9/11 "WHO" from Who, How and Why's?

DING DING DING...we have a correct answer. Geoff you get your choice of a Sciforums official rubber chicken, or what's behind curtain #3.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oooh oooh oooh I'll take the curtain! I already have a rubber chicken.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You win an all expenses paid trip to Somalia...and an "Allah Sucks" t-shirt to wear.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A prince, a king, it isn't about the level of authority of the person, LOL.
It is about whether the source is credible and whether it is corroborated. The saudi regime will do whatever they are told, just like they have been doing for decades. saudi arabia is a US vassal state.

The FBI had the manifests very early on 911 !!
If the FBI was wrong then they picked the wrong names from the manifest, therefore those incorrect names should have been innocent victims and therefore amongst the victims! but they were not!
one of the named even died a year before.
do you not understand the significance of this information?

is it not more likely that the names were picked from a list of arabs who had trained at CIA flights schools, rather than from the manifests?

You are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting what i am saying by using such an aburd leap of logic and overlaying it on what i have said.

there you go, create a ridculous strawman for what i was saying, then knock it down with ease. This only shows you have nothing to counter what i have told you. you are only fooling yourself.

this is nothing to do with the bbc or the telegraph "hijackers alive" story. do you even read what i write? all you do is robotically pick a response from a debunker website.

This is the fourth time !!

The FBI changed its list of hijackers a few days after 911, before the newspapers had reported further problems with the hijackers (being alive)

Furthermore, the distinctly seperate "hijackers alive" bbc story cannot be dismissed simply by saying "the report was an error". you need to explain WHY. It is simply insufficient in any reasoning process to state your position as "no it isn't", "that's an error", "nonsense" etc, without explaining WHY. This is the basis of any discussion!

why don't you explain WHY it is all nonsense. simply saying "nonsense" only makes it go away in your mind.

 

It isn't about the level of authority of the person? Have you gone madder?

Well, unfortunately, the US source was corroborated by a range of nations and media services. Thus, it is credible. Have a link to your claim?

Here endeth the lesson.

WHY is this more likely? :shrug:

Hardly. All the trooferisms from before have been illustrated to be crap. Why exactly would this be any different?

So provide a link to your nonsense.

They had the same names as the hijackers, you fool. This is the WHY. And this is about the sixth time I've had to explain this to the al-Troofari on the site, who are not completely down with the "reading thing".

Enough nonsense.

 

I have already given you a link to Jay Kolars chapter in Hidden history of 911.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/158322825X/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link
if you minimise the search panel on the left, there is a button on the right where you can scroll through the pages.

who also happened to be pilots?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The only thing that you have provided to support this is a link to a change in the bbc article saying "a man called walleed..". which is only evidence that the bbc caved in due to fbi pressure.
and you said "even the Saudis acknowledge that that information was crap", but you never gave a source and did not repond to scott saying "Which Saudis in particular? And can I have your source?"

"Well, unfortunately, the US source was corroborated by a range of nations and media services. Thus, it is credible" an alleged media report reporting what an FBI press conference says is not a source, let alone corroboration.

 

Ok, but which page in particular?

Do you have evidence that the BBC caved in due to FBI pressure?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's a source (albeit surrounded in institutional anonymity), it could be argued that it's corroboration, but the source is suspect and thus the corroboration. But at this point, what I'd like is -names-, even if the names in question are from the FBI. This all reminds me of the U.S.'s "national security" evidence against suspected terrorists. You can't defend yourself against alleged evidence you can't see.

 

I'll be happy to take a page reference, please. Thanks.

But: so you have one uncorroborated report of this? Nothing more?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeees, some of them trained as such. And?

That is nonsense. The BBC, Der Spiegel and the Telegraph all reported the same thing independently. Illustrate that they "caved".

 

its the first paragraph of the first chapter by Jay kolar (page 3)
there is an update at the back of the book which rebuts speigal and telegraph (page 293).

 

I'm reviewing it now. These problems have already emerged in my initial scan:

Paragraph 1, pg 293: Total speculation. "A man called...." - what would this dolt expect the BBC to say?? What phrasing would be preferable?

Para 2, pg 294: Or the US incorrectly used the only pictures of the people they had names for. Not remotely suspicious.

Para 3, pg 294: "However, Saudi newspapers had already published the FBI photographs..." Which ones?

Para 5, pg 296: 40 different suspects were being considered by the FBI. It is hardly surprising that there was confusion.

Para 3, pg 299: So the FBI only got 17 of 19, assuming that the author's case is legitimate, which is dubious at best? And this means a conspiracy? Please.

Last para, pg 300 - First para, pg 301: Completely uncited. A totally unsubstantiated statement. The author then throws around terms like propagandist, blissfully ignorant of his own statements.

Absurd.

 

Ah, Geoff, up to your base insults again I see

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. How about the original wording? In honesty, I find the difference to be small although it's clearly meant to derail the argument that some of the so called hijackers are still alive and well.

I am most interested in knowing what evidence the author of "The Hidden History of 9-11 has concerning its claim that the BBC only made the change due to "highly unethical FBI pressure", but the author doesn't seem to make it clear what his source is, on that page anyway. Honestly, the whole issue of the 911 hijackers is a mystery to me. I went googling looking for information. Ironically enough, the most informative information concerning where the FBI got their information didn't even come from the FBI's web site. It came from a 911 conspiracy debunking site, 911myths.com. According to them, they got the information from the flight manifests, which can be seen here.

You know, sometimes I have to admire those debunkers. They really do seem to put in a fair amount of effort and sometimes do a lot better job at portraying the official story then, well, the officials that originally made it. Take Ryan Mackey, who's willing to question even NIST's conclusions on the WTC collapses, so long as it still means it was an inside job. But in this particular case of 9/11 myths, they go one better. At the very bottom of the above referenced page, it mentions that David Ray Griffin has made some new arguments against the official story concerning the 9/11 hijackers. This is what it says:
Dr Griffin has recently introduced further arguments in an article titled "Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?"

Here is the article 911 myths is referring to.