911: The chain of evidence

[Belz...]

@fsol: What's the "defense" budget of the US? 400 Billion $? I would say: Investigate - money doesn't count.

So, you're not a taxpayer, then ?

@all: I leave for now. I hope there is a discussion going on. I was not joking when i opened this thread.

No, just trolling.

 

[Belz...]

Not so fast, Arkan. In my spare time I have reproduced the efforts of the Commission. I'm just waiting to use it as a debunk to DJLegacy's debunk of my debunk.

...You're not still waiting for that, are you ?

 

[Childlike Empress]

@Hutch: Thanks.

@kookbreaker:

What is the Commission's budget?

* Public Law 107-306 provided for the reprogramming of $3 million for the Commission. Congress subsequently appropriated, and the President signed into law, an additional $11 million appropriation for the Commission. Recent legislation authorized an additional $1 million, bringing the Commission’s total budget to $15 million.

I stand corrected. I misunderstood that statement by Thomas Kean. Sorry for that.

Ok, so far we have the following:

Passenger lists showing that the hijackers boarded the hijacked planes.

without sources. That's all?

@Belz...:

I mentioned the connection Adnan Khashoggi/John Gray/9/11 Truth movement and provided some "evidence" in form of mainstream media articles to "Belz..." Any opinion on that, "Belz..."?

 

[kookbreaker]

@Hutch: Thanks.

@kookbreaker:
I stand corrected. I misunderstood that statement by Thomas Kean. Sorry for that.

Ok, so far we have the following:

without sources. That's all?

@Belz...:

We have passenger lists. We have a trail leading to the hijackers (all of this is in the Commission report) we have eyewitnesses who saw them at the various counters.

Again, more telling is that the Saudi's admitted that 15 of the hijackers were their citizens. They really, really, really, did not want to admit that fact. The evidence provided managed to change a very reluctant nation's mind.

 

[aggle-rithm]

We have passenger lists. We have a trail leading to the hijackers (all of this is in the Commission report) we have eyewitnesses who saw them at the various counters.

Again, more telling is that the Saudi's admitted that 15 of the hijackers were their citizens. They really, really, really, did not want to admit that fact. The evidence provided managed to change a very reluctant nation's mind.

Oh, they were in on it, too! That whole country is controlled by the Joooos, doncha know?

 

[dubfan]

Ok, so far we have the following:

without sources. That's all?

The passenger lists belong to the airlines. Have you contacted UAL or AA to have them released?

We also have video evidence from security cameras, we have eyewitness accounts from passengers (via the airphone calls), eyewitness accounts from airline personnel and passengers who witnessed the 9/11 dry runs, we have forensic DNA for 3 of the hijackers whose remains were recovered from the WTC, 5 sets of remains identified via process of elimination on flight 77, visa and immigration records, credit card & ATM receipts, hotel records, housing & car rental records, eyewitness accounts from people who observed the hijackers training to fly planes as well as in their daily affairs, personal effects and correspondence left behind in cars & hotels (which was also a source of baseline DNA for comparison), statements by people close to the hijackers (one of the hijackers' girlfriend spoke to media, in Hamburg, IIRC), acknowledgement of the nationality and residence by 15 of the hijackers' home country's government, and an acknowledgement of complicity and a "tribute" video by the umbrella organization and the leader of the organization they belonged to and were trained by, that specifically mentions the individuals, and provides pictures and names.

Apart from all that, though, I agree -- it's a big mystery.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Oh, for cripe's sake.

We not only have passenger lists, but also cockpit voice recordings, physical evidence including materials used in planning and rehearsing for the attacks, flight training records of the hijackers, the fact that they disappeared off the face of the earth on 9/11/01, the Hamburg cell & Atta's financial ties, passports, DNA that could not be accounted for by any other passengers or pilots--to name a few.

You may question the validity of this evidence, but to claim there is no evidence at all is lunacy.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Again, more telling is that the Saudi's admitted that 15 of the hijackers were their citizens. They really, really, really, did not want to admit that fact. The evidence provided managed to change a very reluctant nation's mind.

They changed their minds a long time after 9/11. Look at this press release (saved by the wayback machine - disappeared in October 2003):

Regarding the inclusion of Saudi names in the published list of the suspects, Prince Saud commented that haste in publishing the names of suspects has been acknowledged, and that it has been proven that five of the people listed had nothing to do with what happened, adding: "We very much hope that before being published, information, names and pictures will be verified."

In late 2003 the saudis said:

„Regarding your request from Aug. 27th 2003 on the alleged press-release of HRH Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal after his meeting with US-President George W.Bush on Sept 20th 2001, in which he is supposed to have said that five names on the FBI’s suspects-list had nothing to do with what happend, the Embassy of the Saudi Arabian Kingdom intimates, that HRH the Foreign Minister never gave such a statement and this means, that what is written in the book „Facts, Forgeries and the supressed evidence of 9-11“ lacks any foundation.“

We have passenger lists.

Do we?

we have forensic DNA for 3 of the hijackers whose remains were recovered from the WTC

Really? Please provide a link.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...

You are asking us to reproduce the efforts of the 9/11 Commission. Those being
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm#q4

This is not feasible. What is feasible, is for you to say, "I have issues/questions/etc with point X (or Y or Z) from the report." and then we discuss those issues/questions/etc.

Do you agree with this assessment? Yes or no.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Do you agree with this assessment? Yes or no.

No.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let's see:

Planes being hijacked, as evidenced by flight control records.
Planes flying into the buildings as evidenced by millons of withnesses, tons of stills and video footage.
The hijacked planes failing to land in other places.
No other planes missing.
The passengers and crew on the hijacked planes failing to show up in other places.
Remains of the passengers and crew on the hijacked planes being identified on the crash sites.
Records and diaries of the hijackers being left behind.
Passenger lists showing that the hijackers boarded the hijacked planes.

MMmmm, I guess it all fits.

Hans

You forgot the gazillion eye witnesses, those that saw the planes boarding and leaving from the airports as well as everyone who happened to turn on the TV that morning, or were in the vicinity of the crashes. Just think how many people would have had to have been involved in the operation had it been this conspiracy. That alone makes it an utterly absurd proposition.

Why do people believe weird things. Even Shermer's book can't explain this one. The government was so incompetent along with a few missteps by the FBI management, they let it happen. Sure. So are they all faking incompetence? No way was Bush a good enough actor to have faked that look on his face of utter, "Oh my God, what do I do?" which was caught on film at the school where he was sitting for a photo op. Wouldn't they have planned a better response? Or did someone leave Bush out of this loop?

Turn off your TV, ChildE. You're letting the world of fantasy spill over into your real life.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please provide a link? As if evidence matters to people who fantasize these sorts of conspiracies.

The Earth is 6,000 years old, Noah's flood carved the Grand Canyon, and the Trilateral Commission is secretly ruling the world. Right!

 

[rikzilla]

@Hutch: Thanks.

@kookbreaker:
I stand corrected. I misunderstood that statement by Thomas Kean. Sorry for that.

Ok, so far we have the following:

without sources. That's all?

@Belz...:

Well IMHO CE has already shown herself to be what I like to call a "black stone" writeoff....

Originally posted by James Randi:
We at JREF must offer to test any and every applicant, because we cannot be the judges of whether a claim is likely to be valid. Only occasionally, we encounter a claim that is just so silly or dangerous, that we do not offer to go ahead with negotiations. Example: a person claimed to be controlling every event in the world just by wagging his head back and forth, and he even sent us a video of himself in action. He also "fed" a spirit living in a black stone, through a hole in that stone. We are tolerant, but not quite naive enough to spend time discussing such a claim.

....so we're wasting our time entertaining the silly and loaded question of a person who asks for a "chain of evidence" as long as we don't use the extant chain of evidence!! We will never disabuse CE of her beliefs. She's going to keep feeding her stone...we should be laughing at this nutter instead of playing her stupid game.

-z

 

[dubfan]

Really? Please provide a link.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/27/hijackers.remains/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm

There was a third set of remains found a bit later (I thought), but can't locate the link off-hand. It may have been in a review I read of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000C47RQO/104-2393167-6922343?v=glance&n=551440

 

[kookbreaker]

They changed their minds a long time after 9/11. Look at this press release (saved by the wayback machine - disappeared in October 2003):

The date on that is nine days after 9-11. What does this link prove?

In 2002, the Saudi's admitted their Nation's sons were in on theplot. They did not want to admit it, and added to the confusion regarding identification with comments like your link above.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

 

[Hellbound]

The date on that is nine days after 9-11. What does this link prove?

Not to mention that it is later officially denied.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Turn off your TV, ChildE.

I don't have one, sister.

@fowlsound: The wayback machine-entry is from October 2003 (chronology). Month after that, the saudis denied that the press release ever existed. The link proves that they lied.

@dubfan: Thanks, i'll check that.

 

[Childlike Empress]

*laughs at rikzilla*

 

[Ducky]

I've gone over this thread three times, but I can't find where I posted that you are responding to Child E.

I think that means we have evidence that you aren't really here for debate, nor do you pay attention to the responses to you.





edited for spelling and to add quote:

@fowlsound: The wayback machine-entry is from October 2003 (chronology). Month after that, the saudis denied that the press release ever existed. The link proves that they lied.

 

[Hellbound]

By the way, Child:

Would this be the statement you said the Saudi Embassy removed from it's site?

They weren't trying to hide it, it's listed under thier "Saudi-U.S. Relations" page, for the 2001 Recent News Link.

Since we're on the subject of your inability to verify your statements, do you have any official link to the Saudi Governments retraction of that statement, or any additional commentary from a Saudi government site?