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

In #149, red debunks himself by posting
RedIbis said:
That request was for "records revealing the process by which wreckage recovered from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified as belonging to" the four flights.
Click to expand...
One important thing that is shown in Exhibit A is that the serial numbers of the FDR's listed in other crashes are from FAA and/or Airline records, not from the FDR's themselves. I can see why, since the serial numbers can be destroyed during a crash while the internal assembly remains intact.
 
RedIbis said:
Since you used quotation marks, I expect you to produce the quote or apologize for misrepresenting my position.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding, RedIbis, in light of your numerous and blatant misquotes, cherrypicking, unsupported accusations here (none of which you have ever apologized for) and particularly in light of your dishonest mis-attributing of quotes exposed in this very thread (which you attempted, very, very lamely and entirely unsuccessfully, to justify).

Unbelievable!

Oh, and see post #208.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
You have got to be kidding, RedIbis, in light of your numerous and blatant misquotes, cherrypicking, unsupported accusations here (none of which you have ever apologized for) and particularly in light of your dishonest mis-attributing of quotes exposed in this very thread (which you attempted, very, very lamely and entirely unsuccessfully, to justify).

Unbelievable!

Oh, and see post #208.
Click to expand...

What happened to being "game"? Couldn't resist indignation and exaggeration, I see.

But most importantly, how can you possibly defend someone using quotation marks around a phrase I never said? And when asking for proof, you scoff at it?

So much for attempting civility, I'll go back to snarky now.
 
LashL said:
your numerous and blatant misquotes.
Click to expand...

Start listing them.

All the rest of your bluster is a difference of opinion. Unfortunately for you, you have to back this one up with specific references.

In fact, there will be no other discourse between the two of us unless you can provide evidence for this claim. Hoist by your own petard, as you should never defend blatant misquoting.
 
This thread more than any other has revealed how intellectually dishonest (and an outright liar) RedIbis really is.
 
RedIbis said:
WildCat said:
This thread more than any other has revealed how intellectually dishonest (and an outright liar) RedIbis really is.
Click to expand...

Specific as usual.
Click to expand...
Already spelled out by LashL:
LashL said:
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?





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.




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.
Click to expand...
And then, of course, there's the title of this thread. :rolleyes:
 
WildCat said:
This thread more than any other has revealed how intellectually dishonest (and an outright liar) RedIbis really is.
Click to expand...


Indeed. I think I now see why he so rarely makes a positive statement about anything.

So, he either 1) knew full well that this was an NTSB document and consciously decided to engage in misinformation and misattribute it to the FBI, or 2) he actually got this from a third party and utterly failed to show any signs of skepticism, instead taking it on faith and reproducing incorrect information that could have easily been debunked.

Of course: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

That'll certainly show us arrogant debunkers. Way to go, RedIbis... way to go... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Since you used quotation marks, I expect you to produce the quote or apologize for misrepresenting my position.
Click to expand...

You do realize that quotation marks can be used to denote irony, right?

And here's the statement of yours I was referencing:

RedIbis said:
I don't doubt for a second that these firefighters came to agree with the official explanations "after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.
Click to expand...

Within the context of the discussion it was taken from, the implication seems pretty clear.

If you feel your position is being misrepresented, feel free to provide clarification here where you were invited to do just that multiple times.
 
RedIbis said:
Does the FBI have any records which reveal the process by which the four flights were identified?
Click to expand...

Would you believe the FBI if they gave you the records?

Did you believe the NIST reports?
Did you believe the FDR reports?
Did you believe the prosecutors or evidence presented at the Moussoui trial?

If you said no the the last three questions, why would your answer be yes to the first?

What would be the point of requesting the FBI report if you you already have predispotion to deny the validity of the FBI report?

If the report exists, it would have been based on the evidence recovered at the scene. You have already said that the evidence at the scene is questionable so the report would be useless to you.
 
RedIbis said:
Does the FBI have any records which reveal the process by which the four flights were identified?
Click to expand...
That's not the title of the thread.
This is:
RedIbis said:
The FBI Has No Record of Any Evidence of the 4 Flights Used on 9/11
Click to expand...
This is not exactly true, as has been pointed out. Where does the FBI state this specific statement?
 
He is just asking questions, his sig says how it should be.
12447460d8430f0ca9.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hi

I asked a fellow I ran into while handing out Debunking 9/11 Truth Movement Myths information at a 9/11 Truth Movement presentation why we should spend tax-payer money for another investigation.

He said, "they spent so much money on it already, why not do an investigation?"

I said, "they did an investigation."

His reply: "yeah, but... that one's wrong!"

As he walked away, I couldn't help but wonder...

:confused: why would a second investigation, saying pretty much what the first one said, be right? :confused:

Can some Truther explain exactly why we should pay for another investigation when all the independent reviews of the report have said substantially the same things?

What do you expect to be different?

Oh - and - the entire presentation hinged on five things:

1) Information released early in the investigation was different than information released later in the investigation, so both must be false (see: Scientific Method - oh - I posted that above....)
2) Information printed in the newspapers was not identical to that presented at trial, so the lists are both incorrect (See: Treatment of Evidence During an On-Going Investigation, and newspapers in question, which printed lists of, "victims' names," and not, "victims' and suspects' names.")
3) The FBI didn't present all the evidence it had, so the unpresented evidence must be false (see: Rules of Evidence)
4) They had proof, but no PROOF of the proof (isn't that what this thread is about?), and
5) Things I can't believe or seem odd can't be true (See: Argument from Incredulity)

All in all, it was pretty boring, but the Truthers were doing their best bobble-head impersonations and actually cheering.

When my friend, who knows more about cell phones than the rest of the people in the auditorium put together, asked about the records of the pre-9/11 cell phone calls from planes, all the Truthers started yelling, "NO!" and "DIDN'T HAPPEN! DIDN'T HAPPEN!"

Ah, well.

I didn't ask any questions because they were limiting them to one question per customer, and there was nothing I could do in one question.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
What happened to being "game"? Couldn't resist indignation and exaggeration, I see.
Click to expand...

Way to let the point whoosh right over your head, RedIbis.

The point was that you have made numerous misleading posts here that include blatant misquoting, cherrypicking, and unsupported accusations for which you have never apologized and, in this very thread, you were proven to have misquoted someone and proven to have misquoted a document - apparently deliberately in order to further your agenda - and instead of apologizing for your misleading misquoting, you glossed over it and tried to spin it into support for your misleading OP, but then you demanded an apology from someone else for allegedly misquoting you.

Talk about chutzpah.

I am not exaggerating in the least. You have made numerous misleading posts in the categories listed above on a number of threads, many of which have been discussed in the past on those threads, and some of which have been discussed here in this thread.

RedIbis said:
But most importantly, how can you possibly defend someone using quotation marks around a phrase I never said? And when asking for proof, you scoff at it?
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? I'm not "defending" any such thing. I expressed my astonishment at the fact that you would demand an apology from someone for allegedly misquoting you, in the circumstances noted above.

RedIbis said:
I'll go back to snarky now.
Click to expand...

You never stopped.

RedIbis said:
Start listing them.
Click to expand...

Oh, look. Yet another example of you cherrypicking in a deceptive manner. You even added punctuation that wasn't in the original. How unsurprising. My sentence in its entirety is right there for all to read - I truly cannot comprehend how you think that cherrypicking it to twist its meaning, and then demanding that I respond to the cherrypicked portion, assists you.

RedIbis said:
All the rest of your bluster is a difference of opinion.
Click to expand...

One of us is blustering, RedIbis, but it isn't me.

RedIbis said:
Unfortunately for you, you have to back this one up with specific references.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I am under no obligation to provide references in response to your current cherrypicking. Your numerous misleading posts in the categories listed in the un-cherrypicked sentence are well known to the regulars and have been the subject of discussion in the multiple threads in which you have made them. Anyone else can easily do a search on your posts to find them.

RedIbis said:
In fact, there will be no other discourse between the two of us unless you can provide evidence for this claim.
Click to expand...

Again, and as should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension skills, my claim is not what you claim it to be, and cherrypicking will get your nowhere. But what an interesting, albeit disingenuous, way to try to get out answering the questions I asked you in post #208, which you've been studiously avoiding.

RedIbis said:
Hoist by your own petard, as you should never defend blatant misquoting.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: I did not "defend blatant misquoting" at all. As noted above, I expressed my astonishment at your demand for an apology in light of the circumstances set out above. You really need to step up your game, RedIbis.
 
Last edited:
A classic. LashL whining about punctuation. Can you please just provide examples of my "numerous and blatant misquotes" or retract it.

Do not respond to this post with a wall of rhetoric, just the examples. If they're so numerous and blatant it won't be hard to find.
 
RedIbis said:
Perhaps for the lazy. Most people use them when they are quoting. At least you admitted that I never said it.
Click to expand...

Is this ridiculous thread still going?? WOW!

Every time I see the wrongness of the headline, I kave to laugh.

Well, as I've posted about six times in this very thread evidence showing that Red's headline is wrong, and he has ignored every single post of mine, Red Ibis:

FAIL!
 
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