WTC Attack - Just another one for the conspiracy theorists or not?

[fela fan]

Fair play.

The bit I was referring to was the bit that I thought was central to that post. It regards who the post-9/11 paradigm shift in, and polarisation of geo-politics benfitted, i.e. OBL.

Well, if it was OBL, then he got what he wanted, ie american troops out of Saudi Arabia.

But after the disgraceful american reaction to the spanish electorate booting out their government, saying how they capitulated to terrorism, it seems strange that the same people would pull out their troops from saudi because obl wanted them to, and terrorised New York and the american population into doing so.

Further, with OBL having achieved his stated objectives in getting american troops out of saudi, why, over a year later does he then decide, with no warning or follow-up objectives, to kill off a couple of hundred spanish civilians, people who in their huge majority wanted nothing to do with US foreign policy? Having also attacked two nation states that predominatly have muslim populations???

It's all a bit dodgy to me man. Nothing adds up in what you're saying.

 

[fela fan]

I guess you're unlikely to agree diamond, but i'm grateful for your posts on this thread. Coz in making me consider my replies to you, it takes me even further down the path that OBL and his motely crew are not the culprits for all these terrorist actions.

You see, to me, it just does not add up in any way at all!!

 

[Diamond]

I've got a really good response to all of this fela fan, I promise, but first I have to go and pick up and then I have to go and meet my brother to watch the england game. I'll be back at 'work' tomorrow morning so you'll just have to wait I'm afraid

 

[fela fan]

I've got a really good response to all of this fela fan, I promise, but first I have to go and pick up and then I have to go and meet my brother to watch the england game. I'll be back at 'work' tomorrow morning so you'll just have to wait I'm afraid

Yeah, well i'll be watching this space! Coz like i said, this 911 thread has broken new territory in my opinion.

It must be so, coz editor's buggered off... maybe getting too close to the marrow .

[And no doubt i'll have a really good response to your response...!]

By the way, pick up what???? It's a bit early in england to be doing that sort of thing isn't it?!

 

[editor]

You see, to me, it just does not add up in any way at all!!

And the claims about the remote controlled planes flying on uninvented technology, the teams of Mike Yarwoods fooling 'stupid' relatives and the self-inflicted mass murder of American citizens for no good reason does?!

It seems to me that you'll never believe anything told to you which makes debating the issues a rather fruitless exercise.

 

[fela fan]

And the claims about the remote controlled planes flying on uninvented technology, the teams of Mike Yarwoods fooling 'stupid' relatives and the self-inflicted mass murder of American citizens for no good reason does?!

It seems to me that you'll never believe anything told to you which makes debating the issues a rather fruitless exercise.

I'm rather regretting my foolish actions of about three months ago. There was a wee article in the Bangkok Post about dozens of japanese mothers being conned by someone pretending to be their son. I meant to post it up, but at the time, the 911 debates were rather nasty!

So foolishly i didn't bother. But whether the story was true or not, no smoke without fire eh?

And your last paragraph is rather off the mark. Even when prompted you still haven't gone back to my post that had some of the same questions you have often asked. I asked them coz without the answers, i can only believe in the version i prefer.

I am still open to what happened over 911, coz there's no way i can know.

But what drives me is that the official version seems just too unbelievable to me.

 

[editor]

But whether the story was true or not, no smoke without fire eh?

So do you'd fall for a devilish impostor pretending to be your girlfriend/boyfriend etc on the phone?

Do you think it's conceivable that it would be possible to fool a whole host of husband, wives and family members so easily?

And how many people do you think such a grand deception would require?

How many trained Mike Yarwoods does the USG have on call?

And if what as an evil plot: what happened to the pilots and the passengers - and the plane?!!!

 

[Jazzz]

Not too long ago, I had a phone call from masseuse. Now what was interesting about it was that she doesn't call me too often, and I was expecting a call from another girl. Now normally I would have no difficulty distinguising the two although the phone is of much less audio quality than real life.

However, my expectation was that this other girl was calling up, and that overrode things. The result being that we had an utterly bizarre conversation for maybe a minute until she finally remarked "you don't know who you are talking to, do you," - possibly slightly offended! (I still hadn't realised).

Now, nearly all the calls on 9-11 came from flight 93 - the last to crash. By the time of the calls, all relatives would have known that planes had crashed into the WTC and other planes were hijacked. They would have been sick with worry and desperate for contact with their loved one. If one got a call saying "hi Mom" you aren't going to doubt it in such circumstances - if the voice is at all similar. I don't think I would.

However, one relative did on 9-11, remarking "is this some sort of a joke?" - the call ended abruptly.

Scientific research tells us that mobile phones are going to useless at 30,000ft. I'd rather go with the science here than the emotive argument put forth by editor.

 

[The Old Sarge]

Well because he was unavailable in those 30 minutes, they could not shoot down any of the planes (only the president can authorise such an action).

I haven't been around for the past three or four days, so this my be redundant ...

But I want to answer it anyway ...

I was watching live TV coverage when the second plane hit the tower. At that trime, the talking heads were saying that there was likely every indication that the first crash was an accident.

If memory serves, it was not until all four planes crashed that anybody sure anything was truly amiss.

Given that, what planes was Bush supposed to order shot down?


The Old Sarge

 

[Jazzz]

Something was badly amiss at 8.38(?) am or thereabouts when the first flight stopped responding to control, and its transponder turned off. That is a major situation and should have resulted in rapid interception (regardless of whether the interceptors had authority to down the plane).

When the next plane loses contact some serious shit is clearly going down that requires the attention of the top levels of the military.

You don't need a plane to crash into the WTC before the situation is urgent!

Yet... Bush then waltzes into class with the 7-year olds! Another plane crashes into the WTC and he decides to chat about pet goat with them. There's a huge emergency taking place, another two planes become known as hijacked... yet Bush carries on listening to the class - as the video states - a meaningless photo op - for twenty minutes...

 

[Fidel]

I think the radio control could be a red herring.

The terrorists could have been real and achieved their objectives (flying planes into the the WTC).

But their way was oiled by a western agendered black ops group. Not some allah loving warriors, who the terrorists completing the action belvieved to be serving.

These orgainsations are by the nature secretive and run on a need to know basis, the foot soldiers are beefed up on rhetoric and sent on their way. Who knows who is really pulling the strings at the top of this type of orginsation. And OB is X-CIA after all.

 

[editor]

Now, nearly all the calls on 9-11 came from flight 93 - the last to crash. By the time of the calls, all relatives would have known that planes had crashed into the WTC and other planes were hijacked. They would have been sick with worry and desperate for contact with their loved one. If one got a call saying "hi Mom" you aren't going to doubt it in such circumstances - if the voice is at all similar. I don't think I would.

Scientific research tells us that mobile phones are going to useless at 30,000ft. I'd rather go with the science here than the emotive argument put forth by editor.

You believe in untraceable, invisible experts posting on untraceable, invisible bulletin boards
You believe in "amazing" rush hour aircraft being invisible to all but two of Long Island's 1.5 million population.
You believed that Ian Huntley was completely innocent of all crimes
You believed that Huntley's defence was a 'fit up'
You believed that the USG was covering up the Soham murders
You believed that you had proved Huntely's innocence

And now you believe that people are so fucking stupid that they can't even recognise their own husbands and wives voices. Your laughable comparison with masseuse is as pitiful as it is insulting: we're not talking about casual acquaintances here. We're talking about people who had been married for ten years or more. People who have talked to each other every day of their lives. People who know each other intimately, with their private jokes and personal rapport.

One of the passengers - Thomas E. Burnett Jr - spoke to his wife FOUR TIMES from the plane and you - who knows absolutely fuck all about either of them - have the nerve to announce that you know better.

Maybe you've never had a long relationship, but I'll tell you one thing: there is no way on fucking earth that anyone could fake a conversation with my girlfriend four times and fool me. Not a fucking chance.

Your toy-town conspiracy fantasies disgust me. These were people's last precious words to their loved ones and you cheapen it with your ignorant conspiracy shit.

Oh, and many of the calls were made via the on-board telephones that are on the back of most aircraft seats. 'Science' tells me they work just fine.

Is that simple statement of science FACT too 'emotive' for you?

 

[The Old Sarge]

Something was badly amiss at 8.38(?) am or thereabouts when the first flight stopped responding to control, and its transponder turned off. That is a major situation and should have resulted in rapid interception (regardless of whether the interceptors had authority to down the plane).

True enough ... on the surface. But nobody was prepared to scramble military jets on such short notice with such "sketchy" info. There are several reasons why a transponder might go off-line, just as there are several reasons a crew might stop communicating with ground control.

When the next plane loses contact some serious shit is clearly going down that requires the attention of the top levels of the military.

Quite true. Except for the part about the military. The FAA is first in line. The military is much farther down the response line ... at least until smoebody figures out what is happening.

You don't need a plane to crash into the WTC before the situation is urgent!

But, like I said, the military is not the first response. All that changed AFTER 9-11.

As things progressed, it became more and more apparent that SOMETHING was amiss ... but it took quite a long time before anybody put it all together. A lot more than the time frame this thread is suggesting and the timeframe Bush is being blamed ...I'm sure Bush and a whole bunch of other people would have acted differnetly if they had had the advantage of hindsight ... as we all have right now. It's easy ... sometimes TOO easy ... to second guess. Especially when there is a tragedy involved.

The Old Sarge

 

[editor]

I was watching live TV coverage when the second plane hit the tower. At that trime, the talking heads were saying that there was likely every indication that the first crash was an accident.

Yep. I remember that too.

So it would have been very odd for Bush to run screaming out of the school demanding that fighter planes be scrambled and aircraft shot down for what appeared to be an accident.

I'm in doubt that there's been a succession of cock-ups before and after the event with people trying to cover up their blunders. But all this faked phone calls, holographic planes, WTC imploded drivel just gets in the way of digging up the guilty.

 

[fela fan]

Yep. I remember that too.

So it would have been very odd for Bush to run screaming out of the school demanding that fighter planes be scrambled and aircraft shot down for what appeared to be an accident.

I'm in doubt that there's been a succession of cock-ups before and after the event with people trying to cover up their blunders. But all this faked phone calls, holographic planes, WTC imploded drivel just gets in the way of digging up the guilty.

There is a commission doing the digging up of the guilty going on.

An accident?? That's a pretty big fucking accident, a huge jet plane going so far off course that it ploughs into a building in a big city.

A poor initial reaction by the commentators.

 

[editor]

That's a pretty big fucking accident, a huge jet plane going so far off course that it ploughs into a building in a big city.

A poor initial reaction by the commentators.

Ah right. No doubt you would have instinctively known what was happening from the offset, even if such a sequence of events had never, ever happened in the entire history of the world before?

My oh my. With that kind of foresight, perhaps you should consider a job in the news business?

 

[fela fan]

And now you believe that people are so fucking stupid that they can't even recognise their own husbands and wives voices. Your laughable comparison with masseuse is as pitiful as it is insulting: we're not talking about casual acquaintances here. We're talking about people who had been married for ten years or more. People who have talked to each other every day of their lives. People who know each other intimately, with their private jokes and personal rapport.


Oh, and many of the calls were made via the on-board telephones that are on the back of most aircraft seats. 'Science' tells me they work just fine.

Is that simple statement of science FACT too 'emotive' for you?

No it doesn't mean they're stupid if they don't recognise their partner's voice. There are circumstances where it's possible, especially one when both caller and call receiver are under extreme fear and stress. The usual range of faculties that we humans have become seriously impaired in such emotional states of mind.

And it apparantly happened in Japan.

But the bit i like the best is how passengers who are being hijacked calmly walk to the back of the plane and politely queue up to phone their loved ones using the phone planes. Where were the hijackers, why weren't they telling the passengers to sit down?

 

[fela fan]

Ah right. No doubt you would have instinctively known what was happening from the offset, even if such a sequence of events had never, ever happened in the entire history of the world before?

My oh my. With that kind of foresight, perhaps you should consider a job in the news business?

There was some very good foresight going on by various cameramen who managed to be filming this jet smashing into the building.

A job in the news business is more often than not not about foresight, it's about reporting stuff that has already happened.

And that's exactly it, planes just do not crash into huge buildings in the middle of huge cities. It's not really accident stuff.

And to the authorities that 'assumed' it was an accident, very poor form considering that they knew of plots to fly planes into the WTCs a few months before the events actually happened.

It would be interesting to know if that school visit by bush is the only one he's done. Coz for him to be sitting in a classroom before 9am reading stories to schoolchildren was a marvellous coincidence.

 

[editor]

No it doesn't mean they're stupid if they don't recognise their partner's voice. There are circumstances where it's possible, especially one when both caller and call receiver are under extreme fear and stress.

What? Over four phone calls?!

Think about it. To have the remotest chance of passing yourself off as someone else you'd have to know the exact timbre of their voice, their exact accent, their pitch, their diction, their delivery and - of course - know an awful lot about their personality. Do they talk in slang? Do they swear a lot? Are they jokey, serious or liable to panic? What do they call their loved ones? What's their pet names for each other?

One woman spoke to her husband FOUR times. If you're saying that she was too stupid to work out that she was in fact talking to a crack CIA Mike Yarwood and not her beloved husband of ten years, then you'd best come up with a fucking credible excuse.

 

[fela fan]

What? Over four phone calls?!

Think about it. To have the remotest chance of passing yourself off as someone else you'd have to know the exact timbre of their voice, their exact accent, their pitch, their diction, their delivery and - of course - know an awful lot about their personality. Do they talk in slang? Do they swear a lot? Are they jokey, serious or liable to panic? What do they call their loved ones? What's their pet names for each other?

One woman spoke to her husband FOUR times. If you're saying that she was too stupid to work out that she was in fact talking to a crack CIA Mike Yarwood and not her beloved husband of ten years, then you'd best come up with a fucking credible excuse.

Put yourself into a situation of extreme fear, and expecting to die is pretty extreme a fear no? And thinking your loved one is going to die is pretty damn stressful too.

Now, do you start using pet names, having a personal joke? Do you use your normal pitch and timbre and diction?

I have no idea about this one caller who called four times. But it does seem an odd thing to do, repeatedly make a call to someone when you're expecting to die. Four times?? Were they thinking they'd provide a running commentary?

And i think the reason put forward as to why all these passengers were phoning is that they knew about the previous crashes into the WTC. I'd like to know how they knew. Coz no-one has their mobile switched on during flights, certainly not dozens of them. And there's no live tv news in planes...

 

[someoneelse]

So it would have been very odd for Bush to run screaming out of the school demanding that fighter planes be scrambled and aircraft shot down for what appeared to be an accident.

But wasn't it the 2nd plane he was told about while in the classroom?

One could have been an accident, but two planes?

 

[Passepartout]

Wow, the lengths some of you people will go through to believe in fantasies is just mind-boggling. At some point -- such as now -- it stops being worth it to even bother to argue -- it's like trying to convince a small child that there's no Santa Claus. Futile and maybe even a bit cruel.

 

[Diamond]

Something was badly amiss at 8.38(?) am or thereabouts when the first flight stopped responding to control, and its transponder turned off. That is a major situation and should have resulted in rapid interception (regardless of whether the interceptors had authority to down the plane).

When the next plane loses contact some serious shit is clearly going down that requires the attention of the top levels of the military.

You don't need a plane to crash into the WTC before the situation is urgent!

Yes but if every time a plane's transponder fails (that's not radio contact remember, that's the beacon to the radar system) when it was flying over the US (where internal flights used to be like getting a bus pre-9/11) the authorities responded by shooting it down it would be carnage in the skies.

It is so easy to say thing's like this with hindsight: 'because they lost contact, they should have immediatly launched a salvo of missles at the plane'.

For all they knew there could have been an electrical fire on board that would have short-circuited all communications equipment, or any other possibility that was PRECEDENTED.

The idea that they would have been able to jump to the conclusion that the plane had been hijacked by terrorists and would be used as a flying bomb was, at the time, so far from the realms of possibility that I really doubt it would have entered into anyone's mind.

And on top of that, just as Sarge said, when the first missing plane crashed into the WTC no-one had any idea what sort of plane it was, how large, where it had come from etc... The last thing they would have been thinking about was that they had just witnessed a deliberate act.

 

[Diamond]

I think the radio control could be a red herring.

The terrorists could have been real and achieved their objectives (flying planes into the the WTC).

But their way was oiled by a western agendered black ops group. Not some allah loving warriors, who the terrorists completing the action belvieved to be serving.

These orgainsations are by the nature secretive and run on a need to know basis, the foot soldiers are beefed up on rhetoric and sent on their way. Who knows who is really pulling the strings at the top of this type of orginsation. And OB is X-CIA after all.

OBL is not ex-CIA, he only received funding and training in Afghanistan from CIA agents like almost every other supremely dangerous individual of the latter half of the 20th century.

 

[editor]

I have no idea about this one caller who called four times. But it does seem an odd thing to do, repeatedly make a call to someone when you're expecting to die. Four times?? Were they thinking they'd provide a running commentary?

And i think the reason put forward as to why all these passengers were phoning is that they knew about the previous crashes into the WTC. I'd like to know how they knew. Coz no-one has their mobile switched on during flights, certainly not dozens of them. And there's no live tv news in planes...

Personally, I'd sneak out as many calls as I could to my girlfriend if I thought there was a chance that I was going to die. Your moronic, snidey comments about 'running commentaries' are just the kind of thing I expect from desperate conspiracy theorists.

For all your weaselling excuses, it still remains ludicrously improbable that a host of people could all be simultaneously completely fooled by a crack team of CIA Mike Yarwoods claiming to be their loved ones.

Still, if believing in such nonsense is the only way you can explain away your conspiracy fantasies, you go right ahead.

And i think the reason put forward as to why all these passengers were phoning is that they knew about the previous crashes into the WTC. I'd like to know how they knew.

For fuck's sake. Why you acting so thick? The planes HAVE ON BOARD TELEPHONES.

 

[fela fan]

Circumstantial evidence is never enough in a court of law.

However it is enough to prod one into looking much more carefully for substantial evidence. If found, those guilty get sent to prison.

The problem with 9/11 is that we only have the former, and as yet not the latter. But there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that things did not happen the way the USG claims it did.

Here on urban, in our sparring, it often seems that those who claim the former are labelled variously as people who:

are conspiracy theorists
believe they are superior to other folk who accept the government line
are nutjobs
have an agenda to push

Their crime? To not believe the USG version, and to go about finding out as much as possible to support their gut instincts that the americans were involved in the attacks…

 

[fela fan]

… here are some questions I’d like to put to the latter group from someone who is apparantly a conspiracy theorist and who considers himself to be superior to those from the latter group. It would be nice to see some of them answered.

How come the first plane to hit the WTC towers was being filmed by tv cameras?

How come one of the hijacker’s passports was found in amongst all the rubble, totally unsinged. How did it fly out of someone’s bag, out of a plane window, avoid getting burnt – all on impact mind – and then managed to deposit itself nicely on the ground, while not getting itself buried by all the ash and rubble?

How come how-to-fly manuals were found in one of the hijacker’s hire cars (itself found very quickly)? One would have thought that executing such precise flying manouevres using very skilled airmanship would have been done by a pilot not in need of a spot of last minute revision.

How did the passengers on the plane where mobile calls were being made from learn of the fate of the WTC planes? How come hijackers allowed them to walk to the back of the plane to use the plane phones?

How come that on the morning of the attacks Bush was for the first time, and never since, in a school classroom, before 9am, reading children’s stories. What time do classes start in the US? And why was he doing such a thing when there was no election in sight. Kissing babies and the like is only done when votes are needed.

How come for the first time after a plane crashed, the black boxes weren’t found?

How come the only superpower in the world, with the biggest funds available for intelligence and military, and who had such extenstive security and repsonse systems in place, managed to display such overwhelming incompetence?

OBL stated his desire to have american troops out of Saudi. So why after he apparantly carried out the 911 attacks, did the USG cave into terrorism, and obligingly withdraw the troops?

Any direct answers to these direct questions anyone? For none of the above is conspiracy, it is fact.

It is because of these aspects of the event, that I find it impossible to believe the USG version of what happened.

 

[fela fan]

Personally, I'd sneak out as many calls as I could to my girlfriend if I thought there was a chance that I was going to die. Your moronic, snidey comments about 'running commentaries' are just the kind of thing I expect from desperate conspiracy theorists.

For all your weaselling excuses, it still remains ludicrously improbable that a host of people could all be simultaneously completely fooled by a crack team of CIA Mike Yarwoods claiming to be their loved ones.

Still, if believing in such nonsense is the only way you can explain away your conspiracy fantasies, you go right ahead. For fuck's sake. Why you acting so thick? The planes HAVE ON BOARD TELEPHONES.

1. Why not just stay on the phone to your girlfriend?

2. This is difficult to square, i agree.

3. So what's the telephone number of these phones then? Someone called the plane phone to warn them that two planes had crashed into the WTC towers? Why did they call that particular plane?

Emotive language never contributes to debate, it only blinds the mind from reasoning.

 

[fela fan]

Yes but if every time a plane's transponder fails (that's not radio contact remember, that's the beacon to the radar system) when it was flying over the US (where internal flights used to be like getting a bus pre-9/11) the authorities responded by shooting it down it would be carnage in the skies.

Bus travellers have their bags checked by x-ray do they? They walk through those things that make you beep?

But i grant you, security was lax pre-911. This was even officially recognised, leading to the Gore commission into security for domestic flights. Many flaws were discovered by this commission and reported on.

The Bush government chose to ingore the findings, and took no action on them. A few months later 911 happens.

 

[Diamond]

OK fela fan I promised you a response so you've got one whether you can be arsed to read it or not. Here's about as comprehensive an argument as I can work out that includes 9/11, the african bombings before it, the istanbul and bali bombings after it, and the recent madrid bombings.

We first need to start by establishing a few of premises.

Firstly that Osama Bin Laden is a committed terrorist who, up until 9/11 was looking for a big strike to 'announce' his cause and polarise world geo-politics.

Secondly that there are numerous young impressionable Islamic men who are ready to sacrifice themselves and go to any lengths to achieve this end (you only have to look at the recent arrests in suburban London)

Let's start at the beginning with the prologue of this story and look towards the first WTC attack in 1993 when a large, but not devastating, car bomb was placed in the car park of one of the WTC towers. It went off and caused a bit of panic, killing several people but not completing a terrorist spectacular and far short of collapsing one of the towers.

This sets a precedent of the NYC WTC being a possible A-Q target.

After the first failure Bin Laden ups the ante and realises he needs better planning and a larger network. Initially starting in the Sudan he builds terrorist camps to train ingenious young fundamentalists, arrange them in cells, then disperse them around the world, the only lasting line of communication usely being money-launderer.

From the Sudanese terrorist camps OBL receives the first fruition of his plane: the Kenyan embassy bombing in Nairobi and the Tanzanian embassy bombing in Dar es Salaam. Athough both are high profile American embassies, the vast majority of the dead are africans, and regrettably in the case of Dar es Salaam a larger than acceptable number of Muslims died.

As a demonstration of his terrorists' technical aptitude they are susccessful (hundreds died, they were big bombs), but it quickly became clear they had chosen a bad target. There was outrage in the US, but the US being the US, not enough US citizens had died to justify it staying at the top of the news agenda for too long; it also didn't help that at this time the Lewinsky scandal was at its height and had enveloped American politics. Clinton retaliated with some token airstrikes in the Sudan and Afghanistan.

His critics derided them as being diversionary tactics off of Monica, subequently the US press, and by extension the public, never took that first expression of A-Q's capabilities as seriously as they should have done.

The Sudanese were pressured by Clinton's administration to get rid of OBL so they did. OBL had been preparing for this though and had already identified Afghanistan and the backward but well meaning, in his eyes, Taliban enclave as an ideal fortress from which to plan his next wave of strikes. He funded a whole new group of training camps to be built deep in the valleys that he had got to know so well when fighting the Soviets from Tora Bora.

These new recruits had plenty of time to train and receive instructions to assemble in cells, evaluate a list of targets within their designated area, briefly propose their plan, receive the money, and then wait to launch the most spectacular and lethal strike they could dream up.

Why did they have so much time? Well after the Lewinsky affair Clinton had become a very weak president, well respected but weak. With upcoming US elections he thought it would have been a big gamble to go after Osama and that it might jeopardise Al Gore's chances, and before you know it the election trail was well underway (and we all know what a protracted farce that was); traditionally a time for internal reflection in US politics (if a president wants to go after someone he will always be advised to avoid going to war very close to a US election year).

So the scene has been set. Osama's holed up in a remote central Asian backwater that has been mostly forgotten by the world, except for being useful as a mine for jokes (remember FHM's long running Taliban watch where they reported a new absurd law from the Taliban almost every single issue), his capabilities have been shown but he has learnt from 1993 that he needs a spectacular strike and from 1998 that this spectacular needs to take place in the US to enable his desired paradigm shift in geo-politics away from residual cold war tensions towards a christian-west-rich and islamic-poor-oppressed dichotomy. Hence 9/11....(there's more to come)