imho the qualitative conditions are fairly damning. the administration is known to have been eager to go into iraq beforehand, then ended up going in on several arbitrary 911 related premises. a large part of his cabinet collaborated on the pnac shit that specified a new pearl harbor event as a potential catalyst for their desired process of change. the admin was being warned by all kinds of sources, even saudi princes are talking about that now.. all kinds of shit... ashcroft stopped flying commercial. it just wasn't anything close to a surprise. bush said he saw the first plane on tv twice, which would have been impossible. i don't know. i just don't buy it. i understand that a catastrophe can be convenient for an administration's foreign policy goals and economic affiliations, and still not be conspiratorial, but the warnings were pretty specific and ample. it just stinks to me. especially norad's response. it's too sloppy and convenient at the same time
what is this a joke? do these apologists think folks are in that a vacant state of mind to force down their throats this bogus shit? yeah absolute piece of cake hitting a bdg for it is so sunken that resembles a pizza, and square on right in the middle of it. i would tell this asshole to take the exisiting 10k challenge and try hit that thing in a sim...he can hit it wherever he wishes: from above, to the sides..whatever. nobody has taken the wager so far and the real professionals who tried couldn't come close to hit it anyhere. pathetic..and how much more bullshit has it yet to come with each new debunker selling new moronic fabrications we can expect to see obfuscations less and lesser coherent...most disinfo agents now hoping to rely on a comatose public. hitting a sunken bdg like the pentagon...you see the thing from airborne, any altitude and it's flat like a pizza...what a laugh
obl kept denying any involvement for quite some time, even stating that those responsible may be people with strategic interests and a hidden agenda of their own. then came the confession tape; totally fake. by then obl understood his position and the limited options he had for it he was to be blamed no matter what, so he took the only decision that although coming at a cost gave him also the better reward, and so alqaida was born.
You're saying Bin Laden founded his terrorist group AFTER 9/11?! So much foolishness in one little thread...
after reading this NIST report and repeatedly revisiting the footage, i've been struggling to resolve the way i remember the altitude of flight 11. i just started googling for corroboration on the super low approach and found a guardian piece from 9/18/01 recounting a similar experience http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4259170,00.html "My wife's sister had just taken her children to school and was standing on the corner of Fifth Avenue and Eleventh Street at 8.58 am, on the eleventh day of the ninth month of 2001 (the duo-millennial anniversary of Christianity). For a moment she imagined herself to be on a runway at Kennedy Airport. She looked up to see the glistening underbelly of the 767, a matter of yards above her head. (Another witness described plane number one as "driving" down Fifth Avenue - at 400mph.) There is a modest arch that fronts Washington Square Park; American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles was flying so low that it had to climb to clear it." there are probably many eyewitness accounts that directly contradict the altitude in the video and NIST impact information. if i find more i'll post them
if anyone can explain to me how the plane was low enough to graze people on 5th ave and the arch as well as the altitude i saw at spring and renwick, yet high enough to impact the top of WTC1 from a left banking 10 degree down angle at final impact, i would love to hear some possibilities. i'm pretty sure the NIST has this wrong
i mean, i can't say with any authority specifically what type of airliner it was, but it had the appearance of a standard 2 engine airliner. it transpired quickly, but 767 photos look like what i saw i don't know... i could have it wrong but a down angle just isn't what i saw at all
maybe i should have make a clear allusions stlli am surprised you'd jump it... it's the significance the term 'alqaida' gained after 911 for it was just a generic and common name shared by scores of organizations, [likely not having anything to do with jihad or terror] referenced to under 'the umbrella of the sun'. now alqaida is just associated with obl and terrorism and i don't think there're any longer anyone wishing to use the name for the 'brand' it now represents.