• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

Ragnarok said:
despite the finding of the passport being suspiciously fortuitous.
Click to expand...
Not really. Suqami's name was on the manifest, that's all that matters. If his passport hadn't been recovered then it wouldn't have changed a thing. Except perhaps that if no hijacker-related materials had been recovered from the plane, truthers would be saying "look, all these personal effects from other passengers were recovered from the sites, and yet there's nothing from the hijackers - they were never on the planes".
 
Gravy said:


You'll find photos and descriptions of many personal effects recovered from the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes, at their respective pages on my site.

Your response?
Click to expand...

Actually, I have a response that may answer one of Ragnarok's questions.

Does anybody know (and I suspect Mark will if anyone will) what directions were given to the FBI agents searching through the rubble at the NY landfill sites? Were they specifically directed to look for personal effects and tissue for DNA analysis, or were they given a broad brief to look for any objects they thought might be of significance? And, on a rather more speculative note, since the rubble was searched by trained FBI agents, how likely is it that any such person would either fail to recognise evidence of explosives or associated equipment, or, having recognised anything of that type, to feel it was not worthy of note?

My feeling is that a trained FBI agent, carrying out a detailed search through debris at a designated crime scene, would as a matter of course notice and report any evidence of explosive devices, whether briefed to do so or not. It seems to me an extraordinary stretch to believe anything else. However, I'm open to correction by anyone who knows more on this subject than I do.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Actually, I have a response that may answer one of Ragnarok's questions.

Does anybody know (and I suspect Mark will if anyone will) what directions were given to the FBI agents searching through the rubble at the NY landfill sites? Were they specifically directed to look for personal effects and tissue for DNA analysis, or were they given a broad brief to look for any objects they thought might be of significance? And, on a rather more speculative note, since the rubble was searched by trained FBI agents, how likely is it that any such person would either fail to recognise evidence of explosives or associated equipment, or, having recognised anything of that type, to feel it was not worthy of note?

My feeling is that a trained FBI agent, carrying out a detailed search through debris at a designated crime scene, would as a matter of course notice and report any evidence of explosive devices, whether briefed to do so or not. It seems to me an extraordinary stretch to believe anything else. However, I'm open to correction by anyone who knows more on this subject than I do.

Dave
Click to expand...

I've never heard of FBI agents or anyone but NYPD and FDNY working the rubble on the pile. Any human remains discovered immediately was bagged and tagged for the mortuary people. The way I've heard it described, rubble was examined by a team on the pile, then raked-through again before being put into the dump truck to Kill Van Kull where it was examined again. I expect someone else knows about what happened at the landfill.
 
Last edited:
Ragnarok said:
If AIDS had existed in 63, you'd have made a semi-valid point. Do you want to try again?
Click to expand...

I am quite sure that AIDS existed in 1963, it just hadn't been "discovered"/named yet.
Now that's an interesting angle of investigation ... be sure to follow it, who knows what might turn up? :D
 
Dr. Tobias Fünke said:
I am quite sure that AIDS existed in 1963, it just hadn't been "discovered"/named yet.
Click to expand...

So it's still possible that, like AIDS, nanothermite came from African monkeys as early as a century ago!

There's still a ray of hope, truthers!

(BTW, AIDS has been identified in tissue samples from much earlier than 1963.)
 
Dave Rogers said:
Actually, I have a response that may answer one of Ragnarok's questions.

Does anybody know (and I suspect Mark will if anyone will) what directions were given to the FBI agents searching through the rubble at the NY landfill sites? Were they specifically directed to look for personal effects and tissue for DNA analysis, or were they given a broad brief to look for any objects they thought might be of significance? And, on a rather more speculative note, since the rubble was searched by trained FBI agents, how likely is it that any such person would either fail to recognise evidence of explosives or associated equipment, or, having recognised anything of that type, to feel it was not worthy of note?

My feeling is that a trained FBI agent, carrying out a detailed search through debris at a designated crime scene, would as a matter of course notice and report any evidence of explosive devices, whether briefed to do so or not. It seems to me an extraordinary stretch to believe anything else. However, I'm open to correction by anyone who knows more on this subject than I do.

Dave
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that if FBI agents did notice such materials that you would have heard about it.
 
Hey RedIbis, remember when you said in this thread that Column 79 was your best piece of evidence and that you have a theory better than NIST's regarding WTC7? Care to explain?*

This a purely rhetorical question. Of course you won't explain anything.
 
dtugg said:
Hey RedIbis, remember when you said in this thread that Column 79 was your best piece of evidence and that you have a theory better than NIST's regarding WTC7? Care to explain?*

This a purely rhetorical question. Of course you won't explain anything.
Click to expand...

I went on to explain in the part you didn't bother including:

Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.
 
RedIbis said:
They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.
Click to expand...

But why do you accept evolution as fact? We haven't seen evolution occur directly, and we haven't seen a black hole or seen directly the extra solar planets either. And why do you accept the official Columbia shuttle disaster explanation, like we asked you here?
 
Last edited:
And who exactly is this RedIbis fellow that he or she believes, in charge of a team of superscientists, they would turn the world on its head? And not just the world, but the thousands of demolition experts and investigators that have already combed through the debris?

Honestly, it sounds a high school student who's watched too many episdoes of Super Kids.
 
Speaking of the scientific process, has the TM ever proposed a coherent, plausible, workable theory to explain what happened?
 
RedIbis said:
Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.
Click to expand...

Your implication that NIST introduced "two novel phenomena without evidence" is disingenuous at best, and is par for course for an established liar.

RedIbis said:
They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation..
Click to expand...

The term is "computer modelling". If you're going to discredit a valid method of forensic engineering, just call it by its proper name instead of this ham-handed attempt at deceptive language. It might make your intellectual dishonesty a tad more subtle.

RedIbis said:
...and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.
Click to expand...

In another dazzling display of blatant dishonesty, proven liar RedIbis attempts to divorce the concept of computer modelling from science.

Unfortunately for his sad, flailing effort, reality is in stark disagreement.

Honest, educated people are fully aware that computer models and simulations are used in a wide variety of sciences, including, of course, forensic engineering.
 
RedIbis said:
I went on to explain in the part you didn't bother including:

Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.
Click to expand...

Shockingly, you didn't explain what your alleged theory is, how it's better than NIST's and how a non-existant column is your best piece of evidence. You are a liar and a fraud.
 
dtugg said:
Shockingly, you didn't explain what your alleged theory is, how it's better than NIST's and how a non-existant column is your best piece of evidence.
Click to expand...

A non-existent column is NIST's best piece of evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom