What are America's largest churches and symbols of freedom, and why weren't they attacked?

The official argument is that they attacked OUR freedom. That is the freedom of you and I, our families, our friends, the people we don't like that we know or work with (and the freedom to not like them), your church leaders and the religion itself, and so on.

So which cathedrals and other large church monuments did they miss? Perhaps those attacks failed and noone realized it?

What about symbols of freedom? I can name off a few easy ones, like the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell, but what are the others that surely must have been targeted that day but nobody realized it???

While we're at it, apparently they especially hate the 'freedom' for people to be gay here in the US, so shouldn't counterterrorism officials be giving gay "rights" related events with the same beefed up security as the Superbowl and the 2004 Republican National Convention? Perhaps they were the ones behind the allegid bombings of the New orleans levies? How'd the Bush administration miss that lead? Should we assume perhaps Al Qaeda pilots were up there cloud seeding to make the hit on the gay event capitol even more powerful? Shouldn't the Florida Keys have a Homeland Security bunker located on Duval Street?

This is important, because as I've been arguing, the "freedom" & "way of life" that was attacked was our elite masters freedom to imperialistically dominate the world. That said, it draws a serious contradiction as I've also argued with little response:
Smoking Gun: Bush had his propaganda ready just 2 hours after the towers collapsed

-----------------
You see there are 2 kinds of terrorism: Political and Religious.
For us to believe Bush was talking about OUR "freedom", then this would indicate religious motives behind the attacks. Political motives would apply to our establishments "foreign policy". Would any debunkers care to shed some light on this, or are we to assume that my observation linked above is in fact a "smoking gun"???

The Twin Towers and the Pentagon *were* the cathedrals -only they were the cathedrals of the emperor, whose religion is as you've already described. Interestingly, the victory against the attackers is going to be credited to the very symbols which were attacked -U.S. capitalism and military power.

While the blame for 9/11 is continually placed on religious fundamentalists, it's ironic that the victory is going to be credited to the completely secular military industrial complex. "Their" religion has attacked "our" godless religion of imperialism, and it seems like the powers that be are determined to show the world that Allah has backed the losing side.

Even the hero myth of Flight 93 is filled with this symbolism, as "our" heroes defeated the terrorist even while they were praising their God (at least according to the CVR transcript that we can't hear for our own good.)

If you fly a plane into Yankee stadium during a game you could probably kill 10k people if not more, but I guess they werent going for the number of people.

The Internet is the biggest symbol of freedom ever created, and it was designed to be as resilient as possible from the beginning. Although most of it's crucial infrastructure happens to be located in the United States, not surprisingly.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Perhaps they were the ones behind the allegid bombings of the New orleans levies? How'd the Bush administration miss that lead?

Of course! They hate our Mardi Gras!

This is important, because as I've been arguing, the "freedom" & "way of life" that was attacked was our elite masters freedom to imperialistically dominate the world.

This is about what they have said themselves, is it not? I feel this is what drives terrorism in general - oddly self-perpetuating now that our imperialism feeds on terrorist threats and angered insurgents. It's like the oil fields but more renewable.
What I don't get tho in the we're the big bully and Al Qaeda hit us for that is 2 part
1) It makes al Qaeda look like semi-justified freedom fighters. We all wanna resist the matrix!
2) Did Osama really think it'd work? The sole superpower take a gut hit in its centers of financial and military might, curl up and surrender hegemony to the glorious Caliphate? I mean, what do you make of the possiblity that AQ somehow did this as a favor to uncle Sam, to give us the anti-imperialist ultimatum that, fighter we are, we could not ever bow to? Reverse psychology on a grand scale. They got through once, but these colors don't run, etc. Surely Osama, maybe Atta and the others, should've seen that coming.
Sorry, I just get confused sometimes as to where you're coming from. I man, does it really seem tactically sound coming from the al Qaeda we've been handed?

-----------------
You see there are 2 kinds of terrorism: Political and Religious.
For us to believe Bush was talking about OUR "freedom", then this would indicate religious motives behind the attacks. Political motives would apply to our establishments "foreign policy". Would any debunkers care to shed some light on this, or are we to assume that my observation linked above is in fact a "smoking gun"???

"Freedom" was chosen for rhetorical value, as in they threatened the existing system, which declares itself pre-requisite for the continuance of our Republic, whose chief personal appeal to the average citizen is its guarantee of "freedom."

Indeed, it's all in the language. And the symbolism of the attacks, as Nick pointed out:

The Twin Towers and the Pentagon *were* the cathedrals -only they were the cathedrals of the emperor, whose religion is as you've already described. Interestingly, the victory against the attackers is going to be credited to the very symbols which were attacked -U.S. capitalism and military power.

While the blame for 9/11 is continually placed on religious fundamentalists, it's ironic that the victory is going to be credited to the completely secular military industrial complex. "Their" religion has attacked "our" godless religion of imperialism, and it seems like the powers that be are determined to show the world that Allah has backed the losing side.

Even the hero myth of Flight 93 is filled with this symbolism, as "our" heroes defeated the terrorist even while they were praising their God (at least according to the CVR transcript that we can't hear for our own good.)

Centrality to World Trade, the power to project that militarily, the sacrificing, God-fearing heartland people of the USA, and their sense of security and invulnerability. Liberties are not attacked here! The assault on liberties happened after, when people refused to give up and demanded more security...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

2) Did Osama really think it'd work? The sole superpower take a gut hit in its centers of financial and military might, curl up and surrender hegemony to the glorious Caliphate? I mean, what do you make of the possiblity that AQ somehow did this as a favor to uncle Sam, to give us the anti-imperialist ultimatum that, fighter we are, we could not ever bow to? Reverse psychology on a grand scale. They got through once, but these colors don't run, etc. Surely Osama, maybe Atta and the others, should've seen that coming.

CL... I think some people were getting close to the answers to this mystery with Able Danger. From the bi-partisan cover-up of Able Danger from the very highest authority of both parties, I'm guessing that there was far more in the destroyed terabytes of information than some people wanted known.

I guess your question comes down to who was signing Atta's paychecks?

(Jokingly) Perhaps the other buildings weren't attacked because they weren't insured against terrorism.

The topic is one of the reasons it doesn't look like a pure terrorist attack. A terrorist attacks objective is about causing terror which they did but, if there real motive was terror they could of attacked a nuclear plant or stadiums full of people, or set off bombs in densely populated areas and killed far more people, getting the picture?

Originally posted by nick7261CL... I think some people were getting close to the answers to this mystery with Able Danger. From the bi-partisan cover-up of Able Danger from the very highest authority of both parties, I'm guessing that there was far more in the destroyed terabytes of information than some people wanted known.

I guess your question comes down to who was signing Atta's paychecks?

I'm sorry for the brevity of this, but I couldn't agree more.

I recall reading KSM's list of 'confessions', which included the Bali bombings. I also recall that the Bali bombings were said by the then Indonesian Prime Minister to have been organised, in part, by elements within the Indonesian authorities. Put the two together and we basically have KSM (and by extension, al Qaeda) as mercenaries, acting at the behest of government powers.

Did Able Danger get too close to working this out?

Osama's theories to the collapse of the United States repeatedly surround its economic weakness.
That's why.

I think the 9/11 attacks were towards the perceived Economic (WTC), Military (Pentagon) and Political Centers (Flight 93 was probably headed towards the (Capitol or White House) of our Country. They didn't "attack" our freedoms as physical targets, they attacked because of the freedoms we have. They picked out high value targets, the only one they didn't try, probably since it's hard to hit with a plane, is Wall Street.

I am pretty sure there might have been other attempts on 9/11 with planes, I do remember one weird story when people were exiting a plane on 9/11 that seemed kinda suspicious.

FACT: One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Notable Terrorist Insurgents in popular culture: Luke Skywalker, Princess Laiah, Han Solo... Neo, Morpheus, Trinity... John & Frank in "They Live"... The A-Team, with anyone who helped or employed them being Terrorist Supporters / Finaciers, and so on.

I just expanded this concept into a full thread. Check it out:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 26-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I just dont understand, I think 10k+ fatalities would of been worse than what happened to those towers. Although I thought that more than 3k people would of died in those towers, I mean 3000 is way to many but I thought two 100 story buildings would have way more than 300 people.


And I just repeated myself, lol, and yes I heard about the nuclear plant that could of been hit.


I am now cross eyed, 9/11 just confuses the heck out of me.

Originally posted by racerzeke
I just dont understand, I think 10k+ fatalities would of been worse than what happened to those towers. Although I thought that more than 3k people would of died in those towers, I mean 3000 is way to many but I thought two 100 story buildings would have way more than 300 people.

Because it wasn't about killing people, it was about beign the most horrific VISUAL psychological operation of all time:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I understand that, I flew right after 9-11 and you are very scared of any little thing. But I mean they could of killed 20 thousand people, I would be horrified. You hit Yankee stadium, I would be just as worried to go to the game as I would be to fly. But I do understand the psychological aspect of the attacks.

I believe it was thought by terrorists like bin Laden that if the world trade centers could be taken out that the US would collapse financially. So they target the trade centers to hit our money and the white house the kill the president. Baically the plan was to criple the society. Those are not bad plans of attack but I think their is a basic misunderstanding of the USA. The infrastructure and spirit of the USA is bigger than just a couple of buildings.


[edit on 26-5-2007 by zerotime]

But even if they are not from america they would of had to of known that the president would of not been in the white house after the two buildings were hit.

But I will have to see when the planes left and the delays and stuff to know if fl93 would of known about the timing of the other planes

Your bound to find problems if you believe that any attack is because they don't like freedom.

Witches hate children as much as Al'qada hates freedom. How stupid do you really have be to believe that. They may as well hate puppies and kittens, maybe they do? But that's for bush's next speech.

Osama is nothing than a puppet. He's probably gettin it on with one of Bush's favourite white house skanks as we speak. We've got no hope unless everyone man, woman and child picks up a gun and decides that they aren't gonna take it anymore.

Of course with people like Britney showing their snatch whose got the time?

i would just like to point out the irony of equating a religious building to a symbol of freedom. opiate dens are quite the opposite