How smart were the "terrorists?"

Whatever.

Now you wanna flip the script like you don't support the official story. All the 9/11 posts that I've read of yours smack of support of the official story. You made an assumption on me, I made one on you. If you don't like it, don't assume stuff about me in the first place.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And you know that I support the entire official story how? I never said I support it. I simply said that it would be easy for non-gov't agents to pull it off exactly how it happened. Just because it happened the way it did doesn't automatically make it a gov't op.

You are a really confusing person Zaphod, you comeplety argue the official story, but then you deny believing the official story?

So why are you arguing for it? Just because it's possible that non-gov agents did it? That makes a lot of sense. It's just as possible they did do it, right? It's also possible I did it, or you. To base your whole belief system on possibilities is pretty stupid. No wonder all your arguments fall flat. Look at the facts not possibilities, but I guess you'll just keep arguing the points that fit your possibility and ignore the rest as usual. And where is that engine casing?

You are either a spook or just like to argue without any care for the real truth.

[edit on 23/3/2006 by ANOK]

I am arguing that it happened like they said. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that the gov't didn't know about it, or that they didn't do anything to stop it. Just because it was carried out the way that it did doesn't make them gov't agents. I believe that it WAS Al Qaeda, and that the gov't knew something was about to happen, and squelched attempts to stop it, or dragged their feet about it.

Supporting the official story doesn't automatically make me a spook, or someone who likes to argue. It just means that I believe it's entirely possible that it WAS carried out just like they said it was, and that the people they said were behind it. Did the gov't know? Almost definately, could they have stopped it? Almost definately. Did they want to stop it? No.

[edit on 3/23/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I am arguing that it happened like they said. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that the gov't didn't know about it, or that they didn't do anything to stop it. Just because it was carried out the way that it did doesn't make them gov't agents. I believe that it WAS Al Qaeda, and that the gov't knew something was about to happen, and squelched attempts to stop it, or dragged their feet about it.

Supporting the official story doesn't automatically make me a spook, or someone who likes to argue. It just means that I believe it's entirely possible that it WAS carried out just like they said it was, and that the people they said were behind it. Did the gov't know? Almost definately, could they have stopped it? Almost definately. Did they want to stop it? No.

[edit on 3/23/2006 by Zaphod58]

Do you realize what you're now saying?

You say you believe it happened like they said, even though you think they knew about it and didn't stop it. That puts it on par with Pearl Harbor right there, and that's what PNAC and Brzezenski called for, but I won't go there for now.

You do realize that you are saying that the govt KNEW the terrorists were going to kill nearly 3000 Americans, but they let it, no, they WANTED it to happen! Then, you back door and support how they said it happened, even though you think they knew it was coming. You have NO PROBLEM believing the people who knew it was going to happend and thousands were going to die.

Not sure what to make of you at the moment...you're stunning me at every turn.

I still don't really understand Zaphod, if you think the gov new about it and didn't do anything why aren't you angry? Why are you suppporting the official story?

Shouldn't you be expressing your anger at a government that would let this happen, not making excuses for them?

And we could argue about alCIAda all day also. Can't you see this whole thing is BS and the gov is completey responsible whether directly or not?

Arguing the official story when you believe it was allowed to happen helps nobody but those that allowed it to happen. Arn't they just as guilty if they allowed it to happen, as they would be if they actualy did it?

We call this in Psychology "cognitive dissonance"- when something is out of place yet you can't abandon a previous belief completely since the alternative is too scanty in the details and inconsistent in certain aspects itself. Lots of this happening over 9/11, I myself don't buy the offical story. Which sounds more plausible:


A)

A Dozen disgruntled goatherders in a dark cave in the remotest part of Afghanistan devised an incredibly evil plan involving stealing box cutters and jamming planes into buildings. After passing through the tightest airport security on the planet with few exceptions, they then proceeded to carry forth their malevolent intent by killing a bunch of people on the plane and penetrating the impenetrable piloting section of the plane. Using incredible demonic magic skills given by Allah and Muhammed, they flawlessly piloted the plane avoiding radar via their magic carpet classified Iraqi plane covering system. The plane was guided without any passenger panic through the heart of America, and it's weak tin body along with several dozen gallons of fuel destroyed the world's strongest standing structure which could take up to two planes or even a cruise missile and still remain. The fuel was kept really hot by magic Genies who kept blowing it every few seconds until it could melt steel. The tower then collapsed flat due to a big magic hand holding it together until the job was done.


B) Somebody in the industrial-military complex wanted a 9/11 or "pearl harbour like event" so they could carry forth a totalitarian agenda which would now have a greater degree of consent from the populace.


I take A, but the conspiracy theorists will obviously pick B. Stupid conspiracy freaks.....

The tightest airport security in the world? Don't make me laugh! Our airport security SUCKED.

And as far as Anok and Truthseeka, I AM angry about it and I think we need to get rid of our gov't. However I'm also attempting to, as the site says, deny ignorance. If I know that something being argued isn't true, then why SHOULDN'T I try to correct it? Or should I just ignore it?

I'm done with this. You two will never understand my beliefs, and I'll never be able to explain it to you, so forget it. Why should I bother to try. You deal with it your way, I'll deal with it mine.

Your comments that they are disgruntled, cave dweelling goatherders are rather racist, do you not think?
They are people like the rest of us and just as capable and a hell of a lot more willing. THey also have a large number of resources available to them as well as large amounts of money.

You may want to research your 'goatherders' before making such statements.

You can start with these pages (emphasis added):

Usāmah bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Lādin (Arabic: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن; born March 10, 1957 [1]), commonly known as Osama bin Laden or Usama bin Laden (أسامة بن لادن) is an Islamic fundamentalist, a founder of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization and a member of the immensely rich bin Laden family.
[..........]
As a college student, bin Laden studied civil engineering and business administration. He earned a degree in civil engineering in 1979 and one in economics and public administration in 1981; both from King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah.
en.wikipedia.org...

The immensely rich bin Laden family, intimately connected with the innermost circles of the Saudi royal family was thrown into prominence through the activities of Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family own and operate a global corporation annually grossing 5 billion U.S. dollars, based upon the largest construction firm in the Islamic world, with offices in London and Geneva
en.wikipedia.org...

Obviously the whole family were not involved
But he is a little more than a 'goatherder', describing these people as such is ignorant and borderline racist.

Zaphod how is arguing the official story denying ignorance?

Have you looked at the 9-11 poll thread lately, are you saying the majority of ppl on ATS are ignorant?

You're the one who blindly ignores obvious evidence of a coverup, not us.
You have argued the official story in EVERY aspect.

I try not to go around calling everyone ignorant as you seem to, just dilusional and in denial. I think you are scared of facing the truth, because the truth would rock your world. I guess ignorance is bliss and all that...

Agent Smith I actually agree with you on this.

Not all Arabs are goat herders, in fact south west Asia is far more sofisticated than we're led to believe in the press.

But still, the ability to be able to do something does not imply guilt.
By your standards, I could have pulled it off myself very easily because I have flight simulater time, but it don't mean I did it does it?

Arguing over whether they had the ability is stupid really. There are aspects of the event, the flight path to the pentagoon for example, that ANYONE would have a great difficulty doing.

There is enough evidence IMHO of government/military involvement, so whether the 'goat herders' could have done it or not is mute IMHO.

Originally posted by ANOK
Zaphod how is arguing the official story denying ignorance?

Have you looked at the 9-11 poll thread lately, are you saying the majority of ppl on ATS are ignorant?

You're the one who blindly ignores obvious evidence of a coverup, not us.
You have argued the official story in EVERY aspect.

I try not to go around calling everyone ignorant as you seem to, just dilusional and in denial. I think you are scared of facing the truth, because the truth would rock your world. I guess ignorance is bliss and all that...

Have I said people were ignorant? No I didn't, and I'll appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I said that I am trying to get CORRECT information out. Like the person that claimed Andrews AFB had fighters sitting there on alert, and the pilots had to get into the plane, and take off in under 60 seconds. Or the reason that the planes didn't show up on radar, etc. Yes I might be arguing the entire story, but that doesn't make either one of us correct all the time. There are things that I've argued that I later found out were wrong, and there are things that you guys have argued that I KNOW beyond a doubt to be inaccurate.

Are people that think the gov't did it ignorant? No. Are people that think the gov't didn't do it ignorant? No. Neither side of this argument is ignorant. But what's the point of arguing it if you're going to point to incorrect information and use wrong information to back you up?

Edit to add:
No I'm not saying I'm always right, or the people that post things like the fighters getting airborne in 60 seconds are ignorant. It's simply a case of people finding the wrong information, or in my case a few times, remembering wrong, with things they learned years before.

[edit on 3/24/2006 by Zaphod58]

Zaphod I didn't put words in your mouth....You said you are denying ignorance by arguing the official story as fact. So who the hell are you calling ignorant then if not those that don't buy into your BS?

Why do you always say one thing and then claim you meant something else?
Maybe you have foot in mouth desease?

Sorry bro but you're on a sinking ship, more and more people are comming out against the govs official story. It's getting much harder to convince ppl the official story was the truth, than the fact that it wasn't. It's pretty damn obviouse to most. History is full of events like 9-11, it's nothing new...

The Romans set fire to their own city to blaim it on their enemy.
Hitler burned the Reichstag to blaim it on their enemy.
The U.S. allowed Pearl Harbour to happen for an excuse to go to war.
The Oaklahoma fed building was an inside job.

The list goes on and it's about time ppl woke up!

Well, back on topic of the original questoin "How smart were they"...

I would say they were quite intelligent in pulling off the most notorious Terror Attack the world has ever known.

I won't bother reciting the earlier comments enforcing their intelligence, but I will add this...

If only one of the planes hijacked that day, hit their mark. Mission Accomplished.
This is one of the reasons why I think they orchestrated it the way they did.

:Selecting planes that were fully fueled-more fire power

:planes not carrying many passengers - less chance of resistance

:Using fear as the greatest weapon against the passengers.

:Not putting 'all their eggs in one basket'. As said above, if only one plane made its mark, the statement would be made.

Agent smit, I was talking about the 19 hijackers, and I used that word to show how ludicrous this official story is.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
They are people like the rest of us and just as capable and a hell of a lot more willing. THey also have a large number of resources available to them as well as large amounts of money.

A hell of a lot more willing to do what?


[edit on 24-3-2006 by The Links]

So...

Now we're racist because we say these guys didn't do it. Right. Just like all the Minutemen are racist because they want the govt to secure our border.

Gotta love these diversion tactics, though...

Originally posted by truthseeka
Sigh.

You're one to talk about a pre-established opinion. That's the ENTIRE official story! 9/11 Commission, they said they would NOT address any blame on the US govt. NIST, FEMA, started with the conclusion that fires brought down the planes, then worked their way to that conclusion.

Let me tell you about how I came to my current conclusion. I still remember 9/11/01. As I watched the towers fall, I thought to myself, "would those buildings fall like that when the planes hit them really high up near the top?" Then, when bldg 7 fell, I thought "that's weird, a plane didn't hit that one, why did it fall?"

I meant to ask some of my friends and physics professors if they would have fallen like that, but I got swept up in the patriotism and bought the official story.

When it was announced there was a WOT, I thought "that's just retarded. How are you gonna fight a war against an abstract thing like terrorism? Where is this new Terrorism country located?"

But, I still bought it all. That is, until I came across the alternative media and what they were saying about it all. I didn't want to believe it, I thought it was all BS, but as I looked into it myself, I was shocked at how 9/11 was part of a real deep rabbit hole. I knew in my GUT there was something wrong from the jump, but I went along with it like everybody else did.

So, don't give me any bull about me having a conclusion before evaluating the evidence like the official story you support does. That's so lame, assuming that anyone who thinks the official story is crap wears a tin hat and believes everything is a conspiracy theory, especially the moon landing.

This is a great post.

Originally posted by ANOK
Zaphod I didn't put words in your mouth....You said you are denying ignorance by arguing the official story as fact. So who the hell are you calling ignorant then if not those that don't buy into your BS?

I said I was denying ignorance by correcting certain wrong information. I didn't say that I was calling people ignorant by arguing the official story. I might be wrong and the gov't DID do it. BUT, having worked airport security, I KNOW how easy it was and is to hijack a plane.

Some of the information being put forth about that day is flat out wrong. Maybe because the person saying it has an agenda, maybe because they don't know better, I don't know. But I'm going to argue against that wrong information. That doesn't make the person saying it ignorant, just wrong.

So let me get this straight, because I believe the official story, I can't believe that the gov't knew more than they claim they did? If I argue that things could, and probably did happen the way they appeared they did then it means that I HAVE to believe that the gov't didn't know more about it than they admitted to?

But Zaphod the official story is they didn't have advanced knowledge.
So which official story are you referring to?

Big deal you worked airport security, well guess what so have I, military airport security for 2 yrs in Sicily as part of my extracurricular duty when I was in the Navy. And I can tell you from just that experience alone wouldn't tell me if the official story is true or not. Your experience wouldn't either.

Like I said before if your whole belief is based on the fact they could have done it then maybe you need to re-think this. I don't deny they could have done it, I could and you could, does that make us suspects?

Unfortunately the evidence points towards them not doing it.

[edit on 24/3/2006 by ANOK]

The official story is also that Arab hijackers pulled it off. THAT is the part that I believe. It is entirely possible that it was pulled off just how they said it was, and that they DID have foreknowledge of it and won't admit it. THAT is what I am arguing.

I never said that working airport security will let me know if the official story is true or not. I said it let me know how EASY it would be for it to happen the way they said it did.