The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The more I hear about this attack, the more things are making me think it’s not as straight forward as Osama Bin Laden getting his people to do this.
Now, I am not denying for one single second the devastation and loss of life on an unprecedented scale. This is a horrendous situation and one of the most tragic events in our history.
However, things are not adding up for me, it’s not as simple as “We didn’t know, and now we know it’s him. So let’s bomb the hell out of him for mom, apple pie and all our dead Americans”
----------
The 1st Press-Conference the White House give in this matter, the following evening involves the press secretary talking about the danger of “Openly available security documents” and “a need for tighter restrictions on what information is obtainable”.
When asked by a reporter what this had to do with 4 planes killing thousands of people, the press secretary said, “I cannot comment on that” and left the podium.
There was no discussion on the loss of lives, how this could have happened.
He gave a prepared statement concerning “internal security and people discussing things they should know better to keep to themselves”
The FBI spokesperson, when questioned on why The President did not immediately use Air Force One to get to Washington said, “We have credible evidence that other significant threats were present to Air Force One, and therefore we did not think it wise to allow The President to become airborne at that time”.
A reporter asks “What form did this threat come in?”
“No comment”
“But by the time Air Force One was ready and the President became aware of the situation, some 45mins had passed and all the planes had struck their targets. Does that mean this other threat was from another source?”
“No comment”
“Surely if all the planes hijacked had hit their targets, the only other threat could be from still-at-large terrorists?”
“No comment”, at this point the spokesman left the stage.
Despite the Oklahoma bombing taking almost 7months before any concrete evidence came to light about the type of device used, where it was and any single idea of who carried out the attacks:
Within 36hrs of the attacks on Tuesday 11th September, the FBI and CIA knew the following information:
The names of the terrorists
The fact they obtained flight-training in Florida and where they stayed.
They have traced their movements and activities to Italy where it is said they stole uniforms over 13 months ago.
They have their address used in Hamburg 2 years ago and quotes from Lecturers at the University they studied electronics who tell us “how quiet and solitary” the men were and “How they shunned social contact with the other students”
They mention the brother of one of the terrorists died in a light-aeroplane crash over a year ago, despite this having no relevance.
All of this information obtained within 36hrs of the initial disaster, yet they are still investigating the bombing of US Embassies in Afghanistan from 9 months ago and are no clearer to finding those suspects, despite Bush promising “full and total support”.
The information given by the FBI and CIA about the terrorists, with full history of where they lived, the university attended, flight-school etc indicates a tremendous amount of planning and forethought to keep this a secret with stealing of uniforms etc.
Why then, having undergone a campaign of covert training and preparing for over a year, would one of the hijackers leave a copy of the Koran and a flight-manual in Arabic on the front seat of his car, when check in time for internal flights require you to be there 2hrs before take-off?
Seems a tremendous risk after so much planning to just leave obviously incriminating material in plain-view in a car at the airport parking lot.
No group has come forward to claim responsibility for the attacks.
Surely if you are hardcore fundamentalist enough to carry out Suicide attacks, any reprisals would not be feared as you are already prepared to die for your cause?
Why not accept responsibility when you have acted in a “Holy War”, the threat of attack would mean nothing to a fundamentalist who decides to suicide bomb. Death means glory and honour.
The supposed terrorists stole flight crew uniforms, yet they were not dressed in these when they hijacked the plane. They did not need to uniforms to bypass security, as no guns where used. They used box-openers and home-made blades, indicative of a disorganised and threadbare group, not one with the training and planning to prepare for over a year.
The stealing of the uniforms is irrelevant to these attacks, unless this fact is being used to link them to aeroplane related crimes to indicate guilt.
Much as the training in light-aircraft.
Twin-prop aircraft have basic controls, a yoke and rudder pedals, few dial instruments with things like artificial horizons etc, airspeed and a directional finder compass.
A medium sized Airliner such as the 767 used in the attacks operate on a digital readout display system, with radar, computerised functions etc.
Yet the FBI state that they took control just before and guided the planes into the buildings.
Which requires no training in light-aircraft in Florida back in July.
So what is the point of training in such wildly differing planes, when you need no basic training to steer a plane you have just taken control of?
And if you are that unfamiliar with the controls of a 767, why leave a flight-manual translated into Arabic in your car, where it can easily be found?
What is the relevance of learning electronics in Hamburg University?
No bombs were used, no sophisticated electronic equipment needed to hijack a plane with box-cutting knives and home-made blades.
Background to Bush Administration
Under Clinton’s administration, he cut back the funding for the CIA and other covert Agencies and passed resolutions limiting their powers in Government, infuriating George Bush Sr who still plays an active role as an advisor within the CIA.
Clinton also abandoned the idea of the Star Wars project saying “As a nation, we are not under threat from space-based missiles and this is an un-necessary spend”.
The American economy enjoyed its most buoyant period under Clinton’s administration.
Shortly before his term was approaching final months, Paula Jones launches a sexual harassment suit which is discovered to be false.
The Clinton’s are investigated for the “White Water” real-estate fraud, and found totally exempt for blame.
Then Monica Lewinsky files her claim of sexual-harassment, leading to Clinton being impeached and generally derided by the media and public, until they grow weary of the trial and find themselves not really caring, as nobody got hurt and the economy was the best it had ever been.
Kenneth Star, republican prosecutor, sought to humiliate and charge Democrat Clinton, but once more Clinton was found not guilty on charges of perjury and sexual harassment. He leaves office in disgrace.
Bush Jr runs a campaign of “Family Morals and integrity”, taking a directly opposite stance to Clinton, whilst Al Gore runs on “We’ve been doing pretty well, let’s keep to what we know we like” policy.
The election is a fiasco, with recounts and claims of winning made prematurely. This starts because of Jeb Bush’s announcement that Florida’s vote has gone to his brother.
This is untrue and causes commotion and disruption for 3 weeks after the original vote should have been in.
Recount after recount is too close to call, with claims of not-properly punched chits being counted for Bush.
The “victory” for Bush is widely held in contempt by the media and he is called “The Luckiest Chancer” by The Washington Times.
Within 3 weeks of Bush being President, he commences missile attacks on Baghdad for “shooting at US airplanes”.
This is the 1st time in over 2 years that missiles have been fired against Baghdad by the Americans. The country supports Bush for this and his popularity soars.
He revokes Clinton’s previous legislate on cancelling Star Wars and raised the budget for the military-industrial sector to levels not seen since Reagan’s era of The Cold War, despite their being no change in foreign relations.
Since the attack, Bush JR has been granted an “Open Cheque Funding” for defence contracts, despite the lack of weaponry and missiles used in Tuesday’s attacks.
You cannot defend against Fundamentalists that hijack planes to fly them into buildings.
Bush has announced that not only are the terrorist groups a target, but “the nation that hides them, we will make no distinction”.
All nations have spoken out and protested their innocence, even Afghanistan has said they will co-operate fully.
The economy is now headed deep into recession, yet we are now witnessing the largest potential spenditure on Military Force since 1983, the height of the cold war.
A climate of fear pervades the states, along with an insane bloodlust for revenge against Osama Bin Laden, who has denied he is responsible.
Once again, someone that is prepared to die for a cause would not fear retaliation and claim responsibility, surely?
No mention is made of the fact that Osama Bin Laden was trained and supplied by the CIA to fight Russian invasion in Afghanistan during Reagan administration.
He was given money and arms by the CIA in order to repel Russian occupation of a region decidedly worthwhile for the USA, because of it’s proximity to Israel, Pakistan, The United Emirates etc, effectively the Oil Capital of the World.
To let Russia have any control of this region would be harmful to USA interests.
Esso contributed almost 1.2 Billion dollars to George W Bush election campaign, and they issued a request that Bush withdraw from the Keoto summit as it was felt "harmful to Esso stock and trading".
Bush walked, as he did from the Racism Summit.
We need to look at the reasons for the attacks on Tuesday, we need to take a step back and ask why nothing adds up about the facts.
Nobody is denying the horrific loss of human life, but we need to ask questions and gather all the loose facts before we start to maim and hate someone because the government says so.
Something is just not right here, the only thing that is for certain is the tremendous loss of innocent lives and the effects on the rest of the world.
Now, I am not denying for one single second the devastation and loss of life on an unprecedented scale. This is a horrendous situation and one of the most tragic events in our history.
However, things are not adding up for me, it’s not as simple as “We didn’t know, and now we know it’s him. So let’s bomb the hell out of him for mom, apple pie and all our dead Americans”
----------
The 1st Press-Conference the White House give in this matter, the following evening involves the press secretary talking about the danger of “Openly available security documents” and “a need for tighter restrictions on what information is obtainable”.
When asked by a reporter what this had to do with 4 planes killing thousands of people, the press secretary said, “I cannot comment on that” and left the podium.
There was no discussion on the loss of lives, how this could have happened.
He gave a prepared statement concerning “internal security and people discussing things they should know better to keep to themselves”
The FBI spokesperson, when questioned on why The President did not immediately use Air Force One to get to Washington said, “We have credible evidence that other significant threats were present to Air Force One, and therefore we did not think it wise to allow The President to become airborne at that time”.
A reporter asks “What form did this threat come in?”
“No comment”
“But by the time Air Force One was ready and the President became aware of the situation, some 45mins had passed and all the planes had struck their targets. Does that mean this other threat was from another source?”
“No comment”
“Surely if all the planes hijacked had hit their targets, the only other threat could be from still-at-large terrorists?”
“No comment”, at this point the spokesman left the stage.
Despite the Oklahoma bombing taking almost 7months before any concrete evidence came to light about the type of device used, where it was and any single idea of who carried out the attacks:
Within 36hrs of the attacks on Tuesday 11th September, the FBI and CIA knew the following information:
The names of the terrorists
The fact they obtained flight-training in Florida and where they stayed.
They have traced their movements and activities to Italy where it is said they stole uniforms over 13 months ago.
They have their address used in Hamburg 2 years ago and quotes from Lecturers at the University they studied electronics who tell us “how quiet and solitary” the men were and “How they shunned social contact with the other students”
They mention the brother of one of the terrorists died in a light-aeroplane crash over a year ago, despite this having no relevance.
All of this information obtained within 36hrs of the initial disaster, yet they are still investigating the bombing of US Embassies in Afghanistan from 9 months ago and are no clearer to finding those suspects, despite Bush promising “full and total support”.
The information given by the FBI and CIA about the terrorists, with full history of where they lived, the university attended, flight-school etc indicates a tremendous amount of planning and forethought to keep this a secret with stealing of uniforms etc.
Why then, having undergone a campaign of covert training and preparing for over a year, would one of the hijackers leave a copy of the Koran and a flight-manual in Arabic on the front seat of his car, when check in time for internal flights require you to be there 2hrs before take-off?
Seems a tremendous risk after so much planning to just leave obviously incriminating material in plain-view in a car at the airport parking lot.
No group has come forward to claim responsibility for the attacks.
Surely if you are hardcore fundamentalist enough to carry out Suicide attacks, any reprisals would not be feared as you are already prepared to die for your cause?
Why not accept responsibility when you have acted in a “Holy War”, the threat of attack would mean nothing to a fundamentalist who decides to suicide bomb. Death means glory and honour.
The supposed terrorists stole flight crew uniforms, yet they were not dressed in these when they hijacked the plane. They did not need to uniforms to bypass security, as no guns where used. They used box-openers and home-made blades, indicative of a disorganised and threadbare group, not one with the training and planning to prepare for over a year.
The stealing of the uniforms is irrelevant to these attacks, unless this fact is being used to link them to aeroplane related crimes to indicate guilt.
Much as the training in light-aircraft.
Twin-prop aircraft have basic controls, a yoke and rudder pedals, few dial instruments with things like artificial horizons etc, airspeed and a directional finder compass.
A medium sized Airliner such as the 767 used in the attacks operate on a digital readout display system, with radar, computerised functions etc.
Yet the FBI state that they took control just before and guided the planes into the buildings.
Which requires no training in light-aircraft in Florida back in July.
So what is the point of training in such wildly differing planes, when you need no basic training to steer a plane you have just taken control of?
And if you are that unfamiliar with the controls of a 767, why leave a flight-manual translated into Arabic in your car, where it can easily be found?
What is the relevance of learning electronics in Hamburg University?
No bombs were used, no sophisticated electronic equipment needed to hijack a plane with box-cutting knives and home-made blades.
Background to Bush Administration
Under Clinton’s administration, he cut back the funding for the CIA and other covert Agencies and passed resolutions limiting their powers in Government, infuriating George Bush Sr who still plays an active role as an advisor within the CIA.
Clinton also abandoned the idea of the Star Wars project saying “As a nation, we are not under threat from space-based missiles and this is an un-necessary spend”.
The American economy enjoyed its most buoyant period under Clinton’s administration.
Shortly before his term was approaching final months, Paula Jones launches a sexual harassment suit which is discovered to be false.
The Clinton’s are investigated for the “White Water” real-estate fraud, and found totally exempt for blame.
Then Monica Lewinsky files her claim of sexual-harassment, leading to Clinton being impeached and generally derided by the media and public, until they grow weary of the trial and find themselves not really caring, as nobody got hurt and the economy was the best it had ever been.
Kenneth Star, republican prosecutor, sought to humiliate and charge Democrat Clinton, but once more Clinton was found not guilty on charges of perjury and sexual harassment. He leaves office in disgrace.
Bush Jr runs a campaign of “Family Morals and integrity”, taking a directly opposite stance to Clinton, whilst Al Gore runs on “We’ve been doing pretty well, let’s keep to what we know we like” policy.
The election is a fiasco, with recounts and claims of winning made prematurely. This starts because of Jeb Bush’s announcement that Florida’s vote has gone to his brother.
This is untrue and causes commotion and disruption for 3 weeks after the original vote should have been in.
Recount after recount is too close to call, with claims of not-properly punched chits being counted for Bush.
The “victory” for Bush is widely held in contempt by the media and he is called “The Luckiest Chancer” by The Washington Times.
Within 3 weeks of Bush being President, he commences missile attacks on Baghdad for “shooting at US airplanes”.
This is the 1st time in over 2 years that missiles have been fired against Baghdad by the Americans. The country supports Bush for this and his popularity soars.
He revokes Clinton’s previous legislate on cancelling Star Wars and raised the budget for the military-industrial sector to levels not seen since Reagan’s era of The Cold War, despite their being no change in foreign relations.
Since the attack, Bush JR has been granted an “Open Cheque Funding” for defence contracts, despite the lack of weaponry and missiles used in Tuesday’s attacks.
You cannot defend against Fundamentalists that hijack planes to fly them into buildings.
Bush has announced that not only are the terrorist groups a target, but “the nation that hides them, we will make no distinction”.
All nations have spoken out and protested their innocence, even Afghanistan has said they will co-operate fully.
The economy is now headed deep into recession, yet we are now witnessing the largest potential spenditure on Military Force since 1983, the height of the cold war.
A climate of fear pervades the states, along with an insane bloodlust for revenge against Osama Bin Laden, who has denied he is responsible.
Once again, someone that is prepared to die for a cause would not fear retaliation and claim responsibility, surely?
No mention is made of the fact that Osama Bin Laden was trained and supplied by the CIA to fight Russian invasion in Afghanistan during Reagan administration.
He was given money and arms by the CIA in order to repel Russian occupation of a region decidedly worthwhile for the USA, because of it’s proximity to Israel, Pakistan, The United Emirates etc, effectively the Oil Capital of the World.
To let Russia have any control of this region would be harmful to USA interests.
Esso contributed almost 1.2 Billion dollars to George W Bush election campaign, and they issued a request that Bush withdraw from the Keoto summit as it was felt "harmful to Esso stock and trading".
Bush walked, as he did from the Racism Summit.
We need to look at the reasons for the attacks on Tuesday, we need to take a step back and ask why nothing adds up about the facts.
Nobody is denying the horrific loss of human life, but we need to ask questions and gather all the loose facts before we start to maim and hate someone because the government says so.
Something is just not right here, the only thing that is for certain is the tremendous loss of innocent lives and the effects on the rest of the world.
Page:
Normally when a terrorist attack happens, about 5 groups claim responsibility for it.
