WTC attacks - the alternative thread
- Thread starter fela fan
- Start date
And let's take Mohammed Atta for example. Now there's a man who probably woudn't want to be identified. And surely, with him known to both the FBI and CIA, alarm bells would go off when he was checking in?
All the hijackers' names were known to the authorities, so why were they allowed on the planes? Unless of course they used other names. But then what about this passport that was found?
All the hijackers' names were known to the authorities, so why were they allowed on the planes? Unless of course they used other names. But then what about this passport that was found?
If you're on a mission. If you are about to take part in a coordinated exercise to hijack a group of passenger planes you don't want a little hiccup like not having your papers on you to throw a spanner in the works.
It'd be part of the preparation.
It'd be part of the preparation.
Don't be so simple. There wasn't an APB.fela fan said:
editor
hiraethified
How long are you going to continue to avoid answering my questions about what happened to the original passengers and planes and offer a remotely credible explanation as to how 'they' managed to perfectly fake the phone calls.bigfish said:
Your wriggle has gone of for well over a month now which is rather strange seeing as I'm only asking you to support your own claims.
'One of the interesting things about 911, so far as i can see, is the silence in the US and UK media over the topic.'
You're right fela, you used pretty explicit language. When I pointed out that there isn't silence over this topic in the US and UK media, you used the excuse of being in Thailand to explain why yuo hadn't noticed. You made far reaching judgments without evidence to support them.
Yes, most of the major media are owned by the super rich, and are unlikely to challenge the status quo too seriously, but it is an insult to those journalists that are actually very good at what they do to suggest that there is no worthwhile investigation into the mechanisms of our world taking place.
Far from being open minded, you aren't prepared to accept that there isn't an all encompassing conspiracy run by omnipotent rulers of the earth. Your argument seems to hinge on the apparent survival of a passport. Pretty threadbare.
You're right fela, you used pretty explicit language. When I pointed out that there isn't silence over this topic in the US and UK media, you used the excuse of being in Thailand to explain why yuo hadn't noticed. You made far reaching judgments without evidence to support them.
Yes, most of the major media are owned by the super rich, and are unlikely to challenge the status quo too seriously, but it is an insult to those journalists that are actually very good at what they do to suggest that there is no worthwhile investigation into the mechanisms of our world taking place.
Far from being open minded, you aren't prepared to accept that there isn't an all encompassing conspiracy run by omnipotent rulers of the earth. Your argument seems to hinge on the apparent survival of a passport. Pretty threadbare.
Jo/Joe said:
Explicit language yes, i used the rider 'so far as i can see' to fully explain to readers that what i'm about to say may be wrong and is open to me becoming better informed; i am cogniscent of the fact i'm in thailand and cannot pick up dailies from the newsagents back in england.
You informed me. I did not then 'make excuses', i told you how i had come to make my prior conclusions. I also said that i'd seen no news about the commission in the guardian and independent online except for a pdb which was big news.
I am happy to be told i'm wrong, but i need you to clarify a bit more about the essense of post #458 from which you quote me:
are the press asking the kinds of questions i was posing in that post?
which papers in britain in particular are giving space to analysing the events of 9/11, not just the commission mind, but all dodgy aspects of it? And how often? Any particular journos making it a project of theirs? Fisk? Pilger? I ask simply coz i'd like to know.
I am very open-minded in fact, so either accept that at face value or disagree with me. The basis for my position on 9/11 is nothing to do with the passport (that is just one hard act of evidence i can put to posters), it is to do with the sheer scope and accuracy of intelligence made available to the USG in the run up to the attacks. I cannot bring myself to accept the huge scale of incompetence and negligence required by the USG to not know those attacks would happen.
Their behaviour after the attacks is equally dodgy, hence i believe, currently (i am always open to persuasion), the USG knew it would happen, waited for it to do so by not trying to stop it, then exploited it for all its worth.
Please stick to the content of my posts instead of openly judging my character (eg 'making excuses' and not being 'open minded'). It will make for pleasanter future exchanges!
what you think is dodgy isn't necessarily considered so by anyone else is it? and the evidence isn't convincing, so why would they bother? have you tried to give this evidence to any journos?
and the intelligence in the run up to the attacks is exaactly what is being investigated by the commission, so what's the problem?
what explicit intelligence was there that predicted exactly would occur on 911? 'something is brewing' isn't enough in a country where hundreds of flights take place daily. where is the intelligence that specifies what will happen, when, how and by whom? let's have the hard evidence, instead of repeated references to a passport that proves absolutely nothing.
and the intelligence in the run up to the attacks is exaactly what is being investigated by the commission, so what's the problem?
what explicit intelligence was there that predicted exactly would occur on 911? 'something is brewing' isn't enough in a country where hundreds of flights take place daily. where is the intelligence that specifies what will happen, when, how and by whom? let's have the hard evidence, instead of repeated references to a passport that proves absolutely nothing.
Jo, there is heaps of it. Try the following link.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/essay.jsparticle=essaytheytriedtowarnus
“In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” Within the American intelligence community, “the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” but “there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.” This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]”
And here is the link to the introduction to this website. You will note where he has done all his research in getting his site together: mainstream media. This site is the most credible I’ve seen on the topic. It is a huge body of work, and I’ve nowhere near finished reading all of it. Take a butchers…
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/project.jsp?project=911_project
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/essay.jsparticle=essaytheytriedtowarnus
“In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” Within the American intelligence community, “the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” but “there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.” This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]”
And here is the link to the introduction to this website. You will note where he has done all his research in getting his site together: mainstream media. This site is the most credible I’ve seen on the topic. It is a huge body of work, and I’ve nowhere near finished reading all of it. Take a butchers…
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/project.jsp?project=911_project
miss minnie said:
This was the grand finale of the grisly show, miss minnie
To achieve the 'new Pearl Harbour' and really terrify the whole western world, it would not have been anything like enough to just crash some planes killing a few hundred, and leaving the buildings standing.
The point was to destroy landmarks that were hugely symbolic and kill thousands.
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
PNAC, September 2000
You say.
Looks to me like having a couple of stricken buildings standing as a mark of the attack would be just as effective.
They'd probably have had to be demolished anyway. Imagine the emotional effect of that.
Looks to me like having a couple of stricken buildings standing as a mark of the attack would be just as effective.
They'd probably have had to be demolished anyway. Imagine the emotional effect of that.
I wish the buildings had been left standing. At least there'd be fewer black holes for you foil hatters to point at and go, "ooh look, the unexplained. Must be lizards."
Walter Mitty
Seasoned lizard hunter
What about a weapon that can somehow control planes say a satellite with a tractor beam or something similar?
Well, I wish the attacks hadn't happened at all. And I'll raise you world peace and good will to all people on Earth.DrJazzz said:I wish the buildings had been left standing too, WR - my reason is that thousands of good people would not have lost their lives that day.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
From wsscience...
Which pretty much covers the 'It wasn't hot enough to melt the metal' lot - it didn';t need to, all it needed to do was weaken the structure and support grid enough to make the top fall down through sheer weight.
Well well well.
Which pretty much covers the 'It wasn't hot enough to melt the metal' lot - it didn';t need to, all it needed to do was weaken the structure and support grid enough to make the top fall down through sheer weight.
Well well well.
kyser_soze said:
And? So what. If a plane crashed into the building, then why wouldn't it collapse? Makes sense to me.
What about all the prior intelligence that was somehow not acted upon?
Including this bit, just shortly before the attacks:
"In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” Within the American intelligence community, “the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” but “there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.” This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]"
There's plenty more of intelligence the USG received from other nations from this link. It doesn't even include their own sources. And isn't that exactly whey they set up Echelon...?
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/essay.jsparticle=essaytheytriedtowarnus
Round and round we go again...
Yes there were warnings that the attacks were going to happen. But they were lost in the noise.
But don't you find that there were these warnings undermines your case that it wasn't Arab terrorists?
Yes there were warnings that the attacks were going to happen. But they were lost in the noise.
But don't you find that there were these warnings undermines your case that it wasn't Arab terrorists?
Dirty Martini
gets what he cant want
white rabbit said:
It's crucial here.
As is, I think, the question as to why some people feel the US government suddenly needed to do something so drastic in order to justify its foreign policy objectives -- something that it didn't feel the need to do before Pearl Harbour, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I or any other military intervention or adventure.
Every generation has one ...
"Pearl Harbor was not an accident, a mere failure of American intelligence, or a brilliant Japanese military coup. It was the result of a carefully orchestrated design, initiated at the highest levels of our government. According to a key memorandum, eight steps were taken to make sure we would enter the war by this means. Pearl Harbor was the only way, leading officials felt, to galvanize the reluctant American public into action"
white rabbit said:
You should pay attention better instead of sitting on your throne. If you did you'd know that not only have i never said it wasn't arab terrorists, you'd know that i favour the LIHOP version. That means it was Al Q that did it, but that the USG deliberately didn't stop it from happening.
But you're too busy sneering at people who ask questions to see the wood from the trees.
Pay attention rabbit.
Let it happen on purpose?
Maybe. I'm agnostic on that one although I still think the authorities were caught on the hop.
You can't have it both ways though. Either it was 19 men with knives or the govenment with fake planes and impersonators and all the rest of it.
Maybe. I'm agnostic on that one although I still think the authorities were caught on the hop.
You can't have it both ways though. Either it was 19 men with knives or the govenment with fake planes and impersonators and all the rest of it.
Jo/Joe said:
I've provided the link, it's up to you what you do with it jo.
But i do notice how often terrorist plans get foiled all round the world by other governments. No doubt able to be foiled due to intelligence received by the governments.
The thing that comes from that website i put the link up for is the sheer breadth and consistency of what the warnings were saying. It seem incomprehensible to me that they should have been so useless at reacting to the hijackings, never mind not having foiled them from happening in the first place.
And then there's the US intelligence which is not covered by that website. And Echelon that processes it...
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Leaving aside all the conflicting, non-peer reviewed theories of how the WTC might have collapsed without explosives, here is a question which then begs to be answered.kyser_soze said:
...why were pools of molten steel found at the WTC, over a month later?
And here's some good stuff describing the 'inferno' on which the collapse theories rest. Note that we are talking about first hand, eyewitness reports here.
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
from the firefighter's tape which was withheld from release until the FEMA report was completed - it assumed the fireman got nowhere near the impact floors. They got right up there. In fact they were preparing to go up to floor 79!
...
"Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere." - right by the plane impact
"You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just, just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall." - Brian Clark
the 9-11 fires: Where's the Inferno? (has some great pics of the 'inferno' too)
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Dr.J I presume. Get off that number 11 this minute. 
(What a waste of a 500th post)
(What a waste of a 500th post)
Similar threads
