Reply #70: I read exactly what you wrote

[Kalun D]

and now you're changing what you said.

I asked "how did they ID the 19?

you said, "They used their "real" names to get their tickets (or at least the same names that they had been using for some time)."

I replied. "If they are false identities as you and the FBI admit, how do we know who they really are if the FBI isn't searching for their real identities or releasing any airport video?"

So now you've changed your story to "they're proved by their actions and their wills, THE REAL NAMES ARE POINTLESS, the hijackers are dead."

So let's ask the same question again. How would this hold up in a court of law?

We have some photo ID's, we know some of them are false, so we're not really sure about any of them because WE HAVE ZERO AIRPORT VIDEO!

But if it please your honor it's proven by the crime that it has to be Arabs, and Al-Jazerra released some un-sourced "last wills".

If it please your honor, THEIR REAL NAMES ARE POINTLESS BECAUSE THEY ARE DEAD!

Honestly Mr. Seger, what kind of argument is that? You have some false ID's of Arabs, who cares if the names aren't real?

Based on this "evidence" THEY COULD BE ANYBODY!

"two of the manifests were officially released and the other two were unofficially released."

According to a unknown source anti-truther website. That links to a CBS story about a Boston Globe story that says they obtained the complete lists. They don't say anything about where they got them. The text of the Globe story is included, it says. "The Boston Globe obtained the complete list" but no source is given.

That's "officially released" to you Mr. Seger?

the flight manifests are just like the video. The airlines are supposed to release them, not some newspaper in Boston. How come they didn't release the official flight manifests on all 4 flights on 9-12? Just like they do on all airplane crashes?

If you were in a court of law and making a claim on one of the dead passengers, would an un-sourced newspaper article hold up as evidence?

And then just like the false ID's of the 19 you go on to admit. "the other two were unofficially released"

What the heck does that mean Mr. Seger? 1/2 of the names are "unofficial". What kind of case is this?

=============================================

Let's dissect your "argument", to give an example of how OCT'ers try to "argue", and explain what I've said about how they can't argue point by point.

"Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote, I don't care what you don't believe, and I'm not interested in your paranoid suspicions, assumptions, and speculations. You're shooting blanks....totally pointless (and frankly, idiotic)....While you're on that site, you might want to look for some of your other favorite myths....The facts are not on your side."

This is more than 1/2 of your word count on this post. There's no counter information here, merely opinionated assertions and ad-hominem.

Then you go on to change your stance on the ID of the 19, and the backup you use is an un-sourced site that's obviously biased.

You ignored more than 1/2 my points, like how come there's no airport video, how did they ID the false identities in the cockpits, and how did they know all of the 19 were hijackers only one day later.