But a massive, multi-agency investigation did identify the nineteen hijackers. Saudi intelligence eventually corroborated the findings. You are lying when you pretend that your imaginary villains have been "caught' lying. Tell us what you actually know and how you know it.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
What's the hijacker alive theory?
- Thread starter abenja1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- conspiracy theories
But a massive, multi-agency investigation did identify the nineteen hijackers. Saudi intelligence eventually corroborated the findings. You are lying when you pretend that your imaginary villains have been "caught' lying. Tell us what you actually know and how you know it.
This thread is for discussing your claims about hijackers being alive or misidentified. I'm sure if there are any late-breaking news updates, people here will let you know. No need to ask.
While you're waiting, how about continuing our discussion?
You claim the war is being escalated by the FBI. How does that work, exactly?
If the hijackers were different terrorists from the ones the FBI says they were, how would that have made any difference in the attacks being used as a pretext for war? (I note that we are not at war or threatening war against any of the countries the hijackers were identified by the FBI as being from.)
Respectfully,
Myriad
I have clearly not behaved in any way even remotely resembling throwing a tantrum. This will be obvious to anyone reading my posts, so there's no need for me to address that odd claim any further.
In fact I've been entertaining the hypothetical possibility that you are right about the misidentification of the hijackers, and have been asking you to explain the implications of that. You seem to feel that it is very important, but have not explained why other than to make an assertion to the effect that it has something to do with the people who claim to have identified the hijackers (that is, the FBI) escalating the Iraq War.
That's why I'm asking:
How is the FBI managing to escalate the war?
If the hijackers were different terrorists from the ones the FBI says they were, how would that have made any difference in the attacks being used as a pretext for war? (I note that we are not at war or threatening war against any of the countries the hijackers were identified by the FBI as being from.)
Respectfully,
Myriad
Ah, but there's the problem: here on Earth, all nineteen hijackers were identified. In your fantasy world, all the evidence gathered by several intelligence agencies working in concert was, necessarily, faked. What we rationalists continually ask you conspiracy liars is how you know this. Please explain.
Good for the nation you are on in the FBI. Even grade school kids can find out who the hijackers were. Why is 9/11 truth so challenged to read and comprehend? Are you in 9/11 truth? Why is 9/11 truth unable to connect the dots to make a rational conclusion, yet, make up conclusions based on vapor of fantasy thoughts they generate in their minds or lift from others in 9/11 truth?
The 7th year of 9/11 truth failing to make one valid point. Perfect record.
Par
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,768
Profanz
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2007
- Messages
- 932
I didn't say anything about the FBI but now that you bring it up...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_June_24/ai_103603756
They positively identified nothing.
And I'm responding to multiple people here Myrid. Don't be so sensitive.
9/11 commission
FBI
Girl Scouts of America
Whomever you want. None of them positively identified the 9/11 hijackers.
As far as my comment about this 9/11 story and the liars who used it to push for war well you all know who I'm talking about.
Continue with your tantrums. I'm done with this.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_June_24/ai_103603756
They positively identified nothing.
And I'm responding to multiple people here Myrid. Don't be so sensitive.
9/11 commission
FBI
Girl Scouts of America
Whomever you want. None of them positively identified the 9/11 hijackers.
As far as my comment about this 9/11 story and the liars who used it to push for war well you all know who I'm talking about.
Continue with your tantrums. I'm done with this.
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
You never began.
Sorry, but you're wrong. All nineteen hijackers were identified to the satisfaction of law enforcement agencies all over the world. You and your evil, mindless movement are exposed as the liars.
Your tantrum has been noted and, yes, you are certainly done.
Next!
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Don't you dare disgrace the anti war movement, whom I am an active member of,with your ridiculous conspiracy theories. If you wish to discuss the war in Iraq or Afghanistan do so in the appropriate subsections but save your self righteous indignation.
Your ridiculous movement is not and as never been welcomed inside genuine anti war gatherings. Please desist in trying to associate yourself and your pathetic movement with genuine discontent about US foreign policy.
Last edited:
Sure you did. It was only a page ago. Remember? I'm sure everyone else does. (Emphasis added.)
The ones who claim to have performed the investigation leading to our knowledge of who the 9/11 hijackers were is the FBI -- as this article you yourself linked confirms.
So, I'm still wondering how the FBI is escalating the war. This sounds like a vitally important matter, so why are you refusing to give me the information? At this point I were to try to alert the press or law enforcement to this matter, they would say to me, "So, now, Myriad, how is the FBI escalating the war?" and I'd have to tell them, "I have no idea," and then they'd dismiss my story for lack of a plausible connection between the FBI's misidentification of the hijackers and the developments of the war. I want to do the right thing, but by being coy you've left me without any means to take corrective action.
