I'm not really sure what the assertion is in the above debate.

What we know:

1) Cooper spoke English with no discernible accent.

2) Cooper hijacked a jet in the US.

3) Cooper wore a tie from JC Penney that cost a $1.50 and was only sold in the US.

All of this tells me the guy was almost certainly an American.

As it was, he was an American living in Nepal

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'm not really sure what the assertion is in the above debate.

What we know:

1) Cooper spoke English with no discernible accent.

2) Cooper hijacked a jet in the US.

3) Cooper wore a tie from JC Penney that cost a $1.50 and was only sold in the US.

All of this tells me the guy was almost certainly an American.

As it was, he was an American living in Nepal

The use of term "American" or "US" currency by Cooper would "suggest" a person who was outside the US for some time dealing with a foreign currency, maybe American or Foreign.. but a foreign "influence"..

It would be rare for an American who has never left the US to use those terms.

Of course that foreign "influence" could apply to Vietnam military personnel...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'm not really sure what the assertion is in the above debate.

What we know:

1) Cooper spoke English with no discernible accent.

2) Cooper hijacked a jet in the US.

3) Cooper wore a tie from JC Penney that cost a $1.50 and was only sold in the US.

All of this tells me the guy was almost certainly an American.

As it was, he was an American living in Nepal

The use of term "American" or "US" currency by Cooper would "suggest" a person who was outside the US for some time dealing with a foreign currency, maybe American or Foreign.. but a foreign "influence"..

It would be rare for an American who has never left the US to use those terms.

Of course that foreign "influence" could apply to Vietnam military personnel...

More good possibilities to consider.

Just listened to the Tosaw radio interview..

noticed, he said the hijacker gave the name "Daniel Cooper"

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

He also stated that the 3 "packets" yes, he used the correct term, were in $2000's.

That is consistent and supports my argument. The packets/packages themselves were not randomized, if they were then they would have to be rebanded with rubber bands. If not, they weren't rebanded.

If the packets/packages weren't randomized, then the Bank MUST HAVE randomized (and rubber banded) the bundles (aka groups of packages), as they claimed.

Ckret, thinking the packages were called "bundles" incorrectly assumed the packages were randomized and re-banded.


So, what the heck does this mean...

If the three packages were held together as ONE SINGLE BUNDLE (randomized) with rubber bands that changes how the money could have arrived at TBAR.

The SINGLE BUNDLE would not have to have arrived in a container or be personally placed to have the three packages end up so close together.

A SINGLE BUNDLE of three packages of 100 bills each ($2000) landed on TBAR, as the rubber bands deteriorated the three packages separated slightly.

(It doesn't support any specific suspect, it just expands the potential means by which the money could have arrived at TBAR)

.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Just listened to the Tosaw radio interview..

noticed, he said the hijacker gave the name "Daniel Cooper"

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

He also stated that the 3 "packets" yes, he used the correct term, were in $2000's.

That is consistent and supports my argument. The packets/packages themselves were not randomized, if they were then they would have to be rebanded with rubber bands. If not, they weren't rebanded.

If the packets/packages weren't randomized, then the Bank MUST HAVE randomized (and rubber banded) the bundles (aka groups of packages), as they claimed.

Ckret, thinking the packages were called "bundles" incorrectly assumed the packages were randomized and re-banded.


So, what the heck does this mean...

If the three packages were held together as ONE SINGLE BUNDLE (randomized) with rubber bands that changes how the money could have arrived at TBAR.

The SINGLE BUNDLE would not have to have arrived in a container or be personally placed to have the three packages end up so close together.

A SINGLE BUNDLE of three packages of 100 bills each ($2000) landed on TBAR, as the rubber bands deteriorated the three packages separated slightly.

(It doesn't support any specific suspect, it just expands the potential means by which the money could have arrived at TBAR)

.

Well you are wrongo-dongo. We talked to SeaFirst (and other banks). They dont use the terms packages vs packets vs bundles you claim banker's do! These are not clinical banking terms as you claim - and never have been! One officer at SeaFirst said the only "banking" term he knew of for groups of money was "band of money" - he said that term would be understood among banks ... but also in the currency transfer, security transfer, and amored truck business. He said the words packages vs packets vs bundles were generic terms people would use in a bank but would be context dependent.

Maybe these terms are used at your bank, the Yo-Mo Bank of Mongolia, but no other bank in the USA recognises the terms you claim the banking industry uses!

In other words Bulljax, your claim is "bulljax".

You are still wrong,

The bank randomized/rebanded the bundles, there is ZERO evidence that they randomized/rebanded the packets.

The terms were mixed up by Ckret, not the Bank..

All bank use those terms specifically, you are lying in attempt to back up your baseless opinion.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Just listened to the Tosaw radio interview..

noticed, he said the hijacker gave the name "Daniel Cooper"

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

He also stated that the 3 "packets" yes, he used the correct term, were in $2000's.

That is consistent and supports my argument. The packets/packages themselves were not randomized, if they were then they would have to be rebanded with rubber bands. If not, they weren't rebanded.

If the packets/packages weren't randomized, then the Bank MUST HAVE randomized (and rubber banded) the bundles (aka groups of packages), as they claimed.

Ckret, thinking the packages were called "bundles" incorrectly assumed the packages were randomized and re-banded.


So, what the heck does this mean...

If the three packages were held together as ONE SINGLE BUNDLE (randomized) with rubber bands that changes how the money could have arrived at TBAR.

The SINGLE BUNDLE would not have to have arrived in a container or be personally placed to have the three packages end up so close together.

A SINGLE BUNDLE of three packages of 100 bills each ($2000) landed on TBAR, as the rubber bands deteriorated the three packages separated slightly.

(It doesn't support any specific suspect, it just expands the potential means by which the money could have arrived at TBAR)

.

Well you are wrongo-dongo. We talked to SeaFirst (and other banks). They dont use the terms packages vs packets vs bundles you claim banker's do! These are not clinical banking terms as you claim - and never have been! One officer at SeaFirst said the only "banking" term he knew of for groups of money was "band of money" - he said that term would be understood among banks ... but also in the currency transfer, security transfer, and amored truck business. He said the words packages vs packets vs bundles were generic terms people would use in a bank but would be context dependent.

Maybe these terms are used at your bank, the Yo-Mo Bank of Mongolia, but no other bank in the USA recognises the terms you claim the banking industry uses!

In other words Bulljax, your claim is "bulljax".

You are still wrong,

The bank randomized/rebanded the bundles, there is ZERO evidence that they randomized/rebanded the packets.

The terms were mixed up by Ckret, not the Bank..

All bank use those terms specifically, you are lying in attempt to back up your baseless opinion.

I talked to the officers of five banks Nimrod! You are the liar.  Stop calling me a liar, LIAR! 

One thing is 100% clear, Nimrod. You keep calling people liars whoa re not liars. You cant even get that straight. 

I think you are suffering from energy drink psychosis.

You  cant even communicate in English? Parly Vous? You need a translator ....

You have a history of making up shit to back up your opinion.. and already damaged your own credibility..

There is no value to any discussion with a proven liar..

..

Blevins would say that too! I am willing to bet you have never even called a bank to check your theory about banking terms out. Have you?

Another complain filed against FLYJACK/BLEVINS!

Leave me alone you asshole.