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

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

the hundreds who worked on the several reports. you know, the ones you ignore.

Has someone here pointed to the FBI evidence yet?

ever heard of Mossaouit? you better do some research

Oh, and its not common for ANY investigating body (police, fbi, cia) to release EVIDENCE to the public, especially, evidence that DONT belong to them (ie video footage) that stuff is returned to their rightful owners after the investigation is done.
 
Who cares what we think? Well evidently you do.


Not the reply I was hoping for, but about what I expected. Oh well, live and learn.:(

Spending time trying to convince someone that their beliefs are wrong doesn't necessarily mean that I think that there is any merit to those beliefs. It simply means that, I think that your beliefs are not only wrongheaded in and of themselves, but if those beliefs are acted upon, they will lead to the suffering of innocent people, so I must at least try to disabuse you of said beliefs.

This isn't some endless, ultimately pointless Republican vs. Democrat, Red Sox vs. Yankees, Coke vs. Pepsi debate where there is no right answer. Either the government was behind the 9/11 attacks or it wasn't. If you are wrong, the wrong people will get punished. That is why I care what you think.
 
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:


The standard of proof is the same as it's always been. Every US Government agency follows a set of standard operating procedures - if they were followed, there wouldn't be an issue.

That's not limited to just the identification of the aircraft parts - it includes murder investigations, forensic work, etc.
 
I do in fact have many thoughts and doubts, but true to style, the laughing dogs and cats and the banned kittens are all making an appearance tonight.

One single photograph of a plane hitting either the Pentagon or somewhere near Shanksville would alleviate matters.


OK, gotcha. Many others have already asked the followup questions I would have asked, so I'll only add a couple of points:

(1) What about the famous McClatchey photo that causes Killtown to lose so much sleep? Clearly it shows that some type of explosion occurred in Shanksville, at the time Flight 93 presumedly crashed, and at the spot where debris and DNA was recovered. Given the seeming unlikelihood that someone would actually capture the precise moment of impact in such a rural area, isn't this just about as close to smoking-gun photographic evidence as you could reasonably hope for?

(2) If you don't mind my asking, why would you find a photograph so compelling? After all, given current technology photos can be faked pretty easily. DNA and a debris field consistent with an airliner crash, on the other hand, would seem to be vastly harder to fake. Is it truly an all-or-nothing, give-me-a-photo-or-I-don't-buy-it proposition as far as you're concerned?
 
The standard of proof is the same as it's always been. Every US Government agency follows a set of standard operating procedures - if they were followed, there wouldn't be an issue.

That's not limited to just the identification of the aircraft parts - it includes murder investigations, forensic work, etc.

Gee deep, is this another "claim" that you have no proof for? Can you prove tht the agencies involved did not follow standard operating procedures? Can you show us how the DNA evidence was not properly processed through the chain of command?
 
I love it when someone who has no idea what the "Standards" are wrt investigations, identification of body and plane parts, etc..., comes here and claims that (A) they were not followed, and (B) Everything would be fine if they did.

Priceless.

TAM:)
 
The standard of proof is the same as it's always been. Every US Government agency follows a set of standard operating procedures - if they were followed, there wouldn't be an issue.

That's not limited to just the identification of the aircraft parts - it includes murder investigations, forensic work, etc.

Please outline the standard operating procedures for investigating the wreckage of United 93 and then explain which of these procedures were not followed. Don't forget to provide sources.
 
I encourage the debunking community to explain to me what this document means. As I read it, the FBI has no record of any evidence associated with the four flights used in the terrorist attacks.

I expect this to be debunked and sources posted that show where such evidence exists.

http://911blogger.com/node/17363

The following is a statement by the Section Chief of the Record/lnformation Dissemination Section ("RlDS") of the FBI regarding the unsuccessful search for records or facsimiles of records, pertaining the 4 aircraft identified by the FBI and NTSB as being used during terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 or wreckage generated by them, including 2 flight data recorders. This statement is a defense exhibit for use in an upcoming oral arguments hearing pertaining to a federal court case for records for the 4 aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Members of your fantasy movement think that the FBI was involved in planting DNA and airplane parts yet you would trust this same evil orginization if they said that they had this evidence of plane information?
 
Please outline the standard operating procedures for investigating the wreckage of United 93 and then explain which of these procedures were not followed. Don't forget to provide sources.

Now there's wishful thinking.
 
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?

Gee Oxigen, you really should look in the dictionary for word definitions.
What you don't have is called irrefutable evidence.
What you do have is called flimsy speculation. Why do you go with flimsy speculation?
 
Last edited:
Why don't you do your own research for a change? Sign up for an account at PACER and read all of the documents for yourself, post them in their entirety, and then ask others to explain the parts that you don't understand. That would be a far more honest approach than simply linking to a post of one segment of one document out of the 37 items on the docket report and saying that you "expect" your poor interpretation of that one segment of the document to be "debunked and sources posted" etc.

Here, I'll even help you in your quest for "truth": go to PACER here, register to gain access to its databases, then go to the U.S. Party/Case Index link (which you can go to directly here), click on "Civil", then use the drop-down menu at the top to select Nevada, then on the line for the case number, type 2:2007cv01614 (just like that without spaces) and then hit "enter". Then, click on the link under the case number, and then click on "docket report". Then, browse through the documents to your heart's content, save them and post them once you've read them. Then report back with any questions you have once you've actually read them.

That would at least demonstrate that you are willing to do actual research yourself instead of simply parroting something that you have read on a conspiracy fantasy site, and instead of demanding that others "debunk" your take on the incomplete document cited there, and instead of demanding that others provide sources to refute your unfounded interpretation of that partial document.

Your interpretation that "the FBI has no record of any evidence associated with the four flights used in the terrorist attacks" is silly; it is not even supported by the partial document to which you linked, and it certainly is not supported by reality.

RedIbis: *crickets*

I expected that neither RedIbis nor any other conspiracy fantasist would step up to the plate and actually research the matter for themselves, look for the complete picture, or provide evidence of the litigation as it actually stands rather than cherrypicking one part of a single document and declaring it to prove that "the FBI has no record of any evidence associated with the four flights used in the terrorist attacks".

Unfortunately, I was right, but I get no joy from that.

I would much rather that those who regurgitate conspiracy fantasy blather all over the Internet would instead actually make an effort to locate the complete documents for themselves, make an effort to piece together the complete story for themselves, and make an effort to apply some rational and critical thinking skills, rather than cutting and pasting cherrypicked bits from other conspiracy fantasists and presenting those bits as factual, accurate and/or complete.

Alas, they appear to be incapable of doing so.

But for those who are interested, here is a link to the relevant documents in the Aidan Monaghan v. FBI litigation.

Oral argument is currently scheduled for September 15, 2008 but Monaghan has filed a request to reschedule that date as he has, apparently, financially committed to some personal travel that includes the hearing date (despite having previously filed an application for a waiver of court filing fees based on his alleged impecuniosity :rolleyes:).
 
Last edited:
Members of your fantasy movement think that the FBI was involved in planting DNA and airplane parts yet you would trust this same evil orginization if they said that they had this evidence of plane information?

This is what confuses twoofers so much: Common sense questions that have logic.
This is the major flaw of the movement; Inside job suspicion logic is what they hang onto and won't accept evidence unless it confirms their suspicion.
 


I don't care how many walls of rhetoric you post up here, quoting yourself and generally acting obnoxious, you cannot reverse the statement that the FBI can't even provide copies of there source reports. Not even copies. So the original question, which I asked, is where is the evidence? If the FBI has no record of it, where is it?
 
I don't care how many walls of rhetoric you post up here, quoting yourself and generally acting obnoxious, you cannot reverse the statement that the FBI can't even provide copies of there source reports. Not even copies. So the original question, which I asked, is where is the evidence? If the FBI has no record of it, where is it?
Why would you believe the FBI if they did produce the records? You already think that everyone at the scene is lying/faking evidence/planting evidence.

Your entire position is based on dismissing all the first responders, all the cleanup workers, the coroners office, all the witnesses, the NTSB, the FAA, Boeing, United Airlines, etc - in fact everyone who was there or had a role in identifying the bodies and plane.

Here's a few of the people that RedIbis must think are part of the conspiracy in order to desperately cling to his fantasy, as compounded by Mark Roberst:
Bob Blair was completing a routine drive to Shade Creek just after 10 a.m. Tuesday, when he saw a huge silver plane fly past him just above the treetops and crash into the woods along Lambertsville Road.

Blair, of Stoystown, a driver with Jim Barron Trucking of Somerset, was traveling in a coal truck along with Doug Miller of Somerset, when they saw the plane spiraling to the ground and then explode on the outskirts of Lambertsville.

“I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,” said Blair. Source


"It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets. You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud." Source


Then Peterson said he saw a fireball, heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.

Peterson rushed to the scene on an all-terrain vehicle and when he arrived he saw bits and pieces of an airliner spread over a large area of an abandoned strip-mine in Stonycreek Township.

"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning," Peterson said. Strewn about were pieces of clothing hanging from trees and parts of the Boeing 757, but nothing bigger than a couple of feet long, he said. Many of the items were burning. Source


The ensuing firestorm lasted five or 10 minutes and reached several hundred yards into the sky, said Joe Wilt, 63, who also lives a quarter-mile from the crash site. "Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in Pa." The Washington Post September 12, 2001


"I just watched with my mouth open as this yellow mushroom cloud rose up just like an atomic bomb over the hill where I like to go hunting," said 72- year-old John Walsh

Barefoot and in his bathrobe, he drove up the dirt road to rescue anyone he could find. There would be nothing he could do.

Debris, including photographs and other papers that survived the fireball, was strewn over a wide area. Residents have spent days collecting it. Source


"When the plane hit, it sounded like something just fell on the roof. Everybody sort of panicked," she said. "I went to the window and saw all this smoke coming up and I just pointed and screamed."-Source


Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters. Source


Tim Lensbouer, 300 yards away: "I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore." [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/12/01]


Rob Kimmel, several miles from the crash site: He sees it fly overhead, banking hard to the right. It is 200 feet or less off the ground as it crests a hill to the southeast. "I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom." [Among the Heroes, by Jere Longman, p. 210-211]


Tom Fritz, about a quarter-mile from the crash site: He hears a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looks up in the sky. "It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone," going "so fast that you couldn't even make out what color it was." [St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01]


Terry Butler "It dropped out of the clouds." The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down." [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/12/01]

Terry Butler: He sees the plane come out of the clouds, low to the ground. "It was moving like you wouldn't believe. Next thing I knew it makes a heck of a sharp, right-hand turn." It banks to the right and appears to be trying to climb to clear one of the ridges, but it continues to turn to the right and then veers behind a ridge. About a second later it crashes. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01]


Lee Purbaugh, 300 yards away: "There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head – maybe 50 feet up.... I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have survived." [Independent, 8/13/02]


Linda Shepley: She hears a loud bang and sees the plane bank to the side. [ABC News, 9/11/01] She sees the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing dips straight down, and the plane plunges into the earth. [Philadelphia Daily News, 11/15/01]


Kelly Leverknight in Stony Creek Township of Shanksville: "There was no smoke, it just went straight down. I saw the belly of the plane." It sounds like it is flying low, and it's heading east. [Daily American, 9/12/01, St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01]


A witness told WTAE-TV's Paul Van Osdol that she saw the plane overhead. It made a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then made a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashed. Source


Tim Thornsberg, working in a nearby strip mine: "It came in low over the trees and started wobbling. Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees." [WPIX Channel 11, 9/13/01]


Paula Pluta of Stonycreek Township was watching a television rerun of “Little House on the Prairie” when the plane went down about 1,500 yards from her home along Lambertsville Road at Little Prairie Lane.

“I looked out the window and saw the plane nose-dive right into the ground,” she said, barefoot and shaken just 45 minutes after the crash.

The explosion buckled her garage doors and blasted open a latched window on her home, she said.

“It was just a streak of silver. Then a fireball shot up as high as the clouds. There was no way anybody could have survived. I called 911 right away.

“There was no way anything was left,” Pluta added. “There was just charred pieces of metal and a big hole. The plane didn’t slide into the crash. It went straight into the ground. Wings out. Nose down.” Source

Now say with a straight face that the 9/11 conspiracy isn't your religion RedIbis.

Of course, I only post this so everyone can see the kind of persaon you are. I have no reason to think there's any amount of evidence that would convince you to abandon your cult beliefs - you are clearly not a rational person.
 
I find it both funny and sad that the "Truth Movement" cultists like Red will grasp at any straw they can to defend what their handlers tell them. So the FBI did not document how they identified the planes. So what. With the plethora of other evidence that support the fact that flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, the whole thing is irrelevant. All this shows that Red has zero interest in the truth.
 

Back
Top Bottom