9/11 unlike other terrorist attacks. Why?

Doesn't it seem strange that in every other high profile terrorist attack since September 11, the main weapon used has been suicide bombers or bombs of some description planted in a localised area? There have been no planes crashing into buildings or multiple simultaneous hits. I used to get annoyed that people would continue to speak of these other terrorist attacks in the same breath as September 11 as if they were on an equal magnitude. However, just recently it has become glaringly obvious that terrorists were not the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, as so many others having been alluding to with previous threads on this topic.

hi there mytym,

don't get me wrong...i'm trying to say this in a nice way,

the families of the victims in the multiple Madrid Trains that were bombed might take issue with that...

So would the survivors and grieved loved ones that were bombed in the London underground trams & the 2 decker bus on 7 July

oh, i agree that the scale of destruction did not match the WTC & Pentagon on that 9-11 morning...
but the multiple aircraft plan could realistically only happen once,
because then the whole world would be savvy on what to look for in preventing a repeat performance.

and...whatever the real & actual perps. of 9-11 were, just refering to them as terrorists is a form of 'demonization'

if you have a minute, there...i put on my 'profiler' hat.
the team which commandeered the 4 seperate aircrafts were made up of
a Pilot & co-pilot, to insure that somebody would survive to fly into the target.
now these 2 knew very well that seizing the aircraft was a martyr/suicide mission- - - these people were willing zealots.
Then there were the other 2-3 team members which made up the 'muscle' & 'strongarms' who were recruited to simply create havoc & to take-over the aircraft (which the 2 zealots would commandeer)

as the thinkers-planners-conspirators knew, that hijacking of several aircrafts was at best, a 1 time operation of opportunity....
and since the previously conceived 'Project Bojinka' was discovered by the Philippine Police in Jan 1995,
a suitable time would have to pass
and the targets themselves would have to be more than just hijacking aircraft & crashing them at sea.

So, visionaries helped 9-11 to happen, but zealots made 9-11 happen
(as 1 mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter/hero...etc )
being an American, i will don the tribal meme and agree that our nation
suffered a terrorist attack on 9-11.
i just can't agree that 9-11 was done by 'terrorists' that hate us because of our freedoms & liberty...but i am open to change

you should, maybe, be getting replies anytime now,
good night

[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]

Wait wait wait. So if you are attempting to attack several targets
with hijacked airplanes, do you send one team for each target
or multiple teams. What if one team with boxcutters fails, then
you fail on that target? What if all of your teams are overcome.
Then you fail completely and are assaulted by the US Military for
nothing? If I were a terrorist, plotting this attack, I would have
taken down at least two planes for every target, in one fails
so what, if both succede, so much the better for my psycho agenda.
Look up Daniel C. Lewin.
He was on one of the planes and was an ex Israeli army specialist.
Guess what his specialty was... Anti-Terrorism. If you really think
that 4 terrorists could take him down in such a limited space
as an airplane aisle you are delusional. Trust me, I have studied
martial arts for over 15 years, and most people attacking me with
a weapon as pathetic as a box cutter would be unpleasantly
surprise with the results of the attack. Superficial slashes
will not stop a trained martial artist.

Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/4/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

[Duplicate Post]

[edit on 5/4/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

St Udio:
I fail to see why the families of the victims of the other terrorist attacks would take issue with my feeling that these attacks do not compare with the 9/11 attacks in scale. You yourself agree that this is the case. I'm sure the families of the victims realise I am not trying to trivialise their loss.

You make an interesting point in regards to why 9/11 can only be a one-off event. I never really considered that and using the term terrorists was simply for the purpose of familiarity as this is how it is popularly referred to.

I agree, 9/11 wasn't committed by terrorists who hate you because of your freedoms & liberties. I thought I made this clear in my original post. The true purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that unlikelyhood of terrorists being responsible for 9/11, based on the style of attack they normally adopt.

The decision to sentence the first 9/11 suspect to life imprisonment as opposed to death is another clear example that the 9/11 attacks were not your ordinary terrorist attack, in my opinion. If this guy really was a key player in the attacks surely the US would have given him the death penalty. They punish far lesser crimes with the death penalty, so why was he spared? After the sentencing, Bush used the opportunity to reinforce his floundering message that the US will triumph in the "so called" war on terror.

mytym, you are incorrect when you say there have been no multiple hits prior to september 11th. that is a flawed argument simply because the embassies in kenya and tanzania in 1998 were attacked by alqaeda..at the same time.

i think people need to give al qaeda more credit. they are well educated people, with access to money. theyve been educated at places like oxford, the university of egypt. they are not dumb, and to postulate that they were able to pull off 9-11 is not far fetched. airline security was a joke prior to 9-11 (i can probably argue it still is now), and the common operating procedure in regards to hijackings was much softer, because people always figured they had demands and wanted to go somewhere.

im not suprised they pulled it off.

time for classs (last day of freshman year 8-)

be back soon

Originally posted by count zero
Trust me, I have studied martial arts for over 15 years, and most people attacking me with a weapon as pathetic as a box cutter would be unpleasantly surprise with the results of the attack. Superficial slashes will not stop a trained martial artist.

Firstly, I hate the term “boxcutter.” Everyone I’ve ever know refers to the as either “Stanley knives,” or razor knives.” Fully extended, they can deliver more that just a superficial slash.

Even more importantly, all they would have to do is to hold the knife against the throat of one of the crew, preferably one of the women. How are you going to get close enough to disarm the attacker in a narrow aisle?

Stop with the false bravado and just be thankful that you were not put into that situation.


(of course Chuck Norris would have been able to stop them)

[edit on 4-5-2006 by HowardRoark]

all you have to do is say you have a bomb

you now have control of the passengers.

Originally posted by blatantblue
mytym, you are incorrect when you say there have been no multiple hits prior to september 11th. that is a flawed argument simply because the embassies in kenya and tanzania in 1998 were attacked by alqaeda..at the same time.

i think people need to give al qaeda more credit. they are well educated people, with access to money. theyve been educated at places like oxford, the university of egypt. they are not dumb, and to postulate that they were able to pull off 9-11 is not far fetched. airline security was a joke prior to 9-11 (i can probably argue it still is now), and the common operating procedure in regards to hijackings was much softer, because people always figured they had demands and wanted to go somewhere.

im not suprised they pulled it off.

time for classs (last day of freshman year 8-)

be back soon

Congratulations on finishing your first year. I predict that you will do well you seem to have a good grasp of reality.

What you say is exactly right. These people are not stupid. Fanatical, yes, but stupid? No.

Unfortunately that is a prevailing theme among many conspiracy theorists. It reeks of latent racism. How many times have you seen the argument that goes something like this: “there is no way that 19 Arabs with boxcutters could take over and fly those planes;” with the implied argument that because the men were Arabs, they should not have been able to that.

thanks howard

you are correct. i feel that a lot of people think that al qaeda is just a bunch of ignorant, cave-dwelling knownothings. cant do that, gotta respect their ability, and they have it theyve proven themselves

--Deleted by poster.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by firebat]

blatantblue:
OK, perhaps there were other multiple attacks, but the method of 4 planes crashing into buildings almost simultaneously, seems very out of character. I have no doubt that al quaeda are a very smart and calculating group, but an outcome like September 11 takes a lot more than smarts and luck to pull off in my opinion. Never in their wildest dreams could they have ever hoped to completely collapse the two towers with this method. There is much more than meets the eye here as many have already realised.

well

first off
thats why they spent around 5 years planning, it wasnt a spur of the moment thing.
you case your targets, # like that.
second
seriously, the hardest part, if you really think about it, was staying dark during the pre-op time.

thats the hardest thing of an operation sometimes, not the actual execution.

take 1- the lax-ass security prior to 911.
take 2- common op procedures for hijackings of that time

maybe they did hope to knock down the towers, al qaeda has plenty of members with engineering educations. maybe they didnt hope to knock it down. the fact they fell doesnt mean it was unlike them to be able to hijack four aircraft.

back then it also wasnt very hard to commandeer an aircraft. like ive mentioned the standard op was to obey, not to fight back.
its all in the bluff
you say you have a bomb to the passengers, you yell and scream it, whos going to call you out? are they going to risk the chance you do in fact have a bomb?
and the element of suprise in a hijacking will make people submit

yo everyone
by the way
i posted at 440, and mytym posted at 404

new world order must be up to something

Please forgive my ingnorance, but I don't see the significance. Why are the post times so unusual to you? Am I missing something?

it was just a wisecrack thats all.

Originally posted by mytym
blatantblue:
OK, perhaps there were other multiple attacks, but the method of 4 planes crashing into buildings almost simultaneously, seems very out of character.

Actually, it is redundancy and it is required in really any kind of serious plan. I don't think that they actually expected to get all of the planes. I think the idea was that they might get half and that would be awesome. You have 2 going to each location just in case some resistance is mobilized it would hopefully be local allowing the secondary target to get hit. I am not so surprised by the fact that if they were going to "go all in" on what was cleary going to be a once in a "campaign" attack of opportunity you want to stack the odds in your favor. I think if they had the effective personnel to do 8 planes at once they would have used them all knowing that they would only get one shot.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Unfortunately that is a prevailing theme among many conspiracy theorists. It reeks of latent racism. How many times have you seen the argument that goes something like this: “there is no way that 19 Arabs with boxcutters could take over and fly those planes;” with the implied argument that because the men were Arabs, they should not have been able to that.

The same Arabs that were experts at flying Cessenas, automatically making them qualified to be able to successfully pilot 767s and 757s (the Pentagon maneuver), right?

Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that, regardless of the success of the mission, terrorists have not tried to hijack multiple planes simultaneously and crash them into buildings on any other occasion than September 11? It hasn't happened since then and it didn't happen prior to that time. The suicide bomber in a crowded place seems to be the method of choice. I just find it unbelievably perplexing.