Need details on 9/11.

[coloradodem2005]

How did the terrorists take over the plane that crashed into the Pentagon? What kind of weapons did they have? How in the name of God could these security guards allow them on the plane?

[carlvs]

1. You're come to the wrong place

If you come here to get rational answers to your question, then I suggest you run now, and don't look back...:grr:

NOW if you came here for outlandish conspiracy theories, interpretations based on questionable data sources, attacks on those who feel that the conventional view of what happened on 9/11 is more or less correct, mocking of those who had a front row seat to that day's nightmarish events, and just a plain rejection of basic physics, then you are in the right place :puke:

[NecessaryOnslaught]

2. Dont let the door hit you in the ass

and so on and so forth.

[carlvs]

3. No way!!!

I'm having too much fun watching the amount of :tinfoilhat: BS being shoveled here...

[nomatrix]

5. You did an excellent job

of NOT answering one question asked.

[Zorra]

113. Why did Bu$h refuse to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission?

And why was he so uncooperative? It indicates that he is hiding something.

Claims of lack of cooperation from the White House

The White House came under intense fire concerning the commission from many victims' families <4> (http://www.voicesofsept11.org/). White House leaders were accused of blocking the commission for nearly a year before announcing its creation. The White House insisted that they be able to appoint the commission's chair, leading some to question the commission's independence. The initial person appointed to head the commission, Henry Kissinger, has been accused by many of having been involved in past government coverups in South America (specifically, the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile).

Even after Kissinger resigned, the White House was often cited as having attempted to block the release of information to the commission <5> (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/27/bush.911/) and for refusing to give interviews without tight conditions attached (leading to threats to subpoena <6> (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031026-114805-2613r.htm)). They have further been accused of attempting to derail the commission by giving it one of the smallest independent commission funding levels in recent history ($3 million <7> (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html)), and by giving the commission a very short deadline. The White House insists that they have given the commission "unprecedented cooperation".

While President Bush and Vice President Cheney did ultimately agree to testify, they did so only under several conditions:

That they would be allowed to testify jointly;
That they would not be required to take an oath before testifying;
That the testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers;
That these notes would not be made public.
The commission agreed to these conditions, and the President and Vice President gave their testimony on April 29.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/National_Commission_on_Terrorist_Attacks_Upon_the_United_States

Bu$h knew.

[nomatrix]

4. You could read the report

http://www.c-span.org/pdf/911finalreport.pdf

and decide for yourself. It is only 585 pages and you can scroll to the chapter on the pentagon. Problem is this is their conclusion so
to your question "How in God's name could those security guards..."

[coloradodem2005]

6. I thought that I saw the report in boostores too.

I saw one in Borders earlier today.

[tngledwebb]

7. Is that what really happened?

How do we know that? There are three years of this Admin blocking the so-called official or independent investigations. Read the New Pearl Harbor or review the related forums here for a few weeks- Would you trust the present Admin to tell you the truth about anything?

[DulceDecorum]

8. Are you talking about N644AA?

The plane that the FAA reports as having SURVIVED the events of September 11, 2001?
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=644AA

Are you refering to N644AA,
the plane that had its FAA civil aircraft registration
cancelled by request of the owner
on January 14, 2002?

Are you asking about N644AA,
the plane that the the FAA
AND the maufacturer both claim was outfitted with HUGE Rolls Royce engines on each wing?
And not the piddly little lawnmower-looking thing lying at the foot of the tree in the FEMA photos?

Because if you ARE speaking about N644AA,
then take a seat and join the rest of us
some of whom are staring in the direction of Davis-Monthan AFB Boneyard,
and asking all who stop by,
WHERDY GO?

[MercutioATC]

9. Still citing the FAA database, DD?

This issue has been explained scores of times.

[DulceDecorum]

10. By someone who could not tell us

ANYTHING about the bogus "N-numbers"
American Airlines reports to the BTS.

EVERY SINGLE TIME we point to an FAA regulation
or a LAW
that the FAA is charged with enforcing,
you sneer at it as irrelevant and immaterial.

Is there ANYTHING that the FAA puts out
that you think pertains to YOU?
Mr. Mercutio-claims-to-be-an-ATC?

[MercutioATC]

11. Well, database and in-flight regs don't apply to me because I'm an ATC.

So, no. Of the regulations you've brought up, none of them DO pertain to me.

However, you don't have to be an employee of the FAA to know how the registration database works. The FAA is more concerned with making sure that flying planes are registered than that registered planes are flying. The only way they're removed from the database is if the holder of the registration files paperwork with the FAA to have them removed. That's why you will occasionally run across planes that aren't flying but are still in the database. If you want the "smoking gun" you're looking for, show me an inspection record for a plane that's no longer flying recorded after the day it was grounded or crashed. THAT wouyld be something to investigate further.

[DulceDecorum]

31. What FAA regs apply to YOU then?

This I gotta hear.

[MercutioATC]

54. The Enroute portions of the 7110.65, for starters...

I'm an enroute controller. FAA regulations having to do with enroute ATC operations apply to me.


Conversely, things like filing paperwork to remove aircraft from the FAA database and the maximum allowable size of carry-on bags (while still FAA regulations) do not.

[BassettWilliams]

127. Some advice DulceDecorum,

and that is to do what I did and contact the FAA. I think you'll then be singing a much different tune.

[DulceDecorum]

131. And WHAT, pray did they tell you?

Anything you can show or tell?

[BassettWilliams]

132. Nice people at the

FAA; really, really nice folks that answer letters, answer their phones and will actually mail whatever you want. Top secrets? I don't think so. Go ahead give them a call, write or click on their contact us button. Try it; or are you too full of yourself?

[DulceDecorum]

133. I see you just ate

[BassettWilliams]

134. Do you know why are your

theories are always so hollow? You have never contacted the FAA, or on another subject, anyone in the BPS teams. Had you done so, as a genuine 911 investigator would be expected to, you'd find scores of cooperative people and some answers to your questions.

[DeadBroke]

135. This 2 cents ...

... is about getting information from the FAA.

Due to disagreements in other threads about the registrations of my brother's planes I contacted the FAA in writing. I wound up having several telephone conversations with the woman who responded to my first letter. I found her to be extremely cooperative. She faxed me copies of several items that the family had believed were lost, provided me with all the rules and regulations I requested, helped me track down the current owners of planes my brother had sold, answered questions about enforcement, spoke openly about the numbers in question, and refered me onto superiors when my questions were beyond her knowledge or experience. Her superiors were just as cooperative.

Frankly speaking and summed up; this business about tail numbers all means absolutley nothing.

[Abe Linkman]

12. 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory is absurd. Just THINK about it,

The U.S. Gov't wants us to believe that a group of terrorists carefully plotted and planned every aspect of the 9/11 attacks...yet the alleged hijackers had no way of knowing that even ONE of their planned hijackings would be successful, much less all four. In spite of that:

* One group went to Vermont & took the risk of missing their flight out of Boston (if their flight from Vermont wasn't on time). Doing that also exposed them to an additional risk of being caught.

* All four groups waited approximate 30 minutes into their flight before allegedly commandeering the planes -- thereby risking total 9/11 failure.

* All four groups took the huge risk of assuming that they could successfully commandeer the planes they were on and thwart any efforts by passengers and crew...BEFORE anyone could use a cell phone to call for help, and BEFORE the pilots could signal the plane was being hijacked < the alleged hijackers had no way of knowing that the pilots wouldn't know what was happening prior to the hijackers allegedly storming the cockpit >.

* Even if the alleged hijackers thought they needed only TWO hijackers
to storm the cockpit, subdue the pilots, and take over the flight controls, that would leave only TWO hijackers to fend off all of the passengers and plane crew...and they had no way of preventing passengers from using their cell phones or airphones to call for help,
so they risked being forced down or shot down before they could reach their targets.

* Hijackers had no way of knowing whether or not they might be under suspicion, and thus they risked boarding aircraft that might well have had armed security men posing as passengers...and the hijackers took that risk...armed only with small box cutters.

* Alleged 9/11 plotters surely knew about technology that allows taking
over the piloting function and flying the plane remotely, thus preventing hijackers from being able to carry their mission...yet they took all of the above cited risks.

REAL terrorists planning something like 9/11 would have used chartered planes, not commercial airliners. They wouldn't have taken the numerous huge risks that the alleged 9/11 planners supposedly took.

When you stop and THINK about it, the 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory
is obviously a total fabrication and absurdity. Apparently the propagandists came up with the story they're selling precisely because they know that the bigger the lie, the easier it is to get away with it.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Abe, you're spinning fast and furious...desperate?

The U.S. Gov't wants us to believe that a group of terrorists carefully plotted and planned every aspect of the 9/11 attacks...yet the alleged hijackers had no way of knowing that even ONE of their planned hijackings would be successful, much less all four.

The hijackers' inability to know the future doesn't prevent them from carefully plotting and planning the 9/11 attacks. Why do you think the two things are mutually exclusive?

Proceeding with their plan would have been a win-win situation for the hijackers. If they had any measure of success in their plans, then the objective of hitting America inside its borders would have been achieved. If they had all been caught, then the story would have been all over the papers anyway, just as the capture of the Millenium Bombers was. America would be more aware of its vunerability, and with live hijackers to question and explore, their Saudi roots would have been more difficult to conceal. That would have jepordized US-Saudi ties, just as bin Laden wanted.

So the plan was a go - because it moved bin Laden's objectives forward succeed or no.

Also, increasing the number of planes hijacked bumped the probablity that at least one would succeed. The 9/11 Commission report is an examination of how three succeeded and the fourth was foiled only by the dedicated assault of passengers.

In spite of that:

* One group went to Vermont & took the risk of missing their flight out of Boston (if their flight from Vermont wasn't on time). Doing that also exposed them to an additional risk of being caught.

I think you mean Maine, don't you, Abe? Watch those basic facts - when you're sloppy, you lose credibility.

Atta and another hijacker boarded in Maine, but their flight left at 6 and arrived at Logan at 6:45. That gave them an hour and fifteen minute layover. That's usually enough to guard against delayed flights. Yes, sometimes it isn't, but most times it is, and it was in this case.

This Maine boarding did raise some risk factors, but it also lowered others. By staggering their entry into the airport security system, they lowered their chances of getting caught. Five people triggering the CAPPS system on a flight might have been caught, but one in Maine and three in Boston wasn't as conspicuous.

The hijackers of Flight 11 had the most people flagged by the CAPPS system, by the way. Four hijackers of Flight 11 were selected. None of Flight 175's hijackers were flagged, but three of Flight 77's hijackers were, and one of Flight 93's. This is something the hijackers would have known about, because they made several practice flights.

* All four groups waited approximate 30 minutes into their flight before allegedly commandeering the planes -- thereby risking total 9/11 failure.

How this risks total 9/11 failure is beyond me.

Nevertheless, this wait of 30 minutes by all the hijackers isn't true.

Flight 11 took off at 7:59, but never reached cruising altitude, for the hijacking began around 8:14 - fifteen minutes.

Flight 175 took off at 8:14, reached cruising altitude at 8:33, and the hijacking began bewteen 8:42 and 8:46 - about thiry minutes after takeoff, and ten minutes after reaching cruising altitude.

Flight 77 took off at 8: 20, reached cruing altitude at 8:46, and was hijacked between 8:51 and 8:56 - thirty minutes after takeoff and five to ten minutes after reaching cruising altitude.

Flight 93 took off at 8:42 (over forty minutes late) and was hijacked at 9:28 - forty-six minutes.

Two hijackings began after 30 minutes. One began after 15 minutes of flight, and one after 46 minutes. Remember what I said about basic facts, Abe?

* All four groups took the huge risk of assuming that they could successfully commandeer the planes they were on and thwart any efforts by passengers and crew...BEFORE anyone could use a cell phone to call for help, and BEFORE the pilots could signal the plane was being hijacked < the alleged hijackers had no way of knowing that the pilots wouldn't know what was happening prior to the hijackers allegedly storming the cockpit >.

As I explained above, successful hijacking or not, it would have moved Osama's objectives forward. So this objection of yours is meaningless.

The hijackers had no idea what would actually happen, but they knew what they were going to try to do.

* Even if the alleged hijackers thought they needed only TWO hijackers
to storm the cockpit, subdue the pilots, and take over the flight controls, that would leave only TWO hijackers to fend off all of the passengers and plane crew...and they had no way of preventing passengers from using their cell phones or airphones to call for help,
so they risked being forced down or shot down before they could reach their targets.

Again I repeat: successful hitting of targets or not, the overall plan would have had an acceptable level of success simply by the hijackers' trying to do what they did.

Most passengers would have reacted with the pre-9/11 assumptions: that this was only a hijacking like many others. Please don't think I'm excusing the Bush administration's "lack of imagination" by this - that's an entirely different subject. The ordinary traveller would have had no reason to suspect this to be an extraordinary hijacking - and those who did form that suspicion did fight back. The 9/11 report tells us just how close the passengers came to taking back Flight 93.

That's a good way of explaining this concept as well, I see. The passengers of Flight 93 went forward, accepting an extraordinary level of risk, to prevent the plane being used as a missile against a US building. Their fight, regardless of its success in gaining control of the cockpit, was successful in its primary objective, stopping the intended attack.

In the same way, the hijackers assumed the incredible risks of failing at their secondary objective - hitting buildings with planes - because anything would achieve their primary objective - polarizing the struggle between Islamic nations and Western nations.

* Hijackers had no way of knowing whether or not they might be under suspicion, and thus they risked boarding aircraft that might well have had armed security men posing as passengers...and the hijackers took that risk...armed only with small box cutters.

Again I repeat, eluding capture or not was a win-win for the hijackers. Even failure would have advanced the cause they expoused.

* Alleged 9/11 plotters surely knew about technology that allows taking
over the piloting function and flying the plane remotely, thus preventing hijackers from being able to carry their mission...yet they took all of the above cited risks.

Who're you calling Shirley? Do you possess evidence of this knowledge among the hijackers?

Assuming they did know about this remarkable ability, what evidence is there that passenger jets in America possess this capability?

Assuming they do...

Again I repeat: whether they succeeded or failed in their attack, their cause was helped.

REAL terrorists planning something like 9/11 would have used chartered planes, not commercial airliners. They wouldn't have taken the numerous huge risks that the alleged 9/11 planners supposedly took.

Would chartered planes seating five had the jet fuel aboard that would have created the horrendous Molotov Cocktail effect that destroyed the WTC complex and seriously wounded the Pentagon? You don't think chartering four planes large enough to do something like that might have had its own set of risks?

Furthermore, the scenario you pump into DU daily has a much larger risk assumption, because of its staggering complexity. If one computerized missile had gone astray, it would have exposed the 9/11 plot to frame Osama. If one person had noticed the cutting charges that were put into the WTC framework, everything would have unravelled.

But for the plotting Bush/Mossad/what-have-you behind your unwieldy speculations, failure would not have been a winning situation. Failure would have meant exposure, loss of reputation and freedom, jail time, execution, the shaming of families, the loss of immense structures of wealth. All of this staked on whether or not some guy at the flamethrowing missile factory didn't sneeze when he was wiring the guidance system...

When you stop and THINK about it, the 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory
is obviously a total fabrication and absurdity. Apparently the propagandists came up with the story they're selling precisely because they know that the bigger the lie, the easier it is to get away with it.

When you stop and THINK about it, Abe, you'll realize that the truth about the 9/11 attacks is coming out, and you're fighting it tooth and nail. Your unwarranted speculations are providing a smoke screen of hokum around the real questions and answers. Nice try, but it ain't working. Not around here...

[Abe Linkman]

14. If what I said is "hokum", why did you respond with propaganda/PRospin?

"Slavery is freedom" "Failure is success"

When you stop propagandizing and spinning like a pro from H & K, The Rendon Group or from "Deep Cover" -- open your eyes and read the posts in this forum if you can bring yourself to face the truth. Because, the truth is, YOUR three year effort to distract, undermine, get people banned from DU, delete messages, discredit every source that doesn't support your propaganda, and otherwise impede the search for the TRUTH about what really happened on 9-11 has resulted in exactly:
ZERO converts to your bogus "legend".

People have come here as supporters of the Official Conspiracy that you sell, and after learning facts that aren't often found in the corporate media, they've become declared supporters of LIHOP and MIHOP.

Who the Hell you think you're fooling with that Horse puckey? merc?

[LARED]

15. Now that you mention horse puckey, perhaps you can take

a moment and actually point out where bolo responded with propaganda.

[Abe Linkman]

16. Now that you've chimed in with your usual sincerity, if it makes you ...

feel any better, you can add whatever words you feel I should have included along with the word "propaganda". Like: "Nonsense"? Yes. "Half-truths"? Yes. Fallacious reasoning? Always. Nonsense? Why, of course. Generalizations? Absolutely. Unproven conclusions? Why, sure. Claims that have no basis in fact? Yup.


It's a jumbled mess that tries to project an air of certainty by including irrelevant details like what time flights took off.

Were you impressed with the power of his sales pitch?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Irrelevant details?

You said, Abe, that all four hijackings began approxiately 30 minutes after takeoff.

I listed the takeoff times and the times hijackings began, disproving your statement as a falsehood.

Takeoff times are completely relevant to your statement. You really are getting desperate.

[Abe Linkman]

20. Irrelevant to the point being made, but you're right about FL 11

I pointed out the risks of having their hijacking plans thwarted by waiting approximately 30 minutes after takeoff.

Pointing out that the alleged hijack of FL 11 took place less than 30 minutes after takeoff hardly proves an intent to deceive anymore than the fact that on one flight the alleged hijack began (according to you...who weren't there ) 46 minutes after takeoff.

The exact times are speculative and you want to make them a big deal because you think doing so undermines the point I was making or else it's a sign of desperation on your part that you need to post a long message in hopes that readers will think it's more than your usual hot air-filled PR.

One more. I said that the alleged PLANNERS surely knew about technology that can be used to take over the piloting function.

Your response? You said there's no reason the HIJACKERS would know about that technology (Straw man argument). Actually, even though the issue ISN'T whether or not the alleged hijackers know of that technology, how do YOU know they don't (have you ever talked to them?), it's actually very reasonable to assume they WOULD have known about it. After all the pilot training they'd had and who knows what they learned
from intelligence sources.

Instead of trying to refute the point I made, you gave a Straw man argument and threw in some conclusions without any basis.

If you want to take a legitimate crack at the issues I raised, fine, just DO OVER. While you at it, refrain from your usual trickery and fallacious reasoning, and we'll all be better off for it.

[objection]

23. Risks?

No. You pointed out no risks at all. You merely attempted this bald statement:

* All four groups waited approximate 30 minutes into their flight before allegedly commandeering the planes -- thereby risking total 9/11 failure.

How did it risk total failure? Is one allowed to ask? We see no reason for the assertion. We see no particular risk identified.

[Bolo Boffin]

85. Hey, Abe! Question up here!

You may have missed it:

You pointed out no risks at all. You merely attempted this bald statement:

* All four groups waited approximate 30 minutes into their flight before allegedly commandeering the planes -- thereby risking total 9/11 failure.

How did it risk total failure? Is one allowed to ask? We see no reason for the assertion. We see no particular risk identified.

Do you mind answering that one for us? How did waiting thirty minutes risk total failure? Thanks ever so...

[Abe Linkman]

88. Too many things could have gone wrong.

At the least, the alleged hijackers might have been prevented from taking ANY action (they had no way of knowing whether their "plot" had been suspected). At worst, ALL planes might have been shot down.

By waiting, all kinds of things might have happened. Passengers might have gotten suspicious & overpowered them etc.

Long list of reasons, bolo. THINK.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. July 26, 2004: Abe Linkman answered a question!!!

The question was "How did waiting thirty minutes endanger the entire 9/11 plan?"

Never mind that the hijackers didn't wait thirty minutes to start (two groups did, one started in fifteen minutes, one took forty-five). Abe said that it endangered the plan, so we asked how.

And we asked, and we asked.

And finally Abe ponied up!

At the least, the alleged hijackers might have been prevented from taking ANY action (they had no way of knowing whether their "plot" had been suspected). At worst, ALL planes might have been shot down.
By waiting, all kinds of things might have happened. Passengers might have gotten suspicious & overpowered them etc.
Long list of reasons, bolo. THINK.

Okay, that's three reasons.

1. They might have been prevented from taking any action.

2. All planes might have been shot down.

3. Passengers might have gotten suspicious and overpowered them.

"Etc.", I'm afraid, doesn't qualify as a reason, Abe. So that's not a very long list. And why would waiting have caused people to get suspicious and overpower them? Did people run around on planes overpowering suspicious people as they sat there in their seats before 9/11?

Boy, everyone would have breathed a sigh of relief after all the planes got shot down, wouldn't we?

This does nothing to blunt my main point, either. As I said, even getting caught would have been shocking enough for their overall objective. The risk to them was minimized by how much even failure would acheive for their cause.

But huge points to you, Abe, for daring to answer a question with actual discussion that related to the question. That had to be risky for you, but I hope that its exposure as nonsense won't keep you from answering more questions in the future.

[Abe Linkman]

96. See, we here on the side of Truth have no need to evade & distract.

Those whose mission is to prevent the truth from getting out have to resort to evasions, distractions, smear tactics, disinformation, half-truths, and all the rest.

[objection]

99. Please

put up or shut up.

If you've got as much as one single factual statement to accurately correct let's see the goods.

[objection]

94. Think again

If all the hijacks get going as soon as possible after take off where then does that leave them if planes depart late?

If one goes bang before the others get going does that increase or decrease the chances?

Don't you think it might be a good idea to build some leeway into the plan in order if possible to coordinate?

And if you're going to have a go at a pilot do you think that it might be a good idea to wait until he's switched on the auto pilot?

Just wondering.

[Abe Linkman]

27. Can't have it both ways, bolo.

Either the alleged 9/11 attacks were carefully planned or they weren't.
You can't just say they were when it suits your PR purpose, and say they weren't carefully planned when it doesn't suit your purpose.

The public has been led to believe that the attacks were very carefully planned, over many years. Therefore, the planners would have carefully weighed the pros and cons of each aspect of the plot. Especially, for those aspects that involved potentially critical risk.

The points I raised seem to me to be very obvious issues that they would have thought of and thought through, thoroughly.

Given their past experience and knowledge of using airplanes as attack weapons and given that some had received CIA training (according to mercutio-who-says-he's-just-an-ATC) and with all of their vast network of experts etc., surely the plotters would have known about and taken into consideration the fact that technology exists to remotely take over the piloting of even large aircraft. Furthermore, they would certainly have told the alleged hijackers about that possibility, even if the hijackers themselves had no prior knowledge of such technology.

The Official Conspiracy Theory IS absurd to begin with. Saying that the cave dwellers who allegedly are responsible for 9/11 ignored the high risks of failure of such a scheme doesn't make any sense to me.
Unless they had good reason to know their plans were "approved" at the highest level of the U.S. Government.

I don't believe that if OBL was involved in 9/11, other than as a Patsy. But, if he WAS, then I don't believe that he would have approved a plan that had such a high risk of failure and resulting potentially devastating personal and "professional" consequences.

UNLESS he had the active assistance of the U.S. Government.

Anyone who wants to rebut this is encouraged to do so.

[objection]

28. Substantiate.

During the past 1000 days I have seen a lot written about remote control but never once anything to the effect that any civilian airliner is actually set up to operate routinely in such a fashion, and from what I know of the pilots there would be some considerable resistance to such a proposal.

So what exactly is the case here supposed to be? That Airliners are covertly fitted with a home run system? If so the secrecy would presumably be in the interests of extra security, so why then presume that all and sundry be aware of it, whether or not assisted by the CIA?

Did anybody say that anybody would ignore any risks? I am not so convinced that the attacks were so carefully planned. The notion is conjectural. Suicide cases that I have known were all remarkably impulsive. On the other hand it was pointed out that trial runs did take place. The point then, thinking about it, is simply that there is not thus a reason to exclude the hijacking thesis.

[Abe Linkman]

29. Your knowledge of the facts is very limited, so your opinions aren't

informed and therefore aren't deserving of much consideration.

Carefully planned, or amateurs at "work"? Consider:

* Alleged hijackers picked a day when fewer people would be flying.

* Alleged hijackers flew to Maine, then back to Boston, allegedly to avoid all being seen together.

* Alleged hijackers carried luggage.

* Alleged hijackers used conference calling on their cell phones to keep in contact with each other, but made sure NOT to use their cell phones
PRIOR to take off.

You would say the above shows that the alleged 9/11 attacks weren't well planned?

[objection]

32. I would say

that you have no evidence there whatsoever of any intention to attack buildings.

I see no evidence that fewer people would be flying on one particular day. Do you have any statistics?

The purpose, if any of travelling to Maine is not established.

Atta's luggage got no further than Boston; hardly evidence of good planning.

I see no evidence of conference calling. On the contrary, weren't we beng told that cell phone calls are impossible? Cell calls from plane to plane are at least, presumably, trickier than calls from air to ground.

[seatnineb]

36. Objection to Binalshib?

Objection pathetically declares........
"I see no evidence of conference calling. On the contrary, weren't we being told that cell phone calls are impossible? Cell calls from plane to plane are at least, presumably, trickier than calls from air to ground"...

