Court Cases in the US District Court,
Southern District of New York,
with Attorney Jerry Leaphart:

** Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

Docket No. 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
Title: Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA vs. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al.
Judge: George B. Daniels

** Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower:

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case

Docket No. 1:07-cv-04612-GBD
Title: Dr. Morgan Reynolds ex rel. USA vs. Science Applications International Corp. et al.
Judge: George B. Daniels

PRESS RELEASE: 9/11 Qui Tam Jurisdictional Challenges Filed - 2/29/08 - Two Qui Tam cases - U.S. District Court, SDNY -- 9/11 related - One alleges Twin Towers destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons - Other alleges No Planes hit the towers - Directed energy weapons toxic effects continue at Ground Zero:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rugbyzhg_080307_9_2f11_qui_tam_jurisdi.htm

PRESS RELEASE: Scientists See WTC - Hutchison Effect Parallel - On a Washington DC local radio station, WPFW, Scientists discuss true nature of destruction of WTC Complex on 9/11 and conclude it was related to a known effect:

http://www.prlog.org/10048184-scientists-see-wtc-hutchison-effect-parallel.html

The 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:42:27 PM

  (0+)

Because the 9/11 "truth" movement is a lie. President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not murderers. There will be no indictments.

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 12:12:02 AM

  (0+)

The NINE ELEVEN truth movement is NOT a lie...and neither is my article.

There is --IN FACT --no evidence whatsoever to support Bush's absurd theory.

And significantly, you failed to refute ANYTHING in my article.

Eventually, Bush's fraud will be exposed and so will the complicit liars who continue to support Bush's many CAPITAL CRIMES.

I could never understand WHY Bush would not have wanted to investigate 911 if he had been innocent. ONLY guilty people obstruct bona fide investigations of real crimes. 911 was a crime. And Bush OBSTRUCTED the investigation of it.

I consider his actions --obstruction of justice --to be probable cause that he is guilty of the bigger crime that he is clearly trying to cover up: mass murder.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 3:45:34 AM

  (0+)

Don't you realize that you can't prove anything by just saying it?

If I were to just simply state without proof: "The 9/11 movement is the truth.  Bush and Cheney are murderers.  There will be indictments." -- then my argument for my position would be no better than yours.

You really ought to consider the arguments given in this OpEd article instead of just repeating your position.  A rational person pays attention to the data coming in from his or her environment instead of ignoring the data that contradicts her or his preconceptions.  Then he or she evaluates without bias the arguments or inferences that others make from that data so that she or her has accurate knowledge of what is in the environment that may either help or hurt him or her.

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com   RobertHalfhill@gmail.com 

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:10:48 PM

  (0+)

"YOU CAN'T PROOVE ANYTHING BY JUST SAYING IT!"

 I believe that that is the crux of my article. 

 Bush and Cheney have simply asserted a THEORY but have utterly failed to back it up with anything other than mere assertions. I have simply pointed out numerous inconsistencies in their assertions. 

 It's a matter of the 'burden of proof". Those who assert must prove. 

Bush merely asserts but offers no evidence, no proof. There is no reason to believe the word of a liar.  

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:30:12 AM

  (0+)

A movement cannot be a lie. Furthermore, the only lie here is what you wrote.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:59:48 PM

  (0+)

CB Brooklyn comes out on cue to throw up rubbish in an attempt to show that the 9/11 movement is split. Wood and Reynolds are not part of 9/11 truth - they are just clever trouble makers, putting up false evidence, easily proved wrong, in the hope of discrediting the real movement.

Know them by there fruits.

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:28:50 AM

  (0+)

Great article Len Hart, well documented and focusing on central issues that have  not been addressed in detail by man researchers.  Keep up the good work.

Scott, you need to further your horizons with research.  "Nationalist Faith" has blinded many with tunnel vision.

Gravity32, your analysis is on target.  DEW group was set up to make the real researcher look like fools by association with the same subject matter.   Switch and bait.

by Joann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:01:03 AM

  (0+)

" Comments to Len, Scott, and Gravity"

Thanks

the 'particle beam' stuff is an annoying distraction and gives the the GOP ammunition with which they can tar any one who dares to question the government OK'd and official "conspiracy theories". How 'conveniently' it appears at the end of my article which is completely sourced and consistent with even 'mainstream media".

"focusing on central issues that have not been addressed in detail by man researchers. Keep up the good work."

Indeed! There is no reason to 'posit' particle beams; there is, in fact, no need to put forward any theory. It is enough to focus upon the MASSIVE HOLES, logical inconsistencies, demonstrable lies, and various strawmen that are kicked up by the 'official conspiracy theorists'. It is also prudent to focus upon the 'probable cause', sufficient now to begin a federal grand jury investigation of the crime team of Bush/Cheney.

It will be enough to serve justice when both of them are in the dock --where they belong ---forced to listen the hard evidence that subpoenas, I am sure, will will supply.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:21:02 AM

  (0+)

9-11 Truth remains our only hope of salvation. Every other topic is a distraction and a form of window dressing.

by Bill Cain (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 434 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:20:05 AM

  (0+)

Of course there had to be Arabs on those planes -- how else could the murderers in the White House justify the genocidal assault and occupation of Iraq?  And, if the immediate blaring of Bin Laden as being the mastermind wasn't enough, photos of the 19 perps were blazoned on every media outlet within hours of the attack.  Still not convinced?  Well, lookie here -- three passports and a bandana floating unsinged from the blazing inferno -- landing at the feet of the FBI...

Orwell said "The people will believe what the media tells them they believe."  Not what the media tells them TO believe, but tells them they believe. 

Well, I have a tendency to believe my own lying eyes.  And anyone who has ever seen one -- just one -- controlled demolition knew by 9:30 am on 9-11 what happened. 

Of course I have questions, but how hot steel has to get to sever myriads of beams cleanly into the exact lengths to fit onto waiting trucks and be rushed out of the country isn't one of them.

I want to know about...

1.  Neil Bush's security company, which was responsible for security not only for the World Trade Center, but for the two airports from which the planes were hijacked.

2.  The put stock option flurry on 9-10-01. 

3.  The security "stand down" the week before 9-11 so computer technology could be "upgraded."  Workmen came and went, undeterred, throughout that period -- bomb sniffing dogs removed.  Busy...busy...busy...

4.  Building 7 falling neatly into its own footprints shortly after owner Larry Silverstein announced on TV that it was to be "pulled."

4.  The lies and omissions of the criminal 9-11 Commission.  Please read Chapter Two of David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" for the sheer ghoulish audacity of this investigation.  Condi's bud, Philip Zelikow, was executive director of the Commission, the primary author of the doctrine of preemptive warfare.  Griffin says Zelikow "drove and organized the staff's work...called the shots...skewed the investigation and ran it his own way."  When the report was complete, it was submitted to Zelikow and the White House who "edited" it before publication...

All roads lead back to 9-11.  Everything this monstrous gang has done for the past five years is a direct result of 9-11.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans are wounded, disabled, dead because of 9-11.  Thousands of Afganistanis and millions of Iraqis have been slaughtered or displaced because of 9-11...

And I am to fret over how hot steel gets before it causes three buildings to collapse in "controlled demolition" fashion for the first -- and last -- time in history?   That will happen -- when donkeys fly.   

by Sheila Samples (54 articles, 6167 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 597 comments [28 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 1:38:11 PM

  (0+)

Just one tiny remark - it is not "Afghanistanis", it is simply "Afghans". Some people write "Afghanis" which is quite wrong, since Afghani is the name of the Afghan currency. :)

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:06:07 PM

  (0+)

Sheila, your 'lyin'' eyes AIN'T lyin'

Without going into detail, Marvin Bush is much of the METHOD in "Method, Motive and Opportunity! Could the Towers have been rigged? Indeed, the the towers were largely emptied and probably no longer profitable. Silverstein HAD to dump them! M. Bush was in charge of security. Getting folk in to plant explosives is NOT a problem.

The security "stand down" the week before 9-11 so computer technology could be "upgraded." Workmen came and went, undeterred, throughout that period -- bomb sniffing dogs removed. Busy...busy...busy...

For example! Witnesses reported strange comings and goings and noises on unoccupied floors. Put Marvin in front of a Grand Jury; give him limited immunity and watch how fast he sells out his traitor bro!

The put stock option flurry on 9-10-01.

Everyone who made money that day has foreknowledge. Put them under oath in front of Grand Jury. Let them answer the question: HOW DID YOU NOW? Liars get charged with perjury.

Building 7 falling neatly into its own footprints shortly after owner Larry Silverstein announced on TV that it was to be "pulled."

That's one of several smoking guns. BBC really screwed up, reporting the collapse of Buildling 7 while it was seen still standing behind her. BBC called it a 'mistake'. I'll say!

And I am to fret over how hot steel gets before it causes three buildings to collapse in "controlled demolition" fashion for the first -- and last -- time in history? That will happen -- when donkeys fly.

I would imagine that NOT EVEN Gerald Posner --the idiot who posited a non-existent 'jet effect' to explain the observable FACT that JFK's head is forced backward upon being hit from the front --could somehow conclude that steel , due to some mysterious process of his own invention, can melt at kerosene fire temperatures.

I think we must all credit David Ray Griffin for his work. It was his seminal paper --"Why the Official Theory Cannot be True" --that focused attention on the fact the towers could not possibly have fallen from the relatively cool and brief jet fuel fires. We owe him a debt of gratitude. If the Bush gang of liars, mass murderers and cold blooded traitors are ever sent to the gallows for their heinous crimes, we will have Griffin to thank.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 2:02:31 PM

  (0+)

Griffin's latest book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" is the most brilliant and incisive indictment of not only the administration, but the shameful 9-11 Commission.  It's a tough read for those not seeking the truth, but a "must" read for all those who are. 

It's disheartening that the majority of Americans cannot, or will not, read, but trust the media to tell them what's going on.  The media has blacklisted this critical Griffin book, and I doubt seriously that Griffin could buy an interview about it on any outlet.  But he has done the work for any future investigation, and he is tireless in his crusade to tell the truth.

by Sheila Samples (54 articles, 6167 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 597 comments [28 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 6:23:04 PM

  (0+)

Time and again the Democratic party has ignored or covered up flagrant and obvious acts of leading Republican treason.  It is the enablers who allowed the sabotage of the 68 peace talks, the use of Iranians to put Reagan in power, etc.  911 is exactly the same.  Are the leading Democrats terrified enablers that have to put up with a brutal cabal of Republicans?  Or are they more likely the "good cops" and and indispensable part of the coverups to follow every stunt.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 6:45:05 PM

  (0+)

That's one of the reasons I will never support Hilary! She is a good Republican. A kiss up! LIttle better than a NEOCON.

 If the Democrats had INSISTED upon an investigation of 911, Bush might have already been impeached, indicted, tried and awaiting the death sentence for the capital crimes that a first year law student could prosecute. 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:27:44 PM

  (0+)

On the 13th of September I had my doubts about the official explanation, it just didn't add up. The cell phone calls I knew as a Radio Engineer couldn't have been made but I thought perhaps they meant the phones behind the seats but that couldn't be true either I soon discovered.

 Then you come to the towers and say to yourself, that's odd other buildings burnt for days and still stood, indeed during WW2 i saw building on fire which remained standing, very few collapsed and none in free fall time.  Even common sense tells you a building can't collapse in free fall time from fire alone since each floor would cause a delay.

 The 757 which flew into the Pentagon is by far the most ridiculous story ever to be presented for public consumption. Why did the hijackers fly the aircraft around to the back when they could have simply crossed the river and had a clear run. Why did the FBI confiscate all the video footage never to see the light of day.

 Then you have the fairy tale concerning the one which crashed in Pennsylvania, no wreckage just some old junk in a small hole.

 What about all the steel from the towers quickly and under heavy supervision shipped to China and India.

 The two acoustic spikes recorded by a New York lab coinciding exactly with the START of the collapse.

 OBL reported by a French newspaper to have been admitted to an American hospital in Dubai for kidney dialysis in June of 2001.

 When I recall the sight of those people hurling themselves from windows to a certain death knowing who was responsible i lose faith in my fellow humans.

by douglas kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 83 comments) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:17:17 PM

  (0+)

 The two acoustic spikes recorded by a New York lab coinciding exactly with the START of the collapse.

 Thanks for the reminder about this. Certainly, the official conspiracy theory does not explain that. I am not an expert on the acoustic 'footprint' of various explosives, but I suspect that analysis of those spikes might even tell us what kinds of explosives had been planted in advance of the 'air strikes'. 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:31:55 AM

  (0+)

You seem to be blurring the line between the three in your article. Early on, you cite Olmsted as having undertaken an FOIA request for an "autopsy list", but then, a bit later, you describe what Olmsted requested  (and received) as being a "flight manifest", seizing upon the fact that it didn't contain any "Arab names".

There is a quite a bit of difference between an "autopsy list" and a "flight manifest". If Olmsted requested an "autopsy list" via FOIA, then he probably received the list of names of those victims who, through the use of ante-mortem samples provided by their families, were positively identified in the wreckage of AA77 at the Pentagon. As a matter of course, that list of names would not include those of the hijackers, as it is doubtful that the pathologist received the necessary samples with which to make such an identification. From what I've been able to discover with a bit of Googling, there were indeed DNA profiles recovered from the crash site which did not match up with any of the samples provided by the victims' families. These would likely be those of the hijackers, but unless/until they are compared with ante-mortem samples, they remain unnamed, as it were. Hence Olmsted's Arabless list.

As far as "flight manifests" go, the airlines themselves have provided printouts which do indeed include the Arab names of the specific hijackers involved. It differs from the CNN link to which you refer in that the CNN article is described as a list of "victims", which, of course, would not contain any of the Arab names of the perpetrators involved. There is ample precedent for such distinction in the press, one example being the tendency to separate the shooters at Columbine from the memorial to their victims.

In any event, I find it a bit shocking that someone who would call for the indictment of certain among those within our Government is playing so fast and loose with even the most basic of facts. I would submit to you, sir, that 9/11 is a serious subject for serious people who are prepared to do some serious research before they go spouting off with such inflammatory rhetotic.

 It's not a playground for dabblers and dilettantes.  

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:15:48 PM

  (0+)

Then what are you doing here?

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:13:35 PM

  (0+)

I did not blur the line between an autopsy list and flight manifest. In fact, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ARTICLE.

ONE IS EVIDENCE AND THE OTHER IS NOT. A LIST OF THOSE AUTOPSIED, PREPARED BY A PATHOLOGIST, IS EVIDENCE.

I called a "flight manifest" a "flight manifest" and made a DISTINCTION between the phony flight manifests that pro Bush sites have made up AFTER THE FACT to shore up the gaping holes in Bush's official conspiracy theory.

Then there are the REAL "official flight manifests", also referred to in the article as "original flight manifests" which were released to Dr. Olmsted in response to his FOIA request.

Then I referred SPECIFICALLY to THE PATHOLOGISTS AUTOPSY list, which was ALSO released to Dr. Olmsted in addition to the manifests.

THE DISTINCTION I MADE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLEARER. Dr. Olmsted himself stated and I repeated:

"A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is."

Now --clearly --rather than trying to BLUR the distinction between two, I made the distinction clear and unambiguous!

Certainly, the distinction between a 'flight manifest", which anyone came type up, must NOT be confused with a PATHOLOGISTS AUTOPSY LIST which IS evidence.

That the case I made. Which article did you read?

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:07:01 AM

  (0+)

I've seen the strawmen that you are raising before. That's why I wrote this article which you apparently didn't bother to read.


There is a quite a bit of difference between an "autopsy list" and a "flight manifest". If Olmsted requested an "autopsy list" via FOIA, then he probably received the list of names of those victims who, through the use of ante-mortem samples provided by their families, were positively identified in the wreckage of AA77 at the Pentagon.

 Olmsted stated, and I quoted him in the article:

"A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist is."

DID YOU NOT READ THAT IN THE ARTICLE?

He requested both and he got both. Moreover, I made the distinction between the two and do did Olmsted. You are just raising strawmen and kicking up dust.

As far as "flight manifests" go, the airlines themselves have provided printouts which do indeed include the Arab names of the specific hijackers involved differs from the CNN link to which you refer in that the CNN article is described as a list of "victims", which, of course, would not contain any of the Arab names of the perpetrators involved.

That's the point you idiot. Don't you bother to read articles that you PRESUME to refute. I covered that point in detail. It is, in fact, the point of the article. READ MY LIPS: the LIST posted by CNN is precisely the OFFICIAL FLIGHT MANIFEST that was released in in response to Dr. Olmsted in an FOIA request for the 'official flight manfiest'. A second point which you have chosen to ignore is this: IT DOESN'T' MATTER. A LIST OF NAMES ON A PIECE OF PAPERS IS NOT EVIDENCE. Did you not read that????

What IS evidence and is admissible in court is the pathologists autopsy list!!!! Inform yourself! You've made a fool of yourself.

In any event, I find it a bit shocking that someone who would call for the indictment of certain among those within our Government is playing so fast and loose with even the most basic of facts.

For EVERY key point I made, there are credible and authoritative references to organizations whose credibility you have not credibly impugned: CNN, BBC, FBI, Robert Mueller et al. If you are shocked, then I suggest you get out more. Learn a thing or two. Stop peddling scripts.

It's not a playground for dabblers and dilettantes.

Then why are you posting here and wasting everyone's time when you have 1) misstated my position 2) failed to address the issue?

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:21:34 AM

  (0+)

I've seen the strawmen that you are raising before. That's why I wrote this article which you apparently didn't bother to read.

In fact, I read your article very carefully. Perhaps you should re-read what you wrote.

[Olmsted] requested both and he got both [the autopsy list and the official flight manifest]. Moreover, I made the distinction between the two and [s]o did Olmsted.

No. You blurred the distinction. In the Olmsted article you cite, Olmsted clearly states [with emphasis added], "I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list of the people on Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon. You are invited to view it below." He doesn't say (at least in the excerpt you included) that he "undertook by FOIA request" to obtain the "official flight manifest". That's something you are now saying. I don't see it anywhere in Olmsted's article, however.

READ MY LIPS: the LIST posted by CNN is precisely the OFFICIAL FLIGHT MANIFEST that was released in in response to Dr. Olmsted in an FOIA request for the 'official flight manfiest'.

Once again, and according to his own article, Olmsted requested the autopsy list, which is not the same thing as the "official flight manifest" (i.e., the list provided by the airlines). Not by the longest shot. Moreover, the list of victims which appears on the CNN Web site is not the same thing as the the "autopsy list", and it's not the same thing as the "official flight manifest". For that matter, the contents of the CNN site were typed up in electronic form for the pupose of showing the passengers who were killed by the terrorists. It isn't evidence, per se.

And as much as you're now attempting to position the CNN list as being the same as the "official flight manifest", the two are, in fact, different from each other, and they're different from the "autopsy list" that Olmsted did, in fact (and according to his own article), request via FOIA.

For example, Olmsted's "autopsy list" does not include the name of 3-year-old Dana Falkenberg. The CNN list to which you linked, however, does. And herein the distinction between the two lists is underscored once again: Olmsted's "autopsy list" is comprised of those who, through the use of ante-mortem DNA (provided by the victims' families) were positively identified such that a name could be attached to the recovered remains. Obviously, Falkenberg's name doesn't appear because no remains were ever recovered which matched the ante-mortem provided by her family.

Does this mean that she wasn't on the plane? Of course not. And, if I were to follow your line of reasoning, the CNN list of victims conclusively proves that Dana Falkenberg was indeed on the plane. And herein the true distinction is underscored once again: Olmsted's list of names does not include that of Dana Falkenberg, but the CNN list does contain this name. And so, obviously, there is a difference between the means by which both lists of names were gernerated.

And this is what you're failing to see.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:02:39 AM

  (0+)

But you obviously didn't understand any of it.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:17:14 PM

  (0+)

CNN links to a list of passengers that conforms to AN OFFICIAL FLIGHT MANIFEST that was released upon an FOIA request. That makes the CNN list an official list.

The lists --naming Arabs --were released after the fact. They ARE NOT "official flights manifests". Anyone can type up anything they want at any time and call it 'official' and some pro Bush sites have done precisely that. But that does not make it so!

There are three essential points that must be made:

1) the OFFICIAL 'flight manifest' was released upon an official FOIA request and there is not a single Arab or Arab 'hijacker' on the list. Moreover, this OFFICIAL list is still reported and linked to by CNN.

2) An 'official list of persons autopsied was, likewise, released to Dr. Olmsted in response to an FOIA request. And, again, there were no Arab names on the list.

3) Clearly, neither the 'official flight manifest' NOR the pathologists autopsy list contained any Arab names.

If there are no Arab names on the list of those who were, in fact, 'autopsied', then NO hijakcer (being Arab) was 'autopsied'.

If no hijacker was 'autopsied', then NO hijacker was on Flight 77.

If NO hijacker was on Flight 77, then the official conspiracy theory is pure bullshit.

If the official conspiracy theory --involving an improbable gang of 'radical Arabs' --is pure bullshit, then George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Don Rumsfeld, et al should be supoenaed to testify before a Federal Grand Jury and compelled to explain themselves.

If their statements then made to a Grand Jury continue to allege the presence of Arab hijackers on Flight 77, then the lot of them should be charged with felony perjury to a Federal Grand Jury and obstruction of justice.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:38:18 AM

  (0+)

CNN links to a list of passengers that conforms PRECISELY to AN OFFICIAL FLIGHT MANIFEST that was released upon an FOIA request. That makes the CNN list an official list.

Except that the "autopsy list" of names requested/received by Olmsted via FOIA does not include that of 3-year-old Dana Falkenberg, whereas the CNN article to which you link does include this name (see my previous response).

Would you care to explain this discrepancy?

If there are no Arab names on the list of those who were, in fact, 'autopsied', then NO hijakcer (being Arab) was 'autopsied'.

If no hijacker was 'autopsied', then NO hijacker was on Flight 77.

So, by this logic, neither was Dana Falkenberg, although her name does appear on the CNN list of victims (which you're now saying is the same as the "official flight manifest").

You don't see a problem with your reasoning here?

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:20:15 AM

  (0+)

That's a Red Herring. Dana Falkenberg was not an "Arab". And no one ever claimed that Dana Falkenberg had not been autopsied.

The fact remains: there were no Arab autopsies; no Arabs on the flight. More later. Even if Dana had NOT been autopsied, it would not follow that because she had not been, there WERE Arabs on board.

That is a ludicrous non sequitur that only someone of the GOP or right wing persuasion could make. 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:55:43 AM

  (0+)

...no one ever claimed that Dana Falkenberg had not been autopsied.

I'm simply following the logic that you yourself have delineated. Previously, you argued that if there were no Arab names on the autopsy list, then no Arab hijackers were autopsied. According to this line of reasoning, if Dana Falkenberg's name doesn't appear on the autopsy list, then Dana Falkenberg was not autopsied.

The fact remains: there were no Arab autopsies; no Arabs on the flight.

Following your reasoning: there was no Dana Fakenberg autopsy; no Dana Falkenberg on the flight.

But you're not actually saying that, are you? Which is where your implication begins to unravel.

Even if Dana had NOT been autopsied, it would not follow that because she had not been, there WERE Arabs on board.

To which I would counter that even if no Arabs had been autopsied, it wouldn't necessarily follow that, because they had not been, there were no Arabs on board. The point is that the autopsy list (that Olmsted requested and received) is not, in and of itself, the final determining factor of who was and was not a passenger on the flight.

In short, the "autopsy list" is not the same thing as an "official flight manifest".

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:29:00 PM

  (0+)

So, by this logic, neither was Dana Falkenberg, although her name does appear on the CNN list of victims (which you're now saying is the same as the "official flight manifest").

Again ---you misinterpret my position. Dana Falkenberg's case is unique, as Dr. Olmsted pointed out had you bothered to read it:

"No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airlines sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. I did American the opportunity to “revise” their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only “passenger” body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified. "

Now --are you trying to tell me that Arabs were identified but NOT 'autopsied'?? If so, why aren't they on the list? Or --are you trying to say that they were autopsied but that the pathologist just forgot to mention that fact????

You have simply raised a red herring because you are biased.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:21:30 AM

  (0+)

...are you trying to tell me that Arabs were identified but NOT 'autopsied'??

No. I'm saying that just because they were not autopsied doesn't mean they were not on board the plane. Just like I'm saying that just because Dana Falkenberg was not autopsied doesn't mean that she was not on board the plane.

Once again, the autopsy list (that Olmsted requested and received) is not the same thing as an "official flight manifest".

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:32:17 PM

  (0+)

Were the eight or nine alleged terrorists who are still alive and well today also autopsied even if their names were not on one list but were on the other list?

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:20:27 PM

  (0+)

Were the eight or nine alleged terrorists who are still alive and well today also autopsied...

None of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11 are "alive and well" today.

All are just as dead as can be.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:59:51 PM

  (0+)

Your saying so doesn't make it so - there is incontrovertible empirical evidence that they are indeed alive, whether you like it or not, spook.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:01:55 AM

  (0+)

Once again, and according to his own article, Olmsted requested the autopsy list, which is not the same thing as the "official flight manifest" (i.e., the list provided by the airlines).

But it WAS official in that it was provided BY THE GOVERNMENT!

Airlines simply type up a list. A list of passengers --official or not --IS NOT EVIDENCE!

In distinction to a 'passenger list' of any sort, I also posted the OFFICIAL PATHOLOGISTS AUTOPSY REPORT!

THAT'S OFFICIAL!

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE HIJACKER ON THE LIST!!!

That means that NO Arab got autopsied! Not one! That's because they were not on the flight.

The list of victims which appears on the CNN Web site is not the same thing as the "autopsy list", and it's not the same thing as the "official flight manifest". It isn't evidence, per se.

I never said it was. In fact, the case I am making is that they are, indeed, two separate lists. Moroever, on neither the AUTOPSY LIST or the REAL, OFFICIAL PASSENGERS LIST will you find Arab names. But ---and this is the point that I have repeatedly made and you repeatedly ignore and/or misstate: an official pathologists list IS evidence.

Again and again, I have quoted Dr. Olmsted:

"A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list and you are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list."

I quoted the Dr in the article and in the comments. And, in EVERY case, I quoted him verbatim making distinctions between the phony lists that anyone could type up and official lists that were released upon an FOIA request. AND THERE ARE NO ARABS ON EITHER the official passenger list OR the official PATHOLOGIST'S LIST!

Clue: one does not make an FOIA request of the airlines --so don't confuse them. Secondly, what you now see on pro-Bush web sites are NOT official lists, though they are dishonestly called that.

Secondly, the pro-bush theory sites will not dare list the OFFICIAL AUTOPSY LIST because NO ARAB got autopsied.

Moreover, no Arab got autopsied because there were NO Arabs on the flight.

That is a fact that is confirmed by the official PASSENGER lists that were, likewise, released upon a FOIA request. Got that???? Comprend????? Are you thick???

Now ---let's break this down. 1) There are OFFICIAL PASSENGER lists that are released by the government upon an FOIA request. There are NO Arabs on it. 2) There are phony lists that anyone can type up after the fact to shore up holes in Bush's conspiracy theory. They may or may not have Arabs on them; but, because the lack of Arabs makes Bush look like a lyin' mass murderer, Bushies will add the names of Arabs to the phony list and post it on pro-Bush theory web sites. 3) There are official autopsy lists, or, sometimes referred to as the PATHOLOGISTS AUTOPSY LIST because it can only be released by the physician making the autopsy. This IS evidence and in court the pathologist would be asked to swear to it as it is entered into evidence. I repeat on this 'autopsy list', in fact the ONLY list that really matters, there are NO Arabs.

Now --if you persist in attributing positions and characterizations to me that I did not take, I will begin calling you a bloody liar!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:52:26 AM

  (0+)

But [the autopsy list] WAS official in that it was provided BY THE GOVERNMENT!

But it's not the same thing as "FLIGHT MANIFEST".

Which part of this remains unclear to you?

Airlines simply type up a list.

No. The list provided by the airlines is traceable into their computerized ticket/boarding system, and it is output as a generated list of names with corresponding seat assignments. The Arab names appear on this list.

The CNN list of victims (upon which you're relying heavily) was simply typed up into a Web document and then published. Whoever entered the information consciously decided to leave off the names of the names of the Arab terrorists, as they were, decidedly, not the "victims", but, rather, the perpetrators. And so the Arab names do not appear on this list.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:35:53 PM

  (0+)

I have seldom read someone as thick as you.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:24:21 PM

  (0+)

911. A mass murder, unprecedented in US history, remains officially and supposedly explained but clearly unsolved. A clear and profound demonstration of government power and resourses brought to bear by key, high-level officials in pursuit of dark, stunning agendas. And a clear demonstration that government power - in the hands of the highest ranking, key officials of the US government - are able to control and pre-determine the outcome of any investigation.

I have personally found that those clinging to the 'official excuse' of massive government and military ineptitude in the failures on 911 share a commonality at the root of their belief systems: That governments in general - and the US government in particular - are benevolent forces, act with honor and are accountable to The People. Only with a profound ignorance of unsanitized history, unforgiveable laziness and a stunning lack of independent reasoning can one reside in that camp.

by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 487 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:42:45 PM

  (0+)

But it's not the same thing as "FLIGHT MANIFEST".

I NEVER said it was, you idiot! That's the fuckin point! Can't you read?

Which part of this remains unclear to you?

Which part is not clear to you. I STATED on several occassions that 1) A flight manifest (real OR phony) is NOT evidence. A PATHOLOGISTS AUTOPY LIST IS!!!!

What part of that don't you understand?

No. The list provided by the airlines is traceable into their computerized ticket/boarding system, and it is output as a generated list of names with corresponding seat assignments. The Arab names appear on this list.

The Arab names DO NOT appear on THAT list! THAT list was released via a FOIA request! And there were NO Arab names on it! And --it doesn't matter because THAT LIST is not evidence anyway. The pathologists autopsy report IS evidenced. And there are NO Arab names on it! I posted the entire contents of the PATHOLOGISTS AUTOPSY LIST! There are NO Arabs on the list. No arabs were autopsied. The inevitable conclusion is this: THERE WERE NO ARABS ON THE FLIGHT.

The CNN list of victims (upon which you're relying heavily) was simply typed up into a Web document and then published.

Prove it! Besides ---IT DOES NOT MATTER; ONLY the Pathologists report is evidence.

Whoever entered the information consciously decided to leave off the names of the names of the Arab terrorists, as they were, decidedly, not the "victims", but, rather, the perpetrators. And so the Arab names do not appear on this list.

You have no proof of that! You're just engaging in a wild conspiracy theory. You are trying to tell this board that there was a wild, radical conspiracy going on at CNN!! You're full of sh*t, you cannot read, and you're a liar!

The list provided by the airlines is traceable into their computerized ticket/boarding system, and it is output as a generated list of names with corresponding seat assignments. The Arab names appear on this list.

Anyone with data entry access can input the names of whomever fits the official conspiracy theory. It proves nothing and is not evidence in any case.  

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:18:58 PM

  (0+)

The Arab names DO NOT appear on THAT list [provided by the airlines]!

That's funny, because I've seen THAT list, and their names appear right there in black and white. Google it for yourself and see.

...it doesn't matter because THAT LIST is not evidence anyway.

As a matter of fact, it is. It was among the exhibits at the Mousaoui trial.

The pathologists autopsy report IS evidenced. And there are NO Arab names on it!

And there is no Dana Falkenberg on the autopsy list. Does this fact, in and of itself, mean that she wasn't on board the plane? Why or why not?

No arabs were autopsied.

Dana Falkenberg was not autopsied.

The inevitable conclusion is this: THERE WERE NO ARABS ON THE FLIGHT.

So was Dana Falkenberg on the flight?

ONLY the Pathologists report is evidence.

And that report indicates that Dana Falkenberg was never autopsied. What does this tell you?

You are trying to tell this board that there was a wild, radical conspiracy going on at CNN!

No. I'm saying that the CNN Web link represents a list of VICTIMS. It says so right at the top of the page.

...you cannot read, and you're a liar!

Read what it says at the top of the CNN Web page. It says "VICTIMS".

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:09:06 PM

  (0+)

That's funny, because I've seen THAT list, and their names appear right there in black and white. Google it for yourself and see.

No, you didn't! You saw the shill list that was prepared after the fact. You know that. You are a liar!

As a matter of fact, it is. It was among the exhibits at the Mousaoui trial.

Mousaoui didnt' get a fair trial and that proves nothing! Anyone can type up a list --even an idiot like you! If Mousaoui had had a defense, it might have been insisted that the autopsy list be entered into evidence.

And there is no Dana Falkenberg on the autopsy list. Does this fact, in and of itself, mean that she wasn't on board the plane? Why or why not?

Dana Falkenburg was not Arab! And her name DID appear on the OFFICIAL passenger list that was released under an FOIA request BEFORE it coudl have been re-written --after the fact --to shore up Bush's official conspiracy theory.

Dana Falkenberg was not autopsied.

I said that NO Arabs were autopsied. Dana Falkenburg was not Arab. Your comment is pointless and stupid.

So was Dana Falkenberg on the flight?

Dana Falkenburg was probably on the flight, autopsied, and buried! She is STILL not Arab. And you STILL have no point! You STILL have no intelligence.

And that report indicates that Dana Falkenberg was never autopsied. What does this tell you?

It tells me that the conclusions you have drawn from it prove that you are still stupid!

No. I'm saying that the CNN Web link represents a list of VICTIMS. It says so right at the top of the page.

So what?

Read what it says at the top of the CNN Web page. It says "VICTIMS".

So what? Anyone can type up anything at any time about anyone! Even idiots can do that! You're every post is proof of it!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:46:43 PM

  (0+)

That's funny, because I've seen THAT list, and their names appear right there in black and white. Google it for yourself and see.

No, you didn't! You saw the shill list that was prepared after the fact. You know that. You are a liar!

As a matter of fact, it is. It was among the exhibits at the Mousaoui trial.

Mousaoui didnt' get a fair trial and that proves nothing! Anyone can type up a list --even an idiot like you! If Mousaoui had had a defense, it might have been insisted that the autopsy list be entered into evidence.

And there is no Dana Falkenberg on the autopsy list. Does this fact, in and of itself, mean that she wasn't on board the plane? Why or why not?

Dana Falkenburg was not Arab! And her name DID appear on the OFFICIAL passenger list that was released under an FOIA request BEFORE it coudl have been re-written --after the fact --to shore up Bush's official conspiracy theory.

Dana Falkenberg was not autopsied.

I said that NO Arabs were autopsied. Dana Falkenburg is not Arab. You comment is pointless and stupid.

So was Dana Falkenberg on the flight?

Dana Falkenburg was probably on the flight, autopsied, and buried! She is STILL not Arab. And you STILL have no point! Nor intelligence.

And that report indicates that Dana Falkenberg was never autopsied. What does this tell you?

It tells me that the conclusions you have drawn from it prove that you are still stupid!

No. I'm saying that the CNN Web link represents a list of VICTIMS. It says so right at the top of the page.

So what?

Read what it says at the top of the CNN Web page. It says "VICTIMS".

So what? Anyone can type up anything at any time about anyone! Even idiots can do that! You're every post is proof of it!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:46:59 PM

  (0+)

You saw the shill list that was prepared after the fact.

You gonna try and tell me what I did and didn't see? Think again.

I saw the printouts provided by the airline. They contained "Arab" names.

And there's nothing you can do about that.

I said that NO Arabs were not autopsied.

And I said that Dana Falkenberg's name does not appear on the autopsy list. This indicates that she was never autopsied.

Da[na] Falkenburg was probably on the flight, autopsied, and buried!

Oh? So if her name does not appear on the "official" autopsy list, then where is your evidence to this effect? Or are you simply engaging in wild, unsupported speculation at this point?

Anyone can type up anything at any time about anyone!

Len, Len, Len... I was the one who suggested to you that the CNN list was made up (i.e., typed onto a Web page), to which you responded, "prove it". Now here you are, telling me that anyone can make up anything anytime, etc., etc.

So if the conspirators simply made up the word "VICTIMS" and decided to stick it in at the top of the CNN Web page, then why didn't they also "type up" the names of the Arab hijackers within the passenger list on the very same page?

This oughta' be interesting.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:13:25 PM

  (0+)

I'm simply following the logic that you yourself have delineated. No...you're just being stupid. Previously, you argued that if there were no Arab names on the autopsy list, then no Arab hijackers were autopsied. So what? According to this line of reasoning, if Dana Falkenberg's name doesn't appear on the autopsy list, then Dana Falkenberg was not autopsied. You idiot! I said that no Arabs were were autopsied. And they were not! Following your reasoning: there was no Dana Fakenberg autopsy; no Dana Falkenberg on the flight. Not true! No one ever claimed that Dana Falkenberg was Arab; Her name, in fact, DID SHOW UP on the OFFICIAL list of passengers. But NOT the Arabs! Please spare the forum your psychotic delusions. Go back to school. To which I would counter that even if no Arabs had been autopsied, it wouldn't necessarily follow that, because they had not been, there were no Arabs on board. Again --that's fallacious. You would like to get away with reversing the burden of proof. Bushco asserted that there WERE Arabs on board. A pathologists autopsy list MIGHT have been evidence in support of Bush had there Arab names on it and, further, had there been autopsies performed OF Arabs. Alas, however, there were no Arabs on the list; there were no Arabs autopsied. The point which you utterly missed is that there is NOTHING, therefore, to support Bushco's assertions. Absolutely nothing. The point is that the autopsy list (that Olmsted requested and received) is not, in and of itself, the final determining factor of who was and was not a passenger on the flight. Unfortunately for Bush, that is the only evidence that MIGHT have supported his stupid theory. Alas, Bushco is peddling a wild conspiracy theory in which Arabs are blamed! They are the KEY to his conspiracy theory. But ---there are NO Arabs on the OFFICIAL autopsy list that was released in response to a FOIA request. Bush is left with nothing but his own bullshit! In short, the "autopsy list" is not the same thing as an "official flight manifest". I said that before you did, you blithering idiot!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:35:07 PM

  (0+)

No one ever claimed that Dana Falkenberg was Arab...

No, but your line of reasoning would remove her from the flight by virtue of the fact that her name doesn't appear on the autopsy list.

It's erroneous... this line of thought.

But ---there are NO Arabs on the OFFICIAL autopsy list that was released in response to a FOIA request.

There is no "Dana Falkenberg" which appears on this very same "official" list. So how do you know she was on board the plane if her name does not appear on this "official" list?

Remember: YOU said that ONLY the Pathologists report is evidence. So if Dana Falkenberg is not listed among those who were autopsied, then what evidence exists that she was ever on board the plane?  

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:24:13 PM

  (0+)

Autopsy List: Obtained via FOIA request, this contains the names of those who were identified via ante-mortem DNA samples. None of "Arab" names appear. Dana Falkenberg's name does not appear.

CNN List: A list of "VICTIMS" (as opposed to perpetrators) published on CNN's Web site. Not an "official" list in any way (i.e., does not constitute evidence, per se). No "Arab" names appear, but Dana Falkenberg's name does.

Passenger Manifest: Provided by the airlines, this shows the names of everyone who was ticketed and boarded for the flights. The "Arab" names appear, as does Dana Falkenberg.

Let's try to keep it straight, now, huh. 

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:39:52 PM

  (0+)

I saw all four official passenger manifests shortly after 9/11 - not a single one of the alleged terrorists' names appeared on any of them. What  had been released much later and passed-off as the passenger manifests were frauds.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:21:40 PM

  (0+)

The complete, undeniable and definitive list of crucial failures, coincidences and unconnected dots that were necessay in order for the attacks of 911 to have succeeded:

Repeated intelligence warnings of a looming, unprecedented attack ignored or discounted at the White House by each key figure of the inner circle.

Richard Clark - anti-terrorism expert for four US presidents - is removed from the president's inner circle months before. His repeated requests to meet with - and warnings to - the president go ignored by the National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.

The Bush administration reduces anti-terror funding several times in the eight months prior to the attacks.

Bush personally orders several investigative agencies, including the FBI, to "back off the bin Laden family".

Investigations into crucial terrorist suspects in the US halted at three flight training schools. Urgent requests and reports up the chain go unaddressed. No-fly lists for known terror suspects are not updated.

The FBI does not examine the laptop computer - containing many 911 details, including names - of Zacarias Mousawi, likely the "20th hijacker", arrested well before the attacks.

Vice president Cheney, at his request, receives complete command and control of all US air defences on May 8, 2001, an unprecedented delegation of presidential authority in US history.

The long established, nearly automated US air defense mechanism now relies solely on direction by the vice president.

President George W Bush was in Florida.

NORAD air training drills originally scheduled for Oct 10 are moved up to Sept 10. These drills remove most of the defensive response aparatus from the DC and NY areas. The drills also involve the deliberate corruption of FAA radar screens with numerous ghost images.

American Airlines flight 77 flies - ostensibly undetected - for over 40 minutes after reversing it's westerly course. Cheney is informed when the airliner is 50 miles out, again at 30 miles and at 10 miles.

Flight 77 nearly circled the Pentagon prior to impact.

The sophisticated missle defense system surrounding the Pentagon does not respond on 911.

Not one of the scrambled fighter jets/interceptors flew at faster than one-half of maximum speed, at any time.

The immediate, well published excuse by the political leadership and the military: "...no one could have foreseen hijacked airliners being used as missles flown into buildings..." is patently false - and had been envisioned and practiced by the FBI, the CIA, the NRO, the NSA and DIA among other government agencies for well over five years.

These are the facts. They are not disputed.

Michael R McCoy

by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 487 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:44:12 PM

  (0+)

Michael, thanks for the information... I will try to read it all.

In the meantime, here is  an excerpt from a recent post on 911bloggers.com:

 "

In all the valuable research that has been conducted into 9/11, a significant detail has so far been mostly overlooked: An examination of news reports and other accounts reveals that a surprising proportion of the people on the four targeted planes had only been booked onto those flights at the last minute, often the day before or even the morning of September 11. Pilots on three of the four planes, more than half of all the flight attendants, and many passengers--including almost half those on Flight 93--were not originally booked to be on those flights.

It is difficult to dismiss all this evidence as mere coincidence. There must be specific reasons that we do not yet know about. For the truth to be uncovered will require further study by independent researchers, scrutiny by the press, and proper formal investigations of the 9/11 attacks.

Below is a summary of these latecomers to the four planes: American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 175 and 93."

More 'coincidences' that the Bush 'official conspiracy theory' cannot explain.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:08:38 PM

  (0+)

but it is most painful to the eyes to read a text all in bold, so I didn't even make it through the first paragraph - it is uncourteous of you to write it thusly, it shows that you have no respect for others.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:27:45 PM

  (0+)

Not being American, I have a long and precise memory. Shortly after 9/11, the official passenger manifests were indeed posted on the web, and none of the alleged terrorists' names were on them - hardly surprising since at least eight or nine of them happen to be still alive and well.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:30:38 PM

  (0+)

Once again, the autopsy list (that Olmsted requested and received) is not the same thing as an "official flight manifest".

I said that BEFORE you did! That is, in fact, one of the central points of my article.

Secondly, An autopsy list is better than a passenger list.

It is evidence!!! A passenger list, as Dr. Olmstead point out, is NOT!

 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:34:28 PM

  (0+)

An autopsy list is better than a passenger list.

It is evidence!!! A passenger list, as Dr. Olmstead point out, is NOT!

Then what evidence exists to the effect that Dana Falkenberg was ever on board the plane? Her name does not appear on the autopsy list. Since the passenger list does NOT count as evidence, then how do we know that she ever boarded AA77?

This is where you're gonna trip up every time, I think.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:48:59 PM

  (0+)

Then what evidence exists to the effect that Dana Falkenberg was ever on board the plane? Her name does not appear on the autopsy list. Since the passenger list does NOT count as evidence, then how do we know that she ever boarded AA77? This is where you're gonna trip up every time, I think.

There is no evidence that you "think"! Secondly, I never trip up! Thirdly, whether Dana Falkenburg was on that plane or not neither supports nor disproves anything I have ever said. It's just a red herring and, because you are dim witted, you think it does. I repeat: my position is that no ARABS were autopsied as per the OFFICIAL LIST provided Dr. Olmsted! Dana Falkenburg was NOT Arab. Whether she was autopsied or not is completley immaterial.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:55:08 PM

  (0+)

It's just a red herring...

It's just a question you don't want to address because you know the answer will blow away your own house-of-cards argument.

I'll ask it again:

What evidence exists to the effect that Dana Falkenberg was ever on board the plane? Her name does not appear on the autopsy list. Since the passenger list does NOT count as evidence, then how do we know that she ever boarded AA77?

How about an answer, Len?

Can you give me an answer?

Are you man enough to answer?

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:22:20 PM

  (0+)

What evidence exists to the effect that Dana Falkenberg was ever on board the plane? Her name does not appear on the autopsy list. Since the passenger list does NOT count as evidence, then how do we know that she ever boarded AA77?

Fine...if YOU don't think she was on board, make the case! It is, rather, completely IMMATERIAL to mine.

My position is about Arabs and pilots. Dana was neither.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:57:36 PM

  (0+)

Bollocks!

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:23:27 PM

  (0+)

Shortly after 9/11, the official passenger manifests were indeed posted on the web, and none of the alleged terrorists' names were on them - hardly surprising since at least eight or nine of them happen to be still alive and well.

They were, indeed! I posted a link to the BBC article in which several 'hijackers' are still alive and well and 'protesting their innocence". That they are alive enough to protest their innocence is proof enough that Bush is a goddamned liar.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:00:58 PM

  (0+)

Then what evidence exists to the effect that Dana Falkenberg was ever on board the plane?

Are you trying to tell this board that Dana Falkenburg WAS NOT on the flight?

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:04:50 PM

  (0+)

Are you trying to tell this board that Dana Falkenburg WAS NOT on the flight?

Not at all. I'm trying to get you to explain what evidence exists to this effect within the logical framework you've constructed.

You're suggesting that the pathology report is the only evidence that counts. But since Falkenberg's name does not appear on the autopsy list, then where is the evidence that she was on board AA77?  

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:46:28 PM

  (0+)

You're suggesting that the pathology report is the only evidence that counts.

In the absence of anything else, IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:25:18 AM

  (0+)

YOU said that ONLY the Pathologists report is evidence. I quoted Olmsted as having said that. Moreover, it is important to know what the 'evidence' is evidence of. That's a skill you DON'T HAVE!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:22:43 PM

  (0+)

the list of victims which appears on the CNN Web site is not the same thing as the the "autopsy list", Who --precisely --said it was? Who? Names please!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:24:49 PM

  (0+)

Who --precisely --said [the list of victims which appears on the CNN Web site is the same thing as the the "autopsy list"]? Who? Names please!

Len Hart.

You.

In your article.

You said, and I quote:

...the list Olmsted received from the government in response to his FOIA request, matches precisely what had been originally reported and is still reported by CNN.

The list Olmsted received from the government in response to his FOIA request was, in fact, the autopsy list. In the above excerpt, you imply that it is the same thing as the list which appears on the CNN Web site.

And it isn't.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:39:51 PM

  (0+)

the airlines themselves have provided printouts which do indeed include the Arab names of the specific hijackers involved.

The airliners can type up anything they like at any time upon orders from anybody. Doesn't mean a damn thing. But --it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. There are NO ARAB names on the Pathologist's report because NO autopsies were performed on Arabs. That means that Bush is not ONLY an war criminal for his war of naked aggression in Iraq, there is probable cause to indict Bush and Cheney for mass murder in connection with the crime that he has worked to cover up.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:28:42 PM

  (0+)

Len, Len, Len... I was the one who suggested to you that the CNN list was made up (i.e., typed onto a Web page), to which you responded, "prove it". Now here you are, telling me that anyone can make up anything anytime, etc., etc. No you didn't! I made all those distinctions on my blog even before I posted here.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:31:48 PM

  (0+)

No you didn't [suggest that the CNN list was made up (i.e., typed onto a Web page)]!

Uh... yeah... I DID.

I quote myself from a few comments back:

The CNN list of victims (upon which you're relying heavily) was simply typed up into a Web document and then published. Whoever entered the information consciously decided to leave off the names of the names of the Arab terrorists, as they were, decidedly, not the "victims", but, rather, the perpetrators. And so the Arab names do not appear on this list.

Now, you wanna share with the group why it is that you lied just now?

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:57:55 PM

  (0+)

You are one highly confused individual with no sense of logic whatsoever, even though you try to pretend you do have such a sense and that you are intelligent - you don't fool those who are far more intelligent than yourself. There is little worse than an idiot who believes he is intelligent, and you are living proof of this.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:27:13 PM

  (0+)

There is little worse than an idiot who believes he is intelligent, and you are living proof of this.

That's just the thing, though. I don't believe that I am especially intelligent. Well... no more so than the average Joe on the street.

Unlike most truthdorks (like, say, Len) I don't believe there's much of anything that's unique or special about myself. I believe that I am fairly average. I don't believe that I have special abilities to see things beyond... what the average person can see... that I can discern truths that no-one else can. And, believe me, if I can see the Grand Canyon-size holes in Len's argument, then anybody else can, as well.

This is among the reasons why the 9/11 "truth" movement, as a whole, has pretty-much flatlined over the years.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:11:18 PM

  (0+)

Getting tangled in your own World Wide Web...

You speak from experience...

No, but your line of reasoning would remove her from the flight by virtue of the fact that her name doesn't appear on the autopsy list.

That's not my line of reasoning!

It's erroneous... this line of thought.

Your line of thought is erroneous, fallacious and you attribute positions to me that I never took. That's called a straw man.

Dana Falkenberg's name was, in fact, on the OFFICIAL FLIGHT MANIFEST released under an FOIA request. So your position has no legs. It is not analogous, You are desprately grasping at straws. Not one of your 'arguments' --if I may be so kind as to call them that --hold water. I suspect that you are a GOP shill of some sort, someone way down on the food chain! How many peanuts do they pay you to post bullshit on otherwise reputable web sites?

There is no "Dana Falkenberg" which appears on this very same "official" list. So how do you know she was on board the plane if her name does not appear on this "official" list?

There was reason to believe even before the autopsies that Dana was on the flight! Her name was on the list ---official or no! There was, in fact, NO reason to believe that there Arabs awaiting autopsy becuase there were NO arabs names on the 'official flight manifests' that were later released under FOIA to Olmsted. The situations are not even remotely analogous! LOL LOL You ARE desparate for those peanuts, aren't you?

I repeat: my position is that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that ANY hijacker was ever autopsied! My position has to do with Arab Hijackers.

Last time I checked --Dana Falkenberg was neither a hijacker nor an arab.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:44:53 PM

  (0+)

There was reason to believe even before the autopsies that Dana was on the flight!

There was also reason to believe (even before the autopsies) that Arabs were on the flight.

Her name was on the list ---official or no!

The Arab names were also on a list. The passenger manifest released by the airlines, to be precise.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:21:33 PM

  (0+)

It is confused and erroneous.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:29:06 PM

  (0+)

The list Olmsted received from the government in response to his FOIA request was, in fact, the autopsy list. In the above excerpt, you imply that it is the same thing as the list which appears on the CNN Web site.

WRONG AGAIN, sh*t FOR BRAINS! I stated numerous times that Olmstead received BOTH!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:55:34 PM

  (0+)

I stated numerous times that Olmstead received BOTH!

Olmsted himself only states that he requested/received the autopsy list via FOIA request. He doesn't say anything about having requested/received the official passenger manifest via FOIA request, at least not in the excerpt you posted.

But if you'd like to show where he did, I'd be happy to revise my earlier remarks.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:03:47 PM

  (0+)

But since Falkenberg's name does not appear on the autopsy list, then where is the evidence that she was on board AA77?

But her name WAS on the flight manifest.

But if you choose to believe she was not on board, you are free to believe what you will. It is COMPLETELY IMMATERIAL to my article and my position.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:01:02 PM

  (0+)

But [Falkenberg's] name WAS on the flight manifest.

Which, according to what you said earlier, does not count as evidence.

For that matter, the Arab names do also appear on the flight manifest. So how is this NOT an indication that they were on board the flight, but, at the same time, Falkenber's name appearing on the same manifest IS an indication that she was on board the flight?

How does that work, exactly? 

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:11:34 PM

  (0+)

It works like this: Dana is immaterial to my position and you are panicky.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:14:11 PM

  (0+)

It works like this: Dana is immaterial to my position and you are panicky.

You're wrong. The example of Dana Falkenberg utterly destroys your entire argument. You want to use the autopsy list (requested/received by Olmsted via FOIA) as proof that there were no Arabs on board the plane, but you excuse the fact that Falkenberg's name is also absent on this list by pointing to the passenger list, which (at the same time) you insist does not count as evidence whenever I point out that the Arab names also appear on the very same list.

You're busy hopping from one foot to another in a desperate attempt not to get painted into a corner with the color of your own bullcrap. And, I have to admit, arguing with you has been akin to nailing Jello to a wall.

But your furious dancing about is plain for all to see. 

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:35:58 PM

  (0+)

You're wrong. The example of Dana Falkenberg utterly destroys your entire argument.

No! You are wrong. Dana Falkenberg is completely irrelevant to my argument.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:42:52 AM

  (0+)

You gonna try and tell me what I did and didn't see? Think again.

What makes you think you think?

I saw the printouts provided by the airline. They contained "Arab" names. And there's nothing you can do about that.

I don't believe you!

And I said that Dana Falkenberg's name does not appear on the autopsy list. This indicates that she was never autopsied.

And I said that Dana Falkenberg is not Arab! I believe I am correct about that. I also believe that my position has to do with Arabs! I am correct about that! I also believe that your red herring is evidence of sheer desparation!! LOL LOL LOL That's all you've got and it is nothing! I also believe that nothing that you have said about Dana Falkenberg is material to anything that I have said about anything at any time! Comprend???

And I said that Dana Falkenberg's name does not appear on the autopsy list. This indicates that she was never autopsied.

So what?

Da[na] Falkenburg was probably on the flight, autopsied, and buried!

Probably --but that's just an opinion and it is completely immaterial to my article!

Oh? So if her name does not appear on the "official" autopsy list, then where is your evidence to this effect? Or are you simply engaging in wild, unsupported speculation at this point?

Write an article and post it. Run it up the flag pole and see who salutes. The issue is immaterial to my article.

Len, Len, Len... I was the one who suggested to you that the CNN list was made up (i.e., typed onto a Web page), to which you responded, "prove it". Now here you are, telling me that anyone can make up anything anytime, etc., etc.

No you are not! Don't flatter yourself! I covered that issue on my blog even before posting here.

So if the conspirators simply made up the word "VICTIMS" and decided to stick it in at the top of the CNN Web page, then why didn't they also "type up" the names of the Arab hijackers within the passenger list on the very same page?

I didn't say anything about that! You are deluded, to be expected from a Bushy defender.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:12:45 PM

  (0+)

I don't believe you [saw the printouts provided by the airline]!

Neither you nor anyone else has to "believe" me. They're all online, available for anyone to see for themselves.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Monday, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:22:26 PM

  (0+)

Neither you nor anyone else has to "believe" me.

 Don't sweat it! No one does! 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:50:38 AM

  (0+)

No one does [believe you]!

As I said, they don't have to. Here are the links:

Flight 77, 1/2

Flight 77, 2/2

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:31:10 AM

  (0+)

That website which posts only lies - it seems to be your only source, as if you live and work there!

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:14:41 AM

  (0+)

That website which posts only lies...

Would that you could prove this. But you won't.

You can't.

Logical Fallacy: Attacking the source.

In any event, these linked images have appeared in more places than just the 9/11 Myths site. In fact, they were originally generated by the Airlines.

These are, in fact, the passenger manifests.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:24:57 AM

  (0+)

Len... thanks. That list is a seriously condensed and I tried to focus on significance and/or recently found pieces of the puzzle of lies. And I can safely say that you have reached a level - as have I - in grasping the big picture as it comes into focus.

By the way, I just know we'll all witness a group hug soon between you and F. Apoda, right here on OpEd. I'll make a screensaver from it...::smiles::

Vierotchka... 'uncourtious' and with 'no respect' denoted by bold print? A first comment ever of the matter. Frankly, I can't say I've ever skipped something potentially compelling due to the font. But that's just me. I never try to make the horse drink.

Michael McCoy

by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 487 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:38:50 AM

  (0+)

That list is a seriously condensed and I tried to focus on significance and/or recently found pieces of the puzzle of lies. And I can safely say that you have reached a level - as have I - in grasping the big picture as it comes into focus.

Indeed, the Bush crime syndicate found some cover in the sheer magnitude of the crime. Most were in a state of shock and could not process rationally the overwhelming flood of information --most of which was false to begin with.

Unfortunately, Bushies found in the 'shock and awe' all the cover they needed to begin a campaign of ruinous wars of naked aggression throughout the Middle East. The wars are about the siezure of oil, just as Rome's invasion of Dacia was about the seizure of gold.

Your list is a valuable contribution to our getting the big picture. I have, likewise, tried to concentrate on those aspects of the 'official conspiracy theory' that are: 1) absolutely essential to the theory and 2) fatal flaws that bring down the entire house of cards.

Several things --the two most dramatic FACTS that bring down the entire lie call 911 are 1) kerosene has never and never will melt steel and 2) There were NO Arabs on board Flight 77.

 Your list of links is essential, a CORE, if you will. I commend you and have saved your list to my growing 'essential' 911 fraud file. thanks again...

There are reams of other flat out lies, odd coincidences, anomolies, fallacies, and weirdness. But the fatal flaws are enough to put Bush and Cheney on death row depending upon which state gets to file the mass murder charges.

Johnny Cochran understood this and zeroed in on the prosecution's weakness. "If it does not fit, you must acquit", he said. In this case, I would say: "No Arabs on Flight, You must Indict!"

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:18:18 AM

  (0+)

None of the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11 are "alive and well" today.All are just as dead as can be.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:45:42 AM

  (0+)

Abdul Aziz Al-Omari (Flight 11) (Trained Pilot)

The identities of two men with the same name have been cobbled together to create an FBI "terrorist". Both are Alive!

The first has the same name, the same birth date as one of the FBI "terrorists" but has no idea how to fly.

The second has the name Abdul Rahman Al-Omari and a different birth date, but is the person pictured by the FBI and is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines.

Here are some quotes from the world's media concerning them.

<b>Omari Number 1</b>

"A Saudi man has reported to authorities that he is the real Abdul Aziz Al-Omari, and claims his passport was stolen in 1995 while he studied electrical engineering at the University of Denver. Al-Omari says he informed police of the theft." - ABCNews
"I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this." - Telegraph, 23rd September 2001
"The name (listed by the FBI) is my name and the birth date is the same as mine, but I am not the one who bombed the World Trade Center in New York," Abdul Aziz Al-Omari told the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:11:02 AM

  (0+)

Abdul Aziz Al-Omari (Flight 11) (Trained Pilot)...

Abdulaziz al-Omari still alive?

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:44:30 AM

  (0+)

Then show me the bodies ....AND the autopsy report!

Is it your contention that just because there is no body recovered (and, therefore, no autopsy), that a person said to be killed in the 9/11 attacks is, in fact, still alive?

It's a yes or no question.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:11:24 AM

  (0+)

...and both my ulnar nerves are damaged, which results in diminished motor control in the hands, among other disagreeable effects. Text in all-bold type is painful to sensitive and ageing eyes. It also comes across as a form of yelling, rather like all-caps, since bold type is normally used as emphasis of a word or a phrase.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:47:57 AM

  (0+)

if no Arabs had been autopsied, it wouldn't necessarily follow that, because they had not been, there were no Arabs on board. The point is that the autopsy list (that Olmsted requested and received) is not, in and of itself, the final determining factor of who was and was not a passenger on the flight. Sorry --but that's all you've got and you 'ain't' got even that! A dead body is evidence of death! When it comes to hijackers, you don't have that. Show me the body! Is it your contention that just because there is no body recovered (and, therefore, no autopsy), that a person said to be killed in the 9/11 attacks is, in fact, still alive? It's a yes or no question. It's not a 'yes' or 'no' answer which is as follows: you can't determine death without a body and you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court without an pathologist's report!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:48:15 AM

  (0+)

For details of all the alleged 9/11 terrorists who are still alive today, along with links to the sources, go to http://tinyurl.com/4fo4b

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:17:50 AM

  (0+)

For details of all the alleged 9/11 terrorists who are still alive today, along with links to the sources, go to...

For a detailed debunking on the whole hijackers-are-still-alive bullcrap, go here.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:37:54 AM

  (0+)

It is well-known that 911myths.com is a mendacious right-wing shill site that has no credibility whatsoever.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:52:50 AM

  (0+)

It is well-known that 911myths.com is a mendacious right-wing shill site that has no credibility whatsoever.

So you have no intention of dealing with anything contained in the link... No intention, whatsoever?

It must be a blissfull life you lead... willfully wallowing in your own ignorance.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:06:45 AM

  (0+)

So you have no intention of dealing with anything contained in the link... No intention, whatsoever?

I have already dealt with it - it is a pile of feces which has been thoroughly debunked by your (far, far) betters. There is no reason why I should go and wade through it do demonstrate that it is nothing but a septic tank, at best. You are welcome to spend your life bathing in it, I have far better things to do.

It must be a blissfull life you lead... willfully wallowing in your own ignorance.

If I am ignorant, you don't even exist. Oh, and truly educated and knowledgeable people write "wilfully", only the rabble use "willfully". Yes, both are correct, but the latter is used by the badly educated.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:27:35 AM

  (0+)

I have already dealt with it...

No, you never did. And this is plain for all to see, here and now.

That's okay. The link (and the information contained therein) remains out there and completely unchallenged.

I'm content to let the readers decide for themselves.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:45:15 AM

  (0+)

It screwed up my html, and left out most of what I wrote. So don't you go saying "Yeah, it is", because you are in no position to know how I wrote it, and you are a liar.

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:58:29 AM

  (0+)

It screwed up my html, and left out most of what I wrote.

Okay. I believe you.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:14:23 AM

  (0+)

For a detailed debunking on the whole hijackers-are-still-alive bullcrap, go

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

9Eleven myths dot com is a crappy site full of lies and misinformation. It is THIS site that MANUFACTURED the fancy graphic that it fallaciously calls: 'OFFICIAL MANIFEST IMAGES"

Utter nonsense...anyone with photoshop can work up a schematic and label in any way they want.

this so-called "official image" is NOT official, has no pedigree, and it is in NO WAY official.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:13:14 AM

  (0+)

Eleven myths dot com is a crappy site full of lies and misinformation...

And yet you can't even begin to deal with any of the arguments contained therein.

That's okay. I fully-expected this discussion to devolve into name-calling and insults.

At least you didn't fail in that regard.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:58:50 AM

  (0+)

Apparently, Amer Abbas Bukhari died a year previously when the small plane he was flying crashed in Florida. These Al Qaeda are amazing, their year-old corpses can hijack and pilot planes!

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:38:14 AM

  (0+)

Thursday October 18, 2001

"Current American policies have done nothing to assuage Muslim anger at American injustices worldwide. Without offering clear proof (or even reasonable evidence) of Usama's wrongdoing, the US demanded that he be handed over. Despite its "evidence" against the alleged hijackers unravelling, it still demanded compliance. At least five of the 19 persons named by the FBI as being involved in the hijacks on September 11 have turned out to be still alive.

"They are: Adnan Zakaria Bukhari (Saudi citizen living in Vero Beach, Florida); Captain Saeed al-Ghamdi (in Tunisia); Captain Abdalrahman al-Omari (Saudia pilot, in Jeddah); Amer Kamfar (Saudi flight engineer, in Makkah) and Marwan al-Shehhi (in Morocco). A sixth, Amer Abbas Bukhari, died a year ago when the small plane he was flying crashed in Florida. This information has not only been carried by the Saudi Gazette (September 18) and the Khaleej Times (September 20) but also by Robert Fisk in the Independent, a British national daily, on September 17. CNN was also forced to issue a correction on September 13, after showing Adnan Bukhari's picture the day before and accusing him of being one of the hijackers. Bukhari's lawyer contacted the FBI to say that his client was not involved in the attacks and was willing to be interviewed."

Source: click here

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:48:07 AM

  (0+)

Another nail in the coffin...another wooden stake driven through the heart of this evil beast.

 Now we are expected to believe that this man ROSE FROM THE DEAD in order to strike the Great Satan on 911. 

It's not so much the stupidity of Bush and his gang, it's the fact that they think we are as stupid as they are. But as someone said: no one every went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.  

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:51:35 AM

  (0+)

It seems that the tinyurl function doesn't work correctly here, so here is the link to the source of my above quote:

by Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:12:15 AM

  (0+)

Apparently, Amer Abbas Bukhari died a year previously when the small plane he was flying crashed in Florida...

Ameer Bukhari

Ameer Abbas Bukhari (امیر البخاری) was initially reported by CNN to be one of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11 as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and was mistakenly referenced as being the brother of Adnan Bukhari - another man accused of being one of the hijackers.

I believe Bukhari was ruled out as a suspect.

by F. Apoda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:01:51 AM

  (0+)