It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ashamedamerican
Originally posted by jthomas
2) Serial numbers are not needed to identify an aircraft when the identification of that aircraft is readily apparent:
3) As we know, the crashes of all four planes were not accidents. Therefore, the use of serial numbers for the purpose of identifying flawed parts is moot.
4) It is readily apparent from all the available evidence that all four flights were identified on 9/11.
The CFM56 engine 3 blocks from the WTC, and the JT8D engine on the front lawn of the pentagon site proves that these aircraft were either wrongly identified, or that some kind of lie HAS been told to us.
Originally posted by jthomas
You have to support your own claims. As much as you wish to shift the burden of proof, you will be called on it. Now, demonstrate where the evidence of what happened on 9/11 came from, cashlink.
Now, cashlink, we're waiting for you to demonstrate to us where the evidence of what happened on 9/11 came from. If you are going to continue to repeat that it all came from the government and therefore the government must defend itself against your claims, than you are required to back up your assertion and document it.
If the government was being honest, than it would have no problem discussing these supposed facts.
However they pretty much tell us "here's the story, we refuse to comment on it, or discuss it in any way shape or form, and if you question this you are unpatriotic."
The 9-11 commission report didn't even mention WTC 7.
How about the total lack of mention of Edna Cintron (and others) standing in the "thousand degree holes" in the WTC tower, which PROVES that at least one of THEIR CLAIMS (in the 9-11 report) is at the very least false, if not a direct attempt to lie and cover something up.
We don't have to prove exactly what happened that day.
All we have to do is prove that what the government says is false.
Once ANY of their claims has been proven false, (which they have) then their WHOLE story becomes suspect.
Once proven that the government is either wrong or lying, the burden of proof is once again on the government.
Originally posted by ashamedamerican
reply to post by jthomas
Mods Please Take Notice
We have brought forward evidence, refrences, testimony, etc.
You have spewed rhetoric, and bent and twisted people's sentences to make it appear that we were stating things that we weren't.
Instead of attacking the facts, (because you know you can't) you simply state "oh that was debunked years ago" as if that is some form of magic bullet to end all conspiracies.
Until you can refute ANYTHING we have brought forward, you have no place here.
Until you can explain how humans stood in holes supposedly hot enough to melt steel, ...
...or how the WRONG engines were PLANTED,...
....or how first responders are on film saying there are bombs,...
Go ahead, present your evidence. Better check if it hasn't already been debunked a hundred times, however. You have to present evidence for your claims.
...or the audio evidence of explosions...
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by jthomas
So, you're saying that " there is some "official story" and the government magically is the source and possessor of ALL of the evidence of 9/11."?
I'm not saying anything, jthomas. I don't make statements that I can't support, unlike you.
You claimed that the government is not the possessor of all evidence.
pinch claimed that the government (FBI) does have possession of the alleged Flight AA77 parts and serial numbers.
You contradict each other.
Other people can see it too.
Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jthomas
What we know about 9/11 did not come from the government. We never needed the government or the media to know what happened on 9/11. But you need your debunked canards so you can pretend that all the evidence you cannot debunk is being "hidden" by the government.
Really!
If your evidences did not come from the Government, then where did it come from?
You never needed the government and media to know what happened then where are you getting your information from?
But you need your debunked canards so you can pretend that all the evidence you cannot debunk is being "hidden" by the government.
What are you talking about “Pretend”?
Is it any wonder your 9/11 Denial Movement is still stuck in the mud of its own self-deception after seven years of accomplishing absolutely nothing?
The Truth Movement is alive and well and not stuck in the mud. We are why NIST, after 7 years, had to come out with a new cover up report.
The fact that the government was not the source of the evidence and had no ability to control it from the beginning is a no-brainer for critical thinkers. But, for 9/11 Deniers, it is the only way they can foist the canard on newbies that the government has something it is supposed to answer for. It is amazing that you don't realize your canard was debunked in early 2002 and has been ever since.
Please provide proof to back your statements with sources, and save your snide remarks for your self.
This just reveals that you are a newbie at this and haven't a clue what your are talking about and never have. It is also the reason your 9/11 Denial Movement has failed to produce any evidence for its claims in the seven years that it has been in existence.
Newbie? Where? I have been here since 4/17 2006.
The following e-mail was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007, in response to a 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry:
“Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon.”
- gunnyg.wordpress.com...
3) As we know, the crashes of all four planes were not accidents. Therefore, the use of serial numbers for the purpose of identifying flawed parts is moot.
4) It is readily apparent from all the available evidence that all four flights were identified on 9/11. .
5) As a crime, the crash investigations were taken over by the FBI with the NTSB assisting.
6) No one here possesses the knowledge that serial numbers were not collected and reported
Once again, a 9/11 Truther claims what happened on 9/11 is magically a "government allegation." I don't think I need to repeat the absurdity of such nonsense. It is evident on the face of it and 9/11 Truthers have failed miserably on reliance of this canard.
The evidence of what happened to the planes and their identification came from multiple, independent sources. The government was neither the source of the evidence nor could it prevent the identification of all the aircraft.
from multiple, independent sources
So, cashlink and others, you need to start thinking rationally about what you are writing and stop repeating those canards that have already been debunked long ago.
I've been debunking 9/11 Deniers since early 2002. Trust me, you need to start asking questions about your own 9/11 Denial beliefs, where they came from, why they are only repetitions of what we have seen and debunked for seven years, and why you don't understand why you aren't taken seriously.
Start with questioning your own beliefs and claims about serial numbers that I showed were not needed to know AA77 hit the Pentagon. Do you now understand what errors in thinking you made?
Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jthomas
The following e-mail was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007, in response to a 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry:
“Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon.”
- gunnyg.wordpress.com...
Why don’t you post the rest of your true story?
9/11 Aircraft ‘Black Box’ Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent
9/11 Aircraft ‘Black Box’ Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent Aidan
Monaghan
9/11 Blogger
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 ‘black boxes’ are virtually the only ones without listed serial numbers.
Despite the release of abundant information regarding the 9/11 flights and the aircraft reportedly used, specific information that would confirm official allegations regarding the identity of these aircraft has been mysteriously withheld or denied upon request.
A 11/26/2007 Freedom of Information Act request of the Federal Aviation Administration for the last known serial numbers of the flight data recorders and other components contained by the aircraft said to have been used during the 9/11 attacks, was unlawfully denied.
This is the information that “you” left out you have now proven yourself as using disinformation tactics . This is “your” link that you cherry pick your information from. You are breaking ATS rules, making up statements and spinning the truth to fit your beliefs.
The truths about the missing aircraft serial numbers are in this thread and it has now been proven the US Government will not give them up.
My opinion is that these airplanes are not what were used on the morning of 911, but some other aircraft instead. It is clear our Government is hiding something here is the proof folks!
4) It is readily apparent from all the available evidence that all four flights were identified on 9/11. .
Really! By whom?
6) No one here possesses the knowledge that serial numbers were not collected and reported.
F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage
Aidan Monaghan
03/18/08
Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT'S MOTION
In addition to the search of the CRS, RIDS’ search also included verification by the responsible FBIHQ operational division that the identities of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11, 2001, have never been in question by the FBI, the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”), or the Federal Aviation Administration. Id. ¶ 24. Despite these extensive and detailed search efforts, RIDS located no FBI records responsive to Plaintiff’s request. Id. The lack of documentation revealing the process by which the FBI identified the hijacked aircraft is unsurprising because the identity of those aircraft has never been in question and because other evidence collected after September 11, 2001, has corroborated the identity of the hijacked aircraft. Id.
3. Plaintiff has presented no countervailing evidence demonstrating that the FBI failed to engage in a reasonable search. See Perry, 684 F.2d at 127 (“[I]n the absence of countervailing evidence or apparent inconsistency of proof, affidavits that explain in reasonable detail the scope and method of the search conducted by the agency will suffice to demonstrate compliance with the obligations imposed by the FOIA.”). Rather, the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint support the FBI’s conclusion that the identity of the hijacked aircraft has never been in question. For example, the e-mail response sent from the NTSB to an inquiry from Plaintiff confirms that “NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent.” Am. Compl., Ex. 7 (emphasis added).
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10 purports to be “FAA documents identified as ‘Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events.’” Am. Compl. ¶ 14. That document chronicles the loss of communications between air traffic control authorities and flights already positively identified as American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. Am. Compl., Ex. 10. The public remarks of NTSB employees upon which Plaintiff relies indicate only that the NTSB recovered certain physical evidence from two of the aircraft, Am. Compl., Ex. 5, and assisted the FBI in its investigation of the September 11th attacks. Am. Compl., Ex. 6. Neither of these statements suggest that the identity of the hijacked aircraft was ever in question.
Similarly, the supplemental exhibits Plaintiff has submitted support the FBI’s conclusion that no records exist responding to Plaintiff’s request. Included among these exhibits are letters from the NTSB responding to a separate FOIA request from Plaintiff to the NTSB for the same information Plaintiff now seeks from the FBI. Ex. E (#36). In its initial response to Plaintiff’s request, the NTSB confirms that, like the FBI, “the NTSB doesn’t have any records” regarding the information. Id. Plaintiff appears to have appealed that decision and, in rejecting Plaintiff’s appeal, the NTSB explains that it “performed an adequate, reasonable search for any records within the scope of [the] request . . . and did not locate any records[.]” Id. Additionally, an email response from the NTSB to an inquiry submitted by Plaintiff confirms that NTSB Accident Reports obtain component or device serial numbers “from both the FAA and airline” and not from “examination of a given component or device[.]” Ex. A (#36).
4. As the declaration of David M. Hardy makes clear, the FBI has conducted a reasonable search in response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. The failure of that search to produce responsive documents comports with the fact that the identities of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11, 2001, have never been in question by the FBI. Hardy Decl. ¶ 24. Thus, no documentation exists “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered . . . from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified . . . as belonging to the said aircraft, presumably through the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by the said aircraft’s wreckage . . . .” Am. Compl. ¶ 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment raises no substantive opposition to the adequacy of the FBI’s search and the exhibits Plaintiff submitted provide no countervailing evidence as to the adequacy of the search. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s FOIA claim has no merit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment.
Dated: October 16, 2008
www.911blogger.com...
Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jthomas
I've been debunking 9/11 Deniers since early 2002. Trust me, you need to start asking questions about your own 9/11 Denial beliefs, where they came from, why they are only repetitions of what we have seen and debunked for seven years, and why you don't understand why you aren't taken seriously.
Start with questioning your own beliefs and claims about serial numbers that I showed were not needed to know AA77 hit the Pentagon. Do you now understand what errors in thinking you made?
I think you need to question your beliefs that’s why you have 88 points, and you have been a member sense 11/4/2007.
Speaking of repetitions that is something the truth never needs. However looking at all your past post in this thread that is all you have done “repetitions”.
I disagree with all your statements and I have my own opinion thank you.
I tried to prove the Government was telling the truth, however there is no evidence to support their claim.
You are spinning your self in circles using disinfo tactics and you are wasting your time.
"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."
- "Fahrenheit 2777: 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories"
By Michael Shermer
www.sciam.com...
Originally posted by jthomas
Until you can demonstrate anyone stood in holes "hot enough to melt steel", no one has any reason to accept your claim of having any evidence of such a feat. So, go ahead, show us the human beings who magically stood in "holes hot enough to melt steel."
Originally posted by jthomas
First, you've committed the fallacy of false alternatives. Second, you are ignoring all of the other conclusive evidence that demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon and didn't go anywhere else.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Conducting an act of conspiracy, cover-up. a hidden-agenda or an act of ill-intent implies removing proof and evidence of it entirely.
A criminal who murders someone and wants to go undetected, will do his best to get rid of any evidence for the act.
A control-freak who monitors his employees will do his best to keep this hidden from them.
A government official who sees a leak of knowledge to the public as hazardous, will do everything in his power to conceal and never reveal.
And so, in case of cover-ups, we are left with very scant evidence...if any.
We have to do real detective work...speculate...extrapolate...connect dots... dismiss preconceptions...consider every angle...consider and re-consider...collect and discard information...
The work of the conspiracy-researcher is inhibited by what I´d here like to call The moronic tyranny of the "there´s no proof" crowd. This tyranny prevails in society, and on a smaller scale on this website.
Someone will engage in speculative conspiracy theory, and someone will come in and say
"There´s no evidence. None whatsoever"
or
"There´s no proof"
and even
"There´s no point in making a thread about this, because there´s no proof"
and
"You´re crazy because there´s no proof for this"
This type of pointless comment can be seen here by the minute. While you are reading these words, some moron somewhere is telling a conspiracy-theorist: "There´s no proof of this".
How have hoards of people having been brainwashed into the idea that we should only talk about whats already known?
In predominantly focussing on whats already known we can never hope to find out that which is unknown.
Of course there´s a difference in the quality of various pieces of speculation. But the moronic tyrant who walks around calling himself a "skeptic" or "rational" will make no difference and simply go from place to place and thread to thread spouting nothing other than "There´s no evidence".
He will even do so when there is evidence, not grasping the difference between evidence (indicators of something) and proof (hard facts).
Most people here are smart enough to know there´s not much evidence for conspiracy-speculation. And most are smart enough to know that evidence is not forthcoming because its either a) non-existent or b) covered-up.
So the mantra "there´s no proof" becomes somewhat pointless on a Forum like this.
Next time someone visits your thread with nothing other than the comment "Where´s the evidence?", why not give him this metaphor:
The murderer just threw the body into the river. He turns around and grins: "There´s no evidence"
Originally posted by ashamedamerican
If there was 100% irrefutable proof that even the government couldn't attempt to deny than it wouldn't BE a conspiracy.
The very nature of a conspiracy is that the evidence was supressed!
One example of your trolling, and refusing to attempt to look at the evidence layed out before you...
Originally posted by jthomas
Until you can demonstrate anyone stood in holes "hot enough to melt steel", no one has any reason to accept your claim of having any evidence of such a feat. So, go ahead, show us the human beings who magically stood in "holes hot enough to melt steel."
I DID demonstrate this, with a video of her waving from the "entry hole"
so here we have CLEAR evidence that you either
A. Haven't even bothered to look at the evidence.
B. Are just trolling, looking for someone to target and attack with rhetoric.
Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.
Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Mr. Aidan Monaghan (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to order the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, do not exist.
Defendants motion reads in part:
"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"
However, this claim is directly contradicted by public comments offered by Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman National Transportation Safety Board and Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board, who both indicated in 2002 that FBI director Robert Mueller requested NTSB assistance with 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification and that the NTSB did perform 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification analysis.
"I ... assured FBI Director Mueller that we would assist in any way we could ... he called and said, "Could you send us some people to help find the black boxes and help identify aircraft parts."
Originally posted by jthomas
Until you can demonstrate anyone stood in holes "hot enough to melt steel", no one has any reason to accept your claim of having any evidence of such a feat. So, go ahead, show us the human beings who magically stood in "holes hot enough to melt steel."
I DID demonstrate this, with a video of her waving from the "entry hole"
so here we have CLEAR evidence that you either
A. Haven't even bothered to look at the evidence.
B. Are just trolling, looking for someone to target and attack with rhetoric.
Originally posted by jthomas
You can't be serious. A video of her waving from from the "entry hole" tells us that the steel was barely warm, much less not hot enough to melt the steel she was standing on and leaning on. Have you lost all reason to make such an obviously ridiculous claim?
Furthermore, you can't even come up with an explanation of why the steel should have been hot enough to melt anyway.
Your claim really is quite amazing.
(snip)
I won't even bother with the rest given that you have demonstrated beyond a doubt that you are off into fringe beliefs with your statement above and apparently have no understanding why.
Google Video Link |
Google Video Link |
Google Video Link |
Source
The very nature and rules of the compensation fund, numerous families say, seem almost to promote discord.
Source
People who accept money from the fund must waive their right to sue U.S. entities for negligence.