Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Ducking the Question of the Passengers

Notice the artful dodging by Fetzer in this segment of the Colmes show. It's clear that Fetzer wants to talk about anything but the passengers and so he continually tries to steer the argument towards other topics (begins at about 8:55):

Colmes: But we know there were actual passengers on those planes who died.

Fetzer: Alan, what do you know about it? You weren’t there, you have no idea about those planes.

Colmes: Are you saying there were not passengers on those planes?

Fetzer: None of those hijackers were named on any passenger manifest. None of them was the subject of any autopsy. Five, six or seven have turned up alive and well, living in the Middle East.

Colmes: Now you’re talking about the hijackers, but the passengers there were actual passengers on those planes, right?

Fetzer: Well, there were passengers somewhere, but whether there were actual passengers on the planes as they were impacting the building is an interesting question. Everything was pulverized, Alan. All the concrete on the office floors was pulverized, all the office furniture was pulverized,

Colmes: No, but there were passenger records of people on those flights.

Fetzer: And they don’t include any hijackers, Alan.

Colmes: But they were real airplanes with real passengers on them.

Fetzer: Yeah there were real airplanes, but let me tell you something, if you look at the NTSB’s raw data, for these aircraft, which I observed on a spreadsheet this weekend, Dylan Avery who made Loose Change showed me a spreadsheet. You go for those four planes and you cross on the data and it’s all blank—it’s all blank Alan. Now, the NTSB had a formal obligation to investigate those crashes and it hasn’t done so. Why do you think it hasn’t done so, Alan?

Colmes: I don’t know the answer to that question, but what I’m trying to—my job is to give the questions, you’re going to answer them—but my point is that there were civilians, Americans who were on those flights, right?

Fetzer: Well, there were some, but the whole business about how many were paid and that whole sort of thing or compensation—

Colmes: What do you mean, paid?

Fetzer: Alan it’s very spotty.


Later, they get back into it:

Colmes: Are you saying that the other people on all the other planes—

Fetzer: No, no, I’m not saying that. Obviously there were bodies around; there don’t seem to be enough bodies to make up what was a full complement. You know, each of those planes, Alan, was curiously about one quarter full—you actually could have put all those people together on any one of those airliners.


I suspect that last claim is untrue as well.

Now, is that nutty or what? There were bodies around but not enough of them, so maybe they put all of the passengers on one of the planes? Wouldn't there then be even fewer bodies?

As for his claim that "none of those hijackers were named on any passenger manifest", one of the JREFers pointed us to this.

Listening to Fetzer, I get the feeling that I'm tuning in the Phil Hendrie show. Hendrie's schtick is that he disguises his voice and pretends to be someone with a wacky opinion on something. He then interviews himself, switching voices back and forth. It's mildly entertaining for about 10 minutes, but of course it's so over the top that you have to marvel when some of the callers to the show don't seem to understand that it's all a gag.

65 Comments:

At 28 June, 2006 15:58, Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

Fetzer is a nasty piece of work. No wonder he's a conspiradroid...

 
At 28 June, 2006 16:06, Blogger default.xbe said...

Fetzer: None of those hijackers were named on any passenger manifest.

more lies, the hijackers are on the passenger manifests, they arent on CNNs list of victims (because they arent victims of their own crimes)

 
At 28 June, 2006 16:10, Blogger ScottSl said...

That was ripped from Griffin's super crappy research.

http://www.911myths.com/html/omissions____chapter_1.html

 
At 28 June, 2006 16:37, Blogger CHF said...

"Fetzer: Alan, what do you know about it? You weren’t there, you have no idea about those planes."

He keeps telling people they weren't there. AS IF HE WAS!

In other words, "you weren't there, so you know nothing while I wasn't there either, yet know everything."

Fucking moron.

 
At 28 June, 2006 16:46, Blogger JoanBasil said...

I said this on another thread already: Its like needling Catholics about how they can believe in virgin birth. If you believe in an all powerful God, virgin birth is not a problem at all.

Same thing for "where's the passengers?" If its the government or people with the right connections to some powerful cabal in the government, whats so hard about doing something with the passengers? You think the evil ones would be too dainty to get a bunch of passengers in a room and kill them all with machines?

 
At 28 June, 2006 16:57, Blogger James B. said...

Fetzer: None of those hijackers were named on any passenger manifest. None of them was the subject of any autopsy. Five, six or seven have turned up alive and well, living in the Middle East.


This part cracked me up. OK professor, was it 5... 6... or 7?

 
At 28 June, 2006 16:58, Blogger default.xbe said...

You think the evil ones would be too dainty to get a bunch of passengers in a room and kill them all with machines?

then why cant fetzer say this? why keep avoiding the question?

 
At 28 June, 2006 16:59, Blogger shawn said...

Fetzer seems to be living in late 2001.

 
At 28 June, 2006 17:10, Blogger ScottSl said...

Next up:
29 June 2006
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest on
"Non-Random Thoughts" with host Jim Fetzer
11 AM to 1 PM/CT (Noon-2 PM/ET and 9-11 AM/PT)
Non-Random Thoughts, live page, archive, (mp3-1), (mp3-2)
http://www.st911.org/
LOL!! I can't wait!

 
At 28 June, 2006 17:15, Blogger James B. said...

Hey, our dental hygenist.

 
At 28 June, 2006 17:17, Blogger apathoid said...

Five, six or seven have turned up alive and well, living in the Middle East.

Why does this story keep turning up alive and well?? Get some new material already!! I'm suprised he didnt bring up the "missle pods" and "bright flashes".

When all other arguments fail - resort to zombie hijackers !!

 
At 28 June, 2006 20:17, Blogger jackhanyes said...

You know, each of those planes, Alan, was curiously about one quarter full—you actually could have put all those people together on any one of those airliners.

I suspect that last claim is untrue as well.


Flight Plane Capacity Passengers %Full
American_Airlines_11 767 255 92 36
United_Airlines_175 767 255 65 25
American_Airlines_77 757 239 64 27
United_Airlines_93 757 239 45 19

Total passagers 266

239 < 255 < 266

Damn lier. But he did point out that the planes were practicaly empty for 757/767. But in a single class config of a 757 or 767, they can fit 330/350.

 
At 28 June, 2006 20:20, Blogger jackhanyes said...

more lies, the hijackers are on the passenger manifests

Enlighten me, old wise one, with thy source.

 
At 28 June, 2006 20:47, Blogger James B. said...

I did an entire post on the manifests earlier.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/those-passenger-lists.html

The 9/11 commission report also shows they got the manifests, even mentioning the seat numbers of the hijackers. Of course CTs automatically discount the findings of the commission, while simultaneous saying they should have investigated more.

I never did get that logic.

 
At 28 June, 2006 21:54, Blogger BG said...

This info taken from:
here

These are the only people whose names appear on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

Flight 11: 92 people on board

Judy Larocque
Laurie Neira
Candace Lee Williams

=======================================

Flight 77: 64 people on board

William Caswell
Eddie Dillard
Ian Gray
John Sammartino
Leonard Taylor

=======================================

Flight 175: 65 people on board

Michael C. Tarrou
Gloria Debarrera
Timothy Ward

=======================================

Flight 93: 45 'people' on board

Of these 45 people, none are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

No one

========================================

But there's more - I just re-ran all the names through the SSDI and SSA

Judy Larocque -- Nobody by this name in the SSDI

Laurie Neira -- 08 Dec 1952 11 Sep 2001 (FO) SSN 25-42-7446 Massachusetts

Candace Lee Williams -- Nobody by this name in the SSDI

William Caswell
There are 74 William Caswell in the SSDI. None died Sept 11 2001. 1 died in May 2001, thats the closest.

Eddie Dillard -- There are 11 Eddie Dillards in the SSDI. None died in this century.

Ian Gray -- IAN J GRAY 01 Sep 1946 11 Sep 2001 (V) (FO) (none specified) ssn - 338-48-2075 State issued Illinois . The (V), interestingly enough, means it was verified.

John Sammartino -- Nobody by this name in the SSDI

Leonard Taylor -- 34 Leonard Taylors. None Died Sept 11 2001

Michael C. Tarrou -- Nobody by this name in the SSDI

Gloria Debarrera -- Nobody by this name in the SSDI

Timothy Ward -- 52 Timothy Wards. None died in 2001.

 
At 28 June, 2006 21:59, Blogger LuCidiTy said...

ummmm whoever the perpetrators of 9-11 were killed those poor people anyway and either way...whether they shot the real planes down over the ocean or whether these people were on the planes that actually hit. it's not rocket science and doesn't take a lot of imagination to answer this question. the question of the passengers and what happened to them really only applies to a few, very few theories, and not to the most likely ones at that. this is really just one of the favorite talking points of the believer's of the "official" theory.

 
At 28 June, 2006 22:01, Blogger LuCidiTy said...

p.s. Professor Fetzer probably ducked it, as you so quaintly put it, because it's a truly ludicrous question.

 
At 28 June, 2006 22:15, Blogger default.xbe said...

Enlighten me, old wise one, with thy source.

Heres mine

wheres yours?

 
At 28 June, 2006 22:34, Blogger default.xbe said...

p.s. Professor Fetzer probably ducked it, as you so quaintly put it, because it's a truly ludicrous question.

if you had lost a family member on one of those flights would you consider it a "truly ludicrous question?"

 
At 28 June, 2006 22:37, Blogger roger_sq said...

Can you guys please debunk Catherine Austin Fitts?

I'm tired of hearing her run her mouth off. I heard rumor she's going to be in LC3

 
At 28 June, 2006 23:21, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah BG, none of these people existed. They were all done in CGI. Ignore all those grieving widows on Larry King Live.

 
At 29 June, 2006 03:38, Blogger shawn said...

and what happened to them really only applies to a few, very few theories, and not to the most likely ones at that. this is really just one of the favorite talking points of the believer's of the "official" theory.

That's one of the dumber things said on this blog. "Most likely" indicates, guess what, what MOST LIKELY happened. As in what has the most evidence and what makes the most sense. We're not believers, as I've said before, as belief connotes faith.

 
At 29 June, 2006 05:02, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Fetzer, LOL!

 
At 29 June, 2006 05:05, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 29 June, 2006 06:31, Blogger Chad said...

BG, my grandmother, who died about 10 years ago, isn't on the SSDI either. Was she a part of some preliminary conspiracy to cover up deaths?

Or is it possible that you didn't look into the possible reasons why people wouldn't show up on that database?

 
At 29 June, 2006 08:52, Blogger apathoid said...

BG, do you ever actually research claims for yourself, or do you just regurgitate everything that you read from CT sites?
In this case, the only research you'd have to do is go to the SSDI "Getting Started" and read.
If you did, you eventually find this(bolding mine):
* The death was not reported to the Social Security Administration (SSA).
* The death occurred before the Death Master File was maintained in a computer database. About 98 percent of the deaths in this database occurred between 1962 and the present.
* The person did not participate in the Social Security program.
* Survivor death benefits were (are) being paid to dependents or spouse.
* A recent death may not be indexed yet.
* Human error. (Before you give up, read the section titled "Missing Entries in the SSDI.")

Do you guys ever get tired of jumping to conclusions only to be debunked time and again??

 
At 29 June, 2006 09:16, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 29 June, 2006 09:17, Blogger BG said...

apathoid,

I'm not jumping to any conclusion.

 
At 29 June, 2006 09:18, Blogger BG said...

Joan,

I see why you use the Catholics and virgin birth example.

However, if you are an atheist like me, and believe that Christianity is based on untruth, then the idea of pointing out the virgin birth miracle is a reasonable debating point.

 
At 29 June, 2006 09:50, Blogger Manny said...

Dale Earnhardt is also not listed in the SSDI. Ergo, he did not die and the so-called "crash" at Daytona was a coverup for his shameful conversion to open-wheel racing, something which NASCAR fans would never forgive if they knew. He is currently working his way up the F1 rankings under an assumed name after extensive plastic surgery.

 
At 29 June, 2006 09:58, Blogger Manny said...

Omygosh! Ray Walston is not in the SSDI! He's obviously returned to Mars.

 
At 29 June, 2006 10:39, Blogger CHF said...

bg,

structual engineering, contolled demolitions, SSDI, military equiptment...

Is there ANY topic that you guys spout off on that you actually know something about?

I'm almost feel sorry for you guys.

Almost.

 
At 29 June, 2006 12:10, Blogger BG said...

Default.xbe's,

Honest question. I looked at the manifest pics. It appeared that the manifest pictured were produced on 9/30/2001. Do you know if that true? If not do you claim these are originals producted on 9/11?

 
At 29 June, 2006 12:49, Blogger apathoid said...

bg, the 767 9/30/119 at the top of the manifest is the equipment and seating layout.
767 - B767-200ER
9 - Seats in "F" class
30 - Seats in "J" class
119- Seats in ecomony class

Further to the left, you'll see
AA11 11 Sept.

 
At 29 June, 2006 13:11, Blogger James B. said...

Those are interesting Default, where did you get them?

 
At 29 June, 2006 13:13, Blogger shawn said...

I see why you use the Catholics and virgin birth example.

Believing something that doesn't make sense on blind faith?

Well, sounds just like every conspiracy theorist.

How you're an atheist and still believe in fantasies is beyond me.

 
At 29 June, 2006 13:38, Blogger apathoid said...

Those are interesting Default, where did you get them?

Yes default, do tell!! Do you have any of the other flights?

I have to preempt BG here. If these are fakes, they are damn good ones. I can even see that there were 3 non-revenue passengers and that J class was full with frequent fliers and that about 2/3 of the coach riders were using "electronic tickets"

 
At 29 June, 2006 14:08, Blogger default.xbe said...

i got them from 911myths.com

http://www.911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html

i also feel these are unlikely fakes, as they show the seating arrangement (unlike the other lists CTers point to) and as apathoid points out they show other "useful" information that flight crew might need about the passengers

the 9/30 date BG is referring to appears at the top of page 1 of the flight 11 manifest, it says 9/30/119, given that 119 im not entirely certain its a date

flight 175 and 93 manifests have fax headers dated Oct 4, 2002, but you can tell from the angle of the printing they are not part of the original document

 
At 29 June, 2006 14:23, Blogger BG said...

Come on, guys.

I'm not saying they are fakes!

I hadn't seen them before: collecting info.

Don't ya think it would have been nice for the 9/11 Commission to collect and publish these?

 
At 29 June, 2006 15:33, Blogger BG said...

With respect to Flight 175, the 911myths website identifies oddities.

If one looks into Marianne MacFarlane, which I did about a year ago, I submit to you, that the evidence that seems to point to lies about:

1) her planning to be on this flight

2) her planning to go to Las Vegas (by herself, but meeting up with friends after getting there.)

I challenge anyone to find any record of who she was planning to meet in Vegas. I challenge you to find anyone saying that they were planning to meet her in Vegas.

 
At 29 June, 2006 15:38, Blogger James B. said...

Don't ya think it would have been nice for the 9/11 Commission to collect and publish these?


What difference does it make? The 9/11 commission already reported the hijackers were on the passenger manifests, and you said they were lying. Why would you suddenly believe them just because they showed you a computer printout?

If you can crash a cruise missile into the Pentagon, and get half of DC to say it was a jetliner, you can add 19 names to a flight manifest.

 
At 29 June, 2006 15:40, Blogger apathoid said...

Thanks default. I never noticed that page at 911myths before. One reason that they would seem to be authentic is the attention to detail. For instance a CT might question why the 2 AA flights seem to have different "fonts" as well as different formatting and perforations. But, this is to be expected because the two flights originated from different airports, meaning the check in records software was slightly differnt.

There is also alot of extra detail in there. Like on the UA 93 manifest you can tell where the gate agent scrawled in seat numbers with a marker because it appears that the printout was illegible in an area at the top.
There's also alot of cross-outs(I have no idea why agents do this, but I see them do it all the time!)

Again, good find default!

 
At 29 June, 2006 15:56, Blogger apathoid said...

If one looks into Marianne MacFarlane, which I did about a year ago, I submit to you, that the evidence that seems to point to lies about:

1) her planning to be on this flight

2) her planning to go to Las Vegas (by herself, but meeting up with friends after getting there.)

I challenge anyone to find any record of who she was planning to meet in Vegas. I challenge you to find anyone saying that they were planning to meet her in Vegas.


Are you serious?
What the hell difference does it make in the grand scheme of things?

911Myths said she works for the company. Ok thats a big hint. As an airline employee, we fly whenever we want, wherever we want without having to worry about making flights. Often I fly on the spur of the moment if a relative asks me to come in for the weekend.

Four weeks ago, I was planning a non-rev trip to see my Dad, but I cancelled at the last minute because something came up. When I went in to try to cancel the back-end of my reservation, I couldnt because the damn computer thought I was on the plane when I wasnt. This is the exact opposite of the MacFarlane issue. This stuff happens all the time.
One possible explanation is that she just showed up without making a reservation and since the flight was wide-open they just said "find a seat". Its also possible that she was booked for a later flight but opted to fly out earlier(I've done this also) - on a wideopen flight to try to get a big comfy business class seat.

 
At 29 June, 2006 16:21, Blogger apathoid said...

Actually looking at 911myths UA175 passenger page again, it appears that all the "missing passengers" were non-revs
MacFarlane and Sanchez worked for the company
The Shearers had a daughter with “connections” to United:
And the Reverend Grogan was only on Flight 175 because of a United Airlines worker

This is simply a case of a ridiculously wide-open flight where the gate agents cleared all standbys before boarding commenced and assigned them all(most likey business class since there were 19 seats open in "J") seats.
Since the non-revs were not likely entered in the computer as waiting for a seat assignment(as I mentioned - they likely cleared before boarding commenced)the gate agent wouldve needed to manually add them to the manifest and didnt.
Its really pretty simple.

 
At 29 June, 2006 16:37, Blogger BG said...

James,

James,

I did Not say that the 9/11 Commission lied about the "hijackers" being on the manifests.

I'm not saying real planes with real passenger didn't take off. I'm saying the commercial jetlines identified didn't crash at any of the four locations that they are said to crash.

 
At 29 June, 2006 16:42, Blogger BG said...

apathoid,

Here's the rub. On the moring of 9/11, MacFarlane was reported to have performed her gate-agent duties (on the clock I presume), before boarding the flight as a passenger.

Tell me how often American Airlines has an employee work a shift and actually perform duties at the gate where they depart. My speculation is that this would never happen.

 
At 29 June, 2006 16:47, Blogger apathoid said...

I'm saying the commercial jetlines identified didn't crash at any of the four locations that they are said to crash.

Oh really, what crashed at those locations then?
I'm guessing, as a skeptic, you've got some pretty hard evidence that the 4 9/11 flights safely landed somewhere and that the passengers are still alive?

Tell me how often American Airlines has an employee work a shift and actually perform duties at the gate where they depart. My speculation is that this would never happen.
Speculate all you want, you base it on nothing. Give me a good reason "that this would never happen".
And give me a source that she was working the gate/flight that she departed from...

 
At 29 June, 2006 17:31, Blogger BG said...

"And give me a source that she was working the gate/flight that she departed from..."

The link below describes Sanchez and MacFarlane helping.

What kind of organization (especially unionized) allows off-duty employees to perform official duties?

http://www.iamawlodge1426.org/news5a.htm

 
At 29 June, 2006 17:34, Blogger default.xbe said...

What kind of organization (especially unionized) allows off-duty employees to perform official duties?

maybe its less to do with company policy and more to do with the fact that these were just nice peopel who wanted to lend a hand

 
At 29 June, 2006 17:44, Blogger James B. said...

I did Not say that the 9/11 Commission lied about the "hijackers" being on the manifests.



Then why are you debating whether the hijackers are on the manifest? You either believe it or not, you can't have it both ways.

 
At 29 June, 2006 17:53, Blogger BG said...

"I'm guessing, as a skeptic, you've got some pretty hard evidence that the 4 9/11 flights safely landed somewhere and that the passengers are still alive?"

I have zero evidence, and really not even a reliable rumor, that any passengers said to be deceased are in fact alive. This is not part of my claim of where the evidence leads, although the Shanksville / Cleveland airport narrative is troubling. Will provide links about this if you want.

In general, with respect to the above, I do wish the 9/11 Commission or other official agencies or Airlines would put forward an explanation about why so few of the people eligible for compensation from the Victim's Compensation Fund have been reported to have received compensation from the fund. I'm not saying this is a smoking gun for anything... I just think it begs skepticism.

There is a huge amount of evidence leading to the conclusion that the specificly named planes were not, videoed or found at the crash sites. When it comes to what evidence or logic points this direction, there is a huge amount of detail one needs to pay attention to. There are various researchers who are providing the evidence and explanation. If you are one of those who remained unmoved toward complete skepticism about the Pentagon, I think it's doubtful you'll have any interest in the WTC, and Shanksville, PA evidence.

Here's a starting point to understand the reason to doubt the specific flights hitting the WTC.

The Shanksville fakery seems on par with the Pentagon.

 
At 29 June, 2006 18:01, Blogger apathoid said...

BG, you're &%^$# killing me man. The article says Jesus(and possibly Marianne as well) helped with check-in duties. That is all it says.
Your union argument is lame in this case, since their help probably consisted of milling around and doing menial chores whilst chatting with their friend.

Only CTs would ever think of this as suspicious.

Earlier you said:
Tell me how often American Airlines has an employee work a shift and actually perform duties at the gate where they depart. My speculation is that this would never happen.

Thats not what happened now is it?

 
At 29 June, 2006 18:05, Blogger BG said...

James,

You are misreading what I've said.

I understand there are many Govt. Story Skeptics, and CT's who have made various allegations.

If you had been like me, and had been watching this whole subject like a hawk since Dec. of 2001, you would know that getting official, documented details has been a major need for all of us to sort thru the truth versus the lies. After we finally got a 9/11 Commission, many of us, included me, thought the 9/11 Commission would serve that purpose.

As the Commission work progressed, it because more and more obvious that they had no interest in performing the investigation called for in order to give the World reasonable clarity. The report, evidently engineered by Zelikow, is a joke.

So, there are many reasons to want to know a lot more than what we have from any official source about the passenger manifests, as well as an enormous number of other issues.

 
At 29 June, 2006 18:08, Blogger apathoid said...

The Shanksville fakery seems on par with the Pentagon.

Maybe its "on-par" because both crash sites consisted of a 757 impacting near perpendicular at 85% of the speed of sound..

I still want your explanation of how the MiBs planted a 1200 lb Landing Gear Strut. Any ideas?

 
At 29 June, 2006 18:09, Blogger BG said...

apathoid,

How many gate agents does it take, for goodness sake. Did the others call in sick?

 
At 29 June, 2006 18:27, Blogger CHF said...

"I have zero evidence, and really not even a reliable rumor"

But don't let that stop you from "asking questions" based on nothing at all! Skeptic don't do that, bg.

"The Shanksville fakery seems on par with the Pentagon."

Yeah, you haven't made up your mind, have you?

 
At 29 June, 2006 18:33, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 29 June, 2006 18:34, Blogger BG said...

CHF,

Looking at evidence that is convincing and forming an opinion (strong or weak) is the next stage any reasonable person does after skeptical inquiry.

It would be dopey not to be swayed... that's what the whole purpose of inquiry is for. Now that I'm swayed, I want the same evidence to be reviewed for official action if my conclusion can be verified and supported by legitimate adjudication.

 
At 29 June, 2006 18:39, Blogger BG said...

"I still want your explanation of how the MiBs planted a 1200 lb Landing Gear Strut. Any ideas?"

I think you are talking about a picture taken inside the Pentagon in the areas of the "crash" that is said to be a landing gear strut.

Did anybody weight the strut. Did anybody examine the pictured items and make an official determination of what was, and what aircraft it came from.

And yes, it could have been planted on top of all that.

 
At 29 June, 2006 18:40, Blogger CHF said...

bg,

is 757 wreckage not "convincing?"

What about 100+ eyewitnesses to the Pentagon crash?

What exactly is your burden of proof and why does it constantly change depending on whether you like where the "evidence" points?

Every time your "evidence" is reviewed it is found to be bullshit.

But of course you CTers NEVER admit to being wrong. Instead you either A) chalk it up to government disinformation (to throw you off the trail) or at best you b) just stop bringing up those talking points and nope no one asks why.

It's juvenile, bg. Very very juvenile.

 
At 29 June, 2006 18:55, Blogger apathoid said...

I think you are talking about a picture taken inside the Pentagon in the areas of the "crash" that is said to be a landing gear strut.

Did anybody weight the strut. Did anybody examine the pictured items and make an official determination of what was, and what aircraft it came from.


bg, go here and then read. The only parent aircraft to which this p/n strut belongs is the 757-200.

There are 2 ways in which it couldve gotten there
1) Thats where the aircraft it was bolted to crashed
2) It was planted.

Which brings me back to my previous question

I still want your explanation of how the MiBs planted a 1200 lb Landing Gear Strut. Any ideas

BTW - I found the weight in the Boeing 757 Maintenance Manual. But you dont need to be a genius to figure out that this thing weighs the better part of a ton, if you look at the page I linked..

 
At 30 June, 2006 14:44, Blogger BG said...

"bg, go here and then read. The only parent aircraft to which this p/n strut belongs is the 757-200. "

They, (whoever they are), certainly planned the deception pretty well, I'd say.

 
At 30 June, 2006 15:58, Blogger CHF said...

"They, (whoever they are), certainly planned the deception pretty well, I'd say."

And you have no evidence that it IS a deception!

"Skeptic" my ass.

 
At 30 June, 2006 16:38, Blogger apathoid said...

bg, Are you familiar with Occams Razor?
Its a handy tool for skeptics, check into it.

 
At 07 August, 2006 21:22, Blogger batcave911 said...

The SSDI is not reliable to do this kind of research.
we found this out when we first started researching the passengers.

The airlines never released a official passenger list.
the ones the media had gotten were ALL different !

Believe me, airlines know exactly their passenger lists immediately. To have them be so cautious in what they release, raises suspicions.

this is pretty interesting...
media published fake passenger lists for september 11
======

Another odd thing: No arab DNA found on the flights, e.g. flight 77
http://www.physics911.net/olmsted.htm
=====

i am NOT a loose change fan,
i think they may have had good intentions, but there are people who have much better credentials that you should read before getting into this,you should look at a lot of info.

I am a cel phone engineer (RF) i design cell systems.
the flight maps shopwed flight 93 at 35,000ft. theres no way a call can be made at that altitude on a cell phone. many calls were from airphones, but some were cell phones.



Cell phones September 11, and engineering perpective


This is NOT my test below, but its an interesting read....



"The Social Security Death Index (SSDI) (Social Security Death Index) is a privately-owned website that is not affiliated with Social Security. It boasts an accuracy rate of about 83%

9-11 Victims Compensation Fund

This is where our government opened up the Treasury and gave family members of those who lost their lives that day lots of money. In return, these families were basically told to shut up about anything else concerning 9-11. (Considering all the lies surrounding this horrific event, you can see why.)
At this point there is one thing we should never forget, and that is how powerful the notion of human greed is. Remember this concept as you read the number of victims whose family members sought compensation.

Flight 93: of the 45 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 6 are listed in the SSDI (13%)
Of these 45 people, none are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:
No one

Flight 175: of the 65 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 18 are listed in the SSDI (28%)
Of these 65 people, only three are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

Flight 77: of the 64 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 14 are listed in the SSDI (22%)
Of these 64 people, only five on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

Flight 11: of the 92 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 20 are listed in the SSDI (22%)
Of these 20 people, only three are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=750

http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html
From Vic and Lisa thorn.

Which brings me to Ellen Mariani: she’s the woman who lost her husband Louis on Flight 175 that crashed into the South Tower on 9-11. With the help of a lawyer named Phil Berg, she filed a lawsuit against President Bush and company under the RICO act. Also, she refused to take the hush money that was offered to her under the 9-11 Victims Compensation fund.

In addition, I had just discovered Black Op Radio earlier in the year and found an interesting show in their archives (# 156) on which Ellen and Mr. Berg appeared as guests. This may be the single biggest point concerning 9-11, and hopefully the last nail in the coffin of our government's lies. During this broadcast, Mrs. Mariani

said that she was the
only relative of all the passengers that died on Flight 175 that crashed into the South Tower.

Her lawyer, Phil Berg, repeated this statement.

I listened to this show over and over again and couldn't believe what she had just said. Everything came together at this point. That’s when it dawned on me that not only had our government lied about the physics of 9-11; they may very well have taken it one step farther by faking the number of people that died that day. I believed what she and Mr. Berg had just said. Nothing about 9-11 made any sense. Why should it start now?

Not knowing then what I know now, Ellen and Phil believed that for some reason the government was holding back the names of the people that had died on Flight 175.

She had tried to get in touch with the relatives of other family members, but to no avail.

You see, she and her lawyer believed, just like most other people believe, that four jets had been hijacked by Arab terrorists and crashed into buildings and into the ground at Shanksville. I, on the other hand, had already swept those lies aside.

Hijackers Alive And Well

Flight 93



http://911review.org/_webimages/red_bandanna_hijacker2.jpg
This scarf was said to be worn by hijackers. Amazing condition for being in a plane crash.
NOTE: Body of hijacker missing

http://911review.org/_webimages/93_crater.jpg
Flight 93 crater supposedly made by a plane.
NOTE: Absence of plane.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home