9/11 - Not proud, but I'm becoming convinced

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

What collapse?

See the way the building post-fire is narrower in the upper half then the lower half?

Before the fire it wasn't.

The missing sections were steel-supported. They failed completely.
The sections that remained standing were concrete-supported.

So an office fire melted and weakened fire-proofed steel in a high-rise sufficiently for it to lose its load-bearing capacity and fail completely.

No-one has ever said that the entire building collapsed...just the parts that were steel-supported.

whiterebel

Ciaran500 wrote:

Source?

Ask an insrance company about insuring "consequential loss" - The phrase itself explains why they don't do it.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

Insuring against Consequential loss is near unheard of though, especially with a policy that size,

Just while looking more into this, I came across this link.

Its an article in Forbes, from Swiss Re, who'd be one of the major players in the whole insurance affair. They commented that Silverstein's insurance was " almost sufficient to rebuild without regard to any possible loss of rental income"...which seems to suggest he didn't have insurance against Consequential Loss like you're suggesting (which I admit I thought he had as well).

The more I look, I can't find anything to confirm he did have this. Whiterebel - do you have any sources?

Dirty Dave

Hopefully this works - a picture of the building before the fire

bonkey

Cheers Dave. I couldn't find a decent one.

whiterebel

Is that the hotel in the picture on the concrete website? Not being funny here, but it doesn't look much like the original photos before the fire? The surrounding etc look different. Of course it me have been rebuilt bigger after.

To be honest, I wouldn't be overly convinced by a company that actively pushed concrete as an unbiased source. Bit like Turkeys voting against Christmas.

Difference between the WTCs as well is that the Madrid fire burned with that intensity for well over 24 hours, and the steel would be expected to weaken due to that length of exposure to that heat. There does seem to still be a massive amount of steel still standing.

According to this website, due to the steel being protected below floor 21.

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/windsor_madrid.html

They have the same photo of the hotel on their website, so it must be the right one.

I spent a lot of time going through all the available material for about a year after, Bonkey, and left it go after that., so I'd have to really trawl back to find the bit about the consequential loss. Didn't dream it though, as it was such a huge thing at the time. I actually asked my insurance broker about it at the time, and he said the risks to that are incalculable.

Dirty Dave

whiterebel wrote:

To be honest, I wouldn't be overly convinced by a company that actively pushed concrete as an unbiased source. Bit like Turkeys voting against Christmas.

True, but bear in mind I just did a google search and that was the first relevant website I found. As for the picture, I think they were just taken from different angles and ranges etc.

meglome

whiterebel wrote:

What collapse?

As Bonkey says it was a mostly concrete building so I wasn't suggesting it totally collapsed. I was saying the steel parts of it collapsed. Sorry of I didn’t make that clear.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/70791/45480.gif

meglome

Jocksereire wrote:

you back the theory that 19 hijackers conspired to attack the WTC centre and pentagon :rolleyes: You defend to US governments conspiracy theory. no point in playing with words there is no difference

US government conspriracy theory what?!?!?

Okay then... Conspiracy
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Theory
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Now least I be accused of being patronising I'm not. But using the definitions above how do you figure the US Government's official line is a conspiracy theory? Reading on this carefully it seems to me they followed the facts as they are accepted by the vast majority of those involved. Did they cover up some of their own ineptitude? I'm sure they did but a conspiracy that doesn’t make.

Jocksereire wrote:

you back the theory that 19 hijackers conspired to attack the WTC centre and pentagon :rolleyes:

You're actually stating the very reason why it did work, they basically kept it simple. (Not withstanding that US intelligence ****ed up). If you can takeover a plane you basically have a big fliying bomb. The people on the plane went along when they thought it was a 'standard' hijacking. But the last plane ended up in a field because the passengers knew what was going to happen and tried to stop it.

banquo

Dirty Dave wrote:

Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire.
Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.
The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns.
NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster recommends the inclusion of 'strong points' within the building frame design - the Madrid Windsor Building's strong points were its two concrete 'technical' floors and the concrete core system enabling the building to survive complete burnout.
This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction.

Original article (Including pictures of what the hotel looked like BEFORE the partial collapse can be found below)

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205

I'll believe anything anyone can give me solid evidence of - but I do like to put it to the test. Hence the above.

*Thank* you Dirty Dave, for providing me [ the OP] with facts. And Bonkey and Oscarbravo. I came on here 100% in doubt of the official story and looking for science regarding the collapses, not just speculation about motive. After following some links here, including one I think to debunking911.com, I've been able to throw out most of the CT. CT's tend to be insular and follow a predetermined narrative, and it quickly becomes like a race as to how many facts can be bent around the new story, that's why I was cautious in the first place.

The only thing that I couldn't shake was the collapse of the towers, motive and plausibility aside. Debunking911.com does a pretty thorough job in explaining how the towers collapsed, I strongly recommend it. But, since I'm not really qualified to understand most of the explanation I can only take their word for it and look instead at the evidence surrounding it that I do understand, motive and plausability, of which there seems to be none.

So, I'm out. While very convincing at first, i.e. the towers really do look like a controlled demolition, it just doesn't stand up to investigation.

Ashla, please get help.

*Rob.

whiterebel

Banquo, Just to repeat this is from a Concrete Promotion website. They won't have anything good to say about steel anyway. I don't understand the engineering aspects of it fully either, and every time I go with a supportive website, There seems to be another, equally persuasive argument that it couldn't have happened that way.

Not so bad here, but what does my head in on other sites is the absolute certainity the both sides are right and won't give an inch. Arguments likthe Government wouldn't lie don't cut it with me....Condoleeza Rice lying to the Spanish Govt and more than likely us as well about Extraordinary renditions should show that.

What will be really interesting is the appeal by the Lockerbie bomber against his conviction. If he is found not guilty there will be a lot of questions about the official line. The fact that he is being represented by Gareth Pierce would suggest he'll have a good chance of winning.

As I said before, I don't buy the whole cutesy CT package that Michael Moore, loose change etc push. I do wonder though at the string of coincidences, failings and downright bullsh*t that we are expected to believe as fact.

whiterebel

Quote:
...and by the way 7 of the 'terrorists' who were supposed to be on the planes turned up alive and well.
No, they didn't. You are presumably referring to reports in the first 10 days after 9/11 from various news sources, all of which have subsequetly been accepted to be cases of mistaken reports - a bit like that picture of Maddie the other day turned out to not be Maddie after all.


Sorry Bonkey on this one you are wrong. 7 of the people listed on the FBIs website as hijackers are alive and well and had nothing to do with 9/11. Last time I looked about a year ago, they were still on it.

Ciaran500

banquo wrote:

So, I'm out. While very convincing at first, i.e. the towers really do look like a controlled demolition, it just doesn't stand up to investigation.

Ashla, please get help.

*Rob.

Was in the same place after watching Loose Change when it first came out. Once I actually started checking their "facts" the story started to come tumbling down. My friend recently started raving about Zeitgeist and I refused to watch it but he kept throwing arguments at me and I kept refuting them and filling in the blanks the film conveniently misses out on. He's now back in "the CTs are crazy group"

These stories are very, very convincing if you only get onside of the story and take everything in them as fact.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

Banquo, Just to repeat this is from a Concrete Promotion website. They won't have anything good to say about steel anyway.

Thats not really relevant.

People looking at the collapse of the towers tell us that steel supported structures don't collapse from fire. Ignoring the fact that there was significant damage caused by (as someone put it on another forum) friggin' big aircraft smacking into feiggin' big buildings, we can all agree that this damage alone didn't cause the collapse, and 'alternate explanation' theorists insist that the ensuing fires couldn't cause the steel to melt.

We see canards and straw-men trotted out such as the burning temps of airgas not being high enough, but just like a match can light an oxy-acetylene torch, the aurcraft fuel didn't cause the collapse either. It ignited massive, widespread office fires without the requirement for the typical "spread from a single source" pattern.

The collapse of the steel-support sections in the Madrid tower shows that office fire alone, even when fought, in an undamaged structure[/] si enough to initiate a collapse event.

No-one can/should claim that this explains WTC7. Lets be clear on that. But what it unquistionably shows is that the claims regarding the fires in WTC 1 and 2 being fundamentally incapable of causing the steel to fail is patently false.

Also worth noting in the Windsor tower case is the timeline. Yes, the fire raged for almost a day. However, the fire broke out at 23:00, and the collapse above floor 17 occurred at 04:00. So the relevant timeframe for a fire with normal progression, with fireproofing (albeit somewhat below modern standard) in a high-rise building causing the steel-supports to structure was 5 hours.

Not so bad here, but what does my head in on other sites is the absolute certainity the both sides are right and won't give an inch.

I agree. Its frustrating.

Arguments likthe Government wouldn't lie don't cut it with me

They wouldn't cut it with me, either. However, the acceptance that the government would lie only allows us to look at any given piece of information and ask "did they lie". If we find they did, that in turn enables to ask "why did they lie". This pattern is hard to find. We generally see people start by assuming they did lie, and somehow concluding that because they lied, it must/i] be for one specific reason (i.e. they were somehow in on it) and the only remaining step is to interpret the available data so that we either discount it or say "it supports this theory". The problem is that these interpretations invariably involve additional factors to be present, but when the critical observer asks "but why aren't these factors there", then the handwaving begins.

I do wonder though at the string of coincidences, failings and downright bullsh*t that we are expected to believe as fact.

I don't agree that there's all that much bull that we're accepted to believe as fact, rather that there's a number of individuals propagating the belief that its bull who are being taken at face value, rather than being subjected to the same standard of scrutiny as the officials and their findings.

Yes, there were failings. Some were unavoidable. Some were due to the realities of the day. Some are hard to comprehend in a post-911 world, but we always have to remember to try and analyse things based on what the actors knew at the time. If we can show they must have known something they shouldn't have been able to know, then we've something interesting. Otherwise, its a case of misapplying hindsight.

For example - we know today that if you hijack a plane, you've got a massive flying bomb. Thus, if you are on a plane tomorrow and it gets hijacked, the passengers are likely to risk life and limb if they fear they are pawns in another 911. Prior to 911, however, the mentality was different - it was more like being in a bank being robbed. Your best chance of getting out alive was to do exactly what was asked of you. Ironically, 911 has done more to destroy the "industry" of hijacking planes and holding the passengers to ransom for political demands then anything else could have.

Yes, there are hard-to-answer - or indeed unanswerable - questions. Any complex, chaotic set of events will inevitably result in such things. So we need to be somewhat flexible. That cascade of falling, molten, something from one of the two towers is a good example. Yes, it could be something suspicious. Or it might not be. That it happened away from the collapse event (physically and timewise) suggests the latter. That it occurred on a floor with a large UPS, in the corner where the UPS was installed....suggests that it might be connected to the UPS. Sure, it might still be suspicious, but not to the point where we must explain it to the last detail. Rather, there should be evidence to show that it is suspicious, or else we can assume that its most probably connected to a failure of the massive array of lead-acid batteries. If it had happened seconds before collapse...it would be a different story, but it didn't. Same for most of the reports of explosions. I provided some links in the BIG thread on this subject, where there were comments about explosions at the Madrid collapse, and at the collapse of a large crane at some point. Its a common description used for large, sudden "bangs"....which are not uncommon occurrences in large office fires.

Despite what many believe, I still don't rule out the possibility that there's some big, dark secret about 911 that we haven't yet found. If I was told "there is one and you have to guess what it was", I would say that Al Qaeda were a US-Intelligence front, and that the US Intelligence collapsed the towers and WTC7 by controlling a bunch of terrorists in caves to recruit dedicated believers and set them underway, resulting in big friggin' planes smacking into big friggin' buildings.

If I had to pick a flaw in the reasons the towers fell, I'd side with the ex-NIST fire expert who suggested that the NIST findings didn't look at culpability in terms of how the building was built (most notably fireproofing standards) and that it would have survived longer before failure had it been otherwise.

Even then, I'm open to other possibilities...if credible evidence is produced. To date, I've yet to see it.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

Sorry Bonkey on this one you are wrong. 7 of the people listed on the FBIs website as hijackers are alive and well and had nothing to do with 9/11. Last time I looked about a year ago, they were still on it.

Then I'd be very interested in knowing which 7, and how you know they're alive.

bonkey

banquo wrote:

The only thing that I couldn't shake was the collapse of the towers, motive and plausibility aside. Debunking911.com does a pretty thorough job in explaining how the towers collapsed, I strongly recommend it. But, since I'm not really qualified to understand most of the explanation I can only take their word for it and look instead at the evidence surrounding it that I do understand, motive and plausability, of which there seems to be none.

So, I'm out. While very convincing at first, i.e. the towers really do look like a controlled demolition, it just doesn't stand up to investigation.

While reading this, one thing sprang to mind...

While its (probably) bad form to be pimping another board-site here, the JREF Conspiracy Forum is worth a visit. While there's some godawful drek there, there are an amount of very talented, dedicated individuals with some scary qualifications who produce some fantastic work. A handful of the "core" posters there put together hugely detailed research (written form far more than youTubism), more looking at the specific claims of the major "alternate exaplanation" crew then in defence of the NIST report.

For example, one of the guys (R. Mackey) who is, if memory serves) a NASA guy, put together a 100+ page PDF critiquing one section of Griffin's "Debunking the Debunkers" work. Its well done, complete with references to sources, critical analysis of the arguments as well as of the science, and to be honest, shows the whole thing to be as dodgy as can be.

The content on that forum is of variable quality...but when the likes of Mark Roberts (Gravy) or Mackey put toghether their external work....its an eye opener in terms of questioning the quality of the so-called "truther" research.

Ashla, please get help.

Ashla

meglome wrote:

I assume you were taking the weewee about the holograms? please tell me you were.

NO! when you look at the planes, they went through the towers like butter, and talking about holograms, we'll be seeing a few more in years to come. Keep a keen eye, and you'll see.They are so clever these days, you wont believe your eyes. They deceive you.

Ciaran500

Ashla wrote:

NO! when you look at the planes, they went through the towers like butter, and talking about holograms, we'll be seeing a few more in years to come. Keep a keen eye, and you'll see.They are so clever these days, you wont believe your eyes. They deceive you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

whiterebel

bonkey wrote:

Then I'd be very interested in knowing which 7, and how you know they're alive.

BBC and most of the news agencies reported it pretty quickly. All mid-eastern, IIRC, mostly Saudis. Their identities used, but its been proved they weren't involved. BBC should still have it in their archives. What i'd like to know is why the FBI still identified innocent people at least 5 years later.

Ashla

humanji wrote:

Considering terrorists bombed the WTF before, it would be the first thought that came to everyones mind.

The Bushes did it! first and last?? They are your TERROR! coming home to roost! so they can impose on you, fake terrorist laws, which they fear you into. And you believe them HaHaHaHaHa

whiterebel

Ashla wrote:

The Bushes did it! first and last?? They are your TERROR! coming home to roost! so they can impose on you, fake terrorist laws, which they fear you into. And you believe them HaHaHaHaHa

Jesus man, and I worry about my sanity just wondering if George knew about it, never mind arrange it........

Ashla

whiterebel wrote:

Jesus man, and I worry about my sanity just wondering if George knew about it, never mind arrange it........

YES! it did make me think!! being as he's uncontrollably mad!

banquo

Ashla, I would really like to know:

a) how old you are
b) what language you speak

banquo

I realised that as I began to realise that all in loose change was not as it seems, I was feeling dissapointed. Thus, I had a growing emotional attachment to the CT, and began to question my objectivity.

meglome

banquo wrote:

I realised that as I began to realise that all in loose change was not as it seems, I was feeling dissapointed. Thus, I had a growing emotional attachment to the CT, and began to question my objectivity.

I'm a huge reader of books so I do enjoy a good story. Those videos were really interesting to watch and I really do mean that. But wanting something to be so doesn't make it so. Anybody who can actually be objective and really check the 'facts' as portrayed in these videos will quickly realise they are not what they claim to be. I'm fascinated by the rigid believe the conspiracy theorists have and no matter how many times it has been clearly explained they still believe the hype. Nothing more scary than a true believer eh?

meglome

whiterebel wrote:

Not so bad here, but what does my head in on other sites is the absolute certainity the both sides are right and won't give an inch. Arguments likthe Government wouldn't lie don't cut it with me....Condoleeza Rice lying to the Spanish Govt and more than likely us as well about Extraordinary renditions should show that.

he he so true and I'm just as bad as anyone.

I personally assume Governments lie all the time but does that mean the US government was involved in the WTC attacks, they weren't without seeing credible evidence.

meglome

bonkey wrote:

Yes, there are hard-to-answer - or indeed unanswerable - questions. Any complex, chaotic set of events will inevitably result in such things. So we need to be somewhat flexible. That cascade of falling, molten, something from one of the two towers is a good example. Yes, it could be something suspicious. Or it might not be. That it happened away from the collapse event (physically and timewise) suggests the latter. That it occurred on a floor with a large UPS, in the corner where the UPS was installed....suggests that it might be connected to the UPS. Sure, it might still be suspicious, but not to the point where we must explain it to the last detail. Rather, there should be evidence to show that it is suspicious, or else we can assume that its most probably connected to a failure of the massive array of lead-acid batteries. If it had happened seconds before collapse...it would be a different story, but it didn't. Same for most of the reports of explosions. I provided some links in the BIG thread on this subject, where there were comments about explosions at the Madrid collapse, and at the collapse of a large crane at some point. Its a common description used for large, sudden "bangs"....which are not uncommon occurrences in large office fires.

Despite what many believe, I still don't rule out the possibility that there's some big, dark secret about 911 that we haven't yet found. If I was told "there is one and you have to guess what it was", I would say that Al Qaeda were a US-Intelligence front, and that the US Intelligence collapsed the towers and WTC7 by controlling a bunch of terrorists in caves to recruit dedicated believers and set them underway, resulting in big friggin' planes smacking into big friggin' buildings.

If I had to pick a flaw in the reasons the towers fell, I'd side with the ex-NIST fire expert who suggested that the NIST findings didn't look at culpability in terms of how the building was built (most notably fireproofing standards) and that it would have survived longer before failure had it been otherwise.

Even then, I'm open to other possibilities...if credible evidence is produced. To date, I've yet to see it.

Couldn't agree more.

Kernel

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Ah no seriously, something that you will find that will most certainly put you off, is the total idiots and their no-plane theories, directed energy weapons (DEW's) and the hologram theory/tv fakery. These guys really take the nuttiest biscuit and seem to have a no gag reflex.You are better off going on with whatever it is you are doing not dwelling over the owld past events.

Disinformation at work. Feed the 'crazies' stereotype to supress a valid argument. It's a science, and CIA have been found to be behind a lot of information management on the internet, a recent example of which is found in the 'wiki infiltration' news.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6444

Ashla

banquo wrote:

Ashla, I would really like to know:

a) how old you are
b) what language you speak

Well it's like this! in this life time I was made and completed in this century! in the last I was put together by genetics, The one before
that I was born from a Golden egg! So I really don't know how old I am! ya got me there

O! and as for language! ANY!

Gordon

Ashla wrote:

Well it's like this! in this life time I was made and completed in this century! in the last I was put together by genetics, The one before
that I was born from a Golden egg! So I really don't know how old I am! ya got me there

O! and as for language! ANY!

So, you are 7 years old and speak every single language. OK, glad we've got that settled.

Ashla

meglome wrote:

Couldn't agree more.

bla! bla! bla! get straight to the friggin point! Bush don it, and to his own kind. And WHY? Ask your selves why???????????? You shouldn't need this one spelling out.:rolleyes:

Ciaran500

Ashla wrote:

bla! bla! bla! get straight to the friggin point! Bush don it, and to his own kind. And WHY? Ask your selves why???????????? You shouldn't need this one spelling out.:rolleyes:

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. You're not one of these idiots that gets caught up in proof.

humanji

Ashla wrote:

The Bushes did it! first and last?? They are your TERROR! coming home to roost! so they can impose on you, fake terrorist laws, which they fear you into. And you believe them HaHaHaHaHa

No, you did it. You're behind it all in an attempt to overthrow the US government. I have proof as well. Gimme a minute and I'll post it up. It's in the form of 500 youtube videos that have absolutely nothing to do with anything, but have great drum & bass backing tracks.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

BBC and most of the news agencies reported it pretty quickly. All mid-eastern, IIRC, mostly Saudis. Their identities used, but its been proved they weren't involved. BBC should still have it in their archives.

Yes, I know all of this.

These were the people I referred to in my initial comment to the effect that
"You are presumably referring to reports in the first 10 days after 9/11 from various news sources, all of which have subsequetly been accepted to be cases of mistaken reports" .

You told me that I'm wrong. You didn't make it clear if it wasn't these people, if they hadn't been accepted as mistaken reports, or quite what it was that I was wrong about.

You did, however, say that :

7 of the people listed on the FBIs website as hijackers are alive and well and had nothing to do with 9/11. Last time I looked about a year ago, they were still on it.

I'm not interested in being told how I can find the articles I already accepted exist. I want to know how to find this relatively-current information you have access to, which shows that they are alive, well, and innocent.

What i'd like to know is why the FBI still identified innocent people at least 5 years later.

Although you've claimed that I'm wrong, I'll repeat myself anyway. The FBI did not identify innocent people who are still alive and well.

http://911myths.com/html/still_alive.html and the various links off it is a fairly good resource for both the evidence used to argue that various people were innocent and still alive, as well as why said evidence is a misinterpretation. For you to argue that I'm wrong, you must have some information above and beyond what is referenced from there.

Thats what I was asking for. You say that as recently as a year ago, you confirmed that these men were both alive and listed as suspects (if I'm understanding what you wrote correctly). I'd like to know how you confirmed that.

whiterebel

Your link shows a blog which the BBC made and changed one line from the original article, which they still stand by.
I can't find any other news sites which retracted their stories about mistaken identities of the hijackers. Funny enough the US news sites seem to have disappeared completely leaving the Guardian, Telegraph and BBC. Plenty of outdated links to CNN, ABC etc with stories about the hijackers.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

Your link shows a blog which the BBC made and changed one line from the original article, which they still stand by.

???

It says that they altered one line of the original article in retrospect to make it clear that for that one particular person it was a situation where the name of the person was the same as the name of the terrorist. They do not say they still stand over the article's content - they say the article remains as a record of the situation at the time.

In this case (at least), its a clear admission that the BBC were wrong.

If you go to the actual blog entry (rather than just reading the text in 911myths), you'll see that in many cases they link to the articles being referred to.

The one they say supercedes the first one claims that there was - at the time it went to press - still some official uncertainty about four of the identities, due to the possibiliity of fake ID being used.

Another, more recent one, lists the hijackers for each plane. It makes no suggestion that there is any uncertainty. The editorial blog also shows that the BBC contacted the FBI to ask if they had any uncertainty. They did not.

So we have both the BBC editorial blog, the BBC articles of more recent times, and the FBI all in agreement that there is no confusion over identities.

We have the BBC saying that its earlier information was a case of confusion, and therefore incorrect and commenting to the effect that "but still the conspiracy theories continue".

In short...the BBC does not support your claims and has not done so for a very long time.

Regarding other sources....

I can't find any other news sites which retracted their stories about mistaken identities of the hijackers.

I don't see the relevance. Generally speaking, speculation regarding an investigation is not the type of thing that results in a retraction.

You seem to be saying that you believe that these men are alive based on news evidence which was done in the immediate aftermath of the list being released, and your inability to find retractions of said stories. If that's so, your argument is effectively that the papers said it was the case at some point, then never said they were wrong, so it must be true.

I've offered you the 911myths link. If you check through it, you;ll see that the page contains a link to sub-pages, with one page for each hijacker who has ever claimed to be alive. They've looked at the evidence which argues these guys are alive, including references to the media reports of the day. They explain why that evidence doesn't hold up to sufficient scrutiny to arrive at the conclusion that "this is the person the FBI named and identified and therefore they got it wrong".

In other words, they discredit the arguments made in the newspapers some years ago - as I said.

You, on the other hand, have made a comment that you checked the status of this in 2006, and that it was still the case. I'd like to know waht you mean. Did you find new or current information suggesting that these people were still alive? Or did you just similarly fail to find retractions of 5-year-old articles written in the heyday of 911 hysteria which led you to the belief that the claims must be true.

whiterebel

Just goes to show people take different things from reading. BBC claimed there was confusion, and they aren't changing that. You made mention that the various sources had been accepted as mistaken reports. I say I can find nothing to support this, yet you say you can't see the relevance?
Any if you're going to get sarky about being pointed in the right direction for relevant information, please don't show me "proof" in the form of a anti-CT website which isn't exactly in the same league as Popular Mechanics. Proof and "Proof" go two ways. The sites which you would rate as hightly as I rate 911myths will give you the name, occupation and alibi for where they were in 2001.

By the way, one of the quotes I read while having a look around this morning was from John Ashcroft about the confusion over the terrorist identities. Seeing as you are choosing to ignore the others I'll mention again that The Telegraph and Guardian ran stories about the wrong men being identified as the hijackers, as well as the non changing BBC.

The reason I've left all this alone in part is the disappearance through the years of related sites that cast doubts on the govt. version of events....I know, I know another Conspiracy :eek: All I can say is that I go back to the links I have from the year after, they're 404 and I'm talking news sites like CNN, Fox, ABC etc One of the more interesting ones ones was about Theodore "Ted" Olsen. There was loads of pages about him as Solicitor General years ago, and what he said about the President. Try finding one now.

My edit - It was Mueller, Not Ashcroft.

whiterebel

LA Times: BUT it was within a week of the attack quoting Robert Mueller, Diretor of the FBI

WASHINGTON -- FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged Thursday that investigators may not know the true identities of some of the 19 suspected airplane hijackers from last week's suicide attacks.

Mueller said last week that he had "a fairly high level of confidence" that the FBI knew the real names of the hijackers, based on flight manifests and follow-up interviews.

But while in Pennsylvania on Thursday for a tour of the crash site there, he raised fresh doubts about the accuracy of the identifications.

"We have several hijackers whose identities were those of the names on the manifests," Mueller said. "We have several others that are still in question. The investigation is ongoing, and I am not certain as to several of the others."

Officials refused to say how many hijackers may have used false identities, but officials of the Saudi Arabian government said Thursday that six of the men that the United States has named as hijackers killed in the attacks appear to be living in the Middle East.

Investigators believe that some of the 19 suspected hijackers may have stolen the identities of law-abiding Middle Easterners, further complicating the probe.

Strange too as reports said passenger manifests didn't show the hijackers names. I Wouldn't even look for the maifests now as I don't trust footage or paperwork from ANY source, such is the level of alterations.......yes, by the CT sites in particular.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

BBC claimed there was confusion, and they aren't changing that.

Correct...they aren't changing it because its an archived story. Arguably, they shouldn't change anything on it at all.

You made mention that the various sources had been accepted as mistaken reports. I say I can find nothing to support this, yet you say you can't see the relevance?

You didn't say you couldn't find anything to support my claim,. You said you couldn't find retractions in the archives themselves.

Unless you're suggesting that the only thing that says a mainstream-media story isn't true is a subsequent retraction, then you most certainly did not say that you could find nothing to support this.

Any if you're going to get sarky about being pointed in the right direction for relevant information, please don't show me "proof" in the form of a anti-CT website which isn't exactly in the same league as Popular Mechanics.

First off, I'm not getting sarky. I'm asking you what you based your argument that I'm wrong on - your argument that as of one year ago these people were confirmed as being alive. So far, you've done nothing but question the sources I've supplied, but not once supplied any reason why your claim has any weight whatsoever.

Secondly, the 911myths site contains links to the full content of every article it references. If you think they're misreporting, misquoting, selectively quoting, misrepresenting, making things up, or plain-out lying, you can verify it for yourself and then argue that case. If you disagree with the reasoning they apply to the articles, then feel free to challenge the reasoning. But just waving it away with some comment of having a low opinion of the site....thats not a terribly convincing argument.

I never claimed it was "proof absolute". I said its a fairly good respource both for the arguments made supporting the notion that people were misidentified as well as why those arguments aren't as solid as they seem. Its an analysis of the typical claims made, where those claims appear to have originated from, and why the evidence behind those claims doesn't support the notion that the media correctly identified the same people that were on the FBIs list.

Proof and "Proof" go two ways. The sites which you would rate as hightly as I rate 911myths will give you the name, occupation and alibi for where they were in 2001.

Then give me the sites. Give me links to the specific articles. All I am asking is that you give me and anyone else reading this the opportunity to evaluate for ourselves the claims which you are basing your argument on.

I promise that I won't just suggest that because I've a low opinion of the site, the content isn't worth anything.

My position, for the record, is that the newspapers did not locate the same people that the FBI named. They found people with similar (or matching) names, some of whom even had slightly similar backgrounds. However, when you look at the detail of who the FBI said they were looking for, in every case, you end up with no match.

There will be people walking around with similar or matching names today, with alibis for the time in question. Some of these people will share nationality and more with those they share a name with. This still doesn't suggest that they are the same people.

By the way, one of the quotes I read while having a look around this morning was from John Ashcroft about the confusion over the terrorist identities.

Exactly. There was confusion. Thats exactly what the BBC said as well. I'm still not sure how you're getting from "there was confusion" to "the newspapers were right, and therefore the FBI were wrong".

You seem to argue that the many of the newspapers don't appear to have printed retractions, so therefore they must stand over their version of events still. Then again, the FBI also haven't changed, so they too must stand over their version of events.

So if neither side has admitted being wrong, and we accept that they were confused, we should be led to the conclusion that they must still be confused. But this isn't the argument you made. You didn't argue that today confusion still reigns as to whether or not these people were correctly identified. You argued that the wrong people were identified, and the people identified have been confirmed as being alive.

So somewhere, for you at least, the confusion has been resolved....and all I'm asking for is the source of the information that resolved that confusion so I can evaluate it for myself.

Seeing as you are choosing to ignore the others I'll mention again that The Telegraph and Guardian ran stories about the wrong men being identified as the hijackers, as well as the non changing BBC.

You'll find such material linked off the pages I referred you to on 911myths.com. The content of those articles is already addressed in those pages. I'm surprised you didn't notice it.

The reason I've left all this alone in part is the disappearance through the years of related sites that cast doubts on the govt. version of events....I know, I know another Conspiracy :eek: All I can say is that I go back to the links I have from the year after, they're 404 and I'm talking news sites like CNN, Fox, ABC etc

911myths.com - that site you seem to suggest is of ill repute - has, on the set of pages I suggest you check out, a wealth of links to the likes of the BBC, the Telegraph, as well as clips from the likes of CNN which they've saved locally.

So if there's a conspiracy afoot to remove all of the documents from the time which question the identities, its a pretty poor one with a low success rate.

Regarding the sites that no longer have the stuff you have linked...have you checked that they keep archives that long? Have you made sure that they haven't changed their archival system in the meantime, resulting in URL changes?

Either which way, I've never questioned the idea that there was confusion at the time. I've questioned the idea that it has been established that the FBI was wrong. It hasn't. There were media articles for a few weeks in September 2001, which on closer inspection do not make a compelling case.

Hijacker by hijacker, this is dealt with on 911myths.com, complete with the links to the articles in the mainstream media which caused the allegations in the first palce. If the evidence is missing something key, please point it out. If the arguments regarding the evidence are faulty, feel free to explain why.

bonkey

whiterebel wrote:

LA Times: BUT it was within a week of the attack

Again...the timing is key. No-one has suggested there wasn't confusion at the time. What has been suggested is that the FBI subsequently resolved their confusion and were/are confident they identified the correct people.

Strange too as reports said passenger manifests didn't show the hijackers names. I Wouldn't even look for the maifests now as I don't trust footage or paperwork from ANY source, such is the level of alterations.......yes, by the CT sites in particular.

What is your position in such a case? Do you think there's something suspicious because a claim was made that can never be disproven? Do you disregard the claim entirely, because you can accept no evidence supporting it? Or do you have some other position?

My position, for the record, tends towards the discarding fo the claim due to a lack of evidence.

This is furthered by those who I know have made the claim (e.g. David Ray Griffin, for one) typically linking to something that is clearly not an official manifest whilst making this claim.

I've only once seen something claiming to be an official manifest, which was originally posted by the Boston Globe in September 2001. Rarely, if ever, have I subsequently seen this manifest used by someone to suggest that there is a coverup.