IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Debunking 9/11 Myths

rob balsamo
post Feb 18 2008, 02:57 PM
Post #61



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Excellent letter Firsk... and right on the money.


Let not forget the reported "boxcutter" supposedly used also had break-away blades that would break the moment you apply the least amount of sideways pressure...



This is what the crew has at their disposal...



Welcome to the forums. Hope to see more posts from you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Feb 18 2008, 03:16 PM
Post #62


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Firsk @ Feb 15 2008, 10:44 AM) *
<s>
I'll post my letter to him below, so that you can see what you think. Are these legitamate questions about 911 or not? I regard his silence, his refusal to answer, as a smoking gun that he is not legit. What does anybody know about this guy?
</s>

Welcome to the forum, Firsk.

Of course they are legitimate, that is to say, "reasonable," questions. We have hundreds of such questions now. And we have more than questions -- we have evidence of a cover-up.

As to the motivation behind this person -- without direct evidence, what can you say? Maybe he is just a hard-headed individual who has taken it upon himself to ridicule the "conspiracy nuts". Makes him feel superior and gives him some recognition he wouldn't otherwise get. Just a yuck. Then again, my motto is, "whoever controls your perception of reality controls you." If I can get you to believe something that isn't true, then I can get you to act in favor of what you take to be your own self interest based upon that misplaced trust. "Agents," need not necessarily be on a payroll somewhere; all that is required is that they be 'gullible' or at least useful. Then again, of course there people who are paid to do precisely what he is doing -- help cover-up one of the biggest and most heinous crimes in human history. He could be a counterintelligence operative. But, if you're going to think along those lines, you have to keep in mind that such operatives are just as likely to AGREE with us. Their tactic isn't to "disprove" or "debunk" our analysis but, rather, to lead it astray -- keep it wandering forever in the wilderness of uncertainty where nothing ever gets accomplished. If they can keep us arguing over who did it or how it was done, then they get away with mass murder and treason in broad day light. No problem.

So, I don't know. My question to you is, why bother? Do you really think that anyone who puts up a web site such as this -- regardless of their underlying motivation -- has any interest in being "reasonable"? I don't. Quite the contrary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Mar 4 2008, 11:53 AM
Post #63





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



There has been much speculation as to "Mike's" true motivation. In my opinion, he is probably one of the following:

1) A self-delusional arrogant ass who likes reality the way he perceives it to be and aims to keep it that way.

2) An emotionally feeble cretin who is unwilling or unable to deal with the fact that most governments are rotten to the core.

3) A Sayanim (see Victor Ostrovsky's Book - By Way of Deception).

Whatever his true motivation, I am 99.9% sure he is not CIA/MI5.

This post has been edited by Beached: Mar 4 2008, 02:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dutchskeptic
post Jul 17 2008, 04:20 PM
Post #64





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 4
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,733



QUOTE (Beached @ Nov 10 2006, 10:37 AM) *
9/11 Myths has long been a favorite resource for skeptics and debunkers alike. Its author, Mike Williams, has compiled a collection of straw men, coupled with many distorted interpretations of valid claims. While many of Mike’s “takes” can be dismissed as patently absurd by most of us, his slimy nature and style of addressing these can be deceptive to those who are new to this material and haven’t had time to do their research. Therefore, I think it’s important that we have a thread dedicated to debunking 9/11 Myths. It’s a huge website and so I don’t know if I will ever have the time to write an entire debunk, however, if we all work together on this we’ll have Mike’s site debunked in no time!



QUOTE (Beached @ Dec 2 2006, 03:31 PM) *
Awesome! cheers.gif Let's blow 9/11 Myths right out of the sky!! biggrin.gif



Hi, I am new to this forum and just wanted to let you know that I do think 911 was an inside job and that I really like this thread. We should all work together to debunk "911 myths".
However I think perhaps we are wrong about the "fatty Bin Laden" on the confession tape.
I think the following information sounds reasonable and could be true.
I would like to know your opinion about it.


"fatty" Bin Laden
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dool
post Sep 16 2008, 11:08 PM
Post #65





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 11-September 08
Member No.: 3,804



I wish somebody someday can come out with a website of debunking the 9/11 debunking, this subject is worthy of a website and not just a topic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Sep 16 2008, 11:29 PM
Post #66



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (dutchskeptic @ Jul 21 2008, 02:20 PM) *
Hi, I am new to this forum and just wanted to let you know that I do think 911 was an inside job and that I really like this thread. We should all work together to debunk "911 myths".
However I think perhaps we are wrong about the "fatty Bin Laden" on the confession tape.
I think the following information sounds reasonable and could be true.
I would like to know your opinion about it.


"fatty" Bin Laden


I tend to agree with you. There are however a dozen reasons why the bin Laden tape is not to be believed - the sound is barely audible. The official translation has been shown to be very misleading and native speakers claim that much of what is attributed to bin Laden can not be made out from the audio. The sections of the tape have been put in reverse order. Bin Laden refers to "your time", a very odd thing to say. The congratulations are said to have been related to the wedding announcement of bin Laden's son. The authorities changed their story 3 times on how they found the tape. It has "faked" written all over it, even if that's the real bin Laden.

To anyone who has looked into that tape and the true identity of bin Laden and his history of involvement with the CIA, it would not come as a surprise that the tape showed the real bin Laden, nor would it persuade them that 9/11 was perpetrated by "terrorists with box cutters". What I'm curious about is, if that's the real Osama bin Laden, then why was the aspect not corrected? Was this an attempt to create a strawman that they knew they could debunk, and so convince a few people that the government's story was legit? I wonder sometimes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 10 2008, 11:21 PM
Post #67



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



A good related thread is at:

Scientists Debunk 9/11 Myths, at G. Washington's blog
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13088
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
subedei
post Oct 16 2008, 07:25 PM
Post #68





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 15-September 08
Member No.: 3,820



Does anyone have information regarding 67 scrambles before 911,911myths claims they were all offshore adiz .

PS Debunking911.com is Pseudo science if you read thouroughly the articles on scholars 911 truth,they site basically takes questions that steven jones asks in his reports ( which he then goes about answering) and posts them on debunking webistes .

typically they say aluminium can be yellow.Its true when heated to such high temperatures but as soon as it loses contact with its heat source it turns silver.there are many videos of this.
Thermite claims.they claim the sulphur came from gypsum,but the XEDS anaylsis saw no calcium which is largely in gypsum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anorak
post Oct 24 2008, 01:38 PM
Post #69





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 3
Joined: 26-June 08
Member No.: 3,622



Hello All,

My apologies if there is something obvious I've missed. I need to ask a question and not at all sure how to start.

I have created an archive of info from sites, such as yours, to challenge the BBC's position on 911. I'm trying to ensure I do not post dubious info. Am working with the stalwarts of the British movement linked now to the emerging Reopen911 group. My archive and challenge to the BBC is at www.bbcmot.blogspot.com

It is draft form and will be changed to a simple black and white site and "launched" when I check a few more key points.

Key issue you should be able to help with is the 67 scrambles cited as happening in the year to 911.

Popular Mechanics says that the 67 were all overseas and most were training "scrambles" and did not lead to intercepts. This is quite important.

I'd be very pleased to get contact with someone in the know. I'm not even sure how I might get a reply to this post. I'd be very grateful if someone how knows the answer can ensure I get to hear.

Good luck to you all. JohnY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
subedei
post Nov 11 2008, 04:26 AM
Post #70





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 21
Joined: 15-September 08
Member No.: 3,820



[b]
QUOTE
The story...

Professor Steven Jones' examination of WTC steel has shown the presence of thermate-signature chemical elements. Could this be "Finally the proof: Thermate used to destroy WTC"?

Our take...

This claim arose from the tests Professor Jones performed on a "WTC dust sample" and "previously molten-metal samples". He reports finding chemicals that are associated with thermate, and suggests:

We (3 physicists and a geologist) have conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS), also X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Electron Microprobe analyses on residue samples from the scene.

• We identify predominately iron, with very little chromium, along with uncommon chemical elements in abundance such as fluorine and manganese. Aluminum and sulfur are present (expected from thermate reactions).

• 1,3 Diphenylpropane was observed in dust, and interesting bit of possibly corroborative evidence.

• The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene such as the flowing yellow-hot liquid metal still red after falling about 500 feet (150 m, discussed earlier), provide compelling evidence that thermite reaction compounds (aluminothermics) were used, meaning thermite was deliberately placed in both WTC Towers and WTC 7.
Journal of 911 Studies Source

How reasonable is this conclusion? Let's consider the issues.

1. Where did the samples come from?

Jones' analysis is only relevant if his samples really can tell us something about conditions on 9/11. Fortunately he does tell us a little about where they came from:

The provenience of the WTC dust sample is an apartment at 113 Cedar Street in New York City, NY.

A monument constructed primarily from structural steel from the WTC Towers located at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York, is the source of previously-molten metal samples...

The samples were sent directly to Prof. Jones at BYU, and inspected by him and Dr. Jeffrey Farrer together, and analyzed by the BYU group.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/JonesAnsw...TradeCenter.pdf

The line that "the samples were sent directly to Prof. Jones at BYU" is of concern, as it suggests an uncertain chain of custody. How sure can we be that Professor Jones' correspondent is accurately representing the origin of the samples? This need not be a hoax, just a simple error, and the entire basis of the study is destroyed.

There's a further problem in the comment that the metal samples came from a monument constructed "primarily" from WTC steel. Did some of it come from elsewhere, then? A quick search online revealed this:

Air Force ROTC cadets in the 536 Detachment salute World Trade Center beams as the National Anthem is played on Sept. 11, 2006, during a memorial ceremony at Clarkson University in Potsdam, N.Y. Clarkson alumnus Michael Bielawa, who supervised cleanup efforts at ground zero, donated three pieces of structural steel to the school, two of which were identified as part of the 55th floor of the south tower
http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2006/09/11...ay1994084.shtml

It's good to get such solid information on two of the structural steel pieces, but not so great that the third is unidentified. Still, if Jones' correspondent is correct and the sample came from this steel, then it seems likely that it really is from the towers.

2. How pure are the samples?

Establishing the origin of the samples is just the start. The next point to consider is the way they may have been treated since 9/11, and whether that might have affected the results.

In terms of the dust sample, for instance, how sure can we be that it reflects the dust from 9/11 and the days afterwards? How confident can we be that it's not been contaminated in some way?

The metal samples face similar questions. Were they cut during the cleanup process, or otherwise treated in any way that could cause contamination? How were they kept afterwards?

The only answer we've seen up to the time of writing (November 2006) is this, claiming that thermite wasn't used during the cleanup process.

• Researcher Michael Berger checked with a number of steel-cutters and workers at Ground Zero. They reported that oxy-acetylene torches were used to cut the steel members -- Not thermite

• Also, reacting thermite ejects globs of molten white/orange-hot iron – would cause VERY dangerous burns! Therefore, thermite was not used in clean-up.
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/JonesAnsw...TradeCenter.pdf

Otherwise we're left guessing. And in fairness that's no surprise, as these questions aren't easy to answer with any degree of certainty. So let's just assume that we'll accept the samples as reasonably pure, at least for the moment, and look at what's been discovered.

3. Was there enough thermite/thermate to leave detectable traces?

Professor Jones estimates the total amount of explosives required for the WTC here:

Phone interview with demolition expert, Brent Blanchard, 10 Feb 2006...

To bring down Southwark Towers, about 300 pounds of shaped charges (RDX) would be sufficient, he said.

(Then for a WTC Tower, about 1000 pounds of explosives would be sufficient. This would only require an estimated 10 men [foreigners?] to install the cutter charges, mostly in the central core/elevator shaft areas.)
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/JonesAnsw...TradeCenter.pdf

Picking 1,000 pounds as a figure is convenient if you’re hoping to prove how easy it might be to plant explosives, for instance, but it does pose a problem when it comes to detecting traces later. Professor Jones suggests that Sulfur is typically only 2% of thermate by weight, for instance (although he says more can be added). That’s 20 pounds of sulfur per tower, let’s say 60 pounds for towers 1, 2, and 7, which is then mixed with this:

With the collapse of New York City's two World Trade Center (WTC) towers on Sept. 11, 2001, more than 1 million tons of dust enveloped lower Manhattan.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

We’ve no idea how they calculated “1 million tons” here, it seems way to high, but even if we divide that by 10 it’s still going to swamp any thermate residue. Especially when you consider the next point.

4. Were there other sources for these chemicals?

Jones makes much of finding "uncommon chemical elements in abundance", however we can't help but wonder why this is any surprise. The destruction of more than 250 floors of office building, and subsequent fires burning for months might surely be expected to produce many different chemicals. And sure enough, that’s exactly what it did.

A USGS survey, for instance, listed the following major elements that it discovered in samples of WTC dust: Silicon, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulfur, Iron, Aluminum, Carbon (organic and carbonate), Sodium, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese, and Phosphorus. Four of these are flagged by Professor Jones as possible indicators for thermate (Sulfur, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese), yet the authors of this study don’t seem to require any special explanations for them at all.

The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.

The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/

And another takes a similar approach:

The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The very high levels of titanium (> 0.1%) were due to their presence in paint, especially white paint. The lead levels are elevated due to the use of lead-based paint on metallic surfaces during construction of the building. The detected lead dust concentrations were lower than would be found outdoors in older cities affected by tailpipe emissions from leaded gasoline...
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p.../lioy-full.html

Neither study involved analysing metal samples, so can’t be directly compared with that part of Professor Jones research, but still, this does illustrate that many of these elements aren’t as uncommon as might be suggested. And is seems there are other possible sources at the WTC site.

5. Problems with specific claims

a) Professor Jones tells us that a metal low in chromium, with “abundant manganese” rules out the possibility of it being structural steel. Checking the steel specifications for the time tells us otherwise, though.

B) Sulfidised metal reported by FEMA, and sulfur recorded in Professor Jones’ own analyses are supposed to indicate the use of thermate. Take a closer look, however, and these claims don’t look so convincing.

c) Professor Jones explains that thermite is the only explanation he’s found for Fluorine traces in his WTC samples. But maybe it’s found in other places, too.

d) Potassium is sometimes connected with thermite, but does that really mean its presence in Professor Jones’ samples has no other explanation? No, it seems there were other potential sources at the WTC site.

e) Zinc was similarly found in significant quantities at Ground Zero. More here.

f) Titanium is another element that could be a thermite marker. Or it might have been found at the WTC through its use in paint, paper, and other common sources.

g) And then there’s the molecule 1,3-diphenlypropane (1,3-DPP), supposedly a possible indicator of sol-gel thermite. But what’s the other possible explanation that doesn’t make it into Professor Jones’ paper?

6. Do the chemicals discovered provide a complete thermite signature?

So far the argument seems to be that chemicals A, B, C and D are sometimes associated with thermite; Professor Jones has found them in his samples; therefore, in conjunction with other evidence (video of streams of metal from the WTC etc) this shows thermite may have been used at the World Trade Center. Although this sounds plausible at first, it’s deficient in some important areas.

First, there’s very little information about how the levels of each chemical relate to a typical thermate mix, or what you might expect to find in a post-reaction thermate residue. For example, Professor Jones reports that his “previously molten metal” sample “has (in spots) Aluminum (Al, possibly Al203) Sulfur (S) and Potassium”, along with “abundant Manganese”. Despite thermate having far more aluminum than sulfur, though, Jones sample seems to show more sulfur than aluminum. Perhaps we’re misreading that, maybe the aluminum is consumed in the reaction while most sulfur survives: we don’t know. But it seems to us that figuring out what the relative levels of these elements ought to be, after a thermite reaction, would be useful in proving (or disproving) the theory.

And second, there are other elements that are left out almost entirely. Professor Jones finds Sulfur on his metal samples, for instance, but doesn’t report any Barium Nitrate, even though that’s a much more significant part of the thermate mix. If that cannot be satisfactorily explained, then surely that means no thermate, at least of the type Professor Jones is describing? Read more on this page.

Conclusion

It seems we can’t be completely sure that these samples are from the WTC, and there’s no way to accurately assess whether they might have been contaminated.

The elements that Professor Jones reports finding have already been discovered by other WTC dust surveys, who for the most part don’t seem surprised by their presence. It seems likely that, in all cases, there are other WTC sources that can deliver far more of these elements than you would ever see from thermite/ thermate.

There’s also no clear evidence that the suspect elements are available in proportions that match what you’d expect from a thermite/ thermate reaction. And some products you might imagine would be produced, aren’t reported at all.

Proof of thermite/ thermate, then? No. Just assumptions, and avoidance of alternative explanations for the presence of these elements. That’s just fine when you’re telling an audience what they want to believe, but convincing the rest of the world is going to take considerably more evidence than is displayed here



thermate is a term to describe military grade th3 thermite.Essentially its the same chemical reaction but by adding additives such as barium nitrate and sulpur speeds up the reaction.Sulpur reduces the melting point of iron so it quickens the reaction.
In fact there are SO many additives and variations of thermite.Its imposible to name them all,each additive has different qualitys such as reaction speed,residue etc.
What is clear is that th3 was NOT used but different thermite variations.
KMN04 ,Copper oxide,Sulpur ,SI02 ,were added to the majority of the thermite .As seen from the X-EDS spectra, keeps coming up with those chemicals

http://amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/...ics-videos.html

the fires COULD not have caused a natural Aluminotheric reaction.Even though the Chemicals in the building were there ,for example you have aluminium cladding,iron from steel ,glass in the building(si02) and sulphur in gypsum CaS04.
Note that the X-EDS spectra did not show ANY Calcium ruling out gypsum.Gypsum is formed in volcanoes its stable and elemental sulphur cannot be released even with volcanic heat temperatures.

So somehow you need a chemical reaction in which al,fe,si02,kmno4,elemental sulphur are fused together into one Sphere.The only reaction known is called thermite

Jones saw the signature in
1.molten iron slag sent to him from freshkills landfill by concerned scientists.
2.Molten iron spheres .
3.Ends of beams of wtc memorial steel.
4.unexploded chips of thermite




It Turns out the problem of how much thermite u need and residue effects are negated by this newly developed thermite called nano thermite,The thermite powder is made in a nano scale,increasing the surface area of the thermite particles increases speed of reacion by
1000x far more than military grade thermate wink.gif
The particles are contained in a gel called sol gel.This sol gel is made of flourene and 1,3 diphenylpropane.
Mark swartz of EPA said '' weve never found levels of 1,3 diphenylpropane present at the wtc anywere else''
flourene was found.


Heres some interesting links


https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/302999.pdf


be warned this document is 18mbs i edited out some boring bits
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cove...M/webviewable/

"2.5.2. I The Thermite Cutting Technique
The thermite cutting process consists of heating and melting the metal in the cutting area by the
thermal energy released during combustion of a therrnite mixture (under conditions of an exother- ,
tic reaction). The products generated by combustion of the thennite mixture issue from the combustion
chamber under pressure in the form of a mixture of condensed gases, which affords the
opportunity of cutting almost any metal in any attitude. The application of this cutting technique to
nonmetallic materials also seems feasible, especially the dismantling of the reinforced concrete
structural elements. However, no domestic experience has been acquired to date using thermite
cutting in nuclear power engineering.
Research to substantiate the preliminary design and technological solutions of cutting metalwork
with the therrnite cutting technique have made it possible to identi~ the following conditions for
cutting plate-type materials and piping:


the products resulting from the combustion of a thermite compound must be generated in the
form of a directed jet and must possess a large store of heat and kinetic energy
the combustion products must ensure a high level of convective heat exchange during the
demolition of metalwork
during the combustion of a pyrotechnic compound, a maximum number of condensed liquid
products with a high heat capacity must be formed
the number of gaseous products formed must be nlinirnal, but sufficient for transporting the
condensed phase to the obstacle.



As a result of the experimental work performed, the following conclusions were reached:

Two conceptually diverse compounds were evaluated in the research studies: slightly gassy mixtures
based on a iron-aluminium thermite with the addition of potassium perchIorate and strontium
nitrate (compound “A” mixtures), and gassy mixtures based on an aluminum-magnesium alloy with
an oxidizer using Polytetrafluoroethylene as its base (compound “B” mixtures).


Almost any metal or nonmetallic material can be subjected to thermite cutting.
The thermite cutting process can be petiornied in different attitudes (i.e., without manipulating
the articles being cut).
The thermite cutting technique makes it possible to cut tube bundles when access is only
possible from one direction.
The therrnite cutting technique ensures autonomous work petiormance under conditions of high
radioactivity away ilom electric power, fiel gas, and oxygen supply sources (in the presence of
high ionizing radiation dose rate levels).
The thermite cutting technique is characterized by maneuverability and the small dimensions of
its devices, which allows use of the technique in hard-to-reach locations.
The pyrotechnic cutting torch can be used with automatic and remote-control systems"

This post has been edited by subedei: Nov 11 2008, 04:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
truthteller
post Feb 25 2009, 10:01 PM
Post #71





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 2
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,143



Hey Beached,

Great work in debunking the famous faither site 9/11 myths. Although i agree with you on almost every topic, there's one "fact" that you got wrong. 9/11 Myths was right in saying that there were arab names in the pasenger manifests because what you posted was a victims list, not a passenger list. It even says on top of the page, the CNN page. Remember that only 9 of the hijackers were found alive, so there were most likely at least about 10 hijackers on those planes, which doesnt necessairly mean they were the ones who guided the planes by the way. There's strong evidence they were guided by remote control or some sort. Anywhos, i just thought I'd clear that up because as truth seekers, we cannot be fooled by disinfo such as "missile hitting the pentagon" BS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Feb 25 2009, 10:09 PM
Post #72



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



So, the airlines would purge their "passengers/victims" lists of FBI reported-hijackers before handing them over to the media? I find that very hard to swallow. They had lists of passengers - why would they go to the trouble to purge the names of alleged hijackers from the lists? This often heard argument is a lot of semantics and twisting in the wind.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
truthteller
post Feb 26 2009, 12:19 AM
Post #73





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 2
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,143



QUOTE (Sanders @ Feb 25 2009, 09:09 PM) *
So, the airlines would purge their "passengers/victims" lists of FBI reported-hijackers before handing them over to the media? I find that very hard to swallow. They had lists of passengers - why would they go to the trouble to purge the names of alleged hijackers from the lists? This often heard argument is a lot of semantics and twisting in the wind.


No thats what im saying. The CNN page was just a victims page, it wasn't the flight manifest from AA or UAL. The original manifests were released by the FBI during the Moussaoui trial and their names were in there. The airlines didn't purge anything because they just released the names of the innocent victims, and obviously the hijackers don't count as "victims" since they supposedly were the mastermind of the attacks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Sep 18 2009, 12:38 AM
Post #74





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



Here is a debate about the 911myth-debunking of 767 remote takeover.

[Mod edit: some/most? of us prefer to have some indication of the link's "intent" rather than a >>>>>>>>>>> "surprise attack," especially after the recent hack-attack, FWIW]

Remote Takeover Of 767 Impossible, 911myths arguments
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10776793
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th October 2019 - 05:12 AM