Remember the Alamo

If one is to believe the 9/11 Commission and NIST reports, the attacks on the twin towers alone would be, positively, THE most damage caused by THE smallest physical resource in all history. That is, a complete demolition/pulverization as a result of weakening the ENTIRE core steel of the skyscrapers was allegedly caused by ONLY localized (and rather smoky, sufficiently oxygen-starved) kerosene/jet fuel fires! If the story (fairy tale) is true, which it isn't, why hasn't there been an expert military or ex-military official acknowledge 9/11 as certainly THE greatest, most effective tactical strike in known history; it created such TOTAL devastation from allegedly only the MOST minimal resource - simple jet fuel? The top brass of the Pentagon would HAVE to tip their collective hats (more like ASShats) to such unprecedented tactical genius, which was allegedly "masterminded" by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. (wink wink, nudge nudge)

Believing the OS is analogous to believing Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and the rest of the doomed Texans at the Alamo not only won the battle, but managed to slaughter, say, half of General Santa Ana's army in the process. It just wasn't PHYSICALLY possible! (sigh) Perhaps one day, and obviously the sooner the better, America (in particular) will be able to cure itself of its collective 9/11 psychosis. What actual REASON is there to believe the laws of physics went out the window on only ONE day in all history? (See also the "magic bullet" theory of the Warren Commission). All TRULY scientific conclusions require duplication, repeatability.

Hi everyone,

Guess its a case of the ole journalist manual 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story' but then I've heard critical discourse is not taught in American schools. By the way, there seems to be a lot of threads on the 9/11 forum similar to this, can we ask ATS to offically come out and support 9/11 truth in the same sort of way they did with the Mustang issue?!?

Normally the more experimental work is carried out, the more one theory is validated over other theories, my 9/11 weather vein is pointing towards inside job you guys. Wow, me and Mr Ahmadinejad have so much in common, I never knew

Peace out

Who won the Alamo?

When BOTH parties do their utmost to deny any other 9/11 truth but their own, is that not true by-partisanship. We have seen the true miracle of our time. Pelosi, Reed and Obama all protecting George W. along with the Republican party. This is no soiled dress and the definition of is. This is our elected leadership, both parties standing together as one (ok, there are a few that don't). The American Ideal. Both parties pulling together in a common bond: Protect George W.
Truly a momentous time in American politics.

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

By the way, there seems to be a lot of threads on the 9/11 forum similar to this, can we ask ATS to offically come out and support 9/11 truth in the same sort of way they did with the Mustang issue?!?

I obviously can't answer for ATS but from my own observations, I don't think that they would ever publicly support 9/11 truth. It seems as if 9/11 isn't a subject that ATS likes too much.

As far as the OP, if the OS is correct or the premise is along the same lines, it was a great tactical maneuver, though through luck and a good gamble, as opposed to skill. Shoot, it was a great tactical maneuver regardless of who is responsible or what happened, though if the OS is wrong, it is not only a great tactical maneuver but also a great strategy.

With that being said, a skilled military tactician is far more valuable than the best technology money could buy. Sure, technology and man-power helps, though nothing is more valuable than a skilled general or military tactician. I would not put this out of the relm of possibility for Al Qaeda or the mujahideen to have some great military tacticians. General Massoud, who was assassinated just before 9/11, allegedly by Bin Laden, was one such great military tactician.

However, if the OS is true, then it was a huge gamble by the planners, as the odds of success were stacked against them (heavily). In fact, that's what originally got me to start asking questions about 9/11. It was a huge effort with a lot of money spent by those who supposedly don't have expendable money, though any military tactician would know that your odds of even slight success would be so slim, it wouldn't even be worth the effort. If Al Qaeda planned this, they must not have planned it to be successful and they must have been absolutely shocked to see that it worked. However, you don't plan a costly operation if your only chances of success, hinge on the largest stroke of luck in world's history. Nobody in their right mind would have planned this, because without getting extremely lucky (like lottery lucky) time after time after time all on the same day, success would be hard to come by. It would be like someone winning 10 lotteries in a row.


--airspoon

The Alamo was an inside job.

reply to post by Dean Goldberry


I know if it was fire the brought down the towers then how come they haven't changed the fire codes in all skyscrapers across the world? How come then all skyscrapers don't replace all the walls and carpet with fire retardant equipment?

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
Hi everyone,

Guess its a case of the ole journalist manual 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story' but then I've heard critical discourse is not taught in American schools. By the way, there seems to be a lot of threads on the 9/11 forum similar to this, can we ask ATS to offically come out and support 9/11 truth in the same sort of way they did with the Mustang issue?!?

Some people believe that ATS is a government front.

So don't expect them to support the 911 truth movement.

prove me wrong then ATS.

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
If one is to believe the 9/11 Commission and NIST reports, the attacks on the twin towers alone would be, positively, THE most damage caused by THE smallest physical resource in all history. That is, a complete demolition/pulverization as a result of weakening the ENTIRE core steel of the skyscrapers was allegedly caused by ONLY localized (and rather smoky, sufficiently oxygen-starved) kerosene/jet fuel fires!

Good thing that isn't the official story then

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
If one is to believe the 9/11 Commission and NIST reports, the attacks on the twin towers alone would be, positively, THE most damage caused by THE smallest physical resource in all history. That is, a complete demolition/pulverization as a result of weakening the ENTIRE core steel of the skyscrapers was allegedly caused by ONLY localized (and rather smoky, sufficiently oxygen-starved) kerosene/jet fuel fires! If the story (fairy tale) is true, which it isn't, why hasn't there been an expert military or ex-military official acknowledge 9/11 as certainly THE greatest, most effective tactical strike in known history; it created such TOTAL devastation from allegedly only the MOST minimal resource - simple jet fuel? The top brass of the Pentagon would HAVE to tip their collective hats (more like ASShats) to such unprecedented tactical genius, which was allegedly "masterminded" by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. (wink wink, nudge nudge)

Define what you believe to be a "tactical strike" and define what you believe to be "successful". The 9/11 attack was a horrid affair by everyone's definition, but at the end of the day it did almost nothing becuase the WTC wasn't really that valuable a target. The gov't is still here. The politicians are still here. The military is still here. One of the planes crashed in the middle of nowhere and had zero impact on the events of the day, one plane crashed into a pretty sturdy structure which was quickly repaired, while two others crashed into buildings before the start of the workday proper so they had lower than normal occupancy at that time. What tactical advantage did it really get anyone?

A better tactical strike would be to take out the capitol building and the white house, both timed to make sure everyone was there, which would more or less destroy the entire US leadership in one stroke. There's speculation this is what flight 93 and flight 77 were originally intending to do, and since they failed, it means the 9/11 attack was actually a pretty poor tactical strike.

Believing the OS is analogous to believing Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and the rest of the doomed Texans at the Alamo not only won the battle, but managed to slaughter, say, half of General Santa Ana's army in the process. It just wasn't PHYSICALLY possible!

No, actually, believing THIS is akin to believing a small kamikaze plane could never sink a big US warship in the pacific. Just becuase you don't want to believe it could happen it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I myself try to pretend George Lucas left his masterpiece alone and never made those awful prequels, but there are things I can't have either.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


We don't often agree but "I myself try to pretend George Lucas left his masterpiece alone and never made those awful prequels, but there are things I can't have either" is spot on, goes to show truthers and trusters can 'sometimes' get along.

I saw this on 9/11 blogger, not sure if it deserves its own thread, truth be told I don't understand all it but someone out there might 911blogger.com... - U.S. Military Lowered Its Computer Security Level the Night Before 9/11

Peace