Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
… and you, Dilbert, are right! ...
|
YAY!!!!!!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Freaky things do happen, and plane crashes are no exceptions.
Claims that two passports or visas of hijackers of flight 93, and one from a WTC plane hijacker were recovered, post crash, just seems beyond "freaky" to me. The flight 93 "debris field" is the last place that I would expect that two hijackers' passports would be found.
|
There are a lot of weird things that happen in plane crashes, if you look at the pictured I posted, you will see there are 2 driver’s license, and a business card. When the plane hit the ground, the back would crash into the front creating pressure inside the cabin, as it ruptured this pressure would blow light objects out, other than that, if the passport was covered by something heavy and not likely to burn would preserve the paper. I think if you were able to see everything that was recovered, you would find most of the passports, and identifications, but they don’t make the news, however the terrorist passports do make the news.
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200068-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/PA00109-1.jpg
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
The prosecutors emphasis on evidence exhibits from flight 93, and the CVR audio during the Moussouai trial penalty phase is also "odd", to me.
Please provide examples of my "late" edits of my past posts. The only things that I can think of are the pictures that I posted last week, on a post early in this thread. All edits are time/date stamped here at TFP. I did not edit that post, the problem is there is with the "free web space" provider....not with any edit I performed.....
|
I’m unfamiliar with with the CVR audio during the Moussouai trial, you have a good link?
As for changing post,
I quoted you as saying
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Jim Hoffman's argument is in opposition to the idea that there is any reason to suspect that the official descritption of the four hijacked 9/11 airliners were two 767's that crashed into the WTC towers, and two 757's' flights 77 and 93....
I posted his argument and the wrecked jet engine on Murray St., NYC photo links of the man who Jim Hoffman is challenging, Morgan Reynolds.
If I was Jim Hoffman, the most convincing way to rebut Morgan Reynold's contentions would be to dispute the authenticity of the Murray St. wrecked jet engine core photos. Jim Hoffman does not do that!
The only reason that the Jim Hoffman linked quote box is in my post is to make the point that the photos are authentic. The photos are vital to my argument. I anticipated that they might be challenged as a hoax. I hope this post will prompt you to reevaluate my argument and the photo evidence and contrasts.
|
When I quote some one, I try to never take sections out from a quote, if I don’t want part of it, I’ll break it into 2 quotes.
I looked back yesterday and your post look like it was changed to include
Quote:
|
Hint: disputing the authenticity of the Murray St. photo would be the best way to weaken my argument. I don't see either Dilbert or Ustwo doing that. Before I spent time using the Murray St. photo as a starting point, I needed to increase my confidence that the photos are not fakes. So much of the 9/11 coverage that existed on the internet is now "gone". Most of the NY Times coverage is hidden behind "Times Select" premium access, for example.
|
I don’t recall that ‘hint’ from when I initially quoted you. The log says ‘Last edited by host : 05-04-2006 at 11:27 AM.’
Now fixing spelling is fine, even making things more clear, like removing ‘it’, ‘them’, ‘they’ with the actual party’s name is helpful. I could have just missed that it was in the initial post, at this point it does not matter, you understand my side and agree with me.