No Explosives Here?

[dafydd]

Unfortunately atavisms will do what truthers always do:

a) ignore your argument.

b) bring up the same BS in another thread later on.

They do tend to repeat themselves.It would be funny if only the subject wasn't so deadly serious.

 

[atavisms]

Friend, it wouldn't matter if 99% of the Earth's population "believed" there exists a Starbuck's on the far side of the moon. Believing, hoping, fervently wishing a thing to be so doesn't make it so.

Same goes for any two or more people who, for lack of education or the presence of ulterior motives, want to pretend the events of 9/11 were somehow an "inside job."

You'll get a double tall latte on the edge of a lunar crater sooner than the "truth movement" deals in anything other than fiction.

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon, and that is the point of the statement. Different people looking at the same facts/evidence and coming to the same conclusion is highly indicative of the strength and validity of that evidence. Remember, it is only through the corroboration of 12 jurors (12 lay people) that we decide jury cases one way or the other.

9-11 must have been an inside job bc explosives were used - I have nothing to gain by saying that. On the contrary the thought makes me terribly sad and disgusted.

Ill quote Griffin and please keep Occam's Razor in mind.

"When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption. The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

However the fact that the conspiracy theory being supported by this wild, scientifically and historically baseless speculation is the government's own is, for some reason, thought to justify turning things upside down. In this topsy-turvy framework, those whose theory is consistent with science, the empirical facts, and all historical precedent are ridiculed as nutty conspiracy theorists while those who articulate wildly speculative theory, which contradicts all prior experience, several laws of science, and numerous empirical facts, are considered the sober, sensible thinkers, whose pronouncements can be trusted without examination."
see http://wtc7.net/videos.html for wtc 7 videos

either these "highly redundant, over-designed buildings" behaved radically different on 9/11 from everything we have ever seen in the 125plus years of high-rise engineering and construction history, or insiders were somehow able to surreptitiously deploy and employ high-tech explosives.

What would Occam say? Which is the most direct and simple explanation? It's either explosives or the laws of physics were altered for the day.

99 day fires, exploding and imploding highrise towers, pulverized concrete, 1100 missing bodies, 20k body parts, etc etc and now The Harrit report (a two year study conducted by 9 scientists from numerous universities ARE ALL FACTS. you can ignore them, as you have obviously chosen o do. but you cannot explain them satisfactorily without explosives and you certainly cannot make a compelling point that carries any weight without explaining them.
for fsake, the harrit paper details the finding of large quantities of an 'advance engineered' hightech highly energetic aluminothermic pyrcotechnic!
Where the hell did all that come from?

You just ignore that too? okay.,. good luck with that..

(and pardon the delay in replying Ive been traveling -what a blast!

 

[Brainache]

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon, and that is the point of the statement. Different people looking at the same facts/evidence and coming to the same conclusion is highly indicative of the strength and validity of that evidence. Remember, it is only through the corroboration of 12 jurors (12 lay people) that we decide jury cases one way or the other.

9-11 must have been an inside job bc explosives were used - I have nothing to gain by saying that. On the contrary the thought makes me terribly sad and disgusted.

Ill quote Griffin and please keep Occam's Razor in mind.

"When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption. The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

However the fact that the conspiracy theory being supported by this wild, scientifically and historically baseless speculation is the government's own is, for some reason, thought to justify turning things upside down. In this topsy-turvy framework, those whose theory is consistent with science, the empirical facts, and all historical precedent are ridiculed as nutty conspiracy theorists while those who articulate wildly speculative theory, which contradicts all prior experience, several laws of science, and numerous empirical facts, are considered the sober, sensible thinkers, whose pronouncements can be trusted without examination."
see http://wtc7.net/videos.html for wtc 7 videos

either these "highly redundant, over-designed buildings" behaved radically different on 9/11 from everything we have ever seen in the 125plus years of high-rise engineering and construction history, or insiders were somehow able to surreptitiously deploy and employ high-tech explosives.

What would Occam say? Which is the most direct and simple explanation? It's either explosives or the laws of physics were altered for the day.

99 day fires, exploding and imploding highrise towers, pulverized concrete, 1100 missing bodies, 20k body parts, etc etc and now The Harrit report (a two year study conducted by 9 scientists from numerous universities ARE ALL FACTS. you can ignore them, as you have obviously chosen o do. but you cannot explain them satisfactorily without explosives and you certainly cannot make a compelling point that carries any weight without explaining them.
for fsake, the harrit paper details the finding of large quantities of an 'advance engineered' hightech highly energetic aluminothermic pyrcotechnic!
Where the hell did all that come from?

You just ignore that too? okay.,. good luck with that..

(and pardon the delay in replying Ive been traveling -what a blast!

Why on earth would you believe anything Griffin says about engineering?

You ignore what real engineers publish in serious journals on the subject and believe any old nonsense sold to you by a theologian.

Hopeless.

 

[WildCat]

9-11 must have been an inside job bc explosives were used - I have nothing to gain by saying that. On the contrary the thought makes me terribly sad and disgusted.

Actually it makes you feel important, because you "know" something few other people "know". You think you'rew a trailblazer, a revolutionary, on the vanguard of knowledge.

It's utter nonsense of course, but it does make you feel special I guess.

 

[TJM]

The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

That was an awful long way to go for trying to get anyone else to do your work for you.

 

[A W Smith]

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon, and that is the point of the statement. Different people looking at the same facts/evidence and coming to the same conclusion is highly indicative of the strength and validity of that evidence.

therefore 9/11 was not an inside job based on the strength and validity of the evidence??? Correct??

Remember, it is only through the corroboration of 12 jurors (12 lay people) that we decide jury cases one way or the other.

argmentum ad populem

9-11 must have been an inside job bc explosives were used - I have nothing to gain by saying that. On the contrary the thought makes me terribly sad and disgusted.

bare assertion logical fallacy and appeal to emotion logical fallacy

Ill quote Griffin and please keep Occam's Razor in mind.

you are about to cut yourself with it

"When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption.

affirming the consequent logical fallacy also Least Plausible Hypothesis fallacy

The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent,

Burden of proof logical fallacy

which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

However the fact that the conspiracy theory being supported by this wild, scientifically and historically baseless speculation

Cite?

is the government's own is, for some reason, thought to justify turning things upside down.

Poisoning the well logical fallacy

In this topsy-turvy framework, those whose theory is consistent with science, the empirical facts, and all historical precedent are ridiculed as nutty conspiracy theorists

Lies or errors of fact logical fallacy Restating them no matter how many times will not make them true, yes even on the internet

while those who articulate wildly speculative theory, which contradicts all prior experience, several laws of science, and numerous empirical facts, are considered the sober, sensible thinkers, whose pronouncements can be trusted without examination."

again. more lies. again ,Restating them no matter how many times will not make them true, yes even on the internet

see http://wtc7.net/videos.html for wtc 7 videos

either these "highly redundant, over-designed buildings" behaved radically different on 9/11 from everything we have ever seen in the 125plus years of high-rise engineering and construction history, or insiders were somehow able to surreptitiously deploy and employ high-tech explosives. define "highly redundant, over-designed buildings".

To construct buildings economically they cannot be "highly redundant, over-designed buildings". Bare assertion logical fallacy

What would Occam say? Which is the most direct and simple explanation? It's either explosives or the laws of physics were altered for the day.

99 day fires, exploding and imploding highrise towers, pulverized concrete, 1100 missing bodies, 20k body parts, etc etc

argument by emotive language

and now The Harrit report (a two year study conducted by 9 scientists from numerous universities ARE ALL FACTS. you can ignore them, as you have obviously chosen o do. but you cannot explain them satisfactorily without explosives and you certainly cannot make a compelling point that carries any weight without explaining them.
for fsake, the harrit paper details the finding of large quantities of an 'advance engineered' hightech highly energetic aluminothermic pyrcotechnic!

the harrit paper is not peer reviewed. and furthermore. its paint

Where the hell did all that come from?

You just ignore that too? okay.,. good luck with that..

(and pardon the delay in replying Ive been traveling -what a blast!

You keep on traveling down that rabbit hole. For us anyway. your delusions are very entertaining. There was a time when I was young that I couldn't believe people were that stupid, then came the internet.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon...

At one time in history, most of the people on the planet believed that the universe was geocentric.

At one time in history, most of the people in Europe who were aware of what we now call the British Isles had no idea those were islands.

Majority believe =/= proof. Your statement is the epitome of a certain logical fallacy.

 

[atavisms]

On the off-chance even that reference isn't precise enough, it's in NCSTAR1-9, Appendix D. Go here. But it's pretty darn easy to find. They say lots of stupid things.
One of the funniest bits of "flip-flopping" they've ever done is the Nanothermite Dance. Nobody has yet proposed how to use thermite to topple a building, but it is true that melting rather than exploding would be fairly quiet, so the theory was at least consistent with one piece of evidence, even if it failed all the others. However, for some reason I've never been able to figure out, on their own initiative they've backed away from this and proposed "nanothermite," trying to make thermite into an explosive...

Classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it too, that's what it is. Hence, demand a hypothesis, and one that doesn't morph between explosives/incendiaries only every time you take your eyes off of it. But you'll never get one.

'Thermite' or 'nanothermite' is having your cake and eating it too?
The point remains the same in both cases doesn't it? that explosives were used.

That an investigation should move in different directions with evolving hypothesis based first upon on observed events, and altered according to evidence as it becomes available (such as the Harrit paper) is standard procedure.

I am not sure what you mean to say because the facts are what they are. That the events happened is not in question. The results of the Harrit paper are conclusive. What we are lacking are satisfactory explanations from official sources. 9-11 truth is not like any 'conspiracy' that has come before.
Some conspiracies are real, and as hard as it is to believe because of how unlikely it seems (it is) we have to use evidence (FACTS) to decide not our own lack of knowledge on the subject.

That we cannot even get NIST to release the data inputs they used for the computer modeling in NIST NCSTAR 1A is revealing.. That is not how science is conducted in the real world. Why would they not release them unless they had something to hide?

Why would they not test for explosives? (NIST Sopokesman: "Looking for something that isn't there is a waste of time.")

Why would they refuse to admit freefall on wtc 7 again and again (contradicting what we're all seeing with our own eyes on the video tapes) only to finally change their minds and say it did occur. (Answer: the folks at architects and engineers for 911 truth) The reason they refused to admit it is because freeall is impossible barring the use of explosives. (because even a weakened structure has some support, and this was a mostly intact skyscraper.

Why did we get three different stories from the military (very different stories) on their actions that morning? Why was no one held accountable? (people in charge were promoted) Why do we have Norman Mineta, the ex Secretary of Transportation the United States testifying before the 911 commission stating that they (in the PEOC) knew a plane was coming into washington yet no warning was given. What was Cheney's order that "still stands."? There was no follow up by the commission on this vital point, and his testimony was stricken from the final report.. as if it never hao'd !
The report has Cheney arriving to the PEOC after impact (pentagon) when Mineta states clearly he was already there when he arrived at 9.20a

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860

but its all just nonsense, according to you, in people's wacky minds - no one in power would ever abuse their position and people never lie or conspire against one another.

 

[332nd]

'Thermite' or 'nanothermite' is having your cake and eating it too?
The point remains the same in both cases doesn't it? that explosives were used.

Considering neither thermite and nanothermite are explosives, no.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

'Thermite' or 'nanothermite' is having your cake and eating it too?
The point remains the same in both cases doesn't it? that explosives were used.

Explosives would have created very strong, distinctive seismic signatures. But there were no such signatures.

There were no explosives. It is simply not physically possible.

Why won't you get this through your head?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon, and that is the point of the statement.

Wow. That's completely ass-backwards. You can't possibly use the popularity of a theory to determine the likelihood of its being true.

How many people in the U.S. believe Creationism over evolution? I guess that settles that, huh?

 

[Arus808]

Why won't you get this through your head?

cause he has sludge between his ears.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon, and that is the point of the statement.

So, since 95% of the people of the USA believe the Twin Towers weren't blown up by explosives, we can conclude from your logic that they weren't blown up by explosives. That's nice; we can forget about all the conspiracy theories now.

Or did you mean that if 4.6% of the people on the planet believed there was a Starbucks on the moon, that would probably be because there was a Starbucks on the moon?

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

If 99% of the people on the planet believed there was a starbucks on the moon that would probably be bc there was a SB on the moon, and that is the point of the statement. Different people looking at the same facts/evidence and coming to the same conclusion is highly indicative of the strength and validity of that evidence. Remember, it is only through the corroboration of 12 jurors (12 lay people) that we decide jury cases one way or the other.

9-11 must have been an inside job bc explosives were used - I have nothing to gain by saying that. On the contrary the thought makes me terribly sad and disgusted.

Then you can easily show me
1. a video where you can hear these explosives
2. a video where you can see the flashes of these explosives
3. images of steel which has been through an explosion
4. you can show me images of all of the shattered windows
5. you can show me a seismograph where you can find these explosives being detonated.

Please provide them. why is it you can't?

Ill quote Griffin and please keep Occam's Razor in mind.

Why? He is a proven liar and a fraud. Yet you want to quote a THEOLOGIAN speaking outside of his speciality? Unless GOD DID IT, he is out of his depth.

What are his qualifications again to discuss any engineering report?

Over 150 errors of his in 150 pages from his craptatcular debunking 9/11 debunking.

Yet you will still listen to him?
Why do TRUTHERS have to LIE so much?

either these "highly redundant, over-designed buildings" behaved radically different on 9/11 from everything we have ever seen in the 125plus years of high-rise engineering and construction history, or insiders were somehow able to surreptitiously deploy and employ high-tech explosives.

Or the buildings reacted just like they should have with massive airplane strikes and fires burning uncontrolled for an hour (for each tower) and 7 hours for wtc7.

If it is sooooo obvious that scooby and the gang can figure it out, you should have dozens of (if not hundreds) peer reviewed engineering journals saying NIST is full of crap. Where are they? Provide just one.

What would Occam say? Which is the most direct and simple explanation? It's either explosives or the laws of physics were altered for the day.

Occam would say 4 jets hit three buildings which burned and then collapsed.
You want to try to use Occam?
Ok lets see.
19 hijackers, take over 4 jets and fly them into 3 buildings. The buildings burn and then collapse. Maybe 50 people all together are involved.

OR we have the rube goldberg conspiracy machine with upper levels of the US government, the Mossad, and other people who are sneaking in explosives, and then you have everyone involved in the plot. That is in the THOUSAND.

hmmmm.... KISS rule. Try it.

99 day fires,

Expected with underground fires. YOu have the contents of 2 110 story buildings burning, especially when they didn't start fire fighting on the pile for 2 weeks after the collapses.

How do you explain it? Thermite? It burns off fast and in hours is cool to the touch.

exploding and imploding highrise towers,

None of the buildings exploded or imploded. You might just want to look up those words and see what they mean.

pulverized concrete,

You have 2 massive buildings collapse.. what should happen to the concrete? OR is this you bying into the LIE about all the concrete being pulverized? Most of the pulverized materials were drywall and gypsum board. Look it up

1100 missing bodies, 20k body parts,

Now why would you have missing bodies and lots of body parts when 2 110 story buildings collapse with the power of a nuclear bomb? When you have a hot enviromnet (you know those 99 day fires in the piles) with water and steam? Oh you have bodies decomposing and rotting. It is amazing your ignorance.

etc etc and now The Harrit report (a two year study conducted by 9 scientists from numerous universities ARE ALL FACTS. you can ignore them, as you have obviously chosen o do.

Scientists were involved in this paper? Which ones? From what Universities? Published in which peer reviewed journal? What was that? Oh a vanity journal with twoofs as the peer reviewers? REally?

over 20 methodological errors (some of them massive). try again.

but you cannot explain them satisfactorily without explosives and you certainly cannot make a compelling point that carries any weight without explaining them.

It is fully and utterly explained in the 10,000 page NIST report. Is it completely and utterly accurate? no. Are there some problems with wording, or things people may like to see in better depth? Yes. Does that affect the findings in the slightest? No. Again, please show me one peer reviewed engineering article which states NIST is wrong. I'll wait for it.

for fsake, the harrit paper details the finding of large quantities of an 'advance engineered' hightech highly energetic aluminothermic pyrcotechnic!

You might just want to try to read for comprehension. That is not what the paper shows. Your lack fo science is very funny.

It is paint.

Where the hell did all that come from?

a paint brush, rust, and that is all.

You just ignore that too? okay.,. good luck with that..

ignore? No, it has been fully debunked and destroyed. I'm sorry that you do not have the chemistry or physics understanding to grasp that.

I mean even steven jones now is backing away from the nanothermite crap and sayng it must have been used as a fuse for TRADITIONAL EXPLOSIVES... which for some reason you CANT HEAR.

You might want to get caught up on the latest twoofie newsletters.

 

[TruthersLie]

'Thermite' or 'nanothermite' is having your cake and eating it too?
The point remains the same in both cases doesn't it? that explosives were used.

Do I need to post the Oklahoma City bombings stuff again? Really?

If explosives were used please provide proof. It should be simple. I mean really simple. Still waiting. YOu can repeate it until you are blue in the face, but w/out proof you are nothing more than some loon.

That an investigation should move in different directions with evolving hypothesis based first upon on observed events, and altered according to evidence as it becomes available (such as the Harrit paper) is standard procedure.

YOu keep citing this "harrit paper." Which Harrit paper? From what peer reviewed journal did this come from? What is the science behind it?

Oh you mean the craptacular pile of fail for "nanothermite." Snicker. Snort. LOL.

I am not sure what you mean to say because the facts are what they are. That the events happened is not in question. The results of the Harrit paper are conclusive.

Umm no they are not. There are over 20 methodological errors in that "paper" (snicker, snort, LOL).

that isn't counting the sampling bias, the lack of real peer review, and the inability to do basic science.

You might just want to go back to school, and after you graduate high school, enroll in some basic scientific methods class, research methods, and some chemistry courses... it would help. a lot.

What we are lacking are satisfactory explanations from official sources. 9-11 truth is not like any 'conspiracy' that has come before.

Satisfactory explaination? ROFLMAO. It has been examined and explained. I'm sorry that you don't understand the explanations.

That we cannot even get NIST to release the data inputs they used for the computer modeling in NIST NCSTAR 1A is revealing.. That is not how science is conducted in the real world. Why would they not release them unless they had something to hide?

Argument from ignorance noted.

Why would they not test for explosives? (NIST Sopokesman: "Looking for something that isn't there is a waste of time.")

We just had a body found by the local police department. It had a massive impact trauma to the chest and body cavity. The police determined the person was hit by a car. Should they have tested for gunshot residue? Don't be stupid.

Why would they refuse to admit freefall on wtc 7 again and again (contradicting what we're all seeing with our own eyes on the video tapes) only to finally change their minds and say it did occur.

WTC7 didn't fall at freefall for the entire duration of the collapse. YOu use words and terms you dont' understand. Try again.

(Answer: the folks at architects and engineers for 911 truth) The reason they refused to admit it is because freeall is impossible barring the use of explosives.

Umm no. In the draft report they infer there was a short period of freefall. Anyone who read it, who understood it realized this. David Chandler went out and mapped it (because he is a twoof) and showd that their original inference was correct.

I'm sorry you do not understand the basic engineering or physics involved.

Why did we get three different stories from the military (very different stories) on their actions that morning?

ah the typical truther tactic... shotgun claims.
Geeze... why would the military who allowed 3,000 citizens be murdered in a sneak attack have different stories?

because it was a confusing cluster ****. And because people were trying to CYA. They didn't want to get blamed.

Why was no one held accountable?

see above. And lets see... 19 terrorists and their terror organization were held accountable.

(people in charge were promoted)

Some, and some were forced to resign.

Why do we have Norman Mineta, the ex Secretary of Transportation the United States testifying before the 911 commission stating that they (in the PEOC) knew a plane was coming into washington yet no warning was given.

Ah yes... this datamined quote taken out of context. YOu really should read for comprehension from the original transcripts, not from datamined posts on twoof websites.

What was Cheney's order that "still stands."? There was no follow up by the commission on this vital point, and his testimony was stricken from the final report.. as if it never hao'd !

ah... 2006 all over again.

The report has Cheney arriving to the PEOC after impact (pentagon) when Mineta states clearly he was already there when he arrived at 9.20a

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860

but its all just nonsense, according to you, in people's wacky minds - no one in power would ever abuse their position and people never lie or conspire against one another.

Argument from ignorance and incredulity noted. Try again.
Maybe this time you go and actually READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPTS. It helps a lot.

my wife offers an online reading comprehension class... Pm me and I'll see if she will sign you up for it.

 

[bardamu]

Then you can easily show me
1. a video where you can hear these explosives
2. a video where you can see the flashes of these explosives
3. images of steel which has been through an explosion
4. you can show me images of all of the shattered windows
5. you can show me a seismograph where you can find these explosives being detonated.

Please provide them. why is it you can't?

The Verinage technique proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition.

Ok lets see.
19 hijackers, take over 4 jets and fly them into 3 buildings. The buildings burn and then collapse. Maybe 50 people all together are involved.

There's no evidence that the alleged hijackers even boarded the planes.

There is no evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11
By Elias Davidsson
10 January 2008

Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names, deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed them in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people. In this Report, the author shows that there is no evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes. For this reason, it is impossible to support the official account on 9/11. As the US government has failed to prove its accusations against the 19 alleged hijackers, the official account on 9/11 must be regarded as a lie.

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf

 

[BigAl]

The Verinage technique proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition.

So what?

Anyone familiar with work required to prepare a building for Verinage and the size and constrution of the towers would know that it didn't happen at any WTC building.

There's no evidence that the alleged hijackers even boarded the planes.

Wrong. Here's just some of the evidence;

The 19 Arab Islamist Hijackers Edited 7/16/09
http://911links.webs.com/19Hijackers.htm

Table of Contents
[1] Reading list for all the evidence we have about the hijackers.
[2] The martyrdom videos made by 7 of the hijackers.
[3] Arabic spoken in cockpits of hijacked planes.
[4] Boarding manifest for Flt11 that shows hijacker's names
[5] The names of the hijackers
[6] BBC on the names and reporting of the hijackers
[7] Answers to Zeitgeist The Movie: - Flight Manifests
[8] Status of Hijacker DNA - (2009)
[9] Answer to "At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive"
[10] bin Laden Connections to the 19 hijackers
[11] News Report on hijackers as of Nov 2, 2001
[12] Hanjour as a pilot
[13] Photo and DNA ID match of some of the hijackers.
[14] Identification of the Flt 77 hijackers
[15] Pictures of the Hanjour and another hijacker boarding the airplanes.
[16] Details of airline tickets for some of the hijackers.
[17] 166-page 9/11 Commission document contains lots of information on hijacker visa applications, with a particular focus on Mohamed Atta.
[18] This 9/11 Commission document includes an INS analysis of Abdulaziz al-Omari's passport, presumably recovered from the Flight 11 crash scene, and reports on another Abdulaziz al-Omari who had no connection at all with terrorism or the plot, but was caught up in one of the "hijacker still alive" stories.
If you want to knowwhy each person is on the list, read any or all of these books to get an idea of just how much evidence for who hijacked the planes and how they are connected directly to bin Laden and KSM and the American Embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Some of these names were known to the FBI even before 9/11/2001 for their crimes.

[1] ----- Essential reading list ---------------------------

The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence
Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry Mcdermott
The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America, by James Bamford.
PBS Video on Bamford http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/program.html
Spying Blind by Amy Zegart
Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott

[2] -------Hijacker videos -------------------------------------------

This video has the martyrdom videos made by some of the hijackers.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1619489
Hijackers video wills (Scroll down to the bottom)
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Responsibility

[3] -------Arab Audio on Voice recorders --------------

We have the audio of Arabs on the recovered cockpit voice recorders.
The CVR clearly captured the words of the hijackers, including words in Arabic from the microphone in the pilot headset up to the end of the flight. The hijackers' statements, the clarity of the recording, the position of the microphone in the pilot headset, and the corresponding manipulations of flight controls provide the evidence. The quotes are taken from our listening to the CVR, aided by an Arabic speaker.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report/Notes/Part_1

[4] -----------Boarding Manifests ---------------------------

I have the boarding manifest for Flt11 that shows the names.
http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Flight_11_Manifest.gif http://www.911myths.com/images/8/84/Flight_11_Manifest.gif
Discussion
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124907
Flash app shows seating, calls , hijackers,
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200018.html

[5] -----Hijacker names ------------------------------

AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77
1) Khalid Almihdhar - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of San Diego, California, and New York
-Alias: Sannan Al-Makki; Khalid Bin Muhammad; 'Addallah Al-Mihdhar;
Khalid Mohammad Al-Saqaf

2) Majed Moqed - Possible Saudi national
-Alias: Majed M.GH Moqed; Majed Moqed, Majed Mashaan Moqed

3) Nawaf Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Wayne, New Jersey; San Diego, California
-Alias: Nawaf Al-Hazmi; Nawaf Al Hazmi; Nawaf M.S. Al Hazmi
4) Salem Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national
-Possible resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Wayne, New Jersey
5) Hani Hanjour -
-Possible resident of Phoenix, Arizona, and San Diego, California
-Alias: Hani Saleh Hanjour; Hani Saleh; Hani Hanjour, Hani Saleh H. Hanjour

AMERICAN AIRLINES #11 BOEING 767
1) Satam M.A. Al Suqami- Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: June 28, 1976; Last known address: United Arab Emirates
2) Waleed M. Alshehri - Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: September 13, 1974; January 1, 1976; March 3,
1976; July 8, 1977; December 20, 1978; May 11, 1979; November 5, 1979
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Orlando, Florida;
Daytona Beach, Florida
-Believed to be a pilot

3) Wail M. Alshehri
-Date of birth used: September 1, 1968
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Newton, Massachusetts
-Believed to be a pilot
4) Mohamed Atta - Possible Egyptian national
-Date of birth used: September 1, 1968
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida; Coral Springs, Florida;
Hamburg, Germany
-Believed to be a pilot
-Alias: Mehan Atta; Mohammad El Amir; Muhammad Atta; Mohamed El
Sayed; Mohamed Elsayed; Muhammad Muhammad Al Amir Awag Al Sayyid
Atta; Muhammad Muhammad Al-Amir Awad Al Sayad

5) Abdulaziz Alomari - Possible Saudi national
-Dates of birth used: December 24, 1972 and May 28, 1979
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida
-Believed to be a pilot
UNITED AIRLINES #175 BOEING 767
1) Marwan Al-Shehhi
-Date of birth used: May 9, 1978
-Possible residence(s): Hollywood, Florida
-Believed to be a pilot
-Alias: Marwan Yusif Muhammad Rashid Al-Shehi; Marwan Yusif Muhammad
Rashid Lakrab Al-Shihhi; Abu Abdullah
2) Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Fayez Ahmad; Banihammad Fayez Abu Dhabi Banihammad; Fayez
Rashid Ahmed; Banihammad Fayez; Rasid Ahmed Hassen Alqadi; Abu
Dhabi Banihammad ; Ahmed Fayez; Faez Ahmed
3) Ahmed Alghamdi
-Alias: Ahmed Salah Alghamdi
4) Hamza Alghamdi
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Hamza Al-Ghamdi; Hamza Ghamdi; Hamzah Alghamdi; Hamza
Alghamdi Saleh
5) Mohand Alshehri
-Possible residence(s): Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Mohammed Alshehhi; Mohamd Alshehri; Mohald Alshehri
UNITED AIRLINES #93 BOEING 757
1) Saeed Alghamdi
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Abdul Rahman Saed Alghamdi; Ali S Alghamdi; Al- Gamdi; Saad
M.S. Al Ghamdi; Sadda Al Ghamdi; Saheed Al-Ghamdi; Seed Al Ghamdi
2) Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi - Possible Saudi national
-Date of birth used: October 11, 1980
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Ahmed Alhaznawi
3) Ahmed Alnami
-Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida
-Alias: Ali Ahmed Alnami; Ahmed A. Al-Nami; Ahmed Al- Nawi
4) Ziad Samir Jarrah
-Believed to be a pilot
-Alias: Zaid Jarrahi; Zaid Samr Jarrah; Ziad S. Jarrah; Ziad Jarrah
Jarrat, Ziad Samir Jarrahi

[6] -----------------------------------------

BBC on the names and reporting of the hijackers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

[7] ----------------------------------
Answers to Zeitgeist The Movie: - Flight Manifests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCj8X2glIrA

[8] ------------------------------------------------

Newsweek - Remains of the Day
Nineteen hijackers died on 9/11. What should be done with what's left of them? Eve Conant
From the magazine issue dated Jan 12, 2009
...Through a combination of innovative DNA-mapping techniques, help from the FBI's crime lab and dumb luck, the scientists have now ID'd four of the 10 New York hijackers. The remains of the nine hijackers from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites have also been confirmed; six other hijackers have yet to be identified. ...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177724/output/print

[9] -----------------------------------------------

At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html
BBC Response
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
[10] ----------------------------------------------------


bib Laden Connections to the 19 hijackers

[11] -------------------------------------------------------

News report as of Nov 2, 2001
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/02/attack/main316806.shtml

[12] --------------------------------------------

New York Newsday article from 9/23/01. "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said." Most of the complaints that I've seen were that he couldn't land well. Considering what he was planning on doing, I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't exactly the top of his "skills to hone" list.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html
Woman taught 9/11 hijacker how to fly
http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=55&fArticleId=3171841

[13] -------------------------

Photo and DNA ID match of some of the pilots.
This 9/11 Commission document explains how the FBI attempted to verify the hijackers identities (includes an apparent DNA match with Jarrah).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13950034/...BI-ID-of-Hijackers-by-Family-Members-PENTTBOM
http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team5_Box62_AliasesAndIDs-FBIIDsHijackers-1.pdf

[14] ---- Identification of the Flt 77 hijackers ---------

This 9/11 Commission document includes details of a forensic examination of hijacker ID cards recovered from the Pentagon, and a list of identification documents belonging to the hijackers (passports, visas, driving licences, more).
http://911myths.com/images/b/ba/Team5_Box46_Chronology_US_Identifications.pdf

[15] --------------------------------

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x34702

[16] ---------------------------------

Details in hijacker tickets.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4722224#post4722224
[17] ------------------------------



http://911myths.com/index.php/Image...Primary-Docs_AA11-ChronologySaudiVisaApps.pdf
[18] ------------------------------



http://911myths.com/index.php/Image...imary-Docs_AA11-AbdulAzizAlomari-Passport.pdf

 

[twinstead]

I'm sure bardamu will study your evidence and come back with a rational, well-researched, and compelling rebuttal, BigAll...

LOL I know. I don't know what the hell I was saying. I'm sure he just thinks it's all faked.

 

[dtugg]

LOL. Verinage technique at the WTC without anybody noticing. Sure, as soon as pigs fly out my ass.

And no-planer, you mentioned before that you worship the lying fraud Anders Bjorkman, aka Heiwa. According to his cartoon world version of physics, the Verinage technique would not work on the twin towers. Oops!

 

[TruthersLie]

The Verinage technique proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition.

So then you claim the towers were brought down with the verinage technique? make a claim twoof.

The verinage technique shows that you can do CD w/out explosives. Yet your movement claims it was explosives. Which one is it twoof?

If it was explosives, then it wasn't the verinage technique. If it was the verinage technique, then it isn't explosives. You might want to pick one and figure out what you are claiming. Or was it thermite/nanothermite? Pick one.

There's no evidence that the alleged hijackers even boarded the planes.

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf

ROFLMAO. Other than the video images of people going through security, matching DNA, and their video wills which have been broadcast around the world... But you might want to look into that.

So we have fake planes, CD w/out explosions, and now hijackers are still alive.

what next twoof? 10 minute jet intercepts? missing 2.3 trillion? Pull it?

And twoof, my reply is to another twoofer swearing there were explosions... maybe you both should PM each other until you can come up with a comprehensive narrative, or at least agree on the basics of what happened.