View Full Version: Alive And Well:

Loose Change Forum > The Hijackers > Alive And Well:

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Title: Alive And Well:
Description: and to date, no corrections....


thenixedreport - October 20, 2006 04:37 PM (GMT)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1558669.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/natio...-2001Sep15.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...jsp?story=94438

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../23/widen23.xml

The so called "independent" commission actually named the same 19 in their report, but by reading the above reports from various news agencies, even more confusion arises out of the reporting of hijackers being alive and well.

Loonis - October 24, 2006 10:38 PM (GMT)
This has all been settled. These reports were issued amidst the confusion that followed the attacks, and are all cases of mistaken identity. Check it out:

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html



pdoherty76 - October 26, 2006 09:38 AM (GMT)
Loonis stop shilling please. Popular mechanics lied about the dna evidence of the hijackers

vmachiel - October 26, 2006 10:30 AM (GMT)
Looking at the articals, I think they're still alive. I've always looked at this as strong supporting evidence

Reggie_perrin - October 26, 2006 10:43 AM (GMT)
But these alive "hijackers" say they saw "pictures" of themselves flashed on TV and were outraged, it's not just a case of someone having the same name, so what are the identities of the real hijackers ?

It must be weird to see a picture of yourself on TV and be told you flew a plane into a building when your actually alive and well.

Have they ever changed the pictures of the alledged hijackers?

Roxdog - October 26, 2006 04:50 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Loonis @ Oct 24 2006, 10:38 PM)
This has all been settled. These reports were issued amidst the confusion that followed the attacks, and are all cases of mistaken identity. Check it out:

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

This link does not back your assertion. It doesn't even mention the articles posted above. Please elaborate.

realitybites - October 26, 2006 05:10 PM (GMT)
All of those links (the ones that worked anyway) were articles published a week and a half after the attacks. If they are still alive 5 years later, where are the follow up articles? Where's the news? Where are the hijackers?

If they're alive, that would be HUGE for you guys. If it's true, where's the hard evidence? Where's the proof PM lied about the DNA?

Where are the hijackers?

If I were you guys, I wouldn't be taking trips to interview eyewitnesses down at the Pentagon. Eye-witnesses can't be trusted. I'd be tracking down these guys. Go to the Middle East. Make them come forward (... why are they hiding anyway? If I was accused of a crime I didn't commit, I'd make damn sure my name was clear.) Bring them back here for all to see.

Boom. 9/11 would be blown WIDE OPEN and you'd have your victory.

Roxdog - October 26, 2006 05:14 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Where's the proof PM lied about the DNA?

Jonathon Mosoley (I think that's his name) stated as truth it on the radio. It is false. If you know something I don't please point me to it.

QUOTE
All of those links (the ones that worked anyway) were articles published a week and a half after the attacks. If they are still alive 5 years later, where are the follow up articles? Where's the news? Where are the hijackers?

Why not ask the people that reported it. And then ask Mueller about his puzzling quote that none of you guys will address.

realitybites - October 26, 2006 05:54 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Roxdog @ Oct 26 2006, 02:14 PM)
Jonathon Mosoley (I think  that's his name) stated as truth it on the radio. It is false. If you know something I don't please point me to it.

When was it proven false? Not trying to be a dick here, I've just never seen or read that the DNA was false. All I'm looking for is a source.

QUOTE
Why not ask the people that reported it. And then ask Mueller about his puzzling quote that none of you guys will address.

I see no need to. Mueller clarified the issue later that year. Have you talked to the people who've reported it to verify the claims? Are all reports always 100% correct? Can all reports be blindly trusted?

If they are truly alive, where are they now? Why aren't you guys doing more than relying on highly disputed reports from a week or so after the attacks as gospel proof that the "alleged" hijackers still walk this earth? C'mon.... Even I'll admit that this would undoubtedly show government complicity in the attacks.

This would be a slam-dunk. And yet the only "proof" you can provide are those stories in the original post and by saying "It is false," without backing it up.

Roxdog - October 26, 2006 06:05 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
When was it proven false? Not trying to be a dick here, I've just never seen or read that the DNA was false. All I'm looking for is a source.

Where did you read about DNA being true? Yeah, a source would be nice, wouldn't it? Please provide one.

QUOTE
I see no need to.

Then why are we communicating?

QUOTE
Mueller clarified the issue later that year.

Source?

QUOTE
Are all reports always 100% correct? Can all reports be blindly trusted?

Of course not.

QUOTE
If they are truly alive, where are they now? Why aren't you guys doing more than relying on highly disputed reports from a week or so after the attacks as gospel proof that the "alleged" hijackers still walk this earth? C'mon.... Even I'll admit that this would undoubtedly show government complicity in the attacks.

What you fail to see is that I never said they were alive. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and BBC did, and no, it wasn't just a "week or so" after the attack. The media talked about it on and off for two years. Hence, the Mueller quote (you say he "clarified it". please provide your source).

QUOTE
Mueller acknowledged in 2003 there was no “legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers.”

realitybites - October 26, 2006 06:19 PM (GMT)
I guess sources from either side won't be changing any minds here, so why bother. (You're prisonplanet link isn't working by the way.)

Maybe just explain to me why a government nefarious enough to pull of something on the scale of 9/11 would make a cover-story involving 19 hijackers flying planes into buildings by using hijackers who are still alive?

A 5-year-old would be able to realize that in order to get away with it, you'd either make up fake names and identities or use "terrorists" who were dead already. You wouldn't use real people who were alive seeing as how if you were flying a plane into a tower, the odds are pretty good you're gonna die, and having you pop up alive somewhere would probably blow the lid off the whole thing.

realitybites - October 26, 2006 06:22 PM (GMT)
But in response to the DNA thing, you asked where I'd read it. You yourself stated:
QUOTE
Jonathon Mosoley (I think  that's his name) stated as truth it on the radio.

If I remember correctly, it was also covered in PMs publications. So there are a couple possibilities as to where I got that crazy idea. Where did you get the idea they were lying about it?

Roxdog - October 26, 2006 06:33 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
I guess sources from either side won't be changing any minds here, so why bother.

Because you are making assertions without offering sources.

QUOTE
But in response to the DNA thing, you asked where I'd read it.  You yourself stated:
QUOTE
Jonathon Mosoley (I think  that's his name) stated as truth it on the radio.

If I remember correctly, it was also covered in PMs publications. So there are a couple possibilities as to where I got that crazy idea. Where did you get the idea they were lying about it?


Uhhhh, so are saying you didn't hear anything about it until I mentioned it? This is ridiculous. Please post your sources. If your source is PM where did they get the info? PM is a magazine, not an investigatory arm of the govt. I get the idea that they are lying about because it's not true. Again, if you have a source that proves that it is, please post it.

Roxdog - October 26, 2006 06:39 PM (GMT)
Sorry. It wasn't Mosely. Different moron. It was 26 year old Davin Coburn, who works for PM.

user posted image
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060826165457842

QUOTE
PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.

Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I haven't heard anything about autopsy reports.

CG: I want to know, even if we presume you're correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uh…I mean, where the hell did they get it? You're not even talking sensibly with me.

PM: Off the top of my head, I don't know the answer to that.

CG: Of course you don't.

PM: I'll get back to you with it.

CG: Is that a promise?

PM: I will do my best.

CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he's gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had…hijacked those planes. Good, I'd like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?

PM: No, actually I don't…

CG: You don't understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers' DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against - Do you think that's bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it's conspiratorial just to want to know?...You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers…

PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that's worth answering….

CG: …You've told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? You're the one with the answers, I'm not. I just ask questions.

PM: …A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over….

CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we've invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we're gonna spend trillions of dollars. It's not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What's so hard about that?

PM: The way that you're framing it is intentionally…

CG: Of course it is, 'cause it's five years later and we haven't heard the answer. And you haven't given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, that's it. You see, it's the way I'm framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.

PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.

realitybites - October 26, 2006 06:52 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Roxdog @ Oct 26 2006, 03:33 PM)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_denies_mix..._terrorists.htm

Sorry bout that.

QUOTE
I guess sources from either side won't be changing any minds here, so why bother.

Because you are making assertions without offering sources.

QUOTE
But in response to the DNA thing, you asked where I'd read it.  You yourself stated:
QUOTE
Jonathon Mosoley (I think  that's his name) stated as truth it on the radio.

If I remember correctly, it was also covered in PMs publications. So there are a couple possibilities as to where I got that crazy idea. Where did you get the idea they were lying about it?


Uhhhh, so are saying you didn't hear anything about it until I mentioned it? This is ridiculous. Please post your sources. If your source is PM where did they get the info? PM is a magazine, not an investigatory arm of the govt. I get the idea that they are lying about because it's not true. Again, if you have a source that proves that it is, please post it.

Uhh no. Did I say, "This is the first I ever heard of this!!" I was showing you that you answered your own question to me. You asked where I had heard it after already showing that one of the PM guys stated it on the radio.

Personally, I think the DNA argument is bogus, at least in regards to the New York hijackers. 1,150 people haven't been identified through DNA here. The odds of all 8 hijackers having been ID'd are slim to nil. Now, we could argue whether the PM guy misspoke or knowingly lied, but that would be a waste of time.

However, "no DNA" doesn't mean "still alive".

Is there any other proof, aside from those articles posted, that these guys were alive and well?

And again:
QUOTE
Maybe just explain to me why a government nefarious enough to pull of something on the scale of 9/11 would make a cover-story involving 19 hijackers flying planes into buildings by using hijackers who are still alive?

A 5-year-old would be able to realize that in order to get away with it, you'd either make up fake names and identities or use "terrorists" who were dead already. You wouldn't use real people who were alive seeing as how if you were flying a plane into a tower, the odds are pretty good you're gonna die, and having you pop up alive somewhere would probably blow the lid off the whole thing.

I'd like to know your reasoning why they'd use actual living people.

realitybites - October 26, 2006 06:55 PM (GMT)
I will agree with you that Coburn is a moron. The DNA profiles were gotten from their hotel rooms and vehicles.

QUOTE
The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

Roxdog - October 26, 2006 07:30 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 26 2006, 06:55 PM)
I will agree with you that Coburn is a moron. The DNA profiles were gotten from their hotel rooms and vehicles.

QUOTE
The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

user posted image


realitybites - October 26, 2006 07:38 PM (GMT)
Once more:

QUOTE
Maybe just explain to me why a government nefarious enough to pull of something on the scale of 9/11 would make a cover-story involving 19 hijackers flying planes into buildings by using hijackers who are still alive?

A 5-year-old would be able to realize that in order to get away with it, you'd either make up fake names and identities or use "terrorists" who were dead already. You wouldn't use real people who were alive seeing as how if you were flying a plane into a tower, the odds are pretty good you're gonna die, and having you pop up alive somewhere would probably blow the lid off the whole thing.


......?

Roxdog - October 26, 2006 07:44 PM (GMT)
Once more, what? The world is a pretty complex place. Asking me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin over and over doesn't negate the facts (of which you seem largely unfamiliar with).

realitybites - October 26, 2006 07:55 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Roxdog @ Oct 26 2006, 04:44 PM)
Once more, what? The world is a pretty complex place. Asking me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin over and over doesn't negate the facts (of which you seem largely unfamiliar with).

The question was self explanatory. If you'd rather dodge it and make random, irrelevant comparisons than answer it, that's fine.

I thought we were having a discussion, but you're obviously more interested in obfuscating and staying on your high horse.

Roxdog - October 26, 2006 08:03 PM (GMT)
I'm obfuscating? That is the biggest pile of dogsh^t you've posted so far. Please explain how your hypothetical strawmen negates any of the facts I have posted. Here, I'll do what you just did….

If you are so smart why do you create hypothetical strawmen instead of addressing the facts?

QUOTE
Mueller clarified the issue later that year.

"Once more", what is your source? Please post it.

QUOTE
random, irrelevant comparisons

Now, THAT is hilarious. Accuse me of doing what you are doing. Hilarious.

realitybites - October 26, 2006 08:43 PM (GMT)
A simple question Rox:

Why would the government choose actual living people as the hijackers instead of making up fake identities?

realitybites - October 26, 2006 08:46 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Roxdog @ Oct 26 2006, 05:03 PM)
QUOTE
Mueller clarified the issue later that year.

"Once more", what is your source? Please post it.

stopsnitchin - October 26, 2006 11:31 PM (GMT)
that makes sense because how would they know who the hijackers were so fast??? and yea maybe SOME of them were on the plane, but what proves they were the highjackers... the government can barely prove they were even on the plane... So untill they can give solid evidence.... this is the theory i will beleive...

Loonis - October 27, 2006 12:10 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Roxdog @ Oct 26 2006, 04:50 PM)
QUOTE (Loonis @ Oct 24 2006, 10:38 PM)
This has all been settled. These reports were issued amidst the confusion that followed the attacks, and are all cases of mistaken identity. Check it out:

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

This link does not back your assertion. It doesn't even mention the articles posted above. Please elaborate.

The link I posted covers all the articles mentioned above. You have to click on the names of the hijackers in the middle of the page to see the explanation for each one.

realitybites - October 27, 2006 12:33 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (stopsnitchin @ Oct 26 2006, 08:31 PM)
that makes sense because how would they know who the hijackers were so fast??? and yea maybe SOME of them were on the plane, but what proves they were the highjackers... the government can barely prove they were even on the plane... So untill they can give solid evidence.... this is the theory i will beleive...

What evidence do you need to believe they really were on the planes? Would the flight manifests suffice? You can download them here:

http://www.911myths.com/911_Manifests.zip

For some reason it's not letting me post links.

IVXX - October 27, 2006 12:55 AM (GMT)
I haven't really followed the hijacker story. I'll explain why later. My question is this.....

How many hijackers remains from Flights 11 & 175 were identified??

How many hijackers remains from Flights 77 & 93 were identified??

realitybites - October 27, 2006 01:18 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 26 2006, 09:55 PM)
How many hijackers remains from Flights 11 & 175 were identified??
QUOTE
How many hijackers remains from Flights 77 & 93 were identified??

I'm not sure about flight 93, but I believe forensic experts found the DNA of 2 brothers at the Pentagon. I'm not sure if it was confirmed that they were the DNA belonged to the hijackers, but they IIRC, they were the only brothers killed at that site.

Also keep in mind that 1,150 some people in New York have never been found, so the odds of finding remains of ALL the hijackers would be extremely low.

Edited to fix quotes.

IVXX - October 27, 2006 01:31 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 01:18 AM)
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 26 2006, 09:55 PM)
How many hijackers remains from Flights 11 & 175 were identified??
QUOTE
How many hijackers remains from Flights 77 & 93 were identified??

I'm not sure about flight 93, but I believe forensic experts found the DNA of 2 brothers at the Pentagon. I'm not sure if it was confirmed that they were the DNA belonged to the hijackers, but they IIRC, they were the only brothers killed at that site.

Also keep in mind that 1,150 some people in New York have never been found, so the odds of finding remains of ALL the hijackers would be extremely low.

Edited to fix quotes.

Yeah I figured the hijackers at the WTC would be a tough one but I figured can't just ask about two flights out of 4. I'm curious about this cause they do have enough evidence that they should be able to lift a DNA sample from and at least give us all the hijackers from 93 & 77. Not saying there wasn't hijackers, would just like to see the IDs made.

realitybites - October 27, 2006 02:01 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 26 2006, 10:31 PM)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 01:18 AM)
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 26 2006, 09:55 PM)
How many hijackers remains from Flights 11 & 175 were identified??
QUOTE
How many hijackers remains from Flights 77 & 93 were identified??

I'm not sure about flight 93, but I believe forensic experts found the DNA of 2 brothers at the Pentagon. I'm not sure if it was confirmed that they were the DNA belonged to the hijackers, but they IIRC, they were the only brothers killed at that site.

Also keep in mind that 1,150 some people in New York have never been found, so the odds of finding remains of ALL the hijackers would be extremely low.

Edited to fix quotes.

Yeah I figured the hijackers at the WTC would be a tough one but I figured can't just ask about two flights out of 4. I'm curious about this cause they do have enough evidence that they should be able to lift a DNA sample from and at least give us all the hijackers from 93 & 77. Not saying there wasn't hijackers, would just like to see the IDs made.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure they have. I distinctly remember reading about Flight 77, but I'm not so sure about Flight 93. I tried searching for the stuff, but 9/11 searches bring about too many conspiracy websites for me to sift through.

IVXX - October 27, 2006 02:25 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 02:01 AM)
I tried searching for the stuff, but 9/11 searches bring about too many conspiracy websites for me to sift through.

Ditto.

realitybites - October 27, 2006 04:10 PM (GMT)

Roxdog - October 27, 2006 04:11 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 26 2006, 08:43 PM)
A simple question Rox:

Why would the government choose actual living people as the hijackers instead of making up fake identities?

Hold on.....let me consult my mindreading device. Is this really the best you can do? Besides, I never mentioned "the government". Please come up with a better strawman.

This is freaking pathetic. From your "source":

QUOTE
"We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible," he said. "We have been successful in working with our foreign counterparts in identifying places where the conspiracy we believe was hatched as well as others who may have been involved in the conspiracy."

Mueller provided no new information on the hijackers' identities beyond his statement at a briefing Friday for reporters. Neither did he name any of the places abroad where authorities now believe the conspiracy was initiated, or any of the other conspirators.


Mueller "clarified" exactly jack sh^t. Now I know why Mueller has barely shown his face to the media since 9/11.

I'm sorry, but you people are the reason this country is F^CKED...

:angry:

Roxdog - October 27, 2006 04:17 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 04:10 PM)
Uh Oh!!

Here's your correction.

QUOTE
The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.


QUOTE
no “legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers.”- Robert Mueller

realitybites - October 27, 2006 04:20 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Roxdog @ Oct 27 2006, 01:17 PM)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 04:10 PM)
Uh Oh!!

Here's your correction.

QUOTE
The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.


QUOTE
no “legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers.”- Robert Mueller

Well done Rox. You've managed to totally disregard when those statements were made in an obvious attempt to lie and continue to spread false information.

Take those two statements you quoted, and flip them around.

pdoherty76 - October 27, 2006 04:38 PM (GMT)
Face facts. They have not identified the hijackers because they never got a living sample of their dna.

Davin Coburn even pretends he has neer heard of Operation Northwoods. I personally emailed the lying toerag a copy of it. I bet he's still denying he has seen it.

All debunkers are shills or stupid. Theres no middle ground.

Roxdog - October 27, 2006 04:42 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 04:20 PM)
Well done Rox.  You've managed to totally disregard when those statements were made in an obvious attempt to lie and continue to spread false information.

Take those two statements you quoted, and flip them around.

What on earth are you talking about? Flip them, cartwheel them, it doesn't matter. Show me the "legal proof". Otherwise, shut the f^ck up.

QUOTE
All debunkers are shills or stupid. Theres no middle ground.

I wish this were not the case but this seems to be the reality of the situation.

realitybites - October 27, 2006 04:45 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 01:38 PM)
Face facts. They have not identified the hijackers because they never got a living sample of their dna.

Davin Coburn even pretends he has neer heard of Operation Northwoods. I personally emailed the lying toerag a copy of it. I bet he's still denying he has seen it.

All debunkers are shills or stupid. Theres no middle ground.

A living sample? Why would one need a "living" sample?

DNA can be picked up anywhere. Unless the hijackers walked around their hotel rooms and drove around wearing sealed plastic suits, I'm guessing they left behind DNA.

But you continue to pretend. I know it's your favorite game.

realitybites - October 27, 2006 04:47 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Roxdog @ Oct 27 2006, 01:42 PM)
Otherwise, shut the f^ck up.

Awww, I'm sorry. That correction hit a nerve?

Momoka - October 27, 2006 04:54 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Roxdog @ Oct 27 2006, 04:42 PM)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 04:20 PM)
Well done Rox.  You've managed to totally disregard when those statements were made in an obvious attempt to lie and continue to spread false information.

Take those two statements you quoted, and flip them around.

What on earth are you talking about? Flip them, cartwheel them, it doesn't matter. Show me the "legal proof". Otherwise, shut the f^ck up.

I think he means that the "We don't know who the hijackers were" quote predates the "We know who the hijackers were" quote.




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree