No, but according to the BBC and other reports, the men who were falsely identified as hijackers gave interviews, which would likely be in a language that I do not speak or understand. So again, is it your belief that the BBC and other media outlets completely made all of this up? And do you have evidence for your conspiracy theory?
What was that you were saying to Bob not that long ago, something along the lines of putting in work to figure this stuff out, you know, searching for information/FOIA requests/etc. I don't mind doing searches for you, but if you've been wanting to see this stuff for yourself for a while now apparently, what have you done yourself to find it?
I've done my searching through any online article and video which shows an 'alive hijacker' giving an interview. The only results were conspiracy sites linked to the same BBC article and youtube videos beating the same line. The only thing to go on is the one BBC article. There are no sources listed on it, just "some middle eastern newspapers" and so no where to even attempt to contact. Furthermore the update to the article clearly states it supersedes the first article with all the correct names, so what much more needs to be done? Meanwhile conspiracy theorists have been believing it for years when there is no evidence to support it.
Except for the fact that there are numerous reports (not just from the BBC) about this. By all accounts from the government and from what the media has reported, there was a lot the government did not know about al Qaeda and their plot, which is the alleged reason why the attacks were not discovered and prevented. So why does the government not knowing the true identities of the hijackers come as a surprise then? Why is stolen identities such a controversy? What evidence do you have that the below report is not accurate: Who is lying here CJ?
You know how that works, research is only useful when it supports the Official Conspiracy Theory, everything else is discarded/ignored as "whacko conspiracy theory".
Since engaging with these types online about this subject material, I've often wondered if they're addicts to medicine like Bayer Back & Body because of the outrageous spine-twisting contortions they undergo to defend their desired POV.
Assuming a poster is not a paid shill and not a cognitive dissonant type, what other reason(s) would motivate someone to defend the OCT daily and never question any of it or at least not spend even a tiny fraction of time questioning some aspect of the OCT? I just don't see the purpose/benefit. Yet I see this going on all the time for some in many forums.
Perhaps rose-colored glasses, partisanship or statism. If they fall under cognitive dissonance, then I don't know.
I don't know, I can't imagine that kind of one-sided mentality. I left out the cognitive dissonant type because I just don't see such a person spending nearly every day defending the OCT and never questioning any of it. I can see that happening on occasion but not with such extreme frequency.
Is it wrong to ask for evidence? You seem to think some of the hijackers showed up alive, so I'm asking you to find me an interview with even one of them.
So you're going with the guy they mentioned in their first report as being a liar then. Of course you are. And it's the line at the bottom of that article that does it for you, isn't it? That the F.B.I. is confident that they're right. But the link you provided clears nothing up. Nada.
Is it wrong for you to look for yourself? You chastised Bob for not putting in the effort. Lo and behold, here you are not a week later doing the very same thing. The guy is a Saudi, perhaps start your extensive search in their media archives? And you've still failed to answer the question of the man in the first BBC article. Was he lying his ass off? Heard his name but saw a different picture and said. "Hey, no one will notice since all of us Arabs look alike anyway." I mean, come on CJ, get real. How could they show up alive? They crashed planes, did they not? No, what I'm saying is identities were stolen and the F.B.I. and anyone else in the U.S. Government doesn't have a clue to the true identity of the hijackers. And again, these men were mentioned in the BBC article as giving interviews. If you can't find said interviews yourself, call up the BBC and ask them about it. Why must I do your work for you?
Still waiting for you to link that interview Jango. I've done my searching, I found nothing. All evidence supports that all 19 hijackers are correctly named and dead on impact. If you're trying to promote a new theory then you better have the evidence to support it. That's how it works. I'm not going to spend my time chasing ghosts trying to disprove something that isn't true. If you want to prove it, prove it.
the BBC corrected their report ... do a little more research next time ... there is more out there confirming that all the terrorists you truthers claim are alive and well are indeed dead ... unless you have an interview with any of them? ...
So the men the media highlighted in the aftermath, with the same name and pictures as the hijackers identified by the F.B.I. as the culprits, are compulsive and delusional liars? And can you quit squirming for just one post and address what I've actually asked you, please. 1. No, they did not. They can't retroactively correct what they, and others, reported. 2. Since English is not apparently working with you, what other language do I need to use before comprehension begins? Seriously, what is the f'n hurdle here for you? Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization known for forging identification and travel documents. Why is it so incomprehensible that the hijackers they sent to America to conduct 9/11 stole the identities they used?
It's not incomprehensible, there's just no evidence to support that they did, aside from an uncited BBC article from 12 days after the attacks.