Could you remind me of a definitive statement or a conclusion I have pronounced.
Just a sample, from the article:
"There is no justification for not releasing it," he says, adding that anyone can go to the Pentagon's Web site and get all the details about the building. "There's absolutely no security issue whatsoever."
"There may be answers for these things, but the government hasn't put forth a single piece of evidence," Pickering says.
My mind is fuzzy from reading your long post. And try to keep it shorter OK?
You also said that my post of the FDNY quotes was "long and distracting." I'll ask you outright: do you have a medical problem that prevents you from paying attention?
No but they are collapse experts and worked side by side with FDNY who told them of the rumors.
People who weren't there passed on rumors from unnamed sources. Got it.
I let Bill speak on this one, "No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."
I repeat: Bill Manning has never supported CT claims. His concerns were related only to the fire safety of tall buildings.
Why do you CTs insist on only including part of the story – and then usually only the earliest part of the story? Don't you know that Manning's frustration with the "superficial" FEMA investigation was assuaged when NIST took over? You should. Read his subsequent editorials.
I'm guessing I have a little more firefighter training than you on this one. Secondary devices are part of that training. Thank you for your time though.
Then why did you get everything wrong when you attempted to tell us what the FDNY did at the World Trade Center? Sometimes it's better to research than to guess, Russell.
DOZENS and dozens. I have a photo of every individual piece on my site that I am aware of. Perhaps you could enlighten me. You should read more!
You have a website devoted to investigating the Pentagon attack but you haven't seen dozens of photos of flight 77 debris? Please tell us that you're joking.
The data was confiscated right away in regards to the CVR.
"Ordinarily, that would have been just the start of Cushman's association with the device, but this time, it was the end. The events of Sept. 11 had already been classified as criminal acts, rather than accidents, so the FBI, which has its own forensic audio lab, took charge of the box and its data."
Quote mine much? You said the NTSB "barred the National Transportation and Safety Board from investigating the scene."
The site you just linked to shows that to be a lie:
"Over the next few days, working the 3 p.m. to morning shift, she and several other NTSB experts struggled to separate airplane parts from office parts. Early on the morning of Sept.14, while Cushman was at the site, the cockpit voice recorder, or CVR, was found. It was quickly transported across the Potomac to the NTSB lab in Washington, D.C., where Cushman works with three other analysts, and its data was downloaded.
Ordinarily, that would have been just the start of Cushman's association with the device, but this time, it was the end. The events of Sept. 11 had already been classified as criminal acts, rather than accidents, so the FBI, which has its own forensic audio lab, took charge of the box and its data."
In the same way having your TV turned off precludes you from watching the X Files.
You'll need to do better than that. I asked you how the lack of access to videos precludes you from finding out what happened to flight 77. Is it your contention that videos are the only way we know of plane crashes? This is a serious question. Please respond.
I can get a DVD in 5 minutes at Video world. 5 years is sufficient. Read this thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68164
No, you cannot get videos of evidence gathered by the FBI in criminal cases at Video World, unless that evidence has gone through the proper clearance procedures for legal release or been released illegally. What is 5 years "sufficient" for? Do you expect a package to arrive at your door each month with copies of all the evidence it has collected in criminal investigations in the past 30 days? That's not how it works, Russell.
Please contact Wikipedia and have them correct this.
"On September 11, 2001, Hani Hanjour boarded American Airlines Flight 77 at 7:50am, though it is still disputed whether or not he had a ticket for the flight, or appeared on any manifest."
So your statement that "he official passenger manifest contained neither Arab names nor names that aren't accounted for" is based on a
Wikipedia article about a
disputed piece of information about
one hijacker? Nice research, Russell. Top notch. Since you obviously hadn't seen the manifests, you should have refrained from making such a foolish statement about them. Trying to defend that mistake by referring to a Wikipedia article is plain stupid.
They did match two brothers. They still have no positive identification of the remains matched to any name specifically. Read this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2045975&postcount=12
There is overwhelming evidence that the hijackers were who the official reports say they were, including DNA evidence. You have no evidence that says otherwise. Where does that leave your claim, Russell?
“On the afternoon of September 11, Dr. Marcella Fierro, the Virginia Chief Medical Examiner, met with ASAC Blecksmith and asserted the responsibility of her office regarding the autopsies of victims of the terrorist attack. The FBI felt strongly that the Armed Forces Institute of pathology (AFIP), with which the FBI has long-standing working relations, should perform the autopsies. Dr. Fierro requested and received a letter from Attorney General Ashcroft transferring responsibility for the medical examinations to the FBI.
She informed them that Virginia forensic laboratory and mortuary resources were prepared to go to work in support of the response. The FBI and DOD officials declined the offer, preferring to conduct forensic and mortuary activities at DOD facilities."
Exactly right. Your insinuation that the government did something wrong when it "barred involvement by the Virginia medical examiner" is baseless. The VME wasn't needed. Dr. Fierro asked for a letter to that effect, which is proper procedure in any such jurisdictional issue. Had you read
one paragraph further, you would know why that was a good decision, and you would have seen
praise expressed for how the DOD cooperated with local agencies, as told by the locals, not the gubmint:
"The FBI has extensive experience in, and is responsible for, collecting evidence and investigating terrorist acts. It also has extensive experience in crime scene mortuary operations. Under the leadership of FBI Special Agent Tara Bloesch, a temporary morgue was established in the loading dock area of the North Parking Lot. Remains were photographed, labeled, and prepared for transport to Dover Air Force Base (AFB) in Delaware for forensic testing, identification, and processing for burial.
The DoD, a major Arlington County constituent, was the target of the terrorist attack. Understandably, it might have followed its military instincts to seize control of the battle and protect its people and property. Instead, the MDW fully cooperated with the ACFD Incident Command and provided valuable resources. This contributed significantly to the positive outcome of the incident response described throughout this report."
"The volume of information concerning the aircraft crash into the Pentagon on September 11 is rather limited. Through the cooperation of transportation, law enforcement, and news organizations the BPS team was able to collect the essential data for the purpose of this study." (page 12)
"Controlled access to the site was granted to the full team after rescue and recovery operations were complete. On October 4, 2001, the Pentagon team, together with John Durrant, the executive director of ASCE’s institutes, and W. Gene Corley, the BPS team leader at the World Trade Center, inspected the interior and exterior of the damaged area of the Pentagon for approximately four hours.
And you said they were barred from the site! Russell, once again your own sources show you to be lying!
Please try to refrain from quoting me out of context as you do the reports etc. for your articles. Read the paragraph prior to that.
"Pickering is further puzzled by the history of the terrorist-pilot, who was denied access to a Cessna 172 three weeks before Sept. 11. Since the denial was based on his inadequate English and piloting skills, Pickering wonders how he could fly a jumbo jet.
I didn't quote you out of context at all. You said "There may be answers for these things, but the government hasn't put forth a single piece of evidence,"
and you said that after the 9/11 Commission report had been published!
I can and will ask anything of anyone at anytime.
Fine, but don't expect answers if your questions aren't relevant, valid, able to be answered, or if they're not asked of the right people. Get it?
Gravy - that is just wrong. I have done more in person investigation of the pentagon than almost anybody.
Name the eyewitnesses to the crash that you had interviewed as of the date of that article.
Can you post some of your personal interviews with the firefighters you quote please?
You really don't know how to pay attention, do you? You're the one who doesn't believe the firefighters, so you're the one who needs to interview them. Is there anything about that that's unclear, ex-firefighter Pickering?
Every claim? Please try to refrain from exaggeration.
I challenge you to name a substantive claim that Loose Change 2nd Edition got right.
You saw the logs? How? They were very specific from a server that far exceeds normal logs for websites. Please try and only speak of that which you know and your posts will be significantly shorter.
I repeat: your claims are not validated because some individuals at large organizations tuned into an netcast. That fallacy has been explained to you above.
It really is not very effective for you to try and function in your current emotional state. Go take that walk I suggested and come back prepared.
I'm functioning quite well. Third time: would you like to explain why the April, 2006 date of that article excuses your errors?