Okay, I've been willing for many posts now to entertain that as a hypothesis. What I want to know is, if the hijackers were different terrorists from the ones the FBI says they were, how would that have made any difference in the attacks being used as a pretext for war? (I note that we are not at war or threatening war against any of the countries the hijackers were identified by the FBI as being from.)
Anyone reading these posts can easily see that I'm not being sensitive, but I suppose it's possible that I could start becoming so without warning at any moment, so thanks for the advice.
You obviously feel this matter is important, but you refuse to explain why it's important? Doesn't keeping that vital connection secret make you an accessory too?
If the hijackers were different terrorists from the ones the FBI says they were, how would that have made any difference in the attacks being used as a pretext for war? (Keeping in mind that that we are not at war or threatening war against any of the countries the hijackers were identified by the FBI as being from.)
Why won't you answer?
Really? You're just going to allow countless more deaths to happen in an escalated war just because you're what, bored? Sleepy? Hungry? Afraid of sounding irrational? Unable to phrase your concerns clearly?
Please, I urge you, compose your thoughts, take your time and answer my questions. If countless lives depend on it, isn't it worth some effort?
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Ron, in my opinion, it is best not to get into this.
I personally have always opposed US intervention in the Middle East; I personally have left my house and marched in cities in the UK against this. But this forum is not about mine or your views on the wars out there. It is about the ridiculous theories that the twoofers bring forward. It is about rational thinking and sorting fact from the absurd. I have no doubt that beyond these we would have differing opinions on many of the world’s issues. I have no doubt we would not see eye to eye on many of theses issues. But this forum is not the place and it is not the time to air these issues. This forum is dedicated to combating the ridiculous theories spewed out by the ridiculous TM and on this I would like to think we could stand shoulder to shoulder.
As such until this ridiculous movement and their insane ideas are finally laid to rest, I prefer not to get into this with you. Ok?
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
So is there a little clubhouse that you, RedIbis and all the other intellectual cowards hang out in after you run away from threads?
Q1. Was there an offer of DNA from family of the hijackers that was refused by the FBI?
Q2. Is there proof that the FBI did not obtain samples on all of the hijackers from the families?
If the answer to Q1 and Q2 are No, then how do we (debunker or truther) know the FBI does not have DNA samples from the families for all 19 hijackers?
Oh let me guess....I can't find it on de Interwebz, so they must no have done dat!!
TAM
Q2. Is there proof that the FBI did not obtain samples on all of the hijackers from the families?
If the answer to Q1 and Q2 are No, then how do we (debunker or truther) know the FBI does not have DNA samples from the families for all 19 hijackers?
Oh let me guess....I can't find it on de Interwebz, so they must no have done dat!!
TAM
Fair enough. We are certainly comrades-in-arms in the struggle against the loons.
Still no positive evidence to support the "hijackers are alive" theory, then, which is supposed to be the topic of this thread?
Nope. Not a word. Profanz has done a fine job of obscuring the weakness of the argument, though. Never admit there's a problem with the basic theory, switch to trying to find a hole in the "official story" because the 9/11 truth version is indefensible, ask for evidence when you know you'll be able to deny whatever is put forward, then eventually declare yourself the winner and hope no-one notices you redefined the debate on your own terms. A fine example of why 9/11 truth is 99.9% about internet debating, only 0.1% about finding the real truth about anything.
Nope. Not a word. Profanz has done a fine job of obscuring the weakness of the argument, though. Never admit there's a problem with the basic theory, switch to trying to find a hole in the "official story" because the 9/11 truth version is indefensible, ask for evidence when you know you'll be able to deny whatever is put forward, then eventually declare yourself the winner and hope no-one notices you redefined the debate on your own terms. A fine example of why 9/11 truth is 99.9% about internet debating, only 0.1% about finding the real truth about anything.
eeyore1954
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,811
How could anyone possibly believe if it was an inside job they would have named supposed hijackers who were not dead?
The oval office sometime before 9/11/2001
Cheney: you know George we need to come up with the names of the hijackers.
Bush: Lets just pick some names at random from a Saudi phone book. They all sound alike to me.
Cheney: but what if some of them come forward and say they are alive?
Bush: Don't worry after all I am the President and so was my daddy.
Cheney: Right as usual George.
The oval office sometime before 9/11/2001
Cheney: you know George we need to come up with the names of the hijackers.
Bush: Lets just pick some names at random from a Saudi phone book. They all sound alike to me.
Cheney: but what if some of them come forward and say they are alive?
Bush: Don't worry after all I am the President and so was my daddy.
Cheney: Right as usual George.