National Geographic to air 9/11 conspiracy doc

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Nordic » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:12 pm

...very convenient find I might add.


Ridiculously convenient. It's exactly "convenient" like the "Fat Osama" videotape is convenient.

"found in the rubble" = "found in someone's house".

Yeah right.

Who writes this stuff, TV writers who got fired from "24"?

And "The Atlantic". God what a joke.
Nordic
 
Posts: 14206
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:26 am

Nordic wrote:
...very convenient find I might add.


Ridiculously convenient. It's exactly "convenient" like the "Fat Osama" videotape is convenient.

"found in the rubble" = "found in someone's house".

Yeah right.

Who writes this stuff, TV writers who got fired from "24"?

And "The Atlantic". God what a joke.


Hehe, yeah reading that whole article I thought I was reading script to NBC's hit comedy "The Office".

"Brother Atef, must you always be spending money on ebay? Half the time you don't even get the package thanks to our crappy Afghan postal service. We got "The Tuesday Wedding Planes Operation Big Job" coming up, we need all the money we can get for our brothers. Also, will you please leave the toilet seat down when my wives come over?
Peace out, bin alshidh"

Honestly, I'd love to have a full translation of all those files.
To me, if authentic, it shows how "al Qaeda" is a truly pathetic joke who could not have pulled off 9/11 without an insane amount of logistics and help outside their scope.

Also, it's funny the Buddhist Bamiyan-UNESCO-Alice Bailey connection.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:28 am

Also, I'm surprised I and other 9/11 researchers have not seen more into this:


The FBI claims on this day that there were six hijacking teams on the morning of 9/11. [New York Times, 9/19/2001; Guardian, 10/13/2001] A different report claims investigators are privately saying eight. [Independent, 9/25/2001] However, the reports below suggest there may have been as many as nine aborted flights, leading to a potential total of 13 hijackings:
bullet Knives of the same type used in the successful hijackings were found taped to the backs of fold-down trays on a Continental Airlines flight from Newark. [Guardian, 9/19/2001]
bullet The FBI is investigating American Airlines Flight 43, which was scheduled to leave Boston about 8:10 a.m. bound for Los Angeles but was canceled minutes before takeoff due to a mechanical problem. [BBC, 9/18/2001; Chicago Tribune, 9/18/2001; Guardian, 9/19/2001] Another version claims the flight left from Newark and made it as far as Cincinnati before being grounded in the nationwide air ban. [New York Times, 9/19/2001]
bullet Knives and box cutters were found on two separate canceled Delta Airlines planes later that day, one leaving Atlanta for Brussels and the other leaving from Boston. [Time, 9/22/2001; Independent, 9/25/2001]
bullet On September 14, two knives were found on an Air Canada flight that would have flown to New York on 9/11 if not for the air ban. [CNN, 10/15/2001]
bullet Two men arrested on 9/11 may have lost their nerve on American Airlines Flight 1729 from Newark to San Antonio via Dallas that was scheduled to depart at 8:50 a.m., and was later forced to land in St. Louis. Alternately, they may have been planning an attack for September 15, 2001. Their names are Mohammed Azmath and Ayub Ali Khan, whose real name according to later reports is Syed Gul Mohammad Shah. [New York Times, 9/19/2001]
bullet There may have been an attempt to hijack United Airlines Flight 23 flying from JFK Airport, New York to Los Angeles around 9:00 a.m. Shortly after 9:00 a.m., United Airlines flight dispatcher Ed Ballinger sent out a warning about the first WTC crash to the flights he was handling (see 9:19 a.m. September 11, 2001). Because of this warning, the crew of Flight 23 told the passengers it had a mechanical problem and immediately returned to the gate. Ballinger was later told by authorities that six men initially wouldn’t get off the plane. When the men finally disembarked, they disappeared into the crowd and never returned. Later, authorities checked their luggage and found copies of the Koran and al-Qaeda instruction sheets. [Associated Press, 9/14/2001; Chicago Daily Herald, 4/14/2004] In mid-2002, a NORAD deputy commander says “we don’t know for sure” if Flight 23 was to have been hijacked. [Globe and Mail, 6/13/2002]
bullet According to anonymous FAA officials, a plane bound for Chicago, home of the Sears Tower, could have been another target for hijacking. The plane landed unexpectedly at the Cleveland airport after the FAA initiated a national ground stop. Four Middle Eastern men had deplaned and left the airport before officials could detain them for questioning. [Freni, 2003, pp. 81]
bullet A box cutter knife was found under a seat cushion on American Airlines Flight 160, a 767 that would have flown from San Diego to New York on the morning of 9/11 but for the air ban. [Chicago Tribune, 9/23/2001]
The FBI is said to be seeking a number of passengers who failed to board the same, rescheduled flights when the grounding order on commercial planes in the US was lifted. [BBC, 9/18/2001] The Independent points out suspicions have been fueled “that staff at US airports may have played an active role in the conspiracy and helped the hijackers to circumvent airport security.” They also note, “It is possible that at least some of the flights that have come under scrutiny were used as decoys, or as fallback targets.” [Independent, 9/25/2001]

Entity Tags: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mohammed Azmath, Syed Gul Mohammad Shah

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline
Bookmark and Share
October 20, 2001: Report Finds None Arrested in Terrorism Investigation Connected to 9/11
Edit event

Mohammed Azmath, left, and Syed Gul Mohammad Shah/ Ayub Ali Khan, right.Mohammed Azmath, left, and Syed Gul Mohammad Shah/ Ayub Ali Khan, right. [Source: Associated Press]The New York Times reports that, although 830 people have been arrested in the 9/11 terrorism investigation (a number that eventually exceeds between 1,200 and 2,000 (see November 5, 2001), there is no evidence that anyone now in custody was a conspirator in the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, “none of the nearly 100 people still being sought by the [FBI] is seen as a major suspect.” Of all the people arrested, only four, Zacarias Moussaoui, Ayub Ali Khan, Mohammed Azmath, and Nabil al-Marabh, are likely connected to al-Qaeda. [New York Times, 10/21/2001] Three of those are later cleared of ties to al-Qaeda. After being kept in solitary confinement for more than eight months without seeing a judge or being assigned a lawyer, al-Marabh pleads guilty to the minor charge of entering the United States illegally (see September 3, 2002) and is deported to Syria (see January 2004). There is considerable evidence al-Marabh did have ties to al-Qaeda and even the 9/11 plot (see September 2000; January 2001-Summer 2001; January 2001-Summer 2001; Spring 2001; Early September 2001). [Washington Post, 6/12/2002; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 8/27/2002] On September 12, 2002, after a year in solitary confinement and four months before he was able to contact a lawyer, Mohammed Azmath pleads guilty to one count of credit card fraud, and is released with time served. Ayub Ali Khan, whose real name is apparently Syed Gul Mohammad Shah, is given a longer sentence for credit card fraud, but is released and deported by the end of 2002. [Village Voice, 9/25/2002; New York Times, 12/31/2002] By December 2002, only 6 are known to still be in custody, and none have been charged with any terrorist acts (see December 11, 2002). On September 24, 2001, Newsweek reported that “the FBI has privately estimated that more than 1,000 individuals—most of them foreign nationals—with suspected terrorist ties are currently living in the United States.” [Newsweek, 10/1/2001]

Entity Tags: Nabil al-Marabh, Al-Qaeda, Mohammed Azmath, Syed Gul Mohammad Shah, Zacarias Moussaoui, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline, Civil Liberties
Bookmark and Share
November 3, 2001: Nepal Man Arrested at Chicago Airport Has Same Address as Other Terror Suspect; FBI Denies Any Connection
Edit event

Subash Gurung.Subash Gurung. [Source: CNN/Courtesy WLS-TV]A young Nepalese man named Subash Gurung is arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare airport trying to board a United Airlines flight to Omaha with numerous knives, a can of mace, and a stun gun. He is in the US on an expired student visa. He is unemployed at the time of his arrest. Gurung claims that he was in a hurry and was unaware of the knives and other items in his luggage. But CNN reports that Gurung gave as his address an apartment building in Chicago that was also used by one of two terror suspects arrested on September 12, 2001 (see September 19, 2001 and After and October 20, 2001). This individual, Ayub Ali Khan (whose real name is apparently Syed Gul Mohammad Shah), lived in New Jersey but also used a Chicago address. A CNN government source says “many phone calls were made to and from that apartment, and credit card bills were paid from that address.” After being released by local police on bond, Gurung will be re-arrested the following day by the FBI for a weapons violation. Despite the apparent link to Ayub Ali Khan, the FBI denies any terror connection: “There is no allegation that this incident involves any suspected terrorist activity.” [CNN, 11/5/2001; CNN, 11/6/2001] Gurung will be convicted of a weapons charge in October 2002, and then deported. [New York Times, 10/9/2002]

Entity Tags: Subash Gurung, Syed Gul Mohammad Shah, Mohammed Azmath

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline


http://www.historycommons.org/context.j ... tedflights


If boxcutters and knives were preplanted on the four used flights as well as a bunch of other flights, AND other al Qaeda/unassociated cells were
suppose to be on those flights...

I think this is definitely proof 9/11 was a deep state operation much bigger than al Qaeda. A bigger smoking gun in my mind than even the suspicious tower collapses.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby thatsmystory » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:26 am

8bitagent wrote:If boxcutters and knives were preplanted on the four used flights as well as a bunch of other flights, AND other al Qaeda/unassociated cells were
suppose to be on those flights...

I think this is definitely proof 9/11 was a deep state operation much bigger than al Qaeda. A bigger smoking gun in my mind than even the suspicious tower collapses.


I guess you aren't familiar with the Salomon Brothers Building (referred to as Building #7 by some). Could there be a bigger smoking gun?

That aside, one is left to wonder why guns were not planted on the planes. After all, if airline employees could plant knives then why not guns which would have made operational sense?

In Unsafe at any Altitude, author Trento discussed the problems with insufficient background checks for airline employees. The emphasis was on cutting costs at the expense of security (hard to believe I know). Oddly enough, despite making this case Trento goes on to describe Frank Argenbright as a government scapegoat for 9/11. Who could of guessed that an author would go easy on a source? Not me.
thatsmystory
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:35 am

thatsmystory wrote:
8bitagent wrote:If boxcutters and knives were preplanted on the four used flights as well as a bunch of other flights, AND other al Qaeda/unassociated cells were
suppose to be on those flights...

I think this is definitely proof 9/11 was a deep state operation much bigger than al Qaeda. A bigger smoking gun in my mind than even the suspicious tower collapses.


I guess you aren't familiar with the Salomon Brothers Building (referred to as Building #7 by some). Could there be a bigger smoking gun?

That aside, one is left to wonder why guns were not planted on the planes. After all, if airline employees could plant knives then why not guns which would have made operational sense?

In Unsafe at any Altitude, author Trento discussed the problems with insufficient background checks for airline employees. The emphasis was on cutting costs at the expense of security (hard to believe I know). Oddly enough, despite making this case Trento goes on to describe Frank Argenbright as a government scapegoat for 9/11. Who could of guessed that an author would go easy on a source? Not me.


Oh gosh, I've looked into WTC7 ad nauseum. I thought it was interesting in 2005, but admittedly am pretty fatigued on "7 World Trade Discussion".

By the way, all reports indicate at least one gun had been smuggled on board Flight 11, used to kill Daniel Lewin.

Also here's the link to that new documentary that is comprised entirely of extremely rare/hardly ever seen footage from 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13
called "Between the Lies". It goes deep into not just the collapse of the 3 towers, but way deep into the hijackers, Pentagon, Flight 93 and especially the "United 23" story(at the hour mark)
http://www.archive.org/details/Between_the_Lies
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby thatsmystory » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:46 am

8bitagent wrote:
thatsmystory wrote:
8bitagent wrote:If boxcutters and knives were preplanted on the four used flights as well as a bunch of other flights, AND other al Qaeda/unassociated cells were
suppose to be on those flights...

I think this is definitely proof 9/11 was a deep state operation much bigger than al Qaeda. A bigger smoking gun in my mind than even the suspicious tower collapses.


I guess you aren't familiar with the Salomon Brothers Building (referred to as Building #7 by some). Could there be a bigger smoking gun?

That aside, one is left to wonder why guns were not planted on the planes. After all, if airline employees could plant knives then why not guns which would have made operational sense?

In Unsafe at any Altitude, author Trento discussed the problems with insufficient background checks for airline employees. The emphasis was on cutting costs at the expense of security (hard to believe I know). Oddly enough, despite making this case Trento goes on to describe Frank Argenbright as a government scapegoat for 9/11. Who could of guessed that an author would go easy on a source? Not me.


Oh gosh, I've looked into WTC7 ad nauseum. I thought it was interesting in 2005, but admittedly am pretty fatigued on "7 World Trade Discussion".

By the way, all reports indicate at least one gun had been smuggled on board Flight 11, used to kill Daniel Lewin.

Also here's the link to that new documentary that is comprised entirely of extremely rare/hardly ever seen footage from 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13
called "Between the Lies". It goes deep into not just the collapse of the 3 towers, but way deep into the hijackers, Pentagon, Flight 93 and especially the "United 23" story(at the hour mark)
http://www.archive.org/details/Between_the_Lies


I watched most of it today. I wish they had more clips of the WTC collapses. IMHO, reshowing the collapses 2,500 times wasn't enough.

I find the distrust of MSM very disconcerting. A better word would be unpatriotic. Or maybe seditious. To impugn the integrity of MSM is outrageous. Since when have they misled the public?

BTW, I haven't found a sarcasm emoticon.
thatsmystory
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:18 am

thatsmystory wrote:
8bitagent wrote:
thatsmystory wrote:
8bitagent wrote:If boxcutters and knives were preplanted on the four used flights as well as a bunch of other flights, AND other al Qaeda/unassociated cells were
suppose to be on those flights...

I think this is definitely proof 9/11 was a deep state operation much bigger than al Qaeda. A bigger smoking gun in my mind than even the suspicious tower collapses.


I guess you aren't familiar with the Salomon Brothers Building (referred to as Building #7 by some). Could there be a bigger smoking gun?

That aside, one is left to wonder why guns were not planted on the planes. After all, if airline employees could plant knives then why not guns which would have made operational sense?

In Unsafe at any Altitude, author Trento discussed the problems with insufficient background checks for airline employees. The emphasis was on cutting costs at the expense of security (hard to believe I know). Oddly enough, despite making this case Trento goes on to describe Frank Argenbright as a government scapegoat for 9/11. Who could of guessed that an author would go easy on a source? Not me.


Oh gosh, I've looked into WTC7 ad nauseum. I thought it was interesting in 2005, but admittedly am pretty fatigued on "7 World Trade Discussion".

By the way, all reports indicate at least one gun had been smuggled on board Flight 11, used to kill Daniel Lewin.

Also here's the link to that new documentary that is comprised entirely of extremely rare/hardly ever seen footage from 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13
called "Between the Lies". It goes deep into not just the collapse of the 3 towers, but way deep into the hijackers, Pentagon, Flight 93 and especially the "United 23" story(at the hour mark)
http://www.archive.org/details/Between_the_Lies


I watched most of it today. I wish they had more clips of the WTC collapses. IMHO, reshowing the collapses 2,500 times wasn't enough.

I find the distrust of MSM very disconcerting. A better word would be unpatriotic. Or maybe seditious. To impugn the integrity of MSM is outrageous. Since when have they misled the public?

BTW, I haven't found a sarcasm emoticon.


Oh good, I'm curious what you'll make of the United 23 section.

Also, I didn't mean to downplay WTC7...it just seems like, this event as well as the tower collapses is what the majority of 9/11 researchers focus on. My argument is that all these years later, the physical evidence of JFK(back into the left/Zapruder, accoustics, pristine bullet, etc) may have turned the public against the Warren commission...it just never stood up in a court of law.

However money trails, chain of custody, conspiracy laws, and evidence of providing material support indeed seems to be more clearcut in courtrooms and lawsuits.

To me it always mattered not if both "al Qaeda" and the US government agreed on the basics of "what happened" and "how it all went down". Because there genuinely appears to be this shadow side dovetailing with every nook and cranny of the Sept 11th operation that points toward something much bigger and complex than either the "al Qaeda did it" or the "Bush administration/government" did it theories.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby thatsmystory » Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:46 am

8bitagent wrote:
thatsmystory wrote:
8bitagent wrote:
thatsmystory wrote:
8bitagent wrote:If boxcutters and knives were preplanted on the four used flights as well as a bunch of other flights, AND other al Qaeda/unassociated cells were
suppose to be on those flights...

I think this is definitely proof 9/11 was a deep state operation much bigger than al Qaeda. A bigger smoking gun in my mind than even the suspicious tower collapses.


I guess you aren't familiar with the Salomon Brothers Building (referred to as Building #7 by some). Could there be a bigger smoking gun?

That aside, one is left to wonder why guns were not planted on the planes. After all, if airline employees could plant knives then why not guns which would have made operational sense?

In Unsafe at any Altitude, author Trento discussed the problems with insufficient background checks for airline employees. The emphasis was on cutting costs at the expense of security (hard to believe I know). Oddly enough, despite making this case Trento goes on to describe Frank Argenbright as a government scapegoat for 9/11. Who could of guessed that an author would go easy on a source? Not me.


Oh gosh, I've looked into WTC7 ad nauseum. I thought it was interesting in 2005, but admittedly am pretty fatigued on "7 World Trade Discussion".

By the way, all reports indicate at least one gun had been smuggled on board Flight 11, used to kill Daniel Lewin.

Also here's the link to that new documentary that is comprised entirely of extremely rare/hardly ever seen footage from 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13
called "Between the Lies". It goes deep into not just the collapse of the 3 towers, but way deep into the hijackers, Pentagon, Flight 93 and especially the "United 23" story(at the hour mark)
http://www.archive.org/details/Between_the_Lies


I watched most of it today. I wish they had more clips of the WTC collapses. IMHO, reshowing the collapses 2,500 times wasn't enough.

I find the distrust of MSM very disconcerting. A better word would be unpatriotic. Or maybe seditious. To impugn the integrity of MSM is outrageous. Since when have they misled the public?

BTW, I haven't found a sarcasm emoticon.


Oh good, I'm curious what you'll make of the United 23 section.

Also, I didn't mean to downplay WTC7...it just seems like, this event as well as the tower collapses is what the majority of 9/11 researchers focus on. My argument is that all these years later, the physical evidence of JFK(back into the left/Zapruder, accoustics, pristine bullet, etc) may have turned the public against the Warren commission...it just never stood up in a court of law.

However money trails, chain of custody, conspiracy laws, and evidence of providing material support indeed seems to be more clearcut in courtrooms and lawsuits.

To me it always mattered not if both "al Qaeda" and the US government agreed on the basics of "what happened" and "how it all went down". Because there genuinely appears to be this shadow side dovetailing with every nook and cranny of the Sept 11th operation that points toward something much bigger and complex than either the "al Qaeda did it" or the "Bush administration/government" did it theories.


BBC reported the collapse BEFORE the collapse!

I too have decided to focus on issues apart from WTC collapses. I do agree with Building 7 advocates on the oddness of the BBC report as even firefighters couldn't have known that the entire building would collapse in such a manner. There is no mention of toppling or partial collapse but rather (paraphrased) "the building collapsed." One weird aspect is that the diesel fuel wasn't associated with the collapse by NIST. One wonders why NIST didn't take that route since it meshes with their "fuel weakened the trusses" WTC theory.

Note: My flippant reference to Building 7 is attributable to the whole Bill Maher campaign. At first I found Maher's attitude annoying but after a while I found I agreed with him. The certainty of the Building 7 theorists is unsettling. As if the phrase "Building 7" explains everything one needs to know about 9/11.

United 23: I found the TV coverage lacking. One of the TV reports stated that the suspicious passengers never boarded the planes at all. They simply aroused the suspicion of the gate agent. Why would they do such a thing? Even if they were intending to hijack the plane and the flight was canceled, why would they get upset? What sort of discipline is that? It's as if the hijackers were not trained to deal with any sort of adversity. Would highly trained al Qaeda operatives call attention to themselves? I don't think so. It appears that some of the news reports (print and TV) were disinfo.

My initial point was that we cannot know what truly went down on the 9/11 flights but United 23 (if properly investigated) could explain the MO of the 9/11 flights.

United 23 also raises some questions about the configuration of Flight 93. Why were only four hijackers on board? Al-Quatani's failed entry didn't make sense. Neither did Moussaoui's conduct for that matter. If al Qaeda was the terrrorist juggernaut as we have been told then why didn't al-Quatani have a better back story prepared? Why did Moussaoui attract so much attention that he got arrested? Is this indicative of a sophisticated terrorist outfit? I don't think so.
thatsmystory
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:22 am

thatsmystory wrote:

BBC reported the collapse BEFORE the collapse!

I too have decided to focus on issues apart from WTC collapses. I do agree with Building 7 advocates on the oddness of the BBC report as even firefighters couldn't have known that the entire building would collapse in such a manner. There is no mention of toppling or partial collapse but rather (paraphrased) "the building collapsed." One weird aspect is that the diesel fuel wasn't associated with the collapse by NIST. One wonders why NIST didn't take that route since it meshes with their "fuel weakened the trusses" WTC theory.

Note: My flippant reference to Building 7 is attributable to the whole Bill Maher campaign. At first I found Maher's attitude annoying but after a while I found I agreed with him. The certainty of the Building 7 theorists is unsettling. As if the phrase "Building 7" explains everything one needs to know about 9/11.


Well I realize I've stepped on a lot of researchers toes over the last couple years by referring to 9/11 research("truth") as "the Church of Controlled Demolition".
I'm not saying there's nothing suspicious about the towers. Even bin Laden himself in the infamous "confession" video says how shocked he was that the towers collapsed and that the air defenses were nowhere to be found. Even more ironic is the Saudi BinLaden Group's star architect was the designer of the WTC towers back in the 1960's.

However, it just seems weary that virtually every 9/11 research documentary seems to focus on the collapses. And this seems to be the overall focus in general. I went to the two day "9/11 Truth" conference in Los Angeles back in 2006 and the whole thing seemed like one big WTC tower fetish. Anyways, BBC, CNN, etc absolutely says(with WTC7/Salomon Bldg in plain view) the building has collapsed. We hear personnel saying on the ground "get back", the buildings going to blow up or come down. I believe its possible there was a genuine worry that it would come down. But to this day I cannot say "aha!" one way or another regarding the towers. I do feel whoever was ultimately behind 9/11 ensured that the towers need to collapse one way or another; and obviously jihadists with planes is not a very good way to ensure that.

Bill Maher's disdain regarding "9/11 Truth" reflects the overall liberal hatred of questioning 9/11: the insistence that the towers "absolutely were blown up", and the challenge of the idea that 9/11 was merely "blowback" and "incompetence".

thatsmystory wrote:
United 23: I found the TV coverage lacking. One of the TV reports stated that the suspicious passengers never boarded the planes at all. They simply aroused the suspicion of the gate agent. Why would they do such a thing? Even if they were intending to hijack the plane and the flight was canceled, why would they get upset? What sort of discipline is that? It's as if the hijackers were not trained to deal with any sort of adversity. Would highly trained al Qaeda operatives call attention to themselves? I don't think so. It appears that some of the news reports (print and TV) were disinfo.


Well for one, why is there such a detailed, wide ranging report of so many planes containing pre planted knives? Is this to mean that the four flights also had preplanted knives where the hijackers seats were?
Also, wasnt this flight in particular grounded before they could get on board? In the early days of 9/11 reporting, there was a clear theme from all over regarding the idea of an "airport employee inside job". I think this is entirely possible.

As for why get upset...well wasnt it Atta and al-Omari(or the Buhkari Brothers?) who got into a near fight with some random guy in the airport
parking lot? Wasnt it Atta and others who got beligerent in strip clubs, bars...and according to some reports, the Oklahoma City Bombing Museum? So many of the hijackers had short fuses, getting pulled over. Going to the cops to report stolen stuff. KSM even was arrested when he visited America. These guys did NOT blend in, and the "takfir" explanation of their obsession with porn, sex toys, drugs, strippers, and hookers absolutely does not fly. As investigators have said, these guys wanted to leave an intentional breadcrumb trail.
"Cool calm and collected" was not an asset that the hijackers always possessed.

Again, if we are to believe actor James Woods, law enforcement, FBI, witnesses, investigators, researchers, etc: then there was a LOT more than just the "19" who were on board flights or preparing for plane hijackings. Why would these guys make big scenes? Either they are that idiotic, or that was what they were intended to do.


thatsmystory wrote:
My initial point was that we cannot know what truly went down on the 9/11 flights but United 23 (if properly investigated) could explain the MO of the 9/11 flights.


Absolutely. I mean one of these guys(Subash Gurung, who tried to board a Chicago plane) even had the same address as two of the other group of "would be hijackers" So this was clearly not misreporting and "early confusion"...but proof of at least a couple of cells.

My focus in researching 9/11 has primarily been centered on:

* The history of al Qaeda, from Maktab al-Khidamat to al Qaeda and
the al Kifah Center in Brooklyn and Boston.

*The evolution of al Kifah Center to "Care Intl." and its absorbtion into the Ptech/Yasin al Qadi realm of massachusetts/New Jersey companies.
(BMI, Ptech, Logan Furniture, etc) Also the role of Ptech as an al Qaeda front, Qadi and Khalid bin Mahfoud's financing of bin Laden, and most importantly Ptech backdoor risk management architecture software on all high level US government system(including the FAA)

*Choosing of specific flight schools in America by bin Laden corporation SICO

*The evolution of the "al Qaeda" saga, from the Sadat assassination and Afghanistan to Ali Mohamed to Rabbi Khahane killing, World Trade Center 1993/Al Kifah/Al Farooq mosque/Blind Sheikh, to Ramzi Yousef in the Philippines and Manhattan jail, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed's 1994-2001 movements, to bin Laden and Zawahiri's time in Sudan and Afghanistan, to the 1998 Dar-Es-Salaam/Nairobi and USS Cole bombings, to most importantly "Jihad in Bosnia and Chechnya".

*The saga of Khalid al Midhar and Nawaf al Hazmi

*Involvement of Saudi GID, Jeddah embassy, Royals and Officials regarding both financial and material support

*Role of Able Danger, Hamburg cell, Brooklyn cell, Darkazanli, NSA eavesdropping, 1996-1998 role of American Aukai Collins as informant in Bosnia/Chechnya/Afghanistan/Phoenix AZ.

*Role of Dubai's banking system

*Role of Pakistani Intelligence, Omar Saeed Sheikh, RG Abbas, etc

*Role of Israeli spies in spying the hijackers

*Role of Muwafaq Foundation, WAMY, Holy Land, Care Intl, Benevolence International, SICO, Tatex Trading, Infocom, Infocus, and other al Qaeda linked front companies and terror financing charities.

*Trail of the hijackers in Southern California, Florida, Oklahoma, Virginia, etc.

*Role of unknown and known hijacker accomplices inside of America from 1999-2001

Do I feel I'm anymore closer to "the truth" than those who focus more on the physical anomalies of the day itself? Well, not entirely...but I definitely am convinced the 9/11 operation, to the chagrin of KSM and Zawahiri, is a very complex deep state event. The "Atef and Zawahiri" computers and raid of the Kabul al Qaeda office to me shows that the "main core" of al Qaeda were in a very small bubble unaware of the real agenda they were playing too. Zawahiri, Atef, bin Laden, KSM, etc might have felt like they were putting one over the "powers that be"...in reality al Qaeda was the one being played.


thatsmystory wrote:
United 23 also raises some questions about the configuration of Flight 93. Why were only four hijackers on board? Al-Quatani's failed entry didn't make sense. Neither did Moussaoui's conduct for that matter. If al Qaeda was the terrrorist juggernaut as we have been told then why didn't al-Quatani have a better back story prepared? Why did Moussaoui attract so much attention that he got arrested? Is this indicative of a sophisticated terrorist outfit? I don't think so.


Oh, Zacharius Moussaoui IS KEY to unlocking many aspects of 9/11.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2091676.stm

Zacarias Moussaoui claims that he, and the suspected hijackers, were under surveillance by the FBI before September, and that the US intelligence agencies allowed the attacks to happen.

This was the latest in a series of handwritten motions from Mr Moussaoui to the judge overseeing his case.

In it, he says he has "relevant information and proof" relating to the conduct of the FBI before September.


Who was Zacharious Moussaoui hanging out with in Norman Oklahoma at the University of Oklahoma?
Nick Berg, WTC 1993/OKC 1995 operative Melvin Lattimore(roomate),
Hussein al Attas(roomate, and friend of al Midhar/al Hazmi),
as well as Moussaoui was seen with Mohamed Atta, alShehi, and several other hijackers. Moussaoui and Atta were taken to the same dusty
"Dreamland Motel" in August of 2001 by Lattimore, that Lattimore had taken Mcveigh, Nichols and others to just a few weeks before the OKC bombing.

Moussaoui matters, because it directly connects the Kuala Lampar apartment where Moussaoui stayed, to the Nick Berg case(both Berg and Moussaoui trained at Airman Aviation in 2001), to the Oklahoma City Bombing case, and to the rest of the hijackers. Bin Laden and KSM might call Moussaoui a "wannabe", but even Moussaoui's ties to Richard Reid and the London mosque are very significant in my mind.

Al-Quatani's blocking from getting in of course revealed a weakness in al Qaeda. Because this goes straight into the central question you've been asking lately: "Did al Qaeda have backup cells and or operatives just in case something went wrong?"

Its my belief that there were extra hijacker teams and sleeper cells that al Qaeda was completely unaware of. Including the United 23 stuff,
and the white Israeli connected vans in NYC and NJ. Perhaps their job was either to create further chaos...or to obfuscate.

Why did Moussaoui make such a scene? Well, we know for a fact that
Hussein al Attas drove him to MN, where he was in contact with Blackwater(according to whom he was emailing and calling) We also know Ziad Jarrah was being trained by "Men Who Stare At Goats" alumni and occult military trainer Bert Rodriguez in Florida, and had the email "ziadjarrah@ab.com"(a military subcontractor email)
Melvin(Mujahid Menepta) Lattimore would have to then drive to pick up Al Attas in MN shortly after 9/11 where both were then arrested.
We know over 75 times FBI agents pleaded to get Moussaoui and search his laptop, where al Qaeda information and Nick Berg's emails were found.

In total, I believe that there is direct prima facie evidence that the same operatives were used in the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, and some of these guys end up within the 9/11 framework.

What connects all this is Moussaoui. At the Dreamland motel where authorities believe the OKC conspirators and plot swirled around is the exact same motel that Mousaoui, Marwan alShehi and Atta were taken too. Both involved Melvin Lattimore, who was said to have always been loitering around the motel by the owners:
http://www.laweekly.com/2002-08-01/news ... rist-motel
Fox News Special: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIZUlAN-E_E


Image
Last edited by 8bitagent on Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:15 am

Btw, for anyone curious as to where a large bulk of the al Qaeda money used for 9/11 came from

http://www.historycommons.org/context.j ... 3riggsbank

Riggs Bank in Washington, DC. [Source: Washington Post]In late 2002, US federal banking investigators began looking into transactions at Riggs Bank because of news reports that some money may have passed from the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington through Riggs Bank to the associates of two 9/11 hijackers in San Diego (see December 4, 1999). But in July 2003, the probe expands as investigators discover irregularities involving tens of millions of dollars also connected to the Saudi embassy. The Wall Street Journal will later report, “Riggs repeatedly failed in 2001 and 2002 to file suspicious-activity reports related to cash transactions in the low tens of millions of dollars in Saudi accounts, said people familiar with the matter.” Riggs Bank “handles the bulk of [Washington’s] diplomatic accounts, a niche market that revolves around relationships and discretion.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/14/2004]

Newsweek will later report that “investigators say the embassy accounts show a large commingling of funds with Islamic charities that have been the prime target of US probes.” In one instance, on July 10, 2001 the Saudi embassy sent $70,000 to two Saudis in Massachusetts. One of the Saudis wrote a $20,000 check that same day to a third Saudi who had listed the same address as Aafia Siddiqui, a microbiologist who is believed to have been a US-based operative for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (see Late September 2001-March 2003). [Newsweek, 4/12/2004] The Wall Street Journal will later discover that Riggs Bank “has had a longstanding relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, according to people familiar with Riggs operations and US government officials” (see December 31, 2004).

The relationship included top Riggs executives receiving US government security clearances. Riggs also overlooked tens of millions of dollars in suspicious transactions by right wing dictators from Africa and South America such as former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. [Wall Street Journal, 12/31/2004] A connection between the CIA and Riggs Bank goes back to at least the early 1960s. And in 1977, journalist Bob Woodward tied Riggs Bank to payments in a CIA operation in Iran. [Slate, 1/10/2005]

The CIA tie leads to suspicions that the bank’s failure to disclose financial activity by Saudi diplomats and other foreign officials may have been implicitly authorized by parts of the US government. Some of the suspicious Saudi accounts belong to Saudi diplomats, including Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the US. Shortly after these irregularities are discovered, Prince Bandar meets with Treasury Secretary John Snow and details his work for the CIA. For instance, during the 1980s, Prince Bandar helped fund the anticommunist Nicaraguan Contra rebels at the request of the White House and CIA as part of what became known as the Iran-Contra affair, and he also helped the CIA support Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet Union. It is not known what was discussed but US intelligence officials suggest Prince Bandar disclosed his CIA connections “as an explanation for the prince’s large unexplained cash transactions at Riggs.” [Wall Street Journal, 12/31/2004]

It will later come to light that for many years $30 million a month were being secretly deposited into a Riggs Bank account controlled by Prince Bandar. It has been alleged that major British arms contractor BAE Systems funneled up to $2 billion in bribes through this account over the years as part of an $80 billion weapons deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia. Riggs Bank never knew the source of the funds. After the probe uncovers these suspicious transactions, the bank cuts off all business with the Saudis. [Newsweek, 6/11/2007] The US Treasury will later impose unusually strict controls on Riggs Bank and fine the bank $25 million. [Wall Street Journal, 1/14/2004] The bank will also plead guilty to one felony count of failing to file suspicious activity reports and pay an additional fine of $16 million. [Washington Post, 1/28/2005]
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Nordic » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:02 pm

Prince Bandar? The same Prince Bandar who was allowed to examine the top-secret invasion plans for Iraq, who saw them even before Colin Powell saw them?

I remember when that would have been called 'treason', to show invasion plans to a foreign national.

Then again, I remember when "giving bonuses" was called "Embezzlement" and was illegal.

Gosh, how things change!
Nordic
 
Posts: 14206
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby jingofever » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:24 pm

thatsmystory wrote:I do agree with Building 7 advocates on the oddness of the BBC report as even firefighters couldn't have known that the entire building would collapse in such a manner.

The firefighters knew it was coming down. And not because of nano-thermite or anything like that.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Nordic » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:41 pm

8. "We heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down. ...We heard that all day long, all the warnings." –Firefighter Christopher Patrick Murray
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... 110327.PDF

10. Civilian photographer Tom Franklin: “Much of what happened to me on September 11 is a blur, but this moment I clearly remember: It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall.” http://archives.cjr.org/year/02/2/franklin.asp

11. Unidentified speaker in video: "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... low_up.wmv


A lot of people knew it was coming down. "Word came . ... we heard it all day long ....." Then the BBC said it fell down before it actually fell down. And the people in charge knew exactly how it was going to fall down?

That doesn't strike you as odd?

By the way, History Commons is a real treasure.
Nordic
 
Posts: 14206
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:42 pm

jingofever wrote:
thatsmystory wrote:I do agree with Building 7 advocates on the oddness of the BBC report as even firefighters couldn't have known that the entire building would collapse in such a manner.

The firefighters knew it was coming down. And not because of nano-thermite or anything like that.


But...but...all those firechiefs and firemen must be in on it! The Silverstein neocon Marvin Bush cabal is paying them millions to say that! WTC7 is the smoking gun!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

But seriously, Mark Roberts and all these debunkers might work well against the Loose Change/Kevin Barret/David Ray Griffin/Alex Jones types...but I would lovvvve to see them try and go head to head with Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Peter Dale Scott, etc.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby thatsmystory » Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:07 pm

There is a good book called Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 by Wayne Barrett. Barrett discusses the decision making process of putting the emergency command center in Building 7. And he goes into depth about the failed process of upgrading firefighter radios.

The book adds some context to the story of Building 7.
thatsmystory
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests