zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.

Learn More · Register Now
Welcome to Loose Change Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (10) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 Alive And Well:, and to date, no corrections....
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:02 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 04:45 PM)
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.

Ill go through this slowly for you because I know your hard of thinking.

They found dna in hotels

They found dna at the crash sites

They matched

They were the same people

NOW TELL ME HOW THAT PROVES WHO THE HIJACKERS WERE?
Top
realitybites
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:15 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 357
Member No.: 377
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 04:45 PM)
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.

Ill go through this slowly for you because I know your hard of thinking.

They found dna in hotels

They found dna at the crash sites

They matched

They were the same people

NOW TELL ME HOW THAT PROVES WHO THE HIJACKERS WERE?

You'd make a complete crap investigator....

Let's go with your hotel thing. Let's say they found the DNA in room 214. And let's say room 214 was checked out to one Mohammad Atta. Would that be good enough for you?

Or how 'bout flight 77 where they found two samples of DNA that were genetically similar - like brothers. And the only brothers at that scene? ... The hijackers.
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:23 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 05:15 PM)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 04:45 PM)
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.

Ill go through this slowly for you because I know your hard of thinking.

They found dna in hotels

They found dna at the crash sites

They matched

They were the same people

NOW TELL ME HOW THAT PROVES WHO THE HIJACKERS WERE?

You'd make a complete crap investigator....

Let's go with your hotel thing. Let's say they found the DNA in room 214. And let's say room 214 was checked out to one Mohammad Atta. Would that be good enough for you?

Or how 'bout flight 77 where they found two samples of DNA that were genetically similar - like brothers. And the only brothers at that scene? ... The hijackers.

So the hotel was in the name of Atta, and? Does that mean it was atta who rented it?

You have no proof. And even the FBI admit they have no evidence against osama.

Sorry but thats the facts. Deal with it.

You have a clear case of cognitive dissonance. It's a bit like when a mother hears that her husband has been abusing the kids. She simultaneously knows its true but its so shocking that she goes into denial.

The mother is you, the husband is the government.

You can get treatment.
Top
realitybites
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:31 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 357
Member No.: 377
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:23 PM)
So the hotel was in the name of Atta, and?  Does that mean it was atta who rented it?

Uh, it's a pretty good indicator pal! Jesus... Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

ETA: I worked in the hotel industry for years. If you were paying with a credit card, you didn't necessarily need ID (at least before 9/11). But if you were paying with cash, which Atta and the rest most certainly were, you'd need to have photo identification.
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:34 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:23 PM)
So the hotel was in the name of Atta, and?  Does that mean it was atta who rented it?

Uh, it's a pretty good indicator pal! Jesus... Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

It might have been a man using atta's name.

Keep trying punk, you have no evidence,
Top
realitybites
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:35 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 357
Member No.: 377
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:34 PM)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:23 PM)
So the hotel was in the name of Atta, and?  Does that mean it was atta who rented it?

Uh, it's a pretty good indicator pal! Jesus... Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

It might have been a man using atta's name.

Keep trying punk, you have no evidence,

See the ETA in my previous post....
Top
IVXX
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:38 PM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:23 PM)
So the hotel was in the name of Atta, and?  Does that mean it was atta who rented it?

Uh, it's a pretty good indicator pal! Jesus... Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

ETA: I worked in the hotel industry for years. If you were paying with a credit card, you didn't necessarily need ID (at least before 9/11). But if you were paying with cash, which Atta and the rest most certainly were, you'd need to have photo identification.

Ummmmm something quick in defense of Phod here. Stephen King use to (might still) book hotel rooms under the names of members of the Ramones. So at a hotel you'd have Joey Ramone staying in room 139 when it was actually Stephen king staying in that room. That's a fact. So a name on a reciept really isn't an indicator of anything. When I was 18 I had ID for 21 so fake IDs also exist. Just adding some food for thought to this.
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:38 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 05:35 PM)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:34 PM)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:23 PM)
So the hotel was in the name of Atta, and?  Does that mean it was atta who rented it?

Uh, it's a pretty good indicator pal! Jesus... Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

It might have been a man using atta's name.

Keep trying punk, you have no evidence,

See the ETA in my previous post....

So the photo ID couldn't be fake?

What dream world are you living in?
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:41 PM


Unregistered









The debunkers have no evidence. All they can do is rehash the official story again and again without it making any sense. When we produce evidence they just discredit the sources or the whistleblower.
Top
realitybites
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:44 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 357
Member No.: 377
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:38 PM)
So the photo ID couldn't be fake?

What dream world are you living in?

You're absolutely right. The photo ID could be fake. Unfotunately, you're grasping at straws.

All the evidence points to Atta (and the rest of the hijackers for that matter). Now, if you have proof that the man who checked into the hotel wasn't Atta, or that the ID was faked, or that the DNA was tampered with, then please share. I'd be more than willing to listen.

But you can't just say, "It could be fake," and expect that to hold up in court.
Top
realitybites
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:45 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 357
Member No.: 377
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:41 PM)
When we produce evidence they just discredit the sources or the whistleblower.

I'm anxiously awaiting your evidence the DNA didn't belong to the hijackers.
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:46 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 05:44 PM)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:38 PM)
So the photo ID couldn't be fake?

What dream world are you living in?

You're absolutely right. The photo ID could be fake. Unfotunately, you're grasping at straws.

All the evidence points to Atta (and the rest of the hijackers for that matter). Now, if you have proof that the man who checked into the hotel wasn't Atta, or that the ID was faked, or that the DNA was tampered with, then please share. I'd be more than willing to listen.

But you can't just say, "It could be fake," and expect that to hold up in court.

Oh yes you can. Its called reasonable doubt.

The burden is on the authorities to prove it was those 19 people and they cant.

I repeat, the FBI have no hard evidence against osama.

Please accept this.
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:48 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 05:45 PM)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:41 PM)
When we produce evidence they just discredit the sources or the whistleblower.

I'm anxiously awaiting your evidence the DNA didn't belong to the hijackers.

Cognitive dissonance causes anxiety, try lorazepam.

I dont have to prove anything. If your accusing people the burden of proof is on you.
Top
IVXX
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:48 PM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 05:44 PM)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:38 PM)
So the photo ID couldn't be fake?

What dream world are you living in?

You're absolutely right. The photo ID could be fake. Unfotunately, you're grasping at straws.

All the evidence points to Atta (and the rest of the hijackers for that matter). Now, if you have proof that the man who checked into the hotel wasn't Atta, or that the ID was faked, or that the DNA was tampered with, then please share. I'd be more than willing to listen.

But you can't just say, "It could be fake," and expect that to hold up in court.

Two points here Reality.

1- You're always going to have problems using the official story as proof to someone who doesn't believe it.

2- As for hold up in court. If we could get an independent investigation it would be on the gov't to make their story hold up in court.

Once again I just see a lot of red and blue M&Ms and I want to throw in some green. :P
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:52 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 27 2006, 05:48 PM)
QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 05:44 PM)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:38 PM)
So the photo ID couldn't be fake?

What dream world are you living in?

You're absolutely right. The photo ID could be fake. Unfotunately, you're grasping at straws.

All the evidence points to Atta (and the rest of the hijackers for that matter). Now, if you have proof that the man who checked into the hotel wasn't Atta, or that the ID was faked, or that the DNA was tampered with, then please share. I'd be more than willing to listen.

But you can't just say, "It could be fake," and expect that to hold up in court.

Two points here Reality.

1- You're always going to have problems using the official story as proof to someone who doesn't believe it.

2- As for hold up in court. If we could get an independent investigation it would be on the gov't to make their story hold up in court.

Once again I just see a lot of red and blue M&Ms and I want to throw in some green. :P

We will never convince realitybites to see sense. He is in the cult of gravy. I just wish they would do a waco and self destruct
Top
realitybites
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:52 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 357
Member No.: 377
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:46 PM)
Oh yes you can. Its called reasonable doubt.

The burden is on the authorities to prove it was those 19 people and they cant.

I repeat, the FBI have no hard evidence against osama.

Please accept this.

The key word in that phrase being "reasonable". Saying, "It could be fake," may cause some doubt, but not reasonable doubt. (If that was the case, everyone would be a lawyer and making millions. All they'd have to do is walk into a courtroom and say, "The murderer could've been someone else." and walk out.) Showing that's it's fake would cause a reasonable doubt in the official story. Show me that they're fake.

And way to move goal-posts. I'm not talking about Osama. Never brought him up once.
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:55 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (realitybites @ Oct 27 2006, 05:52 PM)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 02:46 PM)
Oh yes you can.  Its called reasonable doubt.

The burden is on the authorities to prove it was those 19 people and they cant.

I repeat, the FBI have no hard evidence against osama.

Please accept this.

The key word in that phrase being "reasonable". Saying, "It could be fake," may cause some doubt, but not reasonable doubt. (If that was the case, everyone would be a lawyer and making millions. All they'd have to do is walk into a courtroom and say, "The murderer could've been someone else." and walk out.) Showing that's it's fake would cause a reasonable doubt in the official story. Show me that they're fake.

And way to move goal-posts. I'm not talking about Osama. Never brought him up once.

But osama is the crux of the official story and u believe it.

There is lots of doubt about the hijackers. Atta phoned his dad. He didn't fit the profile, he was a cocaine user.

Face it he was just a convenient patsy. Another oswald.
Top
realitybites
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 12:58 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 357
Member No.: 377
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 27 2006, 02:48 PM)
1- You're always going to have problems using the official story as proof to someone who doesn't believe it.

2- As for hold up in court. If we could get an independent investigation it would be on the gov't to make their story hold up in court.

1. I agree. And therein lies my frustration with the truth movement. If one thing is suspicious, then the whole thing is a lie. That's just ridiculous. The number of complicit people that would need to be in on it and keep their mouths shut would be astronomical.

2. If you could show reasonable doubt, you could probably get that independent investigation. But as it stands now, it would be a waste of time, money, and resources.

PS- I find the independent investigation argument to be a red-herring. Even if it happened and brought back the same results, the truthers would be crying "shills" or claiming the government "got to the investigators", and would then be calling for another independent investigation.

The desire for there to be a conspiracy far outweighs any desire of the truth.
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 01:03 PM


Unregistered









You know what amuses me. You wanted me booted out of JREF, but now i'm gone you have come here to have the same arguments with me.

Top
realitybites
Posted: Oct 27 2006, 01:09 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 357
Member No.: 377
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 27 2006, 03:03 PM)
You know what amuses me. You wanted me booted out of JREF, but now i'm gone you have come here to have the same arguments with me.

You're pretty f*ckin' arrogant to think that my friend.

For starters, I didn't want you gone from JREF. I found you quite entertaining.

And if you'll notice, I joined this forum before you did.

And just because you've recently taken over this thread doesn't mean I'm debating solely with you. IVXX has chimed in, as has reggie, and others.

Get off your high horse. You're not that important.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | The Hijackers | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (10) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last »



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0321 seconds · Archive