|
Post by twinstead on Jul 26, 2006 6:15:03 GMT -4
I'm sorry, and I mean this in the nicest way, but 911 inside job that was pathetic. The majority of your issues have been discredited so many times that I don't even know if many CTs believe them any more.
I'm sure you'll bring up "the 19 hijackers are still alive". LOL
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 26, 2006 14:02:29 GMT -4
You all can hand-wave all you want about how easy it is to: - fly 3 jets into 3 buildings by men with no flight experience, pulling in some cases G-forces that the planes' manual controls would not have allowed. All of the planes had the ability to be flown remotely, however. In that mode, there are no restrictions on flight maneuvers except what the plane is capable of.
- have the unprecedented collapse of 3 steel frame buildings allegedly due to fires, despite the appearance of molten steel before the collapse and demolition charges (squibs) seen and heard during collapse. Concrete and office furniture were uniformly shredded into powder, inconsistent with a simple pancake collapse.
- have various agencies run terror drills the exact same morning thus causing confusion as to whether the hijackings/radar images were real or not. Many jet fighters were out of the country due to these drills. This contributed to the virtual stand-down and lack of military response.
- have the rules of engagement changed shortly before 9-11 requiring all flight intercept orders be approved by the Sec. of Defense.
- have various politicians notified in advance not to fly that day. Ashcroft stopped flying commercial jets weeks before.
- the list goes on.
I call that a sophisticated operation. Sorry, just too many coincidences to be dumb luck on the part of the hijackers. Please provide references to your assertions. Not doing so is handwaving. None of the above have any place in discussing the topic of this thread, Osama bin Laden. What they do is circle back around to reasserting your initial premis and gesticulating randomly with various half-truths, misconceptions and dubious claims. I won't even begin to discuss your above claims. You need to decide whether a) bin Laden does not exist b) he exists but has no power c) he exists, has power, but is a CIA stooge d)he exists, has power, is not a stooge but was unable to execute 9/11 e) he exists, has power, is not a stooge, was able to execute 9/11 Claim one of these and argue it. Just because you firmly believe something does not make it true. You need to have more facts. I've been informally studying terrorism for 25 years. (It's not my job, just an interest) Everything we are now experiencing has precedent in the historical record. You know, stuff OFF the web. The current actions between hizbolla and Israel have roots in the 1980's. The existence of Hezbolla, the Iranian revolution and the death-squads in Baghdad derive from the initial conflics between Shia and Sunni sects of Islam, an argument thirteen centuries old. Ignoring these things or denying their importance is not helpful in understanding world events. Wearing horseblinders of ignorance or preconception is what has gotten the U.S. (and the other meddling nations) into so much trouble. Your bizarre anti-government theories add flavor and uniqueness to your outlook, but I fear that your ahistorical view of reality is shared by the government you seem to fear so much. Most Americans, both the sheeple and the illuminated, don't know squat about the middle east and why it's so effed up. Rummy and Cheney kept asserting that we would be greeted as liberators when we overthrew Saddam, but didn't stop to think about the Balkans, and what happened when the blanket "usness" of Sovietism was removed from a region that had experienced ethnic and religions "us-and-them"ness for centuries. Then they made major mistakes that pissed off the Iraqi people we were supposed to have on our side. So instead of barfing the same half-digested disinformation chunks into this thread that get tossed up elsewhere, let's just focus the topic on Osama, who loves God and hates Bush just as much as you do.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 26, 2006 17:23:51 GMT -4
Can you provide some sources for that comment that Secretary Rumsfield and Vice President Cheney "kept asserting that we would be greeted as liberators when we overthrew Saddam." My impression is that this was not a major point of the Bush Administration and that the media has played it up after the fact in order to attack an Administration they despise.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 26, 2006 19:30:06 GMT -4
Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, NBC, "Meet the Press," Transcript for March 16, 2003. www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htmMR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 26, 2006 20:06:21 GMT -4
I don't care what the media spin things into. Actually, I watch TV the way JayUtah drinks.
The point I'm making here is that the leadership misunderstood the underlying cultural situation, chosing instead to look through a narrow lens and only see one future.
...unless they knew what they were getting into and tricked us. Somebody here uses a .sig to the effect of "never assign malice to actions more easily explained with ignorance." I'm paraphrasing. I assume everyone is a dipsh1t, but some dipsh!ts are rich and powerful leaders of governments and industries.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 27, 2006 9:42:54 GMT -4
pulling in some cases G-forces that the planes' manual controls would not have allowed.
Wrong. These were Boeing aircraft, not Airbus. The "manual controls" will allow anything.
All of the planes had the ability to be flown remotely,
Airliners do not have such a feature.
It is of course possible to convert such aircraft to remote control. Perhaps you would be so kind as to show the evidence that such a conversion took place.
(sound of crickets chirping)
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 27, 2006 14:44:49 GMT -4
(sound of crickets chirping)
Indeed, the sound of a hit-and-run poster unable to post with substance.
9/11:InsideJob has repeatedly asserted that the World Trade Center was not destroyed by terrorists acting under the orders of Osama bin Laden to hijack airplanes and use them as weapons. These assertions are usually in the form of short posts, sometimes linking to websites of dubious credibility. I don't want to crawl the web and hunt down believers of this theory, so I'm taking it on here. I was bothered by the "fake Osama" pictures she linked to the the thermite thread because they were not easily dismissed with common sense. My research suggests that there are lies/maniuplations involved, but I'm not sure whose.
Rather than taking on the minutia of circumstantial evidence, I'm going to tackle the underlying premis that Osama bin Laden was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. If the inital premis is flawed, then all other arguments are just wind.
First, I assert that Osama bin Laden is a real person. Second, I assert that the Jalalabad video is not fake. Third, I assert that Osama bin Laden has motive, method and opportunity to send agents to commit terrorism. Fourth, I assert that Osama bin Laden has done so several times. Fifth, I assert that Osama bin Laden originated the plan to use hijacked airliners to attack symbolic targets representing his understanding of the United States power and authority.
This is what I want to discuss here. I'll probably have to discuss it by myself since 9:ij doesn't seem to have much meat to present.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Jul 27, 2006 14:57:33 GMT -4
Ah but the fake osama video claim IS easily defeated by common sense. Just watch the video! If you only look at that 1 frame the CTs like to post, it doesn't look exactly like him. If you watch the video, you'll realize it looks exactly like him and they just took out 1 frame at a moment when the camera angle and lighting made it harder to identify him.
|
|
|
Post by yodaluver28 on Jul 27, 2006 16:47:17 GMT -4
The only CT's evidence for a "fake Bin Laden video" is a few scattered, poor quality screenshots from the video that are riddled with compression artifacts. Watching the whole video or even just seeing the screenshots from the entire video, rather than a few chosen ones, show a remarkable likeness between the Osama in the video and the man widely accepted as Bin Laden in several earlier videos.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 27, 2006 16:54:36 GMT -4
By the way AG, 911:ij is, according to his profile, a guy.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Jul 28, 2006 0:49:56 GMT -4
(c) seems to admit that he might have been a CIA-type but is no longer. Does anyone claim this? I sure get the impression the connection was indirect; the Pakis intel organizations were the ones who dealt with him and his followers directly; now this isn't to say the CIA was out of loop, either, not by a long shot. It's all very easy to call this foolish now, hindsight being 20/20. Many seem to forget (or very possibly were too young) that tensions were high during this last quasi-proxy war of the Cold War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by freon on Jul 28, 2006 10:35:57 GMT -4
The CIA must be involved. How else do you explain one of the highest level spokesman for the Taliban, seen in videos with Bin Laden denouncing the US, sheltering Bin Laden, who himself was supporting the Taliban, taking terrorism courses at Yale University. A person with a 4th grade education. Taking terrorism courses on US soil at Yale University. A known anti-American. Think if all the hard working hopeful people that get rejected from Yale.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 28, 2006 10:54:08 GMT -4
Wow... they offer terrorism courses at Yale?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 28, 2006 11:20:55 GMT -4
Big deal. I took a terrorism course at my dinky little college. One of the instructors was starting his dissertation on terrorism and needed a bunch of undergrads to do some research so he offered a seminar. He taught broadly on the subject and some about research skills and we dug up sources and made presentations about aspects terrorism, as it was in the 70’s. No one was promoting blowing up anything, it was just a academic class. Do you have a syllabus for this class at Yale? If not, how do you know what was taught.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 28, 2006 15:32:07 GMT -4
Ah but the fake osama video claim IS easily defeated by common sense. Just watch the video! If you only look at that 1 frame the CTs like to post, it doesn't look exactly like him. If you watch the video, you'll realize it looks exactly like him and they just took out 1 frame at a moment when the camera angle and lighting made it harder to identify him. Exactly - but following a link and taking the pictures presented at face value ( no pun intended) can lead to uncertainty. Thus, I spent an hour watching the entire video, and then again. So two hours invested in watching, plus time to research Osama bin Laden images to see how he looks in various lights and at various times of his life. Then some time with Photoshop stretching the single-frames vertically to remove distortions introduced by unknown parties. I compare this to looking at the "thermite cut beam" with my preloaded knowledge and experience base. "Common sense" relies on the preload each of us has already accomlished.
|
|