"Horse Carrier" windows slide open. Those of aircraft do not. And you can see that in the image you posted. Don't panic jammonius. You can log off and stick your head in the sand, and tell yourself there were no planes on 9/11 four times.
You bring up incredulity that paper documents and articles of clothing survived the aircraft impacts Jammonius, Tell us. How fast must you throw a document or cloth into the earth to destroy it?
You are troubled that the investigators will not release specific documentation verifying DNA or serial numbers for aircraft parts to your satisfaction. Anyone here can see that you are attempting to use an
argument from ignorance logical fallacy to cast doubt on tiny aspects of the events of 9/11 and qualify your 9/11 conspiracy.
Your manifests
Flight 93
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight93Manifest_a.jpg[/qimg]
Flight 11
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight11Manifest_a.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight11Manifest_b.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight11Manifest_c.jpg[/qimg]
Flight 77
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight77Manifest_a.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight77Manifest_b.jpg[/qimg]
Flight 175
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Flight175Manifest_a-1.jpg[/qimg]
AW,
This is to acknowledge, with gratitude, your reasoned and supported response. I wish other posters here would do the same.
Let me respond to your post as follows in reverse order of your presentation:
The manifests:
(1)The lists are not authenticated by a stamp or signature or anything that reveals their source or any reason why they should be deemed authentic.
(2) Neither the FBI nor any other investigatory agency has ever publicly acknowledged these lists as the "authentic" or "original" passenger lists. For instance, you need to consider that fact that the lists you posted up were not used at the Moussaoui trial, where the FBI - instead - provided a graphic that shows the passenger names and their seat numbers. Let me quickly add, I am not here accrediting the Moussaoui exhibits as being good or reliable, I am merely saying that the lists you posted up would be the TYPE of lists that WOULD be used as evidence, instead of the graphics that were put forward at the Moussaoui trial.
Given the emotional attachment that 9/11 causes, I suspect I will have to repeat and clarify the above statement about the absence of your lists from the Moussaoui exhibits or from any other source a couple of times before people might be able to get it. That is how 9/11 discussion works.
Here, I'll put it another way and ask you a question: Where have your lists been used as evidence in any formal setting?
(3) Note the bad quality of the photo copies, suggesting that these are copies of other photocopies and are therefore unreliable as well as unauthenticated. You know what happens at trials when documents are offered into evidence, right? The side opposing the admission of the documents gets the chance to question their authenticity, right?
Do you consider what I am doing here to be fair comment on your lists that is in the nature of questioning or challenging their authenticity?
Do you acknowledge that you have the burden of showing that the documents are authentic if you are offering them as being real and valid?
(4) This thread focuses in particular on Flight 93. Note that the UA93 list was printed on Oct. 4, 2002. Can you please state from where that printing was obtained? By whom was it obtained? Who printed it on that date and to whom was it sent?
(5) Note that at least four of names were published in media between Sept. 11, 2001 and Sept. 14, 2001 as suspected hijackers, but they do not appear on these lists, including the Bukhari brothers, Amer Kamfar and Mosear Caned (ph.). One cannot assume that CNN or other such media would publish names that do not appear on some FBI documents. Accordingly, there exists that anamoly that casts doubt on later produced lists, like yours, that just so happen to match only the most recent pronouncements. Mind you, I am not saying this anamoly cannot be explained, I am only saying it is an anamoly that must be explained by those offering up the lists as being authentic.
(6) Note that according to CNN of 14. September 2001, Hani Hanjour was not on the original passenger manifest of AA77 "because he may not have had a ticket." Yet on this computer print-out his name appears. How that anamoly resolved requires explanation from anyone who claims the list you provided is authentic.
Once again, thank you for posting those lists. They are helpful in furthering reasoned discussion of the topic of passenger lists.
Skeptic wiki
I support your thought of having skeptic wiki in mind, thank you for doing that. However, I think you have used the wrong page. The page that more properly fits this discussion is the burden of proof one:
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Burden_of_Proof
I am not here "arguing from ignorance." Rather, and this has been clear all along, I think, I am pointing out that those who claim jetliners were hijacked and crashed on 9/11 do not bother to offer up proof of their claim. It is, after all, their claim. It is not divinely revealed truth. Rather, it basically comes from teevee, which is not known for being a medium that projects truth very often.
Here is a particular quote from skepticwiki that I would call to your attention:
"In law the burden of proof refers to the obligation of one participant in an action to prove allegations. In less formal contexts, the phrase is often used to describe the different degrees of evidence required for a hypothetical dispassionate and rational observer to believe one's claims. For example, in scientific debate, the less a priori reasonable a claim is, the greater the amount and quality of evidence that will typically need to be presented before one's claim is believed.
In the above quote, three different settings are mentioned: law, less formal contexts and scientific debate. It doesn't matter much which context you envision this discussion to be in. For my part, I think scientific debate might be applicable. I note, too, that the proposition that 4 jetliners were hijacked by people who had no experience flying jetliners who then successfully navigated them from well beyond the horizon, to hit the WTC and the Pentagon strains credulity and must, therefore, be subjected to a lot of valid evidence, all as specifically mentioned in the above quote.
Note, too, that on the day in question, hijackings were being simulated in military war games. That factor raises the burden of proof on those claiming any such thing happened to an even higher degree. As does the fact that the FAA lied, hid and destroyed evidence.
DNA and Serial number of parts:
Talk about using fallacies. In questioning my calling for proof of DNA and proof of jetliner parts you make it sound as if I am being unreasonably demanding. That is rich, AW. You appear, without being specific, to be appealing to an emotional premise here that goes like this:
9/11 was so painful. Think of the victims. Oh, my my, now don't ask us to prove anything because it was just so horrible.
Is that what you were implying in your attempt to paint me as being unreasonable for asking for proof of authenticity in DNA and plane part claims? If so, that tactic has been used time and time again in 9/11 world and you are not unique in doing so.
I here assert that doing crap like that is a blatant tactic of falsification and has nothing whatever to do with sympathy for victims. It is the opposite. It uses victims to falsify. AW, I am not here accusing you of doing that. Mind you, however, those who post here do not hesitate to accuse people like me of all sorts of things, all the time. I think you can see that being thought of as not having feelings for victims stings, doesn't it?
So, why do proponents of the common myth do that?
Survival of paper and clothing:
You are burden shifting. Your side has the burden of proving a plane crash. When a passport of an alleged "terrorist" survives a plane crash where virtually nothing else is seen, not even the ubiquitous tail section of the jetliner itself, that find strains credulity because it is "too good to be true" and certainly far too convenient for words.
Now, I think we can agree to disagree on this. You are apparently willing to stand on and by the proposition that finding paper, including a "terrorist's passport" at a jetliner crash site where virtually nothing else was seen visibly to have survived, no wreckage and no remains, accoring to those first on the scene, is believable.
I contend it is not and will, instead, draw the conclusion that since first responders saw neither wreckage nor remains, ergo, a jetliner did not crash.
Horse carrier windows versus jetliner windows:
The image posted seemed to be perfectly flat to me and therefore inconsistent with jetliner windows that are curved. Once again, the way to have resolved this matter would have been to show a plane part identification number. Do you agree that is the way to prove existence of a jetliner part?
Panic:
Reasoned discussion does not give rise to a need for panic. The facts are what they are and the fallacies are what they are. We are here examining information to try to determine what the information can properly be said to stand for. Believe it or not, I have no vested interest in being "right" or "wrong." In 9/11 world, one is practically mandated to agree with the common myth in order not to have to examine the possibility that one may controlled by forces that are indescribably vicious. It is almost impossible to question 9/11 without provoking a very strong emotional reaction.
So, no, there is no panic. The reality of 9/11 consists in the emotion that it generates. Facts and reason are secondary considerations, at best.
