Bin Laden Tape: Take Two

[segovius]

Yes, I know there is a thread about the bin Laden tape of a few days ago - this is a new thread because the second tape (released yesterday) is different and raises even more serious and disturbing questions.

So...the background, the latest video (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2951193.ece) does not feature OBL but is allegedly the 'Testament' of Waleed Al Shehri who is suspected of being the pilot of AA Flight 11 that crashed into the WTC.

Strangely, this video has not been posted on 'extremist websites' or anywhere on the web but - like the OBL vid of a few days ago - has somehow appeared in the possession of Washington based 'monitoring group' IntelCenter, from sources unknown.

Interestingly this IntelCenter is a Government contractor with close links to the White House and which seems to handle quite a few 'al Qaeda' videos and messages...how they come into IntelCenter's possession is not divulged on security grounds but many appear to be unknown and not available anywhere prior to IntelCenter's publication of them.

An analysis of this 'Last Will' would be of the greatest interest and perhaps we can do this shortly but for now there is a more pressing problem. Basically it is this:

Waleed Al Shehri is one of the alleged hijackers who was rumoured to be still alive after 911 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm) and who protested his innocence - and was ignored - claiming mistaken identity to the FBI.

He is currently living in Casablanca Morocco where he continues to protest his innocence.

The above linked BBC article from September 21st 1001 goes on to say:

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well. Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.

The mystery of the still living hijackers has been reported by numerous media sources including the UK's Daily Telegraph. The following report references this article. (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_alive.htm)

Waleed Al Shehri is living in Casablanca, according to an official with Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline. According to the unnamed official, Al-Shehri lived in Dayton Beach, Fla., where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Now he works for a Moroccan airline. On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Al-Shehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.

"His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr. Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack." Daily Trust, 24th September 2001

"He was reported to have been in Hollywood, Florida, for a month earlier this year but his father, Ahmed, said that Waleed was alive and well and living in Morocco." Telegraph UK

"He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Dayton Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al -Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year [2000], became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco." BBC - 9/23/01 * allafrica.com - 9/24/01

Al Shehri...told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.

"A sixth person on the FBI's list, Saudi national Waleed Al-Shehri, is living in Casablanca, according to an official with the Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline. According to the unnamed official, Al-Shehri lived in Dayton Beach, Fla., where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Now he works for a Moroccan airline."

On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Alshehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.

So, several hijackers seem to be still alive. None of their names were ever on the flight-lists - nor any Arabic names in fact - and now one of them turns up on a video.

The same one who is confirmed to have attended the flight school, confirmed to have left the US and who is confirmed to have contacted the authorities re this matter. And the same person whose photograph is held to be that of the dead hijacker.

Does this - or does this not - stink in the most unearthly manner?

Another interesting link... (http://www.911myths.com/html/waleed_al-shehri_still_alive.html)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

No, this doesn't "stink" at all. Unless, of course, the facts take second place to your agenda.

:)

Firstly, Al Jazeera broke the story of the second tape, and possibly broadcast excerpts, before any American agency. This is no evidence of conspiracy; sorry.

Also, there were Arabic names on the flight lists. I don't understand why you would lie here. Clearly you've researched this a lot, so the facts must be known to you, and it looks like... you're lying, Segovius, and that's no way to win an argument.

Secondly, the BBC story you link to is dated ten days after 9/11. The dust hadn't settled yet. Which is why, after cursory research, when one Waleed Alsheri had been discovered having had flight training at an aeronautical school and then gone to a career as a pilot, the facts hadn't been thoroughly uncovered yet and it was broadcast. And later corrected.

This Waleed went to a different frigging flight school, and shared the guy's name. His father was a man called Ahmed Alshehri. The other Waleed Alshari's father is called Muhammad Ali Al-Shihri.

They shared the same surname. They were different people.

Why are the facts so unimportant to you? I understand it must be a bit of a blow to this conspiracy nonsense to have the last will of one of the supposedly 'missing' hijackers broadcast like this, in public and all. But the facts matter to the rest of us, because there is no mystery here at all.

Like I always say at this point, this conspiracy horseshit is a terrible distraction from questions that actually must be asked and solutions that really genuinely must be sought to a terrible situation still in our power to fix. And I wish that all 9/11 conspiracy dorks would, post haste, grow the fuck up.

:)

[segovius]

References and links for above assertions please :)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da.

La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da.

La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da! La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. "La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da."

La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da.

La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da.

This is how my previous post must look to:

a) a believer in a young earth
b) a believer in 9/11 conspiracy theories

(depending of course on the obvious facts I've dug up and to whether or not I'm responding to a Christian fundamentalist or a 9/11 conspiracist).

[segovius]

La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da.



La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da! La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. "La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da."



La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da. La de da. La de da de. La de da de da.

This is how my previous post must look to:

a) a believer in a young earth
b) a believer in 9/11 conspiracy theories

(depending of course on the obvious facts I've dug up and to whether or not I'm responding to a Christian fundamentalist or a 9/11 conspiracist).

So that's your argument? La de da?

At least you are not intellectually dishonest...it's kind of stylish to avoid that by being the opposite of intellectual.. ;)

I suppose it is meant to be offensive also: "you ask for links but I don't need to deign to support my argument because you are stupid and I am suprerior".

Luckily I really am superior so it doesn't offend me in the least :lol:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Wait. I posted that before I read your request for links and references, which is a little like providing links and references to prove plate tectonics and anatomy for a young earther, but hey.

Hold your horses.

For all the good any fact in the world is going to do.

[segovius]

Wait. I posted that before I read your request for links and references, which is a little like providing links and references to prove plate tectonics and anatomy for a young earther, but hey.

Hold your horses.

For all the good any fact in the world is going to do.

Ok...I'll put the kettle on.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

http://siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=publications314607&Category=publications&Subcategory=0

Here is a picture of Waleed al-Sheri from the new video release. He is a hijacker, who piloted one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Centre. He was motivated, as he attests, by his warped variation of Islam.

This is where this foolish debate should stop.

The video was released to many Islamist forums. As these videos always are. An American monitoring organisation got it? And released it to the Western media? I'm not surprised. So what. Proves fuck all. Nothing. Unless, of course, you're determined to see conspiracy where there is none.

Arguing over whether or not there were Arabic names on the flight lists is a bit like arguing with a young earther that the similarities between the anatomy and DNA of human beings and chimps mean a common ancestry or not, but hey, here's a link: http://web.archive.org/web/20020921045555/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/primetime_flightattendants_020718.html

It took me, oh, thirteen seconds to find it.

Actually, you know what, segovius, find the other links yourself, I have to go and buy some cycle shoes.

[southside grabowski]

The sheep continue to bah in sink with their neoconic keepers. 911 was undoubtedly a folly of the multilateral corporations, the weasel media and the Bushinistas. Only a feeble –minded intellectually void drone could accept otherwise.

[sammi jo]

No, this doesn't "stink" at all. Unless, of course, the facts take second place to your agenda.

:)

Firstly, Al Jazeera broke the story of the second tape, and possibly broadcast excerpts, before any American agency. This is no evidence of conspiracy; sorry.

Also, there were Arabic names on the flight lists. I don't understand why you would lie here. Clearly you've researched this a lot, so the facts must be known to you, and it looks like... you're lying, Segovius, and that's no way to win an argument.

Secondly, the BBC story you link to is dated ten days after 9/11. The dust hadn't settled yet. Which is why, after cursory research, when one Waleed Alsheri had been discovered having had flight training at an aeronautical school and then gone to a career as a pilot, the facts hadn't been thoroughly uncovered yet and it was broadcast. And later corrected.

This Waleed went to a different frigging flight school, and shared the guy's name. His father was a man called Ahmed Alshehri. The other Waleed Alshari's father is called Muhammad Ali Al-Shihri.

They shared the same surname. They were different people.

Why are the facts so unimportant to you? I understand it must be a bit of a blow to this conspiracy nonsense to have the last will of one of the supposedly 'missing' hijackers broadcast like this, in public and all. But the facts matter to the rest of us, because there is no mystery here at all.

Like I always say at this point, this conspiracy horseshit is a terrible distraction from questions that actually must be asked and solutions that really genuinely must be sought to a terrible situation still in our power to fix. And I wish that all 9/11 conspiracy dorks would, post haste, grow the fuck up.

:)

Your inability to provide links, or some kind of proof to your assertions, are exactly what gives rise to the "conspiracies" that seem to get your panties in such a twist in the first place. This secretive and junior highschool "I'm not going to debate you because we're right and you're wrong" attitude has even been the premise of US government agencies and the media. For example, the Pentagon has footage from 80 or so security cameras positioned around that building, but their refusal to release anything has understandably generated suspicion (to any being with at least a quarter of a functioning brain). An immediate release could, if their story is essentially correct, have scotched any doubts in the minds of the public, as regards this element of the attacks.

If the attacks were exactly what the powers-that-be (and their publicity wing in the mainstream media have repeated ad nauseam since then, ie, a "bona fide" terrorist attack, out of the blue, with no foreknowledge, then so many heads would have rolled, it would have made Judge Jeffreys seem like a wimp.

Where did this new, other-worldly concept that has surfaced since 9/11, (perhaps to counter alternative explanations of 9/11) come from, this notion that Americans are incapable of killing Americans? When it comes to 9/11 and the like, Hassan probably wears the largest tinfoil hat of them all!

Here you go, Hassan:

http://static.highend3d.com/galleryimages/634/screen.jpg

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Ooh! She's hot!

Thanks!

[@_@ Artman]

Wow, that picture's sweet. Where did you get it? :D

Anyway...Seems that brainwashing is working...

9/11 Linked To Iraq, In Politics if Not in Fact (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091102316.html)

The television commercial is grim and gripping: A soldier who lost both legs in an explosion near Fallujah explains why he thinks U.S. forces need to stay in Iraq.

"They attacked us," he says as the screen turns to an image of the second hijacked airplane heading toward the smoking World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. "And they will again. They won't stop in Iraq."

Every investigation has shown that Iraq did not, in fact, have anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. But the ad, part of a new $15 million media blitz launched by an advocacy group allied with the White House, may be the most overt attempt during the current debate in Congress over the war to link the attacks with Iraq.

...

Although public support for Bush's handling of terrorism has fallen in his second term -- 46 percent of respondents approved of his handling of the issue in this month's Washington Post-ABC News poll, while 51 percent disapproved -- the White House still views al-Qaeda as its most successful justification for remaining in Iraq. After some critics accused Bush of overstating the connection between bin Laden's group and al-Qaeda in Iraq, the White House quickly arranged a presidential speech to defend and reinforce its assertions.

The reason to emphasize al-Qaeda, aides said, is simple. "People know what that means," said one senior official who spoke about internal strategy on the condition of anonymity. "The average person doesn't understand why the Sunnis and Shia don't like each other. They don't know where the Kurds live. . . . And al-Qaeda is something they know. They're the enemy of the United States."

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Aaanyway, I did provide links. Segovius said there were not Arab names on the flight list? There are. There were. I provided a link. They are the names of people who have made video testimony, written letters, wills, and have been filmed with The Sheikh. Also, the planet is older than 6,000 years, as mineral deposits on paleolithic artefacts in caves sealed in the last interglacial period attest.

Seriously, samantha j ollendale, the facts are googleable. You're not interested in the truth. If you were you'd do some research of your own.

Muhammad Ali Al-Shehri was identified as Waleed al-Shehri's father and even said that he hadn't seen his sons for ten months. Ahmed Al-shehri had. He said his son was alive, and a pilot, and

d'aishdfaushf lasjf alkjhcf

WHAT'S THE POINT IN GOING OVER THIS? This is like macro and macro evolution and 'information' and 'God can speed up light if he wants to' and 'the fossil record is incomplete'.

You've made your mind up. Now here's a frigging VIDEO of Waleed Al-Shehri explaining what he's going to do and why and IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU.

Instead of finding the most weird, roundabout explanation that denies the superabundant facts that the hijackers were who

hey ho, I fucking give up.

[southside grabowski]

Many people are not satisfied by the official story.

I however do not believe that this government has the competence to pull it off. They are bumbling idiots. That said, I definitely consider the official version incomplete and inaccurate.

[southside grabowski]

http://static.highend3d.com/galleryimages/634/screen.jpg[/QUOTE]


To the garden......

[southside grabowski]

Wow, that picture's sweet. Where did you get it? :D

Anyway...Seems that brainwashing is working...

9/11 Linked To Iraq, In Politics if Not in Fact (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091102316.html)

I've heard these quotes too often. It is maddening. We hear parants of dead soldiers and injured soldiers make this references a lot. Facts and politics = oil and water.

[segovius]

Aaanyway, I did provide links. Segovius said there were not Arab names on the flight list? There are. There were. I provided a link..

But not a link which dealt with the flight-lists....

[@_@ Artman]

I've heard these quotes too often. It is maddening. We hear parants of dead soldiers and injured soldiers make this references a lot. Facts and politics = oil and water.

Hit and Myth (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003638490&imw=Yhttp://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6859681?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com&nclick_check=1)

Six years after the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S., it seems the media still have some educational work to do. A new CBS/New York Times poll reveals that even today, 1 in 3 Americans believe that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

This notion was thoroughly debunked by official sources, including those in the White House, years ago, but the myth endures. Polls have shown that belief in this untruth was a prime component in support for the attack on Iraq.

Four in 10 Republicans still hold this view, compared with 32% of Independents and 27% of Democrats.

The poll of 1,035 adults was taken Sept. 4 to 8.

In a related story (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval), "Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President."


:smokey::err::wow::rolleyes:

[@_@ Artman]

Instead of finding the most weird, roundabout explanation that denies the superabundant facts that the hijackers were who

hey ho, I fucking give up.

9/11 - the big cover-up? (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_coverup.html.printer.friendly)

Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.

What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority;
and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.

[sammi jo]

Aaanyway, I did provide links. Segovius said there were not Arab names on the flight list? There are. There were. I provided a link. They are the names of people who have made video testimony, written letters, wills, and have been filmed with The Sheikh. Also, the planet is older than 6,000 years, as mineral deposits on paleolithic artefacts in caves sealed in the last interglacial period attest.

Seriously, samantha j ollendale, the facts are googleable. You're not interested in the truth. If you were you'd do some research of your own.

Muhammad Ali Al-Shehri was identified as Waleed al-Shehri's father and even said that he hadn't seen his sons for ten months. Ahmed Al-shehri had. He said his son was alive, and a pilot, and

d'aishdfaushf lasjf alkjhcf

WHAT'S THE POINT IN GOING OVER THIS? This is like macro and macro evolution and 'information' and 'God can speed up light if he wants to' and 'the fossil record is incomplete'.

You've made your mind up. Now here's a frigging VIDEO of Waleed Al-Shehri explaining what he's going to do and why and IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU.

Instead of finding the most weird, roundabout explanation that denies the superabundant facts that the hijackers were who

hey ho, I fucking give up.

This article (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/latimes092101.html) was pubished in the LA Times shortly after the attacks, and points to the possibility/probability of identity theft/swap. The Saudi Embassy information chief Gafaar Allagany had some interesting things to say about some of the alleged culprits:

The Saudi citizens who were mistakenly linked to last week's tragedy are horrified, said a diplomat at the Saudi Embassy here.

"You should see the hate mail we are getting," said Gaafar Allagany, head of the embassy's information center. "We think this was part of the plan."

The six Saudis are:

* Abdulaziz Alomari, a name used by one of the suspected hijackers on American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center.

A man with the same name is an electrical engineer in Saudi Arabia. He lived in Denver, where he got his degree from the University of Colorado, from 1993 until last year.

"In 1995, his apartment was broken into in Denver and his passport and other official documents were stolen," Allagany said.

* Salem Alhamzi, a name used by one of the suspected hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

A man with the same name works for the Saudi Royal Commission in the Saudi city of Yanbu.

* Saeed Alghamdi, a name used by one of the alleged hijackers on United Airlines Flight 93, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.

A Saudi Arabian pilot, currently on a mission to Tunisia, has the same name.

* Ahmed Alnami, a name used by another suspected hijacker on Flight 93.

A 33-year-old Saudi Arabian pilot with the same name is alive in Riyadh.

* Wail Alshehri, a name used by one of the suspected hijackers on American Airlines Flight 11.

A man by the same name is a pilot whose father is a Saudi diplomat in Bombay. "I personally talked to both father and son today," Allagany said.

* Waleed M. Alshehri, a name used by another alleged hijacker on Flight 11, is the same name as the other son of the diplomat. Allagany said that man is living in Jidda.

"This is a respectable family. I know his sons, and they're both alive," he said.



If these guys were going to commit suicide, why would they bother with identity swaps? Were you involved? Did you know these folk?

Hassan, since you claim to know so much about these attacks, can you rebut the identity swap possibility?

The "identities of the alleged hijackers" were officially established very quickly after the attacks. I recall that the first indication as to the identities of the 19 came out as early as the following day, 9/12/2001. By what means did the FBI accomplish this?

Let me ask you this:

Do you believe implicitly in the story that the Bush Administration has given us, which it still maintains:

"America was attacked by 19 Arab fundamentalists, completely out of the blue and with no prior warning, because "they hate our freedoms"?

Yes?

Also, a few simple definitions are apt:

Conspiracy: (Law). "an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act". This undoubtedly fits both the government's and any alternative story.

Theory: "proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact". This also fits both government's and alternative stories.

You, by definition, are therefore a conspiracy theorist.
I, by definition, am not: I have never put forward any particular theory. For sure I have asked a bunch of questions, and only ONE has actually been answered to any degree of satisfaction.. That was Artman's link concerning the "fattie bin Laden" video. (there are still some weirdnesses with that even, but the the analysis looked sound... I do a lot of multimedia stuff. Go look at all the posts I have made on the subject, of 9/11 and not once have I put out any theorizing about "how the attacks happened". Of course, you would never acknowledge that inconvenience....

Perhaps you think that to merely ask questions which the powers-that-be cannot, or refuse to answer, is the same as being a conspiracy theorist, or even "wearing a tinfoil hat". Or maybe you are living in a topsy turvy Orwellian world of doublespeak (kinda fashionable in BushWorld), where to quote from a song "black is white, and right is wrong, and the media spins it round and round"?

Hassan, if there is just one thing wrong, or dishonest, or a "part truth" as regards the "official story", then it is not only INSANE, but grossly irresponsible for anyone not to cast doubts on any other part of it, (unless they can furnish evidence that would stand up, under rigorous questioning and cross examination in a genuine US court of law (not one of Bush's military "tribunal" kangaroo-courts). Far too much is at stake to justify that kind of attitude....it's almost as if you are exhorting Americas to be like "good Germans".

:no:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Do you believe implicitly in the story that the Bush Administration has given us, which it still maintains:

"America was attacked by 19 Arab fundamentalists, completely out of the blue and with no prior warning, because "they hate our freedoms"?

Absolutely not, sammi jo. I don't believe the attacks were 'out of the blue' and I don't believe they were perpetrated because anyone 'hates our freedoms'. But yes, they were carried out by

really what's the point? deep breath

...they were carried out by the people who claimed responsibility, these people were 'Muslims' and they were motivated by religion and by genuine political grievances.

I also believe that this conspiracy horseshit is a distraction from the solving of genuinely surmountable problems and does an enormous disservice to all of us.

I know that there are people who call themselves Muslims who approve wholeheartedly of killing innocent people with bombs; I know that there are people who would, with a little motivation, damage and training, carry out these attacks.

I know this because I have not read about them, seen them on the news, debated them on the internet, but because I have met them.

I've met radicalised people from the age of nothing. I've also spent years living ten minutes on my bike from The Infamous Finsbury Park Masjid. One of the crap London bombers went to worship on Casanove Road, which is round the corner from my branch of Fresh and Wild and near the shop where you can buy beer at 3 am. There really are people inspired by Islam and politics who would train to crash a jumbo into a tall building. They exist. They are motivated; they've actually done it.

This is real, and it's important. This isn't about providing links to a website with scans of the flight lists for 9/11. Those people were on those fucking planes, just like they filmed themselves before they went, like we heard their voices when they were on the planes. You may as well ask me to provide a link to prove that a man called 'Barnaby Winklebottom' invented the electric lightbulb. There will never, ever be enough evidence to convince you. So who cares?

[sammi jo]

Absolutely not, sammi jo. I don't believe the attacks were 'out of the blue' and I don't believe they were perpetrated because anyone 'hates our freedoms'. But yes, they were carried out by

really what's the point? deep breath

If you are "absolutely" acknowledging that the attacks were not "out of the blue", that implies that you also acknowledge that officials within the US Government (and/or elsewhere) were aware of what was about to happen, and presumably did not sound the alarm, or if they had, they were ignored by their superiors (even threatened with prosecution under the 1947 National Security Act, in the case of attorney David Schippers' intent to go public with testimony from 3 FBI agents who tried to sound the alarm 2 months prior to the attacks. Accessory to murder carries penalties almost as severe as committing murder itself, and 3000 were murdered that day... and all you can say is "what is the point"? Do you honestly think such parties should get away with accessory to murder, both before and after the fact? And, if (parties connected to the authorities) knew it was going to happen in advance, and then they let it happen (as you implied), either deliberately, or via negligence or incompetence, then that is as bad as "making it happen on purpose", since both actions or inactions would have directly led to the end result, ie the killing of 3000 people.

Perhaps you are not comfortable in advocating prosecuting anyone who knew in advance, if they happened to be non-Muslim, as it dilutes or runs against the message that the NeoConservatives within the Bush Administration have been promoting for the last 6 years (with the aid of the mainstream media), which states "all Muslims are (potential) terrorists, and all terrorists are Muslim?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

If you are "absolutely" acknowledging that the attacks were not "out of the blue", that implies that you also acknowledge that officials within the US Government (and/or elsewhere) were aware of what was about to happen, and presumably did not sound the alarm, or if they had, they were ignored by their superiors (even threatened with prosecution under the 1947 National Security Act, in the case of attorney David Schippers' intent to go public with testimony from 3 FBI agents who tried to sound the alarm 2 months prior to the attacks. Accessory to murder carries penalties almost as severe as committing murder itself, and 3000 were murdered that day... and all you can say is "what is the point"? Do you honestly think such parties should get away with accessory to murder, both before and after the fact? And, if (parties connected to the authorities) knew it was going to happen in advance, and then they let it happen (as you implied), either deliberately, or via negligence or incompetence, then that is as bad as "making it happen on purpose", since both actions or inactions would have directly led to the end result, ie the killing of 3000 people.

This is very frustrating. You ignore all the pertinent stuff I wrote and concentrate on one sentence to derive a weird interpretation that fits what you want to believe.

The attacks weren't 'out of the blue', no: because people were motivated and prepared, and there was precedent. An attack was going to be attempted.

And no-one 'let it happen' intentionally.

Maybe people were negligent, maybe people were incompetent, and if so then yes, these people should be held to account.

But it happened because some people were motivated; some people has the imagination and competence to make it happen, some other people didn't have the imagination and competence to stop it.

That's it. The world is fucked and random and really bad things happen. Scary isn't it.

You're trying to impose an order where there is none, other than human beings acting on their potential to do terrible things.

[tonton]

In a related story (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval), "Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President."

The baby-eating approving 39%.

[Nightcrawler]

Why is it still debated if radical muslims organized and conducted the attacks on 9/11? They did, Al-Qaeeda indeed conducted the attacks, they planned for it for years, they even bragged about it, they tried it even right there on the WTC in 1993...

The attacks were not out of the blue, they were prepared for years, and the secret agencies of every major nation, including the US knew that the attacks were coming, even how and on what targets, only the timing and exact identities had a question-mark.

Some here ask why the terrorists bothered to swap identities: 1. Maybe in order to spare their families grieve and problems with the authorities and 2. Maybe in order not to get caught before they succeeded in the case that the secret agencies were able to get to know the identities of the plotters.

Is it possible that the secret agencies in the US and Israel knew of the plotters? I think it's very likely. Did the swapped identities prevent the agencies of arresting the plotters before they got on the planes? Maybe.

Is it likely that the US let the attacks happen on the WTC and Pentagon and stopped the attacks that were meant for the White House and/or Capitol? Perhaps.

Is that the reason why the 9/11 commission is not allowed to freely and completely investigate? Maybe, but there is also another reason: Not to bog down the political leadership while leading a war and not to show weakness to the world.

Nightcrawler

[tonton]

Maybe, but there is also another reason: Not to bog down the political leadership while leading a war and not to show weakness to the world.

I was with you right up until that one...

The best way to show weakness is to show incompetence. That's exactly what Bush&Co. did.

We need to show strength and resolve in management. Not blind arrogant Hollywood bravado and "good ol' boy" or "we can't appear weak so we have to pretend they are doing a perfect job" support for incompetent fuck-ups. Acting like a cowboy showed weakness. Patting the back of the idiot cowboy and ignoring his failure showed weakness. All of this gave "the enemy" much ammunition for ridicule.

[segovius]

Why is it still debated if radical muslims organized and conducted the attacks on 9/11? They did, Al-Qaeeda indeed conducted the attacks, they planned for it for years, they even bragged about it, they tried it even right there on the WTC in 1993...

I am not disputing that....

My point is that the current US administration is UTTERLY CORRUPT and have no morality whatsoever.

Almost the first reaction to 911 was 'how do we tie it to Iraq?'. And from there they continued to lie, cheat, deceive and ultimately, kill.

Maybe there are things we do not know about 911, sure there are some mysteries but then there are about many things, my point is that the US Government are not above lying to the populace.

And perhaps they lied about the hijackers. Maybe this guy IS still alive. Maybe not.

Perhaps they construct tapes of 'OBL'. Maybe not.

But none of it means that radical Islamists were not responsible. None of it means the US planned 911.

None of it means anything except the fact that you have a Government that views the truth as irrelevant and something that can be manipulated for their own agenda.

Look, this anti-conspiracy stuff is really going to get us in the shit. Big time. Think about it: it basically means that you accept the Bush admin is honest.

They are NOT!!!! They CONSPIRE!!!! You need to wake up to that (Hassan!) The only question is: what do they conspire about?

Maybe they know Saudi did 911 and spin things away from that.

Maybe they gave bin Laden a free pass.

Maybe they don't care about catching him but Iran is the end game.

If any of these is the case someone in the Government planned and approved it and they are telling the public the opposite: that is a CONSPIRACY ffs.

And gibbering on about 'tin foil hats' and denying that conspiracies exist just gives these assholes a blank cheque.

So if anyone wants to trust Bush & Co to the extent that they would never take advantage of a tragedy, plan something secret and tell the public different.... well....good luck.....

You might as well just come out of that winger-closet and really be what you are :no:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I am not disputing that....

My point is that the current US administration is UTTERLY CORRUPT and have no morality whatsoever.
But I agree.


Almost the first reaction to 911 was 'how do we tie it to Iraq?'. And from there they continued to lie, cheat, deceive and ultimately, kill.
Again, I agree. :)

Maybe there are things we do not know about 911, sure there are some mysteries but then there are about many things, my point is that the US Government are not above lying to the populace.

And perhaps they lied about the hijackers. Maybe this guy IS still alive. Maybe not.

Perhaps they construct tapes of 'OBL'. Maybe not.

I agree with you.

But none of it means that radical Islamists were not responsible. None of it means the US planned 911.

None of it means anything except the fact that you have a Government that views the truth as irrelevant and something that can be manipulated for their own agenda.
This is true too.

Look, this anti-conspiracy stuff is really going to get us in the shit. Big time. Think about it: it basically means that you accept the Bush admin is honest.
No. Why should it?

All I'm saying is pick your disputes. Find the right targets. Don't be distracted.

[@_@ Artman]

Researcher: Bin Laden's beard is real, video is not (http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9777136-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5)

The September 7 video shows bin Laden dressed in a white hat, white shirt and yellow sweater. Krawetz notes "this is the same clothing he wore in the 2004-10-29 video. In 2004 he had it unzipped, but in 2007 he zipped up the bottom half. Besides the clothing, it appears to be the same background, same lighting, and same desk. Even the camera angle is almost identical." Krawetz also notes that "if you overlay the 2007 video with the 2004 video, his face has not changed in three years--only his beard is darker and the contrast on the picture has been adjusted."

More important though are the edits. At roughly a minute and a half into the video there is a splice; bin Laden shifts from looking at the camera to looking down in less than 1/25th of a second. At 13:13 there is a second, less obvious splice. In all, Krawetz says there are at least six splices in the video. Of these, there are only two live bin Laden segments, the rest of the video composed of still images. The first live section opens the video and ends at 1:56. The second section begins at 12:29 and continues until 14:01. The two live sections appear to be from different recordings "because the desk is closer to the camera in the second section."

Then there are the audio edits. Krawetz says "the new audio has no accompanying 'live' video and consists of multiple audio recordings." References to current events are made only during the still frame sections and after splices within the audio track." And there are so many splices that I cannot help but wonder if someone spliced words and phrases together. I also cannot rule out a vocal imitator during the frozen-frame audio. The only way to prove that the audio is really bin Laden is to see him talking in the video," Krawetz says.

The interweb, where FAKE! has a whole new meaning.

Oh, and if I asked you all which station devoted more attention to Osama bin Laden's latest videotape, your answer would most likely be Al Jazeera. Well, I have news for you. It was FOX News (http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/62416/).

http://novalight.org/Sheeple.jpg

[segovius]

@Artman, I was wondering about that too.

This is the BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966741.stm) from 2004 with the picture of OBL below.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40471000/jpg/_40471471_binladen1_203.jpg

They've tweaked the background a bit but the clothes are the same. New one here;

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44104000/jpg/_44104453_osama203pa.jpg

[southside grabowski]

Thanks for fixing the link sammi. We missed her.

[sammi jo]

This is very frustrating. You ignore all the pertinent stuff I wrote and concentrate on one sentence to derive a weird interpretation that fits what you want to believe.

I could say exactly the same thing. There is so much that is disputable about the official story of 9/11, I could sit here typing all day, but I have better things to do, and you wouldn't read it anyway.

The other point being... it has been demonstrated that this government, and the 9/11 "Commission" have lied about key aspects of the attacks. If they provably lie just the once (which they have), then that renders their entire version questionable. In court, they would be considered "unreliable witnesses".

The attacks weren't 'out of the blue', no: because people were motivated and prepared, and there was precedent. An attack was going to be attempted.

Motivation? I think we went though the issue of motivation before? I think anyone must now realize who was motivated... You surely cannot be claiming that the NeoCon movement had no motivation when it came to whatever involvement (if any) they had with 9/11?

And no-one 'let it happen' intentionally.

Evidence please? Yours is a bland assertion that flies in the face of the the historical record. The false flag op is a textbook method of corrupt governments worldwide, whether it be black, white, asian, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, leftwing, rightwing, whatever. I get the impression that you cannot accept the many times proven fact that corrupt and criminal governments occasionally attack, or plan to attack their own nations to justify agendas that would otherwise be untenable re. its constituents.

Maybe people were negligent, maybe people were incompetent, and if so then yes, these people should be held to account.

In which case, as I said before, heads should still be rolling, if the attacks were of the character still claimed by this administration. As I asked before.. who got fired? Why did the Bush Administration refuse for a year and a half to open an inquiry? Why did that Commission deem it necessary to lie in its final report? The reaction of the authorities to 9/11, re. its investigation, or more realistically, lack thereof, is very different to what one would reasonably expect, if the attacks were exactly as they described them....

But it happened because some people were motivated; some people has the imagination and competence to make it happen, some other people didn't have the imagination and competence to stop it.

Thats what the 9/11 Commission said in its conclusion, that the attacks were as a result of a "failure of imagination". This is contrary to the factual record.

That's it. The world is fucked and random and really bad things happen. Scary isn't it.

Yes, and yes.

You're trying to impose an order where there is none, other than human beings acting on their potential to do terrible things.

You said it.

I really hope that you never get accepted for a job as a police detective...

[@_@ Artman]

"Christopher Walken's Blog"

Osama dances like an infidel (http://www.newsgroper.com/christopher-walken/2007/09/12/osama-dances-infidel/)

Conspiracy theorists note that Bin Laden’s video freezes at the 1:58 mark, as which point he begins making some of his most prescient observations. Please notice that at the 1:58 mark of my video, my soul actually freezes, at which point I make some of my most prescient leg kicks. Look closely: I am ice fucking cold. I could pull those stupid chopsticks out of your hair, stab you in the kidneys, and eat your nephrons one at a time without dropping a single one.

Notice also that at the 0:37 mark, I make subtle indications that I pay little heed to the social contract. But I am not sure about that part. Sometimes I just like to make faces.

Through all of this, I just keep dancing really, really well. That’s how you can tell that the video is a forgery. You know how we pulled this off? We just pasted my face on my buddy Travolta’s old body. And then just for fun we pasted his new fat face on his old body. Man, he looked like one stupid fat-faced asshole.

:lol: :D :lol: :smokey:

[talksense101]

I personally think OBL videos come out whenever GWB wants to make a public statement about his foreign policy or the war on terror.

[segovius]

I personally think OBL videos come out whenever GWB wants to make a public statement about his foreign policy or the war on terror.

Looks that way....

[southside grabowski]

Looks that way....

Might also correlate with 911.:lol:

[dfiler]

Wow, just wow.

It amazes me how anyone can latch onto such a ridiculous conspiracy theory. The shear detail and complexity of their arguments indicate considerable intelligence. Yet they still manage to discount evidence probable scenarios, and instead believe in an amazing string of improbable events. Unfortunately, proving them wrong is almost impossible because it would necessitate disproving every facet of an unbelievably immense conspiracy theory. Disprove one and they shift to another.

Really this thread is more interesting as insight into abnormal psychology than it is as a discussion of 911. But don't get too upset by that assertion. I exhibit quite a bit of abnormal behavior myself. :D

[sammi jo]

I wonder if they play golf together? :p

[southside grabowski]

I do wonder how the same people who think that our government is under the control of blathering idiots consider the Gov smart enough to pull of the biggest conspiracy in modern history. I honestly don't consider this bunch of baffoons smart enough.

[sammi jo]

I do wonder how the same people who think that our government is under the control of blathering idiots consider the Gov smart enough to pull of the biggest conspiracy in modern history. I honestly don't consider this bunch of baffoons smart enough.

Buffoons? Look, the official story has it that 19 flight school flunkouts (whose apparent ringleader was quite the partier) took on the worlds most sophisticated military/security/intelligece network ever created, and ran rings around it, without even eliciting a response, even when the worlds most restricted airspace was penetrated, and for quite a long period! That is qute a stretch, when you look at it. It makes one wonder why we bother spending $460,000,000,000+ per annum of defense, if we cant even be bothered to use it when most required.

What do you mean by "the government" anyway? "Government" is anything from the local park district, right through to city, county, state governments, and on the top federal level ... employing millions of people nationwide, most of whom have no clue as to what there colleagues do, let alone folk in another state, or department, or even departments within departments. To accuse the promulgators of skepticism towards the "official version" of screaming "the gummint did it, the gummint did it" is disingenuous at the very best.

[southside grabowski]

We are obviously not talking about local gov here sammi. I have often said that I don’t think we know the whole story, but for the most part it is what it is. There have been cover-ups to save the butts of high ranking incompetents, but not much more. I do not question that the Administration and others have made the most of 911 to forward their agendas. That’s pretty clear.

I must ask: Why do you use language like “gummint “? Do you think that I talk that?

[dfiler]

Look, the official story has it that 19 flight school flunkouts (whose apparent ringleader was quite the partier) took on the worlds most sophisticated military/security/intelligece network ever created, and ran rings around it, without even eliciting a response, even when the worlds most restricted airspace was penetrated, and for quite a long period! That is qute a stretch, when you look at it.Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Any average joe with some flight school experience could have done the same. The plan wasn't complicated or difficult at all. All it took was determination and a bit of money to live on while training.

[@_@ Artman]

Switcheroo: American minister sends video to Osama (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57633)

An American television evangelist has turned the tables on al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden – sending him a video message warning him to repent of his sins and convert to Christianity.

...

"Osama, since you seem to be a fan of video messages, I thought this would be the best way to communicate with you," says Bill Keller, host of the Florida-based "Live Prayer" TV program as well as LivePrayer.com in a message being posted to YouTube and 20 other major video sites in the U.S. as well as some 50 in the Middle East.

Keller said his goal was to reach out to bin Laden with a message of salvation.

"Look at you, look at your life," Keller says. "You live like a hunted goat in caves, totally dependent on a small group of people for your survival. At any moment, one of those you trust could betray you like Judas betrayed Jesus and your life would be over. The false prophet you follow, Mohammad, was poisoned to death by one of his wives."

...

"You followed the same path as the false prophet you have put your faith in – Mohammad – who, like you, was once a businessman, but who history has recorded was nothing more than a murdering pedophile who led men's souls to eternal damnation with the false religion he created," Keller says. "Islam is a 1,400-year-old lie that was born out of the voice of Satan – literally. Mohammad was correct when he stated it was Satan who initially spoke to him. He dreamed up his own god, Allah, a poor imitation of the God of the Bible, and inspired his own holy book, the Quran, a cheap imitation of the inspired, inerrant Word of God found in the Bible."

I wish we had a smirk smiley...this will do :err:

[segovius]

Switcheroo: American minister sends video to Osama (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57633)

I wish we had a smirk smiley...this will do :err:

I hope Mr Keller goes on tour with his Vid - I'd definitely pay to see the Teheran gig......

[sammi jo]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Any average joe with some flight school experience could have done the same. The plan wasn't complicated or difficult at all. All it took was determination and a bit of money to live on while training.

Now please have a go at explain this, if possible:

Flight 77, which eventually hit the Pentagon, went all the way out to the Kentucky border before doing a 180º and returning to DC, from where it took off one hour and 20 minutes minutes (!) earlier. The hijackers, as you mentioned, had trained rigorously for their mission, and as such would have known very well about the standard Air Force scramble procedure, which has worked flawlessly for years, which would have ensured that fighter jets would have been at cruising altitude within a matter of a few minutes, especially considering that there are some 20 AFBs within quick and easy range of 77's flightpath. Knowing this, to ensure the success of their mission, they would have taken the quickest and most direct route towards their final target in order to avoid a certain challenge, and their undoubted demise should they not heed the challengers' orders or instructions.

Logic dictates that they would have started their assault on the crew as soon as possible, especially in the knowledge that 77 took off a full half hour late (at 8-20), and also in the knowledge that their co-conspirators on Flight 11 would have already hijacking that plane, thus rapidly alerting air defenses. But no... the men on 77 didn't start their actual hijacking until they had been airborne for a full 35 minutes (having traveled almost 300 miles) at around 8-55 a.m., that is 10 minutes *after* Flight 11 had hit the World Trade Center.

The hijackers now had a huge problem.. of which they would have been abundantly aware.... how (the hell) could they get their plane, a Boeing 757, all the way back to Washington DC (their point of origin), another 40 minutes flight time at least, while avoiding (what in their awareness and presumed expectations) would have been the U.S. Air Force on red alert, what with 2 other hijacked planes having already hit their targets, in order to reach their destination, one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet in the middle of the most strictly monitored airspace.

My point being: why did the hijackers go about their task in a way that would have ensured, based upon the Air Force's flawless track record with off-course planes, that their mission would have failed utterly? Nobody, to date, has answered this question.

A logical conclusion in this case is that the hijackers must have known, in advance, that they were not going to be challenged. Another conclusion, (which is not logical, and goes against all probability and the track record), is that the hijackers, who had "trained for the mission of their lives", were so stupid and unaware, that the certainty of being challenged by the worlds finest professional aviators never was a variable in their equation, and they pulled it off due to incredible luck on their part; this is a bit like staking their entire mission on a similar chance f success as putting one quarter into a gaming machine in Las Vegas, and winning the jackpot with it.

To convince me, I need a better story... 10,000% better. It makes no sense. In short, it stinks.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Now please have a go at explain this, if possible:

Flight 77, which eventually hit the Pentagon, went all the way out to the Kentucky border before doing a 180º and returning to DC, from where it took off one hour and 20 minutes minutes (!) earlier. The hijackers, as you mentioned, had trained rigorously for their mission, and as such would have known very well about the standard Air Force scramble procedure, which has worked flawlessly for years, which would have ensured that fighter jets would have been at cruising altitude within a matter of a few minutes, especially considering that there are some 20 AFBs within quick and easy range of 77's flightpath. Knowing this, to ensure the success of their mission, they would have taken the quickest and most direct route towards their final target in order to avoid a certain challenge, and their undoubted demise should they not heed the challengers' orders or instructions.

Logic dictates that they would have started their assault on the crew as soon as possible, especially in the knowledge that 77 took off a full half hour late (at 8-20), and also in the knowledge that their co-conspirators on Flight 11 would have already hijacking that plane, thus rapidly alerting air defenses. But no... the men on 77 didn't start their actual hijacking until they had been airborne for a full 35 minutes (having traveled almost 300 miles) at around 8-55 a.m., that is 10 minutes *after* Flight 11 had hit the World Trade Center.

The hijackers now had a huge problem.. of which they would have been abundantly aware.... how (the hell) could they get their plane, a Boeing 757, all the way back to Washington DC (their point of origin), another 40 minutes flight time at least, while avoiding (what in their awareness and presumed expectations) would have been the U.S. Air Force on red alert, what with 2 other hijacked planes having already hit their targets, in order to reach their destination, one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet in the middle of the most strictly monitored airspace.

My point being: why did the hijackers go about their task in a way that would have ensured, based upon the Air Force's flawless track record with off-course planes, that their mission would have failed utterly? Nobody, to date, has answered this question.

A logical conclusion in this case is that the hijackers must have known, in advance, that they were not going to be challenged. Another conclusion, (which is not logical, and goes against all probability and the track record), is that the hijackers, who had "trained for the mission of their lives", were so stupid and unaware, that the certainty of being challenged by the worlds finest professional aviators never was a variable in their equation, and they pulled it off due to incredible luck on their part; this is a bit like staking their entire mission on a similar chance f success as putting one quarter into a gaming machine in Las Vegas, and winning the jackpot with it.

To convince me, I need a better story... 10,000% better. It makes no sense. In short, it stinks.
Jaysus Lord, why does this story 'stink'?

Tell you what. For once, instead of saying that something 'reeks' or 'stinks', why don't you explicitly say what you're implying?

Are you implying that the hijackers had assistance of some kind from the American military? Are you saying, in effect, it was an inside job? Are you saying the American military knew it was going to happen and just let it occur?

In which case, because I don't know for certain what you're implying because all you and Segovius ever do is say that something 'reeks' or 'stinks' without really saying what, would you please explain the mechanism that saw a terrorist organisation approach the US military with the idea of a collaboration to fly planes into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon?

Because nothing 'stinks'. THEY WERE TERRORISTS. Their success or failure wasn't even measured by the perfect completion of their plans. It was by the amount of fear, division and radicalisation they could provoke. It was by the the effects their actions and plans would have.

If they got shot down with a plane full of American citizens, THAT WAS A SUCCESS.

If they crashed the plane into their target, THAT WAS A SUCCESS.

If they only hi-jacked their plane, THAT WAS A SUCCESS. Everyone on board would have died anyway. They didn't care. Actually, that was the point. The moment they took the flight deck, they'd succeeded. Actually, even an attempted hijack is a 'success'. Don't you get this?

So the plane got to the Kentucky border first? Someone fucked up. That's all. Someone followed the original timing, designed to see simultaneous strikes, even though the plane took off late. I just pulled that out my arse, took me one second to think up, and it's more likely and logical than the explanation you're... not brave enough to offer, whatever it is.

The London terrorists who made bombs from chapati flour and fucked up the metric/imperial conversion, making useless bombs, they fucked up too. So what.

What rubbish all this is.