QUOTE (JimMac @ Jun 2 2009, 11:29 PM)
An who says German's have no sense of humor.
Reply by Alan H:
Nice play on words. BTW, it's "and" not "an," in case that wasn't just a typo. Even many Americans make this mistake; proper use of grammar is a thing of the past, alas. But there is no "an who." You could have just left that off, completely, but included it would be "And who doesn't.."etc. I'm not trying to a jerk (it just comes naturally). No, really, I'm not. My great, great, great, grandfather was from Germany, and if I know anything about Germans, it is that they are perfectionists. So, I simply thought you'd want to know. Another common mistake you hear people making a lot is using an adjective instead of an adverb to modify a verb-i.e. "You did that so quick."
Quick is an adjective, which is used to modify nouns. A Cheetah is quick. But Cheetah's do not run quick--they run quickly. If a word has an "ly" on the end of it, and it's being used as a modifier, there's a good chance it's an adverb. I highly recommend a book on English grammar and composition. It's one of the smallest books I've ever read, and yet one of the best. Academics hold this book in high esteem: "The Elements of Style," by William Strunk and E.B. White. In paperback, it's probably not more than 150 pages, if that, and yet it covers all the tricky and idiosyncratic parts of English grammar that trip us all up so often: lie, vs. lay; to, two, too; its vs. it's; their, there, they're" and other homonyms; and the difference between adjectives and adverbs, etc, etc. If that weren't enough in such a small book, there's also a brilliantly composed section on style.
Now, to actually address the subject of this blog: I know Osama bin Laden (OBL) never took credit for the 9/11 attacks, and, if he had helped accomplish such an amazing feat (amazing isn't the word Americans would use, of course; for us, it was--and still is-- a day of horror and shock), he would surely have taken credit with pleasure. Has anyone really taken credit for 9/11? Sure, we've been told they have; we've been told they have the "9/11 mastermind" at G.B. OBL seems to have just dropped off the scopes, pretty much. Bush even said once that "OBL was never the goal."
What's always made me suspicious is the claim that the only non-military flight on 9/11-9/12 was a jet that flew all the members of the bin Laden family back home--to Saudi Arabia, I assume. That makes one wonder if the long time business partners of our government and particularly the Bush family, didn't come to some sort of arrangement where OBL would be presented as the bad guy, but would never actually be captured (which would explain why we've let him escape in at least one well known military engagement in which US forces had OBL and his alleged al-Qaida Captains surrounded, but only closed on 3 sides, leaving the 4th side completely open, through which OBL and company easily "escaped.")That story has been confirmed, hasn't it? Didn't even the MSM cover that?
The fact that they had conducted exercises involving the exact events that took place on 9/11 is too coincidental for my taste. Could those experiments have really been not a plan to stop such an attack, but how to disable ("Able Danger" was the name of one of the war-game exercises on 9/11, wasn't it?) military response to such an attack? Of course, this wouldn't have been known by everyone, even those conducting the simulation. However it was ordered, my guess is that the information gained from those simulations, and the planned response of the military, helped whomever may have been an inside player (a real Dick, who should be in Chains) figure out how to diable military response.
Here is an outstanding request, and one that I think would do the 9/11 Truth movement enormous good: If it's even possible, a theoretical physicist, mathematician/statistician should attempt to calculate the odds of all the "strange coincidences" of 9/11: Such as, we know that, in the previous year, 64 planes that went off-course, or turned off their transponders, anywhere near D.C. were all intercepted within 20 mins. That was SOP for any errant aircraft, but a policy that may have been changed, along with pilot's rights to carry a firearm, just a month or two before 9/11. And on 9/11, 4 planes flew around our skies for just under two hours without any official intercept. Now, we know that what caused the fighters from being able to intercept those planes was due to the phantom radar "inserts" (which also ended up on the radar screens of Flight Control & the FAA, which shouldn't have happened); we also know there's a good possibility that flight 93 was in fact shot down. But the officials claimed that their 'war games' increased their (non-existent) response time, and we all know the official Fl-93 story. What we want to show is the improbability of the events of 9/11 happening in the manner officially described. Some things will be difficult to calculate: like 3 steel-framed buildings--one of which was not impacted by a plane-- all collpasing in the exact same manner: straight down through what should have been the path of greatest resistance. This will be difficult to calculate because no steel framed building has ever collpased, before or since 9/11/01. When one adds up the staggering odds of all of these events occurring on the same day, my guess is that it's going to be in at least the billion-to-one range.
I have to say, though, that the strongest argument against there having been an "inside job" aspect to these attacks is that nothing has come out. No one has talked, and even if it were kept highly compartmentalized, there still would have had to have been quite a few people involved, like whomever carried tons of nano-thermite and regular thermite, as well as explosives (thermite is not exposive, it's a chemical agent for cutting through steel like a hot knife through butter--and leaving pools of molten iron) into the twin towers and rigged the place up. With that many people involved, and the severity of the resulting collapses..it's hard to believe no one has come forward. In every other case, from Watergate to Iran-Contra, to the Torture Program, it always comes out eventually. Yet, despite there being a whole enormous comunity of people willingly to listen and support them, no one has come forward to say, "Yeah, we carried explosives into the towers," or whatever. I mean, people who unknowingly participated in this, many of them--if that happened--would realize what they'd help accomplish, and there would be people wanting to get this off their chest. It's just so big, it's hard to imagine that no one has really come forward. There are secrets and lies behind 9/11, and I have little doubt WTC#7 was "pulled," but the majority of them may be not what we expect. From the one person who did come forward, fromer FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, after discovering information indicating corruption and money laundering around 9/11. she was gagged with the State Secrets Act. I've always wondered why those 11 times normal "put options" (bets that stocks will fall)on American and United Airlines weren't investigated. It's true that secrecy privilege protect anyone else from seeing that kind of information, but Congress could certainly subpoenaed that information. This highly indicated foreknowledge, if not by Americans, then by whomever was truly responsible. Why wasn't that investigated??? Or, if it was, why weren't we informed of it?