galanter wrote:Who owns the US Marine Corps?

Who owns the American Cancer Society?

Who owns the Smokey Mountain National Park?

Rick Reuben wrote:
Which says nothing about recovered DNA being matched to hijacker DNA. Keep lying.

9/11 myths.com wrote:how could they be obtained after the attack? In just the same way as the police do with any major crime scene, but there’s no need to speculate. Just do a little research: enter hijackers dna into Google and this BBC report pops up on the first page.

Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.
Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.

"No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms Borakove said.

"We haven't finished our work, so it may be more," she added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm

Can we say for sure this is true? Of course not. It does show the original story is less than complete, though, and there need not be anything suspicious in how the FBI derived their DNA profiles.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:By the way: Who owns the Federal Reserve, Galanter?

galanter wrote:I don't know. I'm not even sure the term "owns" applies here as typically used.

Well, how the hell are you using the term 'owns'?? The way I use the term 'owns' in regards to a bank is: who owns the stock of the Federal Reserve? Can you answer that question?

galanter wrote:Who owns the US Marine Corps?

Who owns the American Cancer Society?

Who owns the Smokey Mountain National Park?

Are you proposing them as analogues to the Fed?

Wow. You really are terrified to answer this question:

Who owns the stock in the Federal Reserve, Galanter?

Rick Reuben wrote:

galanter wrote:

rick reuben wrote:Who owns the stock in the Federal Reserve, Galanter?

I've already told you I don't know.

But could you know?? It's the world's most important Central Bank. They have issued our currency for 94 years. I thought you were a dogged investigator of the truth. A champion of the 9/11 and JFK official myths. You are aware that there are conspiracy theories surrounding the Fed, right? Why aren't you committed to defending the Fed the way that you defend the 9/11 Commission or the Warren Commission?

galanter wrote:But my point stands...not everything is "owned" in the everyday sense of the word. Perhaps that applies to the Federal Reserve and its stock.

So, not only are you unwilling to determine the ownership of the Fed, you are unwilling to explain why you think 'owned' cannot be used in connection with the Fed??

You do admit that the Fed exists, though, right? You have heard of it?

Rick Reuben wrote:

galanter wrote: Also your comments about how many Jews (not just Zionists) work in banking.

Is it acceptable to discuss how many Muslims work in the terrorism business?

Rick Reuben wrote:Nerbly believes these two things:

That a plane is in this hole.

That DNA was recovered from the invisible plane in this hole and matched to DNA of hijackers.

On visiting the supposed Flight 93 crash site, Ernie Stull (the Mayor of Shanksville) said "there was no plane".

Our take...

This quote was first used by German television to justify the idea that Flight 93 didn't crash at Shanksville. It was picked up by American Free Press ( http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9 ... eries.html ), then referenced at other sites ( http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/ ... hanics.htm , http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html ). It remains a fringe idea (most people seem to prefer the “Flight 93 shot down” theory), but is something you’ll encounter occasionally online & at Google.

Is the “Flight 93 didn’t crash there” implication a fair reflection of Stulls view, though? Der Spiegel decided to investigate.

When Der Spiegel confronts Stull with the English translation of these passages in the book and the film script, the man is speechless: "My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes."
Source

This is the point where those who want to hold on to a conspiracy explanation will claim that he's changed his story, been "leaned on", and this is in itself proof that something shady is going on. Fortunately Der Spiegel covered this, too, by viewing the full tape of Stulls interview. After the "no plane" comment, he went on to say this.

"They just found the two turbines because, of course, they're heavier and more massive than everything else. But there was almost nothing left of the actual airplane. You can still find plate-sized parts out there. And Neville from the farm over there found an aluminum part from the airplane's outside shell behind his barn that must've been about 8 by 10 or even 8 by 12 feet."
Source

Using “no plane” on its own is clearly a misrepresentation. One that became even more clear when Flight 93 debris photos were released at the Moussaoui trial (see here).

Rick Reuben wrote: You have Larry 'I Pulled WTC7' Silverstein getting a seven billion dollar insurance settlement from the 'terrorist' attacks.

Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms?

Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.

Problem #3, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.

Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?

Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?

Problem #6, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud?

Problem #7, and why would Silverstein admit this on television?

You could argue that this is just Silverstein’s cover story, he didn’t really mean all that, he wasn’t speaking to the Fire Department, but then the situation is becoming even more complicated. What are we supposed to believe: that he accidentally let slip the truth in “pull it”, while lying elsewhere? What is the basis for picking out two words in this account as reliable, and dismissing most of the others?

We prefer a simpler solution. And if "pull it" means "pull people away from the building", then the problems certainly fall away. This decision to pull really is optional, for instance (they could decide to try and fight it, or not). And it's a decision that could, and would be made by the Fire Department. With this interpretation we don't have to pick out some words, or throw any others away, and the answer actually makes sense.