Thursday, August 10, 2006

Your Documents Please

It is of course the cardinal rule of conspiracy theorists, that you must latch on to any evidence that supports you, no matter how questionable the source or logic, while dismissing any evidence against you as faked. For example the 9/11 deniers claim there is no evidence of the hijackers, but when evidence is shown, it was planted. From Loose Change:

The 9-11 Commission says "The CVR's and FDR's from American 11 and United 175 were not found..." Yet, the FBI claims to have found the passport of Satam al-Suqami, which managed to fly out of his pocket, through the explosion and onto the streets of Manhattan below.
Yes, not only did they "claim" to have found it. They also entered it into evidence at the Moussaoui trial.

But this wasn't the only document they found. Here is the passport of Saeed Al Ghamdi, recovered from the United 93 wreckage:

And the ID card of Al Hazmi from the Pentagon:

Not just the hijackers' documents survived of course. Here are the personal effects of CeeCee Lyles, the flight attendent on United 93 whose phone call to voice mail was also entered into evidence:

The Loosers continue by comparing the passport with the black boxes at the World Trade Center, which unfortunately were never found:

So, four different black boxes, made from the most resiliant materials known to man, were destroyed. Yet, a passport, made from a fragile material known as paper, managed to survive? Who writes this stuff?
Well the black boxes are made out of strong materials, but unfortunately they are not indestructable. Here is a picture of the CVR from the Pentagon, which didn't even have 500,000 tons of building fall on it:

But remember, there is no evidence of the hijackers or the crash into the Pentagon...


At 11 August, 2006 01:33, Blogger nes718 said...

Extra, extra, read all about it! The 9/11 Commission is proven to be a crock of shit!

Ha, ha! I guess you guys will have to adhere to other lies to support the official fairytale.

At 11 August, 2006 01:36, Blogger nes718 said...

And the ID card of Al Hazmi from the Pentagon:

Wait a minute, you mean to tell me an entire plane could vaporize, the black boxes damaged to the point they are unusable and still the passports survived? In Dylan's words, who writes this stuff? LOL!

At 11 August, 2006 03:37, Blogger Pepik said...

nesync: you link to a story that claims that the commission whitewashed the role of US foreign policy in making us a target of terror. What does this have to do with remote controlled missile firing drone holographs? Not much. Thank you for your lie of the day.

But wait! There's another lie - a "bonus" lie, I guess. "you mean to tell me that an entire plane could vaporise, the black boxes damaged to the point they are unusable"

WE never said the entire plane vaporised. YOU did. We have pointed this out a thousand times. In fact the vaporised idea is central to your version ("there's no evidence a plane hit the pentagon because there's no debris") and the non-vaporisation story is central to our theory ("there's debris everywhere you blind idiot").

You can't even get through a sentence without a ridiculous contradiction. The entire plane vaporised but the black box was damaged? Well damaged isn't vaporised, is it?

On the other hand with a conspiracy theory as ridiculously complex and incoherent as yours, you can't help but make a contradiction every time you say something.

At 11 August, 2006 03:38, Blogger Pepik said...

Can anyone remember who's passport was found in the trunk of a car? I think it was Atta's.

At 11 August, 2006 03:54, Blogger Good Lieutenant said...

Heh -

Remember your rewritten history, pepik! There was no passport. You're just a slave to the "official fairy tale." The one which has mountains of insurrmountable evidence to support it. And therein lies the proof of its fallacy.

Think about that.

Any day now the real "revised" truth will come out, courtesy of the 9-11 deniers. Maybe with the 56th Edition of LC. For sure, this time. Any day now.

At 11 August, 2006 06:05, Blogger High Desert Wanderer said...

Things like passports survived because of their insubstantialness. The plane shattered. The building broke, burned and fell. Something like a passport though, coulod easily be thrown clear of the destruction, wouldn't be damaged by a fall, and could easily survive having things dropped on it. Bent, torn, dirty, but still identifiable.

At 11 August, 2006 07:43, Blogger Scott said...

But I thought there weren't any hijackers?


(holding gut) those LC kids slay me.

At 11 August, 2006 08:34, Blogger Killtown said...

I personally like the pristine red bandana "found" from "Flight 93 crashing" in Shanks! Oh no, that wasn't planted!

At 11 August, 2006 08:43, Blogger shawn said...

I personally like the pristine red bandana "found" from "Flight 93 crashing" in Shanks! Oh no, that wasn't planted!

"Hey guys we don't have enough stuff here to prove it was hijacked. That cockpit voice recorder is probably completely empty, it'll give us no insight into what brought the plane down."

"Hmm you bring up an excellent point...Johnson, grab a red bandana right away and plant it. No one will be the wiser. Muhahahahaha."

At 11 August, 2006 09:44, Blogger Abby Scott said...

This one kills me.

When the first plane hit, I looked outside my office building to see what looked like a ticker tape parade. You saw thousands of singed but intact pieces of paper flying around.

Now, according to the CTers, we would be more likely to see a rainstorm of body parts and large pieces of aluminum.

At 11 August, 2006 10:14, Blogger Abby Scott said...

It will be an objective portrayal of your stances on various matters.


I'm an athiest who is pro-choice, heterosexual, I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, I like the white stripes and hate bob dylan. I'm pro-cute kids. I like the R train better than the N. I'm against my neighbors waking me up early in the morning. I'm pro-titanium and prefer green to blue.

Any other stances you need?

At 11 August, 2006 10:58, Blogger Killtown said...

1) Any luck finding that original plume, the one that was photoshopped onto Vals picture?

2)Have you spoken with the first responders yet?

1) You really think Val or the FBI would use a plume found on the internet for their photo??? {shaking head}

2) What would that have anything to do about Val's photo?

At 11 August, 2006 10:59, Blogger Killtown said...

any luck on those interviews with flight 93 investigators?

I'm sorry?

At 11 August, 2006 12:57, Blogger Killtown said...

apathoid said...He repeatedly asked you some very direct questions and you went out of your way to never respond, and you still won't. Why not?

And what were these questions again?

apathoid said...
1) So they created an ordnace plume that looks nothing like a crash plume for the express purpose of passing the ordnance plume off as a crash plume? This makes sense to you?

No, none of her story does make sense. At least you agree it's an ordnance plume though!

Kodiak said...will you please provide specific evidence implicating the America and/or Israli governments in 9/11 or retract your statement?

I did, you refused to read it all.

At 11 August, 2006 13:10, Blogger Manny said...

Still think Chief Ganci was in on it, K? If not, who was?

At 11 August, 2006 16:45, Blogger nes718 said...

nesync: you link to a story that claims that the commission whitewashed the role of US foreign policy in making us a target of terror. What does this have to do with remote controlled missile firing drone holographs? Not much. Thank you for your lie of the day.

Remember what they say about roaches, it you see one, there's bound to be others... Simple, don't loose yourself in the "official" lies.

At 11 August, 2006 18:04, Blogger shawn said...

Remember what they say about roaches, it you see one, there's bound to be others

Goddamn you people have a hardon for logical fallacies.

At 12 August, 2006 07:56, Blogger Manny said...

In fairness, I can't think of anyone who'd know more about cockroaches than nessie.

At 13 August, 2006 06:09, Blogger shawn said...

And Shawn, what the fuck are you doing? You look like you trying to cover a zit on your forehead. Learn how to salute boy!

If I showed you the whole picture, it's obviously me and a friend of mine goofing for the camera.

At 13 August, 2006 06:10, Blogger shawn said...

Does that make sense? BTW, JW's worship the cult, not God.

Never understood them. Why follow a religion when Heaven's already full?

At 13 August, 2006 11:01, Blogger beervolcano said...

When will the CTers abandon the lame controlled demolition and the cruise missile crap and concentrate on the simulation and war games happening during the real hijackings? No matter whether you think there was a consiracy within our government or not, these war games and simulations served to confuse NEADS, NORAD and the FAA while the hijackings were carried out. There is no real dispute about this.

In order to find out the truth, we must investigate the why and how about these simulations/war games.

At 13 August, 2006 18:41, Blogger shawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 13 August, 2006 18:43, Blogger shawn said...

Jack, when we say "skeptic" we mean a "scientific skeptic".

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (non-US spelling, scepticism) sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a scientific, or practical, epistemological position (or paradigm) in which one questions the veracity of claims unless they can be empirically tested. In practice, a scientific skeptic generally focuses on debunking theories which they believe to be far beyond the mainstream of science, as opposed to a professional scientist, who focuses on extending scientific knowledge.

At 13 August, 2006 20:44, Blogger shawn said...

LOL!! So he's basicly saying 9/11 "skeptics" believes in the simplest possiabilty explanation.

Simplest explanation considering the evidence.

But someone who values faith over logic wouldn't understand.

what are the actual statistical odds of this having occurred?

The odds are 1, since it happened.

At 13 August, 2006 20:45, Blogger shawn said...

Wow, I just realize someone laughed at scientific skepticism. That's very scary.

At 14 August, 2006 08:09, Blogger shawn said...

You limit it to only what you can see, not on patterns or reasoning event. It's such a simpleton way of thinking.

HAHAHAHA you couldn't be more wrong, pal.

Basicly put, I'll drop my belief in God when you can proved DNA information can change with random muation.

God and evolution aren't mututally exclusive. I believed in evolution when I used to believe in God. They've shown mutation is quickly reproducing small organisms.


Post a Comment

<< Home