Red Bandana founded at UA93 crash site

It should be patented. Incredible resistance, like the Pentalawn.

They found a new version of Mohamed Atta,



but still no photos of AA77 from pentagon cameras...

Indeed it is clealy stated that the red bandana was found at UA 93's crash site:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/
(see number 111)

And I've thoght they did find it at Vesey Street covering Al Suqmi's passport...

:hippie: :hippie: :hippie: :hippie: :hippie: :hippie: :hippie: :hippie: :hippie: :hippie:

Hey!
Where are the debunkers?

UA93's crash site.



Nothing to debunk. There were all kinds of things found at the site. Even things made of such fragile materials as (gasp) paper.

Do you know where this red bandana was supposed to have been just prior to the crash? Right! Around the head of an alleged hijacker. (According to Glick who described the moment when the alleged hijackers got up and stormed the cockpit. Unfortunately Glick didn't witnessed that they killed a passenger as Burnett reported. But anyway).
Now, Jazz2006: How big was the biggest piece of human remains found at the crash site?
And for you there is no reason to question the authenticity of the red bandana?

True paper was found at the crash site. Gasp. That's not the point. If you bother to look at the pic of the bandana you'll see that your shop around the corner can still sell it as perfectly new. No marks of fire, blood or any kind of destruction.
Now, Jazz2006, can you present any paper that was found at the crash site that is in perfect condition as well?

I see nothing to indicate that that particular bandana was "supposed to have been" around the head of a hijacker "just prior to the crash".

I'm sure it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the red bandanda was not around the heads as Glick saw (who is th eonly one who saw bandanas) but was the extra bandana left in the bags in case of, in case of ... well, whatever.
No, Jazz2006, the main point is:
Show me any paper that was found at the crash site that has no marks of the fire.
Just the same request I've made already in my last post.
Why is the bandana in perfect conditition?

You're the one positing that it was supposedly on the head of hijacker with not a whit of evidence to suggest that that is what has been claimed. So don't look to me for proof of your fake argument. I don't do false arguments.

As for paper evidence, go look at the site linked earlier of various and sundry pieces of debris found - some of them look unscathed, which is not exactly surprising; it happens. And, as an aside, don't fall into the trap of defining things as "in perfect condition" or "perfectly unscathed" or "brilliantly preserved" ~ they aren't and weren't and using such absolute terms will only come back and bite you in the butt later.

You're the one who says that the handkerchief was on the head of a hijacker, not me. You're the one who says that whoever said that there was such a handkerchief on the head of a hijacker is probably a liar or a falsified passenger, not me.

So.... you seem to want it both ways ~ your "fake" passenger says that there is a red handkerchief on a "fake" hijacker.... and now that a handkerchief shows up in evidence, it must be "fake" evidence of the double fake? Hee hee. Too cute.

My advice (not that you asked for it but I'll offer it anyway): maintain an open mind, look at any and all evidence critically - and I do mean critically; do not be drawn into ridiculous and unsupportable scenarios; do not be drawn into "easy" answers; and above all, think for yourself, logically, deductively, and rationally.

What have you done with LARED? He was less annoying and more constructive.

We miss him...:)

But don't blame me if you can't manage to put together a coherent argument. No offence intended, but it seems to me that you're being a bit of a jerk by addressing me with this particular post for no particular reason other than your inability to do a bit of research on your own and an inability to add anything at all in the way of facts to a thread that you started yourself.

Sheesh.

And for the record, I have no idea who Lared is or where he or she lives or anything about him or her. What is that all about?

when one actress was trying to be two people, everything had to be shot in profile.

see post 21 for providing proof that the bandana was indeed around the head of an alleged hijacker.
And as you're the one who brought up the fact that paper were also found at the crash site would you mind posting a pic. All the ones I know clearly show signs of fire. Apparently I must have missed one ....
As for the open mind .... what's about your open mind? Any questions about 911?

Any pictures? Yep, see the exhibit site.

Great! For example?

And for the pics: I haven't found any paper that doesn't show marks of fire. So can you please post the ones that don't show any clear traces of fire.

Where is your famous pic?

I don't claim to have any "famous" pic.

And, in retrospect, it does seem as though there are few photos released to date of paper bits at the site of the crash in Shanksville. Most of the paper and plastic bits are from the other crash sites (i.e. WTC etc.) and not Shanksville. But I seem to recall seeing on the media site posting the trial exhibits, a photo of a driver's licence and various and sundry bits of paper that seemed to belong to someone named CeeCee (or similar) and that some of them didn't seem to be fire damaged. If memory serves, it was the photo immediately to the right of the damaged driver's licence posted in the other thread about the exhibits.

(I'm not sure how to post a photo properly here. I tried once before but I'm told that it didn't show up properly for some people.)

You have (remember ...gasp) posted the finding of paper as relevant for the question how it can be possible that a bandana in such a condition could have been found at the crash site.
The licence of CeeCee Lyles?
It's of plastic not paper, right?
And it is certainly a less good combustible than a bandana.
Btw the bits of paper shown with CeeCee Lyles' licence show burn marks.
So, sorry, this funny bandana rest extraordinarily fire-resistant.
For you again:
How big was the biggest piece of airplane found on September 11?
How big was the biggest piece of human remains found at crash site?
Why the complete absence of blood?
And in such devastating crash a bandana remains in perfect condition? Not even a trace of mud??

Btw What are the questions you have?
I only see you walking around mocking yourself about everyone who has questions.
Just curious.

still wating for an answer of your claims and all the questions you have.

the unsubstantiated conclusion that the handkerchief/bandana was supposedly worn by a hijacker, despite there being no assertion by anyone at all that that was the case.

Once you get around to addressing that ridiculous leap, and once you provide some rational basis for it, we can move on to your other leaps.

But for now.... you're up.

I laughed when i saw that, too.

it seems your "analysis" of just about everything on this particular topic is pretty superficial, so it's not at all surprising to see you that you found such great humour in photos from a death site that killed dozens.

Yeah, that's hilarious.

Sheesh.

but what else do I expect from you. If you have no good arguments, feign moral outrage at the person with whom you disagree. Last week it was the 'anti semite" accusation.

You seem to have progressed beyond boring but annoying with your early thread stalking into the realm of being rather creepy and freaky in your current thread stalking realm. If you think I'm going to actually waste my time looking for all of the other locations in which you have wrongly slagged me off, you're wrong.

I really don't think your stalkerish posts are worth the time or effort. But nice try for the home team, there.

If and when I stumble more of your wholly uninformed and wholly unjustified stalker posts, I'll respond to them, but I am certainly not going to waste my time going looking for them.

No offence intended, but maybe you just need a break. This stuff can get over the top sometimes. I know that sometimes I let it get to me too much. Maybe that's what you're doing too. If so, no ill will at all ~ just step back... relax... and come back to argue another day in a different frame of mind.

But for now, it seems you're reallllllly in a a bit of a freaky sort of zone.

I don't wish that on anyone, no matter what point of view they hold.

So, I really do hope you're okay.




I look forward to them.

Well, I hope for a single one but I'll expect several since you have been following me all over the boards posting to me. I especially look forward to your responses to my posts on teh flying large aircraft thread and the thread where I answered your dozen or more quetions.... but I think it's only fair to have responses to all of the posts that I actually located where you were stalking and questioning me and which I responded to. If I missed some (and I probably did since it seems you've been on a one liner rampage all night, do let me know, and I'll look at those ones too).

But tomorrow is soon enough. See you then.

What anti-semite accusation?

I've never made any such accusation in my life. You really ought not go around accusing people of saying things they've never said. It's kind of creepy.

The shirt that JFK was wearing at the time of his assassination looks to be in worse shape than the bandanna. And the bandanna was worn on the head of a person in the front of a multi-ton aircraft slamming head-on into the ground at over 400 mph, while the shirt was worn by a man sitting in an automobile.

It looks like you're making the same leap as Andre.

It really doesn't matter where it was in the aircraft (the one that "liquidfied" upon impact, thus explaining the dearth of parts); the fact is that it shows no evidence of being near the aircraft.

Hell, I have stuff that comes off un-crashed aircraft that looks worse than that.

Flight 93 passenger Jeremy Glick said by his cell phone: “There’s three of them, Arab looking, possibly Iranian. They’ve got red headbands on, one of them is standing in the aisle wearing a red sash and bag round his waist. Says there’s a bomb in it.”

The second ‘phone call’ was from Flight 93 air hostess Sandy Bradshaw, who allegedly says, “My aircraft has been hijacked by three guys with knives. One of them is sitting in the back row first class. They’ve got red bandannas on their heads and they’re Islamic-looking people. We are in the back galley boiling water to throw on them”.

So where was the four hijacker? Smuggled in a bag? ;)

And shouldn't they have some islamic quotes on these bandanas?





No, because they probably preffered FLOWERS.

or bandana or your originating post at all.


So, the question remains, "Your point?"

I don't see anything that suggsets that the gov't is saying that the red handkerchief or bandana was worn by a putative hijacker.

Do you?

On other threads here, some of them even seem quite convinced.

It's stunning, really.

This post reads entirely different than what I actually said. FFS.


I'm terribly concerned about how it could appear so entirely different than what I wrote. What the heck is going on here?

"I'm terribly concerned about how it could appear so entirely different than what I wrote. What the heck is going on here?"

Maybe you should go to sleep for some hours. If you live in States you were all night on this forum (i'm from europe btw).

You were always rational and now you made an supposition that sb is messing with your posts...

Cheers

I should know better than to allow myself to get so wrapped up in stuff like this ~ I probably owe a few apologies.

lots and lots of posting in so short a time.

Keep thinking...

***
And for added statement: "I don't see anything that suggsets that the gov't is saying that the red handkerchief or bandana was worn by a putative hijacker".

That your problem. Everybody see connection. Hijackers wore red bandanas. Red bandana has been found at crash site. The evidence has been reelesed for Moussasoi judgment. No connection at all... So your point is that other passengers, american guys, wore red bandanas and kept them in their luggage.

And it isn't simply "a handkerchief" (sic) but a bandana folded to wear on head.

Yes, and thats very smart indeed, I've also noted that they JUST found RED BANDANA nothing more, who said that the terrorists wore it?! Buy if not them then who? Maybe pilots on UA fly with red bandanas (sarcasm).

Now I dont know in what context the pictured red bandana was presented to the jury. So imagine them hearing the supposed call from the stewardess about wearing red bandanas. Then in evidence a *gasp* red bandana in a bag. No matter if it was not accurately identified. The connection has been made. Human nature takes over. Powerful piece of evidence. Too bad it's probably a fake.

"Fitzgerald also identified passports and other items belonging to the hijackers that were found at the crash sites, and he held up a long red bandanna that he said one of the terrorists wore on the flight that crashed in a farm field in western Pennsylvania."
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976737774

That scarf is neat and pressed. It's a all-purpose/women's scarf. Ironed into a bandana. Just the thing a suicidal Islamist would wear.

.

a scarf that looks like the the one in the photo worn by an Islamic (or any other) hijacker and/or terrorist before. It looks more like a work out bandana or a biker bandana to me than a suicidal terrorist style bandana to me, but perhaps the shopping options were limited if, indeed, it had anything to do with the hijackers.

I still haven't seen anything linking that particular photograph to the alleged hijackers, though, other than idle speculation.

:applause:
for finding this source!

Now how could this bandana survive the crash in the presented condition?

But the Bandana just doesn't pull my dick.

I was watching the hockey yesterday; there was a bit of argy-bargy in front of the goal and the right wing tapped that goalie on the pads, one of the defenders took umbrage and crosschecked the right wing, so the center twatted the defender and they started to fight (it was that sort of game). During the fight, the defender's helmet came off. Maybe the same thing happened on United 93. Maybe it wasn't actually the hijacker's red bandana, but somebody else's red bandana (OK, that's unlikely). Maybe Jarrah (or whoever the person in his passport photograph is) never put his bandana on, maybe they took their bandanas off. Lots of stuff survived in reasonable condition - credit cards, driver's licences, passports, etc. maybe they washed it before showing it to the jury. Every time a new thing emerges everybody (but in particular Greg Szymanski) says that it can't be real, that the condition is too good, that it should be burned, that it should be singed, that this, that that, that the other. The argument just doesn't have any effect on me any more. If it could be shown that this wasn't typical for other crashes, then you might have somthing, but, after having looked at a crash or two, my feeling is that it is not that weird at all. Personal effects survive.

If you ask me, the Pentagon video stills are fake fakes intended as disinfo. The other fakes found at the crash sites (Moqed's ID card and probably Jarrah's passport/visa and the Al Hazmis' ID cards) are "genuine" fakes, i.e. fakes obtained by the hijackers themselves.

The argument basically boils down to "Gee, that looks in really good condition, but everything in a plane crash must be a mess." I just don't buy it.

its face. See my post 14.

What kind of a suicide terrorist would wear such a crap with a flowery pattern?!

Real "islamic bandanas" should have, and ALWAYS have, ISLAMIC QOUTES on them !!!!...


(Egyptian students from Cairo's venerable Al-Azhar University, wearing red bandanas marked "martyrs")

... (or Florida, or anywhere else in the States) so I wouldn't really know, but I guess it might be a little tricky to buy them there. Maybe this was the best they could do at short notice.

Just my 2 cents........

Or maybe that particular photo and that particular bandana had nothing to do with the hijackers.

Residents of nearby Indian Lake reported seeing debris falling from the jetliner as it overflew the area shortly before crashing.
(Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 9/14/01)

"The argument basically boils down to "Gee, that looks in really good condition, but everything in a plane crash must be a mess." I just don't buy it."

No, it doesn't boil down to this.
As altready widely discussed: Everything at the crash site was a MESS.
May I ask you again the questions:
How long was the biggest part of airplane found on September 11?
How long was the biggest part of human remains found?
Why the absence of blood?
If this is not a mess I don't know.

But as you don't buy it anyway:
Care to post any item found at the crash site that was in such a good condition as the bandana?

Biggest plane part: the bit with the windows, what was that? 2.5m x 2.5m? But if we go by weight then the engine parts would probably be heavier. I found another similar crash with the same characteristics - ValuJet. There's probably more similar crashes with similar characteristics (one near Pittsburg?).
Human remains: that was about 14 inches, if memory serves (backbone?). Again, same as ValuJet.
Blood: neither you, nor anyone else has shown that blood is usually found in liquid form at such plane crashes. It wasn't found at the ValuJet crash site.

Maybe the bandana got washed and cleaned like all the other personal effects did.

no.
These stuff wasn't found on September 11.
Have any eyewitnes recalling seeing that or any article from September 11 or 12?
The absence of blood is the most eerie thing for the coroner. Doesn't look too normal to me. Besides the ValuJet crashed in water. I don't think the behaviour of blood in water and outside water can be compared.
And the bandana can have been washed 100 times this shouldn't help the marks made by fire.

but I still don't see anything in that story that links the bandanna in the photo in question to the bandanna mentioned in the story linked.

I'm not saying it can't be the same one, but I am saying that, so far, I see no evidence that it is the same one.

We have a description of that happening, we have a photograph of such an exhibit. And no, I don't need to have been in the courtroom to see that happening, neither do I need a verbatim transcript of the judge ordering the clerk to mark it as exhibit GX-PA00111.

Is your point that there may be *two* bandanas in the exhibits, and we could be looking at the wrong one ?

:crazy:

just as set out in my post directly above yours.

My guess is that neither were you.

you don't know than an item marked as evidence in a trial is automatically presented to the jury?

That's the whole purpose of marking it for evidence, so the jury can look at it during jury deliberations.

You can present stuff to witnesses to refresh their memory, but the jury cannot take it back to the jury room. Its only shown to the witness. Only items marked as evidence are allowed for that purpose.

So obviously, this bandanna was presented by the prosecution to the jury.

And, as you know as an attorney, you cannot present evidence in a criminal trial without a witness accounting for how it was found, chain of custody and establish why it is relevant for the trial.(Fed. R. Evi. Pro Section 401)

And I highly doubt a piece of clothing would have been introduced into evidence without it being relevant to prove the prosecutions case.

I don't need any lessons on the rules of evidence.

I realize that you are a self-described "casual observer" but if you're going to cast aspersions, you should read the whole story before doing so. You seem to have some reading comprehension deficits and logical thinking deficits that I wouldn't expect from a fellow traveller. (To be fair, on this thread, it's only your reading comprehension deficits that you've demonstrated as yet; the logical thinking deficits are apparent on the other thread in which you've been, for no apparent reason, also trying to disparage me.)

That said, if you'd actually read this thread, you'd have seen that I subsequently addressed the point that I initially did not realize that a witness testified that the bandana was purportedly worn by a hijacker. Key words being "worn by a hijacker". I never took any issue about it being found at the scene of the crash.

As you must know, to use your words, "as someone who claims to be an attorney", any piece of evidence found at the scene can go in as an exhibit without the particular proviso that it was "worn by a hijacker" and that was the only aspect of it that I was initially disputing because it was not asserted initially or readily apparent that there was testimony as to the providence of the item. The early part of the thread did not allude to any testimony as to the providence of the item. A subsequent post eventually alluded to it with a link or a quote that I didn't intially realize was actually referrring to testimony at the hearing, but later, when I read another link posted by someone else, I realized that someone had, in fact, testified that they thought it was "worn by a hijacker" and I acknowledged that as soon as I read it.

In other words, you're a little late to the party, and your aspersions are wholly unwarranted.

I find it rather strange that I have to explain these very obvious things to you, given that you say you're an attorney. Was it not a prerequisite at your law school that you had to exhibit excellent analytical, logical, and critical thinking skills prior to acceptance? Were those skills not honed throughout your years there? Did they not require reading comprehension skills that were developed beyond the high school level prior to acceptance? What gives here? (Or are you a tax lawyer or some such, rather than a trial lawyer?)

Have they introduced the bandana as an exhibit in the trial ? I didn't notice them introducing, say, the pilots uniforms, did you ?

The reason they introduced this is because it is part of the story of the 'putative' hijackers, not that its a random piece of clothing from Joe Random Passenger.

Pretending otherwise is ....

Notice also that they included pictures of passenger manifests from the connecting flights some of the hijackers arrived on, but not the manifests from the four flights that they hijacked. Methinks there must be a reason for that.

Or are they for other 9/11 hijacked planes ? I haven't looked at this myself yet.

Now that I look again, the evidence exhibits aren't even the full passenger manifests of connecting flights, but the Virgin Atlantic Passenger Name Record (PNR) for Banihammad and Al-Ghamdi, and the Swiss Air Flight 100 PNRs for Al-Hazmi and Al-Omari.

If the government was attempting to prove that Moussaoui had information that could have prevented 9-11, wouldn't you think they would have to show evidence that the Al Qaeda hijackers were indeed on the hijacked planes?

I haven't been near enough to attend the trial and listen in. Have you?

Not much to discuss then, is there ?

Please can you try to be a little more constructive rather than just carping ..?

Here is a link from a report from the trial, for what it's worth. The idea you are floating - that the prosecutors through the FBI introduced into evidence the bandana found at the site because it was worn by a crew member or a random passenger or it was a random piece of crash debris - is laughable, and you know that it is.



http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976737774

And, yes, I know how exhibits get entered in court proceedings.

For some reason, the first time I read that quote, I didn't realize that it was from the FBI agent while he was testifying at the hearing.

That does, in fact, make it clear that he was identifying a red bandana as belonging to a hijacker.

Thanks.

Fitzgerald can say that one of the hijackers wore that "bandana."

But I say there is no evidence anyone wore that bandana, let alone got pulverized into a slurry while wearing it.

Only three hijackers and only one where terrorists were wearing martyr bandanas...

I have a felling that maybe it was the only plane on this day that was REALLy hijacked... And the hijackers knew nothing about other planes. If they knew sth they wouldn't be flying as far as to Cleveland risking being shot down...

but it's only a felling...

At first I thought those were merely typos but the repetition of them makes me wonder. Perhaps there's really something to it. I mean, repeat it enough and it just might be true. So....

(tin foil hat on)

So what's a sth?

And what's a felling?

And are these somehow the key to the whole conspiracy?

Inquiring minds want to know.

(tin foil hat off)

I just noticed the genesis of those gems. So, never mind. Just more of the same.

Carry on.

cell phones don't work up high in the sky

We've got a red bandana...........that good enough!

;o)




===============================================================
"Mom? This is Mark Bingham."
===============================================================

We've got a red bandana...........that good enough!

Er, no. Take a look at that. Is it even a bandana? Not what I'd call a bandana, unless some of you can give me some sartorial nuances I'm unaware of. And if not, we've got some lying or incompentence to account for on the part of those presenting the "evidence" labeled PA00111 01-455-A (ID).

The PA00111 refers to Berwick County, according to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program ORI-Agency Look-up Table. So I guess it's 01-455-A, if you want to refer to it by name, though it might answer to Big Red, I suppose.

I just grabbed a couple of bandanas from around my house. One that was probably one of those two for a couple of bucks or whatever at Walmart, another had a tag from the dollar store. They're the fold up to put around your brow to keep the sweat from pouring into your eyes kind, the kind you'd give your dog as a hip collar, or that you might wear around your neck for a jaunty classic country look.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives examples of the term going back to the 18th century, says it's related to the Hindustani term "bandhnu ‘a mode of dyeing in which the cloth is tied in different places, to prevent the parts from receiving the dye.’" We know it to generally be a square of bright colored cloth with a contrasting print (often of floral or paisley motif) mostly around the outside. It's usually about 21 inches at a side, about 31 inches most on the diagonal, which is the way you'd usually fold it for wearing as a band. To do that you'd first bring opposing corners together to make a triangle, bring those ppoints down to meet the center of the longest diagonal fold. You'd then fold in half, then in half again, giving you a band about 2 inches wide, and 31 inches long, 16 layers of cloth thick. Had you folded it in thirds you'd end up with a band 3 inches wide, and only 12 layers thick.

Take your standard bandana, fold it to the usual thickness. Guaranteed you cannot get it to fold like the one in the evidence bag above. It simply isn't long enough.

Take a closer look at it. http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui /jpg/PA00111-1.jpg (I just broke that URL into two parts, for some reason posting it in the message here was putting the full hi-res image into the thread and messing with the formatting. Just remove the spaces before the jpg section and paste all of it into your browser)

This is no 12 layer or 16 layer folded bandana. It's quite obviously just two layers of cloth, a single long rectangle that was folded and sewn in a seam down the side, then turned inside out. While we don't get a definitive look at the ends,we do seem to see part of an end peeking up just up around the bottom edge of the white label.

Odd thing is, it's not finished properly. You see all those threads running like a series of M's and W's along the top edge there? That's called an interlock stitch. It's done on a special machine that simultaneously trims the edge and binds it with that series of stitches so the fabric is less likely to fray.
It's probably that way on the inside of the seam we see running along the piece -- but you'd not generally want it to be seen coming out at the end like that.

I took a two inch wide sash I have, and tried to roughly fold it in the manner the fabric is folded in the alleged "bandana" exhibit. It used up about 55 inches to get it in that position, with those folds. More like a sash, to be worn around the waist or hips.

Who reported a red sash? From commentary about the "dramatized reconstruction" "Flight 93 -- Countdown to Terror," it seems that Jeremy Glick allegedly said, "There’s three of them, Arab looking, possibly Iranian. They’ve got red headbands on, one of them is standing in the aisle wearing a red sash and bag round his waist. Says there’s a bomb in it.” I don't know what specific information this is based on, if any.

In Lisa Beamer's book "Let's Roll," GTE AirPhone supervisor Lisa Jefferson paraphrases that Todd Beamer told her, ""He told me that three people had taken over the plane," said Lisa, "two with knives and one with a bomb strapped around his waist with a red belt."
http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1538/story5.html

So Lisa Jefferson refers to it as a red belt, the movie calls it a red sash. If you were going to strap a bomb to your waist, even a fake one, would you use a kind of lightweight cotton/poly (I'm going to assume it was a blend because of its general wrinkle-free appearance) girly kind of sash?

But all speculation aside, the most important factor is this: there is no sign that ANYONE has worn this while flight 93 was in flight, not to tie around a brow, not to tie around a waist to hold a pound or two of bomb.

There is no sign of a knot having been tied in it. Not at all.

It's almost like they are flaunting the ridiculousness of it in our faces.