Atta's conveniently late luggage

[16.5]

You should know me well enough by now. I usually know the answers to the questions I ask. I'm just curious how you guys answer them.

So was Atta in NY or Boston the night before? Or did he stay in a hotel in Jersey as Sam is now suggesting?

He usually "knows" the answers to the questions he asks. Wow, that is the very definition of a troll. Why anyone would answer this *******'s "questions" from here on out is the real question.

[RedIbis]

Bump for RedIbis.

You're bumping a question which is actually asking why I would want to know more about Atta and the operation?

Perhaps, you're right. Less knowledge is always better than more knowledge.

[16.5]

You're bumping a question which is actually asking why I would want to know more about Atta and the operation?

Perhaps, you're right. Less knowledge is always better than more knowledge.

Actually, given the fact that you said you already had the answer, but were not sharing it, we are asking for YOUR answer.

Or you can finally stop wasting everyone's time around here with you JAQ'ing off and ducking questions.

KTHXBYE

[Longfellow]

He usually "knows" the answers to the questions he asks. Wow, that is the very definition of a troll. Why anyone would answer this *******'s "questions" from here on out is the real question.

Emphasis mine.

I have to respectfully disagree. From his/her first posts, redibis made it clear to me that s/he is a 'truther' and a troll (protestations to the contrary aside, you are a 'truther' redibis) and thus not worthy of further consideration. Even though Redibis exists to me in quoted form only, enough people here quote his/her twaddle in full and I've still yet to read anything from him/her that would change my initial assessment.

I've said it time and again: I still can't believe the number of otherwise smart people here that still raise to this kind of baiting.

[RedIbis]

Emphasis mine.

I have to respectfully disagree. From his/her first posts, redibis made it clear to me that s/he is a 'truther' and a troll (protestations to the contrary aside, you are a 'truther' redibis) and thus not worthy of further consideration. Even though Redibis exists to me in quoted form only, enough people here quote his/her twaddle in full and I've still yet to read anything from him/her that would change my initial assessment.

I've said it time and again: I still can't believe the number of otherwise smart people here that still raise to this kind of baiting.

You're about as successful ignoring me as Gravy was.

[johnny karate]

You're bumping a question which is actually asking why I would want to know more about Atta and the operation?

Nope. I'm asking what you think further inquiry into Atta's actions prior to boarding AA11, beyond what has already been investigated, could possibly yield that will impact what we know about what followed.

Here's the origininal question:
Red, in what specific way do you feel further investigating Atta's actions prior to boarding AA11 will impact our understanding of the events that followed?

You'll notice the wording is quite a bit more specific than you made it out to be.

[Furcifer]

Let us assume Atta isn't a terrorist at all. Now then, why does Atta, the non-terrorist, drive to Portland just to fly to Logan?


There's a breeze coming off my monitor from all the hand waving.

JK. There's no way he'll address this.

[beachnut]

I guess when terrorist masterminds plan their attacks they figure going through two airports instead of one will decrease their chances of getting caught.
...
It does decrease their chance of being caught for a few reasons. If you were a mastermind you would have figured out 911 in minutes instead of having major problems after 8 years.

[A W Smith]

You never have flown?
Once again you display no intent on doing research or understanding 911.

You do not go through security again, you would never make your connection. You should try flying before expressing total nonsense.

Atta was thinking murder. You are thinking nonsense.


i think you quoted the wrong post Beachnut

[beachnut]

i think you quoted the wrong post Beachnut
yep -

[Travis]

There's a breeze coming off my monitor from all the hand waving.

JK. There's no way he'll address this.

Exactly, with him being a terrorist there is at least some logic in him driving up to Portland. As a non-terrorist it just seems insane.....unless Atta was some sort of airport junkie who really needed to see both Portland and Logan.

[Furcifer]

Atta was some sort of airport junkie who really needed to see both Portland and Logan.

The Comfort Inn in Portland leaves those little mints on the pillow. ;)

[twinstead]

So Red's "just asking questions" implication that Atta's driving up to Portland was in some way suspicious in an implied "inside job" way totally backfired, didn't it?

[George152]

Any-one else consider that red is a disinformation source from 'interested parties'?

[16.5]

So Red's "just asking questions" implication that Atta's driving up to Portland was in some way suspicious in an implied "inside job" way totally backfired, didn't it?

He already "knew" that it would make him look like a jack ass.

Hard to believe that not only did he manage to out himself as a gutless troll, he also managed to shoot himself in the foot in the same thread.

New low? The answer is, for today, absolutely.

[tsig]

The Comfort Inn in Portland leaves those little mints on the pillow. ;)

They're like totally to die for.:boxedin:

[DGM]

The master terrorist apparently thought factoring in another airport would strengthen chances that the operation was successful, when it could have (but unfortunately did not) blow the entire operation.

.

So are you arguing that the "master terrorist" was right? You seem to say that what he did was illogical (flying through more than one airport). Did it not work? Maybe the flaw (in logic) is yours.

[RedIbis]

So are you arguing that the "master terrorist" was right? You seem to say that what he did was illogical (flying through more than one airport). Did it not work? Maybe the flaw (in logic) is yours.

Of course it worked. Not only did it work despite the many silly moves Atta made throughout, he managed to stash all of the incriminating evidence in a piece of luggage he checked in not one, but two airports.

How truly convenient that this was the only bag on the flight, not lost, but held back to be later discovered and presented as some very convincing evidence of Atta's involvement. Or was it found in the rental car?

[DGM]

Of course it worked. Not only did it work despite the many silly moves Atta made throughout, he managed to stash all of the incriminating evidence in a piece of luggage he checked in not one, but two airports.

How truly convenient that this was the only bag on the flight, not lost, but held back to be later discovered and presented as some very convincing evidence of Atta's involvement. Or was it found in the rental car?
What makes you think that wasn't his plan? You know, to make sure everyone knew it was him. You do know they like being remembered as martyrs?

[RedIbis]

What makes you think that wasn't his plan? You know, to make sure everyone knew it was him. You do know they like being remembered as martyrs?

Oh I don't know, arrest maybe?

Take a moment to consider what you're being asked to defend. Like a lot of the official narrative, it reads like a bad B movie script.

[DGM]

Oh I don't know, arrest maybe?

Take a moment to consider what you're being asked to defend. Like a lot of the official narrative, it reads like a bad B movie script.
No. Your the one playing it like a B movie. What did he do that would have gotten him arrested? Do you go out every day wondering if your going to get arrested?

[AJM8125]

Oh I don't know, arrest maybe?

Take a moment to consider what you're being asked to defend. Like a lot of the official narrative, it reads like a bad B movie script.

You mean like Loose Change?

[JamesB]

Apparently we are to think that Atta should have been worried that he would have survived the crash and been arrested.

[RedIbis]

No. Your the one playing it like a B movie. What did he do that would have gotten him arrested? Do you go out every day wondering if your going to get arrested?

I don't go out with a bag full of incriminating evidence that I'm about to pull off a heinous terrorist attack.

[Hokulele]

Apparently we are to think that Atta should have been worried that he would have survived the crash and been arrested.


Or, that he should be worried that should the attack be aborted, swarms of officers would be confiscating and examining the luggage of random travelers at his final destination.

[Furcifer]

How truly convenient that this was the only bag on the flight, not lost, but held back to be later discovered and presented as some very convincing evidence of Atta's involvement.

Everyone here is laughing at you because they remember the Saturday Night Live skit with Dana Carvey as "The Church Lady". I know it's not fair, but seriously I expect you to look at the camera and squint up your face every time you type "conveeeeeeient".

Do you have a link verifying Atta's bag was the only one off the flight held back? I'm not saying you're lying, I'm just saying as lame as this claim is it needs citation.

Convincing? Really? Who said it was convincing? You? I've never heard that. There's a ton of evidence linking Atta to 9/11, his bag not being anything of actual importance. The video, finger print and DNA evidence really cinched things up. Not to mention the evidence linking him to the other hijackers.

LMFAO, Atta was a random guy, who happened to be in Boston, then traveled to Portland with another identified hijacker, that happened to be on the plane that happened to get hijacked? Oh yah, they just happened to work with box cutters and happened to be over extending their Visa's and happened to be taking flying lessons.

Just once, for the camera, could you give me the line? "Could it be....SATAN!"

[DGM]

I don't go out with a bag full of incriminating evidence that I'm about to pull off a heinous terrorist attack.
There was nothing incriminating about it until AFTER the attacks. (see how hindsight works)

[RedIbis]

Apparently we are to think that Atta should have been worried that he would have survived the crash and been arrested.

No, that he should be worried about being able to pull off this incredibly complex attack.

[DGM]

No, that he should be worried about being able to pull off this incredibly complex attack.
He had the blessing of Allah, Why would he worry?

[Regnad Kcin]

"Incredibly complex?" Um...

[Furcifer]

No, that he should be worried about being able to pull off this incredibly complex attack.

lol, stop, you're killing me. He should be worried that his bag might arrive ahead of him, notifying the authorities because they might have somehow discovered his bag and looked in it to discover his...

No, can't make any sense of that at all. It's just plain silly.

Unless he was worried about the "terrorists attack plan sniffing dogs". You'd be surprised what they can train these dogs to find now a days.

[dtugg]

lol

I love how, in RedIbis World, hijacking a plane and then flying it into a building is somehow "incredibly complex."

I honestly can't think of a simpler way for his terrorist buddies to kill thousands of people.

[DGM]

lol

I love how, in RedIbis World, hijacking a plane and then flying it into a building is somehow "incredibly complex."

I honestly can't think of a simpler way for his terrorist buddies to kill thousands of people.
Remember you have to hit the exact right spot to set off the "super duper nano-thermite" and have your pass-port end up intact on the street and........(oh hell I'm too tired to continue, but you get the idea).:o

[Cl1mh4224rd]

"Incredibly complex?" Um...
lol

I love how, in RedIbis World, hijacking a plane and then flying it into a building is somehow "incredibly complex."


I can't imagine Atta would be more worried about the "incredibly complex" plan he intended to carry out than, say, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al. about the incredibly complex plan RedIbis believes they carried out...

[DGM]

I can't imagine Atta would be more worried about the "incredibly complex" plan he intended to carry out than, say, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al. about the incredibly complex plan RedIbis believes they carried out...
Not to mention the tens of thousands of people that were needed to carry it out. I don't remember seeing any signs of nervousness among my friends that were later accused of being "in on it".

[johnny karate]

Red, in what specific way do you feel further investigating Atta's actions prior to boarding AA11 will impact our understanding of the events that followed?

Bump for RedIbis.

[johnny karate]

I don't go out with a bag full of incriminating evidence that I'm about to pull off a heinous terrorist attack.

What specific piece (or pieces) of evidence was obtained from Atta's luggage that yielded information both crucial to the "official narrative" and that couldn't have been ascertained by some other means?

[16.5]

Oh Hai!

Did Red explain how Atta going to Portland made it an inside jobby job?

No?

What the **** else is new.

What a maroon.

[triforcharity]

Not to mention the tens of thousands of people that were needed to carry it out. I don't remember seeing any signs of nervousness among my friends that were later accused of being "in on it".


You know, come to think of it, neither were any of my FDNY friends. I mean, if they were in on it, as the T(B)M claims, they sure were cool, calm, and collected going into those towers. Especially entering a building they knew they wouldn't get out of alive. Damn, nerves of steel!!

[apathoid]

lol

I love how, in RedIbis World, hijacking a plane and then flying it into a building is somehow "incredibly complex."




I wouldn't exactly call it a 'piece of cake', but surely the official story reality was about a millionmillion less complex than the truthers fantasy. Funny how Red has no problem ignoring how far more complex his fantasy is.

[funk de fino]

No, that he should be worried about being able to pull off this incredibly complex attack.

Do you agree it was a good plan to split up?

[funk de fino]

Of course it worked. Not only did it work despite the many silly moves Atta made throughout, he managed to stash all of the incriminating evidence in a piece of luggage he checked in not one, but two airports.

How truly convenient that this was the only bag on the flight, not lost, but held back to be later discovered and presented as some very convincing evidence of Atta's involvement. Or was it found in the rental car?

Oh dear. The vast majority of the TM will not be happy with that one. They cherry pick the FBI to say there was no hard evidence.

Who is right Red or the majority of the TM?

[Travis]

Red, for the last time, why do you think Atta drove from Boston to Portland just to take a plane back down to Logan if he wasn't a terrorist?

[Foolmewunz]

Red, and new kid.....

This point is often raised around the 7 page mark in the latest thread started by CIT shills.....

Why?

Why this incredibly complex plot to hand the bag over to an airline, run the risk of it getting onto a flight that you were going to destroy by flying into a building (unless you're now saying luggage handlers were in on it), and thus destroy your carefully planted evidence?

Why not leave it in the hotel room? The NWO knows the schedule of the maid service, and could make sure that no one found it until it was late enough. Or at the IHOP or Bagel Buddy on the way to the airport....? Why check it into the airline at Portland, thereby offering the best chance of it actually getting lost/destroyed/reclaimed?

You guys make it so hard! Do you just enjoy convoluted plot lines? They had sixteen other channels of evidence to link Atta and the boys. This "conveniently" late luggage is just "coincidentally late luggage".

And as to all the banter about going to Portland versus Boston....? It worked, didn't it? Do you have any proof that it would have worked had he decided to get on in Boston? No. So give this up, please. It's just another of those meaningless factoids that you guys peddle as anomalies and that amount to nothing.

[Regnad Kcin]

Former Vice-President (and future President) Richard Nixon was in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. "Too convenient," you might whisper.

The brain (human and otherwise) is pattern-centric. Whether through imagery, language, or other sensory stimulous, we make sense of a random world by determining associations with past learned information. This can help to predict future outcomes; a good thing for a being wishing to continue surviving. Thing is, some patterns can also be random while appearing otherwise. That's why it's important to look at things in various contexts.

So...did Mr. Nixon have anything to do with the murder of JFK? Be honest.In my late-night haste, I neglected to add the biggest tell, that Mr. Kennedy was Mr. Nixon's adversary in the 1960 presidential election, the one the latter lost by a very thin margin. And he just happens to be in the very city on the same day when his former opponent is gunned down?! I mean, come on!

[Dave Rogers]

In my late-night haste, I neglected to add the biggest tell, that Mr. Kennedy was Mr. Nixon's adversary in the 1960 presidential election, the one the latter lost by a very thin margin. And he just happens to be in the very city on the same day when his former opponent is gunned down?! I mean, come on!

Actually, in most murder cases of a man known to have been unfaithful, isn't the wronged and jealous wife the first suspect? And Jackie Kennedy was not just in the same city, but in the same car, when her philandering husband was shot dead. What could possible be more "convenient"?

Dave

[RedIbis]

Red, for the last time, why do you think Atta drove from Boston to Portland just to take a plane back down to Logan if he wasn't a terrorist?

How about we just assume he was one and try explain why he went from Boston to Portland and back to Boston.

[funk de fino]

How about we just assume he was one and try explain why he went from Boston to Portland and back to Boston.

Do you think it was a good plan to split up?

[Foolmewunz]

How about we just assume he was one and try explain why he went from Boston to Portland and back to Boston.

Red,
It's been explained. He went to Portland for the perceived more lax security. It just happened that the plane out of Portland was connecting to a flight in the city he'd just come from - he wasn't stopping there, he was getting onto a fully loaded cross-country flight so he could hijack it and crash it into things. If the Portland flight had connected through any other airport, he would've take that route. It's just that Portland to anywhere other than local New England generally takes you through Boston.

[triforcharity]

5 Guys show up at Logan, all with miniaml luggage, and they would look suspicious.

2 guys show up in Boston from a plane thata just landed from Portland. 2 guys show up from a rental car.

1 guy shows up from somewhere else.

Now, which would look the most suspicious to you?? Honestly Red. For the first time since I have joined this forum, be HONEST. Just once. You can go back to your lies after this post.

[RedIbis]

Red,
It's been explained. He went to Portland for the perceived more lax security.

Source?

[triforcharity]

I already pointed it out to you in a previous post.

From the 9/11 Commission report.

"Atta appeared agitated he would have to check in AGAIN in Boston. "


WHY THE **** WOULD HE BE MAD RED?????????????????????

[RedIbis]

I already pointed it out to you in a previous post.

From the 9/11 Commission report.

"Atta appeared agitated he would have to check in AGAIN in Boston. "


WHY THE **** WOULD HE BE MAD RED?????????????????????

Well after last night's game, I know why you're mad. By most accounts Atta, the master terrorist was a bit of a loose cannon. Why was he mad at the toll booth operator on the Mass Turnpike or the agent at the ticket counter? Did the master terrorist like to make a scene? Or I suppose we should just take what the Commission states as fact, that Atta believed boarding two flights would be safer than boarding one.

[triforcharity]

Page 468 of the PDF file, 9/11 comission report, found here.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

"Atta drove from Boston to Portland ME on 9/10/09. His reasoning is unknown"
(Paraphrased)

"However, Atta reacted negatively when informed he would have to check in again in Boston."

This tells me that MacGuyver et al were possibly correct. He was agitated that he would have to check in again. Maybe he was counting on making it through security just once in Protland.

Hummm....Imagine what people could do with an HOURS worth of research. Daamn, that took 5 minutes, 4 of those waiting for the download to finish.

Here you go Red. Have fun.

[triforcharity]

I don't know why he was mad at the MassPike agent. That I do not know. Try asking Atta......Oh damn, can't do that. HES DEAD.

BTW, I am not upset about last nights game. But nice try on the distraction.


Now, tell me, when someone puts together a huge report, with eyewitness testomony, anad evidence, and facts, I tend to believe them. The TM has yet to provide any facts to back up their insane claims.

[stateofgrace]

Well after last night's game, I know why you're mad. By most accounts Atta, the master terrorist was a bit of a loose cannon. Why was he mad at the toll booth operator on the Mass Turnpike or the agent at the ticket counter? Did the master terrorist like to make a scene? Or I suppose we should just take what the Commission states as fact, that Atta believed boarding two flights would be safer than boarding one.

I think the point being made, Red, is that once he cleared security at Portland he may well have assumed he would not have to clear security again at Boston.

Or am I missing the point here?

ETA looks like Tri as already pointed this out to you.

[triforcharity]

I think the point being made, Red, is that once he cleared security at Portland he may well have assumed he would not have to clear security again at Boston.

Or am I missing the point here?

ETA looks like Tri as already pointed this out to you.


I have already pointed that out to him on page 6, complete with link. He continues to specualte well beyond any reasonable conclusion.

[funk de fino]

Well after last night's game, I know why you're mad. By most accounts Atta, the master terrorist was a bit of a loose cannon. Why was he mad at the toll booth operator on the Mass Turnpike or the agent at the ticket counter? Did the master terrorist like to make a scene? Or I suppose we should just take what the Commission states as fact, that Atta believed boarding two flights would be safer than boarding one.

Was the master terrorist's plan to split up a good one Red?

[RedIbis]

Here you go Red. Have fun.

See that, now we're getting somewhere. Fool went from, "He went to Portland for the perceived more lax security" and you provided a paraphrased version of Mueller's comment, "[T]heir reason for going there, to date, remains unclear."

[johnny karate]

Red, in what specific way do you feel further investigating Atta's actions prior to boarding AA11 will impact our understanding of the events that followed?

Bump for RedIbis.

[johnny karate]

What specific piece (or pieces) of evidence was obtained from Atta's luggage that yielded information both crucial to the "official narrative" and that couldn't have been ascertained by some other means?

Bump for RedIbis.

[16.5]

See that, now we're getting somewhere. Fool went from, "He went to Portland for the perceived more lax security" and you provided a paraphrased version of Mueller's comment, "[T]heir reason for going there, to date, remains unclear."

Wait, is this one of those posts where you already "know" the answer and are just JAQ'ing off? It is ever so hard to keep these things clear.

Well, given the fact that you certainly agree that Atta did take the flight from Portland to Boston and the got on the ultimately doomed flight there and we are assuming he was a terrorist, would you not agree that the reason why he did what he did is more of an idle curiosity akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I already "know" the answer to this question! I want to see how Reddy answers

[Foolmewunz]

See that, now we're getting somewhere. Fool went from, "He went to Portland for the perceived more lax security" and you provided a paraphrased version of Mueller's comment, "[T]heir reason for going there, to date, remains unclear."

Have you ever been wanted by the law, RedIbis? When you are, you tend to do things in a circuitous way.

But here's what I'll do. I'll conced whatever point it is you're making. You are making a point, right? If you'll just tell us what it is, we'll agree with it so you can get on with answering the real question here.....

What does all this lead to, Red? Would we know anything less about the events of that day without the redundant evidence in that suitcase (those suitcases, I believe)? Will we understand anything more about the events if we find out that he went to Portland because he was superstitious and Portland has 8 letters just like his mom's maiden name? What is it you are expecting out of this?

If you've got evidence that he met with Cheney just outside of Lowell, I'd sure like to see it. Otherwise you just have a murderous terrorist moving around, something that they tend to do.

[RedIbis]

Wait, is this one of those posts where you already "know" the answer and are just JAQ'ing off? It is ever so hard to keep these things clear.



I find it odd that you think there was a question in that post.

[16.5]

I find it odd that you think there was a question in that post.

O'Rly? Well Red, you see when you say "Now we are getting somewhere" you were referring to your earlier questions, were you not? Of course you were.

So I gotta ask, is this one of those oh so clever series of posts where you "know" the answer, and are JAQ'ing off?

Anyhow, Red, how is god damn possible that you managed to make a snarky comment about my post, but managed to miss this:

"Well, given the fact that you certainly agree that Atta did take the flight from Portland to Boston and the got on the ultimately doomed flight there and we are assuming he was a terrorist, would you not agree that the reason why he did what he did is more of an idle curiosity akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Damn Red, you'd avoid discussing the elphant in the room, even if it was sitting on you.

Keep it up, champ, we all are truly enjoying this thread!

How does the fact that the terrorist Atta drove to Portland make this an inside jobby job, Red? "Know" the answer to that question?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Oh dear. The vast majority of the TM will not be happy with that one. They cherry pick the FBI to say there was no hard evidence.

Who is right Red or the majority of the TM?


To be fair, the "no hard evidence" comment from the FBI is in regard to Osama bin Laden's connection to 9/11 specifically.

[Furcifer]

Geez, RedIbis really is a troll. How sad.

[Rolfe]

OMG, we can't get anyone to so much as look at the evidence from the baggage hall at Frankfurt where PA103A was loaded, to see how well it supports the official version that the bomb suitcase came from KA180. Even though it's available, and apparently highly questionable, and is one of only four pieces of evidence that were crucial to the official version. Two of which have already been shot to pieces.

No, people would rather talk about whether the baggage system ever leaves people's bags behind. As if it didn't happen all the time. Especially to people with a tight connection who have had to run for their flight. And probably especially to people whose luggage has a "watch it!" tag on it. And as if the explanations for Atta taking the luggage with him, and taking the route he did, aren't perfectly sensible. And as if coincidences at that level don't happen every bloody day.

Just because it's 9/11, and not a far, far more interesting CT that hasn't been debunked effectively in 20 years.

Soe people have no ambition.

[/derail]

Rolfe.

[triforcharity]

Rolfe,

WTF are you talking about?? What's your point??

[Hokulele]

She is talking about the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie (sp?). There have been a few threads on it recently due to current events.

[Travis]

How about we just assume he was one and try explain why he went from Boston to Portland and back to Boston.

Prior to 9/11 my use of airports showed me that smaller airports (like Sacramento and Oakland) usually were much more laid back in security than bigger airports (like LAX or Phoenix). This was something a smart terrorist would probably try to take advantage of. So, in the context of him being a terrorist there is a rational reason he would drive to Portland to get on a plane that was just flying back to Boston.

But if he isn't a terrorist then the whole thing just looks kooky. It's sort of like a guy who parks out in front of a bank every day. If he's a robber casing the place it makes sense, if he's just some bloke fulfilling some overriding compulsion then he's probably got a screw loose.

Got it?

[apathoid]

RedIbis, I agree with Foolmewunz. Get to your point and stop beating around the bush.

I'm trying my damndest to look at this from your perspective, but the same questions can be asked in your direction. What's the point of making the 'cover-story' so unnecessarily convoluted that the 'fake' hijackers would be spiltting up, checking in twice and going through security twice and running to make their flights, checking luggage, renting cars and driving through the night, only to wind up at in the same city they started? Who writes a script like that?

Can you make it all fit please? You've asked why Atta and the gang did what they did. You were answered. And even though you may not agree with the answers given to you, it would be nice if you extended us the same courtesy.

Now, proceed...

[apathoid]

Prior to 9/11 my use of airports showed me that smaller airports (like Sacramento and Oakland) usually were much more laid back in security than bigger airports (like LAX or Phoenix). This was something a smart terrorist would probably try to take advantage of. So, in the context of him being a terrorist there is a rational reason he would drive to Portland to get on a plane that was just flying back to Boston.

But if he isn't a terrorist then the whole thing just looks kooky. It's sort of like a guy who parks out in front of a bank every day. If he's a robber casing the place it makes sense, if he's just some bloke fulfilling some overriding compulsion then he's probably got a screw loose.

Got it?

Whether or not the security was actually tighter at Logan than Portland is irrelevant. The issue is what the perception of airport security was to Mohammed Atta. It's perfectly reasonable for him to assume that a smaller airport would have less resources thwart their mission. Personally, I think it was a good move on his part. Where he went wrong was not realizing that his connection at Logan was in a different terminal, which means he had to go through security again. No wonder he was pissed.

[TruthersLie]

To be fair, the "no hard evidence" comment from the FBI is in regard to Osama bin Laden's connection to 9/11 specifically.

Which was then clarified not 2 weeks after it was made by the same spokesman who then made it very clear that indictments would be coming and it was explained why.

But like with most twoofs, they take the original statement and then ignore the clarification (reminds me of some of the hijackers are still alive)

[Algebra34]

RedIbis, I agree with Foolmewunz. Get to your point and stop beating around the bush.

