter which of the 2 objects moves and how fast it does because the forces upon BOTH objects will always be EQUAL in size and opposite in direction (Newton's third law of motion). So again, the velocity and kinetic energy don't give the plane an advantage. They only increase the size of the forces which act upon BOTH objects but they will still be the SAME IN SIZE. Neither the plane or the tower will ever have an advantage over the other because of its velocity/kinetic energy in BOTH scenario's.

I would fully expect the aluminum skin of the plane to crumple like a soda can, and the denser engines to in fact be able to penetrate inside and do damage. The entire lenght of the plane managed to "slip into" the tower unscathed.

I think we all know what the result would be if the plane was suspended in the air at the same height at which it 'struck the building" and the tower was propelled into it at 500mph, in other words reverse the collision. The exact same point of the tower and plane would meet in my scenario, the forces at work would be identical, and its my point you would in fact have a "stomped on soda can" as the result.

[Shrinker]

Video i have seen, supposedly legit(or so it was legit on 9/11 as major networks ran it)is that a plane literally managed to enter a tower with nary a scratch.

I fully expected to see wreckage at the face of the building upon plane impact. There simply was not. This seems to violate Newtons third law of motion. The "plane" contacted the exterior box columns of the building, and vanished inside the building without a scratch on it. I find this mighty troubling.
It doesn't matter which of the 2 objects moves and how fast it does because the forces upon BOTH objects will always be EQUAL in size and opposite in direction (Newton's third law of motion). So again, the velocity and kinetic energy don't give the plane an advantage. They only increase the size of the forces which act upon BOTH objects but they will still be the SAME IN SIZE. Neither the plane or the tower will ever have an advantage over the other because of its velocity/kinetic energy in BOTH scenario's.

I would fully expect the aluminum skin of the plane to crumple like a soda can, and the denser engines to in fact be able to penetrate inside and do damage. The entire lenght of the plane managed to "slip into" the tower unscathed.

I think we all know what the result would be if the plane was suspended in the air at the same height at which it 'struck the building" and the tower was propelled into it at 500mph, in other words reverse the collision. The exact same point of the tower and plane would meet in my scenario, the forces at work would be identical, and its my point you would in fact have a "stomped on soda can" as the result.

If we could demonstrate that on entering the building the plane probably DID suffer some damage, would that invalidate your point?

[dtugg]

Oh, so you are a no-planner, roundhead. LOL.

You are wrong. I'll let somebody that knows more about physics than I explain why you are wrong in your applications of Newton's laws.

But I will tell you why I know for a fact that you don't know what are talking about. I was in New York (well New Jersey, I was right across the Hudson and had a very clear view of the WTC) that day. I was looking up at WTC1, trying to figure out what the hell happened. Next thing I know, there is a large, twin engine commercial jet flying towards the World Trade Center. It did not crumple and fall to the ground like you suggest that it should, it went straight in. It looked exactly how it is seen in video.

So basically what you are is suggesting that they faked a video of an event that actually happened. And of course, they did it in a manner that makes it suspicious to internet investigators.

[Jonnyclueless]

Roudhead, some of us were actually there. Some of us saw the plane hitting the building. Some of us didn't rely on news footage. And there was wreckage everywhere. Without a scratch? The plane was obliterated. Parts were found far away.

You claim to be open minded, but you simply make up these lies?

And you ought to go re-read Newtons law because you clearly don' understand it. As to be be expected.

[Btodd]

Another option is that planes were not used. Its an option that definately needs more focus.

Really? Planes might not have been used to fly into the WTC towers? That live footage was all faked, from multiple cameras, multiple live feeds from multiple television networks, and all of the people on the street were 'in on it' or duped by a hologram?

Expand on this, please. As I said before, you need to follow out each one of these scenarios, and then compare the weight of evidence for each one. So far, we have:

1. The hijackers flew the planes into the WTC towers, per the official story.
2. The planes were flown into the towers by remote control.
3. There were no planes at all, and all footage of them is fake.

I want to make sure your 'open mind' agrees with these as the ONLY possible scenarios, so either post your agreement, or add another scenario. Then we'll be ready to begin the process of logically following them out, and accumulating evidence for each one, so a comparison can be made in order to determine the most likely answer.

[roundhead]

If we could demonstrate that on entering the building the plane probably DID suffer some damage, would that invalidate your point?

If the best you could do is prove it "probably did suffer SOME damage", it likely would be far from convincing, if i take you stastement at exactly face value. But lets see what ya got, i am after all open minded. I believed the official story way longer than i have not believed it.

I would like to see ANY witness who reported seeing ANYTHING from the plane at the foot of the building on the impact side, or in the impact hole.

I dont think its far fetched to state that an aluminum plane impacting a steel building would suffer catastrophic damage the second the two objects meet, and something would get knocked off the plane(like wings and fueselage)

I have been unable to find even a scrap that came off and fell.


You throw a dirt clod at a brick wall, and look at the foot of the wall, there is a bunch of loose dirt there.

[Jonnyclueless]

roundhead, it's like saying that unless you see a bullet being damaged upon impact by eye, that it doesn't get damaged. Your entire argument is just idiotic. The entire event is too fast for the human eye to see. To claim that there was no damage to the plane upon impact is idiotic. To think that a 500mph jumbo jet could not puncture a building is idiotic. To think that the 1000s of people there were seeing a hologram is idiotic.

More importantly, you have no evidence to support this claim. Simply having personal doubts is not evidence.

[roundhead]

Really? Planes might not have been used to fly into the WTC towers? That live footage was all faked, from multiple cameras, multiple live feeds from multiple television networks, and all of the people on the street were 'in on it' or duped by a hologram?

Expand on this, please. As I said before, you need to follow out each one of these scenarios, and then compare the weight of evidence for each one. So far, we have:

1. The hijackers flew the planes into the WTC towers, per the official story.
2. The planes were flown into the towers by remote control.
3. There were no planes at all, and all footage of them is fake.

I want to make sure your 'open mind' agrees with these as the ONLY possible scenarios, so either post your agreement, or add another scenario. Then we'll be ready to begin the process of logically following them out, and accumulating evidence for each one, so a comparison can be made in order to determine the most likely answer.


I confess that a 4th option is a possibility as well. That is that "other planes" were configured to fly into the towers, than those that were said to have impacted.

After all, govt records say 75 and 11 never flew that day.

[roundhead]

roundhead, it's like saying that unless you see a bullet being damaged upon impact by eye, that it doesn't get damaged. Your entire argument is just idiotic. The entire event is too fast for the human eye to see. To claim that there was no damage to the plane upon impact is idiotic. To think that a 500mph jumbo jet could not puncture a building is idiotic. To think that the 1000s of people there were seeing a hologram is idiotic.

More importantly, you have no evidence to support this claim. Simply having personal doubts is not evidence.


Ah, but technology exists that can give us a frame by frame peek at the "collision"

Taking a peek at that footage shows a large airliner "slipping" into a tower perfectly intact, with no parts flying off it as it hits the building.Truly like a ghost.

[16.5]

If the best you could do is prove it "probably did suffer SOME damage", it likely would be far from convincing, if i take you stastement at exactly face value. But lets see what ya got, i am after all open minded. I believed the official story way longer than i have not believed it.

I would like to see ANY witness who reported seeing ANYTHING from the plane at the foot of the building on the impact side, or in the impact hole.

I dont think its far fetched to state that an aluminum plane impacting a steel building would suffer catastrophic damage the second the two objects meet, and something would get knocked off the plane(like wings and fueselage)

I have been unable to find even a scrap that came off and fell.

You throw a dirt clod at a brick wall, and look at the foot of the wall, there is a bunch of loose dirt there.

Spit take....

Uh, if that is how you think physics works, wow.

Yeah, um...

Seriously, seek help.

I am out of here.

[dtugg]

After all, govt records say 75 and 11 never flew that day.

Really? I assume that you've got a citation for this absurd assertion. David Ray Griffin does not count.

[defaultdotxbe]

Where is your evidence they did board??
i posted it already

boarding lists from all 4 flights showing hijacker's names:

http://xbehome.com/jref/911_Boarding_List.zip

[dtugg]

Ah, but technology exists that can give us a frame by frame peek at the "collision"

Taking a peek at that footage shows a large airliner "slipping" into a tower perfectly intact, with no parts flying off it as it hits the building.Truly like a ghost.


So basically what you are is suggesting that they faked a video of an event that actually happened. And of course, they did it in a manner that makes it suspicious to internet investigators.

Remember, like I just said, I was there so I know it happened.

[Myriad]

Ah, a thread where the OP shows his prowess at resisting being convinced by reason and evidence. And thereby "strengthens his trutherness" as Alex Libman puts it.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3961019#post3961019)

(Ignore the fourth paragraph of the linked post for now. This thread has a few pages to go before that paragraph applies.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[roundhead]

Gotta run, but i will return.

Today is the 8th and last "street tire shootout" at Midmichiganmotorplex.
Work requirements have forced me to miss all the others, this one i am going to take a well deserved partial Saturday off to attend.Thats me in the Blue Duster


http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/upload2/2931321-100_1091.jpg

[johnny karate]

Where is your evidence they did board??

I never suggested I was in a postion to present such eveidence. Proving something self-evident to a denialist is not something I care to waste my time attempting.

What I asked you was why has no on in a position to refute that the terrorists actually boarded the planes have come forward to do so?

We already know you think the FDNY are all a bunch of cowards that were coerced into silence and are now too afraid to come forward and tell the truth about how their compatriots died. I am just wondering if you think this same cowardice extends to airline personnel as well.

[I Ratant]

I've heard many CVR tapes of the last seconds of flight. Most of them have four letter words, not "Allah Akbar!" as the last words from the cockpit.

[I Ratant]

Remember, like I just said, I was there so I know it happened.
.
And that "slipping into the building" is the -same- in every video, from every vantage, from broadcast quality video to camcorder.
Watch the MiG-29 crashing at the Paris Air Show some years back.
It "slips" into the ground.

[Tbone]

Gotta run, but i will return.

Today is the 8th and last "street tire shootout" at Midmichiganmotorplex.
Work requirements have forced me to miss all the others, this one i am going to take a well deserved partial Saturday off to attend.Thats me in the Blue Duster


http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/upload2/2931321-100_1091.jpg

Please let us know when you're going shopping for groceries too, as well as the any other time spent away from your computer. We're just dieing to know about your personal life.

[Btodd]

I confess that a 4th option is a possibility as well. That is that "other planes" were configured to fly into the towers, than those that were said to have impacted.

Okay, so now we have:

1. The hijackers flew the planes into the buildings, per the official story.
2. There were no hijackers, and the actual flights were flown by remote control.
3. Other planes were flown into the towers by remote control, and the actual flights now need an explanation of their own.
4. There were no planes at all, it was a giant movie set or some sort of hologram, and all those people in NYC weren't real, or fell for the hologram, and we still need an explanation for the actual flights.

So, unless you wish to a add a 5th, and even more absurd option....let's get busy compiling evidence for scenarios 2-4. You have the floor, sir.

I can't wait until we get to the point where column 1 has hundreds of pieces of supporting evidence, and columns 2-4 simply rely on attacks on column one, and expect to win by default. Then again, maybe you think Creationist-type arguments are as silly as I do.

[Bananaman]

I now officially rename debunkers as counsellors. Welcome to your new status ladies and gentlemen. You have an onerous task, but an honourable one. There are people let loose in the community quite freely who are, frankly, barking. It is your job to make sure they don't make too much of a nuisance of themselves. Good luck.

I mean, honestly...

Bananaman.

[defaultdotxbe]

Gotta run, but i will return.

Today is the 8th and last "street tire shootout" at Midmichiganmotorplex.
Work requirements have forced me to miss all the others, this one i am going to take a well deserved partial Saturday off to attend.Thats me in the Blue Duster


http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/upload2/2931321-100_1091.jpg
mopar? pfft

[cisco]

Does anybody else scroll through these threads and mostly just read the troofers' responses? I love watching them ignore all the good points that are made and evidence that is provided, and nitpick all the nitpickable points that people post without thinking too much. I also love trying to guess if they are a troll or a psych patient. It can be so hard to tell sometimes!

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah, but technology exists that can give us a frame by frame peek at the "collision"

Taking a peek at that footage shows a large airliner "slipping" into a tower perfectly intact, with no parts flying off it as it hits the building.Truly like a ghost.

But you said the video is fake. So how can the video show what happened if it's fake? Again, some of us were there. Two planes hit the buildings. While you can enjoy these childish no plane fantasies, some of us can't. Many people were hurt by those plane parts falling from the building. They don't have time for your complete lack o understanding of physics.

Not like a ghost, like an idiot who doesn't understand physics.

[Jonnyclueless]

"After all, govt records say 75 and 11 never flew that day. "

****ANOTHER LIE*****

[ElMondoHummus]

After all, govt records say 75 and 11 never flew that day.

This is yet another long debunked point. The source of this claim is the Bureau Of Transportation Statistics Web Site, which does indeed note that there are no takeoff times listed for all the hijacked flights, not merely Flts 75 and 11.

Problem for conspiracy peddlers is, the site gives the reason for this:


Quote:
Summary Statistics
Flight Number




Airline: American Airlines (AA)Flight Number: 0011Time Period: September 11, 2001 to September 11, 2001
On-Time Flights:
NOTE: Late, cancelled and diverted flights are subtracted from total flights to determine on-time percent.
A complete listing of airline (http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/DetailedStatistics/INFO/CarrierInfo.html)and airport (http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/DetailedStatistics/INFO/AirportInfo.html)abbreviations is available. Times are reported in local time using a 24 hour clock.
On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.

My bolding.

The post I'm quoting is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3093262#post3093262). The thread this topic was discussed in is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97005). And not only that, but someone tried to resurrect this mistaken claim already once this year here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3420110), and I address it here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3418300#post3418300). So this isn't the first or second time that it's been debunked. In summary, this is a refuted claim. The government has in fact not made any such claim about the flights; the myth is built on an incorrect reading of the source material.

[Pardalis]

Only four pages? I think roundhead is slacking off a bit.

[defaultdotxbe]

Does anybody else scroll through these threads and mostly just read the troofers' responses?
* defaultdotxbe raises hand

[uk_dave]

Thats me in the Blue Duster


http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/upload2/2931321-100_1091.jpg

So you're able to drive in a straight line.

This, of course, gives you an expertise in structural engineering and air crash investigation
:cool:

[bje]

If the best you could do is prove it "probably did suffer SOME damage", it likely would be far from convincing, if i take you stastement at exactly face value. But lets see what ya got, i am after all open minded.

That is exactly my point, roundhead. If you actually exist as a human being then you would be able to provide evidence to all of us. But you haven't. We have no good reason to actually think you are a human being. You expect us to take your existence at face value.

We can't see you. You COULD be a computer bot, programmed to make claims and statements. Did you know computer bots don't answer questions? You haven't answered my question so there is good reason to be suspicious of your existence. I am open minded but we all have to see what you've got.

Somebody could post a video but videos can be faked, right? And we would have no proof that a person in a video would actually be roundhead.

Somebody could provide a sound file but how would we know it's the voice of a living human being? Voice technology is so advanced that human voices can be synthesized to sound like a real people and specific voices.

So, how do you propose to resolve your problem, roundhead, and prove that you actually exist as a human being?

[Hans]

Man talk about denialism in the extreme. Why do you guys even respond to him?

[pomeroo]

In Truther world every time a new President is elected all the members of the FBI are fired, all 12,700 of them, and the entire organization has to be built back up from scratch with every single one of them being horrible sycophantic "yes-men" to the new President.


Travis, the sad thing is that nuts actually believe that. They are incapable of understanding the nature of entrenched bureaucracies. To agenda-driven loons, everybody else is just as obsessive as they are. They don't get the idea that people who work for government agencies punch in, perform their duties, and make as few waves as possible. Fantasists don't see their insane notions as pure fantasies, as bearing no resemblance to the real world. Why shouldn't a Democrat with thirty years in the bureau suddenly decide to assist a Republican whose policies he opposes in committing a mass murder? I mean, normal people would do that sort of thing, wouldn't they?

[pomeroo]

If the best you could do is prove it "probably did suffer SOME damage", it likely would be far from convincing, if i take you stastement at exactly face value. But lets see what ya got, i am after all open minded. I believed the official story way longer than i have not believed it.

I would like to see ANY witness who reported seeing ANYTHING from the plane at the foot of the building on the impact side, or in the impact hole.

I dont think its far fetched to state that an aluminum plane impacting a steel building would suffer catastrophic damage the second the two objects meet, and something would get knocked off the plane(like wings and fueselage)

I have been unable to find even a scrap that came off and fell.


You throw a dirt clod at a brick wall, and look at the foot of the wall, there is a bunch of loose dirt there.


I've been bombarded by e-mails from deranged no-planers since Ace Baker was exposed by Steven Wright. All of these dunces are stuck on the same childish misunderstanding of basic physics. Their tiny brains cannot grasp what happens when a 120-ton projectile moving at roughly 500 mph impacts a facade of glass and steel support columns. The charlatan Morgan Reynolds ran away, tail between his legs, when I posed Apathoid's question, how does a bird damage a titanium fan blade? Are you part of this group, using one of your many aliases?

Tell us, please: do you understand why the plane MUST disappear into the building? Tell us, with none of your characteristic sneering and incomprehension, why no physicists anywhere in the world take seriously the no-planers' garble of basic physics.

[pomeroo]

This is yet another long debunked point. The source of this claim is the Bureau Of Transportation Statistics Web Site, which does indeed note that there are no takeoff times listed for all the hijacked flights, not merely Flts 75 and 11.

Problem for conspiracy peddlers is, the site gives the reason for this:


My bolding.

The post I'm quoting is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3093262#post3093262). The thread this topic was discussed in is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97005). And not only that, but someone tried to resurrect this mistaken claim already once this year here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3420110), and I address it here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3418300#post3418300). So this isn't the first or second time that it's been debunked. In summary, this is a refuted claim. The government has in fact not made any such claim about the flights; the myth is built on an incorrect reading of the source material.


This is a good time to remind fence-sitters why fantasists are known as "conspiracy liars." They are not merely dumb, uninformed, and ineducable. They are willfully dishonest.

[Homeland Insurgency]

“Your entire argument is just idiotic…”

“Seriously, seek help…”

“There are people let loose in the community quite freely who are, frankly, barking...”

“I also love trying to guess if they are a troll or a psych patient…”

“****ANOTHER LIE*****”

“So, how do you propose to resolve your problem, roundhead, and prove that you actually exist as a human being?”

“deranged no-planers…”

“dumb, uninformed, and ineducable…”

That's some convincing. Ever wonder why after seven years there is even a need for a place like this?

So much for the evidence.

So much for the moderating.

[Mercutio]

That's some convincing. Ever wonder why after seven years there is even a need for a place like this?

So much for the evidence.

So much for the moderating.

Very nice selective quoting! Congratulations; if it weren't for the fact that the actual context of those sentences is still here for anyone to read, someone who read your post might actually suspect that no evidence had been presented, and that moderation was necessary. Have you actually reported those posts to the moderators? In context, they are far less inflammatory than your cherry-picking leads one to believe--in fact "the best defense against accusations of libel is to speak the truth" comes to mind. Or are you willing to suggest that roundhead's view is rational?

As I understand it, it is precisely such depressing threads as this that are the reason Gravy has mostly retired from the 9-11 business. When you have a handle on all the available evidence, but find that it is utterly ignored in favor of outright fantasy, that has got to be trying. Remarkable, really, that Gravy is still such an upbeat, optimistic guy. Oh, and of course I have evidence of this claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124992).

[Bananaman]

Homeland Emergency, so much for common sense.

Bananaman.

[nicepants]

Third request, roundhead....

Roundhead-

Since you request that we "convince" you...you'll need to be specific about what would convince you. Otherwise we're just guessing and every time someone presents something you will respond with what boils down to "that doesn't convince me".

If you are sincere in your request, this should be an easy question to answer. If, however, you aren't being open-minded...if you're just trying to stir the pot, I suspect you'll find that the answer to my question isn't quite so simple.

You want to be convinced? What will convince you?

[Quad4_72]

Just out of curiosity, why are flight manifests, DNA evidence, video, and other miscellaneous pieces of evidence not sufficient enough to prove that there were terrorists on the planes?

As nicepants said, what will convince you twoofies?

[Smackety]

When they have reached the "all the evidence was faked" point they are running on pure fantasy. Talking them back down to some semblance of sanity and connection to reality will not be easy, especially when it is only that crazy belief that gets them the attention and acknowledgment they need. It might help to coax them into a different discussion - auto racing? - that will show them they can be appreciated and welcomed as more than just a nut.
I recently had an employee who was becoming increasingly obsessed with Zeitgeist, and after many frustrating attempts to address his delusion directly, I found that by focusing instead on his passion as a musician, towards which he was able to apply critical thinking skills, that he started to come around and eventually apply the same skills towards the movie.
Of course, it is easier to taunt and humiliate them until they get themselves banned, and far more entertaining to read...

[CHF]

A no-planer???

Wow. Glad I bailed on this one.

[A W Smith]

cart before the horse Roundhead. its not our job to convince ineducable trolls that the hijackers boarded the planes. It is the truth movement's task to convince otherwise. In seven years , they have failed.

[SezMe]

I've never personally been to the mid east, but I've spoken with someone who's visited there. He claimed that almost every male, asked him to get them porn, and that almost every male asked him not to tell anyone else about it.
Here's first hand testimony. I and some Muslim buddies have watched porn while drinking cheap gin in Abu Dhabi.

[Mince]

Here's first hand testimony. I and some Muslim buddies have watched porn while drinking cheap gin in Abu Dhabi.


I once lived with a muslim gentleman from Egypt. He browsed pornography on his computer more than I did...which is almost impossible.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Here's first hand testimony. I and some Muslim buddies have watched porn while drinking cheap gin in Abu Dhabi.

Are they buddy enough to share their forty virgins with you or haven't they mentioned it?

[A W Smith]

Are they buddy enough to share their forty virgins with you or haven't they mentioned it?

who the heck wants forty virgin boys (http://www.nospank.net/glazov.htm)?

[SezMe]

Are they buddy enough to share their forty virgins with you or haven't they mentioned it?
Nope. Booze and porn were the only sins avaiable - not that that wasn't sufficient for a good boys-night-out.

[Bananaman]

Smackety
Of course, it is easier to taunt and humiliate them until they get themselves banned, and far more entertaining to read...

I nearly gave you a high five when I read that, but, obviously, being the mature, sensible person I am, I merely gave a little cough and had another sip of my cappucino.

Bananaman.

[Jonnyclueless]

Religious people violating the rules of their religion? What? Next thing you know someone is going to point out that religious people sin. I heard some priest molested some alter boys. Inside job!

Imagine if real law enforcement used twoofer mentality. "Yes I know he admitted to it and has the murder weapon in his hand and 1000s of witnesses saw him do it. But it's against his religion, so there's no possible way he could have done it."

[Travis]

Why do I get the feeling that a Truthers solution to the dilemma of Schrodinger's Cat is to just blow up the box?

[zorro99]

I am open minded to the suggestion that they were. However, i have serious doubts that any were.

Any evidence that would show these 18/19 guys were aboard these flights on 9/11 is appreciated.

What does seem to be the case is that there is zero convincing video evidence any of these guys boarded any of the four planes on 9/11.

We do have, seemingly, video evidence of Atta in Portland, but not at Logan, and there appears to be very controversial evidence of highjackers boarding at Dulles, that is at best unconvincing, and factually wrong in several areas.

No Arab names appeared on the passenger manifests back in 2001, And some "terrorists" who were initially said to have been on the planes were later proven to not have been, and replaced later wiith other names.

In short, i am having a problem with the bare bones evidence on the side of terorists boarding the planes, and the body of evidence which is out there which sugests they never boarded the "planes" at all.

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

Mr. Roundhead, you're under no obligation to believe anything.

However, if you truly believe that another 9/11 investigation is warranted, I'm afraid that the onus is upon you to convince the public and public officials that one is necessary.

[roundhead]

Al these off topic and personal bashing posts, and not one that deals with the issues i raised and wanted answered.

Guess i will repeat them again.


Why no time stamp on the ONLY piece of video that shows any of these "terrorists" in the same area code of the airports the planes flew from.

Where is one ticket, boarding pass, credit card bill showing any of these guys were on these planes from a hard copy, plausible way?

And dont say"Well geez, they were on the flight manifests" that is a bucket of water with a gaping hole in the bottom of it, at best.

Face it, unless you blindly believe those manifests, which have changed/been edited more than a 6th grade term paper, you got squat that proves these 18/19 "terrorists" were aboard any of those "planes"



I can see how a trial would go, that's intent was to prove any of these dunce's was on any of these planes.

Defense lawyer"..Ok so you have video that show one or tow of my clients in an airport, well Judge, that was a flight a year earlier, and yes they were on it".Judge, the rosecutor cant provide one shred of information that shows any of these guys were on these planes, other than a doctored manifest, i move we throw this bogus case out.
Judge" I have to agree, the case is dismissed".

[bje]

Al these off topic and personal bashing posts, and not one that deals with the issues i raised and wanted answered.

Your blatant hypocrisy is amusing, roundhead.

[nicepants]

Al these off topic and personal bashing posts, and not one that deals with the issues i raised and wanted answered.

This is neither off-topic, nor bashing...and it deals exclusively with the questions you want answered:

Roundhead-

Since you request that we "convince" you...you'll need to be specific about what would convince you. Otherwise we're just guessing and every time someone presents something you will respond with what boils down to "that doesn't convince me".

If you are sincere in your request, this should be an easy question to answer. If, however, you aren't being open-minded...if you're just trying to stir the pot, I suspect you'll find that the answer to my question isn't quite so simple.

You want to be convinced? What will convince you?

[16.5]

And dont say"Well geez, they were on the flight manifests" that is a bucket of water with a gaping hole in the bottom of it, at best.

Defense lawyer"..Ok so you have video that show one or tow of my clients in an airport, well Judge, that was a flight a year earlier, and yes they were on it".Judge, the rosecutor cant provide one shred of information that shows any of these guys were on these planes, other than a doctored manifest, i move we throw this bogus case out.
Judge" I have to agree, the case is dismissed".

Huh, in the OP, you believed that there were no manifests in 2001, now realizing that DRG lied to you, you move the goal posts and claim that they were doctored.

You had the great good sense to stop posting the lie about Atta eating Pork (sure some "truth" web site told you it was true, but you came here and learned something, didn't you?)

Wow, that little story about the defense counsel is mind blowingly naive. Seriously, No Planer, do you have the first idea what "laying an evidentiary foundation" is?

[funk de fino]

Why no time stamp on the ONLY piece of video that shows any of these "terrorists" in the same area code of the airports the planes flew from.

Why should there be? In fact why should there be video at all?

Where is one ticket, boarding pass, credit card bill showing any of these guys were on these planes from a hard copy, plausible way?

No matter what you have supplied to you it will be cast aside as fake. You do know that the ticket agent distinctly remembers selling moqed tickets?

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/10/29/inv.hijackers/

Do you think the airline would have cried foul if they saw that their manifests had been altered? If that is the case then they must be part of your consiracy along with all the ticket agenst, check in desk clerks et al?

And dont say"Well geez, they were on the flight manifests" that is a bucket of water with a gaping hole in the bottom of it, at best.

See above. Whatever you are given it will be fake.

Face it, unless you blindly believe those manifests, which have changed/been edited more than a 6th grade term paper, you got squat that proves these 18/19 "terrorists" were aboard any of those "planes"

CVR, witness from the plane, check in agents, security footage, usamas admissions, other AQ admission, the hijackers belongings.

I can see how a trial would go, that's intent was to prove any of these dunce's was on any of these planes.

Defense lawyer"..Ok so you have video that show one or tow of my clients in an airport, well Judge, that was a flight a year earlier, and yes they were on it".Judge, the rosecutor cant provide one shred of information that shows any of these guys were on these planes, other than a doctored manifest, i move we throw this bogus case out.
Judge" I have to agree, the case is dismissed".

If that is how you see a trial go then you are sadly deluded. Ask Zacharias.

Unlike truthers people use other evidence that does not cinsist of 100% video evidence.

[ElMondoHummus]

Al these off topic and personal bashing posts, and not one that deals with the issues i raised and wanted answered.

Guess i will repeat them again.


Why no time stamp on the ONLY piece of video that shows any of these "terrorists" in the same area code of the airports the planes flew from.

Where is one ticket, boarding pass, credit card bill showing any of these guys were on these planes from a hard copy, plausible way?

And dont say"Well geez, they were on the flight manifests" that is a bucket of water with a gaping hole in the bottom of it, at best.

Face it, unless you blindly believe those manifests, which have changed/been edited more than a 6th grade term paper, you got squat that proves these 18/19 "terrorists" were aboard any of those "planes"

As pointed out before, the lack of timestamping on the video does not invalidate it. It was accepted in the Moussaoui trial as legitimate. You may also want to look over that page for the rest of the publicly released evidence.

And your dismissal of the flight manifests is baseless. The manifests themselves have never been changed; it was the reporting of who was on it is what was not consistent in the beginning (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/No_hijackers_on_the_passenger_manifests), and after careful investigation, even that has settled into an unvarying state. Do not conflate initial confusion or intentional withholding of victims names at family members requests in the early stages of investigation for a later lack proof. Especially now, after the investigation has been carried out. The flight manifests are indeed strong pieces of evidence establishing the hijacker's presence, and your objection to it, based as it is on a lack of comprehension regarding the investigation, is meaningless.

Furthermore, how can you claim to invalidate the case based on an irrelevant fact about the videos and a weak objection to the manifests? Do you not remember the fact that at least one of the hijacker's passports was recovered? Do you also not remember the fact that their rental cars, hotel rooms, and some luggage and personal items were recovered? Do you not understand the fact that DNA tracing from remains was made to evidence found in the rental cars and hotel rooms, places the hijackers were established to have been in? For objections to be valid, they must also take into account these other, established pieces of evidence. When they contradict them - and any implication that the videos were faked contradicts those pieces of evidence - then one or the other is wrong, and to be blunt, the other pieces of evidence are not wrong. They fully establish the presence and paths of the hijackers, and I haven't even delved into the victim's cell and airphone calls from the flights yet, or the recovered CVRs, or the ATC testimony about the one hijacker who accidentally transmitted via radio when he thought he was communicating with the passengers.

The fact of the matter is that the video was strong enough and accepted enough to be used in court, and as pointed out before, was even accepted by Moussaoui's defense (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/ST00002.pdf) as being legitimate. And the manifests do in fact establish the presence of the hijackers, and were not, as you claim, "changed/edited more than a 6th grade term paper". You are wrong on that account. Furthermore, you ignore much evidence in your quest to disprove the hijacker's presence. They have been established as being present due to a multiplicity of converging lines of evidence, and your objections do not even rise to the level of falsifying those individual lines, let alone disprove the entire case.

[roundhead]

I for one dont swallow the no time stamp on the Dulles video sillyness. You dweebs can if you like, but count me out.

The Atta/Portland/Boston mystery is another that has never been answered, and provides even more evidence that this terrorists on planes is a fabrication.

Atta supposesly arrived in Boston from Portland an hour before his flight. His luggage is the only luggage(out of 81 passengers)that didnt make it aboard

Wearing suit and tie at the ticket station, and wearing casual clothes on the Portland security camera, just several minutes later, and 100 yards down the concourse????

This according to Tourey, the ticketing agent, who had worked there a long time.

He also had a camera at his station, but was told by FBI agents it didnt work, and hadnt for several weeks. This was news to him?????

[chillzero]

Have you contacted Dulles to ask about their standards for when timestamps are placed on videos, and if they are cropped out when the image is zoomed? There's no point in dismissing such things summarily, without checking anything, unless you have already made up your mind - and that's not as open minded as you claimed in your OP.

[Jonnyclueless]

I for one dont swallow the no time stamp on the Dulles video sillyness. You dweebs can if you like, but count me out.

The Atta/Portland/Boston mystery is another that has never been answered, and provides even more evidence that this terrorists on planes is a fabrication.

Atta supposesly arrived in Boston from Portland an hour before his flight. His luggage is the only luggage(out of 81 passengers)that didnt make it aboard

Wearing suit and tie at the ticket station, and wearing casual clothes on the Portland security camera, just several minutes later, and 100 yards down the concourse????

This according to Tourey, the ticketing agent, who had worked there a long time.

He also had a camera at his station, but was told by FBI agents it didnt work, and hadnt for several weeks. This was news to him?????

You'll have to forgive us dweebs for using due process and not using conjecture as evidence. We learned that lesson in the Salem Witch trials. But why don't you file a lawsuit and bring up those arguments to see how well they hold up?

You can tell the court that it was an inside job because there's no time stamp on a video. You can explain to him how one person's luggage didn't make it on the plane, as happens to many of us. You can tell them how some guy said he changed outfits. You can tell them how your evidence is that you don't believe someone that a supposed camera doesn't work.

Please, let us know how it works out for you with that witch hunt.

[ElMondoHummus]

I for one dont swallow the no time stamp on the Dulles video sillyness. You dweebs can if you like, but count me out.


As pointed out in one of my previous posts, there is precedent for security cameras not having timestamps. Choosing to dismiss this piece of evidence demonstrates a marked lack of desire to get at the truth. The lack of timestamping does not falsify the video itself, let alone the narrative the video contributes to.


The Atta/Portland/Boston mystery is another that has never been answered, and provides even more evidence that this terrorists on planes is a fabrication.

Atta supposesly arrived in Boston from Portland an hour before his flight. His luggage is the only luggage(out of 81 passengers)that didnt make it aboard


You don't fly much, do you? How many times have you lost luggage because of a short connection? I can tell you that I have before.


Wearing suit and tie at the ticket station, and wearing casual clothes on the Portland security camera, just several minutes later, and 100 yards down the concourse????

This according to Tourey, the ticketing agent, who had worked there a long time.

He also had a camera at his station, but was told by FBI agents it didnt work, and hadnt for several weeks. This was news to him?????

That established what? That they faked the video and got the clothing wrong? How about that they ducked into the bathroom and took off their coat and tie? That's far more reasonable an assumption than any allegation that the video is faked.

And the camera not working establishes nothing, not in and of itself, and certainly not in the light of the manifests you deny, the other video and still photos you deny, the DNA evidence you duck, and so on.

[Totovader]

roundhead - You should pay attention to nicepants' question: it's incredibly important.

You are asking people to convince you- but without telling these same people what is required to convince you, it's a complex question fallacy. It appears that many of "us" are under the assumption that logic and evidence should convince you, but if your fantasy is more important than the truth, no amount of evidence will change you mind.

Without answering the question of what your criteria is for being "convinced"- nobody here can help you. It's useless to attempt to reason a person into a position that they arrived at by abandoning reason. If you can- however- be so bold as to concede that facts and evidence are more important than your whims and fantasy- then we have a neutral starting point to be able to at least begin to convince you that you're clearly wrong.

Then again- that's Twoofer suicide, so I'm not sure you would dare admit that.

[roundhead]

This kind of stuff "unconvinces me"


edited for breach of rule 4.

[Totovader]

This kind of stuff "unconvinces me"

An interesting insight into your personal incredulity, sure- but not an answer to the question... in fact, it's specifically dodging the question.

[Totovader]

By the way, plagiarism is frowned upon, here.

If you're going to quote other peoples' work- you need to quote it in part, and link to the remaining article.

The information you stole can mostly be found on "WhatReallyHappened.com", linked here (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/atta_9-11.html).

[defaultdotxbe]

Within hours of the attacks it was nearly "case closed" that the Bukharis were hijackers of Flight 11, but a couple of simple facts proved their innocence - Ameer Bukhari died in a plane crash in 2000 and Adnan Bukhari is alive.
so wheres your "couple simple facts" to prove any of the real hijackers innocence?

[Dubious Dick]

Roundhead,

I am not going to deal with the massive faultlines in your argument already exposed by so many on this thread.

I just want to ask you, if 9/11 was a Government conspiracy as you so desperately believe, how many people were involved in setting it up, executing it, and covering it up?

Would that be 10's? 100's? or 1000's?

See, multiple choice, because that should make it easy for a 'truther' since you all seem so dense!

Await your answer with interest. Thanks, DD

[I Ratant]

R's goalposts are mounted on a flat-bed trailer on an limitless plain of evasion.
No way can it be cornered.

[roundhead]

Roundhead,

I am not going to deal with the massive faultlines in your argument already exposed by so many on this thread.

I just want to ask you, if 9/11 was a Government conspiracy as you so desperately believe, how many people were involved in setting it up, executing it, and covering it up?

Would that be 10's? 100's? or 1000's?

See, multiple choice, because that should make it easy for a 'truther' since you all seem so dense!

Await your answer with interest. Thanks, DD

Its impossible to know for sure.

The Govt has been extremely secretive with information. All a guy like me can do is recognize(as anybody with a grain of fair minded common sense can)that the OCT is a fantastic fairy tale that doesnt pass the sniff test.
The majority of Americans wont get off the couch for anything, and believe anything they are told.This bailout should more than prove that, as if what stated isnt the 100% truth.
The Govt has the enviable position of being able to control mainstream reports that refute its story, hide and withhold access to vital information, and get away with it.

I would bet the last dollar i will ever make that people like Kieth Olbermann and others would love to have just one night to voice their opinions on 9/11 without repercussions. I am not the smartest guy in America, many smarter than me, and in a position to KNOW what i do, i am sure would LOVE to scream this story out. Hopefully at some point they can.
That huge, huge lies(with the intent to cost Amrican lives and money, just under this administration alone, to be a fact, is not arguable. We need only look at Iraq AS PROOF. They can get away with fantastic lies, and not be held accountable, in any "noisy enough" way to create enough firestorm to do a heck of a lot of good.

As a veteran, patriot, and independant thinker, the fact 9/11 involved somebody other than 19 Arab terrorists sickens my belly.

There are so many holes, known lies, coverups,and staunching of credible whistleblower information, it truly amazes me this has still not made it into the spotlight of mainstream knowledge.

But know this, i,like most here(i am sure)know well the OCT is the biggest lie that has ever been passed on to the American populace.

I have no idea who was in on it exactly.

If i had to bet my life on it, my GUESS is that it involves certain neocons, including Cheney, Wolfowitz, and certain elements of the Israeli govt. This "operation" has anything but 19 cave dwellers written all over it. This has all the trappings of filling the pockets of the military/industrial complex for eternity, and keeping our influential friends in Tel Aviv happy.

If i had several months, and the ability to question anybody i wanted to, and was privvy to any info i wanted to have, with help from only a small group of helpers qualified to help me out, i could answer you question perfectly.

[dudalb]

If i had to bet my life on it, my GUESS is that it involves certain neocons, including Cheney, Wolfowitz, and certain elements of the Israeli govt. This "operation" has anything but 19 cave dwellers written all over it. This has all the trappings of filling the pockets of the military/industrial complex for eternity, and keeping our influential friends in Tel Aviv happy.


In other words....THE JEWS ARE BEHIND IT!
Why am I not surprised to hear this from a Truther?

[beachnut]

Its impossible to know for sure.

As a veteran, patriot, and independant thinker, the fact 9/11 involved somebody other than 19 Arab terrorists sickens my belly.

There are so many holes, known lies, coverups,and staunching of credible whistleblower information, it truly amazes me this has still not made it into the spotlight of mainstream knowledge.
No evidence makes your rant pure fantasy.

[johnny karate]

I have no idea who was in on it exactly.

With the notable exception of the FDNY, whom you have characterized as cowards too afraid to tell the truth regarding the death of 343 of their own for fear of losing their pensions.

Why so shy about slandering others?

[JamesB]

I am not the smartest guy in America, many smarter than me,

Wow, it took you 5 pages, but you finally got something right.

[Dubious Dick]

Roundhead,

First, I am a limey who does not sit on a couch believing everything I am told. Stopped doing that at about age 8. Maybe tho you are referring to yanks like Penn and Teller, or JREF'ers, or James Randi himself etc etc etc? A whole bunch of well known suckers!

I do not expect an exact number. Just a guesstimate. A stab in the dark.

Let's make a reasonable assumption that it would require the participation of people in: the White House, The State Department, The DOD, The NSA, The CIA, The FBI, various police forces, private airport security, airline staff, WTC staff, firemen (whose colleagues died trying to save the buildings and people!), NIST, news media, various defence companies (because they are part of the mil/ind complex of course) etc etc etc. Oh yes, and the Israeli Government and their security apparatus.

Now, just take a stab at it? Give it your best guess. I do not expect a doctoral thesis, or individual names.

Thanks, DD

[roundhead]

With the notable exception of the FDNY, whom you have characterized as cowards too afraid to tell the truth regarding the death of 343 of their own for fear of losing their pensions.

Why so shy about slandering others?


Of everything i have ever read on here, or had said about me, this sickens me the most. Your continued LIE about the Fire Dept.

I said they follow orders. I hated their testimony wasnt included in the 9/11 commision report.

I am positive the firefighters had zero to do with 9/11, except be brave and do their jobs, as they were told.

How high up in the food chain a problem might have started is my point. If you have a big boss that tells you this is what is going on, you have no reason to not think its the case.

Maybe a good analogy would be comparing Iraq soldiers to NY firefighters. They both serve nobly, and are doing/did do all they were asked and more.

That doesnt mean the higher ups didnt/dont have agenda's the rank and file arent privvy to.

If every soldier in Iraq had been told that Iraq had zero to do with 9/11, before going over there...instead of lied to........


Its always the case, the lowly guy on the street does his job, while the people in power use him to achieve an end.

[kookbreaker]

If i had to bet my life on it, my GUESS is that it involves certain neocons, including Cheney, Wolfowitz, and certain elements of the Israeli govt. This "operation" has anything but 19 cave dwellers written all over it.

Ignoring the Calvin Klein Communist babble and anti-semitism, can you produce any evidence whatsoever that the 19 hijackers ever lived in a cave? They were highly educated, skilled and very determined. To call them 'cave dwellers' demonstrates rampant ignorance on your part.

[roundhead]

Roundhead,

First, I am a limey who does not sit on a couch believing everything I am told. Stopped doing that at about age 8. Maybe tho you are referring to yanks like Penn and Teller, or JREF'ers, or James Randi himself etc etc etc? A whole bunch of well known suckers!

I do not expect an exact number. Just a guesstimate. A stab in the dark.

Let's make a reasonable assumption that it would require the participation of people in: the White House, The State Department, The DOD, The NSA, The CIA, The FBI, various police forces, private airport security, airline staff, WTC staff, firemen (whose colleagues died trying to save the buildings and people!), NIST, news media, various defence companies (because they are part of the mil/ind complex of course) etc etc etc. Oh yes, and the Israeli Government and their security apparatus.

Now, just take a stab at it? Give it your best guess. I do not expect a doctoral thesis, or individual names.

Thanks, DD



Think, compartmentilization.


Nobody in the NYFD was involved, with the possible exception of perhaps the commisioner.

Military guys generally arent in the know except their own little sphere of need to know.


Myers was without a doubt in the know.



Probably not a ton of people, the war games were a great cover.

[Tbone]

Of everything i have ever read on here, or had said about me, this sickens me the most. Your continued LIE about the Fire Dept.

I said they follow orders. I hated their testimony wasnt included in the 9/11 commision report.

I am positive the firefighters had zero to do with 9/11, except be brave and do their jobs, as they were told.

How high up in the food chain a problem might have started is my point. If you have a big boss that tells you this is what is going on, you have no reason to not think its the case.

Maybe a good analogy would be comparing Iraq soldiers to NY firefighters. They both serve nobly, and are doing/did do all they were asked and more.

That doesnt mean the higher ups didnt/dont have agenda's the rank and file arent privvy to.

If every soldier in Iraq had been told that Iraq had zero to do with 9/11, before going over there...instead of lied to........


Its always the case, the lowly guy on the street does his job, while the people in power use him to achieve an end.

So only the firefighters who were serving in a more administrative capacity (who got there through years of blood, sweat, tears, and a few deaths, I'm sure) were in on it or too cowardly to question dubious orders/explanations

[chillzero]

roundhead,
you seem to have missed my question in post 176.

[roundhead]

In other words....THE JEWS ARE BEHIND IT!
Why am I not surprised to hear this from a Truther?

Unlike haters like you, who are on the "untruth" side and will do anything to try and smear people like me and those who care about getting to the truth, i like everybody.

My two partners are both Saudi, never worked closely with anybody Arab in my life till this past year. They are great people. Constantly complain to me about the Saudi people being opressed, and the nasty laws and human right suffering that goes on there.
And Bush and others kiss their arses, knowing this to be the case. These two guys tell me all the time that human rights are actually better in Iran that in Saudi, and that there are zero Jews that live in Saudi, and a pretty good number that live in Iran. In Iran, women can drive a car, not so in Saudi, a govt we whole heartedly support..

And the above is not to say i support either of the policies of the two above mentioned countries, i generally dont, but just pointing out the administration hypocrisy, which any sane person cant deny.

Regarding Israel, i equate that regime to the Saudi regime. Mostly well wishing citizenry, but a brutal and selfless bunch at the top.

Its without a doubt in the percieved interest of Israel to WANT a US presence in the Middle East. I have no doubt the current people in power there, and others before them, have zero scruples in making sure enough hatred and discontent is in that part of the world to better there position.

I have said this before and will say it again, i have zero issues with Jews. What the State of Israel is up to and stands for is an entirely different matter. Thousands and thousands of Jews believe exactly like i do.

Those that believe otherwise, truly have other motives in doing so, and sure dont have my blessing.


I have only to look at the "Liberty Incident" as a former sailor, to see that what the Israeli govt is up to doesnt always and perhaps even seldom(more likely)have me or those i care about's interests in mind.

And John MCain's daddy's spineless actions in that incident make it sure his son wont get my vote, thats for sure.

[Minadin]

3. hijackers flew the planes into the towers



umm... you speak of occam's razor... and it leads you to discount option 3, in favour of either of the other 2 options? Really?

He's using Smacco's razor.

[kookbreaker]

Think, compartmentilization.


Nobody in the NYFD was involved, with the possible exception of perhaps the commisioner.

Military guys generally arent in the know except their own little sphere of need to know.


Military guys are spread out over areas the size of countries. Even if communication was at 100% they could not know all details of an operation. Even those in charge of military operations are not always fully aware of the situation.

By comparison, the FDNY is at most spread over a few acres. They go to bars afterwards and talk. Not weeks afterwards, but hours later.

In the long run, the operations are often covered in detail by historians, reporters, or others. The details of the operation become explained on the pages of books as the reporter puts together the pieces of a coherent story.

The firefighters talk among themselves, talk with people on the street, talk with reporters. They would pick up on any discrepencies within hours, if not minutes. Furthermore, they have no consequences for failing to obey a superior officer beyond maybe losing their job. By Union rules I doubt their pension can even be threatened. A soldier or sailor can face a jail term much longer than his enlistment period, and there is no Union to have the soldiers back.

To white, the idea that firefighters could be kept in the dark, or that their command structure works like the military is ludicrous and insulting.

[nicepants]

Roundhead- You must have missed this question the 5+ other times it was posted:

You want to be convinced? What will convince you?


I would recommend that no one attempt to "convince" roundhead until he/she clearly articulates what specific things would meet the requirements for same.

He's demanded that we kick a goal, but refuses to set down the goal posts.

[roundhead]

Roundhead- You must have missed this question the 5+ other times it was posted:

You want to be convinced? What will convince you?


I would recommend that no one attempt to "convince" roundhead until he/she clearly articulates what specific things would meet the requirements for same.

He's demanded that we kick a goal, but refuses to set down the goal posts.


In fairness, i think i might be disingenious.


9/11 happened on 9/11 2001. My belief in the OCT was longer than has been my disbelief of the OCT. So obviousy, i can be swayed.

I make points, and do indeed sort through the personal attacks(themselves a characteristic of someone on the weak side of an issue)to try and get at the best responses to my points.

I look at the answers to my "no time stamp", just one little tiny point i make, and the answers are just plain amoebic.

How Atta's luggage, an hour before departure, doesnt make the flight, but everybody elses does.

How he is in a suit, then a couple of minutes later(and in a hurry)isnt.

The ticket agents video camera doesnt work(according to the FBI) yet the guy who's desk it sits on isnt aware it didnt work.

Square peg, round hole time after time issue after isssue on this 9/11 story.

Why he would chance missing a connection as the ringleader.

Why rent two cars and leave one in a parking lot, and rent another.Purposely leaving incrimmenating evidence behind

Why make out a will and plan to take it with you to your death so nobody can read it.

Why the story was changed many times about the rental cars and who drove them, till the least amout of evil to the OCT was finally decided upon.

There is pretty much no part of the entire 9/11 question that doesnt have GAPING holes in it, many times changed stories, left out testimony, missing documents, stuff gets lost and nobody knows where it went, evidence gets destroyed.

On and on and on. It takes an incredible amount of blind devotion to the OCt to believe it in the face of all the irregularities. To trust a guy who has to be dragged to testify(and then only after big presure from Victims families, and only not under oath, not by himself, and not in the light of day) Not exactly, in my mind, a bastion of credibility there fellas. That stinks.
The sham of an investigation, not even in any way unbiased, called a sham by one member who left in disgust.


The OCT has been a constantly morphing story. Its like shining a light on a cockroach. It moves /is forced into another dark corner, untill light indeed catches it at its new resting spot.And again it must move.

Each time evidence has reared its head which makes a portion of the OCt completely untenable, another excuse is made up. So this is an ever changing lie.

Were it 100% the truth, it would never had needed to be changed, ever. Save perhaps the first 24/48 hours, for maybe the entire picture to emerge.


As again my parents taught me at a young age, if you tell the truth, you dont have to remember what you said. The OCT has so many outright lies, this is why all the fingers in the dike, even years later. There are plenty of flashlights on these cockroaches, but i wish they were more and brighter.

[Dubious Dick]

So Roundhead. Do I take it that "not a ton of people" means you think that less than 100 people were required to organise, execute and cover up your 9/11 conspiracy?

That's incredible, as is the rest of your bs. I suggest you watch the line by line demolition of the conspiracy on 9/11 myths here:

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

If this does not convince you that the 'truth' movements cornerstones are so full of holes then nothing will.

[Totovader]

In fairness, i think i might be disingenious.


9/11 happened on 9/11 2001. My belief in the OCT was longer than has been my disbelief of the OCT. So obviousy, i can be swayed.

I make points, and do indeed sort through the personal attacks(themselves a characteristic of someone on the weak side of an issue)to try and get at the best responses to my points.

I look at the answers to my "no time stamp", just one little tiny point i make, and the answers are just plain amoebic.

How Atta's luggage, an hour before departure, doesnt make the flight, but everybody elses does.

How he is in a suit, then a couple of minutes later(and in a hurry)isnt.

The ticket agents video camera doesnt work(according to the FBI) yet the guy who's desk it sits on isnt aware it didnt work.

Square peg, round hole time after time issue after isssue on this 9/11 story.

Why he would chance missing a connection as the ringleader.

Why rent two cars and leave one in a parking lot, and rent another.

Why make out a will and plan to take it with you to your death so nobody can read it.

Why the story was changed manytimes about the rental cars and who drove them, till the least amout of evil to the OCT was finally decided upon.

There is pretty much no part of the entire 9/11 question that doesnt have GAPING holes in it, many times changed stories, left out testimony, missing documents, stuff gets lost and nobody knows where it went.

On and on and on. It takes an incredible amout of blind devotion to the OCt to believe it in the face of all the irregularities. To trust a guy who has to be dragged to testify(and then only after big presure from Victims families, and only not under oath, not by himself, and not in the light of day) Not exactly, in my mind, a bastion of credibility there fellas. That stinks.
The sham of an investigation, not even in any way unbiaded, called a sham by one member who left in disgust(and got his pocket padded out the door)


The OCT has been a constantly morphing story. Its like shining a light on a cockroach. It moves /is forced into another dark corner, untill light indeed catches it at its new resting spot.

Each time evidence has reared its head which makes a portion of the OCt completely untenable, another excuse is made up. So this is an ever changing lie.

Were it 100% the truth, it would never had needed to be changed, ever. Save perhaps the first 24/48 hours.


As again my parents taught me at a young age, if you tell the truth, you dont have to remember what you said. The OCT has so many outrightlies, this is why all thge fingers in the dike, een years later. There are plenty of flashlights on these cockroaches, but i wish they were more and brighter.

You might be disingenuous? You are stating that because there are questions from some people you no longer believe the scientific version of the events.

To put it mildly- there will always be wackjobs, therefore your criteria for believing the opposite of your position is not at all reasonable. Curious, though- do you also believe in a flat Earth, holocaust denial, creationism, mind reading, lizard people, etc- there are "gaping holes" in the scientific rebuttal to these claims as well (at least by your completely ridiculous standards), so surely you would have to believe in these things as well- assuming you are a consistent and honest individual...

Point being: facts and evidence will not convince you that you are wrong because there are "questions". It doesn't matter how absurd or disproven those "questions" are- just that they exist from some crazy point of view. Therefore, there is no way your mind can be changed.

Why anyone should take you seriously at this point is a mystery.

[nicepants]

In fairness, i think i might be disingenious......

<snip>

All of that, and you still haven't answered the question:

WHAT WOULD CONVINCE YOU?

I'll even help you get started:

"I would be convinced that Arab Terrorists were on the planes if ________________________________"
(fill in the blank)

[JamesB]

This cracks me up that the fact that his bags missed the flight is evidence of a conspiracy. Hello, have you ever flown on an airplane anytime during your life? :jaw-dropp

[roundhead]

All of that, and you still haven't answered the question:

WHAT WOULD CONVINCE YOU?

I'll even help you get started:

"I would be convinced that Arab Terrorists were on the planes if ________________________________"
(fill in the blank)


There was hardcopy ticket/boarding pass data that i could see(and why souldnt that info be in the public domain if it exists. and secondly, believable video evidence.

I have cited a number of credible reasons why Atta, at least, doesnt seem to fit with having been on the plane, see several posts above.

[nicepants]

There was hardcopy ticket/boarding pass data that i could see

Finally an answer!
Since the ticket would have been with the passenger, I doubt that the ticket/boarding pass is an option. Would a flight manifest suffice?

and secondly, believable video evidence.

What determines whether the video evidence is "believable"? You will need to elaborate on this.

So far:

Airline ticket/boarding pass data
"believable"- (awaiting clarification) video evidence

[Totovader]

There was hardcopy ticket/boarding pass data that i could see(and why souldnt that info be in the public domain if it exists. and secondly, believable video evidence.

I have cited a number of credible reasons why Atta, at least, doesnt seem to fit with having been on the plane, see several posts above.

"Hardcopy"? You want the physical boarding pass in your hand? Can you please elaborate on "ticket/boarding pass data"- I can't think of what that would mean, or why the current information would be unsatisfactory.

And "believable video evidence" is not an answer- it's a circular dodge. We are trying to get at what would make it believable to you. Since you have dismissed all evidence without justification simply because it damages your fantasy- the idea is that nothing would make it "believable" to you.


ETA: Nicepants beat me to it...

[Jonnyclueless]

I still have to wonder when 9/11 cult members say they are looking for "truth" if they are simply outright lying, or if they are so delusional to think that all of their lies and dishonest is actually "truth".

[JohnG]

I look at the answers to my "no time stamp", just one little tiny point i make, and the answers are just plain amoebic.

I'm confused, roundhead. What was wrong with the explanations about the 'missing' time stamp? From what I recall, there are the two basic theories put forth:

1. The stills released to the media are zoomed in and cropped to show a closer view of the hijacker in question.

or

2. There was no time stamp to begin with. Examples were shown that this isn't necessarily an uncommon practice.

These both seem reasonable to me. What is so unreasonable (or in your terminology 'amoebic') about them?

[johnny karate]

Of everything i have ever read on here, or had said about me, this sickens me the most. Your continued LIE about the Fire Dept.

Perhaps your extended leave of absence has affected your memory.

Allow me to refresh it.

You stated:
"McCormack said that around 75% of police, firemen and rescue personnel that he had personally spoke with now believe there is a cover-up pertaining to 9/11 and that many had been threatened that "if they ever open their mouth their pensions are at risk."

Is he a liar?

And to make it clear you shared McCormak's beliefs, you stated:
I stated they had been threatened, and posted a quote that supports my contention.

Fairly cut and dry. It is your contention that members of the FDNY believe there is a cover-up pertaining to 9/11 and have been coerced into silence. This characterizes them as complicit after the fact cowards more worried about their pension than they are in discovering the truth behind the death of 343 of their own.


I said they follow orders. I hated their testimony wasnt included in the 9/11 commision report.

You also said they were threatened into silence.


I am positive the firefighters had zero to do with 9/11, except be brave and do their jobs, as they were told.

And also keep silent about the cover-up they suspect. Don't forget that part.


How high up in the food chain a problem might have started is my point. If you have a big boss that tells you this is what is going on, you have no reason to not think its the case.

You made no such distinction in your previous statement, and McCormak's quote that you're on record as supporting makes it very clear we're talking about rank and file firefighters, not the upper echelons of command.


Its always the case, the lowly guy on the street does his job, while the people in power use him to achieve an end.

And according to you, it's the "lowly guy" who will piss on the graves of his dead compatriots to protect his pension.

I'm not sure which is more despicable, your original statement slandering the FDNY or your pathetic and disingenuous attempt to weasel out of it now.

[JamesB]

Aren't the pensions managed by the unions. So are the firefighter unions in on it too?

[johnny karate]

There was hardcopy ticket/boarding pass data that i could see(and why souldnt that info be in the public domain if it exists. and secondly, believable video evidence.

I'm sure this documentation is available with the airlines. Don't you think that if it didn't exist somebody there would have come forward by now?

With your mindset, probably not. You've already accused the FDNY of cowardice. Accusing airline personnel isn't much of a stretch from there.

[johnny karate]

Aren't the pensions managed by the unions. So are the firefighter unions in on it too?

roundhead wasn't very specific in his slander, but the gist of it seems to be that there is complicity on every level within the FDNY, so why not the unions?

[pomeroo]

}snipdrivel}



y"Well geez, they were on the flight manifests" that is a bucket of water with a gaping hole in the bottom of it, at best.

Face it, unless you blindly believe those manifests, which have changed/been edited more than a 6th grade term paper, you got squat that proves these 18/19 "terrorists" were aboard any of those "planes"


You've been caught lying again.

[pomeroo]

Its impossible to know for sure.


Wrong. It is possible--indeed, easy--to understand that your imaginary conspiracy is mathematically impossible.



The Govt has been extremely secretive with information. All a guy like me can do is recognize(as anybody with a grain of fair minded common sense can)that the OCT is a fantastic fairy tale that doesnt pass the sniff test.


Wrong again. The mainstream accounts include the work of a wide cross-section of government agencies, universities, independent stuctural engineers, physicists, demolition experts, avionics techs, seismologists, metallurgists, pilots, air traffic controllers, forensic examiners, fire safety specialists, police and fire personnel, etc. Your evil, mindless movement contains nothing but frauds, fools, and liars.



The majority of Americans wont get off the couch for anything, and believe anything they are told.This bailout should more than prove that, as if what stated isnt the 100% truth.
The Govt has the enviable position of being able to control mainstream reports that refute its story, hide and withhold access to vital information, and get away with it.


You're lying again. The government has no control over what gets printed in the major dailies or aired on the three major networks.



I would bet the last dollar i will ever make that people like Kieth Olbermann and others would love to have just one night to voice their opinions on 9/11 without repercussions.


Wow, you are sharp! I guess fear of reprisal is what make Der Olbermann so restrained in his savage rants about Bush.



I am not the smartest guy in America, many smarter than me,


Many of them are right on this forum.



and in a position to KNOW what i do, i am sure would LOVE to scream this story out.


But your "story" is a pack of really stupid, agenda-driven lies.



Hopefully at some point they can.
That huge, huge lies(with the intent to cost Amrican lives and money, just under this administration alone, to be a fact, is not arguable. We need only look at Iraq AS PROOF. They can get away with fantastic lies, and not be held accountable, in any "noisy enough" way to create enough firestorm to do a heck of a lot of good.




You have never come close to pointing to a single lie about Iraq, and you never will. The left's Big Lie about Bush knowing that there were no WMD is probably not what you have in mind.



As a veteran, patriot, and independant thinker, the fact 9/11 involved somebody other than 19 Arab terrorists sickens my belly.


It is not a fact at all. It is a preposterous lie concocted by America-hating fools.



There are so many holes, known lies, coverups,and staunching of credible whistleblower information, it truly amazes me this has still not made it into the spotlight of mainstream knowledge.


And you can't point to ONE of those "lies." It hasn't made into the mainstream because your evil movement is utter crap.



But know this, i,like most here(i am sure)know well the OCT is the biggest lie that has ever been passed on to the American populace.


You have been exposed as an uninformed liar many times.



I have no idea who was in on it exactly.

If i had to bet my life on it, my GUESS is that it involves certain neocons, including Cheney,


Cheney is, of course, not a neo-conservative.



Wolfowitz, and certain elements of the Israeli govt.



It takes a while, but eventually we discover where you frauds are coming from.



This "operation" has anything but 19 cave dwellers written all over it.



Nobody swallows your evil movement's yarn. The jihadists are technologically sophisticated and they weren't cave-dwellers. You have never conned anyone here.



This has all the trappings of filling the pockets of the military/industrial complex for eternity, and keeping our influential friends in Tel Aviv happy.


Ooops! That tells us a bit more than you intended.



If i had several months, and the ability to question anybody i wanted to, and was privvy to any info i wanted to have, with help from only a small group of helpers qualified to help me out, i could answer you question perfectly.


Yes, but you'd lie about it.

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh the Irony of 9/11 cultists claiming everyone else in the world is just blindly believing what they are told.

[Kittyclaws]

I started reading this thread because I was curious about truthers. I am really impressed at the lengths to which other posters have gone to answer the OP's "questions." And Roundhead's continual refusal to acknowledge the evidence and arguments presented shows clearly that there's no open mind there.

ETA: Does Gravy have a site that outlines the Loose Change rebuttal and gives info about the major players (Alex Jones, et al.)? There are so many threads I'm not sure which ones to start with. TIA

[JamesB]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/

[JoeyDonuts]

Hi Roundhead.

I'm just curious...you mentioned something a while back about a possible explanation for the planes not hitting the towers.

One of the things you mentioned was that it was possibly a video "PsyOp."

Could you elaborate perhaps?

Thanks!

[Slayhamlet]

I started reading this thread because I was curious about truthers. I am really impressed at the lengths to which other posters have gone to answer the OP's "questions." And Roundhead's continual refusal to acknowledge the evidence and arguments presented shows clearly that there's no open mind there.

ETA: Does Gravy have a site that outlines the Loose Change rebuttal and gives info about the major players (Alex Jones, et al.)? There are so many threads I'm not sure which ones to start with. TIA

His Loose Change 2nd Ed. viewer's guide, you mean? You can find it here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someonlinepapersandvideosbyme). He has a link to his 9/11 research homepage in his signature, as well.

[chillzero]

I look at the answers to my "no time stamp", just one little tiny point i make, and the answers are just plain amoebic.


If that's the case, could you please answer my question in post 176?

[funk de fino]

The majority of those supposed cave dwelling, middle class, university educated hijackers were certainly more intelligent than nearly every truther I have ever encountered.

Having recently, for the first time, witnessed the ridiculous political bias shown by some US news type channels, during the Presidential race, I would say there is less chance of something like this being kept off the media than there is in practically every other western democracy. IMO of course.

[JoeyDonuts]

I didn't see any timecode on the Zapruder film.

*GASP!*

That must mean Kennedy is still alive!

Come on man. Digital video can have virtual timestamps embedded in its metadata. These can probably be displayed should the person originating the video deem it necessary. For one reason or another, it either wasn't put on the video when it was exported from the security system OR...the video is in a digital zoom that crops out the timestamp. I don't think we can know for certain unless someone was able to produce an authenticated full-frame version of that particular camera shot that shows whether or not it would normally have a time stamp. Now how would we go about getting THAT, I wonder.

As for the attendant not knowing his camera was OOC - Have you ever worked a job were you had to do a turnover with the person you relieved? I got plenty of bad turnovers on watch in the Navy, and I continue to get them at my current job at a TV station. Sometimes not everything gets turned over, including important information like "our camera isn't working."

In summary...

Sure, having a timestamp would make it easier to identify when a certain person was in a given area...but as has been already pointed out - that would be about a 5 minute job in After Effects to put a fake one on there.

The passenger manifests are far more conclusive proof to me that those men were on the planes than your lack of timestamp is that they weren't.

[Jonnyclueless]

BTW, I was in a store last night, and as happens often, they had surveillance video that had no time stamp on it. Maybe I could get their info and roundhead can report them to the police, the genius he is!

[ElMondoHummus]

I look at the answers to my "no time stamp", just one little tiny point i make, and the answers are just plain amoebic.


Amoebic? I myself show you some examples of other mundane security videos with no timestamp, thus demonstrating that there's precedent for security videos to lack that, and everyone else points out that the lack of timestamping means nothing; it doesn't falsify the video, it doesn't prove fakery or put the origins in doubt. I furthermore show you that it was accepted by both sides in a court case as being legitimate and authentic. And you think those replies are "amoebic"?


Hanging on to a point that
Is falsified (i.e. the lack of timestamping supposedly casting the origin of the video into doubt)
Is demonstrated as meaningless, since a timestamp does not prove authenticity, and has been demonstrated to be a feature missing in other security videos, and
Is also shown to be irrelevent in other ways (again, the authentication by the parties in the Moussaoui trial, thus demonstrating the legitimacy despite your objection to the lack of timestamping)
... is illogical, and dare I say desperate? Your point is refuted in multiple ways, and trying to claim otherwise is, as the saying goes, putting lipstick on a pig.

The video is accepted as genuine by all people save those with an agenda. It is authenticated. You are unable to dispute the legitimacy of the video, not with your "amoebic" complaint about the timestamping. It's perhaps best to concede that point and move forward; you have nothing to argue there.

[roundhead]

The manifests arent proof of anything, and have morphed many times, with a number of contradictions.

Showing video(other than the extremely questionable one from Dulles)would be helpfull.

The Video from Portland is timestamped.

Also ticket stubs, or other hard copy evidence would be helpfull.


This is a video of the cabbie outside Dulles. The 9/11 commision states the time as 7:18 AM, one of the several used that "day" from Dulles, none of which are timestamped.

Joe Vaills did a stuy on this particular photo, and points out that the shadows seen on the cab and sun coming in the windows can not be from 7:18 in the morning. The video was from uch later in the day.

Try and debunk the time of day this video was taken


As Vialls correctly states:

In order to understand the sheer treachery of the 9-11 Commission, we need to get a little technical for a couple of paragraphs. Dulles Airport is located at Latitude 38:53:27 N and Longitude 77:00:40 W. On the morning of 11 September 2001, sunrise was at 06:46 AM, Noon (when the sun is at its highest point in the sky) was at 1:05 PM, and sunset was at 7:23 PM. To quote the US Naval Observatory:-
"Sunrise and sunset conventionally refer to the times when the upper edge of the disk of the Sun is on the horizon, considered unobstructed relative to the location of interest. Atmospheric conditions are assumed to be average, and the location is in a level region on the Earth's surface."
End of technical lesson, but I feel sure you can see where all this is leading. Take another much closer look at the photographs at the top of this page, which are unedited extracts from the 9-11 Commission's alleged 'hijacker' video footage. Better still, play back a full size copy on your VCR and freeze-frame at the appropriate points.
The 9-11 Commission is asking you to believe that this video was filmed just 32 minutes after "the upper edge of the Sun is on the horizon" at sunrise. Oh, sure! Do you see the footprint size shadow underneath the cab, and the brilliant sunshine streaming in through the open doors? On a full-screen picture you can even see the miniscule short [near vertical] shadows of the people standing outside the doors.
What these factors prove in unequivocal scientific terms, is that this video footage was filmed at Dulles Airport sometime between 11:30 AM and 2:30 PM, though of course we do not know on which day or even which week. However, if this footage had been filmed as claimed at 7:18 AM, the shadows would have been fully three times as long, and the light intensity at least 50% less.



http://www.vialls.com/wtc/images/clueless2.jpg

[Jonnyclueless]

:dl: :dl: :dl:

[defaultdotxbe]

The manifests arent proof of anything, and have morphed many times, with a number of contradictions.
when have the manifests ever "morphed" or shown contradictions? or are you confusing the manifests with the list of victims again?

Also ticket stubs, or other hard copy evidence would be helpfull.
the manifests are hardcopy evidence, why should we expect you to not dismiss a ticket stub in the same manner?

[roundhead]

Anybody care to take a look at this photo the 9/11 Commision states was taken at 7:18 AM on 9/11, and refute the notion it was taken much later in the day.

I patiently wait...............

[nicepants]

Roundhead-

Any time evidence is presented, you deem it "unconvincing", "faked", or "amoebic". You can't expect anyone to "convince" you of anything when you continue to lug your goalposts around.

Back to my original question What will convince you?

You need to be very specific. Saying "believable video" is not specific...that's just a woo circuit breaker. It gives you an out/excuse. Any time someone presents video evidence that might show your theory to be wrong, you simply dismiss it as being not "believable".

Spell it out in excruciating detail....what specific things you need to be shown in order to be convinced. If you truly want to be convinced, this should be very easy for you. What evidence do you demand? Make a detailed list of everything you require....once everything on that list is provided, you will be convinced.

Your reluctance to cooperate with this request makes me suspect that you don't want to be convinced of anything. You've made up your mind, and are refusing to commit to any set of circumstances in which you would change your mind, because you fear that if said circumstances came to pass, you would have to reject your current beliefs.

Again I would request that no one here attempt to "convince" roundhead of anything until he provides a detailed list of exactly what he requires in order to be convinced. Otherwise, we could post for years and the only response will be "no, that doesn't convince me".

[roundhead]

Somebody showing me this Dulles photo was taken at the time of day the Commision said it was, would certainly assauge most of my concern about no timestamps on the Dulles video.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm looking forward to this explanation of the flight manifest "morphing" lol!

[chillzero]

Somebody showing me this Dulles photo was taken at the time of day the Commision said it was, would certainly assauge most of my concern about no timestamps on the Dulles video.

Why do you keep ignoring my question on this matter in post 176?

[roundhead]

Now i wonder why that photo i posted has ceased to exist anywhere on the internet

[twinstead]

Now i wonder why that photo i posted has ceased to exist anywhere on the internet

Yup. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you...

[defaultdotxbe]

Now i wonder why that photo i posted has ceased to exist anywhere on the internet
this one?

http://web.archive.org/web/20060504110736/http://www.vialls.com/wtc/images/clueless2.jpg

[roundhead]

Have you contacted Dulles to ask about their standards for when timestamps are placed on videos, and if they are cropped out when the image is zoomed? There's no point in dismissing such things summarily, without checking anything, unless you have already made up your mind - and that's not as open minded as you claimed in your OP.



Dulles doesnt make their own video cameras. They dont have a "unique" set of cameras that are unique from other airports.

When you say "cropped out" do you mean edited? The time stamp is integral to the video. It would be like saying you have a pimple on your nose, and zooming the video would remove the pimple. No it would just enlarge it.

Were a time stamp not integral to the video, it would be worthless in a court of law. A time stamp is NEEDED on a security video to support time and date.

The ONLY explanation for why a time stamp WOULDNT be displayed is because it was removed, because it doesnt support the date and time it is supposed to. Period.

Anybody who thinks it shouldnt have a time stamp, is dead wrong.

[roundhead]

this one?

http://web.archive.org/web/20060504110736/http://www.vialls.com/wtc/images/clueless2.jpg






How about some good ole Jref Wisdom on what time of day this was taken, based on the sun?

[defaultdotxbe]

Dulles doesnt make their own video cameras. They dont have a "unique" set of cameras that are foriegn to other airports.
yes, but timestamps can be turned on or off, and sometimes are a function of the recording device rather than the camera

the company i work for does not have timestamps on their cameras

[Jonnyclueless]

Yup. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you...

Some men in black came by my house today asking for some guy named roundhead who had been posting pictures on the internet. hmmm...

[Totovader]

Somebody showing me this Dulles photo was taken at the time of day the Commision said it was, would certainly assauge most of my concern about no timestamps on the Dulles video.

This request is unreasonable for 2 reasons:

1) You're dodging the question and again just stating an ambiguity: "showing you" is not possible since you reject any evidence challenging to your fantasy. What would convince you that the Dulles cap is taken at the appropriate time? Nothing would.

2) Since not all videos contain a time stamp, claiming that one which does not is suspicious- is wrong.

You are tossing out more fallacies to avoid the very poignant question that has been asked of you.

[roundhead]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/210704hijackers.jpg


Do not hotlink images.

Are those white things indeed bomb detection devices???

[roundhead]

This request is unreasonable for 2 reasons:

1) You're dodging the question and again just stating an ambiguity: "showing you" is not possible since you reject any evidence challenging to your fantasy. What would convince you that the Dulles cap is taken at the appropriate time? Nothing would.

2) Since not all videos contain a time stamp, claiming that one which does not is suspicious- is wrong.

You are tossing out more fallacies to avoid the very poignant question that has been asked of you.




Point out what SECURITY CAMERA videos(besides these)arent time stamped?

[defaultdotxbe]

How about some good ole Jref Wisdom on what time of day this was taken, based on the sun?
a time of day when the sun is not visible in the frame of the camera

looking at other things, half of the cab is illuminated, the other half in shadow, indicating the sun is low on the horizon, this could be early morning or late evening (i dont know what direction the camera is facing)

there appears to be a mist of fog in the distance, which would indicate its possibly early morning

[Totovader]

Are those white things indeed bomb detection devices???

roundhead - hotlinking is not allowed... which is probably why your image disappeared before.

Bomb detection devices? What are you babbling about?

[Totovader]

Point out what SECURITY CAMERA videos(besides these)arent time stamped?

That's already been done for you far too many times. Some security cameras do not record, some record the time stamp digitally instead of actually burning it on the tape.

Demanding that a time stamp exist, be accurate, and be visible is absurd. Pointing to a lack of that time stamp as evidence of something is fallacious.

You know this. You're stalling.

[defaultdotxbe]

Point out what SECURITY CAMERA videos(besides these)arent time stamped?
as i said before, the ones at my company

[chillzero]

Dulles doesnt make their own video cameras. They dont have a "unique" set of cameras that are unique from other airports.
So, does that mean you researched this, and got the answer you need?


When you say "cropped out" do you mean edited? The time stamp is integral to the video. It would be like saying you have a pimple on your nose, and zooming the video would remove the pimple. No it would just enlarge it.
:nope:
Umm... if you zoomed in on the eye, it would omit the nose altogether.


Were a time stamp not integral to the video, it would be worthless in a court of law. A time stamp is NEEDED on a security video to support time and date.
Are you judge and jury?
Has this evidence been requested in court? If so, I daresay the full version would be required - complete with timestamp.

The ONLY explanation for why a time stamp WOULDNT be displayed is because it was removed, because it doesnt support the date and time it is supposed to. Period.
Wrong. See above, and excercise some common sense.


Anybody who thinks it shouldnt have a time stamp, is dead wrong.
Wrong.
I believe most of us, if not all, believe it should (and even does) have a timestamp, that has been cropped out when the image was zoomed in for detail - particularly for general distribution among those of us who are not official investigators, etc.

[mchapman]

Anyone got that positive ID on the hijackers yet? What is the delay?