If Al Qaeda Planned 9/11...

By your absurd standards of evidence, Jihadjane, NOBODY has ever been guilty of anything, ever, in the history of the Earth.

The largest criminal investigation in US history was conducted subsequent to 911, and most if not ALL of it is in the public domain to be seen and scrutinized by all. Take off your political blinders and read some of it sometime
 
JihadJane said:
Yes, whoever orchestrated the attacks used mass media MO to their advantage.



All I did was mention an initial thought that I had shortly after hearing about the attacks, a couple of days after they happened. You appear to have read much more into my statement than is actually there.



No, it was what one would expect. Bin Laden's PR success which would have been impossible without these natural consequences.{/quote]

I fail to see the difference between expectation and natural consequences.

To my mind the fact that these attacks recieved world wide coverage, some of it live, is a no-brainer and required no particular forethought or planning by the ochestrators of the attacks for it to occur. In fact it was one of the primary reasons to do it in the first place.

It seems that this is another case of you stating the obvious as if it has some particular significance regarding who the orchestrators were.




I have shown "no evidence to support such a view" because it was not relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Your contention is that it is very possible that this was orchestrated by others besides OBL/AQ. That you now say its not relevent to the discussion about whether or not that is the case is mind boggling.




I don't like to base judgements about history on belief. I don't know who planned and carried out the attacks. They have yet to be comprehensively investigated.
Click to expand...

Then base them on evidence rather than pure unadulterated speculation.

[quote}You stated that 911 made sense as PR for al Qeada. I agreed and suggested there could also have been a concrete strategic, economic warfare logic to the attacks.

Do you believe that if al Qaeda (or similar) "planned and carried out" the attacks, then that automatically rules out the involvement of anyone else?
Click to expand...
I also stated that there is ample evidence that OBL/AQ did the deed. While it is possible for others to have had a motivation to do this is a moot point if there is no evidence that they did it.
The fact that GWB squandered world sentiment following 9/11/01 and that they made specious arguements using 9/11 to further their own agenda is not evidence that they did the deed.
 
you know, truthers remind me of the parents of serial killers who are convicted of their crimes. Years later, despite the overwhelming evidence that their child carried out the acts, the parents are still in denial. They just can't bring themselves to face the facts, evidence be damned.

TAM:)
 
~enigma~ said:
Yes, that is what I meant and it would have been a good idea to ask before making a post claiming you disagree at the same time saying you agree.
Click to expand...

Wow. That was a bit more vehement than I would have expected.

Chill out a bit.
 
It is a very cold 58 here in Florida right now and I hear it might go down as low as 40 tonight.
 
jaydeehess said:
No, it was what one would expect. Bin Laden's PR success which would have been impossible without these natural consequences.

I fail to see the difference between expectation and natural consequences.
Click to expand...

I agree. Do you not think PR practitioners use "natural consquences" to aid their manipulations?

To my mind the fact that these attacks recieved world wide coverage, some of it live, is a no-brainer and required no particular forethought or planning by the ochestrators of the attacks for it to occur. In fact it was one of the primary reasons to do it in the first place.

It seems that this is another case of you stating the obvious as if it has some particular significance regarding who the orchestrators were.
Click to expand...

I was talking specifically about live coverage of the actual attacks, namely the second strike on the Towers.

You persist ignoring the fact that my thought about bin Laden doing well to get the attacks live on TV occured, as I have stated above, years before I had any doubts about the bin-Laden-dunnit story. Why?

The twin nature of the target allowed the attackers to attack one building, wait a bit for everyone to get seated comfortably in front of their TVs and then attack the other. The hijacked aeroplane’s inexplicable meanderings around US air space may have been deliberate or simply random but it is hard to imagine a more powerful way of delivering shock and awe to the mass US mind than to get people to witness live horror and US helplessness on their TVs. Osama bin Laden did well, apparently.

jaydeehess said:
JihadJane:

You stated that 911 made sense as PR for al Qeada. I agreed and suggested there could also have been a concrete strategic, economic warfare logic to the attacks.

Do you believe that if al Qaeda (or similar) "planned and carried out" the attacks, then that automatically rules out the involvement of anyone else?
Click to expand...

I also stated that there is ample evidence that OBL/AQ did the deed. While it is possible for others to have had a motivation to do this is a moot point if there is no evidence that they did it.
The fact that GWB squandered world sentiment following 9/11/01 and that they made specious arguments using 9/11 to further their own agenda is not evidence that they did the deed.
Click to expand...

I see you have neglected to answer the my most important question:

“Do you believe that if al Qaeda (or similar) "planned and carried out" the attacks, then that automatically rules out the involvement of anyone else?”

I was talking about bin Laden's strategic motivations rather than those of the US . However, In the light of other wars that have been started with staged events or simply with a lie, the 911 wars do arouse understandable suspicion about nature of the 911 attacks.

Where is the “ample evidence that OBL/AQ did the deed” unaided? As far as I know there has been little official investigation into this.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
I was talking specifically about live coverage of the actual attacks, namely the second strike on the Towers.
<snip>
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I have no idea if they planned it like that but if it was it was genius on their part

Where is the “ample evidence that OBL/AQ did the deed” unaided? As far as I know there has been little official investigation into this.
Click to expand...

I know you're not replying to me here, but there is zero evidence anyone else was involved, period. That would lead any real skeptic to believe nobody else was involved. I don't know if they specifically investigated if "OBL/AQ did the did the dead unaided," but they definitely investigated who did it. PENTTBOMB was the largest criminal investigation of all time, 7,000 FBI agents were involved at one point. If somebody else was involved, (1) The additional conspirators (I suppose this would be the Bush Administration in your view), are smartest evil conspirators of all time for outsmarting thousands of FBI agents and everybody else that matters. (2) The FBI is the most incompetent law enforcement agency in the world for missing it. (3) The FBI is in on it. (4) Some sort of combination.

Which is it?
 
Last edited:
Since this investigation, the largest criminal investigation of all time, wasn't good enough for people like JihadJane, 2 things are probably in order:

1. Since JihadJane is so familiar with the investigation (to know it wasn't good enough one certainly needs to know what it contained) perhaps we can be enlightened as to where it was lacking.

2. If it wasn't good enough, exactly WHAT WOULD have been good enough?

ETA: Maybe it's this whole American thing. The investigation was headed by those evil bastards; it just MUST be corrupt.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
I was talking specifically about live coverage of the actual attacks, namely the second strike on the Towers.

You persist ignoring the fact that my thought about bin Laden doing well to get the attacks live on TV occured, as I have stated above, years before I had any doubts about the bin-Laden-dunnit story. Why?

The twin nature of the target allowed the attackers to attack one building, wait a bit for everyone to get seated comfortably in front of their TVs and then attack the other. The hijacked aeroplane’s inexplicable meanderings around US air space may have been deliberate or simply random but it is hard to imagine a more powerful way of delivering shock and awe to the mass US mind than to get people to witness live horror and US helplessness on their TVs. Osama bin Laden did well, apparently.
Click to expand...

I am wondering why you consider this to be such an important point. Do you think that this was something extraordinarily clever or difficult to do? Perhaps suspiciously beyond your expected capabalities for AQ/Osama? The planes were scheduled to take off (and did consequently) 15 minutes apart. Neither set of hijackers would know precisely when the other set had completed the hijacking and were on route to the target. After the first plane crash, you are virtually ensured that within about 5 minutes, every camera in the New York area is going to be pointed in the direction of the Towers. Perhaps only a minute or so longer for those cameras to be feeding live TV. As long as the second plane does not hit within 5 minutes of the first impact, there is no way to keep it off live TV. Coordinating to the point of keeping it off live TV would be something extraordinary. Having it on live TV is something that would almost inevitably follow from the decision to use more than one plane. Having it on live TV is not an indicator of particularly clever thinking, suspicion-worthy or otherwise. So again, why is this an important point to you?
 
JihadJane said:
I agree. Do you not think PR practitioners use "natural consquences" to aid their manipulations?
Click to expand...


You really do have a knack for pointing out the obvious. Its basically the definition of one type of PR - generating hype.
Do I believe that this required more than two brain cells to fire off in the correct sequence in the mind of whomever thought of it, no!



I was talking specifically about live coverage of the actual attacks, namely the second strike on the Towers.
Click to expand...

Which I have mentioned several times and which you seemed to rub you the wrong way.

You persist ignoring the fact that my thought about bin Laden doing well to get the attacks live on TV occured, as I have stated above, years before I had any doubts about the bin-Laden-dunnit story. Why?

The twin nature of the target allowed the attackers to attack one building, wait a bit for everyone to get seated comfortably in front of their TVs and then attack the other. The hijacked aeroplane’s inexplicable meanderings around US air space may have been deliberate or simply random but it is hard to imagine a more powerful way of delivering shock and awe to the mass US mind than to get people to witness live horror and US helplessness on their TVs. Osama bin Laden did well, apparently.
Click to expand...

I have not ignored it. I have been trying to say that it was far from genius(sorry dtugg), it was a no-brainer that it would get a lot of coverage. That there were a multitude of cameras on site for the second impact may have been a consideration in planning the time between impacts but it is just as likely that it was a consequence of taking into account other factors. A delay between impacts , avoided having the two aircraft in the same airspace and heading for basically the same target at the same time would mean the pilots would also have to be very concerned with where the other guy was thus adding to the difficulty, and having a 1/2 hour or so between impacts would allow the second aircraft to look for the large smoke plume to guide him to the area. (You put the best navigator in the first plane). So the fact that the second impact was caught live is also quite probably the consequence of the tactical plan for the attack and not a specific part of the stradtegic plan.



I see you have neglected to answer the my most important question:

“Do you believe that if al Qaeda (or similar) "planned and carried out" the attacks, then that automatically rules out the involvement of anyone else?”
Click to expand...

That would be a subset of the contentions that use the mere fact of possible motivation as the basis for suspicion.

There is no evidence that I have seen that points in that direction, only suggestions that would be accompanied by spooky music in 911 TM videos.

I was talking about bin Laden's strategic motivations rather than those of the US . However, In the light of other wars that have been started with staged events or simply with a lie, the 911 wars do arouse understandable suspicion about nature of the 911 attacks.
Click to expand...

Yes, the whole 9/11 attacks was a strategic manouver. It required a tactical plan to carry them out but I truly doubt that AQ thought that attacking 4 targets in the USA would bring the country to its knees. GWB mismanaged the aftermath to accomplish this himself, but I highly doubt that bin Laden was counting on it.

Where is the “ample evidence that OBL/AQ did the deed” unaided? As far as I know there has been little official investigation into this.
Click to expand...

You want me to prove a negative?
Where is the evidence that AQ was consciously aided by anyone who's interests should have been quite the opposite?
 
jaydeehess said:
I have not ignored it. I have been trying to say that it was far from genius(sorry dtugg), it was a no-brainer that it would get a lot of coverage. That there were a multitude of cameras on site for the second impact may have been a consideration in planning the time between impacts but it is just as likely that it was a consequence of taking into account other factors. A delay between impacts , avoided having the two aircraft in the same airspace and heading for basically the same target at the same time would mean the pilots would also have to be very concerned with where the other guy was thus adding to the difficulty, and having a 1/2 hour or so between impacts would allow the second aircraft to look for the large smoke plume to guide him to the area. (You put the best navigator in the first plane). So the fact that the second impact was caught live is also quite probably the consequence of the tactical plan for the attack and not a specific part of the stradtegic plan.
Click to expand...

First, it's 17 mins between impacts not a 1/2 hour. Secondly, you're suggesting that Alshehhi and the other hijackers were able to navigate from Mass to NYC, but would need a plume of smoke to guide them into the WTC. That's ridiculous.

[...]
Yes, the whole 9/11 attacks was a strategic manouver. It required a tactical plan to carry them out but I truly doubt that AQ thought that attacking 4 targets in the USA would bring the country to its knees. GWB mismanaged the aftermath to accomplish this himself, but I highly doubt that bin Laden was counting on it.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure OBL didn't expect that two planes would destroy 7 buildings either.
 
RedIbis said:
Secondly, you're suggesting that Alshehhi and the other hijackers were able to navigate from Mass to NYC, but would need a plume of smoke to guide them into the WTC. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Leaving aside the question of whether it was needed or not, the fact remains that the column of smoke from the very large fires burning after the first impact would be easily visible at a distance much greater than the buildings themselves would be visible.
 
JihadJane said:
The hijacked aeroplane’s inexplicable meanderings around US air space may have been deliberate or simply random
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, if you look at 175's flightpath there isn't all that much "inexplicable meandering" at all. after the hijack it carries on on much the same direction for a while, then loops about and comes into NY from the south. That's it.
 
RedIbis said:
First, it's 17 mins between impacts not a 1/2 hour. Secondly, you're suggesting that Alshehhi and the other hijackers were able to navigate from Mass to NYC, but would need a plume of smoke to guide them into the WTC. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The didn't navigate from Mass to NYC, the hijacking occured over the State of NY.
 
RedIbis said:
First, it's 17 mins between impacts not a 1/2 hour.
Click to expand...

Big deal. 17 minutes is plenty of time to get a camaera to a location in a TV town like Manhattan.
If any body is interested , US Airways flight 1549 has a scheduled departure time of 2:45pm(EST I assume). I do not know what time the news cameras were there. I was watching it live at 3pm CST, an hour later but only because I happened to turn CBS on from the vable station I was watching.

Secondly, you're suggesting that Alshehhi and the other hijackers were able to navigate from Mass to NYC, but would need a plume of smoke to guide them into the WTC. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No, I am saying that navigating to a large area such as NYC is not much of a problem. Navigating to a specific structure in Manhattan requires a little more precision. I am also NOT saying that either pilot "would need " a plume of smoke to navigate to that specific structure but that it would make the job a whole lot easier for the second pilot.

navigating from anywhere east of Boston to NYC is a left turn, look out the window , find a river, identify that river on a map that you have studied in the weeks prior, locate your position on the map and note your heading, adjust flight path,,, continue doing so until you reach NYC and use major roadways, which you have also studied in the weeks prior, to naivagte by . (or use the on board navigation devices). If there is a plume of smoke rising from the general place on the horizon that you expect it to then aim for that and wait for the towers, the tallest structures of their kind in the world, to be shilouetted against the backdrop of the ocean.

Jeebus krist, RI, the bush pilots I had fly me around the northern boreal forest in the 1990's navigated over larger distances with no electronic navigation devices and over territory in which all one can do is go by the distictive shapes of lakes and curves in the rivers. A map on one knee was all they needed if they had not been to the specific community before and for the ones that were only a 2 hour trip (Beaver float plane does about 120 MPH IIRC) they did it by memory. They were finding communities with populations numbering a few hundred in a vast land of coniferous trees and lakes with NO roads, and NO railways leading to them.
Try looking up "North Spirit Lake, Ontario" in google earth.

I'm pretty sure OBL didn't expect that two planes would destroy 7 buildings either.
Click to expand...

Me too. He may have thought it possible but not required as far as the PR terror that was the reason for the attacks.
Of course you say 7 buildings, but just looking at the WTC complex it is obvious that if a tower comes down buildings nearby are not going to survive.
 
Flight 1549
The plane had 148 passengers, Brown said, and either five or six crew members on board when it took off at 3:26 p.m. It was airborne for less than three minutes, she said
Click to expand...

So it crashed about 3:30 EST = 2:30 CST

i was seeing it live at 3:01pm CST. I don't know when the coverage began but I was watching it only half an hour after it crashed in a much less accessible location than downtown Manhattan.

Same for the crash in Toronto a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom