Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why the Pentagon?; Why target the Pentagon?
Topic Started: Oct 7 2009, 09:17 PM (1,628 Views)
Duffman1013
Member Avatar

Since nobody seems to want to tackle the other posts/threads I've offered (I claim victory solidly, if only by fiat), I have something else to toss out to you guys. Why the Pentagon? They clearly targeted it from any angle, NoC or SoC, doesn't matter. Either way it was clearly targeted. Not the White House. Not the Capitol. Not the Supreme Court, or Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, the Mall, Smithsonian, Vietnam Memorial, National Cathedral... any other symbols of American democracy or wealth, not a symbol of America itself. Instead, they went directly after the one place that would do the least to demoralize America... the effing Pentagon. The place that paid $26,000 for a hammer, $50,000 for a toilet seat. Why target that? It wouldn't (and clearly didn't) reduce the ability to mobilize military action one little iota. Riddle me this, riddle me that, why not go for the joker in the White House?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Yeah, to expand on that thought I always thought it was fishy that they targeted the towers when we were told that they attacked us "because they hate our freedoms"...

Would the Statue of Liberty being targeted not send that message home more effectively ? :|
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duffman1013
Member Avatar

Agreed... however, I think the understanding with that would be "The Two Towers had been targets before of 'terrorist' attacks, ergo it would make sense to attack them again, this time with the world watching". I can honestly see the attraction of attacking the WTC from a terrorist point of view (NOT SAYING I'M A TERRORIST!!! lol), but they would have done more to attack McDill AFB in Tampa than to hit the Pentagon. Seriously, though... if I were some wacked-out suicider with a flight sim pilot's license, I would go after something a bit more... heart-rending. The White House would be the top of my list. Second would be the Capitol. Not some brass's office with a bass stuffed and mounted on the wall.

Edit: fishy... lol... stuffed bass on the wall... sorry, toooooo much caffeine today, lol :grin:
Edited by Duffman1013, Oct 7 2009, 09:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
topjars
Member Avatar

To cover up the trillions of lost dollars in the "accounting section".
To use cover and create confusion to nearby of Dulles airport.
To test strucural integrity of wedge / walls but not take out any puppets.

Maybe the construction van needed a secure area to house "x"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Q
Member Avatar
A Higher Evolution
topjars
Oct 8 2009, 01:35 AM
To cover up the trillions of lost dollars in the "accounting section".
To use cover and create confusion to nearby of Dulles airport.
To test strucural integrity of wedge / walls but not take out any puppets.

Maybe the construction van needed a secure area to house "x"?
Being called "The World Trade Center", I can see the Towers as legitimate targets as headquarters for "capitalism". Tower 7 and the Pentagram do cast the shadow of suspicion on the "co-incidental" destruction of significant files.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duffman1013
Member Avatar

Q
Oct 8 2009, 04:37 AM
topjars
Oct 8 2009, 01:35 AM
To cover up the trillions of lost dollars in the "accounting section".
To use cover and create confusion to nearby of Dulles airport.
To test strucural integrity of wedge / walls but not take out any puppets.

Maybe the construction van needed a secure area to house "x"?
Being called "The World Trade Center", I can see the Towers as legitimate targets as headquarters for "capitalism". Tower 7 and the Pentagram do cast the shadow of suspicion on the "co-incidental" destruction of significant files.
Again, agreed on the suspicion due to "coincidental accidental" destruction of certain sensitive papers/documents/files. Obviously, from an OCT standpoint, WTC7 was an incidental target, not a direct target. The fact that it housed CIA, FBI, as well as Giuliani's Emergency Management Office, IRS _and_ certain corporations with very very _very_ deep connections to a certain administrative legacy spanning 4 presidencies... I think in actuality it could possibly be that WTC7 was the primary target for alternative CT's, using the WTC towers to cover it. Again, just a thought, not actually claiming that it was. However, it still really begs the question... why the Pentagon? From an OCT standpoint, it doesn't make sense. They obviously did not even intend to hit another target inside the beltway, the Pentagon was specifically targeted and from all appearances it was the original and intended target from the beginning (no attempt made from the point of "hijacking" till the visual demise did it ever attempt to point itself anywhere else besides Arlington, despite the fact that you can see the Washington Monument from an areal view, using it as a 'beacon', if you will, to find another, more demoralizing target).
^o) :hmmm:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HeadLikeARock

Duffman1013
Oct 8 2009, 05:29 AM
However, it still really begs the question... why the Pentagon?



To show they were capable of striking at the HQ and universal symbol of America's military might?

Quote:
 
From an OCT standpoint, it doesn't make sense. They obviously did not even intend to hit another target inside the beltway, the Pentagon was specifically targeted and from all appearances it was the original and intended target from the beginning (no attempt made from the point of "hijacking" till the visual demise did it ever attempt to point itself anywhere else besides Arlington, despite the fact that you can see the Washington Monument from an areal view, using it as a 'beacon', if you will, to find another, more demoralizing target).


Maybe United 93 was aimed at the White House or the Capitol?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Q
Member Avatar
A Higher Evolution
Duffman1013
Oct 8 2009, 05:29 AM
Again, agreed on the suspicion due to "coincidental accidental" destruction of certain sensitive papers/documents/files. Obviously, from an OCT standpoint, WTC7 was an incidental target, not a direct target. The fact that it housed CIA, FBI, as well as Giuliani's Emergency Management Office, IRS _and_ certain corporations with very very _very_ deep connections to a certain administrative legacy spanning 4 presidencies... I think in actuality it could possibly be that WTC7 was the primary target for alternative CT's, using the WTC towers to cover it. Again, just a thought, not actually claiming that it was. However, it still really begs the question... why the Pentagon? From an OCT standpoint, it doesn't make sense. They obviously did not even intend to hit another target inside the beltway, the Pentagon was specifically targeted and from all appearances it was the original and intended target from the beginning (no attempt made from the point of "hijacking" till the visual demise did it ever attempt to point itself anywhere else besides Arlington, despite the fact that you can see the Washington Monument from an areal view, using it as a 'beacon', if you will, to find another, more demoralizing target).
^o) :hmmm:

Of course, we only have their "word" that those files were actually there, and one is left with the assumption that they are only "officially missing". Rather like that episode of Yes, Minister about the files that got lost in the floods of 1965.

"Terrible year, was it?"
"Oh, no, Minister. It was a wonderful year. We lost no end of embarrassing files."

So now, instead of stamping files "Top Secret", they can call be stamped "Lost or Destroyed".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duffman1013
Member Avatar

HeadLikeARock
Oct 8 2009, 06:22 AM
Duffman1013
Oct 8 2009, 05:29 AM
However, it still really begs the question... why the Pentagon?



To show they were capable of striking at the HQ and universal symbol of America's military might?

Quote:
 
From an OCT standpoint, it doesn't make sense. They obviously did not even intend to hit another target inside the beltway, the Pentagon was specifically targeted and from all appearances it was the original and intended target from the beginning (no attempt made from the point of "hijacking" till the visual demise did it ever attempt to point itself anywhere else besides Arlington, despite the fact that you can see the Washington Monument from an areal view, using it as a 'beacon', if you will, to find another, more demoralizing target).


Maybe United 93 was aimed at the White House or the Capitol?
Possibly 93 would be heading to the White House or Capitol... Though, wouldn't reason dictate that you would have the most capable going after the "most important" targets? Why have the 3 least trained terrorists going after the most devastating target? IMO, you shouldn't send the least likely to succeed to the most demoralizing and damaging site? Let's face it... if the White House or Capitol were hit... we wouldn't be arguing about how many troops to send to Afghanistan, it would be "how many nukes will it take to level Afghanistan/Pakistan", right?

IMO, while it's by no means a smoking gun, it does tend to make it more likely to be a politico attack than a terrorist attack. The Pentagon was "safe", if you get what I am saying. Basically, it was a generic target, one easily set up to accomplish whatever task was needed, and it created a general low-level uproar (unlike WTC, which is what people think of with 911). The Pentagon tends to be more of a red-headed stepchild. I guess what I am saying is that it was a convenient, generic military target, could be done with no upper-level losses, and would create a general outrage without being too specific.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HeadLikeARock

Duffman1013
Oct 8 2009, 11:24 AM
HeadLikeARock
Oct 8 2009, 06:22 AM
Duffman1013
Oct 8 2009, 05:29 AM
However, it still really begs the question... why the Pentagon?



To show they were capable of striking at the HQ and universal symbol of America's military might?

Quote:
 
From an OCT standpoint, it doesn't make sense. They obviously did not even intend to hit another target inside the beltway, the Pentagon was specifically targeted and from all appearances it was the original and intended target from the beginning (no attempt made from the point of "hijacking" till the visual demise did it ever attempt to point itself anywhere else besides Arlington, despite the fact that you can see the Washington Monument from an areal view, using it as a 'beacon', if you will, to find another, more demoralizing target).


Maybe United 93 was aimed at the White House or the Capitol?
Possibly 93 would be heading to the White House or Capitol... Though, wouldn't reason dictate that you would have the most capable going after the "most important" targets? Why have the 3 least trained terrorists going after the most devastating target? IMO, you shouldn't send the least likely to succeed to the most demoralizing and damaging site? Let's face it... if the White House or Capitol were hit... we wouldn't be arguing about how many troops to send to Afghanistan, it would be "how many nukes will it take to level Afghanistan/Pakistan", right?

IMO, while it's by no means a smoking gun, it does tend to make it more likely to be a politico attack than a terrorist attack. The Pentagon was "safe", if you get what I am saying. Basically, it was a generic target, one easily set up to accomplish whatever task was needed, and it created a general low-level uproar (unlike WTC, which is what people think of with 911). The Pentagon tends to be more of a red-headed stepchild. I guess what I am saying is that it was a convenient, generic military target, could be done with no upper-level losses, and would create a general outrage without being too specific.
I'm not convinced. I think it was a 'triple' strike at America's economic, political and military icons. It's all supposition anyway, and is impossible to draw any definite conclusions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DoYouEverWonder

Duffman1013
Oct 8 2009, 05:29 AM
Q
Oct 8 2009, 04:37 AM
topjars
Oct 8 2009, 01:35 AM
To cover up the trillions of lost dollars in the "accounting section".
To use cover and create confusion to nearby of Dulles airport.
To test strucural integrity of wedge / walls but not take out any puppets.

Maybe the construction van needed a secure area to house "x"?
Being called "The World Trade Center", I can see the Towers as legitimate targets as headquarters for "capitalism". Tower 7 and the Pentagram do cast the shadow of suspicion on the "co-incidental" destruction of significant files.
Again, agreed on the suspicion due to "coincidental accidental" destruction of certain sensitive papers/documents/files. Obviously, from an OCT standpoint, WTC7 was an incidental target, not a direct target. The fact that it housed CIA, FBI, as well as Giuliani's Emergency Management Office, IRS _and_ certain corporations with very very _very_ deep connections to a certain administrative legacy spanning 4 presidencies... I think in actuality it could possibly be that WTC7 was the primary target for alternative CT's, using the WTC towers to cover it. Again, just a thought, not actually claiming that it was. However, it still really begs the question... why the Pentagon? From an OCT standpoint, it doesn't make sense. They obviously did not even intend to hit another target inside the beltway, the Pentagon was specifically targeted and from all appearances it was the original and intended target from the beginning (no attempt made from the point of "hijacking" till the visual demise did it ever attempt to point itself anywhere else besides Arlington, despite the fact that you can see the Washington Monument from an areal view, using it as a 'beacon', if you will, to find another, more demoralizing target).
^o) :hmmm:
If Flight 93 really was supposed to hit anything, then I would pick Camp David. Then the POB would have hit another Trifecta. The biggest civilian target - the WTC, the biggest military target - the Pentagon, and Camp David would have been an attack on the President, even though he was sitting pretty at Booker Elementary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duffman1013
Member Avatar

DoYouEverWonder
Oct 8 2009, 01:01 PM
Duffman1013
Oct 8 2009, 05:29 AM
Q
Oct 8 2009, 04:37 AM
topjars
Oct 8 2009, 01:35 AM
To cover up the trillions of lost dollars in the "accounting section".
To use cover and create confusion to nearby of Dulles airport.
To test strucural integrity of wedge / walls but not take out any puppets.

Maybe the construction van needed a secure area to house "x"?
Being called "The World Trade Center", I can see the Towers as legitimate targets as headquarters for "capitalism". Tower 7 and the Pentagram do cast the shadow of suspicion on the "co-incidental" destruction of significant files.
Again, agreed on the suspicion due to "coincidental accidental" destruction of certain sensitive papers/documents/files. Obviously, from an OCT standpoint, WTC7 was an incidental target, not a direct target. The fact that it housed CIA, FBI, as well as Giuliani's Emergency Management Office, IRS _and_ certain corporations with very very _very_ deep connections to a certain administrative legacy spanning 4 presidencies... I think in actuality it could possibly be that WTC7 was the primary target for alternative CT's, using the WTC towers to cover it. Again, just a thought, not actually claiming that it was. However, it still really begs the question... why the Pentagon? From an OCT standpoint, it doesn't make sense. They obviously did not even intend to hit another target inside the beltway, the Pentagon was specifically targeted and from all appearances it was the original and intended target from the beginning (no attempt made from the point of "hijacking" till the visual demise did it ever attempt to point itself anywhere else besides Arlington, despite the fact that you can see the Washington Monument from an areal view, using it as a 'beacon', if you will, to find another, more demoralizing target).
^o) :hmmm:
If Flight 93 really was supposed to hit anything, then I would pick Camp David. Then the POB would have hit another Trifecta. The biggest civilian target - the WTC, the biggest military target - the Pentagon, and Camp David would have been an attack on the President, even though he was sitting pretty at Booker Elementary.
Honestly, I don't think flight 93 was supposed to hit anything, and I think that the Pentagon was really a "soft target". Hitting the Pentagon wouldn't cause sufficient damage to the military infrastructure, at least in any measurable mobilization attempt. It was "safe", a nice target to hit that would cause generic outrage, take the focus off of the WTC, and provide a happy little side story to everything. I remember immediately after the Pentagon incident it was speculated that maybe they were actually going to the White House or Capitol, but they just "missed" and instead our wonderful Pentagon acted as a shield to D.C... making it a hero, of sorts. Later, it was revealed that it was the official planned target. They should have just kept their mouths shut and used the original "Pentagon Shield" story... much more dramatic. :cigar:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alfie


I think the Pentagon was an obvious target. Despite all the claptrap about " the most protected airspace in the world " it is in fact a soft target. A huge office building close to an airport, with planes passing frequently, and no anti-aircraft defenses.

Being able to attack the Defense HQ of the US was of huge symbolic significance even if it was less than a pin-prick in real terms. Particularly as Al Quade's major beef seems to have been the presence of US military in Saudi Arabia.

I cannot believe that UA 93 was hi-jacked with a view to crashing it into an empty field in rural PA. It had turned around and was on course for Washington. Perhaps we will never know the target for certain but the White House or Capitol seems reasonable speculation. I think I saw somewhere that OBL has been quoted as saying that the target was " the dome " which I take to indicate the Capitol most likely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
noeffects
Member Avatar

Alfie
 
I think I saw somewhere that OBL has been quoted as saying that the target was " the dome " which I take to indicate the Capitol most likely.
:roll:

Phew! Good thing the Iron Maiden Persephone was there to protect that sacred structure...Thank you so much Goddess of the Underworld ! :thumbs: You're powers are so mighty! (me..in genuflection) :wub:
Posted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Alfie
Oct 9 2009, 07:52 AM
I think I saw somewhere that OBL has been quoted as saying that the target was " the dome " which I take to indicate the Capitol most likely.
Please source that quote alfie.
Edited by JFK, Oct 9 2009, 10:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alfie

JFK
Oct 9 2009, 10:51 AM
Alfie
Oct 9 2009, 07:52 AM
I think I saw somewhere that OBL has been quoted as saying that the target was " the dome " which I take to indicate the Capitol most likely.
Please source that quote alfie.

JFK

Here is one :-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25801536

but I don't think it is the one I originally saw.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stundie

Alfie
Oct 9 2009, 10:58 AM
JFK
Oct 9 2009, 10:51 AM
Alfie
Oct 9 2009, 07:52 AM
I think I saw somewhere that OBL has been quoted as saying that the target was " the dome " which I take to indicate the Capitol most likely.
Please source that quote alfie.

JFK

Here is one :-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25801536

but I don't think it is the one I originally saw.

You fake debunkers will believe any old crap......lol

It appears that Ali Soufan A Lebanese-American FBI agent said that
Salim Hamdan who admits to being Osama bin Laden's personal driver and bodyguard saying he needed the $200 a month said that Osama Bin Laden was happy with the death toll.

However, as we are discovering. Most of these confessions came from illegal interrogation techniques but Alfie neglects to mention this.
USA Today
 
The judge in the Guantanamo war crimes trial of Salim Handan has barred evidence from "highly coercive" interrogations in Afghanistan, the Associated Press has just reported.

Judge Keith Allred, a Navy captain, ruled that prosecutors cannot use statements Hamdan made shortly after his capture at Bagram air base and Panshir, Afghanistan.

Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden, says he endured beatings and solitary confinement at the two locations.

Earlier today he pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy and supporting terrorism. He faces a maximum life sentence if convicted.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/guantanamo-judg.html


Of course, our friend at the FBI was quite willing to use torture on others too.
Ali Soufan
 
Most notably, his testimony revealed that his interrogation of Abu Zubaydah had resulted in actionable Intelligence; and that thereafter, when torture techniques were implemented (waterboarding), the flow of Intel stopped. Soufan's statement is contrary to the ones made in the "torture memos," that were intent on making a legal case in favor of and justification for the use of these techniques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Soufan


I mean come Alfie, do you really believe this crap? That took me all of 10 minutes to read up and summarise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Alfie
 

JFK

Here is one :-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25801536

but I don't think it is the one I originally saw.


Thank you Alfie... From that I have found the source of that quote and how it was obtained...

You may wish to watch these. ;)

May 13, 2009 :



( 27 minutes into part 2 )

BTW, the direct quote is :

Quote:
 
"If they didn't shoot that fourth plane it would have hit the dome," Soufan said bin Laden told Zawahiri, according to Hamdan's account


That could have very well been a voiced supposition on Bin Laden's part for all we know.

As far as the "dome", that could have been the reactor dome at three mile island for all we know.

Without the actual context that quote is basically worthless.

And I have a questiomn for you Alfie, When exactly does hearsay become hearsay ?

Quote:
 
Soufan said bin Laden told Zawahiri, according to Hamdan's account





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alfie


JFK/STUNDIE

I did not expect the Spanish Inquisition !

Yes, it's hearsay on hearsay and comes from Gitmo which is why I only vaguely alluded to it in terms of 9/11 targets.

I accept it is questionable evidence but it still may well be true.

In any event, it seems more credible to me than that UA 93 was pre-destined to go down in a field.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
noeffects
Member Avatar

JFK
 
As far as the "dome", that could have been the reactor dome at three mile island for all we know.


OBL was actually referring to the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome
Posted Image

I know it's all hearsay but OBL hijacked HAARP and got this dome a few years later
Posted Image

' :candle:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stundie

Alfie
Oct 9 2009, 01:45 PM
JFK/STUNDIE

I did not expect the Spanish Inquisition !

Yes, it's hearsay on hearsay and comes from Gitmo which is why I only vaguely alluded to it in terms of 9/11 targets.

I accept it is questionable evidence but it still may well be true.

In any event, it seems more credible to me than that UA 93 was pre-destined to go down in a field.

Alfie,

I'm neither Spanish or an Inquisition, maybe a Monty Python fan though. lol

Look, you made a claim, that claim is based on hearsay obtained through torture.

Now of course there is a possibility that is true, but if we are talking about what is possibly true, then lets look at my claims. That OBL was not behind 9/11.

"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” - Rex Tomb FBI

"We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming." - Dick Cheney.

Bin Laden is a suspect, but that doesn't negate the fact there are other possibilities considering there is "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” because "That evidence has never been forthcoming."

Does skepticism suggest he is guilty? If there is no hard evidence or it hasn't been forthcoming in proving Osama did 9/11.

and

Does critical thinking suggest that if you have a suspect but no hard or forth coming evidence, that you must not investigate other possible suspects??

Now unless you are confused into thinking that a suspect is automatically guilty, when there is no hard or forthcoming evidence of the suspects guilt. I can't see how you can defend your position.

Have you ever thought he is not guilty, as the FBI and Dick Cheney claim...Is it possible they are right?

If so, ever thought of other suspects. i.e Certain people in certain positions.
Edited by Stundie, Oct 10 2009, 07:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
topjars
Member Avatar

Duffman1013
Oct 7 2009, 09:17 PM
Since nobody seems to want to tackle the other posts/threads I've offered (I claim victory solidly, if only by fiat), I have something else to toss out to you guys. Why the Pentagon? They clearly targeted it from any angle, NoC or SoC, doesn't matter. Either way it was clearly targeted. Not the White House. Not the Capitol. Not the Supreme Court, or Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, the Mall, Smithsonian, Vietnam Memorial, National Cathedral... any other symbols of American democracy or wealth, not a symbol of America itself. Instead, they went directly after the one place that would do the least to demoralize America... the effing Pentagon. The place that paid $26,000 for a hammer, $50,000 for a toilet seat. Why target that? It wouldn't (and clearly didn't) reduce the ability to mobilize military action one little iota. Riddle me this, riddle me that, why not go for the joker in the White House?
Now that that questioned is answered shouldnt the other question be

"Why not the top of the Pentagon?" : ranting :
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhymenoceros

Presumably another of the reasons the pentagon was hit (as well as missing monies and crude symbolism) was to give rumsfeld the opportunity to go awol and leave the chain of command (ie, his going outside to 'help' with the rescue effort in the same way that bush hid in the primary school: plausible deniability for their unreachability at a time when they were both strategically needed)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alfie

Stundie
Oct 10 2009, 07:16 PM
Alfie
Oct 9 2009, 01:45 PM
JFK/STUNDIE

I did not expect the Spanish Inquisition !

Yes, it's hearsay on hearsay and comes from Gitmo which is why I only vaguely alluded to it in terms of 9/11 targets.

I accept it is questionable evidence but it still may well be true.

In any event, it seems more credible to me than that UA 93 was pre-destined to go down in a field.

Alfie,

I'm neither Spanish or an Inquisition, maybe a Monty Python fan though. lol

Look, you made a claim, that claim is based on hearsay obtained through torture.

Now of course there is a possibility that is true, but if we are talking about what is possibly true, then lets look at my claims. That OBL was not behind 9/11.

"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” - Rex Tomb FBI

"We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming." - Dick Cheney.

Bin Laden is a suspect, but that doesn't negate the fact there are other possibilities considering there is "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” because "That evidence has never been forthcoming."

Does skepticism suggest he is guilty? If there is no hard evidence or it hasn't been forthcoming in proving Osama did 9/11.

and

Does critical thinking suggest that if you have a suspect but no hard or forth coming evidence, that you must not investigate other possible suspects??

Now unless you are confused into thinking that a suspect is automatically guilty, when there is no hard or forthcoming evidence of the suspects guilt. I can't see how you can defend your position.

Have you ever thought he is not guilty, as the FBI and Dick Cheney claim...Is it possible they are right?

If so, ever thought of other suspects. i.e Certain people in certain positions.

Stundie

OBL is the " Emir " and senior operations chief of Al Qaeda. He has a long history of involvement in terrorist outrages and is amongst the FBI's 10 most wanted for pre - 9/11 attacks against US interests and citizens.

I cannot conceive of 9/11 being carried out without his consent and approval, given his legendary stature amongst violent islamic fundamentalists. As regards his participation, I would expect that that was restricted to encouragement and perhaps supplying money. It seems very unlikely that he got his hands dirty in any way.

The fact that the FBI does not have any direct evidence of OBL's involvement in 9/11 does not surprise me at all. It would surprise me if there was, but I don't think it is reasonable to infer from that that he had nothing to do with it.

There is no direct evidence, after all, that Al Capone instigated the St Valentine's Day massacre or that Hitler ordered the holocaust.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alfie

topjars
Oct 10 2009, 08:29 PM
Duffman1013
Oct 7 2009, 09:17 PM
Since nobody seems to want to tackle the other posts/threads I've offered (I claim victory solidly, if only by fiat), I have something else to toss out to you guys. Why the Pentagon? They clearly targeted it from any angle, NoC or SoC, doesn't matter. Either way it was clearly targeted. Not the White House. Not the Capitol. Not the Supreme Court, or Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, the Mall, Smithsonian, Vietnam Memorial, National Cathedral... any other symbols of American democracy or wealth, not a symbol of America itself. Instead, they went directly after the one place that would do the least to demoralize America... the effing Pentagon. The place that paid $26,000 for a hammer, $50,000 for a toilet seat. Why target that? It wouldn't (and clearly didn't) reduce the ability to mobilize military action one little iota. Riddle me this, riddle me that, why not go for the joker in the White House?
Now that that questioned is answered shouldnt the other question be

"Why not the top of the Pentagon?" : ranting :

Just speculation of course, but perhaps lack of opportunity to practice dive-bombing in civilian flight training had something to do with it. Concern about crashing in the open space in the centre of the Pentagon; who knows.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »
Add Reply