Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[SDC]

Dibbs! Dibbs! Dibbs!

What was the name of that betting man from England? Who decided, after losing, to cancel the wager?

 

[brasil]

Is this a joke?

What part of it do you think is a joke, Totovader?

 

[beachnut]

You show me conclusive proof (and that means a primary source with a "verifiable chain of custody" - thanks Minadin) of ANYTHING that happened on flight 93 and i'll personally send you $100. Just to let you know, a written transcript released by the FBI does not cut it, nor does an audio recording you found on the web.

Just like my other questions about minimizing casualties, and the destruction of evidence, I find it more than a little interesting that while the USG was quoting Todd Beamer's alleged battle cry in their war propaganda, they were simultaneously suppressing the flight data recordings and when they finally did show it to the families years later, they were not even allowed to take notes. Why don't you explain the reasoning behind that.

That's a direct question for you, since you don't seem to be bothering with answering what I'm actually asking: Why did the USG feel the need to suppress the flight data and voice recordings from flight 93, which have still not been released to this day, and only let the families listen to the recording once and not let them take notes? You tell me right now how that fits into your grand theory of 9-11.

And $100, while not a huge sum, is on the table for that other challenge. You can hold me to that.

You owe me 100 bucks. Do you need my paypal account?

More stupid truther questions? No, you tell me why your ranting means anything? You are deep into 9/11 truth ideas; too deep for me. Lay some more out about why you can't figure out 9/11 in 6 years and the passengers on 93 did.

BTW, if you studied 93 at all, you would not bet me 100 bucks. I doubt you will ever give me the money you know I have earned due to the evidence in the public domain. You have no facts after 6 years, and believe 9/11 truth's lies. And you are not a truther?

 

[R.Mackey]

That's a direct question for you, since you don't seem to be bothering with answering what I'm actually asking: Why did the USG feel the need to suppress the flight data and voice recordings from flight 93, which have still not been released to this day, and only let the families listen to the recording once and not let them take notes? You tell me right now how that fits into your grand theory of 9-11.

At this point I despair of disabusing you of your unfounded beliefs, but this one has a simple answer.

It's illegal to release these recordings publicly. Simple as that. Has nothing to do with Sept. 11, and everything to do with rights of privacy in criminal investigations.

 

[Totovader]

What part of it do you think is a joke, Totovader?

The part where you think blowing stuff up in your back yard makes you an expert on explosives. That is... quite ridiculous. I thought for sure you were kidding. I guess I was wrong. Color me amazed.

 

[DGM]

brasil:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100482

This would be a good place to tell us the "spectacular feats" the hijackers did.

 

[brasil]

Wrong there is no official story, just hundreds and hundreds of witness accounts, forensic evidence physical evidence and confessions from Al Qaeda who have continually admitted to carrying out this attack.

sorry! that above section was meant to be a quote, those were not my words! ^

And how then would you categorize the 9/11 Commission Report? Saying there is "no official story" is a perfect example of Gravy's term "moving the goalposts."

 

[beachnut]

Send me 100 bucks soon, I need a new microwave for Christmas

 

[Garb]

Wrong there is no official story, just hundreds and hundreds of witness accounts, forensic evidence physical evidence and confessions from Al Qaeda who have continually admitted to carrying out this attack.

And how then would you categorize the 9/11 Commission Report? Saying there is "no official story" is a perfect example of Gravy's term "moving the goalposts."

Do you even know what that means?

 

[Lurker]

Speaking for myself, I apprecaited RMackey's list of evidence for a fireball in the basement. I would like to see a similar list from brasil that he finds compelling for a bomb in the basement. Thus far, if I were to speak for him it would be:

1. Building damage more consistent with explosives than with fireballs
2. A 30 Ton press said be be "gone" more consistent with explosives than a fireball
3. Someone being knocked over from the force of an explosion

Brasil, can you add or edit this list to encompass your points? I would like to compare vs RMackey's list and perhaps we could work to discuss certain points on those lists.

 

[brasil]

Adding hard cash into this debate just made it SO much more fun!!!

The part where you think blowing stuff up in your back yard makes you an expert on explosives. That is... quite ridiculous. I thought for sure you were kidding. I guess I was wrong. Color me amazed.

Find me the post where I explicitly stated that I am an "expert on explosives" and I will send you a money order for $50. So far you haven't taken a crack at any of the more difficult points I've raised, only attempted to ridicule me using truly childish methods. Your $50 is waiting. Consider it beer money for your high school's graduation party, if you can even win it from me.

 

[stateofgrace]

Wrong there is no official story, just hundreds and hundreds of witness accounts, forensic evidence physical evidence and confessions from Al Qaeda who have continually admitted to carrying out this attack.

And how then would you categorize the 9/11 Commission Report? Saying there is "no official story" is a perfect example of Gravy's term "moving the goalposts."

It is a report made up of all the available evidence such as eye witness accounts, physical evidence, forensic evidence and confessions from Al Qaeda.

There is NO offical story.

Now I have answered your question, answer mine.

 

[Lurker]

The part where you think blowing stuff up in your back yard makes you an expert on explosives. That is... quite ridiculous. I thought for sure you were kidding. I guess I was wrong. Color me amazed.

I used to soak tennis balls in gasoline and play tennis at night with a friend. The tennis balls looked like fireballs. I retract my earlier statement about not being an expert on fireballs.

Brasil, just funnin. I presume you feel your knowledge of explosives is based on more than your backyard experimentation.

 

[brasil]

Do you even know what that means?

The first sentence was supposed to be a quote. Those are not my words, which is why the post doesn't really make sense. Sorry about that, if that's why you're asking.

 

[Garb]

The first sentence was supposed to be a quote. Those are not my words, which is why the post doesn't really make sense. Sorry about that, if that's why you're asking.

No, I was talking about "moving the goalposts." Unless you can find that Stateofgrace once claimed that there was an official story you can't consider him moving the goalposts.

 

[Totovader]

Find me the post where I explicitly stated that I am an "expert on explosives" and I will send you a money order for $50. So far you haven't taken a crack at any of the more difficult points I've raised, only attempted to ridicule me using truly childish methods. Your $50 is waiting. Consider it beer money for your high school's graduation party, if you can even win it from me.

Now you want to play semantics?

By the way, I know a lot about explosives. When I was a teenager me and my friends were interested in things that go BOOM, just like a lot of teenagers who are too smart for their own good and enjoy chemistry. [...]

If your point was simply to assert that you have "knowledge" of explosives... then you have no point. If you wouldn't be able to apply for a job in the relevant field, then what the crap was the point of trying to showcase your expertise?

It doesn't work both ways- either you were trying to infer expertise- or you were saying something useless- much like your personal attack after you claimed that's all I was doing.

I'm not sure it helps your case if you claim that the majority of your claims are weak.

 

[brasil]

At this point I despair of disabusing you of your unfounded beliefs, but this one has a simple answer.

It's illegal to release these recordings publicly. Simple as that. Has nothing to do with Sept. 11, and everything to do with rights of privacy in criminal investigations.

Find me the law that says that if you're going to make that assertion. I've already admitted quite a few times on this board that I doubt I can produce any new "evidence" in this debate, only a potentially more plausible theory.

Haven't you realized that "legal" and "illegal" are what G.W.Bush says they are at any given moment? There is nothing legally set in stone preventing those recordings from being released. There are also FOIA requests, and a responsibility to the public in a supposedly free society that evidence about an event that triggered two wars should be seen by all. That trumps your weak "privacy" argument.

 

[Pookster]

... And how then would you categorize the 9/11 Commission Report? Saying there is "no official story" is a perfect example of Gravy's term "moving the goalposts."

I don't follow your perfect example. If this is a perfect example of moving the goalposts, where were the goalposts to begin with, and where did they get moved to?

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

 

[Pookster]

Do you even know what that means?

You beat me to it.

 

[brasil]

Speaking for myself, I apprecaited RMackey's list of evidence for a fireball in the basement. I would like to see a similar list from brasil that he finds compelling for a bomb in the basement. Thus far, if I were to speak for him it would be:

1. Building damage more consistent with explosives than with fireballs
2. A 30 Ton press said be be "gone" more consistent with explosives than a fireball
3. Someone being knocked over from the force of an explosion

Brasil, can you add or edit this list to encompass your points? I would like to compare vs RMackey's list and perhaps we could work to discuss certain points on those lists.

Thank you Lurker, I want to get back on track with this, but I'm going to lunch right now. While I was out last night I had this great thought to add to that debate which I'm going to think over and then post. I want everyone reading this to know that R.Mackey is the only member of this discussion so far who has presented anything worth serioulsy responding to, and I intend to keep responding to his points. It just takes time. Most of the other posts have devolved into an irrelevant pissing contest, dont you think?