You are aware that even the BBC claimed that several said hijackers were reported to be alive.
Several of them
were still reported to be alive, before photographs of all of them had been released. Then it turned out to be a case of mistaken identity, as the BBC reported.
If they were still alive, all they'd have to do to clear their names of this monstrous crime and expose the OCT would be to say: "Hey, look, I'm alive". None of them has done so.
As I pointed out to Sennemut, one inaccurate report does not overturn the actual evidence, which is the stuff on which accurate reports are based.
And you do realise, don't you, that reports of the hijackers, or "hijackers" still being alive, if accurate, would destroy your hypothesis too? Your hypothetical 19 Mossad agents wouldn't go around pretending to be the hijackers after the hijackers were dead, would they? 'Cos of Mossad not being idiots. So according to your own hypothesis, these reports must have been erroneous; which they are.
See my blog for a list of 12 core conspiricists + 20-40 whatever Israeli foot soldiers ('movers', programmers, stand-ins at flight schools). I made the case against Larry for buying the WTC, riddled with asbestos, insures against terrorist attacks, hires an Israeli security firm for the complex, owned by a top zionist billionaire (Greenberg) and has a friendship with Netanjahu. I never pulled the pull so far. Now that you mention it...
Knowing Jews, even rich ones, is not evidence of complicity in mass-murder.
You will find the whole insurance and asbestos thing covered extensively on these forums.
Al Qaeda itself is a vague organisation. Some doubt even if it exists at all.
The people that we mean by al Qaeda exist, even if it doesn't have actual membership cards. Much the same could be said of "neocons". It's a vague label, but if I denied that they even existed you could just give me a list of some people who are neocons, yes?
Objection: Israel's sworn vasal. Since Mearsheimer and Walt we do not have to go to David Duke any longer for the opinion that Israel determines American foreign policy. And the rest of American Society I might add.
Your rhetoric is swamping your hypothesis. If the US is an Israeli vassal, and Israel "determines" American foreign policy, then there would be no need to
trick the US into doing anything, and you have annihilated Mossad's supposed motive for pulling off 9/11.
The consequences could be potentially disastrous. Hence your fierce resistance.
No. And, as I have pointed out, if we're going to get into analysis of motives here, I don't think that you should cast the first stone.
There is a fall back scenario though: namely the (valid) excuse for Israel that 9/11 was carried out by 'rogue elements'. I do not claim that there ever was an Israeli or American cabinet session that discussed the plot we are discussing here. In the worst case Olmert, Netanjahu, Zakheim, Silverstein etc. will be convicted. Maybe a couple of billion reparations. But the real danger will be an uprising within the American establishment. Think of Ron Paul as an American Jeltzin, standing on a tank in front of Capitol Hill throwing crappy little Michael Ledeen against a wall just to show that he means business.
We can agree, though, that the consequences would be bad for Israel. I think in the long term they'd be catastrophic. It would be hard, would it not, for them to maintain their putative stranglehold over American foreign policy? Or any influence at all?
I don't know where you got this "couple of billion" from, reconstructing the WTC complex alone is estimated at $12 billion.
The Mossad is a state organ. It will probably not act independently. Certainly not on 9/11.
That's why the consequences I listed were for Israel, not Mossad.
Baloney. The leadership of Al Qaeda (assuming AQ exists at all) would be smart enough to understand that this would be an open invitation to get American troops landing on their shores.
If my conspirators have perfect foreknowledge of the consequences of their actions, then so do yours (sauce for the goose) and you must explain why Israel wanted the US to invade Afghanistan. You might also want to explain why none of the fake hijackers were fake Palestinians.
To the question of al Qaeda's motives. Your point is fair, but not unanswerable.
(1)
Did they know this would prompt the invasion of Afghanistan? They had made attacks before, less devastating to be sure, without this happening. As I understand it, the joke going round the Middle East before 9/11 was that if someone attacked America --- they'd sue.
(2) Perhaps the invasion of Afghanistan was exactly what they wanted. Historically, Afghanistan has been a trap. They pwned the last superpower to invade them, despite the USSR having the huge advantage of a common border. Al Qaeda, who were not themselves Afghans, might have thought it most clever to lure the US into what they expected to be a second Vietnam.
(3) They are loonies. "Smart", perhaps, but loonies. Fanatics and fatalists, they think that they should fight the good fight (as they see it) and leave the results up to Allah.
(4) It would not be "smart" to declare war on America at all if one was in fact afraid ever to strike any significant blow.
Your list would be a perfect case for showing the utter incompetence of Muslims.
If you're trying to use their previous track record to prove that they couldn't have done 9/11, is that not a little like saying that a runner
can't have achieved his personal best time, because there's no record of him running that fast on any other occasion?
Maybe 9/11 was a particularly good plan. If you think about it, it
was a good plan. It doesn't require the terrorists to do anything even slightly illegal until the very moment of the hijack (no rules against knives on planes back then, it seems silly in retrospect) and then two minutes later they're armed with something that weighs four hundred tons and travels at five hundred miles an hour.
The Mossad was implicated in 1993 as discussed yesterday (post dumped by admin).
No. But assuming they were, will you call that "a perfect case for showing the utter incompetence of Mossad"?
USS Cole was bombed in Yemen, Arabian territory.
That's why I gave it as an example of an attack on Americans
not carried out on American soil
And Israel has of course the huge precedent of attacking the USS Liberty as a clear false flag operation. Covered up by Johnson. It shows clearly that Israel has no problem attacking the 'ally' US if it suits it needs.
A false flag attack involves pretending to be someone else. Whatever you think about the Liberty incident, it was not a false flag.
- Non-existent? It exists now. I agree it is my task to show it existed in 2001. I would be surprised if ti did not. My Commodore64 could speak in 1984.
So you have no evidence for real-time voice-morphing software in 2001. (I haven't looked yet at your alleged proof that it exists now --- you know you've made enough posts to post links, yes?) But beyond that, we have shown that at least four of the phone calls were made by people whom Mossad couldn't have predicted would be on the planes. No software in the world is going to mimic a guy's voice well enough to fool his mother
without a sample of his voice to work from, you can see the impossibility there.
- I have pointed at the US-patent. Zakheim worked for SPC that PRODUCED these systems. I agree I have yet to show it was implemented on the planes
Hello? We discussed the patent you showed us. Not only was it not implemented on these planes, it was not implemented at all. Or built.
Or designed.
- Getting a box cutter or a bottle with liquid on board is a hard sell indeed but not unthinkable.
There'd be no problem with box-cutters, which were not prohibited, you'd have a tougher time with nerve gas.
And your hypothesis has two additional problems. First, your conspirators need to get the nerve gas on board without boarding themselves, unlike the real hijackers, who faced no such difficulty.
And second, I have evidence that the hijackers got on board armed with "cardboard cutters and knives" (according to witness Barbara Olsen); whereas you don't have a scrap of evidence for the nerve gas, which you just introduced to fill a gap in your hypothesis.
And this is the problem with your way of working. There is no evidence of nerve gas, and you had no
suspicion of nerve gas --- until you needed it to fill in one of the holes in your collander-like theory, when suddenly, hey presto! there it is, like the voice-morphing software and a method to radio control a mechanically steered jumbo jet.
- I have sketched the scenario regarding the stand-ins.
Sketched is the word.
The slipping out of the airport after checkin is the easiest part. Provided the security firm is Huntington, owned by Atzmon, a convicted criminal who was well acquainted with Olmert.
Has it occurred to you that the employees of a company are not mindless robot slaves of whoever owns it?
And that your slipping out the side theory is
contradicted by all the evidence.
Again, this bit where nineteen people are smuggled out of three separate airports doesn't appear in your hypothesis because there's a shred of evidence to show that it happened (indeed, the evidence shows that it didn't) but simply because you
need it to be true. But why should we
think that it's true?
Again, some 'hijackers' are reported to be alive.
See above. You mean "were", not "are".
Do not underestimate the difficulties your own conspiracy theory. You need no less than 19 people willing to commit suicide to start with!
Recruiting suicide bombers is the easy bit. They have no problem with that, you must have noticed.
Let that sink in. For a ridiculous motive. These guys were half westernized themselves. And they need to be part of a larger organisation as well with people who can talk.
You mean like al Qaeda saying "Yes, we did it"?
That is easy to say.
Many Truthers have said so, but none of them has actually produced a Bin Laden video capable of fooling al Jazeera and the CIA.
And why don't al Qaeda denounce the fakes? Could they be in on it?
As far as I am aware did bin Laden never claim he was behind it.
Perhaps you should have watched the video I posted.
Oh, but wait, tapes are "easy to fake".
So what do you want him to do, come round your house?
Oh, but wait, it could be a Mossad agent who's had plastic surgery ...
Again, I have to ask, do you have any
evidence the the al Qaeda tapes are faked ... or is it just something you require to fill up another gaping hole in your hypothesis?
This DNA from hijackers from the Ground Zero pile. You must be joking right?
DNA from the hotel rooms and vehicles used by the hijackers was matched to body parts found at crash sites. It follows either that the hijackers were indeed on the planes ... or that you're now going to add some more unevidenced bunkum to your hypothesis to get round that.
The did find Atta's passport though unscathed in a street nearby.
Satam al-Suqami's, I believe.
That was so obvious planted evidence; that was a real mistake to do that.
Saying that something is "obvious" is not actually a demonstration that it's true, you might want to work a little harder on that one.
Why is is "obviously" planted except that you (obviously)
need it to be planted, to square your hypothesis with reality?
You forget to mention our prominent member of that PNAC group that plotted for a global coup d'etat no less: Zakheim. He had worked 4 years as a CEO for a company that produced systems for remote control of airplanes.
Would that give him the power to retrofit mechanically-steered jumbo jets with radio control devices which don't exist in such a way that no-one would notice?
Bin Laden denied. Maybe that a couple of local loosers wanted to jump on the bandwagon acquiring local fame based on hot air.
Watch the video, or any of the other al Qaeda videos on YouTube or wherever.
I do not deny that the muslims world wide, being on second last position in the global pecking order (before Africa), liked that they had dealt America a blow. Self-esteem and stuff.
OK, earlier on you were claiming that they wouldn't
actually do 9/11 because of the consequences. Now you're claiming that they'd
pretend to have done it and hang the consequences ... to boost their self esteem?
This seems somewhat inconsistent.
That is to be decided by the readers.
Yes, and you are one of them. I am interested in your opinion.
Let's look at the two cases again.
I have documentary, eyewitness and forensic medical evidence that the hijackers had terrorist associations, made martyrdom tapes, bought knives, bought tickets, checked in, boarded the planes, took them over armed with knives and boxcutters, and were on the planes when they crashed. Oh, and al Qaeda claimed responsibility.
You have no evidence that the "hijackers" were successfully impersonated by Mossad agents for a couple of years, no evidence of them "slipping out the side", no evidence of complicity by airport staff, no evidence of nerve gas being smuggled onto the planes, no evidence that the planes had been fitted with remote control devices, no evidence that anyone has even designed such a device for such planes, no evidence that such a device was ever fitted to the planes, no explanation of how it could be fitted without anyone finding out, no evidence that real-time voice morphing such as could fool a parent or lover existed in 2001, no explanation as to how Mossad could have used this gimmick to impersonate people whose presence on the planes they could not have predicted ...
...
and you require that all the evidence we
do have is a fake; a proposition which is itself unsupported by any evidence.
So in your opinion, speaking as one of the readers by whom it is to be decided, which of us has the stronger case right now?
