The FBI Has No Record of Any Evidence of the 4 Flights Used on 9/11

RedIbis said:
Yes, I think it's possible that at least two were misidentified (77 and 93). I think it's counterskeptical to accept that since their IDs were never in question it wasn't necessary to keep records that document the investigation.
Click to expand...

Doubting something just because there is no doubt of it is not skepticism. It's denialism.
 
lee5 said:
I have never seen somebody get knocked down so many times and still get up (Red).

:boggled:
Click to expand...

No, that analogy isn't quite right.

It's more like, there is a brick wall in Red's face, but he continues to attempt to walk forward, such that in a comical fashion, his legs are moving but he is going nowhere because there is a brick wall in his way. The wall is right in his face but he keeps on trying to walk, even though he cant. Never does it occur to him to abandon his irrational belief that he can walk through walls, and just go around.
 
Profanz said:
Hey Phantom? Don't ask me a question if you're not going to answer mine. If you or your friend want to bring up the data as some kind of proof of something then produce the data and produce it for all four flights.

But before you even attempt to do so (not that you will) maybe someone here should answer RedIbis first now that this thread is five pages.
Click to expand...

Gee Pro, did you come to this site looking for answers before you started looking for answers?

Or maybe, you came across a site that speculated the FBI was part and parcel of a larger conspiracy since the FBI did not request the evidence of the crashed planes and concluded the same FBI must be part of a cover-up?

So here you are in this forum looking for answers.
The thing I am most curious about with you is how much investigating have you done toward searching for evidence prior to coming here?
 
Is this BS all just fun and games to pass time for RedIbis, or does he actually think he is being logical, using critical thinking, and "pwnzoring" everyone here on a daily basis?

Jesus... this guy is either clueless or just plain trolling.
 
Whiplash said:
Jesus... this guy is either clueless or just plain trolling.
Click to expand...

its both. he takes pleasure in trolling (seeing that the deaths of 3000 is some form of entertainment by claiming that they were in on it).

Which is why, i grow tired of the likes of RI and TF, DC , TLB and their ilk. its pointless to debate them

What we should concentrate on is on the fence sitters and ignore the blatant hatred of the resident troofers, who are only here to troll.
 
johnny karate said:
Perhaps RedIbis believes the staff at United and American originally suspected The Truth, but later "changed their minds" the way he believes the firefighters at WTC7 did.
Click to expand...

Or one person high up at UA or AA declared they were lost and everyone else just believed them.
 
funk de fino said:
Or one person high up at UA or AA declared they were lost and everyone else just believed them.
Click to expand...

Either way, RedIbis certainly likes to fantasize about living in a world where he is much smarter or braver than everyone else.
 
RedIbis said:
It's a bit confusing because right under Exhibit E it says FBI because they're the defendant.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. You may want to look at it again.

The entirety of the August 22, 2008 document to which you refer is all about the NTSB, although Monaghan filed the document as "Exhibits" in his litigation against the FBI (without said 'exhibits' actually being appended to anything). On the first page, he lists the exhibits, and all of them from A through G, with the exception of F, are specifically identified as NTSB documents or communications (F is identified as an "illustration from the 'Pentagon Building Performance Report'").

The exhibits are all clearly identified as originating from the NTSB and not the FBI. Exhibit E - from which you purported to quote - is specifically identified on page one as "NTSB FOIA responses indicating no records pertaining to positively identified wreckage identified by the aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001" and both of the Exhibit E letters are clearly on NTSB letterhead.

It is very difficult to understand how you could purport to "quote" from this letter as you did, saying that it states clearly that the FBI "doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information" when to do so, you had to ignore the word (well, acronym) that is sitting right there in front of the cherrypicked 'quote' you used, which actually says: "the NTSB doesn't have any records regarding the above requested information".

I'm sorry but, objectively, it looks more like dishonesty than inadvertence since it is very difficult to understand how you could miss entirely the letterhead, the words, the descriptions, and the acronym one mere space away from your 'quote', while simultaneously picking out nine words from a 21 page document to wrongly attribute to the FBI. Can you please explain how you could miss all of the obvious references to the NTSB while getting the nine words exactly right but citing it as an FBI quote, particularly in light of the placement of "NTSB" one tiny little space to the left of the quote you cited?


RedIbis said:
So we can add another gov't agency that has kept no records of the investigation.
Click to expand...


Nice attempted deflection, and yet another exaggerated/dishonest claim. It is completely inaccurate to say that either the FBI or the NTSB "has kept no records of the investigation". One would have thought that you would have learned by now not to make such broad and baseless accusations.


RedIbis said:
I will say that I learn from these exchanges and will drop any snarkiness or general hostility if you do the same. This isn't a competition. I make mistakes. This is a long and complex learning process.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a refreshing change of attitude.

I have to say, though, that you really should start reading more carefully and you really ought to stop making unfounded accusations, particularly those of a sweeping nature, if you expect not to attract criticism on a skeptics' forum for the content of your posts which demonstrate these and other flaws viz rational and critical thinking skills.

As for dropping snarkiness or general hostility, sure, I'm game.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Yes, I think it's possible that at least two were misidentified (77 and 93). I think it's counterskeptical to accept that since their IDs were never in question it wasn't necessary to keep records that document the investigation.
Click to expand...
Your attempt at logic fails, we find the DNA from 93 and 77 passengers was found in PA, and the Pentagon.

Since you have no supporting evidence for your failed ideas, you lost!

This is how it goes, if they were not able to match the DNA to the passengers, then they would have to figure out why. But with both FDR found, and the DNA, you are so full of junk ideas.
 
Hi

If I may, having worked a little with the F.B.I., some with the B.A.T.F. and considerably with the Secret Service, I'd like to describe the process by which they probably decided which airplanes were which.

First: Noticed that a crime has been committed.

Second: Pull together details of the crime.

Third: Make a guess about the nature of the crime, or a detail of the crime.

Fourth: Reexamine the evidence and look for more evidence based on the guess.

Fifth: Analyze all the newly available evidence.

Sixth: Apply the information and evidence to validate or invalidate the guess.

Seventh: If the guess is invalidated, return to the Third Step and reformulate another guess
based on all of the collected evidence.

Otherwise....

Eighth: Give others a shot at the validated guess along with all the collected evidence and see what they say.

Ninth: If they poke holes in your guess, return to the Third Step and reformulate another guess based on all of the collected evidence and whatever it was that the others did to poke holes in the old guess.

This is a rigorous process, and it frequently requires several iterations from the Third Step on, but what drops out of the end is usually as close to the facts as is investigatively possible.

This process may look kind of familiar to some of you....
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Yes, I think it's possible that at least two were misidentified (77 and 93).
Click to expand...


Red, some time ago in another thread, you expressed the belief that the hijackers may have been patsies. I'm struggling with the concept of patsies being aboard planes which were other than 77 and 93. What are we talking about? Military planes disguised as civilian airliners? Or are we going no-planer? The patsies were just names, there were no planes and the crash scenes faked?

Just out of interest, why are you more sure/less skeptical about AA11 and UA175?
 
sleahead said:
Red, some time ago in another thread, you expressed the belief that the hijackers may have been patsies. I'm struggling with the concept of patsies being aboard planes which were other than 77 and 93. What are we talking about? Military planes disguised as civilian airliners? Or are we going no-planer? The patsies were just names, there were no planes and the crash scenes faked?

Just out of interest, why are you more sure/less skeptical about AA11 and UA175?
Click to expand...

Less skeptical because there is film of them crashing into the towers.
 
Hah. Like video can't be faked.

What I find intriguing ... No, that is the wrong word. I find it "eye-rollingly-willfully-stupid" -- is that Red I. doesn't refer to the tens of thousands of people in lower Manhattan, New Jersey, and Brooklyn (Staten Island? in the actual Harbor, for example on the Ferry?) who witnessed or experienced the events.

As someone said upthread, this is mere denialism. It's unworthy not only of the word skepticism, it's unworthy of the notion of halfway conscious and coherent thought.
 
SDC said:
What I find intriguing ... No, that is the wrong word. I find it "eye-rollingly-willfully-stupid" -- is that Red I. doesn't refer to the tens of thousands of people in lower Manhattan, New Jersey, and Brooklyn (Staten Island? in the actual Harbor, for example on the Ferry?) who witnessed or experienced the events.
Click to expand...

RedIbis is a big believer in the persuasive power of whoever masterminded the conspiracy. He believes the firefighters at WTC7 "had their minds changed" about what they witnessed, so why not everyone else in the area?
 
johnny karate said:
RedIbis is a big believer in the persuasive power of whoever masterminded the conspiracy. He believes the firefighters at WTC7 "had their minds changed" about what they witnessed, so why not everyone else in the area?
Click to expand...

Well, it's no crazier than the theory that someone flew an airliner over the Pentagon, and at the exact moment said plane flew over a missle (or something) hit the building -- and eyewitnesses interpreted this rather astonishing turn of events as a plane crashing into the Pentagon, and somehow no one saw the plane continuing on its merry way. Yes, it's no crazier than that.

Of course, that's not saying much.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
RedIbis is a big believer in the persuasive power of whoever masterminded the conspiracy. He believes the firefighters at WTC7 "had their minds changed" about what they witnessed, so why not everyone else in the area?
Click to expand...

Since you used quotation marks, I expect you to produce the quote or apologize for misrepresenting my position.
 
RedIbis said:
For one thing that has nothing to do with the exchange you quoted. Secondly, go and read post #149 and then go back and read it again.
Click to expand...

Post #149 shows you stating that the documents state that the FBI has no evidence... etc. This has shown to be false.
 
RedIbis said:
For one thing that has nothing to do with the exchange you quoted.
Click to expand...

I never claimed it did

red said:
Secondly, go and read post #149 and then go back and read it again.
Click to expand...

Secondly, go and read the thread title and then go back and read it again

It is a false claim. The FBI do indeed have records of evidence of the flights used that day. The evidence is even available online. I think you may need to reword the thread title to get it to mean what you think it means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom