• 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.

Ed Moving On is coming.

UK,

The reason I feel the identification of the bodies is important is the following two comments by the director of the FBI.

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
Click to expand...

DISCLAIMER (LashL) - I realize that the bulk of this article has been debunked and I only refer to the quote above. There is also MSM footage of this that I can't link you to right now. I have personally seen it.

And this one:

"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind."

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm
Click to expand...

Russell
 
Derogatory statements, insults and name calling.

JREF participants - Several to many
Russell Pickering - Zero
 
Russell Pickering said:
My belief after my brief time here is that some are blindly supporting the people who did this. Those people you are defending [...]
snip
The mind slammed shut is impervious to reason.
Click to expand...

I find these words particularly insulting, Russell, but I'll let it pass.
 
Pardalis said:
I find these words particularly insulting, Russell, but I'll let it pass.
Click to expand...

Re Post: You will see upon a careful reading that I made no accusation whatsoever. I stated it as a belief and I also used the term blindly. Blindly implies without intent. I do not presume anybody here is even consciously supporting a cover up based on incompetence.

EDIT: It was also not directed at an individual.
 
Last edited:
Blindly implies also stupidly, or cowardly.

Anyhow, blindly is derogatory.

http://www.answers.com/blindly

Without sight, discernment, or understanding; without thought, investigation, knowledge, or purpose of one's own.
Click to expand...

ETA: but as I said, I'll let it pass, considering your overall behaviour has been so far very nice.
 
Russell, I have read some of the evidence submitted at this trial. What you say is correct he was not part of the 19 hijackers. He was to be used in secondary operations. Hence the reason the "plane operation" was not compromised. Because he was not part of it. Despite popular belief this guy was not the 20th hijacker.

He was to be used in a second wave of attacks. I believe also John Reid the shoe bomber was part of the second wave also.

This is of the top of my head but it is in one of the statements presented at the trial.

He is a convicted terrorist make no mistake about it.But he was never part of the 911 plot and it was never alleged at the trial he was.
 
Notice anything missing here?

USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
Click to expand...

“On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
Click to expand...

I wonder why they don't include the "confession" video?

The 19 Arab conspiracy is crumbling and it mostly seems to be quotes directly from the FBI and not CT websites.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
Russell Pickering said:
At what point will we be able to mutually consent that both skeptics and CT's are not dealing with confirmed, verified facts and thus are operating on indirect evidence interpreted through diametrically opposed belief systems only?

Russell
Click to expand...

You dont need to respond to me, rather stick on to gravy and scientologist but this sentence caught my eye. This is plain rubbish.

SCIENCE is not driven by any 'diametrically opposed belief systems'. This is VERY ignorant. Science does not care what you think, what colour you are if your a fat boozer or the most intelligent person ever. Science is about showing us how the universe works regardless of how we think it should. THIS is the method used to gather the 'indirect evidence' you talk of. This is a very ignorant statement and one I really dislike when I see it. A lot of the stuff you post is the way your interpreting something, that in no way makes it a fact, a real and falsifiable fact. Thats what science does. It shows how things work because it can show how they dont either. Please go and listen or read about the scientific method. Its beauty will astound you.

My two cents
 
stateofgrace said:
Russell, I have read some of the evidence submitted at this trial. What you say is correct he was not part of the 19 hijackers. He was to be used in secondary operations. Hence the reason the "plane operation" was not compromised. Because he was not part of it. Despite popular belief this guy was not the 20th hijacker.

He was to be used in a second wave of attacks. I believe also John Reid the shoe bomber was part of the second wave also.

This is of the top of my head but it is in one of the statements presented at the trial.

He is a convicted terrorist make no mistake about it.But he was never part of the 911 plot and it was never alleged at the trial he was.
Click to expand...

stateofgrace,

I concur 100% and would not want to live next door to him. I would have jailed him myself. I was just mythbusting.

Do you know how many times the "20th hijacker" has been identified? That makes an interesting study too. They finally settled on a guy who is deceased so it can't be disproved.

Russell
 
Last edited:
hellaeon said:
You dont need to respond to me, rather stick on to gravy and scientologist but this sentence caught my eye. This is plain rubbish.

SCIENCE is not driven by any 'diametrically opposed belief systems'. This is VERY ignorant. Science does not care what you think, what colour you are if your a fat boozer or the most intelligent person ever. Science is about showing us how the universe works regardless of how we think it should. THIS is the method used to gather the 'indirect evidence' you talk of. This is a very ignorant statement and one I really dislike when I see it. A lot of the stuff you post is the way your interpreting something, that in no way makes it a fact, a real and falsifiable fact. Thats what science does. It shows how things work because it can show how they dont either. Please go and listen or read about the scientific method. Its beauty will astound you.

My two cents
Click to expand...

Perhaps I explained myself poorly. What I meant to say is that neither the skeptic nor the CT can invoke science in the case of determining whether or not 9/11 was a conspiracy in the broader picture. Perhaps in the details of buildings and aviation except for the ability (or desire) to recreate it all.

Science also has a rule or something about repetition right?

Thanks for the clarification.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Perhaps I explained myself poorly. What I meant to say is that neither the skeptic nor the CT can invoke science in the case of determining whether or not 9/11 was a conspiracy in the broader picture.
Click to expand...

That's why we have to leave the investigation to professionals.
 
Russell,

I just finished responding in entirety to your last post directed to me and I don't think I can bare to copy/paste it into this thread.

I think a point that needs to be made here is that you are basing your assertions about 9/11 on your feeling that our government operates more like a business concerned with maintaining its wealth than a protective entity of its citizens. What you aren't taking into consideration is that some of us don't agree much with the way our government has handled 9/11 or Katrina or the Iraq war but we do understand that this is mostly because of INCOMPETENCE rather than an evil natured desire to wither our democracy from within.

While we may not all trust what Bush says about Iraq WMDs or agree with certain bills he signs etc etc etc, for us to just take AS FACT that 9/11 was an inside job, we require EVIDENCE. We require logic. While it may seem perfectly logical to you that Karl Rove or the NWO or the Illuminati did 9/11 to go and "git that oil" in the Middle East or to convince the public that we had to start a war on terror, to us it appears more of an impossibility to keep this sort of thing under wraps.

I think 9/11 was such an emotionally tragic event that the SOUL literally needs a big, evil plot to make it explainable. When huge things happen to the entire world, there is a need to have the story match the climax and the 9/11 conspiracies do just that.

At this point, you have acknowledged that the hijackers were on the planes, the passengers were on the planes, etc, which basically makes you inherit the "Remote Control" theory. In other words, if you believe there were hijackers then, naturally, you have to believe they were either the true perpetrators in the attack or somehow convinced to get on those planes. The obvious problem here is that the remote control idea is simply a theory based solely on speculation.

I think you're a very nice guy. I think your time would be much better spent using your eloquence, obvious intelligence, and writing ability to bring light to subjects that can be proven and changed.

I respect you very much for your arguments but, at this point, it seems that you would rather trust "fishy" actions and speculations to prove what you already believe, rather than using facts or evidence and making up your mind.
 
"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind."

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm
Click to expand...

from 2002 no less,

now:

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/lewis092904.pdf

2 years on, and this was just a quick search
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom