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

TheRedWorm said:
Why is DNA evidence not very strong? Why is it not irrefutable?
Click to expand...

DNA evidence is strong. I have worked in Science for a good number of years, but I think the problem here is a lack of trust in the authorities and the chain of command.
 
Ok, so the DNA evidence wasn't planted it was just that it was _____ (fill in the blank)
 
Oxigen said:
Again I don't know. I wouldn't think so much as in planted, I would tend to believe that you should be wondering more about evidence thats in your face.
Click to expand...

That didn't make too much sense. Sorry just back from holidays and a bit sleep deprived.
 
So it wasn't planted it was manufactured? But earlier you said:

DNA evidence is strong. I have worked in Science for a good number of years, but I think the problem here is a lack of trust in the authorities and the chain of command.
Click to expand...


How could you think that DNA evidence in any circumstance is strong, if it can so easily be "manufactured?"
 
Oxigen said:
Again I don't know. I wouldn't think so much as in planted, I would tend to believe that you should be wondering more about evidence thats in your face.
Click to expand...
Like all those airplane parts found at the scene? The personal effects of the passengers found there?
 
Oxigen said:
I'm really sorry to say that I don't believe that flimsy evidence. I would prefer very strong, irrefutible evidence but that hasn't been forthcoming. WHY?
Click to expand...

What real world effect do you think your incredulity will have?
 
Sorry, Going to bed, but just don't buy any of it!! Bring on the laughing cats and dogs!
 
Oxigen said:
Manufactured!! Just making a guess. I don't believe anyone anymore. Paranoid Oxigen!!
Click to expand...

sorry oxigen that doesn't fly. To make absolute claim that the DNA isn't strong enough, you have to provide A WELL reasoned and BACKED BY EVIDENCE argument as to why you believe the DNA isn't strong enough.

chain of custody? taht doesn't fly either, because you are now accuding MANY PRIVATE companies that was involved with the recovery, handling and testing of that DNA evidence with being "in on it". YOU can't simply handwave that away.

1000's of workers worked at the Shanksville site. HUNDREDS recovered DNA evidence. Are you calling all of them liars/

And the Chain of Custody has withstood the court system already. THE EVIDENCE collected at all crime scenes (WTC, Pentagon, Shanksville) was used in COURT to convict Mossaoui. Dont you think that AT THAT TIME, the lawyer that was defending Mossaouit would have spoken up, to say "HEY< I dont believe that evidence followed proper chain of custody".

That is already telling as to HOW the evidence was used, and how it WITHSTOOD legal testing


THERE IS no guessing anymore. 7 years! Your movement has had 7 years. time for 'guessing' is done.
 
Arus808 said:
sorry oxigen that doesn't fly. To make absolute claim that the DNA isn't strong enough, you have to provide A WELL reasoned and BACKED BY EVIDENCE argument as to why you believe the DNA isn't strong enough.

chain of custody? taht doesn't fly either, because you are now accuding MANY PRIVATE companies that was involved with the recovery, handling and testing of that DNA evidence with being "in on it". YOU can't simply handwave that away.

1000's of workers worked at the Shanksville site. HUNDREDS recovered DNA evidence. Are you calling all of them liars/

And the Chain of Custody has withstood the court system already. THE EVIDENCE collected at all crime scenes (WTC, Pentagon, Shanksville) was used in COURT to convict Mossaoui. Dont you think that AT THAT TIME, the lawyer that was defending Mossaouit would have spoken up, to say "HEY< I dont believe that evidence followed proper chain of custody".

That is already telling as to HOW the evidence was used, and how it WITHSTOOD legal testing


THERE IS no guessing anymore. 7 years! Your movement has had 7 years. time for 'guessing' is done.
Click to expand...

Forget about 7 years. Have been looking at this for the last two years. You made a great point - backed by evidence - That I think is what everyone is interested in - the evidence, bring it on.
 
Oxigen said:
Forget about 7 years.
Click to expand...
why? that's when the first idiotic claims started spouting. in fact on the SAME day, people were already claiming inside job.


Have been looking at this for the last two years.
Click to expand...

did i say you? I said "your" movement. 7 years, and NOTHING to show for it


You made a great point - backed by evidence - That I think is what everyone is interested in - the evidence, bring it on.
Click to expand...

Seeing that you IGNORED the rest of my post (about such evidence ALREADY used for COURT trial), you are the one and your movement, ARE NOW repsonsible for "bringing it on".

so hop to it.
7 years...it didn't take 7 years for the Watergate scandal to be blown open.
 
WildCat said:
I see that like RedIbis you seem to completely ignore all evidence presented. Did you see all the pictures posted in this thread?
Click to expand...

Basically it appears the standard of proof would be video of the plane crashing... except of course the existence of such a video would be met with "oh, so someone happened to be taking video of an open field, how convenient." :rolleyes:
 
To RedIbis, Oxigen, Max Photon and all the other JREF posters/lurkers who do not believe the generally accepted explanation of the events of 9/11:

I've been lurking in the conspiracy forums for years and have to get something off my chest. Please indulge me for just one minute.

I was stuck in rush hour traffic one afternoon, just a few miles from Boston's Logan International Airport. Above me I could see several jets lined up for a final approach to Logan.

To my astonishment the jet nearest to me seemed to be hanging almost motionless in the clear blue afternoon sky. For a period of, say five seconds, I was utterly convinced that I was witnessing a plane about to stall and crash (possibly on me). It was an unnerving moment as you'd expect, but somehow, the plane continued to inch along at the same leisurely rate and continued on towards Logan. I learned an important lesson that day.


I'm horrible at estimating the airspeed of jets.







What if I hadn't come to that conclusion, though? What if I took the fact that something seemed 'wrong' about the speed of the aircraft and tried to build some sort of narrative around that observation to explain what I saw without admitting the possibility that I may have been mistaken in what I perceived?

What if I for some reason already had a deep mistrust of airplane manufacturers, airline executives, etc.

What if I devised a theory that the plane actually was hovering because the aircraft manufacturer had for some obscure, sinister reason decided to secretly fit the plane with VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) technology?

What if I then took my theory to the press, trying to alert them to the fact that the aircraft manufacturers are making extreme, possibly dangerous modifications to their jets without informing the public?

Question: Why shouldn't the press (or anyone else) take me seriously?

Answer: Because I, JohnG know next to nothing about aircraft design in general or VTOL technology in particular other than what I've learned from a Discovery Channel documentary and a couple of action movies. A few simple questions asked by actual experts in the field would reveal my ignorance of the subject almost immediately.

Some might think to ask me why, if these modifications are supposed to be so top secret, that the pilot of the plane I observed decided to flaunt the functionality in front of literally thousands of witnesses?

Occam's Razor suggests that it is much more likely that I simply underestimated the speed of the aircraft, rather than that there is compelling evidence for my conspiracy theory, right?

Something didn't look 'right' to me. Something didn't pass my personal 'smell test'. Who cares, though? All I did was cobble together a cockamamie theory to try to explain why I couldn't be mistaken in my perception of the incident and conveniently further justify my already deep mistrust of the airline industry.

Another person with perhaps a strong religious bent might have argued that they were witnessing a miracle and that God was keeping the plane aloft.

Yet another person might say that it was a UFO disguised as a plane.

All explanations to to avoid having to admit that perceptions can be mistaken due to lack of experience, lack or training, whatever.

There are things that look or feel wrong to you regarding the 9/11 attacks. You expect this hole to be a different shape, or that cloud of smoke to be a different color, or the speed of some falling object seems odd.

No offense, but who cares what you think? If the overwhelming majority of people who study these sorts of things for a living insist that everything appears as they'd expect it to, why on earth should I take your word over theirs?

You'll inevitably counter that the experts might have some agenda or are being bribed or coerced into saying what they do. How can I know the same isn't true of you? No, seriously, how can I know?

If any of you can offer a sincere, well reasoned reply to this post, my respect for you will increase a thousandfold.

Thanks for your time.
 
JohnG said:
To RedIbis, Oxigen, Max Photon and all the other JREF posters/lurkers who do not believe the generally accepted explanation of the events of 9/11:

I've been lurking in the conspiracy forums for years and have to get something off my chest. Please indulge me for just one minute.

I was stuck in rush hour traffic one afternoon, just a few miles from Boston's Logan International Airport. Above me I could see several jets lined up for a final approach to Logan.

To my astonishment the jet nearest to me seemed to be hanging almost motionless in the clear blue afternoon sky. For a period of, say five seconds, I was utterly convinced that I was witnessing a plane about to stall and crash (possibly on me). It was an unnerving moment as you'd expect, but somehow, the plane continued to inch along at the same leisurely rate and continued on towards Logan. I learned an important lesson that day.


I'm horrible at estimating the airspeed of jets.







What if I hadn't come to that conclusion, though? What if I took the fact that something seemed 'wrong' about the speed of the aircraft and tried to build some sort of narrative around that observation to explain what I saw without admitting the possibility that I may have been mistaken in what I perceived?

What if I for some reason already had a deep mistrust of airplane manufacturers, airline executives, etc.

What if I devised a theory that the plane actually was hovering because the aircraft manufacturer had for some obscure, sinister reason decided to secretly fit the plane with VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) technology?

What if I then took my theory to the press, trying to alert them to the fact that the aircraft manufacturers are making extreme, possibly dangerous modifications to their jets without informing the public?

Question: Why shouldn't the press (or anyone else) take me seriously?

Answer: Because I, JohnG know next to nothing about aircraft design in general or VTOL technology in particular other than what I've learned from a Discovery Channel documentary and a couple of action movies. A few simple questions asked by actual experts in the field would reveal my ignorance of the subject almost immediately.

Some might think to ask me why, if these modifications are supposed to be so top secret, that the pilot of the plane I observed decided to flaunt the functionality in front of literally thousands of witnesses?

Occam's Razor suggests that it is much more likely that I simply underestimated the speed of the aircraft, rather than that there is compelling evidence for my conspiracy theory, right?

Something didn't look 'right' to me. Something didn't pass my personal 'smell test'. Who cares, though? All I did was cobble together a cockamamie theory to try to explain why I couldn't be mistaken in my perception of the incident and conveniently further justify my already deep mistrust of the airline industry.

Another person with perhaps a strong religious bent might have argued that they were witnessing a miracle and that God was keeping the plane aloft.

Yet another person might say that it was a UFO disguised as a plane.

All explanations to to avoid having to admit that perceptions can be mistaken due to lack of experience, lack or training, whatever.

There are things that look or feel wrong to you regarding the 9/11 attacks. You expect this hole to be a different shape, or that cloud of smoke to be a different color, or the speed of some falling object seems odd.

No offense, but who cares what you think? If the overwhelming majority of people who study these sorts of things for a living insist that everything appears as they'd expect it to, why on earth should I take your word over theirs?

You'll inevitably counter that the experts might have some agenda or are being bribed or coerced into saying what they do. How can I know the same isn't true of you? No, seriously, how can I know?

If any of you can offer a sincere, well reasoned reply to this post, my respect for you will increase a thousandfold.

Thanks for your time.
Click to expand...

Who cares what we think? Well evidently you do. And what experts?

Has someone here pointed to the FBI evidence yet?
 
Oxigen said:
One single photograph of a plane hitting either the Pentagon or somewhere near Shanksville would alleviate matters.
Click to expand...



And what would stop you claiming that the photograph was fake, as you have done with the eyewitness testimony, the aircraft parts, the tracking data, the FDRs, the passenger DNA, etc etc?


You claim solid evidence will convince you, but when such evidence is presented, you show your true agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom