So if the government really wanted to blow up the WTC's wouldn't it be easier to just stage a controlled demolition? And just say that over the course of a month, terrorists have been installing bombs in the building? I'm not a skeptic, I'm just wondering why the first thing they thought of was planes when they wanted those buildings to come down. Plus, you'd think the government would have the decency to warn the public about the oncoming planes. I mean, if the buildings were evacuated even partially to save lives, the same political gain would still be there, and it wouldn't be any of a less horrifying display. Just some thoughts barfing from my head at the moment. I didn't at really think these through before posting this. I just started typing thoughts as they came. I'm trying to spark up the forums, because they seem dead.

you can use that kind of speculative logic any way you want.
"if crazy muslims really wanted to cause mass casualties and destruction because they hate our freedoms, then why didn't they fly the planes into nuclear reactors"

If the conspirators had just blown up the buildings, there would have to have been an investigation as to who did it, it is unlikely that the finger could immediately have been pointed to crazy muslims in that scenario. with planes hitting buildings the magic passports floating to the ground, magic cell phone calls from airplanes, and other fortitous evidence such as red bandanas and korans could be found at the scene, thus the media could immediately burn the story into our minds whilst we were still in shock and lead us to believe that muslim fanatics could bring down skyscrapers with plastic knives.

the point of 911 was to create a shock and awe event to enable a world conquest agenda under the pretext of chasing an amorphous enemy which could be found in any part of the world.

remember back to 2001 and what we were told at the time, that these terrorists were capable of manufacturing deadly biological and radiological weapons, they were well financed, dedicated and highly technical experts in posions etc, I've no doubt that is a good description of the conspirators, but i do doubt that the conspirators were the ones we were told, hiding in underground caves and "complexes".

For a long while after 911 I remember feeling anxious every time I opened the mail, or saw a plane in the sky. I doubt that level of mind control could be achieved if just a few skyscrapers had fallen down.

when you say "government" you are implying bush, cheney, perle, rove etc. this is simplistic and will be unconvincing to a lot of people. the real culprits are those with private unaccountable armies, resources of government and influence over government.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the construction of nuclear reactors, but the core housing all of the fuel is located within a concrete building with walls that are 8 feet thick.....that's EIGHT FEET! You're not going to get an aluminum plane through that.

I thought it was box-cutters. (Oh yeah, and they claimed they had bombs, would YOU have called their bluff?)

When you think about what happened on 9/11...it was nearly perfect. The policy of airline employees pre-911 when faced with a hijacking was to cooperate with the demands of the hijackers. Think about how easy this made it for them. Bring a few small knives on a plane, tell everyone that you have a bomb but they'll be safe if they do what you say. Then you have command of the aircraft and can do whatever you want, no one is going to assume that the entire jetliner is now part of a suicide mission.

I have to wonder, headspin, if you were an anti-american muslim terrorist, what would you have done? (Sorry, the nuclear reactor idea is not well-thought-out and obviously would not work)

so you think that flight 77 didn't enter the blast resistant pentagon? and exit the c ring?
by your logic what penetrated the chernobyl reactor?
suppose a plane did hit the nuclear power station next to where you live, you'd be happy to stay put and watch the news unfold on the TV?

Rumsfeld said they had plastic knives. There's very little difference, why don't you look at the official story with such a critical eye instead of obfuscating.

I have to wonder, if you wanted to create a pax-americana on the rest of the world, militarise the country and the police, abolish the constitution, control the worlds resources, and transfer the countries wealth to the arms industry, what would you have done? the same formula has worked successfully throughout history.

You raise an interesting point. But I believe the planes were used to make it easy to blame on arab cavemen. Kinda like the Ryder truck was used at OKC to coverup the fact that their were bombs in the building, I think the same strategy was employed in NYC.

What made you think that?

Whoa there, strawman. I said the plane wouldn't make it through 8 feet of solid concrete. Was the outer pentagon wall a solid piece of concrete 8 feet thick?

An uncontrolled nuclear reaction caused a meltdown, which resulted in an explosion. Chernobyl wasn't built to the same standards as today's nuclear reactors, though. Either way, it wasn't a plane.

I live within 100 miles of a nuclear reactor. If a plane hit it, the plane would likely be destroyed. As a precaution, the reactor would probably be shut down until inspections could be completed to ensure that it was still safe. Yes, I'd be perfectly content to go about my daily activities.

I'm curious - Have you ever been to a nuclear reactor? Many will give tours to the public, I would encourage you to visit one.

There is a difference between a plastic knife and a box cutter, it's a metal blade. Some box cutters have plastic housings, I guess it would depend on whether Rumsfeld was referring to one of those, or to the plastic knives that airlines give you with your "lunch".
Also remember that the hijackers said they had bombs, and the people on the planes had no reason not to believe that. If people believe you have a bomb, it doesn't really matter what kind of knife you're holding.

Please answer my question, then I will address yours.

Ashcroft told ABC News on September 15th that "investigators believed that each of the commandeered planes had been hijacked by groups of three to six men armed with box cutters and plastic knives."

My mistake...box cutters AND plastic knives.

it didn't take me long to find this:
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?ht...112001vver.html

you make 2 assumptions
1. a passenger plane travelling at 600mph with titanium engines needs to penetrate 8 foot of concrete in order to cause a release of catastrophic radiation.
2. the plane would not crack or penetrate that 8 foot concrete.

I don't see any evidence either assumtpion is correct, if you have some post it.

I don't see why my going or not going to a reactor would add credence one way or the other.

how does one shut down a reactor when the control room is a smoldering mess? the scenario is speculative and chaotic and you assume it could be shut down in such an event. as you say no plane penetrated the concrete at chernobyl, but it still blew up thus demonstrating a plane doesn't have to penetrate said concrete to cause a nuclear catastrophe.

the designers of the twin towers said they could survive a plane crash, do you believe them?

off topic, but anyway -
as far as i am aware there is no evidence box cutters or plastic knives were used.

do you accept the official story on blind faith, or are you willing to post the evidence of box-cutters and plastic knives?

They wouldn't have to hit the reactors themselves. Simply crashing into the control building would cause the systems to fail and the reactors to meltdown.

The core is surrounded on all sides by 8 feet of concrete, so for the plane to do any damage, it first has to make it through said concrete. (Then there is a steel shell, a 6" thick reactor vessel, and 2 concrete reactor walls inside that, then the fuel rods themselves are sealed)

If you can show me any evidence of any plane penetrating 8 feet of solid concrete, please do so. Just cracking the concrete would not release any harmful radiation, and see above response, even if you got through that concrete, you've got another 3-4 barriers to go.

See responses above.

If you ever do go, you'll learn how well-protected these places are from many different kinds of attacks. Trust me, you're not the first one who's had this concern.

I'm not speculating, you obviously don't have a working knowledge of nuclear power, so let's back up for a little primer...

First: The chernobyl reactor was a completely different design than US reactors. US reactors are a "light water" design. The US Light-water-reactor design make a chernobyl-style disaster impossible. I'm not going to get into all of the nuclear physics, but google up RMBK reactors (like chernobyl) and LWR reactors (those built in the US). Basically, if one of these reactors were damaged and the water in the reactor were to escape or boil off (as in chernobyl) instead of the reaction speed increasing (chernobyl), the reaction ceases to take place.

Saying a building could survive a plane crash, and specifically designing a building to withstand such an impact are 2 different things.

Again, if you can show me a plane that can go through 8 feet of solid concrete, be my guest.

IVXX, you'll be happy to know that is completely untrue. I trust this is just due to your misunderstanding of how modern reactors work.

In US reactors, the reaction is unable to sustain itself to a meltdown, because it is being water-cooled AND water-moderated. If the cooling water is removed or boiled off, the reaction ceases. So even if you blew up the control room (good luck getting through all that concrete) you won't get another chernobyl.

I would encourage anyone who doesn't understand this to check out the lectures in the course "Physics for Future Presidents" on the UC Berkeley website. There is a series on nuclear reactions & nuclear power that explains these concepts in detail, and is understandable even to those who aren't proficient in nuclear physics.

Well then maybe you need to call HBO and tell them their documentary on the security at Indian Point is wrong. The documentary was made after 9/11 since Flight 11 flew right past Indian Point. The information on not having to directly hit the reactors is in the documentary. I'll try to find the title. It questioned all the security as far as on the ground and in the air.

The HBO special was a dramatization called "Indian Point: Imagining The Unimaginable".

If you could provide the actual quote you're referring to, that would be helpful.

US nuclear plants are well-protected, and there are numerous safeguards against a meltdown condition. In a light water plant, it would be VERY difficult to cause a meltdown.

In chernobyl, water was used as a coolant, and Graphite was the moderator. In US reactors, water is both the coolant and the moderator.

In chernobyl, absence of enough water could cause a meltdown....in the us, absence of water stops the reaction. It can't meltdown if there's water cooling the reaction, and the reaction can't take place without water.

That is it but it didn't come off as a dramatization. Did they not show groups and people who live in surrounding towns trying to have the plant shut down?? But if I'm wrong about it, I did watch it at 4am, then I retract my statement. The way I understood it, it was a documentary showing the security lapses at Indian Point. Also showing that it's not restricted airspace. Anyway carry on.

I haven't seen it, just going from Wikipedia on this:

* HBO aired a television dramatization surrounding the controversy called Indian Point: Imagining The Unimaginable. [1] It first aired on September 9th, 2004, and was directed by Rory Kennedy. Ms. Kennedy is the sister of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Mr. Kennedy is the legal counsel for the anti-nuclear group Riverkeeper.[2]


Should be an interesting watch if they re-air it.

If you get a chance definitely watch it cause I think Wikipedia has it a bit wrong but like I said, maybe I have it wrong. I watched it very early in the morning on hardly any sleep. It was the only time I saw it even though I looked for it again.

From a strategic viewpoint nothing was achieved to benefit the muslim/arab cause whatever that might be, in fact quite the opposite was achieved. i cannot accept the childish statement "they hate us because of our freedoms" unless the 'they' is in fact the powers controlling US corporatism and corruption. so to speculate on 'their' strategy would be to accept a pretext which I do not accept. It would be like being asked how i think the jews would accomplish their world takeover by a german citizen in 1940, not quite maybe, but hopefully you get the point.

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done.
And I am Caesar."

But only with the benefit of hindsight.

And there is an argument that AQ wanted to force the US out of the holy places in saudi.

But you also have to consider that the leadership of AQ likes having people to boss around, and without an enemy (the west), a fertile breeding ground for disaffected youth (the israeli/palestinian conflict) the AQ higher ups would all have to go get day jobs.

What they didn't figure on was the US actually managing to hit back against them. And, of course, afghanistan is hardly stable and terrorism still exists.

So, AQ lost though they may have imagined they might have affected change in the west (similar to the madrid bombings and the impact those had on spanish elections) and could have increased their power in the mid-east on the back of having given the 'great satan' a bloody nose.

But we can also turn this around and ask what could have gone differently for Bush?

I mean, nothing was gauranteed. The attacks showed america to be vulnerable and the government to be accused of having been caught napping. 911 could well have turned out to have been the very quick end to bush's short tenure as president.

But with hindsight we tend to imagine that everything which has happened would always have happened. I don't subscribe to this idea.

Interesting points going on in this thread... but... why is the thread called "Meow"? :huh:

Do you believe that there are islamic terrorists (such as those of al-queda) who mean to do us harm?

I believe it comes from the ancient hebrew "moo", meaning "to chew contentedly on the cud of a thousand acres until thy father marries that woman down the road, you know, the one with the big hooters"

Or it could just be a perversion or maybe a contraction of the ancient greek "meeeeeeooooowbloodyhellipus", meaning "that really hurt, use some lube next time, big boy"

But I could be wrong.

that's a good question jake, but unfortunately its the wrong question.

of course there are islamic terrorists out there that mean to do us harm. there's probably people out there with 3 or 4 arms too, but not enough to punch out mike tyson, and certainly none of those 4 armed people are capable boxers.

The threat from islamic terrorists has been exaggerated and fabricated. much of what you see in the media is propaganda. take a look at this article which indicates AQ has developed nukes with missile delivery.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC02Ak01.html

"According to the contact, "The time has come for a message to be communicated to Europe." Asked what kind of message this would be, the contact simply smiled"

ok - so the contact smiled, reporter is therefore face to face with AQ operative boasting they have nukes, its a real shame the reporter is obliged to protect his sources <sarcasm (for the stupid)> read on

"bin Laden - possibly even sporting a trimmed beard - is active in al-Qaeda's planning, according to the contact Asia Times Online spoke to. "He could be in Chechnya, Somalia or Iraq," the man said coyly, obviously not about to divulge bin Laden's whereabouts. Or even in Iran, some insiders hint"

iran? anyone laughing at this point? we all know the difference between sunni and shiite don't we?
read on. look at the diagram of the nuke on page 2, is that a fuse? wonder what's written in that speech bubble pointing to it "light match here" perhaps. that bugger aint gonna get over a 10 foot wall and if it did that nuke is gonna vapourise the terrorist's swan vestas.

"the main task now is to mount them <nukes> on suitable missiles - which it is hoped the upgraded Abeer now is." - take a look at the picture of the abeer, surely we're all laughing now?

the whole article is total bullshit, but this is the asia times, a major mainstream paper!

The Pentagon said the move would boost its ability to counter "inaccurate" news stories and exploit new media (internet)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6100906.stm

office of strategic influence, notice "the Rendon Group" in this article: "The Pentagon had hired the Rendon Group, an international communications firm, to help the new office"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...tegic_Influence
"Among the missions proposed for the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence was one to 'coerce' foreign journalists and plant false information overseas. Secret briefing papers also said the office should find ways to 'punish' those who convey the 'wrong message.' One senior officer told CNN that the plan would 'formalize government deception, dishonesty and misinformation',"

http://www.rendon.com/about.php

heres another similar company:
http://www.lincolngroup.com/?q=mediadevelo...anddistribution

"Dixon said the company believes the military's Special Operations Command needs more money “and clearer policy guidance in order to fight the 'War of Ideas,' a key component of the global War on Terrorism."
"The Lincoln Group "established its office in Islamabad in November 2005"
"The Lincoln Group's Washington, DC headquarters, which is now located on K Street, is "soon to move to larger quarters in the Pennsylvania Avenue building that housed Jack Abramoff's famous restaurant, Signatures"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lincoln_Group

we know the connection between drug runner Atta and the convicted criminal Jack Abramoff, Atta frequenting jacks gambling boat and all - how very muslim indeed.
http://www.madcowprod.com/06202005.html

Office of strategic influence was closed down but reborn as "Information Operations Task Force"

"Regarding the demise of the Office of Strategic Influence, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told reporters November 18, 2002: "Fine, you want to savage this thing, fine. I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done, and I have.
so
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ions_Task_Force

"Among the missions proposed for the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence was one to 'coerce' foreign journalists and plant false information overseas. Secret briefing papers also said the office should find ways to 'punish' those who convey the 'wrong message.' One senior officer told CNN that the plan would 'formalize government deception, dishonesty and misinformation'"

so what do we have here? brass plate companies contracted by the pentagon to plant false propaganda stories in foreign countries and operating in pakistan.

here's another one
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3303485,00.html

who is adam pearlman?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may20...07phonytape.htm
"his grandfather is none other than the late Carl K. Pearlman; a prominent Jewish urologist in Orange County. Carl was also a member of the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League, which was caught spying on Americans for Israel in 1993"

islamic extremists have been nurtured, funded and controlled by the cia for years, that's what the cia does, its their mandate.
http://www.borrull.org/e/noticia.php?id=55411&id2=3358

That's fine, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing.

Yes, these criminals exist. But they are about as much a threat to me as lightening...

this is the fake debate spoonfed to you

AQ attacked the US to get US troops out of saudi arabia
vs
AQ attacked the US because they hate our freedoms.

does anyone in their right mind think the US will leave the middle east which contains most of the worlds oil and gas supply?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrole...ge_reserves.htm

i find this argument without merit (sorry that's the politest thing i could think of).
CIA controlled AQ are operating in chechnya, china and ex-soviet republics as well as oil rich african countires, phillipines, and even (according to fox news) catholic and oil rich venezuela.

no merit. its well documented that the US was threatening war against afghanistan months before 911:
"either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold <for oil and gas pipeline project>, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs"
...and british troops were deployed prior to 911 on the border.

AQ would have to be retarded to believe a hungry US military industrial complex with well laid plans to carve up the middle east would do anything but hit back.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...pera%26rls%3Den

before
http://happycarpenter.blogs.com/the_happy_...r_reference.jpg

after:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/u...2007/06/map.jpg

Asnar was set to lose the elections prior to madrid bombings, the opposition was running on a ticket to pull out of iraq and set to win because that is what the spanish people wanted. why would AQ bomb them? to effect change would mean the bombing was designed to keep them in iraq. does this sound like AQ or the western intelligence operatives behind the bombing? think about it.

it sounds like a gladio type op to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

i don't wish to be taken out of context.

i don't believe there is a powerful, capable and organised muslim AQ whose goal is to destroy the west and restore the caliphate, this is fantasy. AQ is a cia controlled asset with most of its leadership being western intelligence agents. most of the AQ and taliban leadership were flown out of afghanstan by the US before the war started on C130s.

of course there are pissed off muslims, mainly because of what we've done recently to afghanistan, iraq and lebanon.

...and you still haven't said what made you think box-cutters were used. all sources of information regarding box cutters and plastic knives came from high government officials (ari fleisher, rumsfeld, ashcroft, ted olsen etc) subsequently repeated by the corporate media. there is no evidence for box-cutters or plastic knives.

it is a myth designed to make you believe backward cave dwellers can bring down skyscrapers with plastic knives.

I'm sure the people who went to work in the Twin Towers on 9/11 thought the same thing.

Your statement is correct, though...you're more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than you are to be killed by a terrorist.

Telephone calls on all four flights reported that the hijackers had knives:

From Killtown:

On AA 11, Flight Attendants reported the following:

Betty Ong, knives, mace
Madeline Sweeney bomb, knives

On United 175,
Robert Fangman (a flight attendant) reported the hi jackers had knives
Passenger Peter Hanson reported the hijackers had a bomb, knives, mace

On Flight 77,
Barbara Olson, widely respected political commentator reported that the hijackers had box cutters, knives

On Flight 93,
Todd Beamer reported they had bomb, knives
Sandy Bradshaw, a flight attendant reported to her husband they had knives
Marion Britton, a passenger reported knives
Thomas Burnett, a passenger reported both knives and a bomb
Jeremy Glick famously reported both a bomb as knives as well

Either all ten of these strangers miraculously carobberated one another's story, were all coached before the instances, or are telling the truth.

There is no way these strangers miraculously got together and decided to lie about knives and bombs.

Were these people coached before hand? Of course not since they were going to die, what would be their motivation for following through on the coaching.

They were telling the truth. OR, as an alternate school of thought concludes, the calls were faked.

Lets examine that for a moment.

The calls very well could have been faked. The problem with the theory of faked phone calls is that it does little to contribute toward the recognized end game of landing troops and controlling the world's resources. Ms Ong, for example, reported (according to Killtown), "She then told of the stabbings of the two flight attendants." If the goal were to paint the hijackers as bloodthirsty individuals, why not report the stabbings of more than "just" two flight attendants? According to CNN, on Flight 11 for example, there were four senior citizens. These staged phone calls would have been even more distressing to the populous had they included some sort of riveting story about how the terrorists abused these more defenseless individuals. On 77, there were four children eleven years of age or younger. Hard to imagine, it is, a more gut wrenching yarn that could have been spun by a staged phone call from flight attendant Robert Fangman.

What is even more difficult to believe, if they were staged, is that some of the telephone calls were made to family members, some made to offical airline offices, some called telephone operators, and some calls reached an answering machine. It would be unlikely that conspirators would want the phone calls that they were staging to be recorded because it could analyzed after the fact to figure out that they were fraudulent. It would also be quite easy to believe that persons facing such a terrible situation would call their loved ones where there was less likelihood of the phone call being recorded.

Perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence to suggest that the phone calls were not staged was the fact that they were made at all. The lack of any first-hand report would allow the conspirators to paint any picture they want; limited only by their color inventories. Having the telephone calls in play limits the story to so many hi-jackers, what weapons were available, where the planes were, etc... None of this benefits the conspirators. Furthermore, nobody on the ground would have questioned why there were no phone calls since the cockpit can sever the phone connections in the cabin and cellular phones often lose signal in perfect conditions, much less on airplanes.

All serious evidence points toward the phone calls being authentic. Therefore, the ten eyewitness accounts of the hi-jackers with knives are equally authentic.

What is unbelieveable is that a box cutter type of instrument could cause death. There are wide variations on the item to be sure however mostly, the knives on box cutters extend out from their retraction housing about 1 half inch. Breakaway blades are longer (blades that are designed to wear out on the end then you "breakaway" the dulled end and have a fresh point/blade. These blades are longer (about 3 inches) and you can use them with the full three inches in play but the "breakaway" nature of the blades--they are scored so they can break--means that it would likely have broken off during the obvious struggle unless there was a profound surprise attack by the "muscle hijackers." Such a surprise would detract from the psychological effect of the killing since few would have seen it.

I fully believe they had knives, likely small knives if security did their jobs, but I find it a little difficult to believe that they held an entire planeload of passengers at bay with a 2-3 inch knife and what they said was a bomb. But, in the pre-911 environment, you did as you were told and everything was okay. It would have been easy to believe that the passengers on 11 and 175 thought the same way.

The passengers on 93 realized that those days were over and took action. They called the bluff and won the first battle in the war on terror.

The thread is called meow, because I enjoy the presence of cats.

Fair enough... I guess. :huh:

Lol

this is the only mention of box cutters, however it is hearsay. It was reported by her husband top government official Ted Olsen, United States Solicitor General in a telephone call to CNN on september 12th.
Ted Olsen has reportedly changed his story 3 times but there is more on Olsens call and why it is suspicious.
http://www.geocities.com/subliminalsuggestion/olson.html

all other calls mention "knives", yet top governmet officials state "plastic knives and box cutters" to the press. when "knives" and "stabbings" are mentioned one doesn't think of box cutters or airline cuttlery.

I find it strangely unlikely a top media correspodent and wife of a top US government official was on board one of the flights.

Almost as unlikely a conincidence as sat bewteen 2 of the hijackers an officer of the secret elite israeli intelligence Sayeret Matkal (elite specialists in counter-hijacking)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayeret_Matkal

....ahhh wait it seems there was such an mossad officer sat between 2 of the hijackers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_M._Lewin

what's going on there? anyone like to give some odds that Lewin sat between 2 hijackers was just a coincidence?
or was this flight a training drill?
or were the hijackers being tailed by the mossad?
or had the group been infiltrated by the mossad? with lewin unaware of the real operation?

which is more likely do you think?

there is another possibilty - some of the calls were genuine and some were not.

there were live-fly hijacking drills going on that day with real planes, could some calls have been broadcast as part of those drills?

there was an E-4b fitted with advanced communication systems flying over washington before 9:30am on 911.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...ysteryPlane.pdf
could this plane have been broadcasting some fake calls?

there were also drills being run prior to 911 simulating cell phone calls on hijacked airlines.

there is a whole lot wrong with the tod beamer "let's roll" call, again this call is hearsay being relayed to the press by Verizon phone operator Lisa Jefferson (breaking standard practice, the call was never recorded), Tod never made the call to his evangelist wife Lisa Beamer who has since gone on to publish the ghost-written book with a pro-war title "let's roll" published by Tyndale who appear to aggressively promote Armageddon and the return of Christ fantasies. Also noteworthy is that the ghost-author Ken Abraham has edited books by John "bring on the nukes" Hagee (the world doesn't get any more insane than Hagee). Is it a coincidence that Lisa Jefferson and Lisa Beamer have the same first name, or is it intentional confusion to blur memories into thinking Tod called his wife. Lisa Beamer was not told of the call until sometime later, the FBI had told her they wanted a few days to evaluate the information before letiing her know the call had been made, strangely billionaire boss of Oracle Computer Corporation Larry Ellison knew before Lisa Beamer. The whole Beamer story looks like a Pentagon pysop. we know about the fabricated Iraqi Incubator strory, the Jessica Lynch lies, the Pat Tillman fabrications all from the pentagon and the likes of the Rendon Group and the Lincoln Group, is the Beamer story just another psyop on a long list?

Psyops ensure the war bugles blow at maximum volume.

Perhaps someone assumed the knives to be box cutters.

The people ON the planes reported knives and bombs. In this situation, the airline employees had instructions to cooperate with the hijackers demands, as this (historically) would result in the fewest casualties. They didn't know the hijackers were planning to crash the jets (with the exception of 93), they were told to cooperate or the plane would be blown up.

Headspin, perhaps now you could enlighten us as to how you would have carried out the attack if you were an america-hating terrorist.

Your point?

Right, exactly. That is what I said. It is fact. Thanks for the echo.

Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean you're immune. What were the chances that anyone going to work in the twin towers on 9/11 would die? They were actually LESS than the chance that you will be struck by lightning after reading this post, and yet...it happened.

Did I say that?

Less than being struck by lightening. Probably even less if elements of the govt hadnt blown it up and covered it up.

And?

Nope. Just making a point.

Correct, except it's spelled "lightning".

No "and"....I ended that sentence with a period.