The 9/11 Hijackers are Alive and Talking!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


What about reports that the FBI released the Names of the Alledged Hijackers to the Media , and upon further investigation it was found that some of those names were of real people that were not even in the US at the time of the 9/11 event ? Stolen Identities perhaps for the sake of perserving the BIG LIE to the American Public ? I think so , the Proof is out there Dave .........


By the way , what happened to your Avatar ? Is that REALLY You Dave

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Zanti Misfit]

Originally posted by Jezus
So again, just to be clear. Your theory is that they just accidentally reported that ANOTHER building had collapsed, and soon after the only other building to collapse was coincidentally that same building.

The BBC specifically said:

In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

So all I know is that it was an error. I don't know whether it was an error that turned out to be a coincidence or whether it was an error in relaying a report saying the building may come down from all the confusion and anarchy as saying the building did come down. They don't know either.

What the heck difference does it make, anyway?

This is just a bunch of unnecessary speculation...

All right then, If you're not making much ado about the BBC mentioning WTC 7 collapsing becuase you believe the BBC had advanced knowledge (necessarily meaning they're involved in the conspiracy themselves), then what significance does it have to you?

Well I just thought it was interesting how official story believers use to rationalize this by saying that building 7 wasn’t really still standing but have now switched to the “coincidence” theory.

I can't comment on that one way or the other, as I never made any such statement. Do you recall who did?

Al-Qaeda conspiracy theorists have been thoroughly debunked by the very same BBC. None of these people belonged to any such organization.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
What about reports that the FBI released the Names of the Alledged Hijackers to the Media , and upon further investigation it was found that some of those names were of real people that were not even in the US at the time of the 9/11 event ?

How about addressing the gargantuan holes in your previous accusations before you bring up any more accusations? You attempted to claim that Wail Al-Shehri was really still alive and I showed he was a whole other Wail Al-Shehri from the one who hijacked the plane. You were basing it upon a retracted BBC report and even the relatives of Wail Al-Shehri acknowledge he's dead.

If you can't justify why you weren't wrong on that, then there's no reason why I should believe the rest of your information is any more credible.

Stolen Identities perhaps for the sake of perserving the BIG LIE to the American Public ?

Making up more conspiracy theories to explain your prior conspiracy theories is NOT proof of anything. All you're doing is restating the original conspiracy theory in different terms, which is circular logic and therefore intellectually bankrupt.

By the way , what happened to your Avatar ? Is that REALLY You Dave

I never had an avatar.

NOTICE: MODERATOR ADVISORY

This is a reminder that courtesy is mandatory and steps are being taken to eliminate rude, disruptive behavior from our forums.

Members are advised to avoid such behavior and thereby avoid consequences that may include temporary suspension of posting privileges or permanent account termination.

Please stay on topic and avoid ANY commentary whatsoever, whether considered "insulting" or not, regarding the person or characteristics of any member. ANY such commentary is off topic and subject to warning and removal, so please, don't.

Direct responses to this advisory in this thread will be considered off topic and will be subject to warning and removal. Comments are welcome here:

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS- FORUM REJUVENATION##

It is strongly recommended that members acquaint themselves with the forum rules before posting, because ignorance of them will not stand as an excuse for misconduct.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ADVISORY. STAY ON TOPIC.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Jezus
So again, just to be clear. Your theory is that they just accidentally reported that ANOTHER building had collapsed, and soon after the only other building to collapse was coincidentally that same building.

The BBC specifically said:

In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.


So all I know is that it was an error. I don't know whether it was an error that turned out to be a coincidence or whether it was an error in relaying a report saying the building may come down from all the confusion and anarchy as saying the building did come down. They don't know either.

What the heck difference does it make, anyway?

Well that explanation isn't really much of an explanation.

Where did the report come from if it was just a complete accidental coincidence?

If it came from something, why would anyone have been saying building 7 "may" come down when it was a “phenomenon”? Who predicted a “phenomenon”?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

This is just a bunch of unnecessary speculation...

All right then, If you're not making much ado about the BBC mentioning WTC 7 collapsing becuase you believe the BBC had advanced knowledge (necessarily meaning they're involved in the conspiracy themselves), then what significance does it have to you?

It is significant because the collapse of building 7 was a “phenomenon”.

The explanation BBC has provided for reporting this “phenomenon” before it actually happened is nonsensical and simply a claim of “accident”. Only ONE additional building collapsed after WTC 1 and 2. It was a “phenomenon” that caused the collapse and it was reported on live television before it actually happened.

The magnitude of such a coincidence is obviously significant.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Well I just thought it was interesting how official story believers use to rationalize this by saying that building 7 wasn’t really still standing but have now switched to the “coincidence” theory.

I can't comment on that one way or the other, as I never made any such statement. Do you recall who did?

Many “official story” believers and the "debunking" website they posted would claim that the reporter was standing in front of a fake backdrop that showed building 7 but it was just a picture and not a live shot.

At the time they obviously thought it was such an extreme "coincidence" that it had to be rationalized away.

DO not forget to do research, you might things like the following.

www.trackingthethreat.com...
Majed Moqed
Entity Type: Person
Entity Status: Alive
Start Date:
End Date:
Date Created: 22 Sep 2003
Date Modified: 06 Jun 2007


Listed as a passenger in seat 12A.
One of five hijackers who worked out at a Gold's Gym in Greenbelt, Md., for a few days earlier this month. The FBI has obtained the phone records from his mobile phone.
He was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment against Zacarias Moussaoui.

Originally posted by REMISNE
DO not forget to do research, you might things like the following.

www.trackingthethreat.com...
Majed Moqed
Entity Type: Person
Entity Status: Alive
Start Date:
End Date:
Date Created: 22 Sep 2003
Date Modified: 06 Jun 2007


Listed as a passenger in seat 12A.
One of five hijackers who worked out at a Gold's Gym in Greenbelt, Md., for a few days earlier this month. The FBI has obtained the phone records from his mobile phone.
He was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment against Zacarias Moussaoui.

Sorry, but someone already tried to use that falshood here before you did. That web site is simply an online showcase for the database product the developers (FMS Advanced Systems Group) are trying to sell. It's not meant to be a reliable index. If you had clicked the ABOUT button it specifically says...

About the Data
This site contains information collected from thousands of open source reports, documents, news stories, and other places which are deemed worthy of note. It is presented here in a concise and organized fashion as a demonstration of some of the capabilities of Sentinel Visualizer. While we have attempted to assign some degree of credibility to its accuracy, no representation is made or implied that all data contained herein is completely reliable. Users of any TrackingTheThreat.com content are cautioned and advised that they should do their own independent verification of any information.

Let's face it, you're really not quoting this glorified advertisement becuase you genuinely believe the material is accurate. You're quoting it because it's saying things that you yourself want to hear. I know this is the case becuase that database ALSO says...

"Proof" that Osama Bin Laden is still alive

Osama bin Laden
Entity Type: Person
Entity Status: Alive
Start Date:
End Date:
Date Created: 16 Sep 2003
Date Modified: 25 Sep 2007

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Sorry, but someone already tried to use that falshood here before you did. That web site is simply an online showcase for the database product the developers (FMS Advanced Systems Group) are trying to sell.

Sorry but i have e-mailed the site to get more informatino on the data.

It is a very legit site and collects data for the government.

Originally posted by Jezus
Well that explanation isn't really much of an explanation.

Where did the report come from if it was just a complete accidental coincidence?

To which I will respond...

a) Please explain why knowing where the false report came fom is relevent, and most importantly

b) please explain why the BBC report about building 7 is relevent to the "9/11 hijackers alive and talking" topic this thread is based upon.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Sorry, but someone already tried to use that falshood here before you did. That web site is simply an online showcase for the database product the developers (FMS Advanced Systems Group) are trying to sell.

Sorry but i have e-mailed the site to get more informatino on the data.

It is a very legit site and collects data for the government.

You told me to go out and do research and I'm doing it, and they admit right on their web site that...

"This site is a research project of the FMS Advanced Systems Group, a division of FMS, Inc.. It is designed to explore the application of cutting-edge system techniques to the problem of threat assessment, intelligence gathering and dissemination, and information visualization and analysis. As a web-based portal, the system is based on the Sentinel Visualizer database platform, and a middle-tier comprised of J2EE, Tomcat and similar web servers, and a variety of operating systems.

TrackingTheThreat.com attempts to bridge the gap between rich-client analytical environments running on Windows or Unix/Linux platforms, and traditional web-based database query tools. By providing browser-based geospatial and network tools, coupled with the standard database tools, TrackingTheThreat.com investigates the application of new technologies and solution ideas."


...so where did you get the idea that this site "is very legit and collects data for the government"?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You told me to go out and do research and I'm doing it, and they admit right on their web site that...

Sorry, but you need to do more research. A disclaimer does not mean the website is not legit.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Sorry, but you need to do more research. A disclaimer does not mean the website is not legit.

No, apparently to you, a web site putting out information that you yourself want to believe is true is what makes the web site legitimate.

The people running it specifically said the material wasn't meant to be relied upon, and they even specifically said the whole purpose was an example to showcase the database product they were selling. It's not meant to be a reliable database, it's meant to be an advertisement, and nowhere on their site do they ever make the claim they're "collecting information for the gov't". That's coming entirely from you.

So, in what part of the world would this ever be considered a legitimate source to be quoting to "prove" some of the hijackers are still alive, exactly? Please, explain that one to me.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, apparently to you, a web site putting out information that you yourself want to believe is true is what makes the web site legitimate.

No a website that data has not been proven wrong, has other sites and research that agree, and can be proven to be legit with some simple research.

reply to post by REMISNE


Greetings Remisne,

I was able to look into your site that you posted. Thank you! Unfortunately, I was unable to find any type of verification to back up the alleged claims of the hijackers survival.

Can you please explain, in detail how these claims are factual? The website clearly positions itself stating that their information is not guaranteed accurate. Nor do they offer any sourced information.

Thank you in advance for clearing this up.

Why is 911 getting a lot of media attention, does anyone know?

It isn't getting a lot of attention. The reason you hear about it so much is this sites visitors are obsessed with it and dig out any news they can find.

Originally posted by ventian

Why is 911 getting a lot of media attention, does anyone know?

It isn't getting a lot of attention. The reason you hear about it so much is this sites visitors are obsessed with it and dig out any news they can find.

So over the last two weeks, the coverage on ABC, Discovery, History, and MSNBC is the normal amount of coverage it usually gets for a two week period 10 years on?

"The reason you hear about it so much is this sites visitors are obsessed with it and dig out any news they can find."

As compared to some debunkers, who would like nothing more than for truthers to go away and stop questioning the official story so we all can live happily ever after.

I wonder why this site's visitors (I prefer to call them members) are obsessed over a conspiracy which caused over 3,000 deaths, was followed by a piss poor investigation and cover up after cover up, spawned two phony wars (which to this day continue), distracted Americans from trillions of unaccounted dollars from the defense budget, made the rich much richer and the poor poorer, took away their civil liberties and basically dragged the entire country's economy through the gutter?

Yeah, you're right...why anyone should be obsessed with an event which radically transformed the lives of millions of Americans for the worst is beyond me.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Can you please explain, in detail how these claims are factual?

Well several reasons.

1. From lots of research done.

2. e-mailed the website to check them out.

3. The fact that there is no DNA evidence that all the hijackers are dead.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Can you please explain, in detail how these claims are factual?

Well several reasons.

1. From lots of research done.

2. e-mailed the website to check them out.

3. The fact that there is no DNA evidence that all the hijackers are dead.

Greetings Remisne,

Perhaps I was a bit vague in my request. Thank you, though for your response.

You claim to have e-mailed this website to "check them out." Can you tell us what was discussed?

Thank you again!

[edit on 19-3-2010 by Six Sigma]