• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dylan gets a letter from a '9/11 victim'

I replied there:

Dylan, where do you guys stand on flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? For a long time you claimed it was impossible, and you've said that some flight 77 passengers (and at least one victim's father) might have been involved in the "inside job."

In May, 2006 you said of the passengers on flights 77 and 93, "They didn't die on these planes as we are told. There is actually some evidence that some of these people were already dead before 9/11."

In the same interview you said, "There's no 757 at the Pentagon. It just simply isn't there. IT DIDN'T HIT THE PENTAGON, OBVIOUSLY, AND THERE'S NO TRACE OF IT AT THE PENTAGON, SO WHERE DID IT GO? ...If you check the independent pictures and video that was shot right after the Pentagon was hit, you've got a hole that was NO MORE than 16 to 20 feet in diameter on the outside wall of the Pentagon, and that is the ONLY damage to the outside. Again, a 16 to 20 foot hole. IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE GOVERNMENT TELLING US THAT A 757 COULD BASICALLY DISAPPEAR INTO A GARAGE DOOR."

Again in May you said, "Am I convinced that it wasn't flight 77, basically? Yeah, hands down. There's no way that a 757 created that hole, it vaporized in mid-air, except people could identify [inaudible] of the passengers, but they still found pieces of fuselage, but they can't show us the video, you know, it's like they keep picking and choosing their evidence, and sorry, there's no way a 757 created that hole. There's just no way."

Jason, in May: "What hit the Pentagon? The speculation is there, but all's we're saying is that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. It's absolutely impossible."

Of the Pentagon witnesses you've said, "You know, they say there's a lot of witnesses who say they saw, you know, a Boeing 757 fly into the Pentagon, but you gotta remember a lot of those people also WORK in the Pentagon. And either that's what they were told to say, maybe they were told to say it was a drill, I don't know. But you have to take these things into consideration."

Another interview excerpt, from April, 2006:

Avery: "Yeah, essentially. I'm waiting for them to release a fake video that shows a 757 hitting, but I don't think it's going to happen. There's no way they can fabricate that kind of video. I would LOVE to see it."

Host: I thought it astounding that anything, anything at all hit the Pentagon, never mind the Twin Towers, you could see they might not be ready for that. But you would think, and one would have to assume, that the Pentagon had orders for every defense to be stood down.

Avery: "...It's the most heavily guarded airspace in the world. That's confirmed."

Host: What about automated missile defense systems?

Avery: "Oh, yeah. The Pentagon's got 'em on every section of the lawn. I mean, you've got SAM [Surface-to-Air Missile] sites all OVER the place!"

Again in May, 2006:

Host: "You're saying a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. But there are 59 families who are missing loved ones. What do you suggest happened to the people who were on this plane?"

Avery: "I mean, hey, man, I can't sit here and lie about the family members and say that ei-ther the passengers were in on it, or that the family members are government agents. I mean, I'm not saying that. I mean, these people who lost their loved ones, I mean, their loved ones are obviously dead, they're obviously gone, I mean, I'm not saying that they're on a payroll somewhere, I mean, I'm just trying to ask questions, I'm not trying to accuse anybody of covering something up, well, I mean, I'm obviously accusing the government of covering something up, but, I mean, I'm not trying to implicate the passengers, because, I mean, they're just as innocent as anyone else, man."

Dylan Avery, again in May: "Nothing's been 100% confirmed, but these people existed, and we get 20-30 emails a day at least from people who lost relatives on 9/11, and I couldn't call them liars, I mean, that would just be ridiculous for me. The more emails I get from family members, the more I'm convinced that the passengers on these flights were more or less real, and more or less real people. The only question is, where did they go? And my theory is as good as yours, because I simply don't know."

Jason, in April: "WE didn't say those people are on the planes, so we shouldn't be the ones to have to prove it."



I imagine that I'm not the only one who is confused about your position on whether flight 77 hit the Pentagon and whether the remains of all but one of its passengers and crew were positively identified.

Do you believe that the relatives of the letter's author died when flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
 
Last edited:
There are missiles all over the lawn? Perhaps Jason would like to point out where they are and what model they are? Surely they must pop up all the time, scaring all of the tourists, given that the Pentagon is less than 2 miles away from a major international airport.
 
I hope Dylan wrote them back immediately and informed the family that they are living in Cleveland along with the flight 93 passengers.
 
I replied there:

I love the one guy who responds to this by asking where you stand on WTC7. As if there were any doubt where you stand on that!


And he seems to act like that's a killer argument you could never respond to....
 
Not one of the posters on that thread even got near to commenting on Gravy's post, they just got their collective panties in a bunch over the banning of one of their members and what gravy's policy is on banning people over here.

So how about it gravy, just what is YOUR policy on banning people here....oooops sorry, you're not a moderator [slaps head]...sheesh those twoofers :D:D:D
 
I love the one guy who responds to this by asking where you stand on WTC7. As if there were any doubt where you stand on that!


And he seems to act like that's a killer argument you could never respond to....
Quest (aka TheQuest) is the guy who (ages ago on the old forum) would interrupt a discussion demanding to know a skeptic's opinion on the supposed child sex slave ring in the White House and then use the skeptic's non-response or opinion that it's crap as an excuse to ban him. He did this numerous times with this and a couple other litmus tests.

This may be one of those tests.
 
And he seems to act like that's a killer argument you could never respond to....

Don't think he is acting, he has asked simple "where do you stand" questions to me and others on the original LCF, just his way.
 
Last edited:
Quest (aka TheQuest) is the guy who (ages ago on the old forum) would interrupt a discussion demanding to know a skeptic's opinion on the supposed child sex slave ring in the White House and then use the skeptic's non-response or opinion that it's crap as an excuse to ban him. He did this numerous times with this and a couple other litmus tests.

This may be one of those tests.

Don't think he is acting, he has asked simple "where do you stand" questions to me and others on the original LCF, just his way.

So he's either trying to set Gravy up, or he's a twit. Either way, it's still not a stirling example of proper debate.

Heck, even the other troothers pointed out Gravy's paper on WTC7 to him!
 
Not one of the posters on that thread even got near to commenting on Gravy's post, they just got their collective panties in a bunch over the banning of one of their members and what gravy's policy is on banning people over here.
Yes, the guy who made a death threat against me...somehow it's my fault that he was banned.

So how about it gravy, just what is YOUR policy on banning people here....
I don't think this is the place for it. We should remind ourselves of the sanctity of marriage by reading the banns in parish churches, as in days of yore. At the very least, it should be done in the community subforum.

I am a minister, however, and if any JREFers want to get married in NYC, I'll be glad to preside, for the usual fee of a six-pack of beer.
 
Dylan Retorts:

Once again, Mark, you make the issue about ME, instead of the real issues. You never cease to amaze me.

I made said comments in April 2005, and though I've apologized and clarified several times, you conveniently don't mention, or acknowledge that fact.

Please stick to the topic at hand. The fact that you ignore people like these.

Shouldn't have said the bloody stupid things in the first place then!
 
Wow. I knew that they were nuts over there, but banning someone for not responding to an irrelevant question? Wow. Just wow.
 
jeez what kind of admin is that? banning someone when others have already answered him.
 

Back
Top Bottom