An inquiry into the 9/11 commission's 10th anniversary report:How to read a government commission r

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

So, the gate agent who checked in Atta onto his flight on 9/11/01, and correctly identified him, was wrong. And your friend is right?

Yes, and I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.
Do you have access to the testimony of that ticket checker?
What I have seen is tape made by an investigator who was allowed to take a camera and point it at a low resolution (ordinary old style TV set) while it was playing a few seconds of the security camera tape, where you could distinguish the subject as vaguely Arabic if you were expecting to see an Arabic person already.
The above (video of a screen playing a video) is what was presented by the FBI as evidence at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.

My friend knew Atta very well and "looked into his eyes" on the occasion in question, according to what she told me.
The airport ticket checker did not know Atta before seeing him briefly and it is doubtful that he remembered anything in particular about him.
Keep in mind that they were not so scrupulous about such things prior to those events on Sep. 11, 2001.

a reply to: jmdewey60
I have witnesses, DNA evidence, a paper trail and a bunch of other evidence as noted in the Moussari trial. You have your friend.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I have witnesses, DNA evidence, a paper trail and a bunch of other evidence as noted in the Moussari trial.

lmao.....and ya really wanna use that......a MOCK trial for media???

dude, the NIST 2005 found the impacts caused MINIMAL localized damage to each tower and NO supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT failed any WTC steel to allow collapse to occur.

they SCIENTIFICALLY determined the hijackers FAILED!!!!!!!

a bull# trial for the AGENDA.....

a reply to: hgfbob

Dude, you continue to ignore the evidence. No one scientifically determined the hijackers failed, you just think it happened because you have spent too much time on conspiracy sites.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

. . . a bunch of other evidence . . .

All things that could have been manufactured, like I already mentioned, by having persons going by that name, Atta, being conspicuous, to produce a "paper trail", so as to later have a paper person to blame the plane crashes on.

My point is that there was, in the midst of all of this, a real person, named Atta, who lived in Punta Gorda, Venice, and Nokomis, Florida, who was on a foreign student visa, attending a flight school at the Venice airport, who had a bank account locally, people knew him, and saw him when the paper Atta was somewhere else, according to what was presented as evidence.

As for my friend, I have a lot of reasons to believe her, and not any reason to believe the mainstream media, the 911 Commission, or what was presented as evidence at the Moussaoui trial.

The other reason that I am suspicious of the mainstream media version of 911 is the subject of my second post on this thread, what I witnessed myself, which was evidence to me of a foreknowledge of there being a second plane to hit the World Trade Center, with provisions made to have live coverage of it for the viewing by persons at the highest level of the USgov.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Dude, you continue to ignore the evidence. No one scientifically determined the hijackers failed, you just think it happened because you have spent too much time on conspiracy sites.

Something "failed" when the plane went down in Shanksville Pennsylvania.
A lot of people think that it was supposed to hit building 7 of the WTC, but was shot down, against orders.

a reply to: jmdewey60

All things that could have been manufactured, like I already mentioned

Yea And Micky Mouse could have shot JFK.
But there's no evidence for that either.

Al the conspiracy side has is speculation for their beliefs.

a reply to: samkent

Al the conspiracy side has is speculation for their beliefs.

The mainstream media version of 911 is a conspiracy theory, so I don't know what you are talking about.
The only actual trial was the Moussaoui case, and they were just giving circumstantial evidence that 911 was done by hijackers, in order to convict Moussaoui of being a conspirator to that alleged plot.

What I presented in my second and third posts on this thread is not "speculation", as you put it, but witness accounts.
So to me, at least, this is actual evidence that is enough to convince myself that something happened other than what the mainstream media is telling us.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Just how many Americans do you think were involved with your conspiracy theory? How many rank and file government employees do you accuse of terrorism and murder?

a reply to: jmdewey60

And people who have studied the evidence and the history know it was heading towards Washington D.C. where it WOULD have been taken out by jets from the 113th Fighter Wing, D.C. Air National Guard. Of course, due to their aircraft being unarmed, they were going to ram it and hope they survived to eject.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

And people who have studied the evidence and the history know it was heading towards Washington D.C. . . .

Do you mean the "people" on mainstream media?
If you look at the flight-path before being shot down, it had already changed course to back towards NYC, similar to the path taken by the plane that hit the south tower of the World Trade Center.

click on the thumbnail for larger version, then look at the section between points H and I.

a reply to: jmdewey60

And you base your idea about WTC 7 on other conspiracy theories. Flight 93, was on a flight path towards Washington D.C. up until the aerobatics started when the passengers attacked the hijackers. Mainstream media? Not by a long shot. I deployed to Afghanistan with the 113th, I've talked to the people who were there that day.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Flight 93, was on a flight path towards Washington D.C. up until the aerobatics started when the passengers attacked the hijackers.

Or it was just headed East to find the coast, in order to follow it up to NYC like the plane before it, as I mentioned earlier.
The whole "takeover by passengers" scenario is absurd and just a cover story for the easily duped, dumbed down general TV viewing audience.

a reply to: jmdewey60

And, we add yet another layer of people to the conspiracy. Why is it so hard for you to accept that people might just get pissed off enough to DO something when they realize what is probably going to happen to them?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Why is it so hard for you to accept that people might just get pissed off enough to DO something . . .

You mean, to crash planes?

Like Saudi Arabians who are well off enough to come to America and live in nice apartments and drive cars, and go to school?

a reply to: jmdewey60

Last forty years or so has many examples of Muslims with good lives, running off to blow themselves up for Allah. Your point?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

. . . many examples of Muslims with good lives, running off to blow themselves up . . .

Would you care to name a few examples of that?

Including people from a country that actually has good relations with the US, and then going from that country, to the US, to "blow themselves up".

a reply to: jmdewey60

Just because their "country" has good relations with us, does not mean that all its subjects like us. For crying out loud, OBL was saying in the early 80s that his next war was going to be against America. Hell, his homeland finally revoked his citizenship over his insane proclamations.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

. . . many examples of Muslims with good lives, running off to blow themselves up . . .

Would you care to name a few examples of that?

Including people from a country that actually has good relations with the US, and then going from that country, to the US, to "blow themselves up".

www.smh.com.au...

abcnews.go.com...

www.ijcv.org...

www.nytimes.com...

Just a few articles..

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

OBL was saying in the early 80s that his next war was going to be against America.

really!!!!!!.....

and he said this as we were giving him arms, money and training all through the 80's to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

gee...the members of the 9-11 Commission think this was a set-up and a farce right from the beginning....

the 2005 NIST found NO scientific reason for collapse x3...and their scientific report reflects that.

and the three year LATTER, 'selective few', consisting of the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew officially claims new physics occurs ONLY on 9-11.

....new science they refuse to prove through science outside the authors.