Which is the simpler explanation for the events of 9/11:

Which is the simpler explanation for the events of 9/11:
A.
Buildings age and must eventually be renovated or demolished, and given the construction of the Twin Towers, it was 10 years overdue. If NYC had advance notice that they were going to be demolished, Lower Manhattan would have become a ghost town, and the line of lawyers would have stretched all the way to Tennessee claiming damages. Most insurance policies exclude War and Acts of Terror, but Larry Silverstein's did not. He acquired the WTC from the NY Port Authority 7 weeks before 9/11. The Bush Administration needed an acceptable reason to launch an all-out War on Islam, and secure oil assets in the process. They devised a spectacular way to demolish the Twin Towers, avoid liability, and go to war.

B.
9/11 was carried out by cave-dwellers in Afghanistan. They were so filled with hatred for our way of life, they did not realize this would provoke the U.S. in the same way Pearl Harbor did. They defeated the entire security apparatus of the U.S., who never anticipated this type of attack, and had no means to thwart it once they knew it was underway. They chose to target two giant towers that needed $200 million worth of asbestos removal, and the one section of the Pentagon that had just been reinforced. Coincidentally, WTC #7 was intentionally demolished that same afternoon, because it had been structurally weakened by fire damage. No other steel-framed structure has ever been weakened by fire such that it required demolition.

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1744&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=240 contributed by Ike Ono Klast

Thanks for the link. :wave:

Most people think that Portland cement is crushed stone.
It isn't.
It is clay that has been baked to bisque and then pulverized.
Dried mud.
Make to look like stone.
THAT is what your skyscrapers are made of.
See:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=8772#8804

Sept. 12, 2001
"We know that concrete structures will eventually fail," said Krstulovic-Opara. "What we want to do is extend the length of time it takes for the structure to fail and control how it fails."
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/01_09/247.htm

Post# 8 CEMENT
Look at the materials used in the construction of the entire WTC complex and then try to figure out if you can see any reason why they would collapse of themselves if not pulled within 30 years.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=8772#8804

Post# 28. WHAT GOES UP
MUST come down.
Those buildings were doomed.
They were decaying from within.
That being so,
somebody somewhere decided arrange the timing of the oncoming
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure (SMEF) of the WTC complex.
It was probably the only thing that could be done.

Post# 44. A FOLLOW-UP
........Type the words CONCRETE DURABILITY into a search engine and see what comes up. Type in MUNDIC CONCRETE.
Type in HIGH ALUMINA CEMENT.
Chances are, you will discover that concrete structures, and most especially those in the (eastern) US, survive for an average of thirty odd years.
MAGNESIUM CEMENT DEVELOPED HAVING HARDNESS OF GRANITE
The expression “as hard as rock” will have to be changed to “as hard as cement” if the experiments of Dr. Howard S. Lukens of the University of Pennsylvania Chemistry Department work out as he has reason to think they will. For 6 years Dr. Lukens has been working with a combination of magnesium oxide and magnesium chloride, and he now has a cement that has the tensile strength of 2000 pounds per square inch. It is as hard as granite.
The catch is that the cement so far can be used successfully only for interiors, for water does something to it and it disintegrates. However, it is now possible to fabricate a stable magnesium cement product that does not absorb moisture from the air, and that is something ordinary Portland cement has never overcome.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20011020/timeline.a...
From reading that short piece, you can, hopefully, begin to see some of the problems encountered by those who choose to construct concrete edifices. For example, if this particular cement was used in a modern building, and the sprinklers happened to be set off, the entire structure could very well collapse - NOT because of the fire - but because of the reaction between the magnesium and the water.

Everything made of cement is going to collapse.
The only question is "WHEN?"

A hard to imagine but B is impossible to believe. Is there a statistician in the house?

WTC was chosen because it needed to be demolished.

Pentagon was chosen because it had just been renovated.

Seriously?

:crazy:

WTC #7 was not intentionally demolished

Clint Eastwood in For a Few Dollars More.

No contradiction. Just typical criminal misdirection. And since the Pentagon is a public building, private interests make money off it by repairing it. Are you seriously arguing that neocons have something against giving more and more of our tax dollars to the same defense contractors they're so obviously in bed with?

-- as well as all other manner of toxic building materials -- in the WTC towers would have added scores of millions to any putative demolition budget.

Finally, don't forget all of the last minutes untraceable trades.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
"In this 2000 report, PNAC predicted this more assertive defense policy would come about slowly,
unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

The Project for the New American Century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/


The founding members of this think tank are Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Jeb Bush and others.
When the new Bush Administration took power it included: Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant to the President I. Lewis Libby, and Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle.

That's really all this is.

;) :hi: A

let's call the A-rabs "cave dwellers." After all, we all know "those" people are too stupid and uneducated to pull off attacking the US!!!


What total racist reactionary and illogical tripe.

So all the bombing at Tora Bora wasn't an effort to snuff out Osama? I kept hearing the daily reports by all networks that Osama was holed up in a "cave".

educated in the west. Osama himself is a trained engineer and was part of his father's construction monopoly in Saudi.

Hardly what the ignorent term "cave dwellers" implies.

Who knew??



No wonder he spends all his time
shacked up with Osama
in that "undisclosed location."

What PC book you reading? Such sensitivity about bloodthirsty evil-doers all the sudden. And coming from someone whose primary purpose in life is STEREOTYPING and RIDICULING other DU'ers for their opinions. That is, when you are not wishing them grievous bodily harm.

when you CTers call anyone who openly disagrees with your "ideas" as a "government plant" or a "Bush stoolie..."

Do YOU consider it an insult
when a member of the Democratic Underground
says that
YOU carlvs
are associated with Bush?

djflfhal;fjelrgjlrgjal;dgl;adrjgladrjgertorhgjbvtuhthipttuer8gtq5ghbhrs <05vygoiwo5uyasopegjsoguaeopgugisopgh5t8gzo;drgasogtaspog5g[qtuqego;haeopgyae48gtape9ghapgyape49yzl4ovan9peytaevnp 9t ae0sp-gyuas59ptyse5iogyse59yg9spygpwygwgyq488ghevg8owowye5tqnv7 qpa49tnace9ptyqptap9ctyqptaoiwcgraoityapetcqptvyae4ptyaeptyqptyaeptyep9tpgrhae[ph0urhpaotawthu[rthyuwpe59t7ae 5lghsv er9pyvgn astoe5gny0 seo5gycnl9pweyto9ve5yn9pcgye59ty94stcbps typgpaeypvy![br />
So there.

How many engines(if any) did Joel Sucherman see of Flight 77 as this plane ploughed into the Pentagon.

Get back to me when you get the answer.

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle—almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course."
- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001


"On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"
- "Our Plane Is Being Hijacked." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001

"I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next..."
- "U.S. Under Attack: Your Eyewitness Accounts." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001

"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."
- "Eyewitness at the Pentagon." Human Events, 17 Sep 2001

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

"'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex. 'Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards,' he said."
- "Witnesses and Leaders on Terrorist Attacks." CNN, 11 Sep 2001

"'(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target,' said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA Today near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. 'It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"
- "America's Morning of Terror." ChannelOne.com, 2001

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Steve Eiden, a truck driver, had picked up his cargo that Tuesday morning in Williamsburg, Va., and was en route to New York City and witnessed the aftermath. ... He took the Highway 95 loop in the area of the Pentagon and thought it odd to see a plane in restricted airspace, thinking to himself it was odd that it was flying so low. 'You could almost see the people in the windows,' he said as he watched the plane disappear behind a line of trees, followed by a tall plume of black smoke. Then he saw the Pentagon on fire, and an announcement came over the radio that the Pentagon had been hit."
- "Sept. 11, the Day America Changed." The Baxter Bulletin, 2001

"Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia. I don’t know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just 'No, no, no, no,' because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash."
- "September 11 Remembered." University Week, 4 Oct 2001

Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said. 'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'"
- "Pentagon Crash Eyewitness Comforted Victims." MDW News Service, 28 Sep 2001

"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
- Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 2002

"Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, "That's not going to make it to National Airport." And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black, thick smoke.'"
- "Terrorist 'Situation'." American Lawyer Media, 11 Sep 2001

In the words of Joel Sucherman......
"I did not see the engines, I saw the body and the tail; it was a silver jet with the markings along the windows that spoke to me as an American Airlines jet, it was not a commercial, excuse me, a business jet, it was not a lear jet, ... it was a bigger plane than that"
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/day.video.09.html

Also in the words of Joel Sucherman......
"Think of the center of your-shield(gestures with clenched right hand directly in front of him-self).....and that is when I saw the American Airlines jet come directly in front of me from left to right"(Gestures with left hand flatly extended and then moves this hand from left to right)..
From a T.V Documentary-The Meyssan Conspiracy-Channel 4(U.K-2002)

Question for Vince.....

If the plane passed from left to right across Sucherman's field of vision...........

How is it that Sucherman could not see the engines?
Or indeed the front part of the plane.......

Without knowing exactly how Sucherman saw it is impossible to determine the answer.

BTW nice job ignoring the rest of his testimony and all the other eyewitnesses as well. You would make a great sluth.

Looks like star witness Sucherman cant decide himself what exactly he saw.....

"Think of the center of your-Wind-shield(gestures with clenched right hand directly in front of him-self).....and that is when I saw the American Airlines jet come directly in front of me from left to right"(Gestures with left hand flatly extended and then moves this hand from left to right).
From a T.V Documentary-The Meyssan Conspiracy-Channel 4(U.K-2002)

Too bad...........
Because the same Sucherman says:
"I looked up....and directly in my field of vision...I saw an airliner(Gestures with right hand flatly extended and then moves this hand from right to left)....."
From a T.V documentary -The 9/11 conspiracy theories-Channel4-(2004-U.K)

So we know that the plane was only 50 to 70 yards in front of Sucherman.....

We know that Sucherman was astute enough to notice the AA signa on the Tail and the red,white and blue painting along the windows......

And yet Sucherman could not see the engines?

Despite the fact the plane was only 20 feet or so off the ground.......

But then again.......

Sucherman cant decide if the plane came from left to right across his field of vision........

Or

from right to left..............


As for the other eye-witnesses...........

Lets do 'em one at a time......

What kind of explosion did John O'Keef see, Vince?

Whose "right to left"?

Sucherman's right to left or the right to left of his audience?

By presuming to make up his mind for him, you're not allowing him to make his own mind up.

If you want to know the fact of the matter ask Suchrerman.

His position is verifiable. He was not alone on the highway. It was busy.

In the words of Sucherman.....
It was nearly parallel to the ground the way I saw it. But it did not come in at a steep angle.
http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20020909002/tscript.htm.


So if it was:

1)Parallel to the ground

2)Only 20 feet or so in the air

3)A mere 50 to 70 yards in front of Sucherman.....

4)Travelling(from left to right or right to left)......


Then.....

How did Sucherman not see these engines?

Ever see a jet go by close and at high speed, when you weren't expecting it?

In the words of Joel Sucherman......

"I remember seeing the familiar silver paint job with the red, blue and white markings along the windows......."
From the T.V documentary 9/11 conspiracy theories (U.K-2004)

So Vince.......

If Sucherman could see:

1)The windows.

2)The Red,White and Blue paint job.

3)The tail.

When the plane was

1)Parallel to the ground.

2)20 feet in the air.

3)50 to 70 yards in front of Sucherman.

4)Travelling from left to right in Suchermans field of vision.

What stopped him from seeing the engines?

there was a car in front or something else that obstructed his view. If so it would the lower parts, not the higher parts of the aircraft to be obscured, yes?

Maybe with barely a second or two to look up he simply did not find the time to count the engines. Looking to one side of an airliner the number of engines is not the most apparent feature.

Steve Riskus also said that he did not notice the number of engines while he did notice the AA on the tail. Methinks you protest too much.

If you really want to know ask Sucherman.

Or would it not suit your purpose to invite him to speak for himself?

Where does Sucherman say that his view was obstructed.......

By anything.........

Find me the Quote.

Dont expect to hear from you in a long time.....

Also:

In the words of Sucherman....
It did not veer off course... it did not change direction....it went directly into the wall..........Everything went right to that wall and seemed to be consumed into that wall....(gestures with both arms stretched in front of himself and then brings them both together to emphasize this "consumption")
T.V Docu-9/11 conspiracy theories-channel 4.

So if he saw the plane hit the building ........

Then how did he not see the engines.......

As for asking Sucherman the question myself......

Bring him on.........

I will find his email and ask him the question.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So in the mean time please note that the northbound traffic was jammed up, with one car in front another, as can be plainly seen in the photos taken immediately by Steve Riskus.

And what was the point supposed to be?

That the plane had no engines?

:eyes:

Sorry to disappoint you rh...........

But Joel Sucherman looked up.........

Not ahead.

And it was directly in his field of vision as he looked up.

And the plane passed from left to right...or right to left across his field of vision as he looked up........

And....

Sucherman also saw the impact.

Yet he still did not see the engines!

Does it mean that the plane had no engines.

No.

It just means Sucherman's testimony is inconsistent.

By the way rh......

What about the sonic boom that Sucherman heard?

How was Sucherman's testimony inconsistent? He looked up. Thats where what he saw was: up. The engines were not up. The engines were lower down, beneath the wings.

One object being in a field of vision does not mean that nothing else was in a field of vision, nor need it mean that an object was entirely within a field of vision.

What about a boom?

Ask Sucherman, or anybody else who was there.

See what they think of your pointlessly indulgent nit picking.

These maybe 767's......

But......

Flight 77 was higher off the ground than these babes.....





I think flight 77's engines would have been visible....to Joel("I saw the familiar Red,White and Blue")Sucherman ,don't you?

I also see you have avoided the sonic boom question like the plague.....

We already knew how easy it is to be stubborn stupid and pointless.

You would apppear to have nothing else to offer.

I see no possible use or interest in being concerned with Sucherman's casual description of the sound.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

What else do you need to know?

Well........

If so many of the Pentagon eye-witnesses did not contradict themselves and eachother.....

I would not have a problem believing them.....

So with that in mind.....

I'll move onto:

John O'Keef.

What kind of explosion did he see rh.......?

is of no interest to me.

So your better conclusion is....? Where do you suppose the engines were? :eyes:

O.K Vince.......

You win......

I am talkin bollocks as usual.......

But.....

You know your way round explosives..........

What colour was the explosion at the Pentagon?

WE WEREN'T THERE. However if you are referring to the security camera footage, (cameras not specifically set to capture the wide range of light variances involved in explosions is a poor substitute for the human eye) looked like any fuel based explosion I have ever seen. Bright yellow/orange on initiation, turning to red, slow/high volume detonation.

All this talk of aircraft debris. IF that had been a bomb/missile you would have seen debris from the building scattered far and wide. If that was a military high explosive warhead, the damage to the facade/roof would have been much greater.

In the words of the infallible Sucherman.....

"There was a huge explosion and just fire.....just yellow and white fire"
From the T.V doc-9/11 Conspiracy Theories(U.K-2004)

Now there's a straw man sneak if ever there was one.

Sucherman saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, as did dozens of other people.

What else did you need to know?

In the words of Sucherman:
"There was a huge explosion....and fire...just yellow and white fire"
T.V Doc-9/11 Conspiracies(2004)

Does this look like a yellow and white fire to you?

but just in case :

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/movies/Airplane747Jetblast.mpg

It´s pretty interesting I find. Don´t aim to start up a discussion on this, it´s just interesting to see how the exhaust(?) from a jet engine can blow a car off the road.

jet blast diagrams.

It makes a difference of course if the aircraft is already travelling at more than half the speed of sound. The blast relative to objects on the ground would not be the same.

I agree w/ you. completely on the racist comment.

C.
9/11 was carried out by a sophisticated militant organization of Islamic Fundamentalists operating in 60+ countries. They were so filled with hatred for our unqualified support of Israeli repression and ethnic cleansing, our unqualified support for Arab monarchies and Military dictatorships, our application of brutal total economic sanctions on Iraq for 10 years, and our stationing of US soldiers in Saudi Arabia for 10 years. They knew 99.9% of the Arab world would agree with them on all of these points. They DID realize this would provoke the U.S. in the same way Pearl Harbor did. Although in their wildest dreams they never thought they could provoke a full scale invasion of the Socialist, Secular, Islamic Fundamentalist killing, state of Iraq.

They bypassed the entire security apparatus of the U.S., who never anticipated this type of attack, and had no means to thwart it once they knew it was underway (4 F15's without ammo guarding the entire eastern seaboard of the USA). They chose to target two giant towers that represent the financial center of the entire Western world, and the Pentagon, the military HQ of the USA.

...and welcome to DU!

And all four were certainly fully armed.

Meanwhile, all fighters used in training have guns armed with training rounding, and scores of fighters were training that day.

Were these training exercises so important that none of these fighters could have been reassigned to address the worst attack on US soil since the advent of flight?

Explain what training rounds are exaclty, and where they would be used.

Until you actually look at the facts.

are stupid things.
-- Ronald Reagan.
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/facts/



California gubernatorial candidate Ronald Reagan is quoted in the Fresno Bee as saying: "We should declare war on North Vietnam... It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking strips on it, and be home by Christmas."
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/ronald-reagan/

Fluffy and full of holes.

You have amazing insight into the psyche of an arab (or an islamist? which is it?) for a guy from virginia. The ability to know what "99.9% of arabs" are thinking "in their wildest dreams" is quite a talent, and worthy of the speculation in the rest of your post. Not only did the "security apparatus" anticipate this type of attack, they actually planned for it.

"In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

So who did it then?

Last I looked.........

Israeli repression and ethnic cleansing has continued unabated....
Arab monarchies are still ruling the roost in the mid-east.....
Iraq is now under direct U.S/British.rule....
Afghanistan went much the same way......

Is this what these 19 hijackers meant to achieve for their cause?

Of course they want all of those things. In their eyes the Arab world is asleep while these things are being done to them. The worse it gets the better it is for them in the long run.

at the gifts that Virginia has given to the world.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,777100,00.html

In order to properly understand a people,
one must first speak their language.
How good is your Arabic,
Mr. TheKingfish?

Can you read the Koran for yourself?
Or do you quote from MEMRI?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,884156,00.html

Mr. TheKingfish,
can you please explain this:
"The worse it gets the better it is for them in the long run. "

Are you saying
that
some ARAB somewhere is REJOICING
over the attrocities being visited upon the children in Abu Ghraib?

Well then,
it must be OK to maim those innocents,
because
the worse it gets,
the better it is for them in the long run.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13508300_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-ALI-GETS-HIS-ARMS-name_page.html

The 'them' is Al-Queda. No of course i don't mean Arabs in general.
I don't know any arabic. Ive never read the Koran, im an atheist. im from Virginia, what wrong with that?

Im totaly confused. Please re-read all of my posts. Im not anti-Arab in any way. Are you saying there is no Al-Queda?

Lets back up here and go back to my original post. There i said:
"They were so filled with hatred for our unqualified support of Israeli repression and ethnic cleansing, our unqualified support for Arab monarchies and Military dictatorships, our application of brutal total economic sanctions on Iraq for 10 years, and our stationing of US soldiers in Saudi Arabia for 10 years. They knew 99.9% of the Arab world would agree with them on all of these points"

Ok i picked the 99.9 out of my ass, i admit. Since you know so much of the Arab world please tell what percentage of the Arab world agrees with the statments, lets really break this down. I AGREE WITH ALL 5. Please tell me which 5 you agree with if any.

1) US unqualified support of Israeli repression in the West Bank and Gaza strip is wrong

2) Israel is practicing ethnic cleansing

3) The US offers unqualified support for Arab monarchies and Military dictatorships in the Arab world and this is wrong

4) UN economic santions (including food and medicine) against Iraq were complete overkill and unjust

5) Im against the stationing of US soldiers in Saudi Arabia unless the US changes its overall policy toward the Middle east

Ok now here is the hard part, please read it and try to understand what i am saying. Al-Queda agrees with all 5. Al-Queda used all 5 in its declaration of war against the US in 2000 (i think its 2000).
Some significant portion of the Arab (The entire world also, but Al-Queda doesn't care about world opinion) world agrees with some or all of the 5 points. Al-Queda is hiding behind these 5 statements to advocate its own agenda. From what i understand Al-Quedas real agenda is to overthrow all arab governments and have one big Taliban type state. Im sure thats a simplification, and i would like to hear what you think Al-Queda's actual goals are.

So its important to understand that becuase someone agrees with the statements doens't mean they support Al-Queda. BUT AL-QUEDA WANTS STUPID AMERICANS TO THINK IT IS SO. Al-Queda is not a bunch of stupid cave dwellers, we are talking about a very intelligent strategy in the public relations arena.

Not 2000. Remember the 1st attack on the WTC? Some good points otherwise.

As we're talking of Al Quaida:
In August 1996 bin Laden issued the first fatwa:
"He declares that Saudis have the right to strike at US troops in the Persian Gulf."

On February 22, 1998 he issues the fatwa you're talking about:
"Bin Laden issues joint declaration with the Islamic Group, Al Jihad, the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh and the "Jamaat ul Ulema e Pakistan" under the banner of the "World Islamic Front," which stated that Muslims should kill Americans including civilians--anywhere in the world."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/etc/cron.html

However 1993 was the opening shot in a war the US didn't even know it was in yet.

I am sure many ordinary Arabs agree with the 5 points you made.

I am sure that many ordinary Arabs would also agree that all those points have been exacerbated and made worse by 9/11.

Some also see Osama as a hero.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1560482.stm

As the world's attention focuses on Osama Bin Laden, the prime suspect in this month's attacks on America, something strange is happening in his home country of Saudi Arabia.

He is becoming a popular hero.

Despite being stripped of his Saudi nationality, Bin Laden is being hailed by many ordinary Saudis as a champion of Islam and Arab causes.

As the net closes in on his Afghan hideout, he is being idolised by many in the Middle East as the man who dared to strike a blow at the world's only superpower.

You see Vince.......

The Arab plight may be desperate......

But they aint stupid......

Such ideas are less popular with the thinking Arab public, who fear the violence and economic ruin(U.S retaliation for 9/11) such an upheaval would probably bring.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1560482.stm

Vince.
Care to name me one House Of Saud official that Al-Quida have killed in the last 6 years?

Not sure what point you are attempting to make? That Muslim Fundimentalists would never pull somthing like 9-11 attacks because it wouldn't be in their "self interest"?

It is in their self interest to start a civil war in the middle east, to inflame a full scale Jihad. The middle east is hardly a monolithic block as you seem to be impling. Yes thinking Arabs don't want jihad with the west. Most want freedom from persicution of any kind and hope for their childeren.

These fascists simply want Sharia law throughout the middle east and know that can only be obtainined by driving the West out. Funny the very (only) thing that provides them resources to wage such a jihad aslo ensures the West not abandoning the middle east...oil.

As for the Saudis? Sure they have been paying the piper to stave of the butcher...but they are certainly on the list.

That is exactly what Al-Queda wants (Not Arabs in general of course). They want the situation to be so bad that everyone will support them, they know they don't have widespread support.

Atmosphere can be quite tough sometimes around DU.
I believe your statement that it was intended that things got worse for the Arab world after 9/11 ("Of course they want all of those things. In their eyes the Arab world is asleep while these things are being done to them. The worse it gets the better it is for them in the long run.") aroused maybe some astonishment. So you should clarify a bit what you meant with this statement.
In how far can the organizers of 9/11 (as you chose this answer) have intended the situation change in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palastine?

Hey KingFish.....

Check this out......

I am even more "baffled" that you apparently fail to acknowledge the widespread belief in the Arab world that the US itself and/or the Jews perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. A wealth of evidence of such belief is freely available as this issue has been discussed throughout the world, from the New York Times to Al-Jazeera and from the Hindustani Times to Al Riyadh.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,884156,00.html

So what was that you were sayin about Al-Quida having support in the Arab world?

:rolleyes:

I suppose all these attacks were by the CIA/Mossad as well?

26 February, 1993
Bomb explodes at the World Trade Center in New York

4 October, 1993
Eighteen US servicemen killed in Somalia

25 June, 1996
US military base in Saudi bombed 19 servicemen killed

7 August, 1998
US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed

12 October, 2000
Attack on US warship in Yemen kills 17 sailors

11 April, 2002
Blast at Tunisian synagogue kills 17 people

12 October, 2002
Bomb attacks on Bali nightclubs kill 202

28 November, 2002
Israeli targets come under attack in Kenya

12 May, 2003
Dozens killed in Saudi bombings

16 May, 2003
Morocco rocked by suicide attacks

15 December, 2003
Suicide bombers hit two Turkish synagogues

20 December, 2003
Two bomb attacks on British interests in Turkey

11 March, 2004
Madrid rocked by deadly train bombings

17 May, 2004
Top Iraqi official killed in suicide attack

29 May, 2004
Militant shooting spree and siege kill 22 in Saudi Arabia

18 June, 2004
US engineer beheaded in Saudi Arabia

Some of em'...yeah!....hell...yeah!

You have listed any number of attacks attributed to the AlQaeda network. I have no doubt that some were committed by those associated by AlQaeda or some other Islamic terrorist network. Of course we have no convicted proof that all or some of these acts were actually AlQaeda instigated. We are just told by the administration and corporate media that this is so.

I also have no doubt that CIA money and infiltration has penetrated these groups. "Terrorist activity" gives quick public approval to the long list of "justifiable" US military incursions. The US Imperial state needed an international bogeyman and 911 gave it to them..or more correctly put they gave it to themselves.

What about the Embassy Bombings Trial, the trial of Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-'Owhali?

Are you trying to say that he was convicted with no proof?

Paul Thompson's most valuable timeline on www.cooperativeresearch.org states something very interesting:

The New York Times later reports on Emad Salem, an undercover agent who ends up being the key government witness in the trial against the bomber. Salem testifies that the FBI knew about the attack beforehand and told him they would thwart it by substituting a harmless powder for the explosives. However, this plan was called off by an FBI supervisor, and the bombing was not stopped. (New York Times, 10/28/93) Why did the FBI seemingly let the terrorists go ahead with the bombing? Others suspects are ineptly investigated before the bombing (see July 1990 and November 5, 1990). Several of the bombers were trained by the CIA to fight in the Afghan war, and the CIA later concludes in internal documents that it was "partly culpable" for this bombing attempt. (Independent, 11/1/98)


Here you can hear a telephone conversation of Salem where he talks about it:

http://pdr.autono.net/WhoBombedWTC.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thanks seatnineb!


More on Ajaj from the Terror Timeline:

September 1, 1992: Terrorists Ahmad Ajaj and Ramzi Yousef enter the US together. Ajaj is arrested at Kennedy Airport in New York City. Ramzi Yousef is not arrested, and later masterminds the 1993 bombing of the WTC (see February 26, 1993). "The US government was pretty sure Ahmad Ajaj was a terrorist from the moment he stepped foot on US soil," because his "suitcases were stuffed with fake passports, fake IDs and a cheat sheet on how to lie to US immigration inspectors," plus "two handwritten notebooks filled with bomb recipes, six bomb-making manuals, four how-to videotapes concerning weaponry and an advanced guide to surveillance training." However, Ajaj is only charged with passport fraud, and serves a six-month sentence. From prison, Ajaj frequently calls Ramzi Yousef and others in the WTC bombing plot, but no one monitors or translates the calls until long after the bombing. (Los Angeles Times, 10/14/01) An Israeli newsweekly later reports that the Palestinian Ajaj may have been a mole for the Israeli Mossad. The Village Voice has suggested that Ajaj may have had "advance knowledge of the World Trade Center bombing, which he shared with Mossad, and that Mossad, for whatever reason, kept the secret to itself." Ajaj was not just knowledgeable, but was involved in the planning of the bombing from his prison cell. (Village Voice, 8/3/93) Ajaj is released from prison three days after the WTC bombing, but is later rearrested and sentenced to more than 100 years in prison. (Los Angeles Times, 10/14/01) One of the manuals seized from Ajaj is horribly mistranslated for the trial. For instance, the title page is said to say "The Basic Rule," published in 1982, when in fact the title says "Al-Qaeda" (which means "the base" in English), published in 1989. Investigators later complain that a proper translation could have shown an early connection between al-Qaeda and the WTC bombing. (New York Times, 1/14/01)


Vincent-Vegas: Do you agree that stating the first WTC attack was Al Quaida is too simple?:toast:

Nice one John Doe II

Just browsed theough my Masterminds Of Terror book and discovered this regarding 1993 WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef.......

According to the head of the FIA- Pakistan's Federal-Investigation-Agency...(not to be confused with CIA buddies...the Pakistani ISI)

"They were both extremly dangerouse men(Ramzi Yousef and 9/11 mastermind-Khalid-Sheik Mohammed) and to us in the FIA it always appeared that they had protection at a higher level"
"When we raided Ramzi's house in Quetta they had been warned"
Dr Rehman Malik
FIA Investigator.

And what did the FIA find in the house of Ramzi's uncle Zahid Al-Sheik:
The photopgraphs of Zahid(Ramzi Yousef's uncle) with General Zia ul-Haq, Mian Nawaz Sharif and Mr Ijaz ul Haq were also recovered from his residencey cum office ,which indicated the level of intamacy with the top brass of of (Pakistani)national politics
Masterminnds Of Terror.
By Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding.
Page 96.


The same top brass of Pakistani national politics which had connections with Israel's Mossad:

Zia al Haq decided to establish a clandestine relationship between Inter-Services Intelligence and Mossad via officers of the two services posted at their embassies in Washington, DC.

The ISI knew Mossad would be interested in information about the Libyan, Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi Arabian military. Pakistani army officers were often posted on deputation in the Arab world -- in these very countries -- and had access to valuable information, which the ISI offered Mossad.
http://www.bangladesherdak.net/Archive/03/September/9/intelligence.htm

So 1993 WTC bomber Ramzi's family are in bed with General Zia ul Haq....
Zia ul-Haq had established connections between the ISI and Mossad.

It starts to get clearer who Ramzi Yousef,Emad Salem and Ahmad Ajaj really worked for.

The WTC was full of materials that are no longer legal to use and the cost of a legit demo would be disastrous and embarrassing.

That's almost as kooky as the theory that WTC7 was intentionally demolished because of files that were kept there.

:tinfoilhat:

What materials are you talking about?

9/11 was carried out by cave-dwellers in Afghanistan.

Cavedwellers? Well organized, intelligent, educated, well financed, cavedwellers.

They were so filled with hatred for our way of life, they did not realize this would provoke the U.S. in the same way Pearl Harbor did.

They where To be honest, I doubt they thought back that far. They took their lessons from Vietnam in the '60s, Somalia 1993, Beruit 1982, and Afganistan in 1989. In their opinion America was of very weak resolve.

They defeated the entire security apparatus of the U.S., who never anticipated this type of attack, and had no means to thwart it once they knew it was underway.

Defeated? Bypassed. Middle East Intelligence was America's weakest link, a blind spot, dispite eight years of attacks. Security? The only security they had to defeat was airline bag checkers. Thwart it? You mean shoot down? Got news for ya, before 9-11-01 WASN'T gonna happen. Not without HIGH level clearance.

They chose to target two giant towers that needed $200 million worth of asbestos removal, and the one section of the Pentagon that had just been reinforced.Coincidentally, WTC #7 was intentionally demolished that same afternoon, because it had been structurally weakened by fire damage. No other steel-framed structure has ever been weakened by fire such that it required demolition.


Huh? And that means what exactly? Talk about reaching. Have you ever seen the building details of WTC-7? I have it was pretty unique, and signifcanty modified to support it's emergency managment command ctr function. Have you seen the pictures of WTC7 post attack? I have, it was a total wreck, interior gutted.

You state:

"The only security they had to defeat was airline bag checkers."

I'm sorry. Did you read eg Paul Thompson's timeline or even just the Commission report and the Report of the Joint Inquiry to realize how much luck the hijackers had? How many obstacles there normally would have been? How many things had to go wrong (official version) so that 9/11 could happen??
Or just check out Mindy Kleinberg's opinion. The wife of a victim obviously doubts that everything simple could have been explained with luck.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm

In any case I think it's very daring to say that
"The only security they had to defeat was airline bag checkers."

Moreover could you please elaborate a it about your phrase:
"You mean shoot down? Got news for ya, before 9-11-01 WASN'T gonna happen. Not without HIGH level clearance"

What do you mean with that exactly?

Why didn't the hijackers just get guns aboard?

The ONLY way the hijackers could be "thwarted" after hijacking an airliner was to shoot them down with the very limited fighter assets NORAD had on the east coast.

There was NO precident for an airliner shoot down. Yes there were memos written and a few exercises. Means squat at the operator level. Before the 2nd airliner (yes 2nd) hit the WTC, NO ONE was going to authorize a shoot down of a civilian airliner, hijacked or not.

"None of us need anniversaries to remind us of what we cannot forget. So it's no more than co-incidence that I happen to be here, on American soil, in September - this month of dreadful anniversaries. Uppermost on everybody's mind of course, particularly here in America, is the horror of what has come to be known as 9/11. Nearly three thousand civilians lost their lives in that lethal terrorist strike."

also

"Close to one year after the War against Terror was officially flagged off in the ruins of Afghanistan, in country after country freedoms are being curtailed in the name of protecting freedom, civil liberties are being suspended in the name of protecting democracy. All kinds of dissent are being defined as "terrorism". All kinds of laws are being passed to deal with it. Osama bin Laden seems to have vanished into thin air. Mullah Omar is supposed to have made his escape on a motorbike. (They could have sent TinTin after him.) The Taliban may have disappeared but their spirit, and their system of summary justice is surfacing in the unlikeliest of places. In India, in Pakistan, in Nigeria, in America, in all the Central Asian republics run by all manner of despots, and of course in Afghanistan under the U.S.-backed, Northern Alliance. "

Transcription of Arundhati Roy reading and
Ms. Roy and Howard Zinn in conversation
Lensic Performing Arts Center
Santa Fe, New Mexico
18 September 2002

http://www.lannan.org/_authors/roy/transcript.htm#reading

Great speech.

What a smart post! :think: