Convince me Arab Terrorists were on planes

[R.Mackey]

Convince me that i should swallow a questionable story(at best)that is supported(and fabricated) by agency's who are at the beck and call of George Bush, a known and demonstratable liar, that has been proven to not have US interests anywhere near the top of his list, is inept, unrespected by the American public overwhelingly, and in short a failure as a representative my country.

The fact is GWB cant hold Griffin's jock when it comes to morality, and it aint even close.


So if it STRICTLY were to come down to trustworthiness, Bush is way at the back of the bus.

I am truly ashamed i voted for him.

Convince me you can be convinced.

The notion that the entire "Official Theory" is a fabrication written at Bush's behest is intensely paranoid. It has been independently reviewed and, in places, replicated, you know.

And I voted against him twice, for what it's worth.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

1.Martyrdom....Guys eating pork, gambling, drinking, getting lap dances.....you fail

That does not contradict the fact that the hijackers made the videos. It merely demonstrates the lenghts they went to in order to try to fit into society.

Too many people have this impression that Islamic terrorists attempt to be pure holy warriors. The truth is shown to be otherwise. You should read more about them; Grace Burnam, kidnapped by muslim terrorists in the southern Philippines has commented on their ability to justify any deviation from pious muslim behavior on the grounds that they were "jihadis". Michael Totten, a blogger who's traveled parts of the Middle East, has noted that some of the best ham he's had was in Beruit, and not on the christian side of the city either. The point is that you cannot use a misunderstanding of what comprises proper behavoir to dismiss the very real video evidence the hijackers themselves made. The failure is yours, Roundhead.

2. what videos, show one from an Airport the "terrorists boarded a 9/11 plane "from. And no the single one that exists, from "Dulles", magically ISNT timestamped, and identify's another guy who looks nothing like Hani, as Hani. You fail again

No failure there. The videos were good enough to be used in court. Your dismissal of it is unfounded and illogical.

Regarding "looks nothing like Hani": Pre- and post-capture images of Khalid Shaik Mohammed don't look much alike either, but those are definitively demonstrated to be him. Besides which, that is merely your opinion. The video stands alongside the other evidence placing him at the airport, such as the passenger list you try to falsify and fail at, and all those pieces work together to establish his and other hijackers presences.

Again, the failure is yours. You do not demonstrate that the video is false; you merely argue from incredulity.

3. DNA evidence?? Surely you jest. Name one terrorists family member who has showed up to claim the remains. You fail again.

Non-sequitor. The family did not have to show up and claim remains for the DNA link to be established. DNA samples were taken from the vehicles they drove and the hotel rooms they stayed in, linked to records establishing them as being in those rooms or possessing those vehicles.

Instead of bragging about failure, how about avoiding it by making substantive arguments? The three you've put to text here have been nothing more than demonstrations of incredulity; they certainly don't rise to the level of negating the evidence.

ETA: Blaaaah! Why'd I say this:

...

1. DNA evidence retrieved from the crash sites matched to either family members or items left behind in cars, hotel rooms, etc.

... in a thread discussing the hijackers? When I damn well know that the familial DNA matching was for the victims, not the hijackers?? Okay, that's my fault. I erred in saying that. Here's the clarification: The DNA matching process took remains from the wreck sites and compared them with DNA obtained from known places the hijackers were established to have been at. Identification flowed from that. As best as I can tell, no families contributed DNA to the identification process.

 

[beachnut]

I am truly ashamed i voted for him.

Your pure anti-intellectual pursuit proven with political drivel;
Why are you doing a poor job of apologizing for terrorists?

If you read things you sure don't understand them. DRG is a lair by proxy, he never says it, someone else said it.

 

[roundhead]

So you can prove there's a problem with the video? Go to it. It was submitted at the Moussaoui trial, after all. If you can show the Government presented a faked video then that would be a very big deal. Best get started.

By the way, that implication that the Dulles video doesn't show Hanjour has been shown false for years. What happened is the Associated Press ran this picture of the wrong man:

[qimg]http://www.911myths.com/images/a/a6/Not_Hanjour.jpg[/qimg]

While MSNBC and others ran this one (from a video) of the right one:

[qimg]http://www.911myths.com/images/f/fc/RealHanjour.jpg[/qimg]

All it shows is that the media sometimes make mistakes. More here.

I dont doubt these guys have travelled by air at some point. I see no timestamp. Even a 7/11 video camera has a time stamp. Its ommision is troubling, at the very least.

Additionally, there is zero video evidence from the other three flights


So out of four flights, we have a grand total of one very dubious video, in total, that has no time stamp.

I think its fair to say that is extremely unconvining

 

[roundhead]

Your pure anti-intellectual pursuit proven with political drivel;
Why are you doing a poor job of apologizing for terrorists?

If you read things you sure don't understand them. DRG is a lair by proxy, he never says it, someone else said it.

Anybody who would attack my country and kill my fellow citizens gets no pass from me.

Unlike you, i use a time honored fact that my parents lovingly instilled in me many years ago at a young age.


And that is, you can only draw an opinion on somebody based on past performance. If i use this excellent advice, and apply it to 9/11, its very hard to support anything a proven(and continual) liar, like Bush, rolls out as truth.

The above fact makes me extremely sceptical of his(and his agency's) story regarding 9/11. One has to be mighty fanatical to believe the guy, in lieu of the gaping holes in the story, and again, his past actions and truthfulness.

To me, beingcalled a "truther" is in fact high praise. For i define that as meaning i have no intention than to get at the truth, wherever that leads.

 

[applecorped]

Nobody exists unless you have a video to prove otherwise.

 

[MikeW]

I dont doubt these guys have travelled by air at some point. I see no timestamp. Even a 7/11 video camera has a time stamp. Its ommision is troubling, at the very least.

Not the point, and you know it. Why is it that you keep making demonstrably false statements, then fail to acknowledge them when they're pointed out?

Don't worry, I know the answer. Which also tells me any further posts in this thread will be an utter waste of time, so I'll bow out now.

 

[Drudgewire]

roundhead, I need you to convince me the Smurfs didn't win the 2004 Super Bowl.

What? You say the very possibility is outside the realm of every known field of legitimate accepted science, recorded history, and all that aside is something which could only be believed by someone with no rational grasp of reality who instead chooses to fester in a fairy-tale world of their own making?

And for that matter, you consider the idea of even asking someone who is interested in serious debate to take part in such a task insulting and pathetic... especially considering how little I have to base my reasoning on (beyond either insanity or willful self-delusion) and how much evidence can be found in a matter of milliseconds which would make anyone other than the most hard-headed, not-in-any-way-willing-to-drop-their-belief-for-all-the-tea-in-China fanatics say "oh OK, you're right. What was I thinking?"

Well now we're even. v

v

 

[Mr.Herbert]

roundhead, I need you to convince me the Smurfs didn't win the 2004 Super Bowl.

Janet Jackson's nip slip won the 2004 Superbowl!!

 

[Drudgewire]

Janet Jackson's nip slip won the 2004 Superbowl!!

Yeah, and considering how kid-friendly the FCC turned the Super Bowl from that moment on you'd have a lot less trouble convincing me the Smurfs competed in 2005's.

 

[gc051360]

If you deny and/or ignore every piece of evidence that supports hi-jackers being on the planes, why should anyone trust that you are "open minded"??

eta: I also like the "If it isn't video taped, it never happened" aspect of the truth movement. And "If it is video taped.......it's a forgery"

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I would like to state once again that roundhead has made it perfectly clear that he has no intent to actually look for evidence that will convince him. He is simply trying to create redundant threads that have already been well covered.

If these guys want to support terrorists who murder, that's their business. But to make dishonest threads for the purpose of trolling is not cool to me. It's just a typical crackpot tactic along with "just asking questions".

It has been proven that the 19 hijackers were on those planes. It has been shown in court and proven in a court of law. It has been shown in the largest criminal investigation in the history of man. If Roundhead cares to show that someone or something else happened, then the burden is on him. Simply saying he doesn't agree with everything is not an argument, it's trolling.

 

[GeeMack]

Unlike you, i use a time honored fact that my parents lovingly instilled in me many years ago at a young age.


And that is, you can only draw an opinion on somebody based on past performance.

And your own past performance indicates a serious lack of sound judgement.

So if it STRICTLY were to come down to trustworthiness, Bush is way at the back of the bus.

I am truly ashamed i voted for him.

So clearly by even your own standards you certainly wouldn't expect anyone to accept your judgement, your doubts, about Arab terrorists being on the planes on 9/11.

 

[roundhead]

So, to sum things up thus far we have


One dubious non timestamped video

No other video evidence to support any of these guys got on 9/11 planes

FBI statements than can at best be described as confusing and ever changing

Devout Muslims(who in order to fit in, thats laughable, and if anything would draw more attention in public places) to guys who ate pork, partied, drew attenton to themselves.

As far as i know, not a single ticket stub, part of a boarding pass, etc, to show any of these guys boarded these "flights"

No squawks on any of 4 planes(a fact that taken by itself is extremely unlikely)Especially in liue of this trial shippet:

In those tapes, the pilots shouted as hijackers broke into the cockpit. "Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!" a pilot screamed in the first tape. In the second tape, 30 seconds later, a pilot shouted: "Mayday! Get out of here! Get out of here!"108

According to these tapes, therefore, the pilots were still alive and coherent 30 seconds after realizing that hijackers were breaking into the cockpit. And yet in all that time, neither of them did the most important thing they had been trained to do---turn the transponder to 7500.



On September 22, 2001, the BBC published an article by David Bamford entitled "Hijack "-Suspect' Alive in Morocco." It showed that the Waleed al-Shehri identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers was still alive. Explaining why the problem could not be dismissed as a case of mistaken identity, Bamford wrote:

His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack. He told Saudi journalists in Casablanca that . . . he has now been interviewed by the American authorities, who apologised for the misunderstanding.

Got CHA


In any case, the alleged hijackers could have been positively identified only if samples had been obtained from their relatives, and there is no indication that this occurred. Indeed, one can wonder why not. The FBI had lots of information about the men identified as the hijackers. They could easily have located relatives. And these relatives, most of whom reportedly did not believe that their own flesh and blood had been involved in the attacks, would have surely been willing to supply the needed DNA. Indeed, a story about Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of Flight 93, said: "Jarrah's family has indicated they would be willing to provide DNA samples to US researchers, . . . [but] the FBI has shown no interest thus far

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Now let's list all the evidence that it was an inside job and let's nit pick over that. how about it? Let's see how strong the creationism er I mean inside job evidence is.

 

[The Big Dog]

Roundhead:

Are you really persisting in this after you have been exposed as a fraud?

Well good for you! Why bother making us make you look like a fraud when you are doing a damn fine job of it yourself.

Do continue!

 

[gc051360]

One dubious non timestamped video

What is dubious about it?

Devout Muslims(who in order to fit in, thats laughable, and if anything would draw more attention in public places) to guys who ate pork, partied, drew attenton to themselves.

Muslims can't be hypocrites?

I've never personally been to the mid east, but I've spoken with someone who's visited there. He claimed that almost every male, asked him to get them porn, and that almost every male asked him not to tell anyone else about it.

What exactly is the claim though? They ate pork, therefore they weren't muslim? Not terrorists? What is your point?

As far as i know, not a single ticket stub, part of a boarding pass, etc, to show any of these guys boarded these "flights"

they were on the flight manifests, which means they checked in...right?

According to these tapes, therefore, the pilots were still alive and coherent 30 seconds after realizing that hijackers were breaking into the cockpit. And yet in all that time, neither of them did the most important thing they had been trained to do---turn the transponder to 7500.

So what?

If you've been told to do something......it doesn't mean you'll do it in a hectic environment. That's why military people have to train until it becomes mind numbing. If it doesn't become instinctual, you won't work well in a hectic environment.

Also. Do you think they may have been busy with trying to fend them off, and also still fly the plane?

Got CHA

No. I believe that claim has been refuted here quite a bit, actually.

In any case, the alleged hijackers could have been positively identified only if samples had been obtained from their relatives, and there is no indication that this occurred

Why would that be needed? they had samples from the hotel rooms, and rent a car and whatnot.

 

[Btodd]

Roundhead, you never responded to my question about remote-controlled planes being the only other option if the hijackers weren't on board.

Since you've put on this air of sincerity about openness, then I want to know if you've pursued your own doubts. Your goal thus far seems to be goading those regulars here that you feel insulted by from past threads.

To you, I'm brand-new. If you're really after the Truth about what happened, then let's assume the hijackers weren't on board, and follow it out.

Are you willing to agree that a remote-controlled plane is the only other option? If not, then produce another option, and we can examine the plausibility / evidence for each, and compare them with the official story, and see where the weight of evidence lies.

So far, your goal appears to be finding a way to stick it to the official story, to the exclusion of any pursuit of the truth. Which makes you look like the average 9/11 denier. Are you?


Btodd

 

[PhantomWolf]

Devout Muslims(who in order to fit in, thats laughable, and if anything would draw more attention in public places) to guys who ate pork, partied, drew attenton to themselves.

This one keeps getting repeated and no one has jumped on it so I will. This claim comes through Daniel Hopsicker who interviewed Amanda Keller, a stripper that claimed she was Atta's girlfriend. This problem is that it was never true her boyfriend wasn't Atta at all. The whole pork eating, cocaine using, partying image that many CT's still claim of them was entirely a fabrication based on someone else.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What is dubious about it?

It supports the "Offical Story"