You really need to get up to date with your Official Story (aka B.S)facts.

Just listen to Ramzi Binalshib...
Orchestrator of the very 9/11 that you so blindly believe in.
"All the brothers did a great job with the help of Allah,AND THERE WAS CONSTANT CONTACT AMONG THE 4 AIRPLANES TO REASSURE EACH OTHER
AND CONFIRM THAT THEIR ACTION AS THE PILOTS WERE FINALLY ON THEIR WAY"

This extract is taken from the book:
Masterminds Of Terror.
By Yosri Fouda And Nick Fielding
Published By Mainstream Publishing.
Page 144.

So what are you going to do Objection?
Are you going to say that Ramzi Binalshib is a Liar?

[objection]

38. Hearsay

You dismiss eye witness evidence as unreliable in order to favor hearsay?

And you thus expect to be taken seriously?

:silly:

Perhaps then you will care at least to explain where Ramzi Binalshib would have got his information from, and how this relates to the argument about the feasibility of cell phone calls.

We wait on the edges of our seats.

[seatnineb]

42. Answer the question.

I asked you a simple question.
Do you believe that Binalshib is a LIAR?

Answer IT.

For my part I dont believe ANYTHING Binalshib says.

For me.
Binalshib IS A LIAR.

Lets hear you say the same.

We wait on the edges of our seats..........

[Abe Linkman]

43. He's the same Binalshib, about whom President Bush has said:

"WHO"?

Note: re Binalshib
Personally, I wouldn't believe him if he swore he was lying. But, I haven't heard any tapes of the conference calls made while the "boys" were heading to Bob.

[objection]

44. Your question was

"Are you going to say that Ramzi Binalshib is a Liar?"

The answer to that is obviously no.
Nobody owns the right to call anybody a liar without the evidence to prove the case.
The admissibility of hearsay is another matter.
I shall continue to seek substantitive first hand evidence.
In the mean time your failure to provide any is noted, as is your continual failure to answer questions put to you by others.

[seatnineb]

49. Wow!

Let me just nudge you a little further off the edge of that precipice that you are precariously perched on.

Ramzi Binalshib is a liar.
Just ask the German authorities.

He lied about his name.
Calling himself Ramzi Mohammed Abdullah Omar.

He lied about his country of birth.
Saying he had been born in the Sudan
In fact he was born in Yemen......

But I guess that still wont convince you.

But for good measure.......
I will ask you again.
Do you think Ramzi Binalshib is a liar?

Yes Or No.

As for the hearsay.

I trust you are referring to the interview that was conducted by Yosri Fouda with Binalshib.
Fouda claims to have spent at least 48 hours with both Sheik Mohammed and Binalshib.
In these 48 hours all the information that you,Bolo,Merc and your ilk gladly devour without question was laid bare.

Is it still hearsay for you Objection?

[objection]

50. I refer to

"CONSTANT CONTACT AMONG THE 4 AIRPLANES TO REASSURE EACH OTHER"

If a third party was not privy to that contact the story is hearsay, and whether or not the person is to be believed is then beside the point.

[seatnineb]

53. Objection........Or should that be Evasion.........

O.K Objection.

When Binalshibs Co- Planner...
Khalid Sheik Mohammed admitted to Yosri Fouda.........

"I am the head of the al-Quaeda military committee and Ramzi is the coordinator of the Holy Tuesday(9/11) operation.
And Yes.WE DID IT."

Do you believe him?

Yes Or No?

[objection]

57. At face value, no.

False confessions often arise from people out to gain attention.

I want to see corroboration.

And if you want to know, here's how I see it:

The personality of Mohamed Atta raises doubt. A fanatical terrorist would have a track record, some sort of political or religious activism. With Atta we don't see that. I see a sexually confused thrill seeker with a chip on his shoulder, somebody who'd push to any limit just for the sake of it.

Off hand I'd guess that he wanted to be in on the action, any action going, possibly working as a double agent for both sides at once, except that he was jilted as being too much of a nut case. So then he pulled off 9/11 to give them something big to think about. Possibly he was somehow involved with 'Vigilant Guardian', hence an opportunity, hence the smell of cover up. Possibly 'Vigilant Guardian' involved a test of a home run remote system. Possibly the home run sustem was in turn hijacked. That would explain why home run systems are not since de riguer, notwithstanding the security imperative, but again it is unlikley to have been a grand conspiracy. Effective conspiracies involve a minimum of participants on a need to know basis, not a maximum.

The Maine excursion is problematic. If you can work out exactly what that was about you've probably got the key to it.

[Abe Linkman]

58. Another Ramzi quote showing his knowledge of U.S. history

This particular quote is from one of the very first chapters in his book. I don't recall exactly what he was referring to, but it may have had something to do with fighting the Infidels aka "Freedom lovers".


"An Arabian horse divided against itself, cannot stand"

NOTE: I think Mr. Binalshib cribbed the above quote, and he should have at least said it was from "Honest Abe, of Pittsburgh".

[Abe Linkman]

47. Ramzi Binalshib, on "Strength to Fight The Freedom Lovers"

From the Foreward to the book:

"And so I say to all the brothers, remember: Cigarette life, if you don't weaken."

[LARED]

30. Did you notice the response you got did not answer any of your

questions. Classic Linkman.

[objection]

33. Does anybody else know of anything

definite to substantiate a remote control thesis?

One would reasonably expect that before implementation Air Traffic Control would need to be advised.

1000 days ago the theory made some sense but the more that time goes by with nothing real to firm it up the more one has to doubt it.

And then they talk about common sense?

:silly:

[seatnineb]

37. Never Say Never.....

Raytheon is one of several companies looking to use new satellite technology that could someday allow jets to be landed by people on the ground, in much the same way that hobbyists bring in their model airplanes by remote control. The company announced Monday that its technology had guided a Federal Express 727 to a safe landing on a New Mexico Air Force base in AUGUST(2001) — all without the need of a pilot.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/2001/10/2/remote-pilot.htm

[objection]

40. Is that the best you've got?

So we can safely say then can we that since 2001 not a shred of evidence has actually appeared to show that any home run system was ever known to have previously been installed in an ordinary commerial airliner?

[MercutioATC]

55. ATC was not advised of any remote control operations.

People fly all of the planes we work.

[objection]

60. Thanks for that.

Maybe they forgot to tell you, except to wonder how a plane is going to be landed by remote control without ATC knowing what the hell is going on. A remote controller would presumably have to communicate just as a pilot does.
In any case the pilots are known to be averse to anything but their own complete control, yes?
But is there any other fact or reason to exclude the possibility that a 'home run' test or trial run was a part of the 9/11 scenario?

[Abe Linkman]

64. Who told you it was a "part of the 9/11 scenario"? You're loose w/facts.

It's unfortunate (for YOU and US) that you are so careless in your communication skills. Even worse, straightforward, clearly worded ideas seem to elude your capacity for grasping what was intended.

The issue that has caused you so much confusion is NOT whether Global Hawk or 'Home Run' technology exists (it does). The point raised had to do with the high risks of failure inherent in what the U.S. Gov't told the public in the Official Story and whether it makes sense that the cavepeople would have been willing to take the risk that the very flights they allegedly planned to hijack might have never made it to their intended destination because they had no way of knowing that the U.S. MIGHT be able to make use of technology which would prevent the planes from being able to crash where the Arabs allegedly wanted them to.

That was just ONE more tiny example of a risk and realistic perception of a risk, that cavepeople would have thought about if THEY were really behind 9/11. The point was that all of these risks of failure strengthen the absurdity of the Official Story Conspiracy. If the cavepeople had an ounce of sense, they surely would have realized that the risks far outweighed the chances of success. But, none of that matters because we STILL don't have even ONE shred of proof that the cavepeople were anything more than Patsies in the events of 9/11.

The obvious high risks of failure inherent in what the public has been told was OBL's 9/11 scheme make me believe he would have rejected such a scheme. Even if he had ever contemplated such.

Anyone who knows much about 9/11 and has given it much THOUGHT, almost always comes to the conclusion that the Government version is absurd.

[objection]

66. Nobody

This really should not be so difficult.

A sentence that ends with a question mark "?" is not intended to be a statement of fact.

OK?

[MercutioATC]

80. I've always said that I have no contrary evidence to a "remote control"

scenario.

I don't bvelieve that it happened, but I don't have any contrary proof.

[objection]

81. OK let's put this another way

If 9/11 did somehow involve a 'home run' but ATC knew nothing about it the scenario may then presumably be something similar to the official version; the pilot goes quiet and a plane behaves strangely.

The problem then is the chaos likely to ensue, hence the reasonable expectation that ATC would somehow have to know something about it in advance if the remote control was legimately conceived.

So if ATC was not abvised is that not proof enough, at least of the impossibility of any legitimate remote control, albeit that something may have screwed up horrendously?

Or in other words, if remote control was involved it would thus have
had to be on a completely criminal basis, not just as an innocent but ill conceived experiment?

[MercutioATC]

83. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, but there are NO "remote

control" devices installed in any commercial aircraft that I'm aware of. If they were in the 9/11 flights, they would have been put there without the knowledge of ATC (and most likely without the knowledge of the airlines or pilots).

[objection]

87. It is just an educated hunch.

Having developed the 'home run' possibility somebody somehere is going to want to sell it.

In view then of strong resistance from pilots and others who doubt that all in all a remote control would in fact be any safer there would presumably at some stage need to be a realistic dress rehearsal to demonstrate the benefit not only in terms of aircraft guidance but also in terms of an under stress practical implementation.

I then begin to wonder why since 9/11 no advance towards an implemention of home run has yet been heard of. Taking the offical 9/11 line at face value would it not then be that much more imperative to safeguard against a hijacking pilot? Would it not prevent a repeat performance of 9/11 once and for all? Or could it be that something has happened to put them all off 'home run' once and for all?

[MercutioATC]

91. Two words: "machines break"

From a safety standpoint, no current technology provides the safety of two pilots sitting in a cockpit (much in the way that no machine provides the safety of live air traffic controllers).

Adding that equipment to an airplane introduces another system which could fail. Imagine what would happen if the "remote control" had a hissy and just locked up the pilot controls...


Perhaps more "importantly", it would be an extremely expensive retrofit and money is usually the bottom line.

[objection]

95. Valid points,

except that two pilots sitting in a cockpit is somewhat beside the point, the general home run idea being that remote should be safer than Mohamed Atta sat at the helm.

One should also note that for better or for worse we've already progressed towards fly by wire, e.g. Airbus, notwithstanding a known hissy or two along the line.

With retrofit you may be right, the biggest expense usually being the aircraft down time rather than the hardware but what about the new horizon, the B7E7 etc? In 2001 there was a big Boeing deal with China in the air. From the drawing board I'd expect to explore all options.

[MercutioATC]

97. Hey, it MAY eventually happen, but something that has the capability

to remove control from the pilots will be fought, and rightly so. The human in the loop is what people trust and it's what protects us from the inevitable failure of machines.

At our current level of technology, I don't see a system that would be failure-proof enough to justify its use.

[Abe Linkman]

82. Then, give us your received wisdom & what you've always said about...

the fact that this is not here. Do you have any contrary evidence to it?

[MercutioATC]

84. Was that supposed to make sense?

If you're talking about remote control, I JUST SAID that I have no contrary evidence, but I don't believe it happened.

[Abe Linkman]

89. No reason for it, it's just your policy. I see.

If it were part of the Official "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory, you would probably "believe it happened"...regardless of whether there was any evidence for it or not, is that right?

[MercutioATC]

92. No, but just because I don't have evidence refuting something doesn't

mean I believe in it.

I don't have any evidence that aliens didn't construct the great pyramids of Giza. That doesn't mean I believe they did.

[Abe Linkman]

98. Do you have any evidence that they DIDN'T ...

You're a hoot.

[MercutioATC]

100. Abe, I have plenty of evidence that refutes your particular theories

but i have none that refutes a "remote control" scenario. What is your issue with that?

[Abe Linkman]

102. Well, for goodness sakes, merc - if you have some evidence, SHOW IT.

As you well know, and for good reason, apologists for the absurd "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory aren't exactly considered to be seekers of truth and paragons of virtue.

So, if you have ANY and I do mean ANY proof to support ANY aspect of the
"Cavemen" story, SHOW IT, boy. You could start with that big exit hole in the Pentagon. Got any proof for what caused it?

[MercutioATC]

107. I've showed you mine. PLEASE, show me yours.

Got something new? Show me. I've responded to everything you've brought me so far. I don't intend to change that.

My count shows you with one blurry frame of a video. I can't see what it supposedly shows, so I can't refute it. In a fit of generosity, I'll give you that frame as a "maybe". Anything else you'd like to offer that hasn't already been refuted 3 or 4 ways?

[Abe Linkman]

109. ALL you've EVER done is cite a link to some propaganda.

That's not evidence. You have to kind of play like it is, because you know that the only plausible explanation for how that great big nine foot exit hole got there is because a shaped charge explosion caused it.

[MercutioATC]

111. I've provided links to studies conducted by professionals, what have you

provided?

[Abe Linkman]

117. You've provided links to PROPAGANDA, not objective studies of anything

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you've actually only provided ONE link...to the same propaganda piece. But, you know who butters your bread.

[MercutioATC]

118. The "propaganda" is much more reliable than links you've provided.

At least mine was written by engineers who had actually visited the site they're discussing, not the rantings if "'ol Dick Eastman"...

(there have been other links I've posted, you just seem to have the biggest peoblem with the engineering study)

[Abe Linkman]

119. The propaganda you cite doesn't even discuss the issues involved.

You must believe your propaganda has some of that mojo "force" you try to get gullible people to believe caused that great big ol nine foot exit hole in the Pentagon.

Why can't you cite something other than irrelevant propaganda?

[objection]

112. Ask any one of the thousands of people

who lived or worked near to the Pentagon, those involved with the clear up and those who saw the event for themselves. If you can then come back with the name of as much as one single person thus qualified and willing to subscribe to your version please do so.

In the mean time if that's not good enough there is really nothing more to say. You have at least proved one thing beyond any reasonable doubt. It is absolutely pointless to hope to conduct a meaningful objective debate with Abe Linkman.

Congratulations. Tedious beyond belief.

[Abe Linkman]

123. Better yet, ask ONE THOUSAND alleged eyewitnesses & you'll get...

probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 different accounts.
That's the beauty of eyewitnesses. If there's more than one, you're bound to be able to find support for your point of view.

However; in the case of eyewitness accounts of YOUR scholarly output, DON'T take a poll if you have a thin skin.

[objection]

124. The witnesses all have one thing very much in common.

Not one of them saw Flight 77 fly over the Pentagon. Not one of them subscribes to anything other than that Flight 77 hit the building. Not one of the sort has yet been known of even on an anonymous basis.

We would otherwise of course have heard all about it by now.

[Abe Linkman]

125. Not one of them saw Hani at the controls. They must not buy your story.

We would have heard about it, if they had. Maybe merc has a "report" where people say they DID see Hani (and maybe even Osama) at the controls of FL 77.

[objection]

126. Wrong way around.

On the whole I buy the story they tell me. It saves the trouble of having to be everywhere in the Universe at the same time to see what goes on.

Hanjour at the controls is not a conclusion that I ever subscribed to. Nor did I ever subscribe to the notion that he could not possibly have flown the plane.

I do get the impression that they could have tried a lot harder to identify the human remains to work out exactly who (if anybody) was at the controls.

[LARED]

19. Abe, lets try again, as usual you have avoided my question.

Take a moment and actually point out where bolo responded with propaganda.

In other words try and with specificity state clearly and without undue hyperbole where bolo responded with propaganda.

[Abe Linkman]

45. Isn't it OBVIOUS?

Read his posting.

[LARED]

74. Abe, as usual you have avoided my question.

Take a moment and actually point out where bolo responded with propaganda.

In other words try and with specificity state clearly and without undue hyperbole where bolo responded with propaganda.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. You will be so kind...

..as to point out why my facts and/or reasoning are wrong, instead of waxing hysterical about PR firms and trying to attack me, please?

Thank you.

[Abe Linkman]

21. I think PR spin about 9/11 IS hysterical.

Pathetic, too. Especially, knowing that taxpayers are footing the bill.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Avoiding the questions again, Abe.

I'm so disappointed in you.

Will you please point out where my facts and reasoning are wrong, instead of resorting to one-liners?

Also, how are the taxpayers footing the bill? Please elaborate.

[Abe Linkman]

90. Have you tried to rebut Dick Eastman's conclusions, bolo?

I haven't seen any, but maybe I just haven't gotten to it yet. I'm sure you wouldn't try to avoid the powerful arguments he made.

Non-substantive PR/Disinfo responses won't count as a rebuttal. Sorry.

[Bolo Boffin]

101. Rebutting Dick Eastman's conclusion...

Why Eastman is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

[Abe Linkman]

103. You mean THAT'S what that was?

Looks like all you did was try to imply that a member of the U.S. military lied about where he was or what side of an airplane he saw.
Was there more to it than that?

[objection]

106. Wrong again.

Lagasse was a Pentagon Security civilian officer, not US Military.

His original version of the event is clear enough:

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-29-03/discussion.cgi.106.html

Port, not Starboard.

Was there more to to it than that?

Unfortunately not.

Eastman's fiction relies absolutely upon that one false fact.

[objection]

22. search for the TRUTH

What please is the relevance supposed to be to H & K, The Rendon Group or from "Deep Cover"? Is there any evidence at all to the effect that they were in any way involved? I do not otherwise know how to understand that except as an esoteric smear to discredit every source that fails to suit your "legend".

True?

* All four groups waited approximate 30 minutes into their flight before allegedly commandeering the planes -- thereby risking total 9/11 failure.

How did it risk total failure? Is one allowed to ask? I see no reason for the assertion.

[LARED]

24. Yes, asking is allowed

But based on history I would not hold my breath waiting for a response to your inquiry. You might get a response, but it is quite unlikely to provide an answer.

[objection]

26. Perhaps somebody would be kind enough to interpret.

If I understand correctly the argument seems to be that a hijacking could not have taken place because of the risk. Regardless of the known facts of the matter that's hard to follow. What is somebody intent on suicide going to be afraid of? It is like saying that the Japanse Kamikazee pilots could not possibly have flown without parachutes.

Absurd?

:shrug:

Ringleader Atta was a psychopath, a thrill seeking wierdo misfit of the first order. From such a character what else is to be expected but something absurd?

Come to think of it.....

[seatnineb]

62. Atta the psychopath......

Objection says.......
"Ringleader Atta was a psychopath, a thrill seeking wierdo misfit of the first order. From such a character what else is to be expected but something absurd? "

Sure.
But Atta was one man.

What about the other 18.

Atta couldnt fly a plane into the South Tower,The Pentagon and an abandoned minefield in Shanksville all by himself........

[objection]

65. It only needs one

at the controls to crash a plane.

Others may have been duped. Who knows? Many theories are possible. A sense of extreme self importance can be intoxicating and contageous. Maybe there was a threat, a refused attempt to blackmail the US authorities. If so it would serve the interests of security not to reveal the details.

[Abe Linkman]

67. As absurd as the Official Conspiracy Theory

Don't you have any manners? If so, then go study the subject. Right now, it's hard to know if you're just clueless or intentionally obtuse.

Being comfortably numb and dumb may be freedoms that the Evildoers hate, but just because you CAN BE, is no reason why you SHOULD BE. Capiche?

[objection]

69. I have studied the subject.

How many of your posts, Mr. Linkman, ever refer to a fact as opposed to a prejudice, let alone a reliable reference?

Shall we take a count?

[objection]

25. Who the Hell you think you're fooling?

Good question.

What please is the relevance supposed to be to H & K, The Rendon Group or from "Deep Cover"? Is there any evidence at all to the effect that they were in any way involved with 9/11? I do not otherwise know how to understand that except as an esoteric smear to discredit every source that fails to suit your "legend".

[seatnineb]

34. Think again!

Abe has got you sussed Bolo.

Abe solicited this all important declaration from Bolo the Brave......

Sat Jul-24-04 09:48 PM

"because anything would achieve their primary objective - polarizing the struggle between Islamic nations and Western nations."

So Bolo.
Show me one Islamic "nation" Or country that so much as remotely came to the aid of Afghanistan or Iraq as they were being attacked by the U.S.

Well....
Anything......
Quickly now.......

Bolo rather foolishly, also makes this all too sheepish statement.............
"That would have jeopardized US-Saudi ties, just as bin Laden wanted."

You keep on reminding us that Bin Laden is clever,well educated ect,ect.......
And you think that Bin Laden thought that by executing something like 9/11 that the all pivotal Saudi - U.S relationship would be jeopardized?

Seems like that Saudi-U.S bond is stronger then it ever has been.......

Gee who would have thought that............

[objection]

35. one Islamic "nation"

Did you ever watch an Al Jazeerah broadcast?

Do you seriously hope to argue that this, as compared to CNN, is not a polarization of opinion?

http://www.aljazeerah.info/

:eyes:

[seatnineb]

39. Al-Jazeera is a T.V network not a Nation.

Gee....
Did Al-Jazeera send the Al-Jazeera national infantry to help the Taliban In Afghanistan.........
And did they send their specialist Militaia/Paratroopers to help Saddams National guard in Iraq.......

Is that what Bin Laden expected?

Come on Objection.
Hit me with something harder..........

[objection]

41. To be hit harder

try Guatemala Bay.

I'm sure they could find you a place if you work at it.

[seatnineb]

46. Guatemala? My My we are a little edgy...........

I am still waiting for you to name me one, just one Islamic country that sent its national army to help the Taliban(Afghanistan) Or the National Guard(Iraq).

Come on Objection........
Use that 55 years of experience to answer my question.

As far as Guantanamo Bay is concerned.....
You are referring to INDIVIDUALS acting on their own accord ,independently of whichever country they came from.

But if you want to go by that path.
Gee.
What do we find in Guantanamo Bay.
British nationals.
Australians.

Gosh I live in the U.K.
I am still waiting for the U.S Air-Force to come rain the bombs down on this slender island for having sent Muslim Combatants to fight American troops in Afghanistan.

[objection]

48. Think again

boloboffin wrote of "polarizing the struggle".

It is then for boloboffin to explain his meaning, not for anybody else to misrepresent it to serve their own 'straw man' petty point scoring purpose.

Get a life.

Grow up.

[seatnineb]

51. You are going to be deluded...............

To quote the Honorable Bolo.........
"polarizing the struggle between Islamic nations and Western nations."

So where is the struggle?
Show me which Muslim nations have "struggled" with western nations since 9/11.


Apart from those which have been completely overrun.
Like Afghanistan.
Or Iraq.
Just as Bin Laden and Binalshib would have wanted.
For if they didnt.
They would not have done 9/11.


And which Islamic nations from the outside have made even so much of an attempt to come to their aid?
Did Bin Laden really believe that these other Muslim nations would rally round such unpopular Movements(within the Muslim world) as the Taliban and the Baath Party.

Come on Objection.......
Your running out of ideas.......

[objection]

52. To quote the Honorable Bolo.........

In the same way, the hijackers assumed the incredible risks of failing at their secondary objective - hitting buildings with planes - because anything would achieve their primary objective - polarizing the struggle between Islamic nations and Western nations.

The issue is not therefore what was achieved. The issue is what the perpetrators may have expected to achieve.

During the past three years I seen a multitude of news repoorts to the effect that Muslims in the West now feel isolated. People, not least those in Guatamala, have directly involved themselves as a result. Rumsfeld and Co. have also been seen to engage in a vitriolic slanging match over news coverage local to the Middle East.

Did you miss all that?

Whether or not all that Bin Laden may have hoped for was achieved, the possibilibility of an advance in that direction seems to me to be an incontrovertible proposition.

By way of comparison consider the IRA. Whether or not two decades of violence actually served to advance their cause may be debatable. Whether or not this was their intention is beyond any possible doubt.

[Abe Linkman]

56. No, bolo is wrong. That is not the issue.

The issue is, given the huge risks of failure likely to result from attempting to carry out a scheme like the one we've been led to believe was plotted and planned SOLELY by OBL and the cavemen...
is the Official Conspiracy Theory absurd?

In my opinion, it is totally absurd. Speculation about motives of OBL
is irrelevant to the question of what really happened on 9/11. PR people and disinformation agents think that by focusing attention on the alleged motivations of OBL, the public will be less likely to think about how absurd it is to believe the Official Story Conspiracy could possibly be true.

The implausibility & likely failure involved in what the public has been told was OBL's 9/11 Plan is just one more reason why the Official Conspiracy Theory is an absurdity.

If the Official Story version made any sense, then it might be relevant to speculate about motives OBL may or may not have had...but
as of today, there is zero evidence that OBL had ANY plans...and it's hard for me to believe that he even planned on being a Patsy.

Given what we now know about 9/11, the motivations and risks of failure we SHOULD be examining are those of the U.S. Government. Did the U.S. Government have a motivation to MIHOP? What did they hope to gain, and what was the result of the MIHOP plan? Did it turn out that the risks of failure were worth it? What percentage of the public has even a clue that the Official Conspiracy Theory is a lie?
I'd say MIHOP was a big success (from the perspective of the real perps). Even at the cost of hiring PR firms to help sell the Official Story and the cost of disinformation agents to undermine and discredit efforts to get to the truth about the lies of the Official Story.

[objection]

59. It was bolo's issue.

Go hijack somebody else's thread.

You're not helping.

It has all been seen and heard before, hasn't it?

[seatnineb]

61. What has Bin Laden "achieved"?

Objection hypothesizes
"The issue is not therefore what was achieved. The issue is what the perpetrators may have expected to achieve"

Exactly.......

Because Binalshib admits as much........
"You are going into battle,a very large military battle,an unconventional battle against THE MOST POWERFUL FORCE ON EARTH.You are facing them on their own soil,among their forces and soldiers with small group of 19".

So......
Do you not think that it would have been in Binalshibs interests to make sure that Atta and Co did not leave any easy evidence tracing the perpetrators all the way back to Afghanistan.......

After all.
Bin Laden,Binalshib and Sheik Mohammed would all survive 9/11.
The last thing they would have wanted was for there own refuge to be bombed into oblivion(Afghanistan).

Instead Binalshib has nothing but praise for Atta.......
At no point does he mention how the easy cell phone calls,the passports,the airport surveillance,flying manuals ect ect facilitated the U.S authorities into easily deducing who was behind the attacks.

The Most Powerful Force On Earth is not to be trifled with.
As Afghans and Iraqis will testify.

I suggest you read the Masterminds Of Terror book.
It is the biggest load of contradictory B.S you will ever read.

And as for the following
Is this what Bin Laden hoped to achieve.....
In the words of Objection.......
"During the past three years I seen a multitude of news reports to the effect that Muslims in the West now feel isolated.People, not least those in Guatamala(Guantanamo), have directly involved themselves as a result. "

Consider Bin Laden to be a sort of Pied Piper Of Guantanamo......

Considering that there is roughly 1 billion Muslims in the world.
I can assure you that that the majority of them are never going to fall for Bin Ladens illusionary little trick.

So has Binalshib,Bin Laden and Sheik Mohammed done anything to benefit the Muslim cause......the very same cause that they claim to espouse to the high hilt?

[objection]

63. The fact remains

that the Atta gang were not prevented by detection before the event.

Since 9/11 there has certainly been a quantum leap in the publicity attracted. If they'd simply breezed into Afghanistan without 9/11 the World at large would hardly have noticed.

[seatnineb]

68. The Al-Quida perspective......

For those who believe the official story......

These 19 guys were so full of hate for the U.S and had so much love for the brand of Islam(Wahhibbi) that they followed and the organization that they belonged to(Al-Quiada) that they were willing to die and kill for it....simultaneously......

But for anyone who can see through this horse shit........
These guys would have known that the retaliation by the U.S for
for the very act(9/11) that they(the 19 hijackers)had died for.... Would almost certainly cripple if not destroy those things(Islamic Nation,Al-Quaida) that these 19 guys held most dear (and had died for)

Therefore they had NO Motive.
Proof is in the pudding.

From the Al-Quida perspective......
All they(hijackers) have achieved is the defeat of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hardly unpredictable from a pr-9/11 hijacker perspective......


Also from the Al-Quida perspective.........
Killing 3000 innocents....
Toppling two MILITARILY insignificant towers.
Destroying a wall in the Pentagon.....

Is hardly going to bring a nation of 250 million with the strongest military known to man on its knees.
Is it?

So where is the Motive?

[objection]

70. You seem to assume that everybody

lives in the same, predictably real World.

Take a look around the messages to these threads.

That is simply not the case.

Take a look around the World of politics, chock a block with people convinced that they'll change the World, but with what chance of doing so?

Look at Iraq.

All predictably according to the master plan?

More like Sod's Law.

[Abe Linkman]

71. No substance. Just general pablum. PR wannabe? disinfo wannabe?

How many of your posts, Mr. Objection, ever refer to a fact as opposed to a prejudice, let alone a reliable reference?

Shall we take a count?

[objection]

72. As a matter of substantial fact

how many of your posts, Mr. Woolly Parrot, ever have anything even slightly original to say?

Not one, as far as I can see, ever.

[seatnineb]

73. Yup! No substance.....just sods law!

Well Abe........

Now the "cavepeoples motive" according to the official story's parameters is thrown into doubt......

What do we have.......

Sods law!

:toast:

[objection]

75. Miss the point at your peril.

More often than not terrorism is not demonstrably effective, but that aint going to stop them. Never did. Never will

From different positions people perceive different perspectives and different values. You can't judge a motivation from a foreign point of view.

[Abe Linkman]

76. Tell that to "Hi, I'm bolo. I'll be your waiter today."

"You can't judge a motivation from a foreign point of view."

[seatnineb]

77. Terror successes.....

The I.R.A got a cease fire.
The Tamil Tigers(Remember them?) got a truce.
Irgun and Stern didn't have problem chasing the Colonial British out of Palestine.


And in just 2 1/2 years.......
What have Al-Quaida achieved?
U.S and British annexation of Iraqi and Afghan land with ease.......
Some achievement.........
So I ask again.....
Where is the 9/11 hijacker motive?

And Objection, try to give a better response than this.......
"From different positions people perceive different perspectives and different values. You can't judge a motivation from a foreign point of view."

Sods law won't come to your rescue either.......

[objection]

78. Don't be so stupid.

The IRA got no cease fire. In 1994 the IRA declared a cease fire! It was widely seen as a sell out, conceding that the 3,000 killed and the 40,000 injured over the previous 25 years was a total waste. They gave up. While Adams and McGuiness had made a name for themselves the original republican objectives of the IRA had barely advanced an inch. The British occupation of Northern Ireland continues and it will do for some considerable time to come.

A truce was not the Tamil Tiger's objective. Their objective was an Independant State. In 2002 they abandoned that claim. They also gave in, with the futile loss of 65,000 lives.

The Zionist terror campaign arguably did better but not without the effect of the second World War, the Holocaust, and considerable support from Jewish interests elsewhere, especially in the USA. The Britsh Empire was already a terminally decayed lame duck.

I am not a spokesperson for the hijackers. My understanding of Atta's disposition is expressed elsewhere.

[seatnineb]

104. Know Yor History!

Objection........
You are talking about the IRA as if it was only formed 25 years ago.
You need to get a grip on history........
And Analise the facts rather than emptily boast about them........

The IRA's initial objective was to fight British rule until all the republic was unified.....
And at the time they declared this (1919) ,Britain,thanks to the Act Of Union(1/1/1801)practically owned ALL of Ireland.
An Irish rebellion in 1778 was ruthlessly quashed by the British and when William Pitt imposed the Act Of Union.......
Ireland didn't even have its own Parliament.
Hence the formation of the IRA which fought a 2 year guerrilla war.
And by the end of it in 1922 it was the arrogant British who had to concede the South Of Ireland(The Anglo-Irish treaty).
Sure.......in true imperialistic fashion Britain still dictated the terms.....and purposefully left ambiguous constitutional bonds (controlling Southern Ireland's foreign affairs) and unidentified potentials for border changes with Northern Ireland.....
Which petrified the pro-British Protestant North and enraged the harder core elements of the IRA who wanted Northern Ireland to be cleansed of British Influence aswell.
And hence the subsequent Irish civil war.

But at the end of the day.
They may never get Northern Ireland.....But the IRA effectively won 2/3rds Of Ireland for the Irish......
A RELATIVE victory I would say.....
Try telling anyone from Southern Ireland differently.......
Far more than Al-Quida will ever achieve for the "Muslim World" me thinks.........

As for the Tamil Tigers........
You forgot to mention TWO of the Tamil Tigers most celebrated victims...
The President of Sri Lanka Ranasinghe Premadasa(1993) no-less..... and the former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi(1991)..........
They have also killed other high profile politicians and government troops aswell as innocent by-standers.....
Thats not to condone what they have done......
Merely to illustrate........
They have a perceived enemy......
They hit them WHERE IT HURTS.....
Hence the 2002 truce.......
More than Al-Quida will ever get..........

As for the Zionist terror effort.........
Golly Objection........
Do you think that Irgun and Stern would really have gone to the lengths they did IF THEY NEVER thought they would achieve victory........
Thus what made them think they could achieve victory....
Thats right.......
You provided the answer........
To quote the Honorable Objection
"Support from Jewish interests elsewhere, especially in the USA. The British Empire was already a terminally decayed lame duck"

So from the Al-Quida perspective......
Which Muslim country with military power was going to help them when the U.S(hardly a lame duck,eh?) retaliated for 9/11?
Saudi Arabia?
Indonesia?
The UAE.
Pakistan?
Turkey?
Who are all these countries friends of Objection?
Well come on then......
Spit it out.....

I'm Still searching for the 9/11 hijacker motive.........
But I will never expect to get it from you.

[objection]

108. As you say

the IRA originally fought a 2 year "guerrilla war", not a Terrorist campaign, a suggestion especially offensive to the Southern Irish warriors whose targets were not civilian.

The Tamil murders did not achieve their delcared objective of idependence.

With regard to Bin Laden's motives there is no need to speculate; he has frequently spoken for himself.

For further details here are 415000 links to chase:
http://www.google.com/search?lr=lang_en&as_epq=Bin+Laden&as_qdr=all&num=48&as_q=interview&btnG=+Google+++Search+&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ft=i&safe=images

[seatnineb]

114. Prove to me that your name should not be Evasion...

Objection.............

You KNOW that Al-Quida will NEVER get "Muslim indipendence"
You KNOW that Al-Quida will NEVER get a "truce".

So...........
Answer the f*****g question:

Which country(Muslim or otherwise) was going to come and help the Taliban and Al-Quida when the U.S retaliated for 9/11?

Answer it.

[objection]

115. Al Qa'eda is not motivated by what I KNOW.

Afghanistan's best allies were its immediate neighbors. Negotiations had been underway to build a trans Aghanistan oil pipeline. Before the Taliban restored order its neighbors had to accomodate millions of Afghanistani refugees.

I have seen no evidence of any Taliban expectation of any immediate military intervention against the USA. Where please do you get that idea from?

Al Qa'eda and the Taliban were not the same entity. The Taliban had already offered to hand Bin Laden over for trial except that they had not been presented with the evidence to justify the extradition.

[seatnineb]

120. Evasion .......You Are Wrong Again.

In one fell swoop........Evasion shows how desperate he is to pervert the geo-political landscape........
In order to preserve "the motive" for the 9/11 hijackers.

In the words of the honorable Evasion.......
"Afghanistan's best allies were its immediate neighbors"
This is the biggest sack of bullshit uttered from Evasion in his 197 posts so far....

So lets take a closer look at Afganistans "best allies" as they existed before 9/11.........
Turkmenistan:
This is the country that was hoping to build the trans-caspian gas-pipeline in conjunction with Clinton's U.S.A........
About as likely to help Al-Quiada when the U.S retaliated for 9/11 as an Ass..........

Uzbekistan:
The President(dictator) of this country is notoriose for cracking down on any Muslim insurgency(or opposition of any sort)
And this is within his own country.........
Indeed when the war(against Afghanistan) began in October 2001 it was Uzbekistan which provided bases for the U.S military....
So again........
About as likely to help Al-Quida when the U.S retaliated for 9/11 as an Ass.........

Tajikistan.........
One of the poorest countries in Central Asia.......
With a huge Russian military presense that stayed after independence from the Soviets in the early 1990's.
Do you really think this Russian military based in Tajikistan was going to help Al-lQuida when the U.S retaliated for 9/11?

And that just leaves Pakistan.........
Hell......... were would the C.I.A's resevoir of Central Asian and Asian talent be without Pakistan's intelligence agency ,the I.S.I
Again.......about as likely to defend Al-Quiada when the U.S retaliated for 9/11 as an Ass.

So there go Afghanistan's(and Al-Quiada's) "friendly" neighbours........
And history has recorded it so.......
All these countries either happlessly stood by.......
Or actually helped the U.S
When the retaliation for 9/11 began..........


And Evasion gets himself in a right twist with the following stetement......
"I have seen no evidence of any Taliban expectation of any immediate military intervention against the USA"

No shit man!

So Al-Quiada......who were being hosted by the Taliban(who would provide the front-line of defense to Al-Quiada in the event of an external attack)..............
Never even bothered to warn the Taliban that it intended to hit the"Most Powerful Force On Earth".
Knowing full well that when the "Most Powerful Force On Earth " retaliated it would blow the Taliban(and Al-Quida) into the next dimension...........

Hey..... Abe,Dulce,Demodewd,K-Robjoe.......
If any of you cool folks are reading....
Looks like Evasion(alias Objection) has just successfully propogated another 9/11 paradox....

Now there is a suprise.......

[objection]

121. Why evade Iran?

Iran hosted aound 1.5 million Afghani refugees. Pakistan hosted twice as many.

Neighboring countries hosted something like 25 percent of the entire Afghani population, driven out by the US backed conflict with Russia.

Tell us where the USA would ever get that kind of help.

If you come back with some kind of proof of a Taliban expectation maybe then we have something to talk about.

You have yet to show how any expectation of Military intervention connects to Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. Do you have a quote? What did he ever say on that score?

[seatnineb]

128. Iran Evasion....

Iran in a pre-9/11 context were about as likely to come to the rescue of the Taliban and Al-Quida when the U.S retaliated for 9/11.......as an Ass........

Iran are predominantly Shia.
The Taliban and Al-Quiada are overtly Sunni.

Iran had been very vocal about the abuses by the Taliban of the Shia minority in Afghanistan.
Iran had been trying to covertly support an anti-Taliban group in Afghanistan called Hezb-i-Wahdat who were mostly Shia.

So I ask you now Evasion.....
As I have I asked you before.
Which country(Muslim or otherwise)was going to come and help(militarily) the Taliban and Al-Quiada when the U.S retribution for 9/11 began.

Answer it.

So far you have tried to distort my question..
As if I am referring to how these Muslim countries would have helped in terms of absorbing refugees.

Even if you go down this path.

The 9/11 hijackers had NO motive.

Look at the countries that neighbor Afghanistan,Evasion.
All are poor with only 10 years Economic "maturity" since independence from the old Soviet Union.With infrastructures that are fractured and still in a state of evolution.
Hardly in shape to absorb an influx of refugees from Afghanistan.
A country like Tajikistan(North-East of Afghanistan) was/is the poorest country in central Asia.

The 9/11 hijackers knew this.
So why would they(hijackers) cause an event(9/11) that would trigger a response(U.S retaliation)that would induce such a migration of refugees from Afghanistan to these other neighboring countries.....
Amplifying the misery of all these poor people(Afghan refugees and the unfortunate and economically deprived families/individuals in the bordering countries who had to look after these refugees*).
The very same people that Al-Quida and the 9/11 hijackers claim to be protecting and fighting for.


*Just like when Albania(the poorest country in Europe) had to cater for the Kosovans who fled the Serbian and Nato bombings back in 1999.


The more you try to defend the 9/11 hijacker motive as told by Bin Laden and Bush....
The more you end up digging yourself further into that paradox hole.

[Abe Linkman]

122. Makes you wonder if anyone would take credit for his Strategic "thinking"

Hard to imagine that one being a professional Disinfo agent or PR flack.
Gives the "profession" a bad name. (maybe he's a Quale accolyte)

[Abe Linkman]

116. Evasion Avoidance "objection" --- and can't but would if could.

That one's strictly a bomb thrower who pretends to be a strategic thinker of worldly proportions. (wild proportions is more like it)

[objection]

79. Or more to the point

perhaps the hijackers motive was to initiate a strategy of undermining confidence in the US Government, whereby folk would eventually be running around all over the internet to propagate incessant allegations to the effect that the US Government itself is guilty of the mass murder of its own people.

Now what a lamentably futile purpose that would be, don't you think?

:toast:

[seatnineb]

105. Sure!

To quote Objection........
"perhaps the hijackers motive was to initiate a strategy of undermining confidence in the US Government, whereby folk would eventually be running around all over the internet to propagate incessant allegations to the effect that the US Government itself is guilty of the mass murder of its own people."

Well if Bin Laden,Binalshib and Sheik Mohammed hadnt gone to all the trouble to admit that Al-Quida did do it.....And thus foil the Hijacker's motive...............

I would almost have believed you.
;)

[objection]

110. So how come then that Bin Laden denied it in 2001?

The Al-Qa'idah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the USA, according to Usamah Bin-Ladin in an interview with the Pakistani paper Ummat.

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=2392&TagID=2

[ailsagirl]

129. Please disregard

Never mind-- I changed my mind. I don't wish to pursue this thread.

[Blue Member]

130. Check these out...see anything...unusual...that don't match the "Story"?

Person with 35 mm camera started shooting, saw/heard some planes and helicopter, starting shooting the open blue sky above WTC - these were taken after WTC-#1 hit, but before WTC-#2 hit.





http://www.phatmax.net/wtc/ Full Spread