| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tuntang
New Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 4
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: Sunday Times headline showing 2 'laughing bombers' |
 |
|
this was the front page spread of the sunday times at the weekend.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2383229,00.html
check out the link and you can also watch the videos which appear to show Jarrid( spelling?) and Atta at a training camp with OBL. I've just finished reading 'Flight 93 revealed' which Ian henshall did a forward to, and then also '911 revealed' by the same author. These were bth very good books and obvisouly thoroughly researched and both avoided falling into the trap of outlandish and foolhardy commitment to some truth claims. however ... these videos appear to contradict some of the books central claims.
My current stance is still LIHOP.
I'd be really interested to see what you lot think.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:24 am Post subject: Re: Sunday Times headline showing 2 'laughing bombers' |
|
|
| tuntang wrote: | this was the front page spread of the sunday times at the weekend.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2383229,00.html
check out the link and you can also watch the videos which appear to show Jarrid( spelling?) and Atta at a training camp with OBL. I've just finished reading 'Flight 93 revealed' which Ian henshall did a forward to, and then also '911 revealed' by the same author. These were bth very good books and obvisouly thoroughly researched and both avoided falling into the trap of outlandish and foolhardy commitment to some truth claims. however ... these videos appear to contradict some of the books central claims.
My current stance is still LIHOP.
I'd be really interested to see what you lot think. |
Flight 93 Revealed is a good book as you say. The fact that these videos do show Jarrid (Jarrah) is not in contradiction to Rowland Morgan's claims as you appear to say. On page 118, Morgan shows that Jarrah probably made some contact with Atta and other extremists when in Hamburg but that there is no evidence to show the impressionable 21 year old took matters further. One would assume it was at this time that his identity was stolen.
The conclusions over Atta's connecting flight and the luggage he left at Portland which was not picked up by CAPPS is also very much valid in my opinion and clearly demonstrates how Atta was probably a patsy and never got onto Flight 11.
The problem with these videos is the lack of sound unless this is due to my computer. They might have been talking in English. Also, the dates and times on these videos seem to be strange. What protocol do video cameras in Afghanistan use for showing the date? Does 08-01-2000 mean 8th of January as in UK or is it 1st of August. Most foreign goods such as video cameras use US systems abroad so one would think this is the wrong date as claimed by the Sunday Times. Also, the time continues to elapse normally even when the picture goes to video still. Would this happen normally or has this time just been added for effect. In short, can we establish when these videos were really taken?
I prefer MIHOP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tuntang
New Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: sunday times continued... |
|
|
good points james,
whats interesting is the very fact that the story was in the times. it indicates that 911 is very much still news, or subject to propganda by edotors of a national newspaper. If you were to take the view espoused in 911 revealed, it show that the media powers tha be are still worried about public perceptions, and that is why they publish aritcles like that! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tuntang,
The most signifcant fact is that it WAS in The Sunday Times. That is the organ in which they publish BS like this! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AntiZionistAntiNeocon
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:16 pm Post subject: Re: Sunday Times headline showing 2 'laughing bombers' |
|
|
| tuntang wrote: | | My current stance is still LIHOP. |
I don't think it is LIHOP, because I don't think that the accused could have made building 7 collapse like it ddid, aas if it was a contrrolled demolition.
Expert analysis: http://youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
How could the 'hijackers' have planted bombs at WTC1,2, and 7? Remember that the tenants of WTC7 included some high level government agencies, like the CIA and the NSA, so they should have had goood security.
Also, how could the hijackers have had NORAD stand down? How could they have planned their hijackings to coincide with the drills?
Therefore, IMO, it was MIHOP.
________
Mazda N platform history |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