I'm trying my damndest to look at this from your perspective, but the same questions can be asked in your direction. What's the point of making the 'cover-story' so unnecessarily convoluted that the 'fake' hijackers would be spiltting up, checking in twice and going through security twice and running to make their flights, checking luggage, renting cars and driving through the night, only to wind up at in the same city they started? Who writes a script like that?

Can you make it all fit please? You've asked why Atta and the gang did what they did. You were answered. And even though you may not agree with the answers given to you, it would be nice if you extended us the same courtesy.

Now, proceed...

Oh come on. Patsies (if that's what they were) are handled from a distance. These guys were not reliable. Some of them almost missed their flight and called attention to themselves in getting into a fight with someone at the airport over a parking space. How does this help your story? Whatever happened I'll bet another plane was planned and in the end the terriorist screwed it up or got spooked.

[apathoid]

Oh come on. Patsies (if that's what they were) are handled from a distance. These guys were not reliable. Some of them almost missed their flight and called attention to themselves in getting into a fight with someone at the airport over a parking space. How does this help your story? Whatever happened I'll bet another plane was planned and in the end the terriorist screwed it up or got spooked.


I'm having a hard time parsing your "logic". So real hijackers would in no way act like or plan things the way they did, but patsie hijackers would?

[Foolmewunz]

Oh come on. Patsies (if that's what they were) are handled from a distance. These guys were not reliable. Some of them almost missed their flight and called attention to themselves in getting into a fight with someone at the airport over a parking space. How does this help your story? Whatever happened I'll bet another plane was planned and in the end the terriorist screwed it up or got spooked.

Good thing they weren't reliable! I mean if they'd been reliable can you imagine what would've happened? They would've hijacked four planes, murdered pilots and then crashed them, with dozens of deaths!


Oh, wait....

[RedIbis]

Whether or not the security was actually tighter at Logan than Portland is irrelevant. The issue is what the perception of airport security was to Mohammed Atta. It's perfectly reasonable for him to assume that a smaller airport would have less resources thwart their mission. Personally, I think it was a good move on his part. Where he went wrong was not realizing that his connection at Logan was in a different terminal, which means he had to go through security again. No wonder he was pissed.

So according to these assumptions, the master terrorist drove all the way to Portland from Boston because he thought the security would be more lax, but didn't know that his flight would be in a different terminal in Logan.

Not only are you assuming why he went, it's very illogical to draw this conclusion.

[dtugg]

I see the coward RedIbis is still ducking questions. Huge shocker there. :rolleyes:

[SpitfireIX]

Rolfe,

WTF are you talking about?? What's your point??


I think Rolfe's point is that the truthers are so busy trying to find anomalies where none exist in the generally accepted version of the events of the September 11 attacks that they aren't interested in looking at what she believes are very real anomalies in the generally accepted version of the events of the Pan Am 103 bombing. In the case of the September 11 attacks, the movement of Atta's suitcase is of only minor importance, and in any case not anomalous. In the case of PA 103, the movement of the suitcase that is believed to have held the bomb is crucial I haven't been able to follow the discussion very much because my Internet access both at home and at work have been out for about a month :eek:, but I know that Rolfe is most assuredly not given to conspiracy mongering.


@Rolfe: Isn't the reason the twoofers aren't interested obvious? Questioning Pan Am 103 doesn't give them an excuse to bash the US government.


ETA: It occurs to me that Rolfe might also have been asking why everyone else is wasting time on thoroughly debunked and/or irrelevant claims instead of looking into the much murkier story of who was responsible for bombing Pan Am 103. To which I respond, "Good question." For myself I can only plead lack of time and Internet access at the moment.

[triforcharity]

Oh come on. Patsies (if that's what they were) are handled from a distance. These guys were not reliable. Some of them almost missed their flight and called attention to themselves in getting into a fight with someone at the airport over a parking space. How does this help your story? Whatever happened I'll bet another plane was planned and in the end the terriorist screwed it up or got spooked.


Were they successfull in their attack?? Did they in fact kill thousands of Americans that day?? Oh, yes, they did. So, HOW exactly were they not reliable?? They accomplished their mission correct?? Though so.

Yes, I do believe their were more planes. Well, just one really. Just too bad a couple of brave heroes stormed the cockpit and spooked the scumbags in the pilots seat. They are the true heroes of 9/11.

[16.5]

So according to these assumptions, the master terrorist drove all the way to Portland from Boston because he thought the security would be more lax, but didn't know that his flight would be in a different terminal in Logan.

Not only are you assuming why he went, it's very illogical to draw this conclusion.

This coming from someone who thinks that the fact Atta went to Portland is evidence of an inside jobby job, but can't for the life of himself articulate why.

As such the irony of you of all people mentioning logic is hilarious.

[twinstead]

Call EVERYTHING suspicious; let God sort it out

[johnny karate]

Red, in what specific way do you feel further investigating Atta's actions prior to boarding AA11 will impact our understanding of the events that followed?

Bump for RedIbis.

[johnny karate]

What specific piece (or pieces) of evidence was obtained from Atta's luggage that yielded information both crucial to the "official narrative" and that couldn't have been ascertained by some other means?

Bump for RedIbis.

[funk de fino]

So according to these assumptions, the master terrorist drove all the way to Portland from Boston because he thought the security would be more lax, but didn't know that his flight would be in a different terminal in Logan.

Not only are you assuming why he went, it's very illogical to draw this conclusion.

Was the master terrorist's plan to split up a good one Red?

[Algebra34]

These bumbling idiots would never have been counted on in a LIHOP senario with so much at stake. Not without a lot of help. Which then negates just LIHOP.

[TexasJack]

These bumbling idiots would never have been counted on in a LIHOP senario with so much at stake. Not without a lot of help. Which then negates just LIHOP.

Then how how did they get away with it if they were bumbling idiots?

[apathoid]

So according to these assumptions, the master terrorist drove all the way to Portland from Boston because he thought the security would be more lax, but didn't know that his flight would be in a different terminal in Logan.

Not only are you assuming why he went, it's very illogical to draw this conclusion.


Almost seems like you're trying to have it both ways....arguing(without actually stating your opinion, as usual) that the hijackers were simultaneously too inept and too masterful. Reminds me of the outside the footprint/inside the footprint WTC arguments.

OK. First of all, it seems we are in a consensus agreement that driving to Portland and splitting the group up at the entry points was a good plan. Where you seem to be getting stuck is what happened once at Logan. If you have ever traveled commercially, you'd know that things don't always go according to the itinerary. Maybe the schedule had his origination flight connecting in the same terminal, but was later subject to change. That's happened to me more times than I can count. We don't know. With that in mind, perhaps it would have been a better idea to just start out in Boston.

But what is your point? Where are you going with this? Why are you so afraid of answering a simple question?

ETA: I know why you won't answer. Because there is no possible way that you can parlay this round of "just asking questions" into evidence for your inside-job fantasy. Trying to do so will only make you look like a fool....

[Algebra34]

Then how how did they get away with it if they were bumbling idiots?

Either help from Alah or someone else.

[TexasJack]

Either help from Alah or someone else.

Who would someone else be? And how could they help?

[Algebra34]

Who would someone else be? And how could they help?

Funding, staying out of the way, calling off FBI agents tracking them. distracting military personel and ATC with drills, etc. etc. I don't know. Who could make all that happen? Chance?

[TexasJack]

Funding, staying out of the way, calling off FBI agents tracking them. distracting military personel and ATC with drills, etc. etc. I don't know. Who could make all that happen? Chance?

Oh, so you don't have any evidence, just pure speculation and an argument from personal incredulity. Rational people don't find anything unusual about the terrorists not getting caught, given the lax security measures, lack of coordination between intelligence agencies, and the unexpectedness of this type of attack. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[twinstead]

Funding, staying out of the way, calling off FBI agents tracking them. distracting military personel and ATC with drills, etc. etc. I don't know. Who could make all that happen? Chance?

Do you find it more likely that somebody or some people did that, or that the hijackers managed to pull off their plan?

[apathoid]

Algebra said:

These bumbling idiots would never have been counted on in a LIHOP senario with so much at stake. Not without a lot of help. Which then negates just LIHOP.

Either help from Alah or someone else.

Funding, staying out of the way, calling off FBI agents tracking them. distracting military personel and ATC with drills, etc. etc. I don't know. Who could make all that happen? Chance?

At least somebody is answering questions, and that's a start. Are you watching this RedIbis? Algebra34 isn't afraid to articulate his beliefs.

OK, so hijackers did in fact take over the 4 flights and flew them into the WTC's, Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field? But they had help from the USG? And your evidence for this is...what?

[Hokulele]

Almost seems like you're trying to have it both ways....arguing(without actually stating your opinion, as usual) that the hijackers were simultaneously too inept and too masterful. Reminds me of the outside the footprint/inside the footprint WTC arguments.


Someone should make a list of all of these self-contradictions.

The towers fell too fast and they fell too slowly.


ETA: D'oh! I didn't see the other thread until just now. Great minds and all...

[Algebra34]

OK, so hijackers did in fact take over the 4 flights and flew them into the WTC's, Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field? But they had help from the USG? And your evidence for this is...what?

Did I claim to know this for fact? Those hijackers were idiots even according to the official version. What I'm saying is I don't think just a LIHOP alone would have worked or would have even been a plan anyone could have any confidence in if that's the case. If it was an inside job and these guys were involved they needed a lot of help. If I was an inside job planner trying to make this 9/11 job happen I would have been very proactive in leading these patsies by the nose. I never would have counted on them to be able to pull it all off on their own just by staying out of their way. Not for a minute.

[Rolfe]

I think Rolfe's point is that the truthers are so busy trying to find anomalies where none exist in the generally accepted version of the events of the September 11 attacks that they aren't interested in looking at what she believes are very real anomalies in the generally accepted version of the events of the Pan Am 103 bombing. In the case of the September 11 attacks, the movement of Atta's suitcase is of only minor importance, and in any case not anomalous. In the case of PA 103, the movement of the suitcase that is believed to have held the bomb is crucial I haven't been able to follow the discussion very much because my Internet access both at home and at work have been out for about a month :eek:, but I know that Rolfe is most assuredly not given to conspiracy mongering.


Well, yes. There's about two of us trawling through luggage movement records for Frankfurt airport on 21st December 1988, in the unlikely offchance of spotting something the lawyers didn't. And trying to figure out what one of the witnesses who is a complete wingnut is on about. It's really quite crucial to the incident.

Did an unaccompanied bag really come off KA180 from Malta as the Court determined? If so, how come there was no evidence of it going on, with the Luqa records apparently as tight as a duck's arse? Is it possible the bag was snuck in under the radar at Frankfurt itself? Or did it come off a completely different connecting flight? Or was all the baggage at Frankfurt completely innocent, and the "Bedford suitcase" at Heathrow the real culprit?

Sigh. Nobody seems very interested. They'd much rather repeat the blindingly obvious point that there's nothing especially unlikely about Atta's luggage being left behind, and that any narrative trying to place an innocent or "patsy" interpretation on his actions is wildly less convincing than the narrative that identified him as a suicide bomber.

I suppose it's easier.

@Rolfe: Isn't the reason the twoofers aren't interested obvious? Questioning Pan Am 103 doesn't give them an excuse to bash the US government.


You think? It's the wrong Bush, I agree, but there are widely credited suspicions of a US coverup in PA103, persistent allegations of a LIHOP of some description, and a few people (rather improbably) alleging a MIHOP on the part of rogue security officers. You could bash the Bush snr government to your heart's content on this one.

ETA: It occurs to me that Rolfe might also have been asking why everyone else is wasting time on thoroughly debunked and/or irrelevant claims instead of looking into the much murkier story of who was responsible for bombing Pan Am 103.


Got it in one. If anyone fancies something a bit more challenging, try this thread.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155657

Rolfe.

[apathoid]

Did I claim to know this for fact? Those hijackers were idiots even according to the official version. What I'm saying is I don't think just a LIHOP alone would have worked or would have even been a plan anyone could have any confidence in if that's the case. If it was an inside job and these guys were involved they needed a lot of help. If I was an inside job planner trying to make this 9/11 job happen I would have been very proactive in leading these patsies by the nose. I never would have counted on them to be able to pull it all off on their own just by staying out of their way. Not for a minute.


OK, you're saying they were too idiotic and unreliable, so they had to have had help. What was "idiotic" about the hijackers? And why would the "Official Story" highlight it's own incompetence?

[BigAl]

Did I claim to know this for fact? Those hijackers were idiots even according to the official version. What I'm saying is I don't think just a LIHOP alone would have worked or would have even been a plan anyone could have any confidence in if that's the case. If it was an inside job and these guys were involved they needed a lot of help. If I was an inside job planner trying to make this 9/11 job happen I would have been very proactive in leading these patsies by the nose. I never would have counted on them to be able to pull it all off on their own just by staying out of their way. Not for a minute.

Nothing you say does anything to undermine any of the massive amount of evidence we have that shows that the 19 hijackers did everything. You show no sign of being familiar with any of the evidence and until you are, everything you say is just pointless made-up sh*t.

[Algebra34]

OK, you're saying they were too idiotic and unreliable, so they had to have had help. What was "idiotic" about the hijackers? And why would the "Official Story" highlight it's own incompetence?

These guys called all kinds of attention to themselves according to the official version. Highlight? They needed to provide some kind of background on these perps if that's the story they're going with no? And if all they could provide was idiotic behavior I'm going to guess there was most likely a whole lot more idiotic behavior we never did hear about. Getting drunk, trying to rent planes when they can't fly, getting in fights in the airport lot on the big day, almost missing their flight. Come on. Give me a break. I'm surprised they didn't have a collar and leash on these mental midgets. I'll believe dumb luck or devine intervention before I ever believe LIHOP alone. So I don't believe LIHOP. Who is the skeptic here?

[DavidJames]

Who is the skeptic here?Willful ignorance and arguments from incredulity is not skepticism.

[Algebra34]

Willful ignorance and arguments from incredulity is not skepticism.

You should tattoo that to your forehead. Backwards.

[twinstead]

Willful ignorance and arguments from incredulity is not skepticism.

Indeed. This is garden-variety argument from incredulity here. That, and the uncanny ability of some truthers to conjecture themselves out of obvious inconsistencies in their earlier conjectures at will. It's delightful.

[twinstead]

You should tattoo that to your forehead. Backwards.

Huh? We are the ones who have evidence to support our position. You are suspicious because things just don't "look right" to you. You are the one who needs to visit the tattoo shop.

[R.Mackey]

I simply cannot believe how much attention you all are paying to such an obvious troll. I'm very, very disappointed in this Forum as a whole. [/OT]

[twinstead]

I simply cannot believe how much attention you all are paying to such an obvious troll. I'm very, very disappointed in this Forum as a whole. [/OT]

It's a slow night.

[twinstead]

I simply cannot believe how much attention you all are paying to such an obvious troll. I'm very, very disappointed in this Forum as a whole. [/OT]

And besides, you can debate all that science stuff. Hell, even I can call someone on simple arguments from incredulity. So, I can actually semi-contribute. Why should you have all the fun? ;)

[TruthersLie]

Funding,

GREAT. Please provide the citation... oh you are going to try the ISI/CIA connection, right? GREAT. PROVE IT.


staying out of the way,


GREAT. PROVE IT


calling off FBI agents tracking them.


Can you guess what I"m going to say here????
GREAT. PROVE IT


distracting military personel and ATC with drills


GREAT. PROVE IT.


, etc. etc. I don't know. Who could make all that happen? Chance?

Well they say that **** happens... in this case they used the policies that were in place and acted FASTER than we could anticipate or stop them.

It happens.

But since you are making these fantastic claims, back them up.

[TexasJack]

If they were patsies, how do you explain their suicide videos?

[twinstead]

If they were patsies, how do you explain their suicide videos?

Oh, he'll explain them alright. Conjecture is a wonderful thing.