The FBI Has No Record of Any Evidence of the 4 Flights Used on 9/11 - Page 7

johnny karate · 5th September 2008, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Perhaps for the lazy. Most people use them when they are quoting.

And as any educated person knows, quotation marks have multiple functions. Like denoting irony, for instance. But hey, maybe fancy book learnin' ain't for you.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

At least you admitted that I never said it.

You can chalk that one up with all the other fantasies you indulge in.

RedIbis · 5th September 2008, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

And as any educated person knows, quotation marks have multiple functions. Like denoting irony, for instance. But hey, maybe fancy book learnin' ain't for you.

You can chalk that one up with all the other fantasies you indulge in.

If you understood the definition of irony, you'd see that's not what you were doing.

Homeland Insurgency · 5th September 2008, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

If you understood the definition of irony, you'd see that's not what you were doing.

RedIbis you are done here. There is no evidence the FBI or anyone else has of the four flights that crashed on 9/11. If any of the so-called debunkers here had any they would post it instead of just debating you on quotation marks or anything else off topic. They just want to drive it into AAH and pretend that because they did they debunked something. When in reality they are just hiding something.

RedIbis · 5th September 2008, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

RedIbis you are done here. There is no evidence the FBI or anyone else has of the four flights that crashed on 9/11. If any of the so-called debunkers here had any they would post it instead of just debating you on quotation marks or anything else off topic. They just want to drive it into AAH and pretend that because they did they debunked something. When in reality they are just hiding something.

True.

beachnut · 5th September 2008, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

... There is no evidence the FBI or anyone else has of the four flights that crashed on 9/11. If ...

It is common knowledge 11, 175, 77 and 93 were the aircraft used on 9/11 by terrorist. You can't prove they were not. It was proven they were. You posted a lie, a false statement you made up due to ignorance on 9/11 facts and evidence. That is the truth and you can't do anything about it but talk and push hearsay and false ideas.

The RedIbis OP title is wrong, and he posted proof the truth movement can't even ask the right questions. 9/11 truth can't even figure out 9/11 after 6 years so they make up stuff out of junk.

16.5 · 5th September 2008, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

RedIbis you are done here. There is no evidence the FBI or anyone else has of the four flights that crashed on 9/11. If any of the so-called debunkers here had any they would post it instead of just debating you on quotation marks or anything else off topic. They just want to drive it into AAH and pretend that because they did they debunked something. When in reality they are just hiding something.

"(evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked), no records would have been generated responsive to plaintiffs request for documents.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that Exhibits A-J attached hereto are true and correct copies.

Executed this 8th day of August, 2008

David M. HARDY
Section Chief
Records/Information Dissemination Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of lnvestigation Washington, D.C."

"(evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked)"

"evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked"

Red Ibis: "true"

BWHAHAHA! Red, close your eyes, read only what you want. Fraud.

johnny karate · 5th September 2008, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

If you understood the definition of irony, you'd see that's not what you were doing.

Having just recently learned how to use quotation marks, I don't think you're quite ready to tackle the concept of irony. Baby steps, Red. Baby steps.

johnny karate · 5th September 2008, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

There is no evidence the FBI or anyone else has of the four flights that crashed on 9/11.

Why have none of the witnesses, first responders, or crash scene investigators come forward to express similar doubts or suspicions?

johnny karate · 5th September 2008, 07:53 PM

First, Homeland Insurgency says this (bolding mine):

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

RedIbis you are done here. There is no evidence the FBI or anyone else has of the four flights that crashed on 9/11. If any of the so-called debunkers here had any they would post it instead of just debating you on quotation marks or anything else off topic. They just want to drive it into AAH and pretend that because they did they debunked something. When in reality they are just hiding something.

And RedIbis readily agrees:

Originally Posted by RedIbis

True.

Congratulations, Red! You've finally come out of the closet as a full-fledged no-planer. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

ETA:

Originally Posted by 16.5

BWHAHAHA! Red, close your eyes, read only what you want. Fraud.

What do you expect from a no-planer?

LashL · 5th September 2008, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

A classic. LashL whining about punctuation. Can you please just provide examples of my "numerous and blatant misquotes" or retract it.

Do not respond to this post with a wall of rhetoric, just the examples. If they're so numerous and blatant it won't be hard to find.

The only one whining here is you, RedIbis. Oh, and look, yet another example of disingenuousness on your part. How unsurprising.

As I have already said, I will not accede to your demand that I respond to your cherrypicked "quote". Nor will I play your silly games while you continue to misquote, cherrypick, mislead, post dishonestly, and make unsupported accusations. Especially when it is obvious that you are - once again - simply trying to tapdance your way out of answering legitimate posts and legitimate questions addressed to you by feigning indignance, even though you are reduced to engaging in further cherrypicking to do so.

Tsk, tsk. This tactic of yours does not improve with repetition, and you are not fooling anyone but yourself.

RedIbis · 6th September 2008, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by LashL

The only one whining here is you, RedIbis. Oh, and look, yet another example of disingenuousness on your part. How unsurprising.

As I have already said, I will not accede to your demand that I respond to your cherrypicked "quote". Nor will I play your silly games while you continue to misquote, cherrypick, mislead, post dishonestly, and make unsupported accusations. Especially when it is obvious that you are - once again - simply trying to tapdance your way out of answering legitimate posts and legitimate questions addressed to you by feigning indignance, even though you are reduced to engaging in further cherrypicking to do so.

Tsk, tsk. This tactic of yours does not improve with repetition, and you are not fooling anyone but yourself.

Hold on there now, counsellor. You said, "in light of your numerous and blatant misquotes". Such a phrase requires evidence. Again, it shouldn't be hard to find such "numerous and blatant misquotes." This isn't a cherrypicked quote, it stands on its own. Everyone knows what you mean by it. No context is going to change what you are charging here. So back it up with an example.

RedIbis · 6th September 2008, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Having just recently learned how to use quotation marks, I don't think you're quite ready to tackle the concept of irony. Baby steps, Red. Baby steps.

Your misplaced modifier suggests you just recently learned how to use quotation marks. That's somewhat obvious. Now review the definition of irony.

16.5 · 6th September 2008, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Your misplaced modifier suggests you just recently learned how to use quotation marks. That's somewhat obvious. Now review the definition of irony.

Your persistent refusal to address my posts shows what a fraud you are.

David M. HARDY
Section Chief
Records/Information Dissemination Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of lnvestigation Washington, D.C."

"evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked"

But you really got him on that misplaced modifier!! You are a HERO to the truth movement! Well, not the whole Truth movement. Just the No Planers. And not all the No Planers, of course. Just the ones that don't mind when other No Planers make a raving ass out of themselves.

evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked

evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked

evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked.

Red, you were better off not taking any positions, like the old days, Truther.

RedIbis · 6th September 2008, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Your persistent refusal to address my posts shows what a fraud you are.

David M. HARDY
Section Chief
Records/Information Dissemination Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of lnvestigation Washington, D.C."

"evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked"

But you really got him on that misplaced modifier!! You are a HERO to the truth movement! Well, not the whole Truth movement. Just the No Planers. And not all the No Planers, of course. Just the ones that don't mind when other No Planers make a raving ass out of themselves.

evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked

evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked

evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked.

Red, you were better off not taking any positions, like the old days, Truther.

As I asked right from the start, where's this evidence? Someone saying there's evidence isn't the same as actual evidence. I would expect you to understand that difference.

Jonnyclueless · 6th September 2008, 08:53 AM

Reminds me of kids who cover their ears and shout as loud as they can so they can pretend they don't hear what you are saying.

Brainache · 6th September 2008, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

As I asked right from the start, where's this evidence? Someone saying there's evidence isn't the same as actual evidence. I would expect you to understand that difference.

Are you calling

David M. HARDY
Section Chief
Records/Information Dissemination Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of lnvestigation Washington, D.C."

a liar?

funk de fino · 6th September 2008, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

True.

Liar

16.5 · 6th September 2008, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

As I asked right from the start, where's this evidence? Someone saying there's evidence isn't the same as actual evidence. I would expect you to understand that difference.

Oh no, Red, no no no. That is not what you said, now is it, Red? You said "The FBI Has No Record of Any Evidence of the 4 Flights Used on 9/11." "Someone" is not saying they have evidence, the FBI is saying they have it in sworn statement under oath.

Now you want to know where it is, hmmmm? Well, you might want to start with the link posted in your OP.

"Plaintiff's original FOIA request sought "documentation pertaining to any formally and positively identified debris" from the aircraft used in the September 11th attacks. In response to this request, RIDS personnel at FBIHQ understood that any potentially responsive records would have been compiled for law enforcement purposes and would be located in a pending file because of an ongoing law enforcement investigation. RIDS personnel therefore determined that any records would be withheld in their entirety pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A)." So they are held in a file compiled for law enforcement purposes, which is exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

So Aiden got "clever." He limited his request to documents "revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant." To no one's surprise, he got nothing.

And the FBI rubbed his nose in it: "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked."

Hey Red, now you send a FOIA request for "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked."

Got it, truther? Or do nothing but cut and paste from 911 Blogger, just don't complain when people laugh at you.

johnny karate · 6th September 2008, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Your misplaced modifier suggests you just recently learned how to use quotation marks. That's somewhat obvious. Now review the definition of irony.

I just did. And it says receiving a lesson on where to place a modifier by someone who doesn't know meets the standard.

WildCat · 6th September 2008, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Hold on there now, counsellor. You said, "in light of your numerous and blatant misquotes". Such a phrase requires evidence. Again, it shouldn't be hard to find such "numerous and blatant misquotes." This isn't a cherrypicked quote, it stands on its own. Everyone knows what you mean by it. No context is going to change what you are charging here. So back it up with an example.

You aren't fooling anyone RedIbis.

Tbone · 6th September 2008, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

As I asked right from the start, where's this evidence? Someone saying there's evidence isn't the same as actual evidence. I would expect you to understand that difference.

Ask the FBI where the evidence is. You're allowed to do that you know, you don't live in a police state.

WildCat · 6th September 2008, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Tbone

Ask the FBI where the evidence is. You're allowed to do that you know, you don't live in a police state.

Actually, truthers live in a prison planet.

dot com.

LashL · 6th September 2008, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Hold on there now, counsellor. You said, "in light of your numerous and blatant misquotes". Such a phrase requires evidence. Again, it shouldn't be hard to find such "numerous and blatant misquotes." This isn't a cherrypicked quote, it stands on its own. Everyone knows what you mean by it. No context is going to change what you are charging here. So back it up with an example.

As I have said twice already, I will not accede to your demand that I respond to your cherrypicking. Yet, here you are continuing to cherrypick and continuing to demand that I respond to same. Unbelievable. You know full well that you are cherrypicking, and that what I actually wrote was, "...in light of your numerous and blatant misquotes, cherrypicking, unsupported accusations here (none of which you have ever apologized for) and particularly in light of your dishonest mis-attributing of quotes exposed in this very thread..."

How very dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

See also this post and this post. You seem to be trying desperately to avoid responding to them, particularly the latter.

beachnut · 6th September 2008, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

As I asked right from the start, where's this evidence? Someone saying there's evidence isn't the same as actual evidence. I would expect you to understand that difference.

The evidence is there; you are not trying at all to understand. Some would call that failure. Why are you are unable to comprehend the evidence? You have never posted any evidence to support your ideas. 11, 175, 77, and 93 have been proven to be the planes used on 9/11. With ease you ignore the evidence a grade school kid understands, but eludes you.

I know you can't prove 11, 175, 77, and 93 were not the planes, and it seems you will never accept what is common knowledge to rational thinkers. You even ignore DNA evidence! You ignore thousands of pieces of evidence to remain ignorant on the planes used on 9/11.
Why are you striving to remain in ignorance on 9/11?

LashL · 8th September 2008, 12:21 AM

Bump for RedIbis.

MikeW · 8th September 2008, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

Why are you striving to remain in ignorance on 9/11?

Because the truther ideal is to continue to ask questions until they find ones we cannot answer (to their satisfaction). They then feel they've "won". It's an ego thing.

RedIbis · 8th September 2008, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by LashL

Bump for RedIbis.

You have to post one of my blatant misquotes. You've been unable to do so. It's very easy. Simply quote me and put it in a quote box.

16.5 · 8th September 2008, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You have to post one of my blatant misquotes. You've been unable to do so. It's very easy. Simply quote me and put it in a quote box.

"Hey Red, now you send a FOIA request for "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked."

Hey, Red, send that FOIA Request yet? Or just going to pout?

Tbone · 8th September 2008, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You have to post one of my blatant misquotes. You've been unable to do so. It's very easy. Simply quote me and put it in a quote box.

Have you apologized for the misquote that is this thread title?

RedIbis · 8th September 2008, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Tbone

Have you apologized for the misquote that is this thread title?

Are there quotation marks around the thread title? If not, it's not a misquote. You're free to disagree with my assertion, but at least understand what "blatant misquote" actually means. It's a serious charge that requires a very specific example. It hasn't been provided yet.

WildCat · 8th September 2008, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Are there quotation marks around the thread title? If not, it's not a misquote.

True, it was just an old-fashioned lie.

Tbone · 8th September 2008, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Are there quotation marks around the thread title? If not, it's not a misquote. You're free to disagree with my assertion, but at least understand what "blatant misquote" actually means. It's a serious charge that requires a very specific example. It hasn't been provided yet.

I see, so you were lying, not misquoting.

Is that better?

LashL · 8th September 2008, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You have to post one of my blatant misquotes. You've been unable to do so. It's very easy. Simply quote me and put it in a quote box.

No, I don't have to post anything upon your demand, particularly as your demand was made above in yet another example of your vaunted cherrypicking technique.

But hey, if that's what it will take to get you to respond meaningfully to the issues and questions raised in this thread, look at post #208, which you are studiously avoiding, and which specifically references a blatant misquote by you in post #149.

RedIbis · 8th September 2008, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

No, I don't have to post anything upon your demand

True, no one can force you to support your specious claim of my numerous blatant misquotes.

But it should be very easy if they're so numerous and so blatant. No need to respond with more rhetoric, just the example.

16.5 · 8th September 2008, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

True, no one can force you to support your specious claim of my numerous blatant misquotes.

But it should be very easy if they're so numerous and so blatant. No need to respond with more rhetoric, just the example.

Jesus...

"Hey Red, now you send a FOIA request for "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked."

Hey, Red, send that FOIA Request yet? Or just going to freaking whine and pout?

Cl1mh4224rd · 8th September 2008, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Originally Posted by LasL

No, I don't have to post anything upon your demand

True, no one can force you to support your specious claim of my numerous blatant misquotes.

But it should be very easy if they're so numerous and so blatant. No need to respond with more rhetoric, just the example.

Jesus, man... do you have ADD? There was more to LashL's post than the small portion you quoted.

Originally Posted by LashL

No, I don't have to post anything upon your demand, particularly as your demand was made above in yet another example of your vaunted cherrypicking technique.

But hey, if that's what it will take to get you to respond meaningfully to the issues and questions raised in this thread, look at post #208, which you are studiously avoiding, and which specifically references a blatant misquote by you in post #149.

LashL · 8th September 2008, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

True, no one can force you to support your specious claim of my numerous blatant misquotes.

But it should be very easy if they're so numerous and so blatant. No need to respond with more rhetoric, just the example.

You really are hilarious, RedIbis, with your nonsensical cherrypicking - yet again, even after it has been pointed out to you several times above, you continue to make disingenous and dishonest posts.

Furthermore, I pointed you specifically to the very posts in this thread in which a blatant misquote by you was noted, quoted and commented upon, and you are still ignoring that reality.

You really aren't fooling anyone but yourself, RedIbis.

Readers: Follow this exchange for a demonstration of the RedIbis trolling technique of intellectually dishonest posts, as well as nonsensical and extremely silly and juvenile posts full of lies ... it's not pretty.

WildCat · 8th September 2008, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

You really aren't fooling anyone but yourself, RedIbis.

I don't think he's fooling himself. He knows he's a liar, and deliberately ignores all evidence that contradicts his fantasy. But it's OK to lie for The Truth™, right RedIbis? Is that how you justify it?

Quote:

Readers: Follow this exchange for a demonstration of the RedIbis trolling technique of intellectually dishonest posts, as well as nonsensical and extremely silly and juvenile posts full of lies ... it's not pretty.

Indeed, it is very well documented her what a dishonest fraud RedIbis is. Frankly, I'm shocked he still even posts here after he has been called out time and time again on this kind of thing.

PhantomWolf · 8th September 2008, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

I don't think he's fooling himself. He knows he's a liar, and deliberately ignores all evidence that contradicts his fantasy. But it's OK to lie for The Truth™, right RedIbis? Is that how you justify it?

Pious Fraud:

a fraud done to accomplish some good end, on the theory that the end justifies the means.

For example, a church in Canada had a statue of Christ which started to weep tears of blood. When analyzed, the blood turned out to be beef blood. We can reasonably assume that someone with access to the building thought that bringing souls to Christ would justify his small deception.

In the context of debates, a Pious Fraud could be a lie. More generally, it would be when an emotionally committed speaker makes an assertion that is shaded, distorted or even fabricated. For example, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was accused in 2003 of "sexing up" his evidence that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Around the year 400, Saint Augustine wrote two books, De Mendacio[On Lying] and Contra Medacium[Against Lying], on this subject. He argued that the sin isn't in what you do (or don't) say, but in your intent to leave a false impression. He strongly opposed Pious Fraud. I believe that Martin Luther also wrote on the subject.

Above is quoted from A List Of Fallacious Arguments

lee5 · 8th September 2008, 08:54 PM

So many times I see truthers argue points that, even if proved to be correct, would not change the overall conclusion.

Yet they do it anyways.

Truther: "UBL isn't on the most wanted list poster"

Logical thinker: "So, does that mean he didn't do it".

Truther: "No but...."

Logical thinker: "So then whats the point? Who do you think did 9/11?"

Truther: "I don't have a theory, just asking questions"

I am so sick of this. Truthers do nothing but nitpick 9/11 but offer no real solid evidence. Just trying to poke holes in a window screen.

They must know that 90% of their questions are irrelevant to the big picture yet they continue anyways.

Sad.

5th September 2008, 05:45 PM	#241
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,827	Originally Posted by RedIbis Perhaps for the lazy. Most people use them when they are quoting. And as any educated person knows, quotation marks have multiple functions. Like denoting irony, for instance. But hey, maybe fancy book learnin' ain't for you. Originally Posted by RedIbis At least you admitted that I never said it. You can chalk that one up with all the other fantasies you indulge in.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

5th September 2008, 06:16 PM	#242
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by johnny karate And as any educated person knows, quotation marks have multiple functions. Like denoting irony, for instance. But hey, maybe fancy book learnin' ain't for you. You can chalk that one up with all the other fantasies you indulge in. If you understood the definition of irony, you'd see that's not what you were doing.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

5th September 2008, 06:54 PM	#244
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency RedIbis you are done here. There is no evidence the FBI or anyone else has of the four flights that crashed on 9/11. If any of the so-called debunkers here had any they would post it instead of just debating you on quotation marks or anything else off topic. They just want to drive it into AAH and pretend that because they did they debunked something. When in reality they are just hiding something. True.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

5th September 2008, 06:57 PM	#245
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,904	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency ... There is no evidence the FBI or anyone else has of the four flights that crashed on 9/11. If ... It is common knowledge 11, 175, 77 and 93 were the aircraft used on 9/11 by terrorist. You can't prove they were not. It was proven they were. You posted a lie, a false statement you made up due to ignorance on 9/11 facts and evidence. That is the truth and you can't do anything about it but talk and push hearsay and false ideas. The RedIbis OP title is wrong, and he posted proof the truth movement can't even ask the right questions. 9/11 truth can't even figure out 9/11 after 6 years so they make up stuff out of junk.
	Last edited by beachnut; 5th September 2008 at 07:06 PM.

5th September 2008, 07:24 PM	#246
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,746	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency RedIbis you are done here. There is no evidence the FBI or anyone else has of the four flights that crashed on 9/11. If any of the so-called debunkers here had any they would post it instead of just debating you on quotation marks or anything else off topic. They just want to drive it into AAH and pretend that because they did they debunked something. When in reality they are just hiding something. "(evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked), no records would have been generated responsive to plaintiffs request for documents. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that Exhibits A-J attached hereto are true and correct copies. Executed this 8th day of August, 2008 David M. HARDY Section Chief Records/Information Dissemination Section Records Management Division Federal Bureau of lnvestigation Washington, D.C." "(evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked)" "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked" Red Ibis: "true" BWHAHAHA! Red, close your eyes, read only what you want. Fraud.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,746

5th September 2008, 06:34 PM	#243
Homeland Insurgency Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,705	Originally Posted by RedIbis If you understood the definition of irony, you'd see that's not what you were doing. RedIbis you are done here. There is no evidence the FBI or anyone else has of the four flights that crashed on 9/11. If any of the so-called debunkers here had any they would post it instead of just debating you on quotation marks or anything else off topic. They just want to drive it into AAH and pretend that because they did they debunked something. When in reality they are just hiding something.

5th September 2008, 07:39 PM	#247
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,827	Originally Posted by RedIbis If you understood the definition of irony, you'd see that's not what you were doing. Having just recently learned how to use quotation marks, I don't think you're quite ready to tackle the concept of irony. Baby steps, Red. Baby steps.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

5th September 2008, 07:46 PM	#248
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,827	Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency There is no evidence the FBI or anyone else has of the four flights that crashed on 9/11. Why have none of the witnesses, first responders, or crash scene investigators come forward to express similar doubts or suspicions?
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

5th September 2008, 07:53 PM	#249
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,827	First, Homeland Insurgency says this (bolding mine): Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency RedIbis you are done here. There is no evidence the FBI or anyone else has of the four flights that crashed on 9/11. If any of the so-called debunkers here had any they would post it instead of just debating you on quotation marks or anything else off topic. They just want to drive it into AAH and pretend that because they did they debunked something. When in reality they are just hiding something. And RedIbis readily agrees: Originally Posted by RedIbis True. Congratulations, Red! You've finally come out of the closet as a full-fledged no-planer. The first step is admitting you have a problem. ETA: Originally Posted by 16.5 BWHAHAHA! Red, close your eyes, read only what you want. Fraud. What do you expect from a no-planer?
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here. Last edited by johnny karate; 5th September 2008 at 07:56 PM.

5th September 2008, 10:05 PM	#250
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,232	Originally Posted by RedIbis A classic. LashL whining about punctuation. Can you please just provide examples of my "numerous and blatant misquotes" or retract it. Do not respond to this post with a wall of rhetoric, just the examples. If they're so numerous and blatant it won't be hard to find. The only one whining here is you, RedIbis. Oh, and look, yet another example of disingenuousness on your part. How unsurprising. As I have already said, I will not accede to your demand that I respond to your cherrypicked "quote". Nor will I play your silly games while you continue to misquote, cherrypick, mislead, post dishonestly, and make unsupported accusations. Especially when it is obvious that you are - once again - simply trying to tapdance your way out of answering legitimate posts and legitimate questions addressed to you by feigning indignance, even though you are reduced to engaging in further cherrypicking to do so. Tsk, tsk. This tactic of yours does not improve with repetition, and you are not fooling anyone but yourself.

6th September 2008, 07:09 AM	#251
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by LashL The only one whining here is you, RedIbis. Oh, and look, yet another example of disingenuousness on your part. How unsurprising. As I have already said, I will not accede to your demand that I respond to your cherrypicked "quote". Nor will I play your silly games while you continue to misquote, cherrypick, mislead, post dishonestly, and make unsupported accusations. Especially when it is obvious that you are - once again - simply trying to tapdance your way out of answering legitimate posts and legitimate questions addressed to you by feigning indignance, even though you are reduced to engaging in further cherrypicking to do so. Tsk, tsk. This tactic of yours does not improve with repetition, and you are not fooling anyone but yourself. Hold on there now, counsellor. You said, "in light of your numerous and blatant misquotes". Such a phrase requires evidence. Again, it shouldn't be hard to find such "numerous and blatant misquotes." This isn't a cherrypicked quote, it stands on its own. Everyone knows what you mean by it. No context is going to change what you are charging here. So back it up with an example.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

6th September 2008, 07:13 AM	#252
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by johnny karate Having just recently learned how to use quotation marks, I don't think you're quite ready to tackle the concept of irony. Baby steps, Red. Baby steps. Your misplaced modifier suggests you just recently learned how to use quotation marks. That's somewhat obvious. Now review the definition of irony.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

6th September 2008, 07:49 AM	#253
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,746	Originally Posted by RedIbis Your misplaced modifier suggests you just recently learned how to use quotation marks. That's somewhat obvious. Now review the definition of irony. Your persistent refusal to address my posts shows what a fraud you are. David M. HARDY Section Chief Records/Information Dissemination Section Records Management Division Federal Bureau of lnvestigation Washington, D.C." "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked" But you really got him on that misplaced modifier!! You are a HERO to the truth movement! Well, not the whole Truth movement. Just the No Planers. And not all the No Planers, of course. Just the ones that don't mind when other No Planers make a raving ass out of themselves. evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked. Red, you were better off not taking any positions, like the old days, Truther.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,746

6th September 2008, 08:29 AM	#254
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by 16.5 Your persistent refusal to address my posts shows what a fraud you are. David M. HARDY Section Chief Records/Information Dissemination Section Records Management Division Federal Bureau of lnvestigation Washington, D.C." "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked" But you really got him on that misplaced modifier!! You are a HERO to the truth movement! Well, not the whole Truth movement. Just the No Planers. And not all the No Planers, of course. Just the ones that don't mind when other No Planers make a raving ass out of themselves. evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked. Red, you were better off not taking any positions, like the old days, Truther. As I asked right from the start, where's this evidence? Someone saying there's evidence isn't the same as actual evidence. I would expect you to understand that difference.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

6th September 2008, 08:53 AM	#255
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	Reminds me of kids who cover their ears and shout as loud as they can so they can pretend they don't hear what you are saying.

6th September 2008, 08:55 AM	#256
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,086	Originally Posted by RedIbis As I asked right from the start, where's this evidence? Someone saying there's evidence isn't the same as actual evidence. I would expect you to understand that difference. Are you calling David M. HARDY Section Chief Records/Information Dissemination Section Records Management Division Federal Bureau of lnvestigation Washington, D.C." a liar?
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

6th September 2008, 09:02 AM	#257
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,792	Originally Posted by RedIbis True. Liar
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

6th September 2008, 09:04 AM	#258
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,746	Originally Posted by RedIbis As I asked right from the start, where's this evidence? Someone saying there's evidence isn't the same as actual evidence. I would expect you to understand that difference. Oh no, Red, no no no. That is not what you said, now is it, Red? You said "The FBI Has No Record of Any Evidence of the 4 Flights Used on 9/11." "Someone" is not saying they have evidence, the FBI is saying they have it in sworn statement under oath. Now you want to know where it is, hmmmm? Well, you might want to start with the link posted in your OP. "Plaintiff's original FOIA request sought "documentation pertaining to any formally and positively identified debris" from the aircraft used in the September 11th attacks. In response to this request, RIDS personnel at FBIHQ understood that any potentially responsive records would have been compiled for law enforcement purposes and would be located in a pending file because of an ongoing law enforcement investigation. RIDS personnel therefore determined that any records would be withheld in their entirety pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A)." So they are held in a file compiled for law enforcement purposes, which is exempt from disclosure under FOIA. So Aiden got "clever." He limited his request to documents "revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant." To no one's surprise, he got nothing. And the FBI rubbed his nose in it: "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked." Hey Red, now you send a FOIA request for "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked." Got it, truther? Or do nothing but cut and paste from 911 Blogger, just don't complain when people laugh at you.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,746

6th September 2008, 09:10 AM	#259
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,827	Originally Posted by RedIbis Your misplaced modifier suggests you just recently learned how to use quotation marks. That's somewhat obvious. Now review the definition of irony. I just did. And it says receiving a lesson on where to place a modifier by someone who doesn't know meets the standard.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

6th September 2008, 10:35 AM	#260
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,093	Originally Posted by RedIbis Hold on there now, counsellor. You said, "in light of your numerous and blatant misquotes". Such a phrase requires evidence. Again, it shouldn't be hard to find such "numerous and blatant misquotes." This isn't a cherrypicked quote, it stands on its own. Everyone knows what you mean by it. No context is going to change what you are charging here. So back it up with an example. You aren't fooling anyone RedIbis.

6th September 2008, 10:59 AM	#261
Tbone Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,448	Originally Posted by RedIbis As I asked right from the start, where's this evidence? Someone saying there's evidence isn't the same as actual evidence. I would expect you to understand that difference. Ask the FBI where the evidence is. You're allowed to do that you know, you don't live in a police state.
	Last edited by Tbone; 6th September 2008 at 11:02 AM.

6th September 2008, 11:17 AM	#262
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,093	Originally Posted by Tbone Ask the FBI where the evidence is. You're allowed to do that you know, you don't live in a police state. Actually, truthers live in a prison planet. dot com.

6th September 2008, 05:07 PM	#263
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,232	Originally Posted by RedIbis Hold on there now, counsellor. You said, "in light of your numerous and blatant misquotes". Such a phrase requires evidence. Again, it shouldn't be hard to find such "numerous and blatant misquotes." This isn't a cherrypicked quote, it stands on its own. Everyone knows what you mean by it. No context is going to change what you are charging here. So back it up with an example. As I have said twice already, I will not accede to your demand that I respond to your cherrypicking. Yet, here you are continuing to cherrypick and continuing to demand that I respond to same. Unbelievable. You know full well that you are cherrypicking, and that what I actually wrote was, "...in light of your numerous and blatant misquotes, cherrypicking, unsupported accusations here (none of which you have ever apologized for) and particularly in light of your dishonest mis-attributing of quotes exposed in this very thread..." How very dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. See also this post and this post. You seem to be trying desperately to avoid responding to them, particularly the latter.

6th September 2008, 05:40 PM	#264
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,904	Originally Posted by RedIbis As I asked right from the start, where's this evidence? Someone saying there's evidence isn't the same as actual evidence. I would expect you to understand that difference. The evidence is there; you are not trying at all to understand. Some would call that failure. Why are you are unable to comprehend the evidence? You have never posted any evidence to support your ideas. 11, 175, 77, and 93 have been proven to be the planes used on 9/11. With ease you ignore the evidence a grade school kid understands, but eludes you. I know you can't prove 11, 175, 77, and 93 were not the planes, and it seems you will never accept what is common knowledge to rational thinkers. You even ignore DNA evidence! You ignore thousands of pieces of evidence to remain ignorant on the planes used on 9/11. Why are you striving to remain in ignorance on 9/11?

8th September 2008, 12:21 AM	#265
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,232	Bump for RedIbis.

8th September 2008, 12:36 AM	#266
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911	Originally Posted by beachnut Why are you striving to remain in ignorance on 9/11? Because the truther ideal is to continue to ask questions until they find ones we cannot answer (to their satisfaction). They then feel they've "won". It's an ego thing.
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911

8th September 2008, 04:47 AM	#267
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by LashL Bump for RedIbis. You have to post one of my blatant misquotes. You've been unable to do so. It's very easy. Simply quote me and put it in a quote box.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

8th September 2008, 07:25 AM	#268
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,746	Originally Posted by RedIbis You have to post one of my blatant misquotes. You've been unable to do so. It's very easy. Simply quote me and put it in a quote box. "Hey Red, now you send a FOIA request for "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked." Hey, Red, send that FOIA Request yet? Or just going to pout?
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,746

8th September 2008, 09:31 AM	#269
Tbone Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,448	Originally Posted by RedIbis You have to post one of my blatant misquotes. You've been unable to do so. It's very easy. Simply quote me and put it in a quote box. Have you apologized for the misquote that is this thread title?

8th September 2008, 03:54 PM	#270
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by Tbone Have you apologized for the misquote that is this thread title? Are there quotation marks around the thread title? If not, it's not a misquote. You're free to disagree with my assertion, but at least understand what "blatant misquote" actually means. It's a serious charge that requires a very specific example. It hasn't been provided yet.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

8th September 2008, 04:16 PM	#271
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,093	Originally Posted by RedIbis Are there quotation marks around the thread title? If not, it's not a misquote. True, it was just an old-fashioned lie.

8th September 2008, 04:21 PM	#272
Tbone Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,448	Originally Posted by RedIbis Are there quotation marks around the thread title? If not, it's not a misquote. You're free to disagree with my assertion, but at least understand what "blatant misquote" actually means. It's a serious charge that requires a very specific example. It hasn't been provided yet. I see, so you were lying, not misquoting. Is that better?

8th September 2008, 05:31 PM	#273
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,232	Originally Posted by RedIbis You have to post one of my blatant misquotes. You've been unable to do so. It's very easy. Simply quote me and put it in a quote box. No, I don't have to post anything upon your demand, particularly as your demand was made above in yet another example of your vaunted cherrypicking technique. But hey, if that's what it will take to get you to respond meaningfully to the issues and questions raised in this thread, look at post #208, which you are studiously avoiding, and which specifically references a blatant misquote by you in post #149.

8th September 2008, 06:19 PM	#274
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by LashL No, I don't have to post anything upon your demand True, no one can force you to support your specious claim of my numerous blatant misquotes. But it should be very easy if they're so numerous and so blatant. No need to respond with more rhetoric, just the example.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

8th September 2008, 06:36 PM	#275
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,746	Originally Posted by RedIbis True, no one can force you to support your specious claim of my numerous blatant misquotes. But it should be very easy if they're so numerous and so blatant. No need to respond with more rhetoric, just the example. Jesus... "Hey Red, now you send a FOIA request for "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked." Hey, Red, send that FOIA Request yet? Or just going to freaking whine and pout?
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,746