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

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.