How smart were the "terrorists?"

The official story would have you believe that the terrorists were so smart that they caught the most powerful country in the world with her pants down. I say this is taurus feces.

Why?

Because it just doesn't add up.

See, this is how smart they supposedly were. They were able to...

Hijack 4 planes and fly around for over an hour uncontested by NORAD, the Air Force, etc.

Sneak boxcutters onto the planes. They were also able to overpower passengers and pilots, some of whom (pilots) were ex-military. I guess this is tough, not smart though.

Hold up, let me stop right here for a sec.

We're supposed to believe that ex-military guys were taken by dudes with boxcutters? I thought the military trained you to HURT AND KILL people! I thought they trained you to hurt and kill people with guns, grenades, other explosives, knives, and your bare hands!

So, the terrorists could have hooped Jordan up with no problem since he's been out of the game for a while? They could have knocked George Foreman on his grill-selling ass because he hasn't been in the ring for a while? Please.

I know we have military and ex-military peeps here. Can y'all honestly tell me that some guys with boxcutters could have taken over your plane? If y'all can, we need better military peeps. I've whooped a guy's ass AFTER he pulled a blade on me, and this blade was much worse than some damn boxcutter! (he did cut me, but I still stomped his ass )

Anyway, back to the topic...

They were able to...

Sneak over and live here in the US for months unmolested by the Feds, despite the efforts of good people in the agency saying these guys were terrorists.

They were able to fly the planes in the first place, despite being second-rate pilots of smaller craft.

They were able to make killer plane maneuvers that experts would find difficult making.

They had the expertise in physics to know that flying their planes into the buildings would make them as well as a building down the street collapse.

They knew ALL THIS and more, but they weren't smart enough to do the following...

Attack the WTC at the time of day when the most people would be there. I have no idea, I'm not as smart as these guys, but I do know that the building had a capacity of 50K people. Clearly, if they were REALLY smart, they could have easily killed 3 times as many people as they "did" that day.

Hijack planes filled to capacity to add to the death toll. And no, these extra passengers couldn't have stopped them. The passengers present and the ex-military pilots couldn't stop them.

Realize that they were going into the tiger's cage and kicking him in the face. Wait...they were going up to the tiger, who had nukes on his shoulders, in his cage, in his mouth, and coming out of his ass and kicking him in the face. They didn't realize that they were starting something with the best military in the history of the world.

Fly the plane that hit the Pentagon into the area where top brass like Rumsfeld were. These geniuses flew it into an area largely under construction at the time.

Reach their fourth target and crash the plane into it. Somehow, despite ducking fighter planes all day, they were unable to evade the plane that shot flight 93 down. If you don't believe Rumsfeld and the evidence, they were too stupid to keep the plane in the air, even though they were smart enough to thread the needle at the Pentagon and to fly into the twins.

So, were these guys really mad jihadi geniuses that pulled off a devastating attack on America? I think not.

See, there are a lot of people that refuse to believe in the "official story" Because it's CRAP! That's why! It makes me so angry! Thankgod my sister moved away from New York before that happend...stupi government, they just screw up everything...

I'm too lazy to get the proof right now, but if you just look it up on google, and watch Alex Jones's documentaries, then there you go. It's all right there...

www.infowars.com < enjoy

Ok, so to go back over a few points.....

There was no need to "sneak" boxcutters and razor blades onto the planes. Before 9/11 it was perfectly legal to carry any blade under 4 inches onto a plane.

Prior to 9/11 flight crews were TRAINED to give into hijackers. With a few exceptions, generally involving hijacker stupidity, all hijacked planes were landed somewhere, demands made, and the situation ended somehow. Therefore crews were told to give them anything they wanted, get the plane on the ground, and someone would negotiate with them and end the situation.

There were no Primary radar sets near where they were flying so no way to track them once the transponders were off. Primary radars are the only ones that can track by skin paint, and they only work up until 18,000 feet. Secondary sets tracked over 18,000 but can only track the transponder signal. There's even a convenient "On/Off" switch right on the face of the transponder.

Only *ONE* of them was supposed to be a horrible pilot, and even HE was able to pass his commercial license exam on the second try.

[edit on 3/21/2006 by Zaphod58]

And another small point.

OK, let's assume that you are a trained and bad-Azz military kick-butt on vacation with your All-American, apple pie family.

Suddenly, a terrorist grabs your 13 year old daughter on her way back from the head.

He holds a puny box-cutter to her cartoid (neck).


Go ahead, kick his azz....before he can cut her a new pie-hole.

I'd certainly try rather than killing my daughter and myself on national television.

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
And another small point.

OK, let's assume that you are a trained and bad-Azz military kick-butt on vacation with your All-American, apple pie family.

Suddenly, a terrorist grabs your 13 year old daughter on her way back from the head.

He holds a puny box-cutter to her cartoid (neck).


Go ahead, kick his azz....before he can cut her a new pie-hole.

Yeah, Zaphod...

All you did was give your take on what they WERE smart enough to do. You said nothing on what they were NOT smart enough to do.

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
And another small point.

OK, let's assume that you are a trained and bad-Azz military kick-butt on vacation with your All-American, apple pie family.

Suddenly, a terrorist grabs your 13 year old daughter on her way back from the head.

He holds a puny box-cutter to her cartoid (neck).


Go ahead, kick his azz....before he can cut her a new pie-hole.

What does that mean?

So, the pilots had kids on their flights with them? The terrorists grabbed their kids and took them hostage?

Can I borrow your crystal ball for a sec, I wanna see what numbers will win the Mega millions...

I posted this somewhere else, but i think it equally applies here - how did these hijackers do so 'well'?

------------------

And it's useful to look at other incidents when we try and see if the terrorists appear to have accomplished more than possible.

A lone man for instance:

All Nippon Airways Flight 61 is a flight from Tokyo International Airport (Haneda Airport) in Ota, Tokyo, Japan, to New Chitose Airport in Chitose, Japan, near Sapporo.

On July 24, 1999, the Boeing 747 on this route was hijacked by Yuji Nishizawa soon after it took off, at about 11:25 A.M. The jet was flying over the Boso Peninsula in the Chiba Prefecture. It was carrying 503 passengers, including 14 children, as well as 14 crew members at the time. Nishizawa used a knife to force the flight attendant to let him into the cockpit.

He then made 34-year old copilot Kazayuki Koga get out of the cockpit. He told Captain Naoyuki Nagashima to land the airplane at the Yokota Air Base in Tokyo. At 12:09 P.M., crew members subdued the man, but the pilot had been fatally stabbed in the neck. A 60-year old female passenger from the Chiba Prefecture, who was on the flight, reported that passengers clapped after the hijacker was subdued.
en.wikipedia.org...

One man and over 500 passengers!
Still managed to gain access to the cockpit and kill the captain though...
Obviously false as the pilot would have hit the transponder and rolled the bird on it's back. Over 500 passengers + crew vs. one man? Ridiculous.


This loner successfully hijacked a 707 with 174 passengers on board and got away.

September 19. 1995 an Iranian Boeing jet was hijacked by a flight attendant Rida Garari. It was Kish Air's flight 707 with 174 passengers on board. The hijacker demanded to land in europe, but the plane did not have enough fuel. They eventually landed in Israel and in 1998 he was granted refuge status in Canada. 20 years ago he was working for Iran's Gachsaran oil company.
en.wikipedia.org...

Of course it's false because the pilot would have hit the emergancy transponder and rolled the bird on it's back. As well as the fact that there were 174 passengers + crew against one man!

Found this video incidently of the 767 in 1996 that was videoed flying just above the water, until the wingtip hit and the plane disintegrated.. Might be useful for some form of study, as it's a similar aircraft to the one that hit the Pentagon and also it is pitched slightly to the left like the Pentagon one. Amazing how it's flying so close to the water and so far considering there is a struggle going on in the cockpit where the hijackers are beating the flight crew..
Ridiculous anyway, we all know that if they tried to hijack it the pilot would just have hit the emergency transponder and rolled the bird on it's back.. 163 passengers too vs. just 3 men. No-one can fly like that when they are getting smashed in the face.. (amazing what happens when the adrenaline is going?) duh... Obviously done by remote control..

The plane began to run out of fuel as it approached the Comoros Islands. The pilot attempted an emergency landing at the airport at Grande Comore. However, the aircraft ran out of fuel before it could land. The captain then attempted to ditch into shallow waters 500 meters off of Le Galawa Beach, near the capital of the Comoros Islands, Moroni. The hijackers beat the flight crew as the plane came closer to the water, causing it to bank left. The left engine and wingtip struck the water, causing the aircraft to break up and crash. Island residents and tourists, including a group of scuba divers, came to the aid of crash survivors.
edition.cnn.com...

I especially like this frame, where with little imagination (pitch it forward a bit, have it slightly lower and maybe a little less roll) one can see how a plane can be very low and yet due to the amount it's rolled to port the starboard engine can be high enough to hit the top of a trailer for instance.

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
And another small point.

OK, let's assume that you are a trained and bad-Azz military kick-butt on vacation with your All-American, apple pie family.

Suddenly, a terrorist grabs your 13 year old daughter on her way back from the head.

He holds a puny box-cutter to her cartoid (neck).

Of course you would. TODAY.

What about back in the day? What about back in the pre 9/11 days of "crazy lunatic hijacker" who simply wants to make a statement, or travel to another country?

Back in the day; a criminal would rather slice the throat of a young girl, than give up his cause (or himself). This criminal is looking at life in prison, whether he kills your 13 year old daughter, or not. What does he have to lose? You (the father) have everything to lose, your daughter!

Our mentality changed after 9/11 (pre 'suicide warrior' era).


[edit on 22-3-2006 by SourGrapes]

Originally posted by truthseeka

Sneak over and live here in the US for months unmolested by the Feds, despite the efforts of good people in the agency saying these guys were terrorists.

Man thats still pretty easy to do post 9-11. These "watch list" they have of people are huge and even now they dont have the resources to keep a eye on them all the time. Before 9-11 the State Department watch list had some 61,000 names on it. Its really not that hard to sneak into the country ways they dont keep records of and live under a assumed name with fake idea. If you got money its really not hard.

Terrorism was not the top national security concern pre 9-11 aswell.

A recent article that appeared in DEBKAfile (debka.com) in hebrew spoke of the trial currently underway for Zacarias Moussaoui. An FBI agent took the stand as a witness claimed that he wanted in August 2001 to arrest and search Zacarias Moussaoui because he had evidence that Moussaoui was involved in a plan to hijack planes and use it to attack American targets. His bosses forbad him to continue in his investigation. In the following investigation of 9/11 set up by GWB his bosses in the FBI lied to cover their asses. He labeled their actions as "obstructionism, criminal negligence and careerism".

Moreover, Debka adds that Israel supplied the Clinton administration with concrete information that Al-qaida is planning an attack on the US and specifically on WTC using highjacked planes. Clinton refused to heed to the warnings because that would mean that the it would jepordize Israeli-Palestinian peace process since it would force the US to act against Muslim organizations which would enrage the Muslims and Arabs. Bush, when he took office in 2001, he not aware of the Israeli warnings or that those were the considerations of Clinton and therefore continued in the same policy.

I always suspected that Israel passed on info on the matter to the US and the US did not do anything on the matter. Right after 9/11 there were reports of unheeded Israeli warnings but the Bush Administration denied this. Most probably the warning come to save face even though it was not the same administration. The US can't come out looking like fools and go into bipartisan quarreling at the time of an attack on the US.


[edit on 22/3/06 by JudahMaccabbi]

Originally posted by truthseeka
Yeah, Zaphod...

All you did was give your take on what they WERE smart enough to do. You said nothing on what they were NOT smart enough to do.

Well if you're gonna make it out how it was so hard to do all those things, then you should expect people to prove to you how EASY it really was.

Aight...

AgentSmith, notice that in your first link they eventually SUBDUED the hijacker! I have no idea what you're talking about a bird rolling on it's back...

In the second link, the guy told them to land. I'd expect the pilots to cooperate if the guy wanted to land the plane. I would NOT expect the pilots to cooperate if they were hurtling towards a tall ass building kamikaze style. Zaphod said they're trained to not resist under ANY circumstance, but, based on the instinct to live and the fact that cops routinely abuse and kill people despite their training leads me to take that as a crock of doo doo and believe otherwise.

In the 3rd link, they FOUGHT the guys! The plane was running out of fuel, they knew it was headed for the sea, so they fought the guys. This is PRECISELY my point! Any normal person who knew the hijackers were going to take out everyone on board a la building crash would fight the guys. If you're gonna die, you might as well go out fighting, right? Isn't that what the pilots in your 3rd link did?

So, these pilots would fight back, but ex-military pilots would not?



Despite being trained to hurt and kill people and possibly suffering some form of shell shock, THESE guys didn't fight back, but YOUR guys did. Amazing, truly amazing.

And Zaphod, I was not saying it was hard for the guys to do this. They were govt agents, so of course it was easy. But, you must not realize the implications of this statement. You say it was easy, no, EASY for them to hit us on 9/11. Despite having the planes fly in some of the most protected airspace in the world, despite us having the biggest, baddest military on the planet, despite all the bread they spend on "defense," despite the anti-terrorism bill Clinton passed after OKC, it was EASY for these guys to do this.

Now, you would have us all give up our rights so the same fools who couldn't protect us can "protect us" now. Even when neocons like O'Reilly say that we're on our own if another terror attack occurs. What kind of a fool do you take me for?

And ShadowXIX, no snot it's easy for people to sneak in. It's called an OPEN BORDER! But, the good people in the FBI WERE tracking the terrorists and red flagging them. Too bad their superiors always told them to back off because they were what...govt agents. Wow. I'm sure you know about W199I...

Considering the airline pilots were DEAD, that rules out the whole "They wouldn't kamikaze the plane into a building" theory.

I was working security on 9/11 and I guarantee it would be simple for ANYONE to hijack a plane. If you don't want to risk security, and have enough money, you could bribe almost anyone at the airport to slip it through for you. Most jobs were seriously underpaid since the airlines were paying security.


Why did they have to be gov't agents? Have you ever studied avsec before 9/11? It would be insanely easy to hijack a plane. Hell, you could walk onto the plane with a knife in your pocket and security wouldn't look twice at you. As I said before, it was perfectly legal to carry any blade onto the plane that was less than 4 inches. There is your weapon right there. Mock up something that looked like a bomb, or even a box, with some kind of remote in your hand, and most people aren't going to know the difference if you tell them it's a bomb. You've just subdued the passengers and crew right there.

Every flown a plane? Autopilot and GPS will get you anywhere you want to go as long as you don't run out of fuel. All you need to know are the coordinates, and basic map reading.

There was no need for them to be gov't agents, but I'm sure that you've already made up your mind and damn the evidence to the contrary. That's the way most of these "discussions" and I use the term loosely go.

The most protected airspace? Protected by WHAT? Do tell. There were no SAM sites at the Pentagon, contrary to popular belief. There were only MANPADS systems at the White House, and they're not going to stop a 757 at full speed. The nearest base with armed fighters was Cape Cod. There were only 21 fighters armed and ready to launch that day. So what exactly was protecting the airspace? I'd really like to know.

[edit on 3/23/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There were only 21 fighters armed and ready to launch that day. So what exactly was protecting the airspace? I'd really like to know.

[edit on 3/23/2006 by Zaphod58]

So, I guess it takes over an hour for F-16s to fly from Cape Cod to New York City? You could get fighters from across the country in an hours time. My speculation....but I'm going on the fact that I just looked up the times for a flight from NYC to Sanfransisco, CA. The time is around four hours with a stop at Atlanta, GA. (which is way off course). So, we can fly a passenger plane in 4 hours across the country but an F-16 from anywhere in the country can't get there in an hour?......total BS in my opinion.

First of all if you want to carry weapons and fuel tanks you are NOT going supersonic. Period. There is too much drag for them too, and it would take more fuel than they can carry.

Secondly, go learn how radar works, and then tell me that it's BS that they didn't know where the planes were. Over 90% of US radars are ATC radars that can't see a plane without a transponder over 18,000 feet. So what would you do? Send them to where they dissapeared and start looking there? And the F-15s from Cape Cod went to NYC and arrived as the planes hit.

So, you're saying that planes have been getting highjacked since at least the seventies and we still didn't have the technology to track a plane in the year 2001? That kinda sounds a little silly to me. I mean, wouldn't they want to know where a plane is at all times? Especially if it was highjacked? Why would they even have a turn off switch for the transponder? That just makes no sense to me at all.

That's like having lowjack (or any other gps system) and having a button that turns it off. So, the thief who steals your car can just turn off the system that was designed to track the car in case it's stolen?

They DO have a way to track them if there is a military radar handy. The US uses mostly ATC radar, since they have hundreds of ATC Centers across the country. It was a lot cheaper to just use their radars and made more sense to have the military radars looking out of the country and the ATC radars monitoring IN the country. A Primary radar set CAN look over 18,000 but it tracks EVERYTHING, including birds so it would be so cluttered if they tracked everything the controllers would have a hard time telling what was what.

The hijacking rate was so low since the 70s, and in every instance the planes continued flying under crew control, and the hijackers had demands to make, so they just landed somewhere. I haven't heard of a single instance where the transponder was shut off until 9/11. The hijackers couldn't care less if they were tracked, since they were going to be landing somewhere and making demands anyway.

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.

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.