Al Qaeda Leader dined at the Pentagon months after 9/11

reply to post by micpsi


That thought seems clear now but I don't remember at what point in my particular thought process it became clear, to be honest. I'm not very familiar with Anwar al-Awlaki's history and have been educating myself as I go along participating on this thread.

One thing is clear - he's an important figure because he is officially sanctioned by our government for assassination. He's come a long way since being invited to the Pentagon as part of a Muslim outreach. We probably should move on from 9/11 and talk about what has happened between dining at the Pentagon, and now.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Actually, this part is not true: "the third in line to al-Qaeda." At the time, he was not designated as that by anyone, correct?

Of course you are correct. The truthers had suspected it was the government by then but actual members of the government didn't.

I've got be honest, I don't have a clue what you are talking about, I don't see what relevence that has to anything.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Just realized Micpsi was quoting Jexmo and addressing Jexmo, not me.

Micpsi, your theory is that al-Awlaki was in on 9/11 and the invitation to the Pentagon was a cover?

In a lengthy 2009 article about the accused Fort Hood shooter, Major Hasan, Webster Tarpley states:

ANWAR AWLAKI, PATSY MINDER FOR HANI HANJOUR OF 9/11 INFAMY

In earlier years, Hasan had worshipped with his mother at the radical Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church , Va. During 2001, he worshipped there alongside some of the 9/11 patsies, specifically those alleged to have been aboard the aircraft which allegedly struck the Pentagon. The dominant figure of this mosque was at that time a certain Anwar Awlaki or Awlaqi, who must be regarded as an intelligence agency operative and patsy-minder, the latter because of his role in supervising the alleged Pentagon suicide pilot Hani Hanjour and other 9/11 figures who frequented the mosque. Hanjour, whose purported feats of flying would if true have placed him above the Red Baron in the Valhalla of air aces, was in fact a pathetic and clumsy nebbish.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In a lengthy 2009 article about the accused Fort Hood shooter, Major Hasan, Webster Tarpley states:

In the same article, this:

In my 2005 book 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism, I argued that 9/11 and other recent terrorist attacks represented provocations cynically orchestrated by privately controlled rogue networks operating within the US intelligence agencies for purposes of mass political manipulation. Starting from an overview of terrorist actions from the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 through 9/11, I developed a method of analysis of state-sponsored false flag terrorism which distinguished the roles of fanatical, duped, or psychotic patsies like Oswald, of subversive moles ensconced as officials within government agencies, and of technicians or professional killers who actually create the observed effects, all commanded and coordinated from outside of government, and all operating within the atmosphere of mass brainwashing provided by the Wall Street media. I also highlighted the role of drills and exercises which are hijacked and turned into real-world terror attacks.

I've read his book9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA. It was instrumental in waking me up to 9/11 truth.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I've read his book9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA. It was instrumental in waking me up to 9/11 truth.

Wow, some conspiracy con artist is going around saying, "everything you know is false but I'll tell you the real truth if you give me your money", and after someone listened to his drivel they now think it's impossible for a novice pilot to know how to crash an airplane. Of course.

All I can do is point out here that these conspiracy grifters are feeding you a lot of nonsense to get people all paranoid over shadows. You have to know to stop being grifted on your own.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


You believe the official story of 9/11?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You believe the official story of 9/11?

No. I believe there was a lot more monumental incompetence leading up to and during the 9/11 attack than the gov't is admitting to. I stand by this statement becuase an administration that can't hand out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels wouldn't even remotely be able to pull off these convoluted Rube Goldberg plots of staged hijackings, secret controlled demolitions, hologram airplanes, or whatever without likewise fudging it up.

If the gov't did try to pull something like that, the truck driver they picked to bring the demolitions to the WTC would probably have ripped off the detonators and swapped them for crystal meth rocks.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


So the 11 hijackers were not patsies they were real hijackers?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

So the 11 hijackers were not patsies they were real hijackers?

Yes. Seeing that the entire Muslim world went ape sh*t over cartoons of Mohammed in Danish newspapers, Iran sentenced Salmon Rushdie to death in absentia for writing a book that insulted Islam, and people in Indonesia are being murdered over hristians using the word, "Allah" to describe god, not to mention, they just sent some Islamic fanatic to prison for trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square, the idea that such a culture would eventually produce such outer space blind suicidal fanatics as the 9/11 hijackers is no longer a question of IF, but a question of HOW COULD THEY NOT?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I've read his book9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA. It was instrumental in waking me up to 9/11 truth.

Wow, some conspiracy con artist is going around saying, "everything you know is false but I'll tell you the real truth if you give me your money", and after someone listened to his drivel they now think it's impossible for a novice pilot to know how to crash an airplane. Of course.

edit on 1-11-2010 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)

I do believe that any pilot can crash an airplane, novice or professional. What I don't believe is a novice pilot being able to perform several acrobatic aerial maneuvers at the Pentagon where many professional pilots said they themselves could not perform it.

Originally posted by Big Trouble in Little Chi
I do believe that any pilot can crash an airplane, novice or professional. What I don't believe is a novice pilot being able to perform several acrobatic aerial maneuvers at the Pentagon where many professional pilots said they themselves could not perform it.

How is "flying in a circle" such an aerobatic aerial maneuver? I'm not a pilot so I don't know, but I'd have thought flying in a circle would be the second thing they taught brand new pilots after flying in a straight line.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


From a 2007 article entitled "U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11":

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

Commander Kolstad adds, “I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!”

CIA sure know how to keep pentagon safe!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

All right, fine, commander Kolstad had a problem with the account of flight 77...but you didn't answer the question; why is flying in a circle such a hard thing to do that a guy with 6000 hours of flight time can't do it?

It's not a trick question.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Flying in a circle has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Was al-Awlaki on the most wanted list when he dined at the Pentagon?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
. . . you didn't answer the question; why is flying in a circle such a hard thing to do that a guy with 6000 hours of flight time can't do it?

The following is from a 2005 blog article. Is the information correct?

The Washington Post states, "The unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver . . . . Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill."

CBS news reported, "The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a down-ward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."

And ABC news wrote, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane . . . ."

. . . In addition to these fighter jet pilot like maneuvers, Hanjour supposedly flew the 757 a few feet off of the ground for several hundred feet before plowing into the West Wing of the Pentagon, a very difficult feat even for the world's most experienced pilots. . . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Maybe he is best described as a CIA-controlled patsy.

I've just heard Alex Jones refer to him as a patsy minder.