|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: Saudi Arabia, the Bin Ladins and 9-11 |
 |
|
15 of 19 hijackers on 9-11 were from Saudia Arabia.
Bin Ladins, why exactly was the entire family flown out of the U.S. during no-flying time immediately after 9-11?
Why weren't any of them questioned, and why aren't they working with us to find Osama Bin Ladin?
Also, how did Bin Ladin organize the entire 9-11 from a cave in Afghanistan?
Also, heard of another interesting point: How did the hijackers learn how to fly that well and that precisely just from taking some classes while in the U.S.? I've also heard it be said that those hijackers were highly trained, perhaps in a government military such as Saudi Arabia and learned those high skills to that level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With this making world BU-SIN-ESS NEWS headlines just yesterday 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=shell+saudi+refinery
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY 
Saudi Shell To Expand Port Arthur Refinery
September 21, 2007: 03:08 PM EST
Sep. 21, 2007 (Thomson Financial delivered by Newstex) --
DALLAS (AP) - Royal Dutch Shell PLC plans to nearly double the size of an oil refinery it operates with a Saudi "partner" in Port Arthur on the Texas Gulf Coast, making it the biggest in the nation and one of the largest in the world.
Shell, one of the world's largest oil companies, said Friday its decision to expand the refinery will increase U.S. supplies of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
Shell plans to boost the Port Arthur refinery's capacity to 600,000 barrels of crude oil per day by 2010 from the current 275,000 barrels per day.
Shell estimated that the expansion, the biggest in more than 30 years, would cost about $7 billion.
The Anglo-Dutch company operates the refinery with Saudi Refining Inc., a subsidiary of Saudi national oil company Saudi Aramco, in a venture called Motiva Enterprises LLC.
etc ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:51 am Post subject: Re: Saudi Arabia, the Bin Ladins and 9-11 |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
15 of 19 hijackers on 9-11 were from Saudia Arabia.
Bin Ladins, why exactly was the entire family flown out of the U.S. during no-flying time immediately after 9-11?
Why weren't any of them questioned, and why aren't they working with us to find Osama Bin Ladin?
Also, how did Bin Ladin organize the entire 9-11 from a cave in Afghanistan?
Also, heard of another interesting point: How did the hijackers learn how to fly that well and that precisely just from taking some classes while in the U.S.? I've also heard it be said that those hijackers were highly trained, perhaps in a government military such as Saudi Arabia and learned those high skills to that level. |
Tigerbeer are you becoming a troofer?
| Quote: |
The story...
Immediately after September 11th, while US airspace was still closed, the White House approved charter flights to rush members of bin Ladins family out of the country. Why weren't they interviewed?
Our take...
Many sites are a little coy about when this flight occurred, but we'll tell you; it was September the 20th. Not such a rush, really, and no, US airspace was not closed.
So who approved the flights? Richard Clarke, who said it was the right decision and he'd do it again. As he's now a major Bush critic it's hard to argue that he'd want to cover up for the President on this point.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx
The family members weren't simply allowed to leave, either. The 9/11 commission pointed out:
"Twenty-two of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity... The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft".
What's more, by opting to fly the family members volunteered to go through this process. Had they driven across the border to Canada instead, they could have flown home from there with no questions at all.
There were no apparent suspicious circumstances, then, no information incriminating any of these people, and none has appeared since. |
http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html
| Quote: |
he story...
How could such precision attacks have been carried out by a bunch of flight school dropouts? It's just not possible.
Our take...
Spend some time reading about 9/11 and you'll come up against this argument a lot. In fact, as we write, if you Google for "flight school dropouts" then 9 out of the top 10 hits relate to 9/11. Nila Sagadevan uses the following quotes by way of illustration:
Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself, in fact, here is what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:
Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."
Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls."
Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons."
Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all."
http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_action/911_Impossible_Flying_757.html
Looks like a compelling case, right? But as usual, it pays to find out more about where these quotes have come from.
The comment about Atta, for instance, dates back to October of 2000. He undertook months more training after this, and qualified for a commercial licence, so it�s perhaps unreasonable to use this old quote as a summary of his flying on 9/11.
Jones Aviation flying instructor Ivan Chirivella told investigators that Atta, 33 and al-Shehhi, 23 came across from Huffman Aviation hoping to improve their sloppy skills. Chirivella flew with Atta and al-Shehhi four hours almost every morning from Sept. to October 2000. It didn�t work out. According to the New York Times, Atta never looked at his instructor. His attention span was zero. Al-Shehhi fared no better. �After some harsh words,� both fledgling militants moved on.
http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Commission_Hearing.htm
Googling for the Al-Shehhi quote returns only references to the Sagadevan article, which doesn�t explain where it came from originally.
Khalid Al-Midhar was not one of the pilots according to the official account, neither was Salem Al-Hazmi, so any assessment of their abilities seems irrelevant.
Some of the quote about Hanjour is correct (�I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all�). This comes from a �former employee� at JetTech, a flying school Hanjour attended in January and February of 2001 The rest of the quote didn�t originally refer to Hanjour, though: it�s somehow been assembled from a comment about Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi:
Alleged suicide pilots Nawaq al-Hazmi and Khaid al-Mihdhar briefly attended a San Diego fight school the previous spring, where they also washed out because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls. After just two flying lessons, their shaken instructors said �no more,� and advised al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar to quit. �Their English was horrible, and their mechanical skills were even worse,� one instructor told the Washington Post. �It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car.
http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Commission_Hearing.htm
To see whether old quotes are really relevant, it might be worth considering the training the pilots received. Take Atta and Shehhi, for instance, as reported in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Atta started flight instruction at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, and both Atta and Shehhi subsequently enrolled in the Accelerated Pilot Program at that school. By the end of July, both of them took solo flights, and by mid-August they passed the private pilot airman test
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
A reasonable start, although there were problems later.
In mid-September,Atta and Shehhi applied to change their immigration status from tourist to student, stating their intention to study at Huffman until September 1, 2001. In late September, they decided to enroll at Jones Aviation in Sarasota, Florida, about 20 miles north of Venice. According to the instructor at Jones, the two were aggressive, rude, and sometimes even fought with him to take over the controls during their training flights. In early October, they took the Stage I exam for instruments rating at Jones Aviation and failed. Very upset, they said they were in a hurry because jobs awaited them at home. Atta and Shehhi then returned to Huffman.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
Jarrah was making progress in the meantime.
Jarrah obtained a single-engine private pilot certificate in early August.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
And Atta and Shehhi had more success later in 2000, while Jarrah moved to simulator training.
Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html
Not perfect or the best pilots, then, but maybe the term "flight school dropout" is a little misleading here.
Of course the more realistic target for these claims is Hani Hanjour. Here's one comment.
Alleged flight 77 (Pentagon) pilot Hani Hanjour had a history of great difficulties in his efforts to learn to fly. As late as Aug. 2001, he was unable to demonstrate enough piloting skills to rent a Cessna 172...
Certainly there is no evidence that Hanjour ever had any sort of practice flying commercial jetliners or any jet-propelled aircraft.
http://www.911-strike.com/remote_skills.htm
The site quotes this NewsDay article:
...when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.
Source
Even the 9/11 Commission Report joins in:
For his flight training in Arizona with his two friends, see ibid. (Feb. 24, 2000, entry citing 265A-NY-280530-IN, serial 4468). Hanjour initially was nervous if not fearful in flight training. FBI letterhead memorandum, investigation of Lotfi Raissi, Jan. 4, 2004, p. 11. His instructor described him as a terrible pilot. FBI letterhead memorandum, interview of James McRae, Sept. 17, 2001.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-537.html
Read these quotes alone, though, and you might be mislead. The first seems to suggest that he hadn't learned to fly by August 2001, however he'd actually obtained both a private pilot and commercial license some time earlier.
In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training,after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends, went back to Arizona and began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot's license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-242.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html
Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough.The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html
Hanjour continued his training with Jarrah throughout at least some of the summer. Again, there were problems in both cases, but they persisted.
Jarrah and Hanjour also received additional training and practice flights in the early summer.A few days before departing on his cross-country test flight, Jarrah flew from Fort Lauderdale to Philadelphia, where he trained at Hortman Aviation and asked to fly the Hudson Corridor, a low-altitude "hallway" along the Hudson River that passes New York landmarks like the World Trade Center. Heavy traffic in the area can make the corridor a dangerous route for an inexperienced pilot. Because Hortman deemed Jarrah unfit to fly solo, he could fly this route only with an instructor.
Hanjour, too, requested to fly the Hudson Corridor about this same time,at Air Fleet Training Systems in Teterboro, New Jersey, where he started receiving ground instruction soon after settling in the area with Hazmi. Hanjour flew the Hudson Corridor, but his instructor declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour's poor piloting skills. Shortly thereafter, Hanjour switched to Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey, where he rented small aircraft on several occasions during June and July. In one such instance on July 20, Hanjour--likely accompanied by Hazmi--rented a plane from Caldwell and took a practice flight from Fairfield to Gaithersburg, Maryland, a route that would have allowed them to fly near Washington, D.C. Other evidence suggests that Hanjour may even have returned to Arizona for flight simulator training earlier in June.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-259.html
Even Hanjour wasn't exactly a "flight school dropout", then. He had a private and commercial pilots licence, and a not insignificant amount of flying experience, including some simulator work (although on 737's). There are definitely plenty of scathing quotes regarding his skills:
Chevrette said she contacted Anthony again when Hanjour began ground training for Boeing 737 jetliners and it became clear he didn't have the skills for the commercial pilot's license.
"I don't truly believe he should have had it and I questioned that," she said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
However, an early instructor isn't quite so damning:
FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license.
That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
One 9/11 Commission footnote (to Chapter 7) is relatively positive.
170. FBI report, "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 52�57. Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004).
And as Marcel Bernard pointed out, the hijackers wouldn't have required all the skills of a regular pilot:
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm
People will still say that the Pentagon attack was too difficult for Hanjour to have pulled off (see here), however other debunking articles quote pilots saying that isn�t the case (see here). Salon produced a recent example of the second type, written by an airline pilot (below):
As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.
It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.
"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."
"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/
Experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia agrees:
In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.
That�s the conclusion of his piece �Oh no! Not another expert!�, which you can read on the Other Contributions page under �Bernacchia�. |
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Also, how did Bin Ladin organize the entire 9-11 from a cave in Afghanistan?
|
Has it been established that bin laden was in fact the organizer of 9-11? Do we have conclusive proof that he didn't just read about it in the news like everyone else and then issue statements taking credit for it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
The story...
The alleged bin Ladin confession tape is an obvious fake.
jazbinladentapebinladen
Bin Laden in Jazeerah tape on the left. Who is this guy on the right pictured in the CIA released video pretending to be Bin Laden? Any fool with eyes can see they are not the same person.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/faked_video_inin.htm
Our take...
The right-hand picture above is often used to discredit the tape, and in principle it does a good job. Do these two look like the same person? No. However, as usual, it's not quite as simple as that.
First up, the "fake bin Ladin" shot looks "enhanced" to us, as though someone has taken the original video, brightened it up, perhaps sharpened it too (which would explain the halo effect around the head, although to be fair that's also present on the other image). We�re not saying the features have been altered in any way, or that this was done with a specific intent to deceive, but it does suggest a need to look at the original footage.
To be fair, some sites do get closer to that. Take a look at this picture, for instance, from a page discussing the tape: it doesn�t have the same �processed� look, and we�d say bears a much stronger resemblance to the first bin Ladin photo.
obltape
We looked a little further, and found higher resolution shots that appear to be from the same tape.
Dec13VideoOsama
Dec13PentagonOsama
Dec13PentagonOsama3
http://www.september11news.com/OsamaEvidence.htm
Fuller-face pictures like this one are interesting, though.
Dec13_OsamaVideoText302
http://www.september11news.com/OsamaEvidence.htm
Images like this offer a mid-point between those two top pictures. You can see how, if viewed from a particular angle and with the right lighting (and reduced in size, and poorly encoded), this could look like the supposed fat-faced "fake" image, but it could also be a match for the real bin Laden image, too.
The pictures are just one of the issues, though. Many sites point to other indications that the video bin Ladin may be a different person.
�The FBI say he�s left handed�, they point out, �and yet in the video he�s writing with his right hand�. Read out thoughts on this here.
WhatReallyHappened also point to the ring you can see the man in the image above wearing on his right hand. No other images of Bin Ladin show him wearing such a ring, they suggest, another sign that it�s a different person. Or is it? We think they�re wrong.
What you won�t see pointed out very often is that bin Ladin isn�t the only known person in the videos. Leading Al Qaeda figures Suleiman Abu Ghaith and Ayman al-Zawahiri are claimed to make make brief appearances, too. Presumably we�re supposed to believe they are also being impersonated?
Beyond the analyses, we think the idea of the tape being faked raises other questions, for which there are a distinct lack of answers.
Many of the same sites who tell us this tape is a fake, for instance, also point out that bin Ladin denied being involved with 9/11 soon after the attacks. If this is true then it suggests bin Ladin is a real, live person, out there somewhere, not doing the bidding of the US Government. In which case why has he, or some other al Qaeda spokesman, not pointed out that this tape is a fake?
Some people also point to articles suggesting the tape was translated inaccurately.
The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801
Very interesting, if true, but hardly support for faking, at least not by the US Government. Because if they organised the filming, why wouldn�t they have the participants saying exactly what they wanted? Why the need to play around with translations later?
Overall, we can't say with 100% certainty that the tape is real, but equally, it isn't the obvious fake some would pretend. We're not alone in this view, either. Here's a conversation between Al Jazeera London bureau chief Yosri Fouda and TBS Publisher and Senior Editor S. Abdallah Schleifer.
SAS: ...there was the much earlier amateurishly filmed video tape that the American government says they found in Afghanistan... in which a militant Saudi sheikh, visiting with Bin Ladin leads Bin Ladin into an acknowledgement that it was Al-Qa'ida operatives known only to him and a few others, who staged the operation and Bin Ladin re-enacts his great joy when the operation succeeded well beyond his expectations. My intuition as a journalist told me when I watched the tape on CNN that it was authentic and that it was Bin Ladin but my intuition also told me that the Sheikh was an intelligence agent, probably for the Americans and the their taped conversation a sting operation. A few days later a respectable British newspaper confirmed it was a sting but they said it was set up by Saudi intelligence. And certainly the former head of Saudi intelligence has made it clear in no uncertain terms that 9/11 was an Al-Qa'ida operation. Now despite all of this and other documentation, so many Arabs were in a state of denial and many are still in a state of denial, insisting that Al-Qa'ida or any Arabs for that matter could not have had anything to do with this operation, that this was a Mossad or CIA operation.
YF: ...Until I got to meet Ramzi and Khalid there was a lot of doubt as to the possibility that that tape might have been fabricated. But I got it on videotape from one of the other people from Al-Qa'ida who were there at the apartment that the tape was legitimate. I asked him whether that tape was genuine and he said it was. And in the end when I went back I put that Saudi Sheikh's video tape with Bin Ladin on and listened to it for four or five times, and certain bits and pieces that Bin Ladin said on that tape fit in very nicely with what Ramzi and Khalid had said to me. You know like the first time that they knew of the zero hour.
SAS: I understand what you are saying and I've been convinced of that tape's authenticity since the beginning. And your experience just confirms it.
http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall02/Fouda.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:03 am Post subject: Re: Saudi Arabia, the Bin Ladins and 9-11 |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
15 of 19 hijackers on 9-11 were from Saudia Arabia.
Bin Ladins, why exactly was the entire family flown out of the U.S. during no-flying time immediately after 9-11?
Why weren't any of them questioned, and why aren't they working with us to find Osama Bin Ladin?
Also, how did Bin Ladin organize the entire 9-11 from a cave in Afghanistan?
Also, heard of another interesting point: How did the hijackers learn how to fly that well and that precisely just from taking some classes while in the U.S.? I've also heard it be said that those hijackers were highly trained, perhaps in a government military such as Saudi Arabia and learned those high skills to that level. |
I would like to address your second point with the facts.
Bin Laden Family Evacuated
Extended Family Of Osama Bin Laden Fled U.S. After Attacks
Sept. 30, 2001
"............They left the country on a private charter plane when airports reopened three days after the attacks...."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/30/archive/main313048.shtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The story...
The alleged bin Ladin confession tape is an obvious fake.
jazbinladentapebinladen
Bin Laden in Jazeerah tape on the left. Who is this guy on the right pictured in the CIA released video pretending to be Bin Laden? Any fool with eyes can see they are not the same person.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/faked_video_inin.htm
Our take...
|
Joo:
I'm not disputing that OBL took credit for the attacks. I'm wondering if there is any proof that his claims were credible.
What I'm suggesting is that MAYBE the hijackers planned and carried it out on their own, knowing that their political affiliations would lead people to name OBL as the mastermind. Then, after the attacks, OBL, on cue, issused statements saying he was the guy behind it all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
wouldn't they have needed to get set up , then again there are all the 9-11 hijacker last will videos that Al Qaeda keeps putting out. there is also Khalid Sheik Mohamad you helped Ramsy Yusef plan to blow up 11 airliners in one day. It wasn't the first time that Al Qaeda had planned something so big.
Also it wouldn't it be quite a coincidence that 9-11 happened just two days after Al Qaeda assassinated Northern alliance leader Massod.
This kind of leads one to believe than it was a very large operation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| This kind of leads one to believe than it was a very large operation. |
You just realized this now? 
What of ISRAEL's role? Look into it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| This kind of leads one to believe than it was a very large operation. |
You just realized this now?
What of ISRAEL's role? Look into it |
Why don't you put up what you have.
I have screwloosechange and all their sites . But I could use the target practice.
Anyway but about Jeff Rense and his supporters role? I mean wouldn't they benefit from such an attack? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sibel Edmonds does have some interesting things to say about this...
too bad she's under a gag order....but here are some things that she has said:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070912135745871
By Luke Ryland
September 11, 2007
Opednews.com
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has made a number of disturbing claims about the 911 attacks, but perhaps the most disconcerting is her oft-repeated statement that the US authorities have covered up an entire organizational layer within al-Qaeda.
In the documentary, Kill The Messenger, Sibel says:
"They haven't mentioned anybody who actually is connected to Al Qaida, in mid or higher level."
Similarly, Sibel often says:
"And I would like to give an analogy - if you take the War on Drugs, imagine if they only went after street dealers and they refused to investigate the mid-level dealers or the drug lords. This is very similar."
As we approach another 911 anniversary, it's time we learnt:
1) Who are these mid and high-level al-Qaida operatives?
2) What role did they play in planning 911?
3) What operational support did they provide?
4) Why they are still roaming free today?
5) Why did the US authorities continually exclude key participants from the official narrative?
Sibel Edmonds is the most gagged woman in US history making it a little it difficult for us, the public, to have a detailed understanding of everything she knows about al-Qaida and the 911 attacks, but she has given interviews and written a number of great articles and letters which enable us to put some of the pieces together.
Immediately after the release of the 911 Commission report, Sibel wrote an open letter to Thomas Kean and the Commission in which she chided the 911 Commission panel for ignoring important issues related to the attacks, and she also made public some of her closed-door testimony to the 911 Commission.
For example, in that letter, Sibel identified specific warnings from April 2001 that:
"1) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four or five major cities;
2) the attack was going to involve airplanes;
3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States;
4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months."
As we all know, this information was not included in the Commission report, and was barely mentioned in the US media even though it was confirmed in the Chicago Tribune and FBI Director Robert Mueller was surprised that he wasn't asked about it by the 911 Commission. In fact, according to Sibel, (click on the above link to read the entire article) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
The US government and intel services get lots of information on many subjects everyday.
There is no one to organize all the info that one department gets with another. Before 9-11 it wasn't even legal for the FBI and the CIA to talk to each other |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Want a real warm fuzzy? Guess which family bought out Georgie's first failed company? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Sibel Edmonds does have some interesting things to say about this...
too bad she's under a gag order....but here are some things that she has said:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070912135745871
By Luke Ryland
September 11, 2007
Opednews.com
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has made a number of disturbing claims about the 911 attacks, but perhaps the most disconcerting is her oft-repeated statement that the US authorities have covered up an entire organizational layer within al-Qaeda.
In the documentary, Kill The Messenger, Sibel says:
"They haven't mentioned anybody who actually is connected to Al Qaida, in mid or higher level."
Similarly, Sibel often says:
"And I would like to give an analogy - if you take the War on Drugs, imagine if they only went after street dealers and they refused to investigate the mid-level dealers or the drug lords. This is very similar."
As we approach another 911 anniversary, it's time we learnt:
1) Who are these mid and high-level al-Qaida operatives?
2) What role did they play in planning 911?
3) What operational support did they provide?
4) Why they are still roaming free today?
5) Why did the US authorities continually exclude key participants from the official narrative?
Sibel Edmonds is the most gagged woman in US history making it a little it difficult for us, the public, to have a detailed understanding of everything she knows about al-Qaida and the 911 attacks, but she has given interviews and written a number of great articles and letters which enable us to put some of the pieces together.
Immediately after the release of the 911 Commission report, Sibel wrote an open letter to Thomas Kean and the Commission in which she chided the 911 Commission panel for ignoring important issues related to the attacks, and she also made public some of her closed-door testimony to the 911 Commission.
For example, in that letter, Sibel identified specific warnings from April 2001 that:
"1) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four or five major cities;
2) the attack was going to involve airplanes;
3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States;
4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months."
As we all know, this information was not included in the Commission report, and was barely mentioned in the US media even though it was confirmed in the Chicago Tribune and FBI Director Robert Mueller was surprised that he wasn't asked about it by the 911 Commission. In fact, according to Sibel, (click on the above link to read the entire article) |
If Edmonds were allowed to speak freely, I doubt she'd tell us anything too surprising. Some countries have an uneasy relationship with both the terrorists in their country and the US businesses in their country. I'm guessing the US businesses, at the very least, don't want those governments upset by invasive investigations into how little those govts are doing to combat terrorism in their country.
It reminds me of something a character in "The Wire" said, something to the effect of, "If you follow the drugs, you get the drug dealers. But if you follow the money, it could take you anywhere." Change that to, "If you follow the terrorism, you get the terrorists. But if you follow the funding, it could take you anywhere," and it's probably just as true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Before 9-11 it wasn't even legal for the FBI and the CIA to talk to each other |
Maybe for good reason too
Something to do with this whole separation of powers principle.
Corruption and abuse.
Just think e.g. J. Edgar Hoover
Wasn't Kennedy bent on " ... smashing the CIA into a 1,000 pieces ... "?
Lunatic President? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
