An inquiry into the 9/11 commission's 10th anniversary report:How to read a government commission r

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

. . . his homeland finally revoked his citizenship over his insane proclamations.

That was for his criticism of the Saudi gov.

He continued to criticize King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. In response, in 1994 Fahd stripped bin Laden of his Saudi citizenship . . .
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

www.smh.com.au...
abcnews.go.com...
www.ijcv.org...
www.nytimes.com...

The Sydney Morning Heral article:

A study of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide terrorists from the late 1980s to 2003 . . .

Which was during the first and second Intifada, where the Palestinians felt under direct attack by the Zionists.
That is not similar to Saudi nationals blowing themselves up to protest a US military presence inside a Muslim "holy land".

The ABC article:

They found the five most educated bombers all blew themselves up in major Israeli cities and killed an average of 22.8 people per attack and wounded an average of 88, while bombers in the rest of the sample took the lives of an average of three people and wounded an average of 25.2. Younger and less educated bombers were more likely to detonate too early, get caught by authorities or decide not to go through with the mission.

This is again from the first and second Intifada.

The International Journal of Conflict and Violence article: Again from the first and second Intifada.

The New York Times article is covering the same ground, basically, as the ABC article, the Harvard University and RAND Corporation researcher's study of incidents from the first and second Intifada.

So all these articles are based on this one study that at least the NY Times writer thinks is applicable to 911, though I disagree.
What motivation Mohammed Atta would have had is never figured in since I doubt that there is actually a good theory on it, rather, they rely on statistics, expecting the reader to make up their own theory.

a reply to: soundstyle

....yeah I know he has a new identity, but he should still see this....

Osama Bin Laden was not supplied by the United States during that war. He used his own money, and that of other Arabs to buy weapons and supplies for the ARABS that came to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Our aid, went to the native Afghanis. Westerners, primarily Americans, were warned to stay clear of any camps that Osama was in because even back then, he would demand that they be killed.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Those were just a few articles on the subject. There are others out there. The idea of it just being semi-literate, poor Muslims that go on suicide attacks is false. But, please enlighten us with the next layer of conspiracy.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Those were just a few articles on the subject. There are others out there.

I find that difficult to believe.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Osama Bin Laden was not supplied by the United States during that war.

lmao.....it's ALL documented and known fact.

He had NO money, he refuse his family's fortunes.

now tell me all about the official claim PUSHED that fell WTC7 equal to g. ..

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder and the 2008 HYPOTHESIS crew at the WTC7 NIST technical briefing

...new science they refuse to prove through science.....maybe you can tell us how to read that report????

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Flight 93, was on a flight path towards Washington D.C.

You see...this is what I don't get....

First you slam one plane in to the tower...everybody at that moment...still thinks it was an accident.

George Bush claimed when he said he saw the first plane hit(??...one of his many blunders) ...he said to him self "oh my god, what a terrible pilot".

Than you slam the second plane...into the second tower...and all hell breaks loose. All the players than were sure..it's a deliberate attack. The alarm is sounded all over the country. The president is rushed to a safe location...

and than...after the whole world knows....America is under attack....than you go for Washington ????? Thinking you're gonna do what ??? Surely the element of surprise is gone. And if there was any intention to go for D.C....the Capitol...than you shouldn't have left that plane for the last strike.

No man...I sincerely doubt it was going for D.C. More likely it was a redundancy plane....in case something goes wrong with the other three. But it is a speculation on my part.

a reply to: biffcartright

Biff, bob, joe, little Hoss...whoever you are today...

You keep posting items that just prove how little you actually know about the subject. Osama was financing schools, roads, etc after the Soviets pulled out, using the money you THINK he refused. Not to mention is his own words in which he denied getting any help from the Americans in an interview twenty years ago.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

It did not take a lot of research to find out just how unprotected we were for just such an attack that day Mario. Plus, you forget, Flight 93, was delayed taking off by 42 minutes.

Then, there is the one of the motivations for terrorism, inflicting fear. The separation of impacts at the Towers was designed. First impact, gets everybody's (especially our 24 hour a day media) attention, so that there are cameras on hand to capture the second impact. The same thing was going to happen in DC. One impact to get the attention, followed by a second impact captured on camera to inflict the maximum amount of terror.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

You keep posting items that just prove how little you actually know about the subject.

yet I am the only one posting SUPPORT showing they are NOT my words...

just as the official claim that NEW physics fell WTC7, 105 vertical feet equal to g.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Simple fact: if any of that building's potential energy went to destroying itself, it will lose kinetic energy which requires that the building slow in its fall......but since it did fall at constant free-fall acceleration, it wasn't causing itself to collapse.

The same thing was going to happen in DC.

oh yea....ya got images of that impact?????

be the first to post them here!

a reply to: fillerfish

The only new physics...are the ones you keep trying to proclaim which have little basis in fact or reality. I cannot wait to see you explain how potential energy loses kinetic energy.