9-11 question

Probably a dumb question, but how did we know so soon after 9-11 (really, by that afternoon, if memory serves) that the attacks had to do with al Qaida and bin Laden and the Taliban?

 

Just to remind you

First they blamed the Muslims. A Who's Who of terrorism experts passed through the TV studios telling us that the Oklahoma bomb had an unmistakable Islamic signature. No matter that it was made of fertiliser and diesel fuel, a bomb technique taught in every commando handbook. Minds had been made up. Politicians were leaping to their feet, calling for punitive mass destruction raids on Iran, Syria or any other country that could be linked to Islamic Jihad. On the radio talk shows it was the "Pearl Harbour of the 1990s".
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
The Sunday Telegraph, 23 April 1995

 

Come to think of it, I'd never even heard of Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.

 

First time I heard of him was in 1998 when he killed 225 people at United States Embassies in Africa. I guess he became the main suspect in the Sept.11 scheme because he tried to blow up the world trade center before.

 

Actually he had nothing to do with the first WTC bombing. That was Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman, a blind Egyptian (ex CIA-ISI asset in Soviet ousting from Afghanistan) resident in the US for quite some time. Or so the story goes.

Those who view the laughable 911 coverstory as a ready "made for media regurgitation" scam (complete with alleged finds of wholly intact passport of Muhammed Attah on a nearby NYC sidewalk following the WTC strikes and supposed Korans and instructions found in parked cars at Logan Airport in Boston) also would have discovered reports of likely FBI facilitation of the event as a pretext for much earlier military action in the Middle East (which was finally realised once the neocons hijacked the Executive Branch).

Then as now (and as with the Oklahoma bombing) the "plausible" patsies were all lined up ready to derail any detailed scrutiny of those amongst our power-elite who directly stood to gain.

 

Atta's passport was found in his suitcase which never made it onto the plane, not on a New York sidewalk.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,601229,00.html

If you questioned for one moment those conspiracy sites you read, or if you did your own research, you'd know that. But you don't.

Anyway with a "LOL" and a "*YAWN*" I'm sure you'll immediately claim that even though you can't get your facts straight, you are right anyway.

Laughable indeed.

 

The Real question is why would Atta even bring any suitcase if he was going there to hijack a plane a die, and if he did bring it, you would think it would seem plausible for him to remember it, Atta leaving his so called "luggage" at the airport seems to me like highly manufactured evidence.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

The 9/11 Commission Staff reported:

"Four of the hijackers' passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. One belonged to a hijacker (Atta) on American Airlines Flight 11. A passerby picked it up and gave it to an NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed." [36]

 

One need recognise that no amount of exposure of the glaring inconsistencies of PB's preferred "official" coverstory (the actual laughable conspiracy theory to which he subscribes) is going to prompt him to question the endless string of lies manufactured by this criminal administration.

To question the far more plausible orchestration of that fateful day by our own leaders for rapid advancement of the long-planned and long-dormant PNAC agenda, the unhindered and exorbitantly financed rollout of which we have been witnessing since that day, would blow away the house of cards in which he and all other self-deluded head-in-the-sanders have long sheltered themselves from the consistent train of deceits underpinning US power politics.

 

Thanks Rat, I'm impressed that you consider yourself too good to be bothered with sources or links. Because we know you wouldn't call just anything "definitely legitimate".

But just in case, I'm going to do your work for you. I put excerpts of your quote in google and found it in a few places on the web. Funny thing was, the quote appeared identically except for one small detail - the name Atta. Seeing as that is the whole point, kind of looks like you doctored the quote.

www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/040126-transcript.htm

www.radioliberty.com/nljuly04.html

 

The way he presented the quote was in proper form. Atta was in parathesis... aka additional commentary.

 

Whether it was Atta's or any of the other alleged hijackers is irrelevant. The claim of the coverstory itself was that miraculously intact passports were discovered in the WTC rubble (when supposedly the buildings collapsed from "intense heat").

This matters not to our resident nitpicker who will merely home in on a questionable name reference and ignore the broader implications of the glaring discrepencies in the "official" story, which more intellectually honest minds can spot with little difficulty (and there are many). Even the second link he uses to somehow justify his head in the sand mentality notes repeated inconcsistencies worthy of full transparent public investigation.

Fact is, PB cannot question the delusional conspiracy theory of arch masterminds in caves in Afghanistan because to do so would force him to address the far more plausible treasonous betrayal of our nation by its own leaders who have shown themselves as those who stood to gain the most (and who indeed have along with their MIC cronies). This would dismantle all the justifications and institutional developments for the WoT (Patriot Act, Dept of Homeland Security, Gitmo, and most recently the Real ID Act) stemming directly from the lie of 911. If the real "terrorists" who began the furor were our own leaders than the mythical paradigm according to which all related news reports have been scripted for the past 4 years is exposed and the external threat dispelled, leaving only a cabal of mass murderers at our nation's helm to be indicted.

That just isnt good for PB's profiteering interest in defending the status quo of applied irrational fear.

 

Atta's passport was not found intact on a sidewalk, so taking a quote that doesn't say Atta's passport was found on a sidewalk and slipping in the word Atta is ridiculous - that's doctoring a quote. How is adding a name a commentary - its not an opinion, its a fact. Adding unsubstantiated "facts" to unsourced quotes? Is this some new debating technique?

 

Truth is Atta's passport was not found, no more than any other supposed hijacker's passport "was found" since there were no passports and there were no hijackers (especially ones who could not fly so much as a piper cub in the first place). Just one long series of lies and fabrications and coverups from those well known for their lies and stonewalling of transparent public investigation processes.

And the shill we know as PB wouldn't know proper debate methodology nor the ability to question anything other than that which infringes upon his adamant refusal to acknowledge those systematic lies even if it bit him on the ass.

 

People without luggage raise suspicion. Long before 9/11. It was far from the first plane hijacking. And Clinton had it on good authority than Bin Laden was planning something like this, and made that clear to W, who, of course, ignored him.

I certianly knew who Bin Laden was. The morning it happened, my dh called me from work BEFORE the Pentagon had even been hit, and said, "It is that MFer Bin Laden." He did the parking garage bombing in the early 90s and vowed to finish the job. As he did.

 

Why am I not the least bit surprised. Odd thing can remain in utter destruction. Papers from the first floor as well as the top floor were found blowing around, pieces of clothing from people's luggage were found on the ground and on rooftops. Fire and destruction often does leave quite a bit behind. I am not the least bit suspicious that Atta's passport was found. Many of the dead were found from ID cards and other things made from flamible materials. Fire is sometimes selective. Did you SEE the street afterward? They were littered with paper and furniture and body parts and things. Some people on the planes were found WHOLE while the person sitting next to them was never found.

It isn't that hard to beleive. I don't see why it could be so hard to beleive.

 

It is common knowledge that the alleged passport found from Flight 11 was Mohammed Atta's. PB fails to realize that the story changed several times. First, it never made it onto the plane. Then, it was found on the sidewalk. So what is the truth? Or was it completely made up altogether?

It's just like OKC, where the "official" story regarding the size of the bomb kept changing.

 

Yet, Clinton, who had plenty of chances to capture bin Laden in the late 90's, completely failed to do so. If Clinton knew about it, why did he fail to act?

It's silly to blame only Bush when there are many who deserve blame.

Most informed people were familiar with bin Laden before 9/11, as he was blamed for the several embassy bombings overseas in the late 90's, including the attack on the USS Cole.

Also, bin Laden had nothing to do with the first attack on the WTC in the early 90's. The blame was placed on Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman, as LickHERish accurately pointed out.

But, like 9/11, the '93 attack also has federal fingerprints all over it. Law-enforcement officials knew terrorists were building a bomb to blow up the WTC, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for explosives. An informer by the name of Emad Salem was to have helped build the bomb and supply fake powder, but the plan was called off at the last minute.

Read this article, taken from the New York Times, dated 10/28/93. This was one of the few articles to mention this, before the story was quietly swept under the rug and we never heard about it again.

 

"Common knowledge"? I've never heard anything about it...or do you mean "common knowledge" to people who listen to Alex Jones? I love how you selectively accept "common knowledge" as gospel when it suits your purposes, but you'll attack anyone who listens to trustworthy sources as a shill of the illuminati.

 

But if both Bush and Clinton are just pawns of the New World Order, how can you blame either of them for not acting? After all, they're just figureheads used to mask the influence of freemasonry, right? They don't actually have any power?

You're correct that Bin Laden has not been directly linked to the first WTC attack...although the perpetrators did have ties to al-Qaeda, this was before the time Bin Laden came to prominence.

Since the New York Times is controlled by the illuminati, how can you trust an article that comes from it? How do you know that this article was legitimate, and the overwhelming amount of articles to the contrary are propaganda? You can't just selectively choose which articles you're going to believe from a source you consider untrustworthy, unless you personally investigate all of them yourself (note: reading Rense and listening to Alex Jones does NOT qualify as "peronsally investigating" them).

Furthermore, this article hardly states that the bombing had "federal fingerprints all over it." It just says that the FBI knew of a terrorist effort to make a bomb to use in the WTC. The fact that this attack was not prevented doesn't necessarily mean the government was responsible...incompetence is also a strong possibility.