Thursday, May 18, 2006

Avery: Flight 77 Passengers Are Dead

Dylan Avery was interviewed on Canadian TV last night. Obviously much of the focus was on the video released by the Defense Department, but later the host quizzes young master Avery:

Host: "There are 59 families who are missing loved ones. What do you suggest happened to them?"

Avery: I mean, hey man I can't sit here and lie and say that the family members, you know, either that the passengers were in on it or that their family members are government agents. I mean, I'm not saying that. I mean, these people who lost their loved ones, their loved ones are obviously dead. They're obviously gone. I mean, I'm not saying that they're on a payroll somewhere, I mean, I'm just trying to ask questions, I'm not trying to accuse anyone of trying to cover something up, well, I'm obviously accusing the government of covering something up, but I'm not trying to implicate the passengers because they're just as innocent as anybody else, man.


At 18 May, 2006 17:25, Blogger Brian Tiemann said...

"Whoah... my hands are huge."

At 18 May, 2006 17:34, Blogger Alex said...

You know...they call 'em fingers, but I've never seen them fing.

....oh, wait, there they go.....

At 18 May, 2006 17:41, Blogger roger_sq said...

You know...they call 'em fingers, but I've never seen them fing.

....oh, wait, there they go.....

that's hilarious. Thanks.

At 18 May, 2006 19:35, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 18 May, 2006 19:36, Blogger Unknown said...

Is there anybody out there that will take this challenge... someone who puts of comments like this making fun, thinking it funny.

Will you spend two hours of your own time, and emailing with me over the next week. Look at a few web sites, discussions, etc. and give me a change to let you see with your eyes and understand with your mind why the facts simply blow the official story out of the water?

Obviously I don't have a huge amount of time for this, but I am convinced anyone with average intelligence who looks at this with fresh eyes will be astounded by how much there is that blows away the official story from being possible.

At 18 May, 2006 19:40, Blogger Unknown said...

Here's a start on my suggested project.

STILL No Arabs On Flight 77

At 18 May, 2006 19:53, Blogger Unknown said...

Here's another url related to Flight 77:

Part Two of the Above

At 18 May, 2006 20:00, Blogger Unknown said...


We are Not saying, that was was NO plane, Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. We are saying, Where IS Flight 77, at the CRASH SITE?

At 18 May, 2006 20:11, Blogger Unknown said...


"The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon

Hortum rushed to the church school, filled with kids. "We're under attack, under attack," he whispered to Christine Yeannakis, the school director.

"I figured he was telling me the vestry was upset about something. We had no idea," Yeannakis recalled.

Then a supersonic boom from somewhere in the sky hushed the playground and Yeannakis hauled the kids into the basement.

Over the next few hours, parents

At 18 May, 2006 22:26, Blogger Unknown said...

Link #5

At 19 May, 2006 05:36, Blogger LT said...

Avery sounds like, I MEAN, he must be, I mean, an idiot or something. I mean, not to say that he is, I mean, but I feel good thing people are looking to him for an accurate assessment of what happened on 911. Unbelievable.

At 19 May, 2006 07:40, Blogger undense said...

bg, the sites you link don't even use the correct facts. The initial entry hole was not "several meters wide." That old chestnut has been cracked for a long time now.

Where is flight 77? Look here and you'll see the remnants:

The link above has already been psoted on the front page. Somehow it seems you overlooked it though, so I've gracefully included it again for your perusal.

At 19 May, 2006 08:55, Blogger Unknown said...


We simply disagree on what constitutes "wreckage" from the plane crash:

Hunt the Boeing

At 19 May, 2006 09:18, Blogger undense said...


I've noticed a trend in your comments in here. Most are very short and non-commital. You claim to disagree with people, but never explain why. When you do attempt to make any sort of disagreement or point as a retort, you generally defer to others using a link, usually with that link being some appeal to authority (Though often it's an appeal to a non-authority figure).

More often you just tend to typify anyone who dares disagree with you (actually not you, but the links you post) as some kind of dupe of the man, as people unwilling to search for truth, or some other such non-sense. But you rarely or practically never provide any sort of hard information or technical data in your own words.

I've seen that game played many times before, as I've been around the block a time or two. It's most often played by those who have little in the way of coherent thought processes or technical skills/knowledge of their own. They don't want to commit because then people will discover how little they really know themselves. They really don't understand the technical basis or merits of the findings, but they glom onto something that looks and/or sounds impressive and once they've taken that girlfiend in arm, they are unwilling to part with her no matter how many people point out that she's jerking them around.

I'm waiting for you to provide some answers to the questions that have been raised in here. You seemingly want to do all the asking and none of the answering. C'mon. Buck up and let's see your stuff. Show us what you know. Till then I will continue to have little respect for you because you appear to be a poser.

At 19 May, 2006 10:42, Blogger Unknown said...

Another Link

At 19 May, 2006 10:48, Blogger Unknown said...


The bunk of my beliefs about what really happened on 9/11 are contained in the book by Webster Tarpley called: 9/11 Synthtic Terror: Made in the USA.

For anyone who hasn't read it, I have no time for writing long posts explaining my viewpoints on details. Read the book, case closed (meaning that a real inquiry is needed to determine what really happened).

I take seriously your comments about me. I don't think they are warranted.

My goal here is not to be the "smarting guy in the room". My goal is to call out lies and untruths as I see them, and engage with those of you who seem to be worthwhile.

So far, you haven't impressed me.

At 19 May, 2006 11:31, Blogger undense said...

Well that's where we differ, bg.

The bulk of my beliefs come from reading reports, analysis, and studies and then using my knowledge of engineering and materials to figure out whether or not they are bunk or valid. I make up my own mind instead relying on someone preaching to me how I should think and what I should believe.

Nor do I care one way or the other for Bush. imo, he's done a lousy job for the most part and he doesn't represent the most powerful country in the world well at all. But 2008 is fast approaching and soon enough we'll be rid of him. So I also do not have any driving passion concerning Bush affecting my beliefs either way. We also differ in that respect.

I don't impress you? No problem at all. In fact, I'd be rather depressed knowing I was advocated by a person who is impressed by some anti-semitic fruit loop like nesnyc.

At 19 May, 2006 11:59, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

bg wrote:
My goal here is not to be the "smarting guy in the room".

With the spanking you've been taking here, I think you are the "smarting" guy in the room. ;-)

At 19 May, 2006 14:30, Blogger Brian Tiemann said...

It really shouldn't take that much time to explain the logic behind the alleged plot, should it? To explain why it was important that the conspirators knock down the buildings even after the planes had crashed into them and given us ample causus belli? To explain why they'd fire a cruise missile into the Pentagon when they'd already hijacked four planes for the job? To explain why they'd bother carefully "disappearing" hundreds of plane passengers while committing to the callous murder of unknowable thousands on the ground? To explain what significance "pods" or "chalk marks" or the controlled demolition of WTC7 would have in a plot designed to make us all think we'd simply been attacked by four planeloads of terrorists as in the simplest, most plausble scenario by far, the one everyone agrees on?

It shouldn't take more than ten minutes or so. If you know the arguments in all these websites and books so well, it shouldn't take you five.

At 19 May, 2006 14:49, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 19 May, 2006 14:52, Blogger Unknown said...

Another Link

At 20 May, 2006 06:31, Blogger Unknown said...

Could it be that some stuff was Staged at the Pentagon?

At 20 May, 2006 09:20, Blogger Unknown said...

A Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon
- by George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.) - LINK - In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident.

At 21 May, 2006 15:06, Blogger MarkyX said...

bg, that's nice and all, but I think you seem to forgot the fact that there is craploads of photo of plane debris all over the internet.

Unless you're going to tell me it's planted.


Post a Comment

<< Home