Okay, maybe I'm stupider? like a fox, but I thought the whole point of this thread was to argue that the 9/11 events were planned by our administration.
I hate to say it but yes, you are, um, stupider...like a fox. It's (mostly) the right wing conservative reactionaries here jumping to that conclusion (groverat included) while some people are just willing to discuss the evidence at hand without an agenda attached.
So shetline is asking for proof that Bush was involved in a conspiracy while no one here has, as far as I can tell, even implied that this is the case much less explicitly stated it.
Stupidity and incompetence I have no problem seeing, or believing. Malice, to the extent of taking advantage of public anger over 9/11 to stir up support for an invasion of Iraq, pretending that there was any substantial connection, I see. Foreknowledge? Perhaps to the extent of signs that should have been heeded better.
Just for the record, we seem to agree on these points.
I hate to say it but yes, you are, um, stupider...like a fox. It's (mostly) the right wing conservative reactionaries here jumping to that conclusion (groverat included) while some people are just willing to discuss the evidence at hand without an agenda attached.
So shetline is asking for proof that Bush was involved in a conspiracy while no one here has, as far as I can tell, even implied that this is the case much less explicitly stated it.
From what I have seen in this thread shetline is the only one who has had both feet on the ground.
I certainly don't recall the last time I was accused of have a "twisted right-wing agenda".
Only on AI shetline.
Guess it's all relative. Anywhere else, and you are a leftist, pinko, commie bastard, but here, relatively speaking, you are a part of the moral majority
I gotta admit, I also liked the shots taken about your lack of intelligence, as I have to say, I consider you to be one of the most well spoken and intelligent people here, even though our views are total opposites.
So shetline is asking for proof that Bush was involved in a conspiracy while no one here has, as far as I can tell, even implied that this is the case much less explicitly stated it.
So giant is actually "nobody" here?
Quote:
orginally posted by giant
BTW: the families of most of the people actually killed in 9.11 are some of the most outspoken people about the Bush admins cover-up of something.
So shetline is asking for proof that Bush was involved in a conspiracy while no one here has, as far as I can tell, even implied that this is the case much less explicitly stated it.
I think it's valid to argue against the title of the thread, "No Arabs on Flight 77" and the (rather silly) article linked to in sammi jo's original post. So, "No Arabs on Flight 77" was pretty much explicitly stated.
It's not that much of a leap ask "If not Arabs, who?", and then argue against the typical top contenders for that answer -- and I think the trail of my posts from the beginning of the thread makes it clear what point I was trying to make.
I think it's valid to argue against the title of the thread, "No Arabs on Flight 77" and the (rather silly) article linked to in sammi jo's original post. So, "No Arabs on Flight 77" was pretty much explicitly stated.
It's not that much of a leap ask "If not Arabs, who?", and then argue against the typical top contenders for that answer -- and I think the trail of my posts from the beginning of the thread makes it clear what point I was trying to make.
You could not be more clear Shetline....
You responded to the heart of this thread and for what ever reason bunge did not seen to register that. As if you are off in left field with your responses... I don't get it.. You were in tune with the thread the whole time.
You responded to the heart of this thread and for what ever reason bunge did not seen to register that. As if you are off in left field with your responses... I don't get it.. You were in tune with the thread the whole time.
I disagree. Shetline's first post is about a Bush conspiracy, only no one supporting this thread had gone off in that direction yet. Trumptman had. Groverat had. Shetline does. But those defending the article, giant, sammi jo, I don't know who else, don't bring up that angle.
So I will reiterate that those arguing against a Bush conspiracy are out of line because it's not 'the heart of this thread' as you suggest.
I disagree. Shetline's first post is about a Bush conspiracy, only no one supporting this thread had gone off in that direction yet. Trumptman had. Groverat had. Shetline does. But those defending the article, giant, sammi jo, I don't know who else, don't bring up that angle.
So I will reiterate that those arguing against a Bush conspiracy are out of line because it's not 'the heart of this thread' as you suggest.
What kind of conspiracy would the linked article be suggesting then if not a Bush one?
I am not trying to give you grief it is just I thought you were a little hard on shetline with what you said.
What kind of conspiracy would the linked article be suggesting then if not a Bush one?
The article may imply that, but the thread focuses on one point: were there Arabs on Flight 77? The crux of this point being that the identites of the terrorists as released by the Bush administration might be wrong.
This would be huge news.
It could be because there's a vast conspiracy by the right wing and trumptman is correct to thicken his tin foil helmut. Or there could be something more logical behind this.
What is it?
Shetline, as well as many others, has not addressed the point of the thread.
9|11 has become the new "JFK of conspiricies". Since the JFK assassination conspiricy has been debunked intelligently the conspiricy theorists have moved on to other things (9|11, moon landing and other crop marking bullshit).
I guess that maybe 40 years from now we'll get the whole truth on 9|11. And where Osama Bin Laden and Hussain went to...
My take? The whole act of terrorism IS a conspiricy from all the way to recruitment, training, planning and carrying out the act. And the methods of intelligence gathering, spinning of the media and politics in general with our world leaders has been this way too. Perfect fodder for the "theorists" out there.
They'll get total ignorance from me (terrorists and politicians). Truth has become extinct years ago.
The article may imply that[a Bush conspiracy], but the thread focuses on one point: were there Arabs on Flight 77? The crux of this point being that the identites of the terrorists as released by the Bush administration might be wrong.
This would be huge news.
Sure, it would be huge if there were any truth behind it. Planet X would have been huge news too. There is, however, in both cases something lacking in substance and credibility.
Quote:
It could be because there's a vast conspiracy by the right wing and trumptman is correct to thicken his tin foil helmut. Or there could be something more logical behind this.
What is it?
Shetline, as well as many others, has not addressed the point of the thread.
By time I got to the thread, the "Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77" had been debunked pretty well already. A number of posters seemed angry that anyone was questioning this stunning bit of smoking-gun journalism. This is where I came in, and discussing leading conspiracy theories seemed quite apropos to me at time, especially since the flames were still roaring even after the initial spark had been, in my opinion at least, already well snuffed out.
You'd like my take on "Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77", without mention of alternate "Who if not Arabs?" explanations? Okay...
First off, this list of passenger from CNN, as many have already said on this thread, and despite the heading "PASSENGERS" displayed, is clearly being presented as a memorial to the victims who died on flight 77 -- the absence of the hijackers names is far from surprising. There seems to be a common emotional predilection to not list the names of the victims and hijackers together. Additionally, when the story broke many may have felt that the names of the suspected hijackers should be withheld in case they were false names, or in case revelation of the names would interfere with ongoing investigations.
It's annoying that most of the available passenger lists online are edited like this, but if the author bothered to do a bit of googling, he'd have found complete lists like these.
As for the autopsy report, it's clearly not a list that resulted from actual autopsies, and by plain admission in the cover letter it's not an exhaustive list of all passengers. The response letter Dr. Olmsted received said "Attached file contains the names of the 58 victims of AA flight 77 that were identified here at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology." (Emphasis mine.)
The Ms. Bonnie S. Short who replied to Dr. Olmstead seems to have done the same thing the I've gotten used to from customer service people in the business world: She interpreted his request in a very narrow way, and responded with the most convenient, canned, boilerplate answer the she had readily at hand.
If you think about, it seems clear that the major means of identification employed by investigators was simply reading the passenger manifest, likely augmented by following up with family and business associates to verify that travel had been scheduled, and that these persons had not been seen or heard from again. Just because the identification was done by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology that doesn't mean their identifications resulted from examination of bodies in a pathology lab.
After an 400 mph impact and an incredibly hot fire that burned for days, very little if anything would remain of physically identifiable remains, Arab or non-Arab. Dr. Olmstead tries to make this out as sinister: "They did not explain how they were able to tell 'victims' bodies from 'hijacker' bodies... No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab."
Paging Dr. Olmstead, there's a clue for you on line one: If any part of any person on flight 77 ended up in a morgue, it was mounted on a microscope slide or packaged in a very tiny plastic bag. Such remains would be very hard to identify, and certainly not big enough to be placed on a slab.
Dr. Olmstead simply received a standard-issue canned response, nothing more sinister than that.
George W Bush is simultaneously the dumbest and most cunning man ever to walk the earth. This is what they would have you believe.
You have to admit groverat that he does make a good "patsy" so far...
The JFK assassination caused a lot of chaos and confusion, as did (does) 9|11. Within all of this quagmire of "information" and "theory" there are grains of truth. But it will be decades before they are all collected, studied rationally and presented to the public. It's usually when:
1. Nobody cares anymore.
2. All the figures connected and their close relatives and associates are dead.
3. Someone such as the author of "Case Closed" is the one intelligence (and the balls) enough to do it.
My bother lived through the JFK assassination. He read every book (the Warren Commision too) and article about it and believed that there was a conspiricy. Until he was awakened with "Case Closed". He now KNOWS Oswald acted alone. He's not embarrassed about his previous beliefs...just vindicated.
You all will be too...YEARS from now. Now get on with your lives. And vote for change in the next election...waitaminnit...speaking of conspiricies...
Hmm, maybe that has something to do with the fact that there is no point, because the original article cited is such crap?
Really?
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Apparently, no Arabs were listed on either the autopsy report nor the AA flight manifest. (?!) Also, considering that at least 8 of the reported 19 hijackers on those flights have since been found to be alive (!), either there's been some very bad reporting or someone knows stuff that the public hasn't been told about. What the hell is going on here? Does anyone have any ideas, or can anyone provide any links and stories that debunk this strange state of affairs?
Oh, no, not really.
You guys are dishonest. You're creating a false point of view to argue against. Yes, it's your strawman, again and again.
No Arabs on Flight 77 != Bush administration conspiracy theory.
Now keep that equation in mind when you write your posts so you don't appear to be so childish.
What the hell is going on here? Does anyone have any ideas, or can anyone provide any links and stories that debunk this strange state of affairs? No, you can only scream like little children: "There is no Bush conspiracy!!!"
The BBC reported a transcript of a phone call made by Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic controls in which she gave the seat numbers occupied by the hijackers, and these seat numbers did NOT correspond with those of the men claimed by the FBI to be responsible for the hijacking!
To ask one more time: What the hell is going on here?
And, to quote from the article in the above link:
"In an April 19 speech delivered to the Common wealth Club in San Francisco, Mueller saidthat the purported hijackers, in his words, ?left no paper trial.? The FBI director stated flatly: In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper?either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere?that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot. Mueller's excat words, verbatim.
But a list of the supposed hijackers is STILL POSTED on the FBI's website. Who's lying? LINK
All this thread has generated is a bunch of hysterical tantrums by people who can never and will never entertain the possibility that a US administration, most specially this one, is capable of being associated with, or being accessory to activity that is either wrong or flat out criminal. C'mon folks, specially us Americans, we are surely mature enough to have a proper discussion about something controversial? Why is it that anything with unwelcome connotations that invades certain folks' comfort zones automatically gets written off as a conspiracy theory? If rationality were to prevail, the official government line should whack us smartly and viciously across the chops as being a cartload of both irrational nonsense and manufactured conjecture, and if I may be blunt, a paranoid conspiracy theory in itself.
*
While I think about it, would the hijackers really use their own names? Very unlikely....in which case, the FBI is probably guessing re. the identities of the hijackers.
Also, why would a number of those "strict muslim fundamentalists" who supposedly abhor all things western such as the consumption of alcohol, and women showing more than their ankles in public, be cavorting with scantily dressed women in a Miami strip bar, and getting half-drunk and obnoxious the night before the supposedly most important and meticulously planned event in their lifetimes?
..... why would a number of those "strict muslim fundamentalists" who supposedly abhor all things western such as the consumption of alcohol, and women showing more than their ankles in public, be cavorting with scantily dressed women in a Miami strip bar, and getting half-drunk and obnoxious the night before the supposedly most important and meticulously planned event in their lifetimes?
Oh..Puh...Leeese !
There were dozens of reports of them hooting it up for weeks if not months before. As " soldiers " of Islam, they were being given a " taste " of the heaven that awaits them..
The way the Bin laden " Cells " were organised, they were deliberately left in the dark until the last possible moment.
This same isolation cell activity is used to prevent the leaking of imformation in that no two cells have the same imformation or even know who all the members of any individual "cell " might be. ( That's what US ground forces are now running into in Iraq ) so it makes it hard to " Crack " a cell.
So as far as most of the hijackers "knew ", they were merely boarding a plane to go somewhere. As far as is known, they weren't told what was to be their mission until they were on their way to the airport or at the airport terminal. Very effective.... & very terrible.
Comments
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Okay, maybe I'm stupider? like a fox, but I thought the whole point of this thread was to argue that the 9/11 events were planned by our administration.
I hate to say it but yes, you are, um, stupider...like a fox. It's (mostly) the right wing conservative reactionaries here jumping to that conclusion (groverat included) while some people are just willing to discuss the evidence at hand without an agenda attached.
So shetline is asking for proof that Bush was involved in a conspiracy while no one here has, as far as I can tell, even implied that this is the case much less explicitly stated it.
Originally posted by shetline
Stupidity and incompetence I have no problem seeing, or believing. Malice, to the extent of taking advantage of public anger over 9/11 to stir up support for an invasion of Iraq, pretending that there was any substantial connection, I see. Foreknowledge? Perhaps to the extent of signs that should have been heeded better.
Just for the record, we seem to agree on these points.
Originally posted by bunge
I hate to say it but yes, you are, um, stupider...like a fox. It's (mostly) the right wing conservative reactionaries here jumping to that conclusion (groverat included) while some people are just willing to discuss the evidence at hand without an agenda attached.
So shetline is asking for proof that Bush was involved in a conspiracy while no one here has, as far as I can tell, even implied that this is the case much less explicitly stated it.
From what I have seen in this thread shetline is the only one who has had both feet on the ground.
Fellowship
Originally posted by shetline
I certainly don't recall the last time I was accused of have a "twisted right-wing agenda".
Only on AI shetline.
Guess it's all relative. Anywhere else, and you are a leftist, pinko, commie bastard, but here, relatively speaking, you are a part of the moral majority
I gotta admit, I also liked the shots taken about your lack of intelligence, as I have to say, I consider you to be one of the most well spoken and intelligent people here, even though our views are total opposites.
Originally posted by bunge
So shetline is asking for proof that Bush was involved in a conspiracy while no one here has, as far as I can tell, even implied that this is the case much less explicitly stated it.
So giant is actually "nobody" here?
orginally posted by giant
BTW: the families of most of the people actually killed in 9.11 are some of the most outspoken people about the Bush admins cover-up of something.
Originally posted by bunge
So shetline is asking for proof that Bush was involved in a conspiracy while no one here has, as far as I can tell, even implied that this is the case much less explicitly stated it.
I think it's valid to argue against the title of the thread, "No Arabs on Flight 77" and the (rather silly) article linked to in sammi jo's original post. So, "No Arabs on Flight 77" was pretty much explicitly stated.
It's not that much of a leap ask "If not Arabs, who?", and then argue against the typical top contenders for that answer -- and I think the trail of my posts from the beginning of the thread makes it clear what point I was trying to make.
Originally posted by shetline
I think it's valid to argue against the title of the thread, "No Arabs on Flight 77" and the (rather silly) article linked to in sammi jo's original post. So, "No Arabs on Flight 77" was pretty much explicitly stated.
It's not that much of a leap ask "If not Arabs, who?", and then argue against the typical top contenders for that answer -- and I think the trail of my posts from the beginning of the thread makes it clear what point I was trying to make.
You could not be more clear Shetline....
You responded to the heart of this thread and for what ever reason bunge did not seen to register that. As if you are off in left field with your responses... I don't get it.. You were in tune with the thread the whole time.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
You could not be more clear Shetline....
You responded to the heart of this thread and for what ever reason bunge did not seen to register that. As if you are off in left field with your responses... I don't get it.. You were in tune with the thread the whole time.
I disagree. Shetline's first post is about a Bush conspiracy, only no one supporting this thread had gone off in that direction yet. Trumptman had. Groverat had. Shetline does. But those defending the article, giant, sammi jo, I don't know who else, don't bring up that angle.
So I will reiterate that those arguing against a Bush conspiracy are out of line because it's not 'the heart of this thread' as you suggest.
Originally posted by bunge
I disagree. Shetline's first post is about a Bush conspiracy, only no one supporting this thread had gone off in that direction yet. Trumptman had. Groverat had. Shetline does. But those defending the article, giant, sammi jo, I don't know who else, don't bring up that angle.
So I will reiterate that those arguing against a Bush conspiracy are out of line because it's not 'the heart of this thread' as you suggest.
What kind of conspiracy would the linked article be suggesting then if not a Bush one?
I am not trying to give you grief it is just I thought you were a little hard on shetline with what you said.
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What kind of conspiracy would the linked article be suggesting then if not a Bush one?
The article may imply that, but the thread focuses on one point: were there Arabs on Flight 77? The crux of this point being that the identites of the terrorists as released by the Bush administration might be wrong.
This would be huge news.
It could be because there's a vast conspiracy by the right wing and trumptman is correct to thicken his tin foil helmut. Or there could be something more logical behind this.
What is it?
Shetline, as well as many others, has not addressed the point of the thread.
Shetline, as well as many others, has not addressed the point of the thread.
Hmm, maybe that has something to do with the fact that there is no point, because the original article cited is such crap?
Originally posted by alcimedes
Hmm, maybe that has something to do with the fact that there is no point, because the original article cited is such crap?
Like building a house on shifting sand...
Up and at'em Alcimedes
I guess that maybe 40 years from now we'll get the whole truth on 9|11. And where Osama Bin Laden and Hussain went to...
My take? The whole act of terrorism IS a conspiricy from all the way to recruitment, training, planning and carrying out the act. And the methods of intelligence gathering, spinning of the media and politics in general with our world leaders has been this way too. Perfect fodder for the "theorists" out there.
They'll get total ignorance from me (terrorists and politicians). Truth has become extinct years ago.
Carry on...
Originally posted by bunge
The article may imply that[a Bush conspiracy], but the thread focuses on one point: were there Arabs on Flight 77? The crux of this point being that the identites of the terrorists as released by the Bush administration might be wrong.
This would be huge news.
Sure, it would be huge if there were any truth behind it. Planet X would have been huge news too. There is, however, in both cases something lacking in substance and credibility.
It could be because there's a vast conspiracy by the right wing and trumptman is correct to thicken his tin foil helmut. Or there could be something more logical behind this.
What is it?
Shetline, as well as many others, has not addressed the point of the thread.
By time I got to the thread, the "Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77" had been debunked pretty well already. A number of posters seemed angry that anyone was questioning this stunning bit of smoking-gun journalism. This is where I came in, and discussing leading conspiracy theories seemed quite apropos to me at time, especially since the flames were still roaring even after the initial spark had been, in my opinion at least, already well snuffed out.
You'd like my take on "Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77", without mention of alternate "Who if not Arabs?" explanations? Okay...
First off, this list of passenger from CNN, as many have already said on this thread, and despite the heading "PASSENGERS" displayed, is clearly being presented as a memorial to the victims who died on flight 77 -- the absence of the hijackers names is far from surprising. There seems to be a common emotional predilection to not list the names of the victims and hijackers together. Additionally, when the story broke many may have felt that the names of the suspected hijackers should be withheld in case they were false names, or in case revelation of the names would interfere with ongoing investigations.
It's annoying that most of the available passenger lists online are edited like this, but if the author bothered to do a bit of googling, he'd have found complete lists like these.
As for the autopsy report, it's clearly not a list that resulted from actual autopsies, and by plain admission in the cover letter it's not an exhaustive list of all passengers. The response letter Dr. Olmsted received said "Attached file contains the names of the 58 victims of AA flight 77 that were identified here at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology." (Emphasis mine.)
The Ms. Bonnie S. Short who replied to Dr. Olmstead seems to have done the same thing the I've gotten used to from customer service people in the business world: She interpreted his request in a very narrow way, and responded with the most convenient, canned, boilerplate answer the she had readily at hand.
If you think about, it seems clear that the major means of identification employed by investigators was simply reading the passenger manifest, likely augmented by following up with family and business associates to verify that travel had been scheduled, and that these persons had not been seen or heard from again. Just because the identification was done by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology that doesn't mean their identifications resulted from examination of bodies in a pathology lab.
After an 400 mph impact and an incredibly hot fire that burned for days, very little if anything would remain of physically identifiable remains, Arab or non-Arab. Dr. Olmstead tries to make this out as sinister: "They did not explain how they were able to tell 'victims' bodies from 'hijacker' bodies... No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab."
Paging Dr. Olmstead, there's a clue for you on line one: If any part of any person on flight 77 ended up in a morgue, it was mounted on a microscope slide or packaged in a very tiny plastic bag. Such remains would be very hard to identify, and certainly not big enough to be placed on a slab.
Dr. Olmstead simply received a standard-issue canned response, nothing more sinister than that.
Originally posted by groverat
George W Bush is simultaneously the dumbest and most cunning man ever to walk the earth. This is what they would have you believe.
You have to admit groverat that he does make a good "patsy" so far...
The JFK assassination caused a lot of chaos and confusion, as did (does) 9|11. Within all of this quagmire of "information" and "theory" there are grains of truth. But it will be decades before they are all collected, studied rationally and presented to the public. It's usually when:
1. Nobody cares anymore.
2. All the figures connected and their close relatives and associates are dead.
3. Someone such as the author of "Case Closed" is the one intelligence (and the balls) enough to do it.
My bother lived through the JFK assassination. He read every book (the Warren Commision too) and article about it and believed that there was a conspiricy. Until he was awakened with "Case Closed". He now KNOWS Oswald acted alone. He's not embarrassed about his previous beliefs...just vindicated.
You all will be too...YEARS from now. Now get on with your lives. And vote for change in the next election...waitaminnit...speaking of conspiricies...
Originally posted by alcimedes
Hmm, maybe that has something to do with the fact that there is no point, because the original article cited is such crap?
Really?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Apparently, no Arabs were listed on either the autopsy report nor the AA flight manifest. (?!) Also, considering that at least 8 of the reported 19 hijackers on those flights have since been found to be alive (!), either there's been some very bad reporting or someone knows stuff that the public hasn't been told about. What the hell is going on here? Does anyone have any ideas, or can anyone provide any links and stories that debunk this strange state of affairs?
Oh, no, not really.
You guys are dishonest. You're creating a false point of view to argue against. Yes, it's your strawman, again and again.
No Arabs on Flight 77 != Bush administration conspiracy theory.
Now keep that equation in mind when you write your posts so you don't appear to be so childish.
What the hell is going on here? Does anyone have any ideas, or can anyone provide any links and stories that debunk this strange state of affairs? No, you can only scream like little children: "There is no Bush conspiracy!!!"
LINK
CNN reported that the men who hijacked the aircraft used phony IDs containing the names of real people living in Arab nations in the middle east. LINK
Even the FBI says there is no evidence to link the above men to the 9/11 hijackings.
LINK
To ask one more time: What the hell is going on here?
And, to quote from the article in the above link:
"In an April 19 speech delivered to the Common wealth Club in San Francisco, Mueller saidthat the purported hijackers, in his words, ?left no paper trial.? The FBI director stated flatly: In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper?either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere?that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot. Mueller's excat words, verbatim.
But a list of the supposed hijackers is STILL POSTED on the FBI's website. Who's lying? LINK
All this thread has generated is a bunch of hysterical tantrums by people who can never and will never entertain the possibility that a US administration, most specially this one, is capable of being associated with, or being accessory to activity that is either wrong or flat out criminal. C'mon folks, specially us Americans, we are surely mature enough to have a proper discussion about something controversial? Why is it that anything with unwelcome connotations that invades certain folks' comfort zones automatically gets written off as a conspiracy theory? If rationality were to prevail, the official government line should whack us smartly and viciously across the chops as being a cartload of both irrational nonsense and manufactured conjecture, and if I may be blunt, a paranoid conspiracy theory in itself.
*
While I think about it, would the hijackers really use their own names? Very unlikely....in which case, the FBI is probably guessing re. the identities of the hijackers.
Also, why would a number of those "strict muslim fundamentalists" who supposedly abhor all things western such as the consumption of alcohol, and women showing more than their ankles in public, be cavorting with scantily dressed women in a Miami strip bar, and getting half-drunk and obnoxious the night before the supposedly most important and meticulously planned event in their lifetimes?
Originally posted by sammi jo
..... why would a number of those "strict muslim fundamentalists" who supposedly abhor all things western such as the consumption of alcohol, and women showing more than their ankles in public, be cavorting with scantily dressed women in a Miami strip bar, and getting half-drunk and obnoxious the night before the supposedly most important and meticulously planned event in their lifetimes?
Oh..Puh...Leeese !
There were dozens of reports of them hooting it up for weeks if not months before. As " soldiers " of Islam, they were being given a " taste " of the heaven that awaits them..
The way the Bin laden " Cells " were organised, they were deliberately left in the dark until the last possible moment.
This same isolation cell activity is used to prevent the leaking of imformation in that no two cells have the same imformation or even know who all the members of any individual "cell " might be. ( That's what US ground forces are now running into in Iraq ) so it makes it hard to " Crack " a cell.
So as far as most of the hijackers "knew ", they were merely boarding a plane to go somewhere. As far as is known, they weren't told what was to be their mission until they were on their way to the airport or at the airport terminal. Very effective.... & very terrible.