9/11 OS Challenge..

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

In court burden of proof is on the "claimer" someone who "claimed" XXX happened. In this case the OS "claims" 19 hijackers flew airliners into buildings collapsing three of them in NYC and slightly damaging another in Washington.

Now THAT is a claim of epic proportions. What he is asking is for someone who knows their stuff to prove those claims.

They have evidence that Mohammed Atta was a religious fanatic. They have evidence that Mohammed Atta went to an Al Qaida camp for training. They have evidence that Mohammed Atta was an accomplished pilot. They have evidence that Mohammed Atta was a sociopath in his private life. They have evidence that he bought tickets to that flight. They have evidence that Mohammed Atta boarded the flight. They have evidence that the plane was hijacked by mideastern men who had piloting skills. PLUS, there's the blatant evidence that there four planes went missing that day. Now, unless you want to say Mohammed Atta was an innocent bystander and due to an unbelievable outer space coincidence the plane he happened to be on was hijacked by someone with the exact same background, religious outlook, and technical qualifications, I'll believe the evidence that, when put together, leads directly to Mohammed Atta.

I can understand how improbable and outlandish the idea of 19 hijackers sounds to you conspiracy people, but what I don't understand is why you'll try to substitute even MORE improbable and outlandish scenarios with controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, no planes, or whatever. You've built up for yourselves such a Rube Goldberg-esque convoluted chain of events for yourselves that make no sense whatsoever that the 19 hijackers scenario is the MOST probable sounding of the bunch.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You believe a devout (Atta was apparently "devout" enough to support bin Laden and carry out part of the attacks) Muslim would be dating an American stripper? And associating with European drug dealers. Witnesses saw Atta drunk in a nightclub, shouting blasphemies, then strangely recanted their stories. Does not sound like a devout Muslim to me.

Who was/is Atta and was he on the plane?

You're being fast and loose with your quotes. It was "that stripper" who testified that Mohammed Atta was an accomplished pilot, and that he was such a sociopath that he dismembered her kittens after an argument. If you're going to take part of her testimony into account, then you need to take all her testimony into account.

As for "religious devotion" there's enough cases of child diddling priests and promiscuous church leaders, not to mention a very recent case of a car bombing priest in Ireland, to show that what religious devotion actually means pretty much depends on the individual practicing it, not Jesus or Mohammed.

Now, I suggest you use the contact information I posted above. As I have.

You said it and here's a quote of you saying it.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by jprophet420


You contacted him and he said what? Information from the 9 year old article you posted?


That's pretty ignorant of you to claim to have contacted a special agent, not post the information he gave you, and then tell me I'm wrong.

And of course relating to the topic I am 100% correct to begin with, in that there is no entity that has access to the flight 93 wreckage and evidence for an independent investigation.

I never said I contacted Special Agent Crowley. I posted several news articles where he was quoted. I was assisting you in finding the truth. I'm sure he remembers what happened on 9/11 and the investigation that ensued. I contacted UA and their attorneys. I believe it was about 3 years ago now. (give or take a few months)

What you stated was that the "government was holding the wreckage hostage." Are you recanting that statement? You really should since you have ZERO evidence.

Here is that article again...just in case you missed it:

Since it had no more use for it, the FBI turned the airliner debris -- but not the data and voice recorders -- over to United Airlines yesterday. Asked what United will do with the debris, airline spokeswoman Whitney Staley said, "I don't think a decision has been made ... but we're not commenting."

www.post-gazette.com...

Hmmmm... how many news articles have I referenced? Where is your evidence that the government is holding it hostage??

edit on 20-9-2010 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

All of the articles you posted were from September of 2001.

Please forgive my semantics in that the wreckage is bring stored in a government guarded, privately contracted facility.

The best known Iron Mountain storage facility is a high-security storage facility in a former limestone mine at Boyers, Pennsylvania near the city of Butler in the United States.

There you have it.

jprophet: Here is the post. Read again.... I have put an emphasis on a key word: "above" The post ABOVE... perhaps I should have said "previous post?" But, if you looked, I posted Agent Crowley's information BELOW.

Regardless, you will not contact ANYONE that I have given you information for. You are not interested in the truth. You are attempting to spin this and it won't work. No one has been able to refute any of the 10 facts the clearly prove that Flight 93 was hijacked and crashed in Shanksville.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by jprophet420

So to tie it all into the topic, no matter what the OS claims about the crash in Shanksville, the .gov is holding the evidence hostage, there can be no finished investigation. (period)

Actually I live in Pittsburgh, PA. It was on the news when they transported the wreckage to Iron mountain, and the government admitted it was the wreckage openly.

Doing homework for me my ass.

At a news conference, FBI agent Bill Crowley said that the field near Shanksville, Somerset County, has been turned over to the county coroner and that 95 percent of the plane found at the site has been turned over to United Airlines.

www.thepittsburghchannel.com...

Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley.

archives.cnn.com...

Now, I suggest you use the contact information I posted above. As I have. Or, do you have the footage of the news while the government takes the plane remains "hostage?"

If you are interested in contacting Special Agent Crowley, I have gathered his information for you! You being from Pittsburgh, you may be his neighbor!

Pittsburgh Media Coordinator
Special Agent William J. Crowley
(412) 432-4000

Originally posted by jprophet420

All of the articles you posted were from September of 2001.

And? Are they false?

Please forgive my semantics in that the wreckage is bring stored in a government guarded, privately contracted facility.

SEMANTICS???? Are you serious? You said the government was holding the remains "hostage". Is this accurate? Nope. UA is storing it there.

reply to post by vipertech0596


Blasphemy would be about the worst sin a religious person could commit. And though the hijackers were not real Muslims, they thought they were. I do not believe for a minute that they would have done that.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


The point I was trying to make is that I do not believe the stripper. I do not believe she dated Atta. I do not believe he killed kittens. I do believe he likely killed hundreds of people. I also believe he was part of a CIA conspiracy.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
The point I was trying to make is that I do not believe the stripper. I do not believe she dated Atta. I do not believe he killed kittens. I do believe he likely killed hundreds of people. I also believe he was part of a CIA conspiracy.

You are walking a very dangerous line here. If you're going to snub a first hand account of Atta from an eyewitness then you'll necessarily need to discount the validity of the other eyewitness accounts of him concerning the drug use and the partying, meaning that at the end of the day, he still was a religious zealot who thought he was doing God's will in his attack. For that matter, you cannot believe any of all the OTHER eyewitneses, like the personnel who said "they heard explosions in the WTC" because according to you, being a first hand eyewitness is now no longer a measure of credibility. You canot pick and choose eyewitness testimony solely upon on whether it happens to agree with what you want to believe.

The "he was part of a CIA conspiracy" claim is entirely an unsubstanciated product of your own antiestablishment paranoia, and not a conclusion based upon the facts, and I will treat it as such.

reply to post by Six Sigma


Thank you for a well structured post. I really applaud you for having the patience dealing with some of these truthers. I feel as if most have them have never truly investigated the official story and have no desire to, which does their movement a huge disservice.

For every conspiracy theory I search out the counter argument. Everytime the counter argument makes more sense, logically and scientifically. Just as you have proven with flight 93 so far. The truthers seem to base the majority of their arguments on heresy and conjecture.

Keep up the good work.







May I suggest the next topic is the deformation of the floor trusses on wtc 1+2 pulling the walls in at the failure point?

Originally posted by drock905
May I suggest the next topic is the deformation of the floor trusses on wtc 1+2 pulling the walls in at the failure point?

Hi Drock,

Thank you for your comments. I chose flight 93 due the abundance of irrefutable evidence. It is as solid as it can get. Proven by the lack of response by the lack of legitimate responses to the facts presented.

The pulling of the trusses is a great topic. However, I think jumping into that is a bit premature. I think what is important it to start at the beginning. Take it step by step. Similar to the 911 Commission Report.

Who were the hijackers? - evidence of their role with Bin Laden

What happened on the plane? - evidence ie: phone calls, data information, ATS reports, etc.

What happens in EVERY thread here is what I call the "drive-by truthing." They jump a thread and give you the laundry list that typically consists of the: pull in comment, free fall fallacy, and whatever CT they can dig up from 2006. It's the old saying, you throw enough s*** against the wall, some will eventually stick.

So, my suggestion is to now focus on either flight 11 or 175 and the facts around that flight. Truthers find it hard to admit that there were humans crashing that plane. As soon as they concede this fact, it becomes easier for them to understand the facts surrounding the impact and the damage that ensued. One step at a time.

reply to post by Six Sigma


You're right. I'm definitely jumping ahead. I just find the bowing and deformation such an obvious example that the collapse was not a controlled demolition and I think many truthers are unaware of it.

Sticking with the planes for now is a good plan.

Sigma 6: Please explain how Flight 93 nosed down and went straight into the ground and SOMEHOW A DEBRI FIELD OF 4-8 MILES WAS FOUND??? Kinda impossible I would guess? Let's say it hit a a few trees before impacting into the"hole", but that doesn't explain debri from the plane found 8 miles away. Good luck!

Given the high standards that Truthers demand from debunkers when having their own theories scrutinised, it's notable that they apparently fall into all the same bad habits that they continuously accuse others of.

Nobody has really attempted to engage with what Six Sigma wrote, or to disprove any of his points.

Originally posted by freedom12
Sigma 6: Please explain how Flight 93 nosed down and went straight into the ground and SOMEHOW A DEBRI FIELD OF 4-8 MILES WAS FOUND??? Kinda impossible I would guess? Let's say it hit a a few trees before impacting into the"hole", but that doesn't explain debri from the plane found 8 miles away. Good luck!

Hi freedom12. That is a legitimate question and one that is brought up quite often. Yes, there were debris that were found as far away as Baltimore; this is about 8 miles away. You would think that if debris is this far away, it is evidence of a shoot down. Prior to jumpping to that conclusion you should ask a few questions and research the answers. Most truthers don't do this.

Question 1 . What type of debris were found?
Question 2. What was the wind speed on 9/11 in Shanksville?
Question 3. What was the approximate height of the plume after the plane exploded?

Some visual aids from Google Earth

The yellow line is the direction the wind was blowing that day.

Crash site to New New Baltimore




General location of where the inflight magazine page and letters were found in New Baltimore.




Crash site to Indian lake Marina



Indian lake Marina

reply to post by GoodOlDave


They also have evidence that Atta was not a religious fanatic. That is, if you believe he actually dated the stripper. If that is true, it does not fit the picture of him as a fanatic.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


You are correct; I am not sure which Atta is real. I believe that they cannot coexist. As for Atta being connected to the CIA, I didn't pull that out of thin air; Atta was friends with a German pilot, who worked with the CIA.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

You are walking a very dangerous line here. If you're going to snub a first hand account of Atta from an eyewitness then you'll necessarily need to discount the validity of the other eyewitness accounts of him concerning the drug use and the partying, meaning that at the end of the day, he still was a religious zealot who thought he was doing God's will in his attack.

Snub first hand accounts?
Sounds like Pot calling kettle black.

All you are doing is parroting the OS and hearsay information from the FBI. Go ahead take the word of lying FBI, if that makes you feel safe.
We’ve all read the reports and common knowledge tells us that the FBI was used to hid evidence concerning the cover-up of 911. If there was nothing to hide then why all the secrecy, and the FBI refusal of not turning over FOIA requested reports.

Why don’t you show us “actual proof” that what you know is true?
One thing I have learned in research you cannot trust people and you certainly do not trust hearsay information. Hearsay information is as credible as it’s source, and I don’t care who they are. One reason is because everyone tells lies, it is mans nature to tell lies. Where did you hear this information about Atta perhaps MSN or one of those dam fools disinformation websites.

If you want my opinion about Atta, he is a face with a name and that is all. Is he real? Is his true identity real? No one really knows and yet the other hijackers were all using stolen identities, so why not Atta. Can you prove I am wrong no you can’t? You just assume Atta is real because the FBI said so. Do you really trust a corrupt government who has a lot to hide? I sure don’t. I am sure you will say I am paranoid and delusional and all the usual nonsense you say about people who are looking for the truth.
One thing I can say, most people who are looking for the truth are not gullible, or stupid as many of you OS defenders would like us to be.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by freedom12
Sigma 6: Please explain how Flight 93 nosed down and went straight into the ground and SOMEHOW A DEBRI FIELD OF 4-8 MILES WAS FOUND??? Kinda impossible I would guess? Let's say it hit a a few trees before impacting into the"hole", but that doesn't explain debri from the plane found 8 miles away. Good luck!

Hi freedom12. That is a legitimate question and one that is brought up quite often. Yes, there were debris that were found as far away as Baltimore; this is about 8 miles away. You would think that if debris is this far away, it is evidence of a shoot down. Prior to jumpping to that conclusion you should ask a few questions and research the answers. Most truthers don't do this.

Question 1 . What type of debris were found?
Question 2. What was the wind speed on 9/11 in Shanksville?
Question 3. What was the approximate height of the plume after the plane exploded?

I understand what kind of debri was found. Sounds like you're trying to fudge the OS too say "wind" blew debri 8 miles from the "plume" of an explosion of a plane that supposedly buried itself into the ground ouside of Shankville. Now who's stretching their imagination to include things like 'Plume and wind"?