How did we know...

reply to post by BobM88


well Bob...why not just read through my signature thread a bit...It might help to understand some of the possible players and the reason behind 911.....also it might help to understand how Zionist's get very key non elected positions in governments all over the world....It is the shadow government that never changes...and they occupy these places throughout successive governmental changes....heck who does Dick Cheney really represent.

reply to post by BobM88

The one thing that's always made me wonder...how did we know so quickly who the 19 hijackers were in 9/11?

Because they knew exactly what was going on prior to 9/11. Two of the hijackers lived with a FBI informant in San Diego, and there's a lot more information about what the government knew about the hijackers that you can find online.

Plus the terrorists left such a paper trail that it almost seems like they wanted to be exposed. Know what I mean?

reply to post by exponent

It's really not that amazingly suspicious a situation.

Were there any suspicious situations on 9/11 as far as you are concerned?

reply to post by BobM88

Yes, I understand, and agree, anything is possible. But... I don't know...what are the odds? You know? Maybe it did just get tossed out of the crash into the street. If I KNEW I'd not be asking questions. Still, the violence of the crashes, you'd think it unlikely, wouldn't you?

Just look up who found the passport.

Originally posted by maxella1
Were there any suspicious situations on 9/11 as far as you are concerned?

Sure, the whole situation with Bush testifying with Cheney and not under oath (I believe? I'm pretty ignorant on this) is very suspicious in my eyes.

I've said before though that I can easily believe that incompetence or arrogance meant the US government didn't stop the attacks when they should have been able to. I believe this is a much more likely scenario but nobody in the truth movement has really made any progress on this side.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
All you need to know is my signature below. Its OSer proof.

Seriously, your signature is not pertinent to this discussion. The first problem with it is your use of the word "pulverize." It's wrong. I don't need to go any further off-topic on this silliness.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
Were there any suspicious situations on 9/11 as far as you are concerned?

Sure, the whole situation with Bush testifying with Cheney and not under oath (I believe? I'm pretty ignorant on this) is very suspicious in my eyes.

I've said before though that I can easily believe that incompetence or arrogance meant the US government didn't stop the attacks when they should have been able to. I believe this is a much more likely scenario but nobody in the truth movement has really made any progress on this side.

Yes.. Bush refused to testify without Cheney at his side. And they would only do it behind closed doors, not under oath and with absolutely no recordings or record of their testimony.

America was not "incompetent" on that day. To the contrary, I believe everything they expected to happen, did happen. The same as with the sinking of the Lusitania to get us involved in WWI, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, etc etc. All of these events drew us into war. And war brings the ultimate profit.

Amazing how a "terrorist cell" (incidentally the one "enemy" that can never truly be defeated) managed to defeat airport security, all known US and international intelligence agencies, NORAD and physics itself in order to achieve its goal. Cause you know... they hated us for "our freedoms". Silly evil doers.

Anyone who still believes 19 cavemen managed to pull off the biggest terrorist attack in the world needs their heads checked. Especially when so many of these "hijackers" turned up to be alive.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
All you need to know is my signature below. Its OSer proof.

Seriously, your signature is not pertinent to this discussion. The first problem with it is your use of the word "pulverize." It's wrong. I don't need to go any further off-topic on this silliness.

What's the 2nd problem?

reply to post by aaaiii

I always equated the speed of identification with the speed of J.F.K.'s investigation, and we know all about that.

Ever hear of computerized reservation systems - it was the airlines which started it back in the 1950's

FBI simply had to check the aircraft manifest for the hijack flights, then checkout each passenger with
emphasis on those with Middle Eastern or Arabic names

www.911myths.com...

Wasn't like the hijackers tried to disguise themselves - left a pretty easy trail to follow

Some of tickets for the flights were purchased at a travel agency only about 2 miles from where I live

Employees at Advance Travel Service in Totowa, New Jersey later claimed that Moqed and Hanjour had both purchased tickets there. They claimed that Hanjour spoke very little English, and Moqed did most of the speaking. Hanjour requested a seat in the front row of the airplane. Their credit card failed to authorize, and after being told the agency did not accept personal checks, the pair left to withdraw cash. They returned shortly afterwards and paid the $1,842.25 total in cash.[

Hijackers used a computer at local university (William Paterson Univeesity) to buy some of the tickets

A friend of mine worked there - was questioned by FBI (along with everyone else) to see if could identify
hijackers

Investigators tracing the activities of the hijackers determined that, on four occasions in August of 2001, individuals using Internet accounts registered to Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Almihdhar - 9/11 hijackers - used public access computers in the library of a state college in New Jersey," Wainstein testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee.

"The computers in the library were used to review and order airline tickets in an Internet travel reservations site," he said.

On Aug. 30, 2001, someone using Alhamzi's account logged on to a computer at the school to check on travel reservations for Sept. 11, 2001, that had already been made, he added.

Wainstein did not identify the college, but an official with William Paterson University in Wayne said that shortly after the attacks, investigators seized several public-access computers from the college's library.

.

Then again have the phone calls by flight attendents Betty Ong & Amy Sweeney listing seat locations of
the hijackers

Get a copy of James Bamfords "THE SHADOW FACTORY" spends much of the book tracing the hijackers
travels prior to 911

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
Were there any suspicious situations on 9/11 as far as you are concerned?

Sure, the whole situation with Bush testifying with Cheney and not under oath (I believe? I'm pretty ignorant on this) is very suspicious in my eyes.

I've said before though that I can easily believe that incompetence or arrogance meant the US government didn't stop the attacks when they should have been able to. I believe this is a much more likely scenario but nobody in the truth movement has really made any progress on this side.

The Bush/Cheney testifying before Congress under oath is a Separation of Powers issue and setting a bad precedent. You have the Legislative branch questioning the Executive branch. This leads to the slippery slope argument that in the future when Congress objects to the Presidents' actions they can be hauled in front of Congress to be questioned/interrogated. Congress can and will abuse its power. Executive branch can and will abuse its power. The Supreme Court can limit this abuse. And by not agreeing to testifying under oath in front of Congress, the Executive branch can limit the abuse and three ring circus environment. Anyone (in Congress) with a grievance against Bush/Cheney would grandstand to please (and reassure their re-election) their constituents.

Our political system is the foxes guarding the foxes. Both sides accuse each other of impropriety and make a bunch of noise about fixing stuff but once a branch of government gains power it refuses to return it. The fact of the matter is that Republicans will use this new found power and so will the Democrats. The abuse just comes in different flavors. It is a benefit to all to acquire more power so even though it may be the opposing party that makes it happen, the other party realizes that once they are in power they can use (abuse) this new found power. Everyone is in favor of more power.

Government is very bureaucratic and feudal. People like power and do things to protect their power. Power is having knowledge that no one else has. Bureaucrats have their fiefdoms and they protect it with vengeance. It is more important to protect your fiefdom than it is to prevent a major catastrophe. The bureaucracy is set up to protect this mindset. However, some individuals within the bureaucracy work to fix the system. Some go with the flow since it is the easy thing to do while others try to improve the system. It takes major catastrophes to fix the system and these changes are always slow and half assed due to the political nature of the environment they have to occur under. The CIA and FBI could not be told to play nice so you had to develop a new department called Homeland Security to handle the task.

A passport survives an inferno to land on a sidewalk to be picked up.
A stewardess relays the seat numbers to the authorities and this is another piece of the puzzle.

These 2 pieces (there may be more) prove that Al Queda was involved.

Why were known AL Queda members in the USA and on flights that day?

What was the tally for found passports at all the sites?

Were all the passengers on these planes fly domestic (no need for passports) or were there other "international" people on these flights?

Could the intact passport from the hijacker have come out of the building?

Is it possible that all members of this group were paid CIA agents setup to do this job?

Originally posted by BobM88
The one thing that's always made me wonder...how did we know so quickly who the 19 hijackers were in 9/11?

Call me stupid or naive, but with all the chaos of that day, how did we figure out so quickly who they were? How did we find their Al-Qaeda ties so fast? If we knew who they were already, why did we allow them to stay here? Didn't Al-Qaeda attack the USS Stark?

I'm not playing stupid, I honestly don't understand how we had all their info so fast if it was such a surprise.

I think you have stumbled on one of the reasons why there seems to be an inside job conspiracy. As I keep saying in all threads : human error, arse covering etc accounts for 99% of all that happens in the world. So think very carefully. The intelligence agencies have information indicating an attack (amongst the many destroying the towers would seem to be the most incredulous). The politicians can act on every single threat and end up evacuating buildings every week or so or balance between acting and waiting.

So what happens when the balancing act (with no action) fails........ah ha, arse covering time and the conspiracists jump up and down shouting inside job......

reply to post by huh2142

The Bush/Cheney testifying before Congress under oath is a Separation of Powers issue and setting a bad precedent. You have the Legislative branch questioning the Executive branch. This leads to the slippery slope argument that in the future when Congress objects to the Presidents' actions they can be hauled in front of Congress to be questioned/interrogated

Wouldn't wanna set a bad precedent of making them tell the truth. How do you feel about the precedent they set after 9/11 ( patriot act) ?

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by huh2142

 

The Bush/Cheney testifying before Congress under oath is a Separation of Powers issue and setting a bad precedent. You have the Legislative branch questioning the Executive branch. This leads to the slippery slope argument that in the future when Congress objects to the Presidents' actions they can be hauled in front of Congress to be questioned/interrogated

Wouldn't wanna set a bad precedent of making them tell the truth. How do you feel about the precedent they set after 9/11 ( patriot act) ?

I want our leaders to tell the truth. I want to know the truth. In this case there is a conflict between maintaining the integrity of the system and truth and the system won. Like I wrote in my previous post, politicians will protect each other. They have a sweet deal and they don't want it gone no matter how much they complain it is broken. This very typical of all ruling elite. They hold power until forced to give it up.

Could you clarify what you mean by bad precedent set by the Patriot Act? Pretty much every single piece of legislation passed restricts our freedoms to a certain extent.

reply to post by huh2142


Thank you for the detailed reply, I only wish I knew enough about US politics to comment on it, but I am extremely ignorant on the subject.

Originally posted by huh2142

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by huh2142

 

The Bush/Cheney testifying before Congress under oath is a Separation of Powers issue and setting a bad precedent. You have the Legislative branch questioning the Executive branch. This leads to the slippery slope argument that in the future when Congress objects to the Presidents' actions they can be hauled in front of Congress to be questioned/interrogated

Wouldn't wanna set a bad precedent of making them tell the truth. How do you feel about the precedent they set after 9/11 ( patriot act) ?

I want our leaders to tell the truth. I want to know the truth. In this case there is a conflict between maintaining the integrity of the system and truth and the system won. Like I wrote in my previous post, politicians will protect each other. They have a sweet deal and they don't want it gone no matter how much they complain it is broken. This very typical of all ruling elite. They hold power until forced to give it up.

Could you clarify what you mean by bad precedent set by the Patriot Act? Pretty much every single piece of legislation passed restricts our freedoms to a certain extent.

How about the unprecedented expansion of search and surveillance authority?
How about an unprecedented amount of power to arrest and to detain people who were thought to be terrorists or who were suspected of having information about a threat. And subject some of them to military tribunals?

I know that John Ashcroft argued that all of that has been done by previous Administrations. But am I wrong to think that the Patriot Act set new precedent for the future Administrations?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
So let me get this straight: A piece of paper in someones pocket somehow survived the very fires you claim melted structural steel to initiate a magical collapse of not one but TWO world trade center buildings, yet those fires, damage, and impact weren't enough to destroy Mohammed Attah's passport, which was found completely intact on a New York street?

Convenient indeed.

Why can't anyone ever get this right? Paper survives fiery crashes ALL the time, and the fires NEVER melted the steel. NO ONE but you guys ever claims that the fires melted the steel. There is no evidence that the fires melted the steel. They didn't melt the steel! The word you're looking for is HEATED the steel, weakening it.

If you research any crash, paper often survives the crash, and if you did any research on 9/11, you'd know parts of the plane came out completely unburned and landed on a bank roof. There are pictures of it. There are pictures of paper, insulation and other small debris on the street, where the passport was found.

The only magic is in your head.

but there were photos of molten steel pooling in the wreckage... something melted the steel.

reply to post by thedman


Just about every time I hear or read some one referring to the names of the high jackers being kknown from the passengers list, I do a search to try to find them.

The closest I have ever come was a list of their names with the notation stating that "their name was not on the passenger list".

How could anyone make a call from a plane and give out names which are not on the list ? Seat numbers, yes.
As to who occupied those seats. There would have been some names which were used by those persons, but the names of the accussed high jackers were not there.

I have read some, now buried reports, from the FBI which say there were no records of calls being ade from any of the planes.

The calls from flight 77, which stated the high jackers had "box cutters and knives", was shown to not been connected and could not have lasted long enough for the woman to have talked to her husband as he has stated.

Originally posted by renegadeloser
but there were photos of molten steel pooling in the wreckage... something melted the steel.

I haven't seen these photos. It would be kind if you could point me in their direction, but the only ones I know of were altered pictures of cleanup photos, meant to bolster a conspiracy theorist's point with lies.