No I dont agree if you are a pious moslem , you are just that same goes for pious Christians . They will go to their deaths in a pious manner they believe will please their God . The kamikaze pilots of WW2 flew their fatal missions for their divine emperor they belived he was a God , these kamikaze pilots even carried parachutes in case the plane fell into difficulty so they could try again . What I am saying is pious people are fanatics pure and simple , the un-Moslem behaviour of these hijackers runs against the grain of fanatic Moslem Al-Qaeda members we are told to believe in .
Well as usual the stereotypes are incorrect. JEAN-LOUIS BRUGUIERE, Chief Anti-Terror Judge, France: We have a lot in Europe, many, many cells. Many groups belongs to Takfir or share the values of Takfir— very, very, very radical. And all the members are living look like undercover. They are no Islamic-looking, you know? They have no beards. They have just a tie. They drink alcoholic beverage. They can— LOWELL BERGMAN: They drink— JEAN-LOUIS BRUGUIERE: If necessary, yes, have a sandwich with pork inside is no problem. So the visible signs, it's quite impossible to discover. But they have, you know, two caps, two lives. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/etc/script.html
my observation is thus In my experience on the college campus I learned and dubbed (the freshmen girl syndrome) is part of the equation for these hijackers. When its your first taste of freedom you take advantage of it. The more protected you were the more you desire for "freedom" alcohol sex usually. It seems in my experience that freshmen women along with ultra religious types (catholics, muslims etc…) are more susceptible. I have seen virgins end a semester with 30 sex partners. Well she claimed she was a virgin but anyway when brought into a new environment where no one knows you or cares what you do the person will act accordingly. Also much more alcohol is consumed then what they would normally consume at home. Although consuming extreme amounts of alcohol is more a male thing.
there is something else about this highjacked plane scenario that needs resolved. during the 60's and 70' america and other countries suffered a rash of highjackings. what came out of that were steel doors between the cockpit and the rest of the plane that were locked how this security feature was thwarted needs some explaination does anyone care to elaborate?
Wait, I know the answer to the thread question: Does it have something to do with being hit by a plane?? Woo hoo! What do I win? Geoff
Ah...a pious Christian dies for his faith. The pious muslim appears to kill others for it. Minor functional difference. Geoff
That's true. It goes along with taqquiyya or "useful dissembling", which permits lying in the Wahhabi sect, and in some Shi'ite interpretations as well. Go check "islam online" or "ask the imam". Geoff
Yes that is true but what cannot be denied that after the rash of hijackings and bombs being planted on aircraft such as the Lockerbie and Air India . Stringent laws and security regulations were introduced in 1986 to combat terrorism . In fact there was not 1 hijacking of an airline in the West from 1986 until 9/11 because of improved airport security .
Security still isn't perfect. There have been several cases recently of people getting a handgun onboard a plane. Another thing is, how does anyone know the hijackers used boxcutters? It is just speculation?
I am aware knives and guns have been found , but if your wise , you will see no one has been charged with those offenses . It could be that the private security firms are actually planting these weapons so they can be found . That way they can justify there business and show the public that they are on the job . I mean who in their right mind would carry a handgun today onto a flight ? Precisely , I believe boxcutters would of been inadequate for such an undertaking , I believe hand guns were planted somewhere on the plane beforehand .
for one thing it is mentioned in the 9/11 commission report that the hijackers used box cutters to gain access to the cockpit
The FEMA report said it burned down... and it also said the WTC 1/2 also burned down. Now I don't know if you can put 2 and 2 together....
I have a question... Why do people like this join this forum? You do know that WTC 1 and 2 were the two towers hit by a building, and that we're talking about WTC 7? You don't? Shutup.
Aww, your response makes me sad. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! OK, so I missed the point that WTC 7 was demolished, or burned down, or whatever. Apologies all around. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But you're still arguing that it's related somehow, as if the secret Scooby-Doo planners decided that in addition to faking the plane accidents for WTC 1 and WTC 2, it just slipped their minds that WTC 7 was also readied for destruction and that they were supposed to crash a plane into it? Did they forget to hijack one, or what? I decided to give the devil his due and look around at the very latest in conspiracy sites on the mysterious destruction of WTC 7... http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7.html http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html ...and this next bit is just fascinating. Because, even on the conspiracy sites above warning us to "wake up" I can see a clear plume of - what's that? - SMOKE rising from the top of the freaking building. The building falls down, the smoke gets pulled after it. As in: it was damaged already, and probably burning. Jinkies, pull the mask off the WTC Commissioner and it's Old Man Withers. Mystery solved. But by all means, reanalyse the thing over and over, never keeping in mind that hindsight is 20-20. BTW, this small gem for the guy that told me to "shutup". You do know that WTC 1 and 2 were the two towers hit by airplanes, not a freaking building? Follow your own bloody advice. Geoff
Amazing treasure hunting skills Captain Hook, you have redeemed your own stupidity by pointing out a misnomer on my part? Not really, your original comment was many magnitudes more retarded. And can you cut the "oh goodie/jinkies!" sarcastic crap, its annoying. That's true, but this building straddled the largest electric substation of manhattan island and required by law to have extra thick steel beams, which means it was even less likely to fall. Let me break this down for you; 1) If the building was INTENSELY burning, like the twin towers (which is unlikely because WTC 7 didn't have a load of fuel dumped on it), it would have burned to the ground except for its steel structure. 2) Steel doesn't melt in a fire, ever. WTC was made of high grade steel that allowed it to resist heat higher than regular steel (2500 F). 3) If the building were actually to catastrophically collapse, it would have splattered all over the neighbourhood. Why would anyone waste time with expensive explosives if fire will make it collapse just the same?
