Questions for 9/11 Truthers

[Arus808]

someones been wathcing too much Drop Zone (wesley snipes) . You do know that what they did in that movie is pure fiction? You'd be ripped apart at that altitude going that fast.

that's a new one. the hijackers jumping out of the plane. YOu'd of thougth the passengers would have noticed this.

 

[twinstead]

Do you mean to tell me that movies aren't REAL?

 

[PerryLogan]

Nothing is real. Everything is permitted.

 

[Firestone]

That "victim" was named by Betty Ong as being one of the hijackers. That is an indisputable fact. And he was no ordinary Israeli. He was an elite commando trained in aircraft takeover techniques.

It is of course outrageous that you qualify Daniel Lewin as a "victim".
Nothing very original here.

However, as usual, what you consider an indisputable fact turns out to be quite disputable.
First, as you already admitted, Betty Ong didn't name Lewin as being one of the hijackers.

What Ong said is that the hijackers were seated in seats 2A, 2B, 9A and 9B.

The published (not official) flight manifests (see here and here, once more thanks to Mike from 911myths for saving money for my employer) have the following relevant entries:

2A: Wail M. Alshehri
2B: Waleed M. Alshehri
8D: Mohamed Atta
8G: Abdulaziz Alomari
10B: Satam M.A. Al Suqami

9A: Edmund Glazer
9B: Daniel C Lewin

9D: empty
9G: empty

So, the hijackers should be the Alshehri's, Glazer and Lewin, according to Ong.

Of course, you leave out information that you don't like.

Betty Ong wasn't the only flight attendant giving information about the hijackers. Amy Sweeney too said where some hijackers were seated.
She said 9D, 9G and 10B.

So the hijackers should be two empty seats and Al Suqami according to Sweeney.
Sweeney also reported that the stabbed passenger was in 9B, ie Daniel Lewin.

Of course you totally ignore Sweeney's information.

That Ong and Sweeney don't tell the same thing probably means that the two women were confused. Given the circumstances that is very understandable.

Finally, you use the original FAA-report as evidence for the use of a gun on Flight 11. The report states: "... a passenger located in seat 10B shot and killed a passenger in seat 9B at 9:20 a.m. The passenger killed was Daniel Lewin, shot by passenger Satam Al Suqami. "
(Note that the time is wrong.)
So, according to this report, Al Suqami killed Lewin, not the other way around.

Really, A-Train, all you do is cherry pick information, ignoring most facts, and blowing up those that suit you.

Standard CT, saddly ...

 

[Orphia Nay]

Why is this thread suddenly so long? Has it attracted a twoofer? I hate to look. I'm fed up with them, to be honest, despite the sentimental appeal of their channelings of the Black Knight.

Nothing is real. Everything is permitted.

Ewww. My lunch is naked!

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Oh, so now they parachuted out of the planes?

This requires my BIG tinfoil hat.

The four hijackers in each plane parachuted out of the 757s. We have had information here about how the actual planes lack parachutes and ways to do the old "Geronimo" dive, so the hijackers must have hauled the parachutes aboard when they got on the plane. Of course, that wasn't in the security videos as they boarded the plane, and we have no testimony from the phone calls on the planes that the guys hauled out their chutes and jumped.

And of course, nobody on the ground saw them skydiving out of the plane when it was at a low enough altitude for them to jump safely, and I guess they were rescued from New York Harbor by a New World Order midget submarine, and guided out of the Catskill Mountains by an elite group of scouts from the 10th Mountain Division.

Sure.

The bottom line for A-Train is this: Israel is evil, Jews are evil, Jews run Israel, Jews are trying to take over the world in accordance with Henry Ford's The International Jew, and the facts of the situation does not matter, what matters is that there IS a conspiracy by Jews, and whatever happens in the world, no matter what, is the result of that conspiracy's master plan, there are no other factors at work, and the Jewish conspiracies all go with absolute precision and perfection, with no leaks or slip-ups, except those seen by CTers and anti-Semites.

R. Mackey is right...these conspiracy theories have their own rule of inflation to absurdity.

 

[R.Mackey]

R. Mackey is right...these conspiracy theories have their own rule of inflation to absurdity.

You got it.

The only way A-Train could have inflated this item any more is if, instead of parachutes, he'd hypothesized they escaped by balloon.

 

[twinstead]

The only way A-Train could have inflated this item any more is if, instead of parachutes, he'd hypothesized they escaped by balloon.

Dude. Don't give him any ideas...

 

[R.Mackey]

The term "official conspiracy theory" ("OCT" for short) has been in use for quite some time over at democraticunderground. IIRC it was developed as a way to denigrate skeptics by the truthers - they were trying to show that the so-called "official story" (whatever that is) is also a conspiracy theory and as such isn't that different from the theories promoted by the truthers.

Ah, yes, that usage I'm familiar with.

A-Train, however, appears to be using it to refer to a real conspiracy theory, as though there's some standard parrotted by the majority of the Idiot Movement. This use of the term is new to me. He wasn't using it to denigrate the skeptics, but to impugn the other conspiracy nuts, because he wants to be special. He wants to be smarter than us and them. Well, wanting alone isn't enough.

He may not be the first to coin that term, but I haven't seen it before. Then again, I don't have any socks at Loose Change or hang out at DU, so perhaps it is old hat.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Yes, but....

You got it.

The only way A-Train could have inflated this item any more is if, instead of parachutes, he'd hypothesized they escaped by balloon.

He could inflate that balloon with his own hot air.

 

[A-Train]

NO, NO, no, the planes were 757/767 no exit in the bottom back. Did someone hit you with a dumb stick?

The passengers would have told us on the seat phones.

The hijackers did not have parachutes.

It is hard to impossible to exit at 300 to 500 mph from the doors; have you ever tried.

No exit in the bottom back? Don't know what you mean by that. They could have exited through any of numerous doors and hatches on the bottom of the fuselage. Notably, from the front landing gear doors.

The passenger would have told us, if they had known. But how would they have known? They were all herded to the back of the plane. That is the obvious method of operation on all four flights. They were kept back there by a barrier of some kind of gas. If the hijackers passed to the cargo hold from the front of the cabin, they would have been invisible to the passengers when they jumped out.

Have I ever tried it? No. But Navy Seals do it all the time. More on that later.

 

[R.Mackey]

[Clerks]"Oooh! Navy SEALs!"[/Clerks]

 

[beachnut]

No exit in the bottom back? Don't know what you mean by that. They could have exited through any of numerous doors and hatches on the bottom of the fuselage. Notably, from the front landing gear doors.

The passenger would have told us, if they had known. But how would they have known? They were all herded to the back of the plane. That is the obvious method of operation on all four flights. They were kept back there by a barrier of some kind of gas. If the hijackers passed to the cargo hold from the front of the cabin, they would have been invisible to the passengers when they jumped out.

Have I ever tried it? No. But Navy Seals do it all the time. More on that later.

This is the dumbest idea I have heard yet. Who will waste time to tell you, why your jews did it idea has failed again.

Biased brains working overtime to blame jews; where do you guys come from?

Your parachute idea is easy to debunk, only a moron can not do it. Too bad you can not debunk it yourself.

 

[AZCat]

I apologize - I up past my bedtime.

A-Train, however, appears to be using it to refer to a real conspiracy theory, as though there's some standard parrotted by the majority of the Idiot Movement. This use of the term is new to me. He wasn't using it to denigrate the skeptics, but to impugn the other conspiracy nuts, because he wants to be special. He wants to be smarter than us and them. Well, wanting alone isn't enough.

I guess I missed the new useage of an old term - I apologize. It is interesting, though, because I have yet to find a conspiracy theory that can be identified as one adopted by a majority of the truthers. Instead, they all seem to enjoy accusing other factions of the same crimes as the non-cters (shilling, unquestioning acceptance of gov't lies, close-mindedness, etc). This behavior seems to have increased significantly since control over the various branches of the US government is now divided between political parties rather than all being held by one.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Sorry...you still haven't passed my laugh test...

No exit in the bottom back? Don't know what you mean by that. They could have exited through any of numerous doors and hatches on the bottom of the fuselage. Notably, from the front landing gear doors.

The passenger would have told us, if they had known. But how would they have known? They were all herded to the back of the plane. That is the obvious method of operation on all four flights. They were kept back there by a barrier of some kind of gas. If the hijackers passed to the cargo hold from the front of the cabin, they would have been invisible to the passengers when they jumped out.

Have I ever tried it? No. But Navy Seals do it all the time. More on that later.[qimg]http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum/cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=78742;[/qimg]

Even more ridiculous by the hour...barriers of gas, going through the cargo hold...all while the plane is on approach to the World Trade Center...and parachuting out, unseen and undetected.

Another D-minus. Try again.

And this time answer my questions about your views on the Jews.

 

[A-Train]

So, the hijackers should be the Alshehri's, Glazer and Lewin, according to Ong.

Of course, you leave out information that you don't like.

Betty Ong wasn't the only flight attendant giving information about the hijackers. Amy Sweeney too said where some hijackers were seated.
She said 9D, 9G and 10B.

So the hijackers should be two empty seats and Al Suqami according to Sweeney.
Sweeney also reported that the stabbed passenger was in 9B, ie Daniel Lewin.

Of course you totally ignore Sweeney's information.

I am very familiar with the records of Sweeney's call. Never, however, have I seen it reported that she noted an injured passenger in seat 9B. Perhaps that is an assumption on the part of your friend Mike?

I put more stock in Ong's call for the simple reason that Sweeney specifically points out that the seat numbers she gives do not match up with the actual seat assignments of the hijackers. Ong's call was also recorded, at least in part, while Sweeney's was made to an airline employee named Mike Woodward who then sat down with FBI agents to work out a transcript of the call.

So Ong reported Glazer and Lewin, as well as the Wail and Waleed al-Shehri. But we know the al-Shehri brothers are alive and well today in Saudi Arabia. Oh, I know, the story has been retracted. It was a case of mistaken identity. It's just a coincidence that the brothers are both pilots, at least one of whom trained in Florida. Please, spare me. The truth is that "Wail al-Shehri" and "Waleed al-Shehri" in seats 2A and 2B were the phony Arabs as part of the stage show, who had assumed the identities that had been stolen from the real Arabs, who are alive and well today.

That Ong and Sweeney don't tell the same thing probably means that the two women were confused. Given the circumstances that is very understandable.

No, it's because Sweeney knew her seat numbers didn't match up to the seat assignments, and said so (see above).

Finally, you use the original FAA-report as evidence for the use of a gun on Flight 11. The report states: "... a passenger located in seat 10B shot and killed a passenger in seat 9B at 9:20 a.m. The passenger killed was Daniel Lewin, shot by passenger Satam Al Suqami. "
(Note that the time is wrong.)
So, according to this report, Al Suqami killed Lewin, not the other way around.

Really, A-Train, all you do is cherry pick information, ignoring most facts, and blowing up those that suit you.

Well, that can work both ways, can't it. Others here have used the report to "prove" Suqami killed Lewin, while dismissing the gun report as a mistake. I'd like to know how the report's authors concluded Suqami shot Lewin when Ong's call shows the exact opposite. Perhaps they were "smart" enough to know that you don't have an Arab being killed by a nice young "American" businessman, but no one had yet whispered in their ear that guns were not to be part of the official story.

 

[WildCat]

So Ong reported Glazer and Lewin, as well as the Wail and Waleed al-Shehri. But we know the al-Shehri brothers are alive and well today in Saudi Arabia.

They are?! Now your task has become so much more simple! All the troofers have to do is travel to SA and interview the al-Shehri brothers! I wonder why that hasn't been done yet? Proving that someone is alive is quite simple, and irrefutable. Of course, we all know that the reason this hasn't been done is that they're dead.

 

[Firestone]

I am very familiar with the records of Sweeney's call. Never, however, have I seen it reported that she noted an injured passenger in seat 9B. Perhaps that is an assumption on the part of your friend Mike?

You haven't seen it reported?
Read the 9/11 Commission report (search the PDF for 9b, it's on page 471 of the file I have). Or read here.

You can't deny evidence simply because it goes against your theory, you know.

So Ong reported Glazer and Lewin, as well as the Wail and Waleed al-Shehri. But we know the al-Shehri brothers are alive and well today in Saudi Arabia.

Well, no, they are not alive.

The "living hijackers" are a red line for me. Someone who believes this self-debunking nonsense simply hasn't done the minimal research and thinking necessary to discuss the 9/11-attacks seriously.

You remind me of one of my favourite cartoons:

 

[Firestone]

They are?! Now your task has become so much more simple! All the troofers have to do is travel to SA and interview the al-Shehri brothers! I wonder why that hasn't been done yet? Proving that someone is alive is quite simple, and irrefutable. Of course, we all know that the reason this hasn't been done is that they're dead.

When I asked David Ray Griffin why no one from the Truth movement tried to contact the "living hijackers", he answered:

Also, several people in the movement have wanted to go see if they could interview any of them, but members of the movement tend not to be wealthy and so they have had to ask for funding. Thus far no one, to my knowledge, has put up the needed funding. Even one well-known journalist, who has written some well-received books, tried to get funding but, at least the last I heard, had not succeeded.

They can't afford a plane ticket, the poor guys.
They could try Skype or email for starters, of course ...

 

[Horatius]

So Ong reported Glazer and Lewin, as well as the Wail and Waleed al-Shehri. But we know the al-Shehri brothers are alive and well today in Saudi Arabia. Oh, I know, the story has been retracted. It was a case of mistaken identity. It's just a coincidence that the brothers are both pilots, at least one of whom trained in Florida. Please, spare me. The truth is that "Wail al-Shehri" and "Waleed al-Shehri" in seats 2A and 2B were the phony Arabs as part of the stage show, who had assumed the identities that had been stolen from the real Arabs, who are alive and well today.

And yet, these two Saudis, implicated in a horrific crime by some rogue Israelis, have yet to come forward and clear their names?

What exactly is their motivation for keeping quiet?