Potential closure on the truther threads...

[Mental]

Just for closure on the other thread, guys and girls, I recently joined a genealogical archives site (www.genealogyarchives.com) and did a check on the official death records related to Flight 77...the one that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon.

Of 64 people on board that flight that day, 41 have no death certificates issued for September 11 under those names.

Of those 41, TEN (10) OF THOSE NAMES SEEM NEVER TO HAVE BELONGED TO ANYONE WHO HAS EVER BEEN BORN OR DIED IN THE UNITED STATES, according to Social Security records and other sources the site tracks - there are NO records for these people or names whatsoever - including such individuals as poor little Asia Cottom, a supposed 11-year-old black girl who was purported to have been going on a National Geographic trip to the West Coast with some classmates and now has a scholarship website devoted to her.

http://www.asiacottom.com/

Poor girl never got a chance to live, it seems. Possibly quite literally - as Social Security and the other databases seem to think she never even existed at all.

Here's the WHOIS for asiacottom.com on networksolutions.com:

Domain Discreet
ATTN: asiacottom.com
Rua Dr. Brito Camara, n 20, 1
Funchal, Madeira 9000-039

The five hijackers also have no records whatsoever in any archive this thing tracks, but I didn't even count them with the ten others as that, at least, one could see a potentially valid reason for. Certainly there would be no birth certificates here for them - but I'm surprised there is no record of their deaths anywhere, as they are purported to have died in my country.

I'm sorry, folks, but if you all don't consider the evidence about the passenger list that I found looking these names up on that site as SOME form of valid evidence regarding fucked-up weirdness around that day, I don't know what kind of a smoking gun might convince you things that are seriously weird are going on. I feel like if even I brought you charred black boxes, a series of burnt human skulls recovered from some black-ops site, and five hundred pages of internal Defense Department coverup paperwork, you all would still find a way to make excuses for why there's some other rational explanation and we should all believe George Bush and Don Rumsfeld and the Pentagon about what happened that day.

By the way, here's Don Rumsfeld's famous interview in Parade Magazine where he accidentally referred to Flight 77 as "a missile":

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/tran ... iptid=3845

They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.

That Flight 77 passenger list is either UTTERLY spurious or the Social Security Department really needs to get their act together - and in my experience, they're actually pretty good as government agencies go.

Anyway, you can do with this information as you will. I say "closure" because I'll stop sharing this information with you all if it is indicated you don't really want to have truther discussions on these boards.

[Mental]

I do plan to do United 93, as well, soonish. But it takes hours and hours to do real research of this kind...looking up birth certificates and other records as well as death certificates for names that are especially suspicious, and etc.

If I start looking up United 93 and find a similar lack of evidence of death certificates and/or people without birth certificates, I am going to go have a LONG talk with Oliver Stone while carrying a baseball bat about how much research he does on his movies.

[Mental]

Truthfully, I'd love to do all the people that died that day. It's not like I don't have the rest of my life to do it in. Might take me awhile to do all 2,995 people (2,976 victims and the 19 hijackers), but since it seems nobody else is coming up with these kinds of reports...

I have done some of the victims who were NOT supposed to have been on the planes, but only a few - so far, I haven't found discrepancies there.

I mean, don't you guys and girls think missing death and birth certificates for even ONE flight that crashed that day should have been on the news by now? Shouldn't the 9/11 Commission have noted this and possibly brought it to the attention of the nation?

Anyway, like I said, do what you want and think what you will...I will be doing the research.

[Mental]

A proper link to the site I'm doing research on:

http://www.genealogyarchives.com/

[Kupek]

Have you considered how Geneology Archives gets their information? It's most likely through public records similar to phone directories. When I look myself up, the two cities that appear for me are Annandale (where I lived for 15 years until I left for college) and Williamsburg (where I lived for 3 years in grad school, part one).

Blacksburg is not listed, despite the fact that I was there from 1999 - 2003, and 2006 to now.

I can think of two reasons why this is so. First, I have never had a landline in Blacksburg. I had one in Williamsburg. Second, I am a registered voter in Annandale, not Blacksburg. I have a paper trail in Blacksburg (cable bill, bank statements, electric bill, the school itself), but where ever GA gets its data from is not pulling from those.

I also tried looking up my cousin's 7-year-old kid. He's not found.

My point: young children are likely not going to be on there because they don't leave paper trails the way adults do. My cousin's kid obviously has to have a birth certificate, but it's not being picked up by this site.

What we have to conclude: GA has incomplete information. That is, not being able to find someone on there does not indicate lack of existence.

[Mental]

But it has information, Kup. The fact that it is incomplete does not prove the existence of these people, either. In fact, it seems to be quite accurate for dead persons I have known personally - which is all I can really personally vouch for, right? I'm not trying to "prove" anything here, just introduce reasonable doubt.

So far, I have checked it against my grandfather, grandmother, and two people I knew from high school who are now dead.

It has absolutely reliable information on my grandfather and my two friends from high school. My grandfather died this year, my friend from high school in 2003, and another girl I barely knew back in 2006 - they're all unquestionably there.

I can't find anything on my grandmother, but she was born under a name radically different than what she died under and I have no idea if I'm using the right one, and she died less than a month ago to boot.

I plan to contact my family about that, and I also suspect the paperwork may not have made it through Social Security yet, so I'm not willing to even call that a bonafide "no" yet.

What were you doing when you searched on your cousin's kid? Searches against birth records or death records or what?

If you found yourself, you probably did a living person search, right? I found myself and my family on there too.

The person I knew in high school was 16 when she died, I believe, and has a full record. Asia Cottom was 11. One presumes she had at least started grade school.

I don't KNOW these things for sure, Kup. How could I? But I absolutely believe that when I look up four dead people I knew personally and find three of them on here (75%) and then look up Flight 77 and get only 23/64 people (36%) with death records of any kind for 9/11, even suspect ones, I have to throw a flag. I just do.

That discrepancy is not explainable to me, and you'd have a hard time convincing me that if I tracked down other dead family members of mine I wouldn't find them in there. Again, I don't know, but I cannot put my doubts aside here. IF this database is reliable, that number is way too low for me to believe the list is real. The completeness of the database is definitely the big question...but they do seem to track the Social Security Death Index. I don't know a thing about how that index works, but it does not seem reasonable to me that they would only have partial access to Social Security's death records. It COULD be - but 36%? That's an AWFULLY low hit rate and many of those 36% are only verified by either "newspaper obituaries" or "Veterans Burial Records" anyway.

Have you tried looking up any dead people you personally knew to see if they exist in there? The living person search is not really what needs to be checked.

[Kupek]

I performed the only search I can - I'm not paying them anything to perform more searches. Every person I know who has died would have left more of a paper trail.

Genealogy Archive is a business. It is not the nation's information source. You are using a known-incomplete data set. That simply and trivially explains your discrepancy.

[Mental]

"That simply and trivially explains your discrepancy."

That's a cop-out. You don't like the results, so you dis the database and don't say a word on the statistics I brought? That's not valid...

It's a "I don't really want to research this anymore" tactic. You don't have to pay them anything to search the death records unless you sign up for more than a week. You don't need to pay for the "full records", just look at the times and dates and locations of death. You don't want to think about this. THAT is the reason you stopped your searches and made the horrendously irresponsible claim that it must be the database I'm using, not anything weird about that day. I don't mind, Kup, but you need to say that if that's what you're really thinking.

No, you have not "simply and trivially" explained my "discrepancy", because I have found about a hundred or so discrepancies so far and fully expect there to be more if I ever get a chance to research the whole list.

Again, if you want to be done, be done, but you have not convincingly explained ANY of the discrepancy between the fact that, so far, this thing is three out of four on my own dead friends/relatives and the only person NOT in there only died three weeks ago, and the fact that it's about one out of three instead on the passenger lists for the planes themselves.

I am going to try to do searches on all 2995 people at some point and try to collate my findings into something others can read. I can tell you're trying to get rid of this discussion, Kup - so get rid of it. We can just be have it be over, since it's not something you take an interest in enough to do the research in any way other than trivially. But don't perform a few desultory and perfunctory searches and then decide that genealogyarchives.com is likely, in your estimation, to easily not have results for two out of three dead people. You haven't done enough research to make your claim believable on that, and both I and that site deserve better.

Anyway, have a good day. However this discussion turns out, I do wish you that.

[Mental]

In any case I hope I'm done being an asshole over this anyway...

[SineSwiper]

Genealogy Archive is a business. It is not the nation's information source. You are using a known-incomplete data set. That simply and trivially explains your discrepancy.

What he said. The fact that it's not a 100% data set means there is going to be missing data. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Kupek]

This is how research works. If you have obvious holes - like trying to draw conclusions from a known-incomplete data set without controlling for it - no one will pay attention. You are making an extraordinary claim. You require extraordinary evidence. "I cannot conceive of any other explanation" is not a valid theory, particularly in the face of simpler and more mundane theories.

Perhaps you think that requiring that you comb all known records before making such claims would require an extraordinary amount of work, to which I say, yes, it would. Perhaps you think my standards of evidence are extremely high, to which I say, yes, they are. Perhaps you think I am being almost pedantically skeptical, to which I say, yes, I am.

This is how peer-reviewed research works.

[Mental]

Fine with me, you two.

As for "why is that so hard to understand", Sine - because it is.

Because I'm reading the 9/11 leaked pager messages revealed on Wikinews and it contains references to the CNN report of Taliban denial of the action and their expression of sympathy towards the U.S. that day, which was apparently censored here. Because Bin Laden also denied the entire thing, and repeatedly, and that was censored here too - I don't know that I think his "confessions" are actually real footage of him. And because I read the many, many messages (a few of which seem to be from military personnel) that refer to a U.S. bombing of Afghanistan beginning on 9/11. It is not in dispute that bombs and missiles were reported striking Kabul that night.

Don't you talk down to me on this issue, Sine, I was doing calculus when you were still fucking with relatively basic math, as far as I'm aware, and taking college-level linear algebra by 12th grade. I was reading - and UNDERSTANDING AND ANALYZING - Newsweek magazine back when I was ten. I took a course at Stanford on International Security from former SecDef William Perry and did very, very well in it, on papers he graded personally. I can tell your condescension from your speech patterns and I won't put up with it from you. I've studied harder than you and I know more about this, as far as I'm aware. Don't you EVER "why is that so hard to understand" me when you haven't actually looked into it as much as I have. I don't mind if you disagree, but I WILL be angry if you talk to me as if I'm an idiot, because my guess is that I kick the shit out of you when it comes to most subjects having to do with international politics, physics, and mathematics, and I almost certainly have far more experience than you do at all three. If you feel otherwise you can tell me so. I have NO problem with you disagreeing, but don't you do it with the attitude you are, Brendan Byrd. Back when I was in high school and called you up and we talked on the phone sometime around when I transferred the site to you - hopefully you remember the only physical phone conversation we had in this lifetime - you could barely put two words together. Since then I've been incredibly impressed with the depth of thought, commitment to open speech, free-thinking nature, and level of analysis you regularly put together here, but I still doubt that you are smarter than I am. I really do. I don't know that I'm smarter than you are, either - but I am no idiot when it comes to this stuff and I work HARD.

I have found the Taliban to be pretty honest folks, in general. They hate America (at least they do now), hate Bush, hate the Great Satan, are violent, unashamedly against rights for women, and have no problem telling people so. I don't personally think they were lying about the denial of knowledge or responsibility for the action OR the expression of sympathy for the U.S. - which only lasted until the entire country decided to rush to a policy promoting their annihilation before checking out any of Bush's explanations, I'm sure. And I tend to believe the authors who wrote shortly after 9/11 that U.S. representatives tried to bribe the Taliban instead of invading - shortly before 9/11 - and said "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we'll bury you under a carpet of bombs."

It is utterly in line with everything else I know of U.S. Middle Eastern foreign policy, including the year of Middle Eastern studies I took at Stanford.

I think there is PLENTY of evidence to indicate that the official explanation is bogus. Again, you don't have to agree. But I'm not going to suddenly change my mind because you start condescending, Sine.

[Mental]

I will find extraordinary evidence if I can, Kupek.

I'm not asking anyone to believe me unconditionally, but to express a similar sentiment to something I said before, I do hope to introduce a sliver of doubt in the kinds of certitude and armor that make folks like Sine say "Why is that so hard to understand?"

[Mental]

If you have any tentative lists of "all known records" or places in which I could find ways to start researching such things, I would be quite grateful indeed.

[Mental]

I sure as hell can't vouch for the production values on this site:

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/WitnessesLink.htm

...but it's not the only site to claim that the planes that day might have been modified Douglas A3 Skywarriors, a type of remote drone plane currently in use by our military.

Multiple reports claim the plane engine found at the Pentagon came from a Douglas A3 and not an Boeing 757, and do not seem to contradict each other.

It's hardly "extraordinary evidence" or even evidence I trust fully given the lousy production work on the site, but I do hope it might spark an interesting discussion about the possibility...

[kali o.]

That's quite the rant you go on, Andrew...and all that spawned from Sine's one line response eh?

Enough is enough man. You don't need to drag EVERYTHING to a level of wrist-slitting, tear flowing, hateful seriousness. It's creepy. And not healthy.

[Mental]

I'll hold it back.

[Mental]

The rant, not the discussion.

[Mental]

By the way, kali, since you do know my first name at this point - what's yours?

Are you comfortable sharing that with us?

[kali o.]

Are you comfortable sharing that with us?

Us? You mean "you"? No, I am uncomfortable sharing any personal information with you.

[Mental]

You should be! I threatened to come to Canada and beat the shit out of you at one point, perhaps even more than one, when you kept insulting me.

And if you ever use my personal information in a way that's untoward and harms my life in any way, I might still try to do that. Otherwise, we'll probably get along.

So maybe you ought to keep your personal details from me, yes, kali. You have rarely treated me with kindness on these boards, and I feel you to be just as sociopathic as you feel me to be. You don't care much for the truth, you've lied to me here before about your e-mail address when I tried to take a discussion private, and every time I actually try to explain a grievance to you in private, you mock, laugh, dismiss it, or find some other way to be a mocking jerk about it. You've never really liked or respected me here, I think, and you find passive-aggressive ways to express that every time I get.

I'm sorry you have such hurt feelings.

And maybe that's all for the best. I could still use some respect from you. As I've indicated, I'm perfectly willing to get along with you. But it makes ME very uncomfortable to know that you know MY personal details - including an old address that, thankfully, I don't live at anymore - and that you seem to do your best to hold onto grudges and resentments for years, the way I used to.

So, yes, kali, perhaps with respect to me you should just stay an anonymous troll, until you find some honor and are willing to have a real discussion with me about our differences and resolve them like a man.

To everyone else, I continue to welcome the rest of the discussion. Even from you, too, kali, but I really won't put up with all this passive-aggressive stuff anymore, where you just sit around and wait for opportunities to throw jibes. It really is not a good reflection on you.

Neither is this message a good reflection on me, perhaps, but I just don't have the energy to be any more self-censoring or respecful than this tonight. As Ian McConville of Mac Hall/Three Panel Soul once memorably said, kali, faking respect wears me out. So you and me can either try to develop some respect for each other, or you can keep waiting in the wings for a chance to unleash some of the negative energy you make sure to keep waiting in the wings for me. It's no skin off my back.

Love and kisses. I wish you all the best, other than the fact that I still don't want you putting MY personal information out to anyone else in the world without my permission, and do want to say again - you do that, and you and me will have some problems here. If not, I expect we'll be copacetic.

[Mental]

Back on topic, I urge everyone to consider this article in relation to the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Große_Lüge

[kali o.]

You should be! I threatened to come to Canada and beat the shit out of you at one point, perhaps even more than one, when you kept insulting me.

And if you ever use my personal information in a way that's untoward and harms my life in any way, I might still try to do that. Otherwise, we'll probably get along.

So maybe you ought to keep your personal details from me, yes, kali. You have rarely treated me with kindness on these boards, and I feel you to be just as sociopathic as you feel me to be. You don't care much for the truth, you've lied to me here before about your e-mail address when I tried to take a discussion private, and every time I actually try to explain a grievance to you in private, you mock, laugh, dismiss it, or find some other way to be a mocking jerk about it. You've never really liked or respected me here, I think, and you find passive-aggressive ways to express that every time I get.

I'm sorry you have such hurt feelings.

And maybe that's all for the best. I could still use some respect from you. As I've indicated, I'm perfectly willing to get along with you. But it makes ME very uncomfortable to know that you know MY personal details - including an old address that, thankfully, I don't live at anymore - and that you seem to do your best to hold onto grudges and resentments for years, the way I used to.

So, yes, kali, perhaps with respect to me you should just stay an anonymous troll, until you find some honor and are willing to have a real discussion with me about our differences and resolve them like a man.

To everyone else, I continue to welcome the rest of the discussion. Even from you, too, kali, but I really won't put up with all this passive-aggressive stuff anymore, where you just sit around and wait for opportunities to throw jibes. It really is not a good reflection on you.

Neither is this message a good reflection on me, perhaps, but I just don't have the energy to be any more self-censoring or respecful than this tonight. As Ian McConville of Mac Hall/Three Panel Soul once memorably said, kali, faking respect wears me out. So you and me can either try to develop some respect for each other, or you can keep waiting in the wings for a chance to unleash some of the negative energy you make sure to keep waiting in the wings for me. It's no skin off my back.

Love and kisses. I wish you all the best, other than the fact that I still don't want you putting MY personal information out to anyone else in the world without my permission, and do want to say again - you do that, and you and me will have some problems here. If not, I expect we'll be copacetic.

Egh...creepy & unhealthy.

Believe it or not, I can't wait for a script update just so I can ignore you. Taking "jiibes" at you isn't enjoyable (which is why I haven't done so in a long time; at least not really). There is a small possibility in my mind that if I do, you'll kill me, kill someone else, kill yourself or just disappear. None of which I want.

The sooner I can pop you on /ignore, the sooner I can ride into gamethought to lay the verbal smackdown on zeus and seeker without worrying about you jumping into the fray and going looney toons.

[Julius Seeker]

If this is about the whole people who were behind September 11th: I doubt it was the Taliban or Al'Qaeda; these people would need resources beyond what they have to do anything like that. I also doubt that the pathetic redneck Bush run government knew how to tie their shoes let alone figure out who was behind New York September 11th 2001. Why did Iraq and the Taliban get the blame? The reasons are economic, that's obvious. Controlling the flow of oil from the middle east is fairly important, that's many billions of dollars. You don't want Iraq selling cheap product; why not sell their product for a much increased rate. Bush wanted to invade Iraq beforehand, tying the middle east to the attack was an obviously successful tactic.

[Mental]

Egh...creepy & unhealthy.

Believe it or not, I can't wait for a script update just so I can ignore you. Taking "jiibes" at you isn't enjoyable (which is why I haven't done so in a long time; at least not really). There is a small possibility in my mind that if I do, you'll kill me, kill someone else, kill yourself or just disappear. None of which I want.

The sooner I can pop you on /ignore, the sooner I can ride into gamethought to lay the verbal smackdown on zeus and seeker without worrying about you jumping into the fray and going looney toons.

That sounds great. "Creepy and unhealthy" happens to be how I feel about your personality too.

[Mental]

If this is about the whole people who were behind September 11th: I doubt it was the Taliban or Al'Qaeda; these people would need resources beyond what they have to do anything like that. I also doubt that the pathetic redneck Bush run government knew how to tie their shoes let alone figure out who was behind New York September 11th 2001. Why did Iraq and the Taliban get the blame? The reasons are economic, that's obvious. Controlling the flow of oil from the middle east is fairly important, that's many billions of dollars. You don't want Iraq selling cheap product; why not sell their product for a much increased rate. Bush wanted to invade Iraq beforehand, tying the middle east to the attack was an obviously successful tactic.

If you go to http://911.wikileaks.org/ and check some of the messages, Seek, you will see that there are MULTIPLE references to "Afghanistan being bombed" at the end of the day, when explosions were going off in Kabul. Bush claimed it was the Taliban's "opposition" - they didn't have any except Bush himself, they'd already won. I'm pretty sure that after 9/11 went off without a hitch, he just started bombing away. They'd already threatened the Taliban first.

It appears a Jewish real estate developer named Larry Silverstein who had just bought the towers weeks before collected a HUGE payment on the disaster from the insurance shortly afterwards as well. I'm gonna look up more on him.

[Julius Seeker]

How can this face be evil?





...ignoring the demonic yellow eyes.

[Mental]

Well, I try not to prejudge based on physiognomy, but since based on other evidence I already suspect this asshole helped take my country to war, bankrupt it, and now has billions to play with in interest-free loans as a reward, yes, I will say I don't get the bulging frog eyes either.

Maybe he's spent too much time staring at things he wants, or the money to buy them with.

[Mental]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.ph ... e&sid=9951

[Zeus]

The sooner I can pop you on /ignore, the sooner I can ride into gamethought to lay the verbal smackdown on zeus and seeker without worrying about you jumping into the fray and going looney toons.

Smackdown, huh? Bring it on, pal :-)