911: The chain of evidence

[kookbreaker]

I think Childlike has things backwards, that the Saudi's first admitted that the hijackers were Saudis then denied it. In fact it was the other way roung, they denied/obfuscated the matter it and then admitted when the evidence was clear.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No.

Then there is nothing to discuss, as you do not understand how debate works, how scientific inquiry is done, or how to have a focused topic discussion on a message board. Welcome to ignore, enjoy your stay.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hey, speaking of Saudi Arabia, if 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US gov., why wouldn't they have made the hijackers Iraqis?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then there is nothing to discuss, as you do not understand how debate works, how scientific inquiry is done, or how to have a focused topic discussion on a message board. Welcome to ignore, enjoy your stay.

What was your first clue?

 

[Hellbound]

I think Childlike has things backwards, that the Saudi's first admitted that the hijackers were Saudis then denied it. In fact it was the other way roung, they denied/obfuscated the matter it and then admitted when the evidence was clear.

Sounds like it.

Something else that might help here is an understanding of how names are given in that part of the world. It isn't quite the same as we do it over here. Duplicate names are actually not that uncommon, and this could very likely be a simple case of mistaken identity...Prince Saud looked up information on people with those names, but had the wrong people. Similar to the situation in the U.S. if someone told you "I was shot by a man named John Smith, from Texas". As more information, DNA, photo evidence, and other things, became available to provide better identification, it could well be that this was an honest mistake later corrected.

Or it could very well have been waffling, for which I wouldn't blame the Saudi government at all. The U.S. was thirsty for blood at that point, and frankly, if I were them, I'd be pretty nervous myself.

 

[Childlike Empress]

@dubfan:

Examiners could not say which of the hijackers' remains had been discovered because the FBI did not identify which of the DNA samples belonged to which hijacker, she said.

No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have.

WTF?

@Huntsman: Interesting. They only changed the link. But they denied the press releases existance. Broeckers linked to the denial (i quoted the translation). It was the answer to a question from DER SPIEGEL. They used it in their "debunk"-stories.

@Arkan_Wolfshade. Ignorance is bliss. Congratulations!

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Where's the chain of evidence that leads anywhere other than to the hijackers in the official report?

I've asked this question before and never got a satisfactory answer, so I'll ask again: Why is the conspiracy suggested by CTs more complicated than an episode of mission impossible? Anyone who makes good plans makes simple plans. There is less to go wrong and less of these "obvious" holes in them, picked up by ordinary people on the street. Why didn't 9/11 follow the same MO as the previous attack on the WTC, bombing the car park, if the desired outcome was to drop the towers? Why a complex aerial ballet syncronised with fireworks that leaves doubt in CT minds about the physics behind it all? Why not the Mother Of All Car Bombs in the car park taking out key support structures and collapsing the tower? There's no complex physics involved, no pancake theories, no fire melting steel doubts, no "demolition squibs" for everyone to see. Anyone can understand "bomb blows up foundations, building he fall down". Why on Earth would somone try to convince Joe Average that his city is being attacked by using an overly complex plan that Joe Average has difficulty understanding?

If I want to get out of something, I lie and say that I'm busy. I don't tell people I have a broken pelvis and my dad's been taken into custody for shooting the pope. That's much too complicated and doesn't make any sense. People can prove me wrong. If I just BS and tell tehm I'm busy, they can't prove otherwise. Simple plan works. Needlessly complex plan, fails.

Look at military plans for invasions, look at how they created deception to fool the enemy into where their forces were being built up, and how they hid the real invasion forces. They are nearly always laughably simple, like inflatable tanks, passing some real information to make the enemy accept the mountain of fake. They know that deception can only last a few minutes, a few hours, maybe days if you're lucky.

It's a cliche, but you really can only fool some of the people all of the time.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What was your first clue?

Yeah, but how often do they out and out admit it. Even geggy and Chistophera could be kept quasi-on a limited topic.

 

[Overman]

@ChildlikeEmpress: I am insane

 

[Bronze Dog]

Simple plan works. Needlessly complex plan, fails.

Just ask Mojo Jojo and The Brain.

 

[dubfan]

@dubfan:


WTF?

The samples provided by the FBI were ID'd by what's called a "K code" (apparently K stands for "known"). The NYC medical examiners were given DNA identified by K code, not by the hijackers' names. The FBI's own forensics people collected the DNA from the hotel rooms, cars, etc. used by the hijackers, isolated the individual DNA fingerprints, and gave each unique individual's DNA its own "K" code.

I recall reading about this but the link isn't handy. If I can find it again, I'll re-post, but I'm pretty sure it was in material related to the NYC medical examiner's book.

ETA:

[Interviewer]Were you able to identify the terrorists?

[NYC Medical Examiner Shaler]We identified three of the terrorists. There was the thinking that both planes exploded, and people would be gone but apparently not. When the planes exploded, the fragments were spread around and didn't all get caught up in the fireball. We asked the government for [DNA] profiles of the terrorists.

[Interviewer]How did the government get the DNA profiles of the terrorists?

[NYC Medical Examiner Shaler]They never told us, but they probably knew where they'd lived in various cities around the world and collected personal items from these people.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/051205/5book_2.htm

Also, more here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/354992p-302463c.html (Credit to Mike Williams' 911myths.com site for this link)

I admit, by itself, this probably isn't very convincing if you're not inclined to trust the FBI.

 

[Pardalis]

The CTs are suspicious of the 9/11 Commission report for several reasons:

1. Testimony of certain individuals is omitted (Edmonds, Rodriguez)

2. The report does not address WTC 7

3. The report contradicts other evidenciary sources on matters of fact (Otis fighter timeline)

4. Other matters have come to light since the report was released that cast doubt on its comprehensiveness (Able Danger)

5. The report is rather gentle in its political conclusions (it largely lets both Clinton and Bush off the hook, politically)

I think these are fair criticisms. I don't conclude from these, however, that 9/11 was a false flag op carried out by the government. I tend to conclude from all of this that internal political considerations played a big part and there was certainly a lot of ass-covering/incompetence/negligence going on, particulary in the case of the FBI (Edmonds).

That said, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the entire report, esp. as it is so well-sourced. In fact, the sourcing is what has made the inconsistencies so easy to find. I think the report could benefit from a revision to address/cleanup some of the contradictions, and to look at some of the things that have (rightly, IMO) been brought up since -- namely, Able Danger and Sibel Edmonds. I hope the Commission members will do that at some point.

Also, I think a lot of the criticism deals with facts around the "edges" of the story -- issues of who knew what when and were people doing the jobs they were supposed to be doing. None of that really undermines the basic truth that 19 jihadists hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings (or the ground in PA) on 9/11.

Edit: typo

Nice post Dub.

 

[Hellbound]

@Huntsman: Interesting. They only changed the link. But they denied the press releases existance. Broeckers linked to the denial. It was the answer to a question from DER SPIEGEL. They used it in their "debunk"-stories.

No, allegedly the Saudi Embassy in Germany denied its existence. And he linked to a letter hosted on his own site.

For those who speak German, here is the text of the message in German:

Bezug nehmend auf Ihre Anfrage vom 27.08.2003 über die angebliche Presseerklärung Seiner Königlichen Hoheit des Außenministers Prinz Saud Al-Faisal nach seinem Treffen mit dem amerikanischen Präsidenten George W Bush am 20.09.2001, in dem er gesagt haben soll, dass fünf der auf der Liste des FBI stehenden Namen nichts mit dem zu tun hatten was passierte, teilt die Botschaft des Königreichs Saudi Arabien in Berlin mit, dass SKH der Außenminister solch eine Erklärung nicht abgegeben bat und dies bedeutet, was in dem "Buch, Fakten, Fälschungen und die unterdrückten Beweise des 11.09" steht, jeder Grundlage entbehrt.

Now, I speak a very small amount of German, and can't translate this. IF anyone is a native speaker, you could be helpful. A free translation produces the following:

Reference taking on your inquiry of the 27.08.2003 over the alleged press statement of its royal highness of the Foreign Minister prince Saud al-Faisal after its meeting with the American President George W bush at the 20.09.2001, in which he should have said to do that five of the name standing on the list the FBI nothing with that had what happened, the message of the kingdom Saudi Arabia in Berlin divides with, that SKH of that Explanation delivered did not ask and means this, does without, what stands in the book, facts, forgery and the suppressed proofs of the 11.09, each base.

Which is, admittedly, hard to decipher. It sounds like the only thing they said was that the messgae they got disagrees with that. It is not clear whether they are saying that they disagree the statement was made, or disagree with the content of the statement. I'm hoping a native speaker can verify a translation here.

 

[Childlike Empress]

No, allegedly the Saudi Embassy in Germany denied its existence

Exactly. The translation i quoted in #68 is correct (sorry, i added "(i quoted the translation)" to #86 in an edit).

I admit, by itself, this probably isn't very convincing if you're not inclined to trust the FBI.

You name it. It is no real evidence for an involvement of any of the 19 alleged highjackers. But thanks anyway, it is interesting.

 

[Pardalis]

What is a "chain of evidence" supposed to be exactly?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What is a "chain of evidence" supposed to be exactly?

http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/baloney.html

17. Is a chain of evidence (links) offered?
If chain of evidentiary links for a claim is presented, every link must be solid. A proposed chain of evidence fails completely if even one link fails. If someone claims that A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, and D causes E, they had better be prepared to demonstrate EVERY link. If, for example, all links are proven except that C causes D, which cannot be in any way demonstrated, then there is no proof that A results in E.

 

[The_Fire]

ETA: Answer to post 93
Almost. I read it as, paraphrased:
No, His Royal Highnes did NOT claim that five of the names on the FBI-List were without connection to the actions of 9/11.
That last part translate badly, but I'll give it a go:
[snip starts from dies bedeutet.....]..THis means that what is presented in the book as facts, falsifications and suppressed evidence of 9/11 have no basis what so ever.....

In other words: The book they are talking about doesn't hold water and is at best a piece of fiction.

 

[Pardalis]

Thanks Arkan!

 

[Hellbound]

ETA: Answer to post 93
Almost. I read it as, paraphrased:
No, His Royal Highnes did NOT claim that five of the names on the FBI-List were without connection to the actions of 9/11.
That last part translate badly, but I'll give it a go:
[snip starts from dies bedeutet.....]..THis means that what is presented in the book as facts, falsifications and suppressed evidence of 9/11 have no basis what so ever.....

In other words: The book they are talking about doesn't hold water and is at best a piece of fiction.

Okay, so either the Berlin enbassy was mistaken or lying in regards to this, or the U.S. Embassy was mistaken or lying in regards to this.

Thanks for the verification, Fire

P.S. They were discussing a book titled "Facts, Lies, and Suppressed Evidence of 9/11". I left out any quotation marks, so that may be where the last part is causing confusion.

 

[dubfan]

You name it. It is no real evidence for an involvement of any of the 19 alleged highjackers.

I wouldn't go quite that far. I'd say that it makes the DNA evidence against the 19 hijackers circumstantial, rather than conclusive.