Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded On 9/11

[Btodd]

Whatbogsends, this is from the first article you quoted as evidence for Saudi Government involvement:

"But sources said there is no conclusive evidence the Saudi government intentionally funded terror activities against the United States.Fifteen of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis. The Saudi government has condemned their actions.

A U.S. government official said it is not unusual for wealthy Saudi families to send money to less affluent Saudi students. In addition, the official said, that money often is sent through the Saudi Embassy.

Adel Al-Jubeir, a foreign policy adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, told CNN that Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, wife of Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is "a very generous woman" who supports many charitable causes.

The princess, however, never sent any money directly to the two hijackers, Al-Jubeir said. An investigation by her office has found the princess sent money to a woman on her charity recipient list and that woman then sent the money to the students.

Al-Faisal does not know who the woman is or why she was on her list, Al-Jubeir said.

"The FBI investigated this matter six months ago [and] the embassy cooperated with them fully," Al-Jubeir said.

He compared the embassy's situation to that of any U.S. bank in which the hijackers might have had an account. The bank, he said, would be no more guilty of aiding the hijackers than is the Saudi embassy."



I think you're stretching it quite a bit to say that's evidence of the Saudi Government's involvement in 9/11. While I'm no fan of the Saudi government or their brutal customs, this is hardly anything more than wishful thinking and anomaly argumentation that I've expressed frustration at before. No matter how far removed or coincidental, it's as if my mind is supposed to fill in the gap and say, "It must have been the Saudi Government, then".



Btodd

 

[whatbogsends]

Whatbogsends, this is from the first article you quoted as evidence for Saudi Governemnt involvement:

"But sources said there is no conclusive evidence the Saudi government intentionally funded terror activities against the United States.Fifteen of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis. The Saudi government has condemned their actions.

A U.S. government official said it is not unusual for wealthy Saudi families to send money to less affluent Saudi students. In addition, the official said, that money often is sent through the Saudi Embassy.

Adel Al-Jubeir, a foreign policy adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, told CNN that Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, wife of Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is "a very generous woman" who supports many charitable causes.

The princess, however, never sent any money directly to the two hijackers, Al-Jubeir said. An investigation by her office has found the princess sent money to a woman on her charity recipient list and that woman then sent the money to the students.

Al-Faisal does not know who the woman is or why she was on her list, Al-Jubeir said.

"The FBI investigated this matter six months ago [and] the embassy cooperated with them fully," Al-Jubeir said.

He compared the embassy's situation to that of any U.S. bank in which the hijackers might have had an account. The bank, he said, would be no more guilty of aiding the hijackers than is the Saudi embassy."

I think you're stretching it quite a bit to say that's evidence of the Saudi Government's involvement in 9/11. While I'm no fan of the Saudi government or their brutal customs, this is hardly anything more than wishful thinking, in my opinion.

Btodd

So, you're dismissing the content of the last two articles out of hand?

 

[WayWord]

If the terrorists who leveled the Twin Towers were from any other religion than ISLAM, the official report would be treated as gospel. ESPECIALLY if the hijackers had been Christians.

Only Muslims could hijack planes, kill thousands of civilians, and have all these people go through all these intellectual and logical contortions and distortions to blame anyone or anything else.

Huh? I'm a Christian.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

In the very least it shows a contradiction to the bush doctrine on terrorism. Imagine if 15 hijackers came from iraq instead of saudi arabia?

 

[WayWord]

You never answered my question. You called the BBC article garbage for claiming 'the fbi positively tagged all the hijackers". What the article claimed is that the " FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers."

So, I ask again, who was lying? The BBC or the FBI?

Just admit that you can't answer my questions about the DNA evidence or the passports.

 

[oldbetang]

Just admit that you can't answer my questions about the DNA evidence or the passports.

Your questions were not directed at me. I just wanted to shine light on the most blatant, and a most oft repeated, lie regarding hijackers. That light seemed to have silenced you on the matter.


Regarding the DNA evidence:

Four sets of remains in Pennsylvania and five at the Pentagon were grouped together as the hijackers - but not identified by name - through a process of elimination. ​

Families of the airplanes' passengers and crews and those who died within the Pentagon provided DNA samples, typically on toothbrushes or hairbrushes, to aid with identification. The remains that didn't match any of the samples were ruled to be the terrorists, said Chris Kelly, spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which did the DNA work. The nine sets of remains matched the number of hijackers believed to be on the two planes.​

Keep in mind that the hijackers names were on the official flight manifests and most ,if not all , of the hijackers were caught on airport security videos. All of the five hijackers of Flight 77 were for sure.

What was your question about passports again? "Were they dipped in the River Styx?" Why would they need to have been?

 

[WayWord]

Your questions were not directed at me. I just wanted to shine light on the most blatant, and a most oft repeated, lie regarding hijackers. That light seemed to have silenced you on the matter.


Regarding the DNA evidence:

Four sets of remains in Pennsylvania and five at the Pentagon were grouped together as the hijackers - but not identified by name - through a process of elimination. ​

Families of the airplanes' passengers and crews and those who died within the Pentagon provided DNA samples, typically on toothbrushes or hairbrushes, to aid with identification. The remains that didn't match any of the samples were ruled to be the terrorists, said Chris Kelly, spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which did the DNA work. The nine sets of remains matched the number of hijackers believed to be on the two planes.​

Keep in mind that the hijackers names were on the official flight manifests and most ,if not all , of the hijackers were caught on airport security videos. All of the five hijackers of Flight 77 were for sure.

What was your question about passports again? "Were they dipped in the River Styx?" Why would they need to have been?

I'm asking specifically about the DNA evidence for the alleged hijackers who crashed the planes into WTC 1 & 2. Do you have evidence that the names of the hijackers were on the flight manifests?

You actually believe that a passport could possibly survive the crash into the towers and their subsequent destruction?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Not all Pent victims were id'd so how could the afaip separate 5 hijackers' remains from 5 victims' remains? They knew where they lived in the US so why not take dna from there for a match? Also, the fbi didnt have hanjour on its original list which is why some media speculated he wasnt on the manifest. The curious thing here is out of the original 5, none could be tagged as the pilot since none had flight experience. Enter hanjour's name.

 

[oldbetang]

I'm asking specifically about the DNA evidence for the alleged hijackers who crashed the planes into WTC 1 & 2.

Ok, here are your original questions on that matter;

How in the world could they possibly have recovered DNA from any of the alleged hijackers who crashed the planes into WTC 1 & 2?

And where'd they get the DNA samples to test against in order to verify their identities?


​

How did they recover DNA from any of the victims?



Remains of 9/11 hijackers identified

Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001. Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

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

Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.

"No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms Borakove said.
"We haven't finished our work, so it may be more," she added.
​

Do you have evidence that the names of the hijackers were on the flight manifests?

See for yourself:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular] United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular] Criminal No. 01-455-A
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Prosecution Trial Exhibits[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Exhibit Number [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Description [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] P200055 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Summary from Flight 93 depicting: the identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight[Listener discretion is advised. This exhibit also includes information about the other three flights hijacked on September 11] [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Download this Flash presentation as a ZIP file
This is a 27 MB file and may take several mintutes to download

[/FONT]You can also view the flight manifests here!

You actually believe that a passport could possibly survive the crash into the towers and their subsequent destruction?

First of all, the passport was recovered before the collapses of the towers. Secondly, yes, I do believe that a passport could survive the crash into the tower. If an ATM card could survive , why not a passport? These personal effects survived the crash of Flight 93. As did [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the driver's license of John Talignani.[/FONT]

 

[oldbetang]

Not all Pent victims were id'd so how could the afaip separate 5 hijackers' remains from 5 victims' remains? They knew where they lived in the US so why not take dna from there for a match? Also, the fbi didnt have hanjour on its original list which is why some media speculated he wasnt on the manifest. The curious thing here is out of the original 5, none could be tagged as the pilot since none had flight experience. Enter hanjour's name.

Naming the Dead — Confronting the Realities of
Rapid Identification of Degraded Skeletal Remains

Nuclear DNA testing (along with dental records and fingerprints) of the remains from the victims aboard American Airline (AA) Flight 77 and within the Pentagon was useful for identifying 178 of the 183 victims. Five missing individuals (four within the Pentagon and one aboard the airplane) could not be identified due to lack of biological material from the crash. Five remaining nuclear STR profiles were obtained from the crash site that did not match any references for the victims. These profiles were thought to represent the terrorists aboard the flight. The 40 victims aboard the United Airline (UA) Flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, PA, were also identified by nuclear DNA testing, dental records, and fingerprinting. Four nonmatching nuclear DNA profiles were also obtained from the crash site and again tentatively ascribed to the terrorists.

The DNA results strengthened the hypothesis that two of the terrorists were brothers, as indicated by other evidence.


Two of the terrorist STR profiles aboard the AA Flight 77 gave a sibling index greater than 500. To further test the hypothesis of maternal relatedness, AFDIL sequenced the HVI and HVII regions of mtDNA for these individuals. The sequences generated did match in HVI and HVII, which is consistent with a maternal relationship between the two men.
​

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Link doesnt work for me, got another one or a reference? Right off the bat it gives the wrong number for the victims. No biological remains? Really? Bottom line, no positive id's were made for the hijackers and since we had access to dna why didnt we do a match? Why wasnt hanjour on the first released lists from the fbi?

 

[jamesrwright3]

Link works for me

And he is avoiding telling his "theory" on the Pentagon

 

[oldbetang]

Link doesnt work for me, got another one or a reference?

All of the links work just fine.

Right off the bat it gives the wrong number for the victims.

I've seen news articles that did the same , and some even state 183 and 184 in different paragraphs. It's really not important here as it takes nothing away from the analysis.

No biological remains? Really?

Where do you get that? "Lack of biological material" does not mean "no biological remains"".

Bottom line, no positive id's were made for the hijackers

Tell that to the FBI.

and since we had access to dna why didnt we do a match?

What are you talking about?

Why wasnt hanjour on the first released lists from the fbi?

Could I see one of those alleged lists please? Because I know of no official lists released by the FBI that do not include Hani Hanjour.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I said the link doesnt work for me and the response is the 'link works just fine'? Lol-unbelievable

 

[oldbetang]

I said the link doesnt work for me and the response is the 'link works just fine'? Lol-unbelievable

It's not my problem that you are stuck in a virtual stone age.

Have you found those FBI lists yet?

 

[whatbogsends]

So, you're dismissing the content of the last two articles out of hand?

I'm taking your silence on this as "yes, i'm not even discussing the information in the last two articles you cited". (it has been almost 2 weeks...)

You do realize that your quote of "non conclusive evidence" (which is not remotely close to refuting) was from a 2002 article.

The last two articles i put forth were from 2006, one of which said there was "incontrovertible evidence" of Saudi government support, the second which stated that the 9/11 commision report redacted the section which contained information about Saudi Arabia.

Yet, despite this information (which you didn't even address) your stance was that Saudi involvement is "wishful thinking".

Despite admitting that we don't (and can't) know the entire truth about 9/11, your response to anything outside of your pre-determined stance is that anything veering from the OV is automatically dismissed. You seem more interested in stifling discussion than seeking truth.

 

[Btodd]

I'm taking your silence on this as "yes, i'm not even discussing the information in the last two articles you cited". (it has been almost 2 weeks...)

You do realize that your quote of "non conclusive evidence" (which is not remotely close to refuting) was from a 2002 article.

Oh yeah, I was dodging you. You really have my back against the wall with your speculation.

The last two articles i put forth were from 2006, one of which said there was "incontrovertible evidence" of Saudi government support, the second which stated that the 9/11 commision report redacted the section which contained information about Saudi Arabia.

Correction. The article no more than says, 'an un-named source says they found a memo from an un-named person that said there was incontrovertible evidence', and that's what I'm supposed to be impressed with?

I can rebut it with several other un-named sources, will you accept them?

How about we have an un-named source allegation party?

Yet, despite this information (which you didn't even address) your stance was that Saudi involvement is "wishful thinking".

Despite admitting that we don't (and can't) know the entire truth about 9/11, your response to anything outside of your pre-determined stance is that anything veering from the OV is automatically dismissed. You seem more interested in stifling discussion than seeking truth.

Perhaps I'm a government shill?

Seriously, get over yourself. You haven't produced squat, and you're relegated to using the OV and simply adding more conspiracy on top of it (which, in a twist of irony, makes you the most reasonable of all Truthers simply by adopting the OV). Meanwhile, I'm supposed to keep rebutting claims that can't be substantiated, or it means I'm hiding from you.

If you see that as a victory, then your standards are very low, indeed.


Btodd

 

[whatbogsends]

Oh yeah, I was dodging you. You really have my back against the wall with your speculation.

Correction. The article no more than says, 'an un-named source says they found a memo from an un-named person that said there was incontrovertible evidence', and that's what I'm supposed to be impressed with?

I can rebut it with several other un-named sources, will you accept them?

How about we have an un-named source allegation party?

Perhaps I'm a government shill?

Seriously, get over yourself. You haven't produced squat, and you're relegated to using the OV and simply adding more conspiracy on top of it (which, in a twist of irony, makes you the most reasonable of all Truthers simply by adopting the OV). Meanwhile, I'm supposed to keep rebutting claims that can't be substantiated, or it means I'm hiding from you.

If you see that as a victory, then your standards are very low, indeed.


Btodd

So your answer is "yes, i'm disregarding the content of the articles because it doesn't agree with my previously stated position".

Are you suggesting that Bob Graham is lying about the CIA memo? Are you suggesting that multiple sources are making purely speculative claims about the omission of information regarding Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 commission report?

Moreover, you understand that Bob Graham (as was the 9/11 commission report itself) has been censured, and legally prohibitted from revealing specific information.

However, as usual, you claim that the source isn't a "real" source because it refers to a memo from an un-named CIA agent.

Your attitude in this discussion is much more revealing than the content of your discussion. Your not supposed to be "impressed" with the evidence i've presented. But an unbiased person might be intrigued by these strong claims made by people who have access to information that the government has classified. Instead, since they can't produce the classified information, you deem it fit not only to dismiss the claims made, but to ridicule the suggestion of inspecting the claims.

You are certainly a shill for the OV of 9/11. Every post you've made on the subject attempts to attack the character of those who question the OV, while not giving credence - or even consideration - to any source which questions the OV. It's not like you read the articles, and reached the conclusion that they were insufficient - your methodology was much more on the line of reading just enough of the articles in an effort to find some hole to poke in it. Not actually refuting any of the substance, just providing enough "doubt" that you can go about with your hand-waiving dismissal of anything not in lock-step with your stance.

This isn't about "winning" or "losing". It's about understanding as much of the truth as we can about the actions of our government, which, in regards to 9/11 and it's aftermath, have been questionable, at best.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

So while we’re back to questioning what hit the pentagon, can we get an answer for where the other plane and pilots came from? Because any contention around “Hanjour couldn’t fly the plane” or “we didn’t find so-and-so’s remains” automatically makes the assumption that something else hit the pentagon. A something else for which there is no photographic evidence, no eyewitness evidence, no video evidence, no radar evidence and no wreckage evidence.

 

[Btodd]

So your answer is "yes, i'm disregarding the content of the articles because it doesn't agree with my previously stated position".

It works both ways. If I present an article that says the FBI clearly denies the connections alleged by Graham, and you don't believe it....will I be able to accuse you of the same?

My answer is, 'I don't see anything but speculation about Saudi Government involvement in those articles'. I can easily turn your statement around toward you; you can't claim to be any more objective than I can.

Are you suggesting that Bob Graham is lying about the CIA memo?

Is lying the only option? Could he have received incorrect intelligence? Could he be turning a coincidence of a transaction going through the embassy, through an intermediary, into 'direct involvement with the Saudi Government'? Could you?

Also, could he have been lied to? Could he be trumping things up for political reasons? There are a lot of options other than the one you're going for. Incidentally, what if I was saying he's lying? Aren't you accusing multiple people (from different countries and agencies) of the same thing? How is an accusation about a found memo supposed to be disproved to you now?

Am I supposed to produce a non-memo as counter evidence?

Are you suggesting that multiple sources are making purely speculative claims about the omission of information regarding Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 commission report?

No, I think the omission of information involved particulars that cannot be released for security reasons, as was stated. If you don't like that answer, it's for no less objective reasons than mine.

Moreover, you understand that Bob Graham (as was the 9/11 commission report itself) has been censured, and legally prohibitted from revealing specific information.

However, as usual, you claim that the source isn't a "real" source because it refers to a memo from an un-named CIA agent.

Again, it's an un-named source that claims the memo from an un-named agent, and the mention of 'proof' as if the very word itself is proof. There are two 'un-named' in the chain. Please don't imply that I'm being hard-headed on why that's not convincing to me. If that's enough for you.....that's enough for you.

Your attitude in this discussion is much more revealing than the content of your discussion. Your not supposed to be "impressed" with the evidence i've presented. But an unbiased person might be intrigued by these strong claims made by people who have access to information that the government has classified. Instead, since they can't produce the classified information, you deem it fit not only to dismiss the claims made, but to ridicule the suggestion of inspecting the claims.

Lay off the 'unbiased' charade. You are not unbiased, and cannot expect anyone to be so. It's an ideal, and not one you practice, either. You're the only person who's made this particular stance on 9/11 on this site, are you the only objective one, then? The other Truthers are too biased in that direction....I'm too biased toward the government....and you sit, objectively, in the middle?

You are certainly a shill for the OV of 9/11. Every post you've made on the subject attempts to attack the character of those who question the OV, while not giving credence - or even consideration - to any source which questions the OV.

Every post I've ever made was an attack on character? I think you're venting now, because even I can't fill up page after page with nothing but personal attacks, and definitely spent a (useless) amount of time rebutting specific claim after specific claim in more than one of these threads. Are you sure you're right about this, or just mad at me right now?

It's not like you read the articles, and reached the conclusion that they were insufficient - your methodology was much more on the line of reading just enough of the articles in an effort to find some hole to poke in it. Not actually refuting any of the substance, just providing enough "doubt" that you can go about with your hand-waiving dismissal of anything not in lock-step with your stance.

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black! Just enough doubt....and confirmation bias. Touche'.

This isn't about "winning" or "losing". It's about understanding as much of the truth as we can about the actions of our government, which, in regards to 9/11 and it's aftermath, have been questionable, at best.

If it wasn't about winning, you would have moved on, convinced that I'm not worth your unbiased objectivity. And I haven't noticed you putting questions to the other side in any of these debates....since you've obviously moved on to accept the OV (but with suspicion of further involvement), I would find your claim of being unbiased more believable if you did.

There's a really apt comparison of this with moderate vs. fundamentalist religious belief (in particular, echoing a point by Sam Harris) I would love to make right now, but I don't think the point would ever get through the perception that I intend it for ridicule and not insight.


Btodd