The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[chipmunk stew]

<snip>

Let me explain: The trajectory of that plane had an downwards angle of 0.88°-0.99° no matter in wich direction the nose pointed at that time. It was horizontal on purpose right in the moment of impact. Your holy NIST was way off. (Same for AA11.)

<snip>

Evidence?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Even if we take your analysis as holy gospel, achimspok, you still are describing a sloppy approach that almost missed. Why is an Arab caveman or towelhead or whatever other racist idea you have about them unable to be sloppy?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

Even if we take your analysis as holy gospel, achimspok, you still are describing a sloppy approach that almost missed. Why is an Arab caveman or towelhead or whatever other racist idea you have about them unable to be sloppy?

achimspok didn't put those words in your mouth. you did

 

[chipmunk stew]

achimspok didn't put those words in your mouth. you did

Oh my mistake. "coke brains and rubber boat cave warriors"

Better?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

whatever helps you live with yourself

 

[beachnut]

Poor old man. You have no clue and no argument. All you do is riding on a long admitted and corrected failure or constructing a failure that isn't there. It just proves that you have no clue.

Your data is flawed, you can't explain why your data has 4.33 g longitudinal acceleration, followed by -2g acceleration when the max acceleration at takeoff with full power is 0.362g. You have to call me an old man, and I have no clue, when it is your data which is flawed and you can't correct your errors in your bad data. Go ahead call me names, it is your data; I suggest you learn how to math instead of relying on name calling.

As I said, you have no clue. I'm not interested what NIST said about the fuselage. They were 7 degree off lateral 5 degree off vertical and 20-60mph off speed. Who cares if NIST estimated 1 degree above level? NIST had no clue how to do it and you either. You even don't get the meaning of the image I gave you for the very basic understanding.
Let me explain: The trajectory of that plane had an downwards angle of 0.88°-0.99° no matter in wich direction the nose pointed at that time. It was horizontal on purpose right in the moment of impact. Your holy NIST was way off. (Same for AA11.)

You are off speed, you data is nonsense. And the only thing you can do is say I have no clue, yet your data is bad.

You proved again you can't explain or prove what direction 175 was going at impact. NIST is as right as you are. And your data has major errors you refuse to discuss or fix.

... with Greenland?

You make up nonsense when you can't figure out the terrorists lined up 40 miles out with the WTC, it is verified by RADAR.

If you bank and lose your wing too. We know wich direction the plane was gone. We know how much and how fast. You don't know.

If you roll into a bank and push your plane goes the other direction, it is how things fly, simple vectors, simple math which in your hands makes up fake numbers, like 7.09g. Your point?

Prove your nonsensical official story and get the Nobel Prize. Tell the story without omitting the "not fitting" 49%! So far, you did a terrible job.

Pulitzer Prize. Try to get something right.

lazy bank, precise hit, no passport escaped, CIA lied to you, everything fits together. That's it. You story do not fit together. You have the delusion of coke brains and rubber boat cave warriors who overcame a military system by the coordination of a student in Hamburg who used the codeword Porsche911 or Holy Tuesday?

Wow, you are into woo, and your data is bad.

Hey, Atta bought his ticket on August 28? Do you get it? No, you don't.

And?

Are you able to read? No, you don't read. You just repeat your nonsense over and over.

You can't remember your own data, you have no clue what you said. No need to present your numbers on anything, your data is not correct.

For the record: GO BACK AND START READING!

Go back and fix your data, and next time try to remember the false information you can't remember or repeat.

You already estimated the radius? The velocity vector was where? Kinetic energy was the same? Bank limitation? blooblahblup?

Yes I use math and physics, you use failed video analysis. You can't remember you own numbers, save 7.09g, and you can't explain 4.33 g and -2g in your data, you failed to check.

I don't need to retract anything. You have to start from scrach with your nonsensical arab story.

7.09g comes to mind.

You don't need to explain again why I have a 4.33 acceleration because I did it two times already. You don't get it. GO BACK AND START READING!
My resolution 30m, your resolution 160m!
My resolution 1s, your resolution 5 s!
My a = ( ve² - v0² ) / ( 2 * (s+/-15m) ), your a = ( ve² - v0² ) / ( 2 * (s+/-80m) )

It is your data, it has 4.33g and -2g in the longitudinal data, your data, not my resolution, your data. Your video analysis is not very good, now what? How did you get data showing such large changes in velocity? Zoom lens zooming? I have no data, there was no major g force, or the wings would be bending more.

Your equations do not explain acceleration, they explain your failure to use math. You really have no clue how to do acceleration, your 7.09g failure proved it, and now your smoke screen equations, pushing more technobabble, show you are unable to figure out your data is wrong.

My data: I see the behaviour of the plane.
Your data: You are lined up with Greenland somehow.

Lined up with the WTC.

Get your story straight! Torture won't help.

You have no story, but you have many paranoid conspiracy theories.

P.S. the collision physics give a brown pretzel on the roll angle. Any freakin' particle will move along it's trajectory. The only acceleration is given by plane meets columns.

Sure. Next time try using ordinary differential equations instead of woo.

 

[achimspok]

Evidence?

You simply can rule out "horizontal by accident".
You can rule out "impact by accident" also.

Enough proof for everyone with a brain.

 

[beachnut]

You simply can rule out "horizontal by accident".
You can rule out "impact by accident" also.

Enough proof for everyone with a brain.

That explains it.
Your data has 4.33 g acceleration and -2 g acceleration; what went wrong?

Your study is not valid, you failed to present the math to go with it, the equations, etc. The terrorist aimed at the WTC, his last bank angle of 38 degrees give a 10 mile wide turn, not a precise turn, not much at all, considering precise is a level shot from miles out, like professional pilots do everyday landing.

 

[achimspok]

Even if we take your analysis as holy gospel, achimspok, you still are describing a sloppy approach that almost missed. Why is an Arab caveman or towelhead or whatever other racist idea you have about them unable to be sloppy?

Nonsense, I describe an approach at about 600mph, levelled from 50m/s to < 4m/s (0.9°) leaving enough space to shallow banking (38°) into an almost perpendicular trajectory (0.9°/7.5°) within the last 9 seconds instead of simply aiming at the tower. Final cross wind 9m/s. Impact 7-8m off center.
That's pretty good no matter what Beachnut wants you to believe.


An indication for Beachnut telling pretzels is the plane at 10s prior to impact still points away from the wind and tower instead against the wind. If the plane would be flown by hand aiming at the tower then it would instinctively aim somewhere between tower and "against the wind" to nullify the effect of the wind. Instead it still aimed in the direction of One Liberty Plaza enlarging the effect of wind and flew a nice shallow banana into a "as much as possible" perpendicular vector. That's the exact opposite than expectable for "aiming" by a terrible pilot.
The "sloppy approach" isn't sloppy at all.

 

[achimspok]

That explains it.
Your data has 4.33 g acceleration and -2 g acceleration; what went wrong?

Need explanation for the 3rd time? You don't understand the effect of a small positional failure (one pixel size) on velocity and acceleration, right? Little exercise for you: Please calculate the velocities and accelerations for two possible flight path given by your positional data.

Hence, your data are not valid. You failed to present the math to go with it. Babble babble babble...

 

[beachnut]

Nonsense, I describe an approach at about 600mph, levelled from 50m/s to < 4m/s (0.9°) leaving enough space to shallow banking (38°) into an almost perpendicular trajectory (0.9°/7.5°) within the last 9 seconds instead of simply aiming at the tower. Final cross wind 9m/s. Impact 7-8m off center.
That's pretty good no matter what Beachnut wants you to believe.


An indication for Beachnut telling pretzels is the plane at 10s prior to impact still points away from the wind and tower instead against the wind. If the plane would be flown by hand aiming at the tower then it would instinctively aim somewhere between tower and "against the wind" to nullify the effect of the wind. Instead it still aimed in the direction of One Liberty Plaza enlarging the effect of wind and flew a nice shallow banana into a "as much as possible" perpendicular vector. That's the exact opposite than expectable for "aiming" by a terrible pilot.
The "sloppy approach" isn't sloppy at all.

Very sloppy, an experienced pilot would see the drift and put in the exact correction about 6 miles out. But then you are not a pilot. Are you? You are a failed video analyst with zero credentials.

A good pilot would have been level with the proper drift. The terrorist let the plane bank, doubt he had a clue. The wings are not flexing with great g, the final turn diameter is 10 miles minimum, not a tight turn, not a fancy maneuver.

Wrong stuff, not the right stuff. A new pilot, a first flight pilot aiming at a building or runway would end up homing in, or not seeing the velocity vector, it is something a low time pilot might do. Home into the target, make corrections late.

The 38 degree of bank would give a 10 mile wide turn, not really a big thing, and much too little to make a big difference. This is why the terrorists was essentially lined up for over 40 miles, and proof is in the last 5 miles, lined up with the WTC, no maneuvers. What is your claim, it was an autopilot? Gee, the autopilot only goes to 25 degrees, and the planes were stock, no modifications. Sorry, your delusions are showing.

No major turn, no big maneuver, just a bad pilot crashing into a wide very tall runway, infinitely easier than landing on course on a runway. For landing, which the terrorists actually did, requires to be on course, and in landing attitude. Crashing into buildings only requires hitting them, not lining up on course.

19 terrorists did 911. You make up failed video analysis and leave out the math. Cool, you make up fake data, with 4.33gs and -2gs of acceleration in the longitudinal axis of flight 175. It is impossible. You just keep posting crazy claims of CIA, and other smoke screen nonsense. But you can't explain why your data failed.

Wind is invisible, can't see it to put in the drift; proof a pilot was on his first flight in a large jet. Gee, you keep proving it was a terrorist pilot flying. Good job.

Proof from RADAR, the terrorist pilot rolled out and from 40 miles lined up with the WTC towers which are the tallest buildings in NYC. Surprise, they are visible even to Islamic dolts committing suicide to kill Americans.

The terrorist pilots trained for year to fly to do a job a kid off the street could do better.

Going 510 knots mean you get to your target quicker.

Any clue why you got 4.33gs and -2gs on your data? You do understand that you data has impossible accelerations in it? You have no idea. You posted a link to math but failed to use it.

Your data, 4.33 g and -2 g in the longitudinal axis, which is essentially impossible, and you keep ignoring your data by making up other claims of resolution etc. to cover your failed work.

... explain the 4.33 and -2 g in your data. Drop the smoke screen. Zoom

 

[dafydd]

You simply can rule out "horizontal by accident".
You can rule out "impact by accident" also.

Enough proof for everyone with a brain.

Have you ever met a truther with a fully functioning brain? I haven't.

 

[twinstead]

Enough proof for everyone with a brain.

Let me guess. You think only people who agree with you have "a brain".

 

[achimspok]

There have been 29 pages and counting on this thread so far, running the gamut as to the how's, the who's and the whats of a non-religious fanatic inspired attack on 9/11, but one thing I haven't seen (and I'll confess I didn't bother reading every post as after the first five or six pages, the voices in my head started arguing with each other) is: why?
Specifically, why go to the immense amount of trouble, risk, and exposure to set in motion a chain of events similar to the ones that 9/11 inititated when there are obviously simpler, smaller, more secure,and infinitely less risky methods to achieving the same objective?
If the government/Gnomes of Zurich/Illuminati/ insert shadowy organization here wanted to invade the Mid-East/ procure Saddams oil at a discount/ steal Afghanistan's precious supply of rocks and barren desert/insert poorly reasoned motivation de jour here, there are lots of other ways that do not entail hushabooms/ special thermitic devices/ death rays/ insert outrageously impractical demolition methods here, that would require none of the above, use tried and true procedures, and have almost zero propensity for discovery then, now, or in the future.
So why an attack of this type to begin with?

What was the purpose of the terrorists? Was there any simpler, smaller, more secure and infinitely less risky method to achieving the same objective? Did they achieve any objective? Was the outcome exactly the expectable for both sides?

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) globalresearch.ca
23 January 2002

According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan. ...

Hamid Karzai & GWB

Besides the pipline plans Afghanistan became 1# in worlds opium production.

CIA asset Ahmed Wali Karzai and brother of Hamid Karzai is 1# in Afghanistan's heroin production and drug trafficking today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?_r=1&ref=asia
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/09/us-afghanistan-pardons-idUSTRE5684FW20090709
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7083433.ece

...
Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.

When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.

Quite to the contrary, recent meetings between U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain and that country's oil minister Usman Aminuddin indicate the pipeline project is international Project Number One for the Bush administration. Chamberlain, who maintains close ties to the Saudi ambassador to Pakistan (a one-time chief money conduit for the Taliban), has been pushing Pakistan to begin work on its Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline.

Meanwhile, President Bush says that U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for the long haul. Far from being engaged in Afghan peacekeeping -- the Europeans are doing much of that -- our troops will effectively be guarding pipeline construction personnel that will soon be flooding into the country.

Karzai's ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are the main reason why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader over rival Abdul Haq, the assassinated former mujaheddin leader from Jalalabad, and the leadership of the Northern Alliance, seen by Langley as being too close to the Russians and Iranians. Haq had no apparent close ties to the U.S. oil industry and, as both a Pushtun and a northern Afghani, was popular with a wide cross-section of the Afghan people, including the Northern Alliance. Those credentials likely sealed his fate.

When Haq entered Afghanistan from Pakistan last October (Oct 2001), his position was immediately known to Taliban forces, which subsequently pinned him and his small party down, captured, and executed them. Former Reagan National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, who worked with Haq, vainly attempted to get the CIA to help rescue Haq. The agency claimed it sent a remotely-piloted armed drone to attack the Taliban but its actions were too little and too late. Some observers in Pakistan claim the CIA tipped off the ISI about Haq's journey and the Pakistanis, in turn, informed the Taliban. McFarlane, who runs a K Street oil consulting firm, did not comment on further questions about the circumstances leading to the death of Haq.

While Haq was not part of the Bush administration's GOP (Grand Oil Plan) for South Asia, Karzai was a key player on the Bush Oil team. During the late 1990s, Karzai worked with an Afghani-American, Zalmay Khalilzad, on the CentGas project. Khalilzad is President Bush's Special National Security Assistant and recently named presidential Special Envoy for Afghanistan. Interestingly, in the White House press release naming Khalilzad special envoy, no mention was made of his past work for UNOCAL. ...

Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad & GWB

...
Khalilzad has worked on Afghan issues under National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, a former member of the board of Chevron, itself no innocent bystander in the future CentGas deal. Rice made an impression on her old colleagues at Chevron. The company has named one of their supertankers the SS Condoleezza Rice. ...

...
Khalilzad, a fellow Pashtun and the son of a former government official under King Mohammed Zahir Shah, was, in addition to being a consultant to the RAND Corporation, a special liaison between UNOCAL and the Taliban government. Khalilzad also worked on various risk analyses for the project.

Khalilzad's efforts complemented those of the Enron Corporation, a major political contributor to the Bush campaign. Enron, which recently filed for bankruptcy in the single biggest corporate collapse in the nation's history, conducted the feasibility study for the CentGas deal. Vice President Cheney held several secret meetings with top Enron officials, including its Chairman Kenneth Lay, earlier in 2001. These meetings were presumably part of Cheney's non-public Energy Task Force sessions. A number of Enron stockholders, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, became officials in the Bush administration. In addition, Thomas White, a former Vice Chairman of Enron and a multimillionaire in Enron stock, currently serves as the Secretary of the Army.

...
A chief benefactor in the CentGas deal would have been Halliburton, the huge oil pipeline construction firm that also had its eye on the Central Asian oil reserves. At the time, Halliburton was headed by Dick Cheney. After Cheney's selection as Bush's Vice Presidential candidate, Halliburton also pumped a huge amount of cash into the Bush-Cheney campaign coffers. And like oil cash cow Enron, there were Wall Street rumors in late December (2001) that Halliburton, which suffered a forty per cent drop in share value, might follow Enron into bankruptcy court.

Assisting with the CentGas negotiations with the Taliban was Laili Helms, the niece-in-law of former CIA Director Richard Helms. Laili Helms, also a relative of King Zahir Shah, was the Taliban's unofficial envoy to the United States and arranged for various Taliban officials to visit the United States. Laili Helms' base of operations was in her home in Jersey City on the Hudson River. Ironically, most of her work on behalf of the Taliban was practically conducted in the shadows of the World Trade Center, just across the river.

Laili Helms' liaison work for the Taliban paid off for Big Oil. In December 1997, the Taliban visited UNOCAL's Houston refinery operations. Interestingly, the chief Taliban leader based in Kandahar, Mullah Mohammed Omar, now on America's international Most Wanted List, was firmly in the UNOCAL camp. His rival Taliban leader in Kabul, Mullah Mohammed Rabbani (not to be confused with the head of the Northern Alliance Burhanuddin Rabbani), favored Bridas, an Argentine oil company, for the pipeline project. But Mullah Omar knew UNOCAL had pumped large sums of money to the Taliban hierarchy in Kandahar and its expatriate Afghan supporters in the United States. Some of those supporters were also close to the Bush campaign and administration. And Kandahar was the city near which the CentGas pipeline was to pass, a lucrative deal for the otherwise desert outpost.

While Clinton's State Department omitted Afghanistan from the top foreign policy priority list, the Bush administration, beholden to the oil interests that pumped millions of dollars into the 2000 campaign, restored Afghanistan to the top of the list, but for all the wrong reasons. After Bush's accession to the presidency, various Taliban envoys were received at the State Department, CIA, and National Security Council. The CIA, which appears, more than ever, to be a virtual extended family of the Bush oil interests, facilitated a renewed approach to the Taliban. The CIA agent who helped set up the Afghan mujaheddin, Milt Bearden, continued to defend the interests of the Taliban. He bemoaned the fact that the United States never really bothered to understand the Taliban when he told the Washington Post last October, "We never heard what they were trying to say... We had no common language. Ours was, 'Give up bin Laden.' They were saying, 'Do something to help us give him up.' " ...

Milt Bearden on 9/12:

...
There were even reports that the CIA met with their old mujaheddin operative bin Laden in the months before September 11 attacks. The French newspaper Le Figaro quoted an Arab specialist named Antoine Sfeir who postulated that the CIA met with bin Laden in July in a failed attempt to bring him back under its fold. Sfeir said the CIA maintained links with bin Laden before the U.S. attacked his terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in 1998 and, more astonishingly, kept them going even after the attacks. Sfeir told the paper, "Until the last minute, CIA agents hoped bin Laden would return to U.S. command, as was the case before 1998." Bin Laden actually officially broke with the US in 1991 when US troops began arriving in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm. Bin Laden felt this was a violation of the Saudi regime's responsibility to protect the Islamic Holy Shrines of Mecca and Medina from the infidels. Bin Laden's anti-American and anti-House of Saud rhetoric soon reached a fever pitch. ...

AFP: "Bin Laden treated for kidney problem in Dubai, claims report"

Brad Friedman: Nah, I don't want to know (laughs). So it's fair to say in your case then that you don't necessarily have information that you haven’t been able to disclose that reveals that 9/11 was an inside job, you just have, like I do, concerns about the information that we have, the bad information that we have...

Sibel Edmonds: (interrupts) I have to jump in here and say that I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.
Sibel Edmonds on Mike Malloy

...
The Clinton administration made numerous attempts to kill Bin Laden. In August 1998, Al Qaeda operatives blew up several U.S. embassies in Africa. In response, Bill Clinton ordered cruise missiles to be launched from US ships in the Persian Gulf into Afghanistan, which missed Bin Laden by a few hours. The Clinton administration also devised a plan with Pakistan's ISI to send a team of assassins into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden. But Pakistan's government was overthrown by General Musharraf, who was viewed as particularly close to the Taliban. The CIA cancelled its plans, fearing Musharraf's ISI would tip off the Taliban and Bin Laden. . The CIA's connections to the ISI in the months before September 11 and the weeks after are also worthy of a full-blown investigation. The CIA continues to maintain an unhealthy alliance with the ISI, the organization that groomed bin Laden and the Taliban. Last September, the head of the ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed, was fired by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for his pro-Taliban leanings and reportedly after the U.S. government presented Musharraf with disturbing intelligence linking the general to the terrorist hijackers.

General Ahmed was in Washington, DC on the morning of September 11 meeting with CIA and State Department officials as the hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Later, both the Northern Alliance spokesman in Washington, Haron Amin, and Indian intelligence, in an apparent leak to The Times of India, confirmed that General Ahmed ordered a Pakistani-born British citizen and known terrorist named Ahmed Umar Sheik* to wire $100,000 from Pakistan to the U.S. bank account of Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker.

*also kidnapper of Daniel Pearl connected to KSM

...
When the FBI traced calls made between General Ahmed and Sheik's cellular phone -- the number having been supplied by Indian intelligence to the FBI -- a pattern linking the general with Sheik clearly emerged. According to The Times of India, the revelation that General Ahmed was involved in the Sheik-Atta money transfer was more than enough for a nervous and embarrassed Bush administration. It pressed Musharraf to dump General Ahmed. Musharraf mealy-mouthed the announcement of his general's dismissal by stating Ahmed "requested" early retirement.

Sheik was well known to the Indian police. He was arrested in New Delhi in 1994 for plotting to kidnap four foreigners, including an American citizen. Sheik was released by the Indians in 1999 in a swap for passengers on board New Delhi-bound Indian Airlines flight 814, hijacked by Islamic militants from Kathmandu, Nepal to Kandahar, Afghanistan. India continues to believe the ISI played a part in the hijacking since the hijackers were affiliated with the pro-bin Laden Kashmiri terrorist group, Harkat-ul-Mujaheddin, a group only recently and quite belatedly placed on the State Department's terrorist list. The ISI and bin Laden's Al Qaeda reportedly assists the group in its operations against Indian government targets in Kashmir.

The FBI, which assisted its Indian counterpart in the investigation of the Indian Airlines hijacking, says it wants information leading to the arrest of those involved in the terrorist attacks. Yet, no move has been made to question General Ahmed or those U.S. government officials, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who met with him in September. Clearly, General Ahmed was a major player in terrorist activities across South Asia, yet still had very close ties to the U.S. government. General Ahmed's terrorist-supporting activities -- and the U.S. government officials who tolerated those activities -- need to be investigated.

The Taliban visits to Washington continued up to a few months prior to the September 11 attacks. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's South Asian Division maintained constant satellite telephone contact with the Taliban in Kandahar and Kabul. Washington permitted the Taliban to maintain a diplomatic office in Queens, New York headed by Taliban diplomat Abdul Hakim Mojahed. In addition, U.S. officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca, who is also a former CIA officer, visited Taliban diplomatic officials in Islamabad. In the meantime, the Bush administration took a hostile attitude towards the Islamic State of Afghanistan, otherwise known as the Northern Alliance. Even though the United Nations recognized the alliance as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the Bush administration, with oil at the forefront of its goals, decided to follow the lead of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and curry favor with the Taliban mullahs of Afghanistan. The visits of Islamist radicals did not end with the Taliban. In July 2001, the head of Pakistan's pro-bin Laden Jamiaat-i-Islami Party, Qazi Hussein Ahmed, also reportedly was received at the George Bush Center for Intelligence (aka, CIA headquarters) in Langley, Virginia.

According to the Washington Post, the Special Envoy of Mullah Omar, Rahmatullah Hashami, even came to Washington bearing a gift carpet for President Bush from the one-eyed Taliban leader. The Village Voice reported that Hashami, on behalf of the Taliban, offered the Bush administration to hold on to bin Laden long enough for the United States to capture or kill him but, inexplicably, the administration refused. Meanwhile, Spozhmai Maiwandi, the director of the Voice of America's Pashtun service, jokingly nicknamed "Kandahar Rose" by her colleagues, aired favorable reports on the Taliban, including a controversial interview with Mullah Omar.

The Bush administration's dalliances with the Taliban may have even continued after the start of the bombing campaign against their country. According to European intelligence sources, a number of European governments were concerned that the CIA and Big Oil were pressuring the Bush administration not to engage in an initial serious ground war on behalf of the Northern Alliance in order to placate Pakistan and its Taliban compatriots. The early-on decision to stick with an incessant air bombardment, they reasoned, was causing too many civilian deaths and increasing the shakiness of the international coalition.

The obvious, and woefully underreported, interfaces between the Bush administration, UNOCAL, the CIA, the Taliban, Enron, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, the groundwork for which was laid when the Bush Oil team was on the sidelines during the Clinton administration, is making the Republicans worried. Vanquished vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman is in the ironic position of being the senator who will chair the Senate Government Affairs Committee hearings on the collapse of Enron. The roads from Enron also lead to Afghanistan and murky Bush oil politics.

UNOCAL was also clearly concerned about its past ties to the Taliban. On September 14, just three days after terrorists of the Afghan-base al Qaeda movement crashed their planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, UNOCAL issued the following statement: "The company is not supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan in any way whatsoever. Nor do we have any project or involvement in Afghanistan. Beginning in late 1997, Unocal was a member of a multinational consortium that was evaluating construction of a Central Asia Gas pipeline between Turkmenistan and Pakistan [via western Afghanistan]. Our company has had no further role in developing or funding that project or any other project that might involve the Taliban."

The Bush Oil Team, which can now rely on the support of the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, may think that war and oil profits mix. But there is simply too much evidence that the War in Afghanistan was primarily about building UNOCAL's pipeline, not about fighting terrorism. The Democrats, who control the Senate and its investigation agenda, should investigate the secretive deals between Big Oil, Bush, and the Taliban.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

---------

Now, Chuck, what was the goal of the terrorists?
Was there any other way to achieve that goal with one person on one day of effort?
How much did the terrorists achive by allegedly planning for years, wasting 19 of "their best" men in a risky attack of a scope over the top of their abilities?
If the goal was to be bombed back into the stone age and to give the control over their homebase to the US and NATO then they 100% reached their goal.

 

[achimspok]

Let me guess. You think only people who agree with you have "a brain".

I miss your 600% impossible mark.

Arguments are always a first sign of brain use. Repeating a corrected failure without understanding the "failure" is a clear sign of no brain use.

 

[aggle-rithm]

whatever helps you live with yourself

I miss your 600% impossible mark.

Arguments are always a first sign of brain use. Repeating a corrected failure without understanding the "failure" is a clear sign of no brain use.

I'm going to find something more productive to do. You guys might want to follow my example before you waste your lives.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Nonsense, I describe an approach at about 600mph, levelled from 50m/s to < 4m/s (0.9°) leaving enough space to shallow banking (38°) into an almost perpendicular trajectory (0.9°/7.5°) within the last 9 seconds instead of simply aiming at the tower. Final cross wind 9m/s. Impact 7-8m off center.
That's pretty good no matter what Beachnut wants you to believe.


An indication for Beachnut telling pretzels is the plane at 10s prior to impact still points away from the wind and tower instead against the wind. If the plane would be flown by hand aiming at the tower then it would instinctively aim somewhere between tower and "against the wind" to nullify the effect of the wind. Instead it still aimed in the direction of One Liberty Plaza enlarging the effect of wind and flew a nice shallow banana into a "as much as possible" perpendicular vector. That's the exact opposite than expectable for "aiming" by a terrible pilot.
The "sloppy approach" isn't sloppy at all.

Anyone can see from your own video clips that the approach was sloppy and almost missed.

An experienced pilot could have simply hit the tower head-on instead of having to over-correct right at the end.

You are familiar with the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, yes?

 

[twinstead]

I miss your 600% impossible mark.

Well, those comments of course were to illustrate the fact that I was never on the 100% impossible bandwagon; satire requires brain use, does it not?

Arguments are always a first sign of brain use. Repeating a corrected failure without understanding the "failure" is a clear sign of no brain use.

Well, here's the problem: IMO what I see is that it is YOU who is repeating a corrected failure without understanding the "failure"; your arrogant implications that the very people who are correcting your "failure" aren't using their brains is a clear sign of no brain use.

It's all subjective, I guess. My only response to folks like you blathering on relatively obscure internet forums is that there will be no consensus in this debate here, and the commonly-held narrative of 9-11 pretty much stands, so you'd better convince someone who actually can do something about it that you are right, otherwise you and the little group who think like you will never rise above cult status.

Just sayin'

 

[dafydd]

I miss your 600% impossible mark.

Arguments are always a first sign of brain use. Repeating a corrected failure without understanding the "failure" is a clear sign of no brain use.

If you haven't realized that the truth movement is a dead duck then your brain can't be up to much.

 

[LightningTeg]

I miss your 600% impossible mark.

Arguments are always a first sign of brain use. Repeating a corrected failure without understanding the "failure" is a clear sign of no brain use.

Which is why you cant seem to explain your calculations that failed. (which still dont prove or have any meaning)

If he was an expert pilot he would have lined up miles out and not had to make such a drastic dive and turn towards the end. I could fly a B52 in a flight simulator and do a better job.