It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DNA ID problems with aircrash victims?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
By majority decision, this debate goes to....ThroatYogurt!


Problem is i am in the process of getting a document that will prove beyond a doubt that i have won that deabte. This document would even hold up in court, something your so called evidence would not do.

I am still waiting for you to post any real evidence to support the official story. Something besides just media statments and opinions, something that would hold up in court.














[edit on 29-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Show some evidence to debate me. Stop being immature and name calling.

Either show some actual evindece to debate me or do not bother posting to me.


By your standards ULTIMA, 'actual evidence' is you being personally shown the remains of victims and where they were located. Perhaps you can review the releases from the FBI which do mention finding DNA at the Pentagon. It's not all you asked for but it's probably the closest you'll get.

If you don't believe the aircraft debris pictures posted are real, perhaps you can explain what exactly happened in order for them to be in the photographs.

edit:

Problem is i am in the process of getting a document that will prove beyond a doubt that i have won that deabte. This document would even hold up in court, something your so called evidence would not do.

This will be fantastic to see, can we have your word that you will either get or explain what this document is and show us?

[edit on 29-8-2008 by exponent]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
he has explained the document.

It is a report from the NSA that states 93 was intercepted. Ultima claims to have seen it.

He is not telling the truth. Check out the thread he started about it. First he posts a link to a crack pot dude... then like a week later he starts to say that HE saw it.

Pure BS and he knows it.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
he has explained the document.

It is a report from the NSA that states 93 was intercepted. Ultima claims to have seen it.

He is not telling the truth. Check out the thread he started about it. First he posts a link to a crack pot dude... then like a week later he starts to say that HE saw it.

Pure BS and he knows it.


Ah. Well in that case I suspect we might be waiting quite a while. I'd like you to prove me wrong ULTIMA. Please do.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
If you don't believe the aircraft debris pictures posted are real, perhaps you can explain what exactly happened in order for them to be in the photographs.


Please show me or explain where i ever stated the pictuire are not real.

When are you beleivers ever going to learn that i am looking for the truth, which so far you beleivers cannot show. You cannot even manage to show any basic evidence at all.


This will be fantastic to see, can we have your word that you will either get or explain what this document is and show us?


I have already shown that i have sent an FOIA request to get the document.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
He is not telling the truth.


quote]Originally posted by exponent
Ah. Well in that case I suspect we might be waiting quite a while. I'd like you to prove me wrong ULTIMA. Please do.


I have a challenge for you both, (IF YOU ARE MAN ENOUGH TO ACCEPT)

I have the phone number to the FOIA office, and will give you a name.

You verify and call the number and ask if i have requested the document and the document does exist.

Then you must post a thread and apologize to me for calling me a liar, and state that the official story has been shown to be wrong on this event.



[edit on 29-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show me or explain where i ever stated the pictuire are not real.

If these pictures are real, then they show quite a lot of airplane debris at the impact site at the pentagon. However, you have said that no evidence has been presented, so these pictures must not count as evidence in your eyes. How can you believe that they're real, but not evidence of an airliner crash at the Pentagon?


I have already shown that i have sent an FOIA request to get the document.

I have not read that, and have just read through most of the thread about your NSA certifications. I must say if you are an NSA employee that is quite a shock to me, but until you produce the evidence of this document it means relatively little.


You verify and call the number and ask if i have requested the document and the document does exist.

Then you must post a thread and apologize to me for calling me a liar, and state that the official story has been shown to be wrong on this event.

I would be happy to phone and ask for details, unfortunately I don't think that your FOIA request would be divulged to me, and even if it would unless it specifically identifies the document as existing and containing this information, it would not be proof of anything.

I'm not calling you a liar, just wondering exactly what you've requested, and why your manner seems so strange for an NSA employee.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
If these pictures are real, then they show quite a lot of airplane debris at the impact site at the pentagon.


Can you read and understand basic sentences? Do you have prove that the debris from the pictures are from AA77, YES or NO,, its that simple.


I have not read that, and have just read through most of the thread about your NSA certifications. I must say if you are an NSA employee that is quite a shock to me, but until you produce the evidence of this document it means relatively little.


Well i have proven who i am and where i work to several other memebers, you can ask them.

I am going to produce the document. But then its just the matter of most believers will just ignore it as they have any other evidence shown that questions the official media story.


I would be happy to phone and ask for details,


But you could verify the office and verify that i have requested an actual document.


I'm not calling you a liar, just wondering exactly what you've requested, and why your manner seems so strange for an NSA employee.


I have requested an official NSA document that states FLIGHT 93 was intercepted, which conflicts with the official story that states no plane got near Flight 93.



[edit on 29-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
If you don't believe the aircraft debris pictures posted are real, perhaps you can explain what exactly happened in order for them to be in the photographs.

No, it doesn't work like that, exponent.

If you're making the claim that an airliner crashed at the Pentagon, then you're the one who has to prove that the alleged wreckage belongs to that specific airliner.

We've been over this in many threads, so try to keep up. Please, produce a report that confirms that alleged wreckage belongs to the alleged Flight AA77.

ThroatYogurt: Two witnesses may have seen what appeared to be airline seats with corpses on them. Were these corpses, allegedly sitting on airline seats, positively identified? Were the seats that they were allegedly sitting in identified to the same seats that they were allegedly sitting in on the alleged Flight AA77?

What's more amusing is that you post a link to the rense site, where, if you read the whole article, it explains how there may have been planted evidence at the scene.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Can you read and understand basic sentences? Do you have prove that the debris from the pictures are from AA77, YES or NO,, its that simple.

No, of course I don't. There were no other missing planes that day and you have no evidence that they are not from AA77. Unless I am supposed to be contesting a specific conspiracy theory, pictures of aircraft debris are evidence of an aircraft crash. AA77 is the only plane that could have crashed at the Pentagon.

If you have some sort of evidence that shows these parts may be from another plane then I would be obligated to try and prove that evidence wrong, but you can always ask to have things proven to you, even when they have been by any reasonable standard. You won't accept that passengers bodies were found inside the Pentagon despite first hand reports of this occurring, so I am not about to try and prove to you that aircraft debris comes from AA77.


I am going to produce the document. But then its just the matter of most believers will just ignore it as they have any other evidence shown that questions the official media story.

Well I look forward to its release.


But you could verify the office and verify that i have requested an actual document.

I could, but unless the request contains information about the verified contents of the document, it would hardly prove anything. I have no problems in believing you've filed an FOIA request.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
No, it doesn't work like that, exponent.

If you're making the claim that an airliner crashed at the Pentagon, then you're the one who has to prove that the alleged wreckage belongs to that specific airliner.

I'm obligated to support my claim only to reasonable levels. For example you could contest that unless I can identify every single debris section, then it's not proof.

AA77 vanished that day, as did all the people on it. Their DNA was found in the Pentagon, along with personal effects and the FDR of AA77. The flight manifest of AA77 included people also featured in martyrdom videos regarding the attack on the Pentagon.

This is all good evidence to believe AA77 crashed at the Pentagon. Further evidence comes in the form of eyewitness accounts of AA jets impacting the Pentagon, eyewitness accounts of corpses strapped into airline seats. The list just goes on and on.

Do you have any evidence this was not AA77, or are your standards of proof for a particular theory extremely rigorous (or is this a false dilemma?)



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I used a truther site as one of the sources. Thought it would give it more credibility to someone like you.

There are two first responders that saw the bodies strapped in airline seats.

You can do what you want with what I gave you. Perhaps you could call them? Write them? Ask them what they saw.

You wont.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
No, of course I don't.


Then you cannot say the AA77 hit the Pentaogn if you have no proof.


Well I look forward to its release.


Well i just hope you wil be adult enough to accept it and admit to it.


I could, but unless the request contains information about the verified contents of the document, it would hardly prove anything. .


But if the document does exist and i am requesting it to contridict the official story then it does prove something.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Ah. Well in that case I suspect we might be waiting quite a while. I'd like you to prove me wrong ULTIMA. Please do.


Forget about trying to have an adult conversation with him.

This is the guy that stated that an F-4 Phantom fighter jet was mostly made of steel, and then couldn't admit that he made it up. Just the opposite - he backed down and tried to say that some steel meant mostly steel, but never could bring himself to admit that he lied.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
This is the guy that stated that an F-4 Phantom fighter jet was mostly made of steel,


AHH actually i did prove that with the engines the F-4 is mostly made of steel.

Do i really need to go back and show the steel componets again?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
AA77 vanished that day, as did all the people on it.

A plane vanished? That doesn't mean that it smashed into a building. What people? Where is the proof that any people boarded Flight AA77? Who saw them board the plane that was identified as Flight AA77? How do we know that the same plane that was allegedly Flight AA77 upon alleged departure was the same plane that allegedly struck the Pentagon?



Their DNA was found in the Pentagon, along with personal effects and the FDR of AA77. The flight manifest of AA77 included people also featured in martyrdom videos regarding the attack on the Pentagon.

Human DNA identifies humans, provided that the proper chain of custody was in place to record and independently analyse the samples. I've never known human DNA being used to identify the alleged wreckage of plane parts. That's what serial numbers and maintenance records are used for.



This is all good evidence to believe AA77 crashed at the Pentagon. Further evidence comes in the form of eyewitness accounts of AA jets impacting the Pentagon, eyewitness accounts of corpses strapped into airline seats. The list just goes on and on.

That further evidence is all hearsay. Tell me, which of the alleged eyewitnesses who saw the alleged colour scheme were able to identify the registration number of the plane, N644AA?



Do you have any evidence this was not AA77, or are your standards of proof for a particular theory extremely rigorous (or is this a false dilemma?)

I'm waiting for you to prove that it was Flight AA77. I don't need any contradictory evidence, as I'm not making any claims that need to be proven. I don't know what happened to any alleged flights or alleged passengers. But if that's the alleged Flight AA77, then you're not doing a great job convincing me that it is.

Why don't many believers understand the nature of proof and null hypothesis? Believers need to prove the official story, as that's the hypothesis being proposed. Without proof, the hypothesis can't be supported, so the null hypothesis takes precedence.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Tezz,

I'm afraid your mistaken. The "Official Story" has been proven. Claims of a massive conspiracy need to be proven by those making the accusations.

So far the truth movement has failed doing so.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I'm afraid your mistaken. The "Official Story" has been proven. .


Please explain how the official story has been proven when most of the evindece has still not been released?



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I'm afraid your mistaken. The "Official Story" has been proven.

No, it's very far from being proven. The official story has been sold by a compliant MSM and many people have absorbed it, without thinking.

Human DNA does not identify alleged plane wreckage.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

I'm waiting for you to prove that it was Flight AA77. I don't need any contradictory evidence, as I'm not making any claims that need to be proven. I don't know what happened to any alleged flights or alleged passengers. But if that's the alleged Flight AA77, then you're not doing a great job convincing me that it is.

Why don't many believers understand the nature of proof and null hypothesis? Believers need to prove the official story, as that's the hypothesis being proposed. Without proof, the hypothesis can't be supported, so the null hypothesis takes precedence.

Unfortunately I am perfectly aware of the null hypothesis. However, it would appear you did not complete the course in the subject.

For example, I make a positive claim
Flight AA77 crashed at the Pentagon

I am now obligated to provide proof this was AA77.

  1. Passenger manifests
  2. Eyewitness accounts
  3. FDR data
  4. Radar tracks
  5. Physical evidence
  6. DNA evidence
  7. Martyrdom videos


    Now, there is no doubt here I have provided evidence to support my theory, but what I predicted you would do and you did immediately, is start denying and doubting everything. Here's what I originally said

    I'm obligated to support my claim only to reasonable levels. For example you could contest that unless I can identify every single debris section, then it's not proof.


    What have you immediately done? Contested everything possible

    What people? Where is the proof that any people boarded Flight AA77? Who saw them board the plane that was identified as Flight AA77? How do we know that the same plane that was allegedly Flight AA77 upon alleged departure was the same plane that allegedly struck the Pentagon?

    This is a common argumentative fallacy, just because I cannot prove every single event of what occurred, does not mean that on the balance of evidence this flight was not AA77. For example, I'll assume for a second you believe in a controlled demolition theory at the WTC. All explosives have manufacturer and stamping details on them. If I were to require you to provide these as proof, you would consider it ridiculous. You obviously could not do so, exactly the same as I cannot prove passengers were actually boarding AA77 and not some trickily disguised alternate jet.

    The problem here is that you don't seem to realise you're making this mistake, or you realise and don't care. Yes you can doubt evidence all the way to your grave, but when you're trying to pretend that you're taking a reasonable viewpoint and then demand that I produce a witness who can confirm that the jet was AA77 before passengers boarded, you can't honestly be serious.

    It's truly a shame so many conspiracy theorists think this way, but it is of course completely 'disproves' all their own evidence, as I can be nowhere near as silly as you and still ask questions you can't answer.

    For example, who planted the bombs, thermite, or whatever? You can't answer this question, but I can answer the majority of yours. Who has the better explanation?

    [edit on 30-8-2008 by exponent]

    [edit on 30-8-2008 by exponent]




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join