WTC attacks - the alternative thread
- Thread starter fela fan
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
I'm afraid the token smiley isn't going to help you there.DrJazzz said:editor is afraid of the competition...
Still, I'm getting used to insults from people who believe in the existence of the USG/CIA Mike Yarwood, Lenny Henry and Rory Bremner Crack Impressionists Squadron (Loved Ones Conversation-Faking Black Ops).
editor said:
But you already do think that of me, so nothing can be done there. So don't hate it, don't beat yourself over it.
I'm not talking 'this thread'. There's been plenty of them, and you yourself are not averse to remembering the other ones. Indeed, you even bring up threads of a non-911 nature when it comes to addressing DrJ.
You have been most liberal with your terms 'conspiracy theorist' and 'tin foil hat' on the 911 threads. If not this one, well done. Some progress.
editor
hiraethified
Actually, the only person still banging on about 'tin foil hats' is you.fela fan said:
I suggest you get over it and concentrate your energies on producing a remotely plausible, of-this-planet explanation for those lengthy phone calls between loved ones.
I'm afraid your 'all stressed people sound the same - even to their wives' line really is about as poor and as feeble an 'argument' as you can get.
WouldBe said:
Look, i'd like to know a lot more about these phone calls. We have to assume that one person made four calls. We have to know why so many on the plane were making phone calls from switched on mobiles under the careful eye of the hijackers.
We have to know why they were all queuing up at the back of the plane to make calls from the plane phone.
We have to know how the USG were able to find the transcripts so easily.
We have to know why all 30 odd passengers stormed the cockpit in single file.
We have to know how they knew the fate of the other jets, thus prompting them to switch on their mobiles to phone their loved ones.
We have to know why passengers on the other ill-fated jets made no phone calls.
We have to know why the calls came from the unaccounted for jet.
And i would most certainly like the 911 commission to interview all those loved ones that received these phone calls.
Sorry, emotion and emotive language and the inability to imagine such a fake being pulled off are just not enough. This thread is about providing cast iron evidence that the USG version is not a threadbag of lies.
editor said:
That's alright then. Like i say, progress!
I've got over it. I have no simple (or any) explanations for those phone calls. Just questions.
And as for the line you attribute to me, fucking nonsense man! I said nothing of the fucking sort, and you please recognise that. Talking about twisting words or what! That is a total fabrication, and i feel you should state that.
editor
hiraethified
Whatever for? Why put them through a pointless cross examination just to please the fevered, fact-free imaginations of bedroom conspiracy theorists?fela fan said:
The families who took the calls are convinced that they were talking to their loved ones and that's damn well good enough for me.
Why on earth would they lie?
Who the hell do you think you are to tell them otherwise?
You're trying to cheapen their last words together in a hopeless attempt to make your feeble theopries stand up.
The notion that it's possible for the USG to instantly replicate word-perfect, partner-fooling voice fascimilies of hosts of people who weren't even supposed to be on the flight is truly beyond the realms of fantasy.
But not in your world, apparently.
And are you not yet ready to confirm to the audience here about that last bit of speech you made up about me?
You would be screaming blue murder, and having me half banned had i put such blatantly wrong words into your mouth.
I will happily apologise to you when i've stepped over the mark (and have done), it would be nice if you could do the same.
You would be screaming blue murder, and having me half banned had i put such blatantly wrong words into your mouth.
I will happily apologise to you when i've stepped over the mark (and have done), it would be nice if you could do the same.
Fela fan you've be calling for someone to provide a good reason to back up the USG's version of events which you perceive to be fallacious and littered with glaring contradictions.
Now before we get started I just want to make the point that no-one hear is involved with the 9/11 commission or is an intelligence expert. There is no way we can convince each other of the specifics be they faked phone calls, perfect passports, plane switches, or varying witness accounts. As bulletin board posters sat in front of our computer there is no way that anyone will come up with conclusive evidence on the micro front. Why? Because we are normal civilians not privy to the evidence we would like to be.
So working on that assumption one has to analyse this event in a greater context, a larger international framework. I believe that if you take into account the sheer and unchecked power of the behemoth that is the USa and the USG (remember we are talking about administrations and governments here, there is a big difference) and if you take into account the number of largely unprovoked 'incursions' that they have gotten away with in recent history, it becomes quite clear that the USG did not need a pretext to embark on their current campaign of aggression let alone one that involved murdering thousands of their own civilians.
Here is my case for why it makes much more sense to believe the USG's general, not specific, version of events, as opposed to Viallis and other 'journalists'. You're going to have to ignore references to posts long gone because it is exactly the same 3 posts that I put on the other WTC thread:
Well the Arabs gained little IMO, but then again it was a very small minority of the Arab population who planned the event and carried it out. The hijackers were never representative of the Arabs and neither are their actions.
OBL gained a vast amount of respect and publicity but the most valuable thing he gained was a paradigm shift in how the world community views itself. Previous to 9/11 there had always been vague talk of the West but no one had ever bothered to vaguely define the East, it just seemed to be a mass of heterogenous impoverished countries governed by piss poor leaders.
However post-9/11 OBL got the world geo-political context he needed in order to validate his war. Quite simply the US weren't paying him enough attention and a catastrophic strike was needed to take place within the US heartland before this polarisation of world politics into christian-rich-white West and poor-oppressed-islamic east.
Remember that his world view is based on a cruader/saladin construction that demands holy war to justify itself. And put simply you can't have a war when your enemy has the conceit to ignore you. His organisation and their ideas needed to be validated, and 9/11 did just that.
Without this division his struggle would never have been anything more than a minor irritant to Western governments concerned with their foreign assets. Post-9/11 OBL sets the agenda and he has the real power.
He probably anticipated a US reaction somewhere in the Islamic world, and he probably anticipated that this reaction could be used to his advantage in expanding and securing new recruits to his mission.
You only have to look at what's happening in Iraq now to understand that OBL has probably managed to harvest a whole new generation of terrorists thanks to the new world conflict he has ushered in. (the old generation primarily being zealous mujahadin from the 80's afghan conflict turning their projected hatred away from the then immediate perceived threat to Islam [Soviet Russia] and on to their recent immediate perceived threat to Islam [USA])
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 who will arrange themselves in cells, then disperse around the world; the only lasting line of communication usually being a money-launderer.
From the Sudanese terrorist camps OBL receives the first fruition of his plan: 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 successful (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 to lead the press away from 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 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) which is 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).
more to come....
Now before we get started I just want to make the point that no-one hear is involved with the 9/11 commission or is an intelligence expert. There is no way we can convince each other of the specifics be they faked phone calls, perfect passports, plane switches, or varying witness accounts. As bulletin board posters sat in front of our computer there is no way that anyone will come up with conclusive evidence on the micro front. Why? Because we are normal civilians not privy to the evidence we would like to be.
So working on that assumption one has to analyse this event in a greater context, a larger international framework. I believe that if you take into account the sheer and unchecked power of the behemoth that is the USa and the USG (remember we are talking about administrations and governments here, there is a big difference) and if you take into account the number of largely unprovoked 'incursions' that they have gotten away with in recent history, it becomes quite clear that the USG did not need a pretext to embark on their current campaign of aggression let alone one that involved murdering thousands of their own civilians.
Here is my case for why it makes much more sense to believe the USG's general, not specific, version of events, as opposed to Viallis and other 'journalists'. You're going to have to ignore references to posts long gone because it is exactly the same 3 posts that I put on the other WTC thread:
Well the Arabs gained little IMO, but then again it was a very small minority of the Arab population who planned the event and carried it out. The hijackers were never representative of the Arabs and neither are their actions.
OBL gained a vast amount of respect and publicity but the most valuable thing he gained was a paradigm shift in how the world community views itself. Previous to 9/11 there had always been vague talk of the West but no one had ever bothered to vaguely define the East, it just seemed to be a mass of heterogenous impoverished countries governed by piss poor leaders.
However post-9/11 OBL got the world geo-political context he needed in order to validate his war. Quite simply the US weren't paying him enough attention and a catastrophic strike was needed to take place within the US heartland before this polarisation of world politics into christian-rich-white West and poor-oppressed-islamic east.
Remember that his world view is based on a cruader/saladin construction that demands holy war to justify itself. And put simply you can't have a war when your enemy has the conceit to ignore you. His organisation and their ideas needed to be validated, and 9/11 did just that.
Without this division his struggle would never have been anything more than a minor irritant to Western governments concerned with their foreign assets. Post-9/11 OBL sets the agenda and he has the real power.
He probably anticipated a US reaction somewhere in the Islamic world, and he probably anticipated that this reaction could be used to his advantage in expanding and securing new recruits to his mission.
You only have to look at what's happening in Iraq now to understand that OBL has probably managed to harvest a whole new generation of terrorists thanks to the new world conflict he has ushered in. (the old generation primarily being zealous mujahadin from the 80's afghan conflict turning their projected hatred away from the then immediate perceived threat to Islam [Soviet Russia] and on to their recent immediate perceived threat to Islam [USA])
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 who will arrange themselves in cells, then disperse around the world; the only lasting line of communication usually being a money-launderer.
From the Sudanese terrorist camps OBL receives the first fruition of his plan: 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 successful (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 to lead the press away from 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 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) which is 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).
more to come....
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....
Now we can argue all you want about remote controlled aircraft but it's my opinion that any evidence for them existing is circumstantial at best. As for them being involved in 9/11 I have yet to see any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.
So let us just assume for arguments sake that in the pre-9/11 US there were no stringent passenger checks, pilots and passengers had been continually advised to comply with hijackers (remember most hijackers, especially islamic ones up to this point in time had only flown these planes around a bit, maybe landing them in a safe country, to make a point; no one had ever used one as a flying bomb), and that in most of the planes there is overwhelming evidence from passenger's phonecalls that some of the cabin crew were bleeding to death on the floor from cuts to the jugular performed with the razor sharp box cutters.
The hijackers take control of the plane and order all the passengers to the back claiming they'll kill as many as it takes. A threat that is to be taken seriously with an air stewardess drenched in her own blood at your feet.
They turn off the transponder and radio and then follow a flight plane they have practised many times before on the simulator at their flight school. The normally lax and previously totally uncalled for FAA are caught on the hop.
It's early in the morning, public flights have only been up and running for a couple of hours and their decision making skills are still a bit rusty just after the first coffee of the day. No one thinks it is anything more than a systems fault on board the aircraft, admittedly a bad scenario but not the sort of nightmare scenario that would merit giving the air guard a ring. A few minutes later a second plane disappears.
Is it their system failing? This is unprecedented? What's the fuck is going on?
A few minutes later there are initial reports of a light aircraft flying into the WTC. It takes a quite a few more minutes before people start piecing it all together to theorise that something that was previously outside of the realm of possiblity and experience is about to happen. About then the second plane hits the WTC. 2 more go missing soon after as the majority focus on NYC.
It is only about now, and far too late in the case of the other two planes, that the emergency systems in the skies grind into action as the nation is in a state of total shock.
Everything else that happened on that day is history. I've established a motive and a context that are pretty clear cut and very plausible. What makes it more plausible is the following.
Osama, overjoyed at his success, realises that they know he's most probably in Afghanistan and that most probably they'll come after him, so he cuts loose happy in the knowledge that a-q's unique cell system that is devoid of hierarchy will protect agents in the field and that even after he has closed down his training camps there will still be cells he can get money to who may have been 'sleeping' for several years and waiting to be activated by a bank draft.
Al-qaeda subsequently stay relatively quiet for a year and a half. Why? Because their normal channels of funding, the false businesses, the dodgy bank accounts, and the huge money transfers have all been seized by the US government. Funding stops and the terror stops.
But there are still rich Saudis and Kuwaiti extremeists who would like nothing more than to fund a mission by the mujhadin. Theyir bank accounts are seemingly limitless and their desire to be a 'good' muslim intense, they will try and get money through regardless. After being dispersed by the Afghan raids for some time, the a-q finance crew reunite (probably somewhere in S.E. Asia) and start to reconstruct the lines of finance that will reactivate long dormant cells.
They undergo a necessary change of strategy. The training camps having been demolished, they need to make use of other previously ignored islamic militants who are not necessarily arabic. Hence the Bali bombing where one a-q operative seems to have liased with the local Islamic extremist group and given them funding for their initially small scale car bombing.
At a stroke a-q has transformed a tightly organised and dedicated small scale statment by foreign (as in non-arab) fundamentalists into a far larger bombing that will inflict a serious blow to the most obvious representative of the crusader empire in that region (australia).
Bush and co lose sight of the prize as their well documented PNAC-driven obsession with Iraq takes over.
Dick Clarke has testified recently that they were looking for any link they could from saddam to a-q to justify an invasion of Iraq. In the build up to war the majority of the big european powers wisely back out of the coalition (france, germany, italy, russia etc..).
Only those countries left with bush sympathetic usually right wing governments remain (aznar=spain, blair=britain), as well as a few E.european stragglers looking for a big break to be the US's new best friend.
At about this point Turkey too backs out fearing internal islamic reprisals for aiding an invasion of a fellow islamic country. It is not enough to save them from bombs.
In the run up to war Bush, Blair, and Aznar (THE ONLY LEADERS TO COMMIT COMBAT TROOPS TO THE GROUND FOR THE ACTUAL INVASION AND COMBAT IN IRAQ) meet in the azores on 16 March 2003 to underline the deadline for Iraq to surrender WMD's as being the next day.
They stand around doing photo ops and looking gormless. These are the pictures broadcast aroung the world of the core of the 'crusader alliance', the ones that must be punished at any cost to gain revenge for the insult of having the great satans' armies trundle over islamic lands; or at least that's how OBL sees it.
And now we can bring us up to date via the autumn bomb in Istanbul
A cunning target this one as the istanbul cell gets the green light to blow up the British embassy there ensuring the death of some 'wavering' turks and the death of officials of one of the great satans who dared to invade iraq.
As Iraq turns into a bloodbath, and given the immensly heightened security in Britain and America it is a relatively natural choice to go for Spain next. By attacking the newest member of the alliance A-Q can hope to isolate Britain and America as well as sending out a message to all would be allies of the US in the middle east.
On top of all that it has an interesting historical context what with Al-Andalus (modern Spain) and Grenada being the home of one of the greatest expressions of Islamic power and culture ever: the last Umayyad caliphate from 750 AD to around 1100 AD. It is coherent with the al-qaeda anti-crusading discourse that worships the glories of the great caliphates.
And only just in the last few days we have what looks like another bombing attempt foiled in and around London. For me the evidence is overwhelming and the context indisputable so that any conclusion that 9/11 wasn't al-qaeda's work is pretty absurd.
Now we can argue all you want about remote controlled aircraft but it's my opinion that any evidence for them existing is circumstantial at best. As for them being involved in 9/11 I have yet to see any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.
So let us just assume for arguments sake that in the pre-9/11 US there were no stringent passenger checks, pilots and passengers had been continually advised to comply with hijackers (remember most hijackers, especially islamic ones up to this point in time had only flown these planes around a bit, maybe landing them in a safe country, to make a point; no one had ever used one as a flying bomb), and that in most of the planes there is overwhelming evidence from passenger's phonecalls that some of the cabin crew were bleeding to death on the floor from cuts to the jugular performed with the razor sharp box cutters.
The hijackers take control of the plane and order all the passengers to the back claiming they'll kill as many as it takes. A threat that is to be taken seriously with an air stewardess drenched in her own blood at your feet.
They turn off the transponder and radio and then follow a flight plane they have practised many times before on the simulator at their flight school. The normally lax and previously totally uncalled for FAA are caught on the hop.
It's early in the morning, public flights have only been up and running for a couple of hours and their decision making skills are still a bit rusty just after the first coffee of the day. No one thinks it is anything more than a systems fault on board the aircraft, admittedly a bad scenario but not the sort of nightmare scenario that would merit giving the air guard a ring. A few minutes later a second plane disappears.
Is it their system failing? This is unprecedented? What's the fuck is going on?
A few minutes later there are initial reports of a light aircraft flying into the WTC. It takes a quite a few more minutes before people start piecing it all together to theorise that something that was previously outside of the realm of possiblity and experience is about to happen. About then the second plane hits the WTC. 2 more go missing soon after as the majority focus on NYC.
It is only about now, and far too late in the case of the other two planes, that the emergency systems in the skies grind into action as the nation is in a state of total shock.
Everything else that happened on that day is history. I've established a motive and a context that are pretty clear cut and very plausible. What makes it more plausible is the following.
Osama, overjoyed at his success, realises that they know he's most probably in Afghanistan and that most probably they'll come after him, so he cuts loose happy in the knowledge that a-q's unique cell system that is devoid of hierarchy will protect agents in the field and that even after he has closed down his training camps there will still be cells he can get money to who may have been 'sleeping' for several years and waiting to be activated by a bank draft.
Al-qaeda subsequently stay relatively quiet for a year and a half. Why? Because their normal channels of funding, the false businesses, the dodgy bank accounts, and the huge money transfers have all been seized by the US government. Funding stops and the terror stops.
But there are still rich Saudis and Kuwaiti extremeists who would like nothing more than to fund a mission by the mujhadin. Theyir bank accounts are seemingly limitless and their desire to be a 'good' muslim intense, they will try and get money through regardless. After being dispersed by the Afghan raids for some time, the a-q finance crew reunite (probably somewhere in S.E. Asia) and start to reconstruct the lines of finance that will reactivate long dormant cells.
They undergo a necessary change of strategy. The training camps having been demolished, they need to make use of other previously ignored islamic militants who are not necessarily arabic. Hence the Bali bombing where one a-q operative seems to have liased with the local Islamic extremist group and given them funding for their initially small scale car bombing.
At a stroke a-q has transformed a tightly organised and dedicated small scale statment by foreign (as in non-arab) fundamentalists into a far larger bombing that will inflict a serious blow to the most obvious representative of the crusader empire in that region (australia).
Bush and co lose sight of the prize as their well documented PNAC-driven obsession with Iraq takes over.
Dick Clarke has testified recently that they were looking for any link they could from saddam to a-q to justify an invasion of Iraq. In the build up to war the majority of the big european powers wisely back out of the coalition (france, germany, italy, russia etc..).
Only those countries left with bush sympathetic usually right wing governments remain (aznar=spain, blair=britain), as well as a few E.european stragglers looking for a big break to be the US's new best friend.
At about this point Turkey too backs out fearing internal islamic reprisals for aiding an invasion of a fellow islamic country. It is not enough to save them from bombs.
In the run up to war Bush, Blair, and Aznar (THE ONLY LEADERS TO COMMIT COMBAT TROOPS TO THE GROUND FOR THE ACTUAL INVASION AND COMBAT IN IRAQ) meet in the azores on 16 March 2003 to underline the deadline for Iraq to surrender WMD's as being the next day.
They stand around doing photo ops and looking gormless. These are the pictures broadcast aroung the world of the core of the 'crusader alliance', the ones that must be punished at any cost to gain revenge for the insult of having the great satans' armies trundle over islamic lands; or at least that's how OBL sees it.
And now we can bring us up to date via the autumn bomb in Istanbul
A cunning target this one as the istanbul cell gets the green light to blow up the British embassy there ensuring the death of some 'wavering' turks and the death of officials of one of the great satans who dared to invade iraq.
As Iraq turns into a bloodbath, and given the immensly heightened security in Britain and America it is a relatively natural choice to go for Spain next. By attacking the newest member of the alliance A-Q can hope to isolate Britain and America as well as sending out a message to all would be allies of the US in the middle east.
On top of all that it has an interesting historical context what with Al-Andalus (modern Spain) and Grenada being the home of one of the greatest expressions of Islamic power and culture ever: the last Umayyad caliphate from 750 AD to around 1100 AD. It is coherent with the al-qaeda anti-crusading discourse that worships the glories of the great caliphates.
And only just in the last few days we have what looks like another bombing attempt foiled in and around London. For me the evidence is overwhelming and the context indisputable so that any conclusion that 9/11 wasn't al-qaeda's work is pretty absurd.
editor said:
You only need to look right at the bottom of the last page, but to save you a bit of time, you said this of me:
"I'm afraid your 'all stressed people sound the same - even to their wives' line really is about as poor and as feeble an 'argument' as you can get."
You quote it as if it is my words. Nonsense, and legally defamatory i believe. NOt that i give a monkeys for all those lawyer bastards and the ridiculous laws, but you really should take that back. You not only quoted it as if by me, you even highlighted it.
Very poor form, and i'm surprised to hear you don't know what i was on about.
As for half-banning, yes i can enlighten you; when you are half way to doing so, half way in your mind to pressing that key.
Diamond said:
Hey mate, i respectfully read those posts last time, took me ages, but i did and thought about them. You're not expecting me to read them AGAIN! Look, try a bit of precis mate, it's easier on the reader.
But like last time, i think most of what you write is conjecture, which as you rightly point out is mostly what most of us can go on most of the time. We weren't part of the planning, nor part of the attacks.
And certainly the bit i've quoted you on is conjecture. And if that is your initial premise, then i think you're a prime candidate for one day changing his mind over the 911 attacks!! Coz it's exactly on this point that i completely disagree.
You are making the assumption that there is one cold dosage of logical thought available to all and that the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney have brains the same as yours or mine. They don't. Their brains are amoral. They do NOT think the same way as we do. Just a very quick insight into their brains: Madeleine Albright thought it an 'acceptable price to pay', upon being told US sanctions were killing half a million children in Iraq.
Sorry mate, it is that kind of US political thinking that we are up against in this world of the US copper. And she was a woman, a supposed liberal, and a supposed moderate US politician.
You think there aren't any men in the republican party capable of killing a few thousand americans?? Think again mate, think hard. They're totally happy to have foreigners killed by their actions, and to have US soldiers killed by their actions, and still they go to bed soundly at night. It is a very small step, in such a world of killing and high geo political games, to move on to wasting your own civilians.
editor
hiraethified
What the fuck are you on about? Ar you really this fucking stupid?fela fan said:
If I was quoting you, I'd use quotation marks and attribute your comments. Like this: you said, "blah blah blah".
What I was doing was paraphrasing your fucking stupid argument where you make the moronic claim that all stressed people sound the same.
And I'm not taking a single word back because I have accurately summed up your pitiful and deeply insulting 'explanation'.
I suggest you learn some basic law before you make another twat of yourself with laughably ill-informed threats about defamation.
Of course, if you weren't so ignorant of the law, you'd realise that you've actually posted up far more serious allegations against me, but I don't expect your confused mind to comprehend that.
And your laughable 'half-banning' explanation truly is the work of Kismet. Really. What are you on?
editor said:
Well, your 'paraphrasing' then and again (last paragraph here where i've quoted you) is quite simply wrong, firstly coz i never said that, and secondly coz it could never be properly construed that that was my meaning. Thirdly it nowhere near expresses my original meaning.
And incidentally paraphrasing does not go in inverted commas, and nor is it italicised. And finally, if you really were paraphrasing, you'd've recognised that i was asking questions, and wasn't stating anything, least of all my opinion.
I didn't demand you take anything back, i only civilly gave you the opportunity.
You declined it, no problem.
No, I'm talking about the Pentagon plane - apologies for the confusion.editor said:
And a correction to an earlier post of mine - all craft, in fact, turned of their transponders, it's just that one flight path had to be estimated as it was completey off radar.
11 suspect aircraft on September 11: here
As far as I can find, there were only calls made from Flight 93 - the one that was destroyed before reaching it's target. One call confused me a little. A man phones his own mother and introduces himself thusly: "Mom, this is Mark Bingham". Strange way of introducing yourself to your Mum but nothing can be assumed from this - I just found it strange.
Calls made by the captain to ATC said "we have a bomb on board [unintelligible secion of tape] - I am going back to the airport, they have met our demands". Another strange one - why would the captain make demands of the hijackers? Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Anyway, assuming the calls are real (which I believe, despite the anomalies above), we can confirm that there were real people on board flight 93. As for the other flights, without flight recorders or calls made by people on board, it's reasonably safe to hold the belief that there was no-one else on board aside from the captain or they were controlled remotely.
I'm still looking for evidence of calls made from the other planes....
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
I don't know why you bother ed. You'd have more chance convincing David Irving that the Holocaust had taken place. 
#218: fela fan
“As for the 'faking' of the phone calls. Well, i don't know either way, but i accept it's possible. I have no evidence of course, but i have enough of a grounding in psychology and the mechanics of fear to know that it is possibility.”
#221: fela fan
“You have ignored the fact that people who expect to die may speak differently, both in style and in content.”
#226: fela fan
“I thought i'd addressed two features that would make one's voice not as normal as it might be expected to be... even to a loved one.”
#245: editor
“I'm afraid your 'all stressed people sound the same - even to their wives' line really is about as poor and as feeble an 'argument' as you can get.”
And then in your post directly above this one, you tell me you have 'accurately' represented my 'explanation'. You see there never was an explanation, just an exploration of what MIGHT have been the case.
Threat?
#257: fela fan
“You quote it as if it is my words. Nonsense, and legally defamatory i believe. NOt that i give a monkeys for all those lawyer bastards and the ridiculous laws, but you really should take that back. You not only quoted it as if by me, you even highlighted it.”
“As for the 'faking' of the phone calls. Well, i don't know either way, but i accept it's possible. I have no evidence of course, but i have enough of a grounding in psychology and the mechanics of fear to know that it is possibility.”
#221: fela fan
“You have ignored the fact that people who expect to die may speak differently, both in style and in content.”
#226: fela fan
“I thought i'd addressed two features that would make one's voice not as normal as it might be expected to be... even to a loved one.”
#245: editor
“I'm afraid your 'all stressed people sound the same - even to their wives' line really is about as poor and as feeble an 'argument' as you can get.”
And then in your post directly above this one, you tell me you have 'accurately' represented my 'explanation'. You see there never was an explanation, just an exploration of what MIGHT have been the case.
editor said:
Threat?
#257: fela fan
“You quote it as if it is my words. Nonsense, and legally defamatory i believe. NOt that i give a monkeys for all those lawyer bastards and the ridiculous laws, but you really should take that back. You not only quoted it as if by me, you even highlighted it.”
editor
hiraethified
I really don't know why I bother. Really. Are you incapable of doing the most basic of research?Jangla said:
What's the point of debating here if you can;t be fucking arsed to do anything yourself?
It takes milliseconds to find plenty of news sources listing the phone calls made from other flights.
So my web searching isn't as skilled as yours. I simply asked for more info - thanks for supplying it but the personal attack really isn't necessary.editor said:
Plus the fact, your first quote is not from the link you supplied, the second link is from a flight attendant to ATC - not calls between loved ones or even people that know each other - and the third is from the Pentagon plane - the one all the other personal calls come from. Please update the first link so I can see the proper document.
In the meantime I've been looking at minute-by-minute reports from the day and found that Flight 93 were not only aware of a bomb on board but other aircraft in the area provided visual confirmation of smoke billowing from the plane while it was still in the air. This calls into question the USG's story that a retaliation by passengers directly or indirectly caused the crash and supports the theory that it was either taken out deliberately or destroyed form within whilst still in the air. I just can't figure out what the advantage of making the USG's claim is over stating it was detroyed by a terrorist bomb on board.
Similar threads
