If Al Qaeda Planned 9/11...

[Bell]

What what??!!

Do I understand this right? The fact that the crash of UA175 was live on tv is some kind of proof of a conspiracy??

Please tell me I misunderstood this

 

[beachnut]

Actually, considering it was hijacked 27 mins after take off, it probably occured over Jersey or Pennsylvania.

No, New York or New Jersey; you may be half right. But you forgot to read the available research like you post the paper you failed to comment on, or address.



The terrorist pilots studied how to find the WTC for years. It only takes a few months to use instruments on the plane to find any place in the United States. This is one real dumb idea; the terrorist can’t find the WTC. They could see the smoke from Flight 11 from 100 miles easy, maybe 200 if you have Chuck Yeager or Beachnut”s original equipment eyes. The same system of navigation found in the 767 could be practiced in small planes. VORs, they work and pilots with much less time than the terrorist use VOR and DME to fly to places everyday. The flying and navigation is easy when you have years to learn or plan.

 

[RedIbis]

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.

You mean like the two tallest and most prominent structures in the skyline?

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.

Unless they happened to be a building other than those in the WTC, since no other building collapsed that day.

 

[RedIbis]

No, New York or New Jersey; you may be half right. But you forgot to read the available research like you post the paper you failed to comment on, or address.

Ok, then post your available research that approximates 175's location at the time of hijacking.

 

[beachnut]

Ok, then post your available research that approximates 175's location at the time of hijacking.

You lack of research is apparent on each post as you miss the mark, the facts, and make flippant (like me) comments based on your failed opinions (not like me).

Look it up yourself and prove your point. Stand up for you own ideas proven wrong so often. You present the evidence why you got the wrong answer on this and most of 9/11. Or is it a 50 percent thing?

Look it up, you cold be right once. Maybe you are not a 911 truth believer after all if you can look up your own stuff.

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

BTW, the above contains flippancy and contempt.

As do most of the posts at this forum.

 

[RedIbis]

As do most of the posts at this forum.

Great avatar. I'm not a fan of speed metal guitar, but I appreciate how unique Buckethead is.

 

[JihadJane]

I know you're not replying to me here, but there is zero evidence anyone else was involved, period.

I am not operating policy of not replying to you. Who has the resources and motivation to dig up this evidence, should it exist?

Where is the evidence that AQ was consciously aided by anyone who's interests should have been quite the opposite?

The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism was aided by covert relationships with the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey and probably others. Investigations into al Qaeda in the US were obstructed before and after 911.

I am wondering why you consider this to be such an important point.

I don't. It's just something I mentioned in passing as my initial response to hearing about the attacks. Perhaps you are confusing me with jaydeehess!

What what??!!

Do I understand this right? The fact that the crash of UA175 was live on tv is some kind of proof of a conspiracy??

Please tell me I misunderstood this

You misunderstood this.

 

[funk de fino]

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.

Big mistake showing JJ's false claims up. You will now become persona non grata or be accused of being thuggish in your tone because you have made it look silly. No more replies for you young man.

 

[JihadJane]

Big mistake showing JJ's false claims up. You will now become persona non grata or be accused of being thuggish in your tone because you have made it look silly. No more replies for you young man.

Technical correction:

Headmistressish charade, not "thuggish".

 

[funk de fino]

Technical correction:

Headmistressish charade, not "thuggish".

Technical clarification>

So you are saying you have never used the term thuggish in any post directed at me?

 

[GStan]

<snip>

I don't. It's just something I mentioned in passing as my initial response to hearing about the attacks. Perhaps you are confusing me with jaydeehess!

<snip>

You have "mentioned it in passing" five different times in this thread, despite the fact that you allegedly don't think its important.

Post 11

My first thought when I heard about the attacks was that bin Laden did well to get it live on TV. Perfect mass media manipulation.

Post 20

I don't understand the connection between my comment and your comment. Please explain what you think my comment was about. All I said was that I thought bin Laden was good at mass media manipulation. Where's the incredulity in that?

Post 45

I was impressed by the fact that the perpetrators got millions of people to watch their TVs and then gave them a repeat, live, performance. It was a perfect psychological operation. Those here who, in their unthinking, knee-jerk fashion, translate this into meaning that I question the authenticity of the Naudet brothers documentary are simply revealing their naivety about the mass media and their over-reliance on comforting stereotypes about "Truthers" . The mass media can be manipulated simply by staging events.

Post 168

Yes, whoever orchestrated the attacks used mass media MO to their advantage.

Post 189

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.

Your observation that bin Laden "did well" to get the attacks on live TV, or that the mass media was somehow manipulated into their coverage of the event is invalid and pointless. He did not "do well" and their was no manipulation. Your observation is only slightly more relevant than stating that those who orchestrated the attacks "did well" to manipulate the giant yellow orb in the sky to breach the NYC horizon, thus ensuring that people could see the attacks in the light of day.

I'm quite sure Bin Laden was aware that news organizations tend to point their cameras at newsworthy events. Whoa! Did he get a PhD in journalism or communications to figure that out? You should stop persistantly "just mentioning this in passing" as if the point is somehow consequential in discussing the narrative of 9/11. It isn't. News organizations cover newsworthy events as a natural consequence of newsworthy events happening.

 

[JihadJane]

You have "mentioned it in passing" five different times in this thread

In response to jaydeehess.

 

[GStan]

In response to jaydeehess.

Ok, now it is obvious that you are just playing games to avoid admission of your error. In post 11, (before JDH ever even posted in this thread), you first made the claim that “…bin Laden did well to get it live on TV. Perfect mass media manipulation.” You brought it up. You’ve been shown why that is not accurate and why it is not important by several members, yet you have continued to defend it. Weakness in your childish argument is further illustrated by the fact that you chose to respond to this, (a tongue-in-cheek comment by me):

You have "mentioned it in passing" five different times in this thread, despite the fact that you allegedly don't think its important.

…and completely ignored all of this (the part that shows why you were not correct):

Your observation that bin Laden "did well" to get the attacks on live TV, or that the mass media was somehow manipulated into their coverage of the event is invalid and pointless. He did not "do well" and there was no manipulation. Your observation is only slightly more relevant than stating that those who orchestrated the attacks "did well" to manipulate the giant yellow orb in the sky to breach the NYC horizon, thus ensuring that people could see the attacks in the light of day.

I'm quite sure Bin Laden was aware that news organizations tend to point their cameras at newsworthy events. Whoa! Did he get a PhD in journalism or communications to figure that out? You should stop persistantly "just mentioning this in passing" as if the point is somehow consequential in discussing the narrative of 9/11. It isn't. News organizations cover newsworthy events as a natural consequence of newsworthy events happening.

There is no shame in admitting that you were incorrect about a claim. Its part of learning. There is far more shame in the willful denial of the same. Will you admit that your claim/observation was not correct so that we can move on to discussing other things that you perhaps may not be so obviously incorrect about?

 

[jaydeehess]

You mean like the two tallest and most prominent structures in the skyline?

You now choose to re-iterate one of my own points?
So are you changing sides in this debate?
I wrote;
"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"

Unless they happened to be a building other than those in the WTC, since no other building collapsed that day.

Gee, go figure, the closest buildings to the towers suffered catastrophic damage and either collapsed the same day or had to be torn down. (including the non-WTC structure, the Bankers Trust" building ---ooops RI's point evaporates...........)

Did you actually have a point to make here about any possible nefarious acts carried out by any other means than what we find in the so called , "official narritive"?

 

[jaydeehess]

I am not operating policy of not replying to you. Who has the resources and motivation to dig up this evidence, should it exist?

The point is that if there is ample evidence of one senario and no, or a small amount of very incidental evidence, of a conflicting one then the fact that the other senario has been conjured up is not evidence that it has any validity at all.

The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism was aided by covert relationships with the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey and probably others. Investigations into al Qaeda in the US were obstructed before and after 911.

The tactic of befriending the enemy of one's enemy gave rise to fundementalist Islamic groups. I agree, it was a bad tactic that came back to bite the USA on the butt. It is even possible that a small group in the CIA still wanted to keep these 'friends' as a hedge against a rising Russia but the Presidential breifings warning about AQ seem to suggest otherwise. Perhaps GWB/Cheney thought they could still 'use' AQ if Russia again made noises about re-entering Afghanistan or another Islamic nation.

I don't. It's just something I mentioned in passing as my initial response to hearing about the attacks. Perhaps you are confusing me with jaydeehess!

My response was that your intial thought was incredibly naive. I believe that GStan and I have both now done this topic to its inevitable death.

You misunderstood this.

Indeed, JJ is saying that no matter who did it that the fact that cameras were on hand to capture the events, including one impact caught live, was a particularily striking bit of planning.
Furthermore she is suggesting (spooky music, "think about it" Les Nessman style) that a group that wished theses attacks to take place in order to further an agenda of US hegonomy (sp?) would also really, really want such coverage.
I am saying that there is no stradegy involved in arranging anything to obtain such coverage, the point is barely significant . It's only significance is that , yes, that is a major reason for carrying out the attacks in the first place, to get the attention of the western world! Sonnufabitch, it worked!

 

[DGM]

Unless they happened to be a building other than those in the WTC, since no other building collapsed that day.

Actually let's be accurate. WTC 1, 2, 3, 7, Saint Nicks Cathedral and the Sky bridge (from WTC1 to WFC) all collapsed.

Thats 5 buildings and one large structure.

ETA these are total collapses not partials.

 

[jaydeehess]

Actually let's be accurate. WTC 1, 2, 3, 7, Saint Nicks Cathedral and the Sky bridge (from WTC1 to WFC) all collapsed.

Thats 5 buildings and one large structure.

ETA these are total collapses not partials.

WTC 4, 5, 6 and Banker's Trust were later torn down.

 

[JihadJane]

Ok, now it is obvious that you are just playing games to avoid admission of your error. In post 11, (before JDH ever even posted in this thread), you first made the claim that “…bin Laden did well to get it live on TV. Perfect mass media manipulation.” You brought it up. You’ve been shown why that is not accurate and why it is not important by several members, yet you have continued to defend it. Weakness in your childish argument is further illustrated by the fact that you chose to respond to this, (a tongue-in-cheek comment by me):

There was no indication that your comment was "tongue-in-cheek".

My original comment wasn't a claim. It was a report of an initial thought that I had when I first heard about the attacks. Jaydeehess attempted to elevate into a claim and I attempted (in vain!) to correct his/her misapprehension. Others posters have had similar thoughts about bin Laden's psy-op skills so whether my observation was "accurate" or "correct" is still a moot point on this thread.

The point is that if there is ample evidence of one senario and no, or a small amount of very incidental evidence, of a conflicting one then the fact that the other senario has been conjured up is not evidence that it has any validity at all.

There isn't "ample evidence" of either scenario. A lot of vital evidence has been destroyed.

Evidence of Intelligence manipulation and evidence of a terrorist plot are very different in nature. The main evidence indicating any covert Military/Intelligence operation is the ensuing cover-up. There is also evidence of pre-911 investigations being obstructed from upper end of the chain of command.

The tactic of befriending the enemy of one's enemy gave rise to fundementalist Islamic groups. I agree, it was a bad tactic that came back to bite the USA on the butt. It is even possible that a small group in the CIA still wanted to keep these 'friends' as a hedge against a rising Russia but the Presidential breifings warning about AQ seem to suggest otherwise. Perhaps GWB/Cheney thought they could still 'use' AQ if Russia again made noises about re-entering Afghanistan or another Islamic nation.

It is also possible that "a small group in the CIA" or some other group in some other organisation would seek to use Islamic militants to further other agendas. Note, also, that the US allied with Islamic Fundamentalists in the Balkans and that al Qaeda is allegedly part of the Afghanistan/US/Turkey illicit drug business.

Indeed, JJ is saying that no matter who did it that the fact that cameras were on hand to capture the events, including one impact caught live, was a particularily striking bit of planning.

I 'll say it again as you still appear not to have registered it, I was only talking about the "one impact". All the rest is your red herring.

Furthermore she is suggesting (spooky music, "think about it" Les Nessman style) that a group that wished theses attacks to take place in order to further an agenda of US hegonomy (sp?) would also really, really want such coverage.

Perhaps, while you're checking the spelling of "hegonomy" you could find out what the word means and how it might be relevant to US foreign policy.

I am saying that there is no stradegy involved in arranging anything to obtain such coverage, the point is barely significant . It's only significance is that , yes, that is a major reason for carrying out the attacks in the first place, to get the attention of the western world! Sonnufabitch, it worked!

Which is what I said: "a major reason for carrying out the attacks in the first place," was "to get the attention of the western world" and “it worked". You have been arguing with your own projections.

Terrorism is, by definition, a strategy for obtaining "such coverage". 911 was very visual-media-friendly and psychologically direct in a way that, for example, that blowing up a nuclear power station would not have been.

 

[gumboot]

WTC 4, 5, 6 and Banker's Trust were later torn down.

Plus 30 West Broadway and a couple of row houses south of the WTC site.

Oh yeah, and the Church.