Anyone who claims it only takes 19 guys from the outside but 10,000 from the inside.
No but you would have to believe them to be pretty damn near that to let the 9/11 attacks happen without even having a clue.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
9/11 mastermind/Guantanamo detainee trials to begin
- Thread starter Gravy
- Start date
Anyone who claims it only takes 19 guys from the outside but 10,000 from the inside.
No but you would have to believe them to be pretty damn near that to let the 9/11 attacks happen without even having a clue.
You if you believe they can accomplish what they did from the outside with only 19 guys but for it to happen from the inside it would take 10,000. Hell if they are that capable and the US Govt is that incompetent we should all be dead by now or praying to Allah.
Evidently you believe they can do things with a small amount of people that would take anyone else vast numbers of people. How did they get so smart and so what they believe persecuted by someone evidently so inferior to them? They should have taken over they world years ago to listen to you.
Actually, some of the hijhjackers (the muscle ones) had physical training and commando training in the Afghani camps.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2936761.ece
And some of them may even had started martial arts classes in the US.
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/01/911/plotters.shtml
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Of course not.
If you don't know anything about what it takes to bring about a controlled demolition of a building, simply say so.
I honestly didn't know either before I started reading these forums.
That would be the airline ticket takers. Once they paid thier money and it was established the passengers weren't in posession of banned weapons or contraband, they let them on the planes.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
I think his question should be nominated for a stundie there. The stundie should also mention that he asked this question in a thread about AQ members going to jail for their roles in the plot.
Pricesless!!!
You have no story (so how can you make such a stupid post; did you read the story gleaned from 9/11 truth ideas? Please pay attention and avoid the dumb post; ); so your ideas are void? What is your inside job that you almost talk about but fail to make clear? What is the inside job you keep trying to talk about but fail to flesh out to a coherent story? Why are you unable to say what happen on 9/11? Are you void of knowledge on 9/11? Why are you never saying anything of substance on 9/11? What is your story of what happen on 9/11? You appear to have no clue. Will you ever have a clue? And if so, what is your theory and what evidence makes you come to that conclusion you have never made known yet? Or will you present: Nothing. Zip.
Did I miss where you have taken a position that is backed with facts, evidence and some rational/logical thinking?
Last edited:
Of course not.
That's right. I wouldn't claim to know for sure what happened without an investigation.
I didn't know you believed AQ controlled demolition the WTC. Or are there other ways the towers could have come down?
Really? That's all they had to get by? And they are the only ones who could do that why?
Last edited:
JamesB
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,152
As I posted over at SLC, I think we should challenge Dylan Avery et al to actively support the defense at this trial. If they think that Al Qaeda did not carry out this attack and they have proof, then they have a moral obligation to help ensure 6 people are not executed for something they did not do. I am tired of them being able to play this whole "just asking questions" thing. It is time that they either put up, or shut up. I demand that Kevin Barrett serve as an expert witness at this trial to testify that there is no such thing as Islamic extremist violence, and that Steven Jones and Richard Gage serve as expert witnesses to explain how the buildings could not have collapsed from the plane crashes.
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
Wrong. See, AQ wouldn't have to contact every architect, engineer, or anyone else who has experience in high rise construction in the world and tell them to A.) keep quiet or B.) support our version. (Well except for those at AE9/11 who for some reason ignored the threats but decided not to mention the "calls" they got {or keep record of them for that matter})
Also AQ wouldn't have to contact every FDNY (or any fire dept. who has to work with steel framed high rises.) and tell them to keep quiet even though they know those buildings shouldn't have collapsed like they did (oh AND they heard the count downs and CD explosions.)
Also AQ wouldn't have to contact military people and tell them to keep quiet about the "real defenses" America has.
Also AQ wouldn't have to contact airline pilots and tell them to keep quiet... Ah hell that's enough.
Well they did have clues, what they didn't have is hind site. I bet the Germans feel kinda stupid about Operation Neptune and the French feel stupid about Agincourt. Now that is.
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
Yes, of course.
But LastChild's contention was that special training was required in order for one person to kill another. That most certainly is not correct; if it were, then there ought to be almost no cases of murder. All that is really required for one person to kill another is the willingness to commit the act.
Training makes committing the act easier by removing possible psychological inhibitions and illustrating the most effective techniques.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
So are you claiming here that AQ would have had to have 10,000 people to train to fly planes and then hijack them and fly them into a building, or are you claiming that the US Govt only needed 19 to wire the buildings with explosives and thermate, paint the decoy planes, remote control the decoys and the real ones in an exchange, kill the passangers, plant the body and plane parts and blow up the buildings?
Why do you think it would have taken anyone else very large numbers of people to have trained and hjijacked the planes and fly them into buildings?
Do you really believe that taking over a country can be done with a handful of people? Or do you think that it takes an army to hijack a plane?
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
There was an investigation, we know who did it and the Air Force and Marine Corps are working on tracking them down.
Did you miss the memo?
Re-read my post. You are responding to something that I did not say.
Ticket takers and airport security, yep. The terrorists successfully evaded them by paying thier money and not doing anything illegal before boarding the plane.
They were cunning bastards, that way.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Please explain why they should have had a clue? Please explain why five quiet living arab guys should have attracted the notice of the US Intelligence services. Why should the Government Agencies known about three guys among hundreds that were students studying to be pilots? Why should the FBI have been interested in people that had broken no laws nor looked likely too to anyone around them, until they were ready to attack. Do you think that the FBI and CIA should have magical systems like out of Minority Report that can detect and point out criminals before the crime is commited?
portlandatheist
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 3,725
Hey LastChild,
Don't you see what a golden opportunity this is for the truth movement? It's likely that KSM's defense will try to make his confessions inadmissible due to the circumstances. Now is the time to investigate 9/11! The truth movement can start a legal defense fund, hire structural engineers, demolition experts etc. and provide that evidence to the court in KSM's defense! You guys could have a real Parry Mason moment. Now is the time to rally the truthers together for this grand endeavor. Now is the time for a real investigation. Seize the day! Save KSM!
Good Luck!
Don't you see what a golden opportunity this is for the truth movement? It's likely that KSM's defense will try to make his confessions inadmissible due to the circumstances. Now is the time to investigate 9/11! The truth movement can start a legal defense fund, hire structural engineers, demolition experts etc. and provide that evidence to the court in KSM's defense! You guys could have a real Parry Mason moment. Now is the time to rally the truthers together for this grand endeavor. Now is the time for a real investigation. Seize the day! Save KSM!
Good Luck!
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
This is the 9-11 equivalent of the infamous Apollo hoax argument that, because there wasn't enough computing power in 1969 to run a simulator of the Apollo landings, therefore the Apollo landings couldn't have happened in real life. Congratulations, LastChild, you've demonstrated a truly awesome level of disconnection from reality.
Dave
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 15,547
They did slip up - well... not entirely their fault when one plane was delayed enough for the passengers to learn what was happening.
Didn't they confess? Martyr tapes?
No need for magic, as far as I can see.
Par
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,768
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
"We take flying lessons."
"We take over airplane."
"We point airplane at big building."
Pretty complex, all right. They would have had to look at some flight schedules.
ETA:
"By 'we', I mean 'you', Mohamed."
"Let us know how it turns out."
Last edited:
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,810
LC, there is a distinction here I'm not sure you're grasping.
Basically, it is far easier to find a weakness from the outside to exploit (i.e. our self-assurance that no one would attack using such low-tech methods as the hijackers employed, or our assumption at least that no one would; much of our defense was against more high-tech methods such as cruise missiles or fighter jets, to name just a couple of examples) than it is to plot to do something from the inside, simply because the outside version allows for less people knowing about the plot to begin with. In order for this plot to be carried out from the inside in such a way that it makes it seem as though it occurred from the outside, it would require tens of thousands of people with at least SOME knowledge of the plot (i.e. they may not know about the whole thing, but they knew about part of it) to carry out, whereas an attack from the outside carries much less risk of being found out and halted ahead of time and requires much less people; the materials are already there and waiting for them to use (the planes are legitimate planes and don't need to be painted or altered to look like AA or UA planes, short knives were allowed on board at the time, airport security was much less stringent, so it could have been possible to smuggle something on board that resembled a bomb (enough to fool the passengers if they didn't get a close look, assuming they were even looking and not too scared to do so), flying lessons were easily obtained, and most importantly, we weren't looking for such a low-tech approach to an attack). That's not to say every outside attack would be successful or even be carried out; sometimes we do get lucky and stop things ahead of time, but it carries a greater chance of success than an inside attack of the magnitude required to carry out this job at least would.
Do you see now why the vast majority of us perceive an inside attack to be ludicrous? Even if the tens of thousands each only had one piece of the puzzle to carry out the attack, all it takes is for one or more to put the pieces together after the attack is complete and be brave enough to risk their lives (hyperbolically speaking) to get the information out. In nearly seven years, there has been NO ONE. Deep Throat came forward even before Watergate was complete, and that was a vastly smaller conspiracy; I find it hard to believe that not one person in tens of thousands would have a similar reaction.
Basically, it is far easier to find a weakness from the outside to exploit (i.e. our self-assurance that no one would attack using such low-tech methods as the hijackers employed, or our assumption at least that no one would; much of our defense was against more high-tech methods such as cruise missiles or fighter jets, to name just a couple of examples) than it is to plot to do something from the inside, simply because the outside version allows for less people knowing about the plot to begin with. In order for this plot to be carried out from the inside in such a way that it makes it seem as though it occurred from the outside, it would require tens of thousands of people with at least SOME knowledge of the plot (i.e. they may not know about the whole thing, but they knew about part of it) to carry out, whereas an attack from the outside carries much less risk of being found out and halted ahead of time and requires much less people; the materials are already there and waiting for them to use (the planes are legitimate planes and don't need to be painted or altered to look like AA or UA planes, short knives were allowed on board at the time, airport security was much less stringent, so it could have been possible to smuggle something on board that resembled a bomb (enough to fool the passengers if they didn't get a close look, assuming they were even looking and not too scared to do so), flying lessons were easily obtained, and most importantly, we weren't looking for such a low-tech approach to an attack). That's not to say every outside attack would be successful or even be carried out; sometimes we do get lucky and stop things ahead of time, but it carries a greater chance of success than an inside attack of the magnitude required to carry out this job at least would.
Do you see now why the vast majority of us perceive an inside attack to be ludicrous? Even if the tens of thousands each only had one piece of the puzzle to carry out the attack, all it takes is for one or more to put the pieces together after the attack is complete and be brave enough to risk their lives (hyperbolically speaking) to get the information out. In nearly seven years, there has been NO ONE. Deep Throat came forward even before Watergate was complete, and that was a vastly smaller conspiracy; I find it hard to believe that not one person in tens of thousands would have a similar reaction.