This time, no one.
Which makes me think they didn't know the Tower would collapse. If it had a central column, it is highly likely it wouldn't have fallen down.
Maybe they know that the US will kick 7 bells of sh- out of whoever did this, and they're scared because they didn't mean to kill as many people as they did?
It would also explain why the plane that crashed at the pentagon, didn't actually crash onto the pentagon, but a few hundred yards before.
Again, maybe to cause slightly less damage, but to enable them to say "Look, we blatantly could have blown the whole building up, you don't do what we want you to do, and we'll do it properly next time."
Thoughts?
This time, no one.
Which makes me think they didn't know the Tower would collapse. If it had a central column, it is highly likely it wouldn't have fallen down.
Maybe they know that the US will kick 7 bells of sh- out of whoever did this, and they're scared because they didn't mean to kill as many people as they did?
It would also explain why the plane that crashed at the pentagon, didn't actually crash onto the pentagon, but a few hundred yards before.
Again, maybe to cause slightly less damage, but to enable them to say "Look, we blatantly could have blown the whole building up, you don't do what we want you to do, and we'll do it properly next time."
Thoughts?
donught monster wrote:
> But would you admitt to this though? i mean if you were the
> terorist.
If it is truly the fundamentalists, then yes, I would expect them to claim it. If the general Palestinian public can dance in the streets of Israel, then you would suspect that the leaders would have no reservations about claiming responsibility.
> But would you admitt to this though? i mean if you were the
> terorist.
If it is truly the fundamentalists, then yes, I would expect them to claim it. If the general Palestinian public can dance in the streets of Israel, then you would suspect that the leaders would have no reservations about claiming responsibility.
But would you admitt to this though? i mean if you were the terorist.
I can't help wondering why no-one has claimed responsibility though.
Was it an 'internal' job, or have those who are responsible suddenly become too terrified of incurring the wrath of the US and NATO troops?
Was it an 'internal' job, or have those who are responsible suddenly become too terrified of incurring the wrath of the US and NATO troops?
Well i heard from one of my friends at college that the palistinians were helping amercia.
I don't know if it's true or not but if it is it doesn't make sence, I mean why attack america and then support them, could this be a cover up to hide yet more attack plans.
But then again come to think of it it does make sence.
Let me try to explain.
they would need to gain the presidents trust if they were to get anywhere near the whithouse and then they would need to wait a while before everthing calms down and security is eased .
Then when saecurity is eased that's when they would attack the whithouse and who knows maybe even britainn.
I don't know if it's true or not but if it is it doesn't make sence, I mean why attack america and then support them, could this be a cover up to hide yet more attack plans.
But then again come to think of it it does make sence.
Let me try to explain.
they would need to gain the presidents trust if they were to get anywhere near the whithouse and then they would need to wait a while before everthing calms down and security is eased .
Then when saecurity is eased that's when they would attack the whithouse and who knows maybe even britainn.
Your Honour wrote:
> I notice everyone is siwft to make sure they're not misunderstood.
Yes indeed. I'm as devastated by it as anyone (with the obvious exception of those who lost friends and/or relatives), but these are questions which will no doubt be asked eventually, especially as the 'facts' are not making sense.
> I notice everyone is siwft to make sure they're not misunderstood.
Yes indeed. I'm as devastated by it as anyone (with the obvious exception of those who lost friends and/or relatives), but these are questions which will no doubt be asked eventually, especially as the 'facts' are not making sense.
Your Honour wrote:
> Craw, cheers for clearing that up mate.
Just out of interest, is
> it really on the policy:
"If the building is flown into by a
> terrorist hijacked plane, and then destroyed, we will pay
> out."?
I dont regard myself as an expert on this but I guess that would be classed as an 'act of terrorism' by the insurers. If you take one of the worlds biggest, tallest and financially important buildings then I guess companies cannot rule out the possibility of something like that happening.
I will ask my friend to clarify though...
> Craw, cheers for clearing that up mate.
Just out of interest, is
> it really on the policy:
"If the building is flown into by a
> terrorist hijacked plane, and then destroyed, we will pay
> out."?
I dont regard myself as an expert on this but I guess that would be classed as an 'act of terrorism' by the insurers. If you take one of the worlds biggest, tallest and financially important buildings then I guess companies cannot rule out the possibility of something like that happening.
I will ask my friend to clarify though...
Goaty, I agree.
Remember, the world was (possibly) heading into recession, and nothing spends spending up more than a war.
Bush has already been pleadged 40 BILLION dollars to help sort this out. If that doesn't kick start the economy, I don't know what will.
I fully agree that he is exploiting this situation to the fullest, any national leader would, they wouldn't have got to power without taking every advantage they could get.
Remember, the world was (possibly) heading into recession, and nothing spends spending up more than a war.
Bush has already been pleadged 40 BILLION dollars to help sort this out. If that doesn't kick start the economy, I don't know what will.
I fully agree that he is exploiting this situation to the fullest, any national leader would, they wouldn't have got to power without taking every advantage they could get.
Rather than suggesting or implying the US involvement in this tragedy, the cost has been too great, the risk of public outrage if ever found out too great, I am inclined to believe that this horrific event is a perfect opportunity for the USA to consolidate it’s position in The Middle East.
The USA has long been involved with The Middle East, it’s foreign policies and history of training Israel rebels and people like Bin Laden to drive out those “undesirable to US interests”.
It is well documented.
I find it more likely that this is the work of a random, disorganised terror group that acted on the spur of the moment and the Bush Administration is using this as an excuse to become more heavily involved in the Arab situation.
I just don’t see how a group this organised, according to FBI statements, would risk it all by taking over the plane with box-cutters and home-made knives when they have uniforms, electronic training and a network of support (if the FBI & CIA are to be believed).
It doesn’t make any sense.
The Bush administration has been trying to increase defence budget spending since he was elected, but have met with rejection from The Senate and House of Representative. They have argued that in times of recession, looking after the American people must take precedent.
However, since this attack, the entire world has sided with Bush and he has been granted unlimited defence spending.
He has restarted the Star Wars programme and is talking about massive military spending.
Why? This was caused by people flying US owned planes into buildings.
No amount of soldiers or space-based defence systems can stop that.
No, I find it much more likely that this awful and tragic attack is being exploited by Bush in order that he can achieve his original goals of increased military-industrial spending and other big business concerns.
It needs to be remembered that Esso paid almost 1.2 billion dollars to his campaign fund, and encouraged him to withdraw from the Kyoto Summit because it was “harmful to Esso stock and trading prices”
Which he did.
The USA has long been involved with The Middle East, it’s foreign policies and history of training Israel rebels and people like Bin Laden to drive out those “undesirable to US interests”.
It is well documented.
I find it more likely that this is the work of a random, disorganised terror group that acted on the spur of the moment and the Bush Administration is using this as an excuse to become more heavily involved in the Arab situation.
I just don’t see how a group this organised, according to FBI statements, would risk it all by taking over the plane with box-cutters and home-made knives when they have uniforms, electronic training and a network of support (if the FBI & CIA are to be believed).
It doesn’t make any sense.
The Bush administration has been trying to increase defence budget spending since he was elected, but have met with rejection from The Senate and House of Representative. They have argued that in times of recession, looking after the American people must take precedent.
However, since this attack, the entire world has sided with Bush and he has been granted unlimited defence spending.
He has restarted the Star Wars programme and is talking about massive military spending.
Why? This was caused by people flying US owned planes into buildings.
No amount of soldiers or space-based defence systems can stop that.
No, I find it much more likely that this awful and tragic attack is being exploited by Bush in order that he can achieve his original goals of increased military-industrial spending and other big business concerns.
It needs to be remembered that Esso paid almost 1.2 billion dollars to his campaign fund, and encouraged him to withdraw from the Kyoto Summit because it was “harmful to Esso stock and trading prices”
Which he did.
Craw, cheers for clearing that up mate.
Just out of interest, is it really on the policy:
"If the building is flown into by a terrorist hijacked plane, and then destroyed, we will pay out."?
Just out of interest...
Just out of interest, is it really on the policy:
"If the building is flown into by a terrorist hijacked plane, and then destroyed, we will pay out."?
Just out of interest...
Page: