| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The red bandana; Child of a virgin? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 26 2008, 02:59 PM (5,906 Views) | |
| NK-44 | Mar 26 2008, 02:59 PM Post #1 |
|
Two months ago, exponent/e^n and I had an off-topic debate in another thread about the authenticity of the red bandana, supposedly from Flight 93 crash scene, and so I joined all the arguments pro and con to this thread, hence it does not get lost. As exponent has ended his absence from this forum, which began after my last response to this subject, I want to carry on, - but not with a discussion which turns in circles, as both of us presented already their points to the question, if a bandana surviving in real condition is faked or not. I would like to get an answer to the bolded part, as I think it shows your (e^n) bias and double-standard in scepticism. I don't want to start a personal debate, however it's beyond me how people could consider themselves to be sceptics, but spend so much time arguing against those who point out that the official investigation of the greatest terrorist attack in history does not hold up to the standards of a local court, beginning with the identification of the alleged perpetrators,(but certainly not ending there). Instead of spending time to contribute to the success of the demanding of a new investigation, which is what real sceptics should do, and actually are doing. First now, this is the object of the debate: 
I know you love to bring in 'personal incredulity' whenever physical facts speak against the official version. Believe me, e^n, ludicrous only in your eyes, most people see that the bandana story is a fake. And btw, of course it works also vice versa: You are simply denying the possibility (of a faked bandana) through personal incredulity which irrelevant.
E^n, your logic is flawed, and your example does not apply to the red bandana. I tell you why. Take a roof tile and let it drop from the Sears tower. It will break into a lot of fractions, dispersing on the ground. Repeat it with a million other tiles, none of them will end in the exact same result. None of them will break into fractions, which then disperse on the ground, exactly in the manner the first did. But all of them will break into fractions when hitting the ground, none of them will remain intact, all of them will disperse its fractions on the ground. The chance that you can drop two tiles from the Sears tower matching in the same result is nearly infinite. The chance that you can drop a tile without breaking is also nearly infinite (I say nearly, though in fact it will never happen. According to quantum theory it is theoretically possible that you can walk through a wall, but in reality, it will never happen. So the 'nearly' is just a reference to a possibility which exists in our minds but not in reality.) Crash 10000 planes with a bandana-wearing guy in front of it with 500mph into the ground, afterwards, no bandana will look like the other, but also no one will look like as you have just bought it in a shop. To think that this is not faked is indeed personal incredulity.
You seemed to miss my point (I know that my lack of English and therefore the failure to use always the appropriate terms doesn't ease to understand my point, but I hope everyone understands the following). Your mathematical example could not be apllied to the roof tile/bandana example. Only in one sense, and that's the uniqueness of every event. The probability of your random number to occur is 7 * 10-46, which is practically infinite. The same could be applied to my example with the roof tiles, the probability that two dropped tiles end up exactly in the same manner is practically infinite. But here the apllication ends. Don't forget that math is the abstraction from all certain qualities, an idealization to get 'pure' quantities in their relation to each other. Back to the examples. I could give ten other numbers, or another ten, what would be the probability of each to occur? It would be the same for each. Now to the tiles. Though every tile ends up in an unique manner, which has an (practically) infinite probability to NOT occur in that exact manner, like the ten numbers in your mathematical example, there is a great difference between both. No one would place a bet on, let's say in how many fractures a tile would break, where exactly the fractures would end up, etc, because there are too many coincidental factors. But if I drop a tile from the top of the Sears tower, would you bet that it breaks or not? I hope you now understand that, though every result is indeed unique and therefore seems to be coincidental in the meaning of unreproducible, is in fact determined by certain laws. In abstract, every coincidence is coincidence by determination. Would it ever make news when a tile breaks into pieces after fallen from a skyscraper? No, though every tile ends up unlike all others, and therefore, has as such never been seen before. Why wouldn't it make news? Because the unique (single) result matches the expected observations in general, it breaks, and therefore, every particularity could be disregarded as not news-worthy. That a tile breaks is no particular (in the sense of uncommon, special) event, it is a general phenomena, based on physic laws, laws which aren't reflected in your example. In your example no qualifications could be made, only a quantification of probability, which is the same for every set of ten numbers. In real life, we of course have to consider things not just as abstract quantities, but have to make qualifiable ascertainments, valuation and judgement. A qualifiable question would be a question of difference, which is not quantifiable (or could be reduced to quantification), for example: is a tile broken or is it in prestine condition after beeing dropped from the Sears tower? And regarding this question, the probability of one or another is not equal, like all probabilities in your mathematical example. When a tile ends up broken, this will never make news, but it will make news when it survives in prestine condition, because the probability is so unlikely, that we can regard it as practical non existant. We have here laws which could not be disabled, only their influence could be reduced by the effects of other laws. Let's abstract from those regarding the roof tile example, like air resistance, wind forces, etc, and take a vaccum, and let's assume that the forces of gravity affecting the tile are ten times greater then its ability to withstand these forces, then it will break. No matter how many times you repeat this. As there are no other forces like air resistance which could have reduced the gravitational force to a minimum where it not would necessarily break the tile. Sounds like a tautology, or to say better like an axiom, when I say that when a force is applied on an object ten times bigger than the object's ability to withstand that force, that the object has to be deformed by that force in any way. True, but first, this was made to illustrate a point, and second, this wasn't pure illustration, this is what we do every day in our lifes. We base our decisions on the certainty of these laws, and not on highly unlikely exceptions. E^n, here in a conspiracy forum you can argue from a point of view you wouldn't in your daily life. When I live let's say in the third floor, it would have never crossed my mind to go on the street not by taking the stair but leaving through the window, because there is a probability that I wouldn't be harmed when jumping out the window. Why should I abandon such reasonable daily life experience and acting when it comes to politics? So again, if the impact forces are over the point of resistance, every tile will break. This does not change the fact that every tile will break in an unique fashion as there are factors (molecular, quantal, etc) which could not be predicted in their exact effects (and leaves the door open for the theoretical possibility, that there could be one not breaking, like according to quantum theory, a man could walk through a wall. But I bet that no one will bet on it...). For the concrete results probabilities could be stated. Like in how many fractures the tile would break, the average size of the fractures, how far they disperse, the average disperse, etc. So these results could only be predicted within a certain probability, but that they break would be not within a certain probability, but within certainty (or so to say that 100% probability is certainty, and if you want so, you can say not 100%, it's 99,99999999999%, which has no bearing in practice, like the weight of an object has no bearing in practice when compared to earth (infinite)).
No, e^n, it does. It follows from the previous statement. It's maybe that you can't follow me. Regarding the bandanas, the difference here of which it is all about, is not how they would suffer from that impcat, but THAT they would suffer at all. Again, crash 10000 planes, all bandanas will end up different, all will end up in an unique manner. But the special one would be that one showing no signs of impacting forces at all, because that one stands in contrast to the laws applied in generally. Of course one might argue, and you're implicating that, that the effects of laws are influenced by other laws, which could counter-balance the effects of those laws. But applied to the real situation, what could these counter forces be, that prevent a bandana from signs of suffering a plane crash, the same crash which disintegrated the plane to small pieces?  A crash which left only 8% 'mostly scorched' human remains of total human bodies? A crash in which the plane supposedly burried itself deep into the ground,  including black boxes placed in the tail section, which suffered more damage then a bandana weared around the head of someone in the front of the plane?  I do not know which magic forces would have made the bandana surviving in mint condition, but I do know that this would be the unbreakable falling tile, and should therefore make big news. Has it made big news? But it should make, and I hope movies like Loose Change will help to make this big news. Because then people can decide on their own, and of course not all will come to the same conclusion like I do (and you're proof of that :-), but I'm pretty sure that the bandana-story would make a lot of (most) people sceptical of the official version, and therefore would bring us to an independent investigation a step closer.
Why must all evidence treated as faked? Where's here the logical relation? It's not about all evidence, it's about 'evidence' which stands in bright contrast to laws of nature and therefore is most likely planted. If one concedes this evidence to be faked, I don't know how you come to the conlcusion that then one have to concede that all other evidence was faked. It could have been faked in support of parts of the official version, not necessarily in support of the whole official version (aka a bandana could have been faked not to prove that Flight 93 crashed there, but to prove a part of the story, that there were hijackers on board wearing a red bandana. This would be in support of the evidence first presented in public, and that were the phone calls from passengers and crew members. )
Again, you try to make it a thing of my personal believe, whereas I showed you already that I could argue in the very same way. It's just your presonal incredulity that makes you prefer the most unlikely explanation. I know this won't convince you as anything I state, and you will go on and on and say, miracles happen, I don't know why, but if you don't believe in miracles, then it's from your personal incredulity. Have I evidence that miracles don't happen? No, I haven't, so you must be right. But I prefer the more reasonable thinking, that there was no miracle on 9/11.
With that you made it absolute clear that your whole argumentation is based on a circular logic, which would be impossible for me to break through. It could be unlikely like hell, you still won't dismiss it, as there is no evidence indicating it's fake. But of course you are aware that I have not the means to present such evidence. So you have already made your mind up before the whole debate even began. And nothing in this debate can convince you, as this circular reasoning excludes the possibility of evidence against your preconditioned 'not impossible' reasoning. Evidence could only presented by those who are in possession of the evidence. If I would be in possesion of the bandana, then I could provide evidence. For example, is the bandana contamined with DNA, which should be, is the DNA from one of the alleged hijackers, etc. Such evidence has never been presented to us. Why are you demanding evidence from me and all those others who are demanding a new investiagation, and not from those who already made an investigation? Why have you such priorities? Why not demanding from those where it makes sense? In fact, six years after, still no positive identification of the UA 93 hijackers has been conducted. Why? Relatives of hijackers, for example of Siad Jarrah, have offered to deliver DNA for comparison. After 9/11, FBI agents have collected DNA samples from the flat of Jarrah's girlfriend in Bochum, for comparison with the remains found at Shanksville. Why has this not been done? Postive identification is the FIRST thing done in every investigation. So to be precise, the official version today is still that Flight 93 was hijacked by four 'John Doe's'. I guess, like in every other criminal investigation, the evidence at the crime scene, and also it's collecting, has been documented. Hence the exact position where the bandana was found should be known, and together with the finding by whom it was worn (which could be known due to DNA analysis), we might get a better understanding of what happened on board and which hijacker was where. Should be of some sort of interest for investigators, shouldn't it? So no, we don't have to consider all evidence to be faked. But when we have evidence presented to us which is extremly unusual to not being faked, then we can indeed assume that it was faked, unless no evidence by those who could provide as the only ones such evidence, is presented. Once you find that in an investigation not even the minimal basic standards of procedure, like positive identification, has been conducted, then it is much more reasonable to consider such 'evidence' as non evidence, aka fake. So again, as you try to implicate that I do not believe that it is not faked because of its unique occurence, no it's not the unique occurence. Every occurence is unique, but not every unique occurence has the particularity to be in conflict with its occurence in general. In fact, only miracles have ;-). Like a virgin bearing a child. |
 |
 
|
| exponent | Mar 26 2008, 04:23 PM Post #2 |
|
Oh hey I came across this post pretty much at random but I'll spend some time answering I guess. Something I need to make clear though:
I really haven't, I visit here occasionally to try and keep up with the latest news and as I have a little bit of spare time at the moment I thought I would do a bit of posting. If I vanish for a while it's nothing to do with any argument on here, I just tend to have huge piles of work dumped on me without warning.
No problem, first I want to quote this part though
Exactly, you are completely correct here. There are some extra factors to take into account too such as the lack of any real use for this bandana, we already have flight manifests and calls from the plane, a bandana is hardly required evidence that terrorists were onboard. If it were more significant there would be more of a reason for suspicion (the passport at the WTC comes to mind) but in no situation would I ever claim it must be faked unless there was evidence for it.
I am demanding the evidence from you NK-44 because you are making the claim that the bandana was faked. You cannot expect to simply make claims and then shift the burden of proof to someone else to either prove or disprove your claim, you must be the one to provide the evidence of fakery or show why it is otherwise impossible. In your post in this thread you explained how if the impulse imparted to a tile upon dropping it from the top of the sears tower exceeded the maximum capacity of the material then we could guarentee it would fracture. Yes, this is entirely correct, but you have then not gone on to do any calculations whatsoever regarding this bandana. You simply take it for granted that it must have been damaged, and use only a single photograph to 'prove' it was in pristine condition. Neither of these things have been established at all and even though you claim they are contradictory you haven't even presented the evidence for them in the first place.
The authorities have provided more than sufficient evidence in all 4 cases for me to conclude that indeed things did occur as they claimed. I am still extremely suspicious of any forewarnings and possible intelligence oversights which could have occured, I really dislike the Bush administration and I hope anyone from the US reading this votes for Obama. |
|
|
|
| NK-44 | Mar 26 2008, 06:08 PM Post #3 |
|
It is called corroboration. Faked evidence had to corroborate each other. See how all was unfolded. It starts with two bags, belonging to Atta. There they found the weapons used in the attacks: boxcutter, which was established on 9/11 through a press conference by Ted Olson (no not the guy who said he would lie to public in an imagined infinite numbers of situations and who helped Bush performing coup-d'etat in 2000). There they found the motive for the attack: the koran. That the hijackers were fanatic Arabs was established through a phone-call from Flight 93, which was recorded for twenty minutes by the FBI. From there the information went public on 9/11 (before any passenger manifests went public, remember that it was 9/11myths who published two of them in 2005) that the hijackers were fanatic Arabs, because in this phone call the red bandanas were mentioned. And what comes into the mind of the people when hearing reports of Arabs wearing bandanas? Of course people think of the demonstrations by Palestinians, etc and will conclude that the hijackers were motivated due to their fanatic religious and/or political beliefs. There they found his last will, supposedly proving his readiness to die. (Of course the last will as evidence for his readiness to die is a joke, not only that he made it at a time when he had no connection to the planings of 9/11, it was 1996, also that he decribes in it how he wants his body to be treated after his death is not in accordance with going into WTC with 500mph). There they found flight manuals, proving his readiness to fly a plane (I do not say proving his capability to fly a plane, because usually, when you're for example able to drive a car, you don't take manuals with you, how to drive a car). What a nice orchestration! Oh, most interesting are the other things found in his bags, rarely mentioned to the public (hey, not even in LCFC, and of course not mentioned in the Commission-Report). But why not spend your time and find out what they else contained? Maybe google "ginsberg commission hearing alomari passport", and think of the implications, to give you a starting point? Ever heared of the Stone of Rosetta? Mmh, what could this have to do with Atta's bag? I'm sure you will find out. Uh, and as you mentioned, Satam Al-Suqami's famous WTC pass. Again this was to corroborate another hint found earlier in a blue Nissan, to be exact: found in the glove box. It was a note. On it: The name, date of birth and address of Suqami. You know I mean the blue Nissan found at Portland's airport, leased by Atta (and let's forget that this car was first associated by the police-chief of Portland to the Bukhari brothers (according to CNN, who spoke with him). The alleged pilots. For 24 hours (not like lead-instructor Raissi, who made it until April 2002, but then it turned out that the evidence was false if not fabricated, like the Times stated). And we know that one of the Bukhari brothers did indeed die on September 11th as a pilot of a plane. But it was September 11th in 2000, damn, someone messed it up!) Actually, I could go on for hours. But I already said this more than once to you and other pseudo-sceptics: present the evidence for the official version, I rip it apart. I hope to be soon able to translate an article I wrote on German, which hasn't been published yet. As you can imagine, it's not the shortest one. It deals not with WTC demolition or Pentagon. It deals only with the official version, on which evidence it is based and how the investigation was performed. Even those who never believed in alternative theories to 9/11 and called people like me nuts, came to the conclusion after reading it, that the official version is based on sloppy if any evidence. And that a new investigation is needed.
Your lack of logical conclusion is noted. But bring me the bandana and I will give it to independent laboratories for DNA-examination. And besides that, it is not a simple claim. It is based on logic. But a logic which is based on standards you obviously have not arrived to yet.
It's funny. E^n, when your argument is so poor like this one, better do yourself a favour and stop arguing, because you make a fool for everyone to see. What calculations do you want to see? That a bandana withstands forces a plane does not, or ALL the poeple do not, or the black boxes, or, or, or? Why should anyone make a calculation though even you conceded that it is near impossible. So tell me, how many zeros have to be behind the comma for you to consider the result of the calculation as evident? 0,0000000000001 or 0,00000000000001? I asked you about the magic counter forces. Why not make calculations about them? Oh, hard to calculate what does not exist.
More than sufficent? Wow, I doubt you ever spend much time in dealing with the official version. But as the evidence is sufficent, present it to us. But please present it in a convincing way. Not just say "flight manifests", which is without further explanation a stupid thing to mention. Because if you would have dealed with the official version, then you would know that some of the alleged hijackers used false names and passports. "Fabricated in a way which is associated with Al-Qaida", ever heared this sentence? Maybe you follow my advise and google for the words I mentioned above. So a name on a flight manifest doesn't prove anything. To prove that they were on the planes (which then would not prove that they piloted the planes, but it would be a condition for that), why not identify the DNA-remains? Again, the FIRST thing in every investigation, and they didn't make it. Furthermore, the DNA of the alleged hijackers in the case of the Pentagon was found near the entrance hole, whereas bodies of AA-personnel were alledely found in A-E Drive. Makes really sense, or? And that the chef-investigator of the examination of DNA collected from WTC thinks that the hijackers were not in the front of the planes, is just another case of CT-chewiedewie-nonsense, right? You're repeating yourself over and over with your speech bubbles, without adding any significant point. So go on saying "Read NIST", "the official evidence is sufficent", "flight manifests", "burden of proof is on you", "present the evidence others posses" (ok, that one is not from you, lol) BTW, have you realized in the meantime, while you was lurking here, why your mathematical example could not be applied to the red bandana. If not, go through it again. And funny to see how you avoid some points, (of course I asked you to answer the bolded part, so this is not really an accusation), but you have also responded to another part. So, do you agree that in an investigation the identity should be established (postiv!)? And would you consider an investiagtion to be conducted thoroughly when you learn, that though the leading investigator (FBI Chief Mueller) repeatedly made the announcement that the identity of the hijackers is in question, and that false identities could have been used (go on their site and check the dates of birth of Alomari, one of it belongs to the living Alomari from Saudi-Arabia. Also other cases have shown that an identity-swap has been made or been planned to execute.) So, given this, there would be even more reason as already existing in any usual investigation (this wasn't the greatest attack on U.S., or?) to establish the identity without any doubt. So, what would be the reason to not establish such basic facts? Are they interested in the existance of conspiracy theories? Funny how you 'sceptics' always complain about us 'twoofers' that we make unjustifiable accusations, like Bush did it. But it is of course no problem when the same accusations are made towards muslims. Accusations the families still suffer from. And what a joke that it is them who are demanding DNA-comparison. Let's take another example: People make accusations that Silverstein is a murderer. It's criticizable and you can say: these accusations are not justified. The U.S. and British goverment made accusations that Raissi is the lead instructor of the 9/11 murderers, the 'biggest find'. Over months they stated this in the news which are watched by millions and millions of people. His life is ruined. He lost his job as a pilot, his credibility was destroyed. Oh, and he was in jail half a year. See the difference? You can say that both accusations are unjustified, but only the one against Raissi had crucial consequences for his life. Though even if Silverstein is falsely accused, he doesn't go to jail because of this, he does not lose his reputation and his career and his money. So, which persons life was ruined in any comparable form to that of Raissi by accusations made in Loose Change? I don't think there is any. But that doesn't prevent you 'sceptics' from accuse LC to make such terrible unjustified accusations. Again, the double-standard.... Edited by NK-44, Mar 26 2008, 08:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Mar 26 2008, 08:19 PM Post #4 |
|
The red bandana is the most blatant proof of fabricated evidence. The notion that this bandana was wrapped around the head of a human being inside the cockpit of Flight 93 is ridiculous. Missing from the red bandana alleged to have been around the head of a jihadi inside the cockpit of a 757 which is said to have hit nose first into the ground at 530MPH are the following : Blood Brain Matter Skull Fragments Dirt Hair It's proof the people who fabricated this think so lowly of the American people that they didn't even bother to dirty it up a little to convince them it had been recovered from deep within the Earth. |
|
|
|
| NK-44 | Mar 26 2008, 08:38 PM Post #5 |
|
Yes, on the other hand it cannot entirely be ruled out that this was done by a whistleblower who could not blow the whistle - in any other way. But what strikes me most is that this sort of evidence makes it in front of a court, and no one says: "Wait a minute, this is from the 93 crash site?". |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Mar 27 2008, 02:17 AM Post #6 |
Patriotic American
|
Yes, our court system is extremely corrupted and worthless, isn't it? These paper passport and license frauds also made it through the corrupt court system.  The Saudi passport of Saeed Alghamdi, said to be discovered in the wreckage of Flight 93. [Source: FBI] - Other alleged Flight 93 survivors. Amazing isn't it, just how stupid they think we are?    and allegedly found at the WTC  Undamaged inside page High resolution version - - - - - High resolution version |
|
|
|
| exponent | Mar 27 2008, 09:15 AM Post #7 |
|
I'm sorry, but this topic has reverted to "It should have had this and this and this and I know because I know" mentality. I am not interested in pointless speculation about the condition of a government exhibit. Do you know whether it has been forensically examined? Perhaps the brain matter has been removed for study, perhaps the bandana was in someone's pocket instead of tied around their head. We know none of this, and the pointless speculation and personal decision that it could not possibly have survived an impact (many lightweight things survive impacts such as this, I believe credit cards also survived the flight 93 impact and I will do some checking into that) serves no purpose but to reinforce your own beliefs. I have no evidence this bandana or any passports are somehow faked by the government and unless you have more then speculation I have no interest in debate. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Mar 27 2008, 11:10 AM Post #8 |
|
Well then please state officially that you believe the red bandana was actually on someone who was in the front of an airplane that crashed nosefirst into the ground at 500+MPH. Otherwise you're trying to convince people that the government removed all the DNA evidence which would be expected to be found on any article of clothing worn by someone who dies horribly in such a brutal fashion, then wash it and then fold and tie it back up and present it as "evidence". I can understand why you, being a supporter of the official story, don't wish to debate this topic what so ever. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Mar 27 2008, 11:13 AM Post #9 |
|
Amanda Reckonwith @ 9/11 Truth Movement Forums brought this very fascinating bit of info up for discussion.
|
|
|
|
| Lin Kuei | Mar 27 2008, 11:23 AM Post #10 |
|
Wow!
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 27 2008, 12:11 PM Post #11 |
|
It says right in the bottom right hand corner that it is a duplicate. Looks like it was issued 6/23/01 and she would have been Ceecee Lyles at that point. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Mar 27 2008, 12:42 PM Post #12 |
|
From - http://www.flhsmv.gov/dhsmv/married.html
I bolded the key words... Several people from the above referenced forum have also called to verify that fact. The original date of issue predates her marrage, so something is definately rotten in Florida.  There is also the question of John Talignani's license, a life long resident of NYC having a Florida license. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Mar 27 2008, 12:47 PM Post #13 |
|
Patriotic American
|
With a new issue date of 06-23-01 at the left which should have been 05-01-00 or soon afterwards and a new drivers license number at the top. 
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 27 2008, 12:50 PM Post #14 |
|
How do you know that isn't a new license? It says it is a duplicate. This means her old one could have her old license number and old name on it. Am I missing something here? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Mar 27 2008, 12:56 PM Post #15 |
|
If it was a new license the issue date would not be 12/2/97. That date was pre marrage. Edit, I reread your question and the point you are missing is that when there is a name change the Florida procedure is issueing a new license, not a duplicate. When a new license is issued the issue date is updated.... I just checked mine and in New Hampsire the issue date is also updated upon renewal. The license number is based upon the name of the person it is issued issued to. I don't know how Florida's number scheme works, but the number would have changed upon a name change.... This is something which needs to be followed up on.... Is the number Ceecee Lyle's or Ceecee Ross's ? The question is why did Florida not follow their own policies if the license is legit ? Edited by JFK, Mar 27 2008, 01:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 27 2008, 01:51 PM Post #16 |
|
Well if it was issued 12/2/97 how did a "duplicate" date of 6/23/01 end up on her license? |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 27 2008, 01:54 PM Post #17 |
|
I don't get what you are saying? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Mar 27 2008, 02:06 PM Post #18 |
|
Exactly. |
|
|
|
| Popesture | Mar 27 2008, 02:54 PM Post #19 |
A No-Brainer No-Planer
|
I understand this and must say the drivers licence must be the biggest piece of proven evidence ever ALTHOUGH until I see that original image, the pixelated bits make it look dodgy. From a normal person editing. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Mar 27 2008, 03:04 PM Post #20 |
|
The original evidence photo can be found here - http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200069.jpg
|
|
|
|
| Popesture | Mar 27 2008, 03:18 PM Post #21 |
|
A No-Brainer No-Planer
|
In which case, why isn't this being presented to the people responsible? Thanks JFK, once again. 
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Mar 27 2008, 03:24 PM Post #22 |
|
I might as well introduce this for discussion as well into this thread. I find this interesting but not sure exactly what to make of it all. So I guess I'm agnostic as I see what both sides of the argument are saying in this thread. It is quite odd. This next one is a lot different though than the previous : Source once againAmanda Reckonwith @ 9/11 Truth Movement
If I remember correctly "Amanda Reckonwith" is the person who located Osama Bin Laden's address in California about a year or so ago if you remember that........ |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Mar 27 2008, 03:50 PM Post #23 |
|
No, not exactly. That is my point, it is a duplicate. As in she lost it or had it replaced with a new one. Seems like a lot of dis/mis info coming out of KT's board. This is not conclusive in the least. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Mar 27 2008, 03:57 PM Post #24 |
|
No, it's definitely not conclusive. But an interesting anomaly I would say. I think what it comes down to is that there shouldn't have been a duplicate issued but a whole new license according to state law. Someone correct me if I am interpreting this incorrectly.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Mar 27 2008, 04:44 PM Post #25 |
|
Yes, a new license should have been issued after her marrage reflecting the name change and because of that name change a new number, since that number is based in part on the name. Like I said in a previous post this needs to be investigated further. @ Aldo, dis and/or mis information should be investigated and cleared up should it not ? I agreed with your question and I feel as if you are attacking me for agreeing ? WTF ? < shakes head > |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Shanksville · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
3:53 AM Dec 7
