Posted on 08/03/2002 7:58:20 AM PDT by aculeus
Atta took an unexplained leave of absence from Hamburg in November 1997 lasting 15 months, a period he may have spent training with Al Qa'ida in Afghanistan.
Atta only spent a small part of those 15 months in Afghanistan; most of that time was in fact spent in Germany, apparently making contact with other al-Qaeda cells there. I also believe that Almidhar and Nawaq Alhazmi (not Alhamzi) were in America in 1999, not 1998. And I also think he gets confused with the identities of some of the hijackers. Clearly, the Abdulaziz Alomari who was on Flight 11 was not the 35-year-old father of four that the author confuses him here with, and I had believed that this had been cleared up a long time ago. The face on the ATM surveillance camera in Portland, ME with Atta seems to be much younger than that.
But overall a very good summary of the hijackings.
Obviously not.
Anyone know how their final speed was calculated without the transponders?
Uh, maybe they looked at the video of the planes hitting the towers?
Please get help.
The answer to your question:Who wrote this? is probably contained in the book by this pinko, Griffin. Looking over the contributor's page for the site the article came from, it appears that all of the contributors are pinko terrsymp types. Look at the guy's sources in the notes at the end. How many of them are marxist media outlets?
Are you implying that AA and UA commercial flights have remote-control piloting systems?
denydenydeny's rule # 1 of the conspiracy nut: juxtaposing two true statements together--any two statements--justifies any conclusion based on that juxtaposition, and constitutes de facto proof of a conspiracy. For example:
A) My dog bit me.
B)Satellites broadcast to Earth.
C) Therefore, the satellites told my dog to bite me.
What, you don't believe me? Are you (snicker) denying that satellites broadcast to Earth?
denydenydeny's rule # 2 of the conspiracy nut: proving the existence of a thing proves the certainty of its existence at any time or place necessary for it to be part of the conspiracy.
It is not "someone" but scores (hundreds?) of "someones" hate-filled mullahs who preach "kill Jews, kill Americans" every Friday in their mosques.
We'll know we're winning this war when the mullahs are lynched by fellow muslims. (Don't hold your breath.)
This story was linked by Arts & Letters Daily http://www.aldaily.com/ which I find worth visiting daily. Here's their lead:
Mohammed Atta was a brilliant but quiet student of urban conservation. Then he became infamous as a mass murderer. Whence the change?... [more
On 7 September, the day the Maryland team checked out of the Valencia in Laurel, Atta met Al-Shehhi and a third man at Shuckum's Oyster Pub and Seafood Grill in Hollywood. Atta played video games and drank what the barman recalled was cranberry juice for four hours at one end of the bar, while Al-Shehhi and the other customer knocked back cocktails and seemed to argue.
But the Arab Muslims just don't think like you Turks do.
And sadly, political correctness has such a death grip on US institutions that they still refuse to go after radical Muslims and shake them hard. So we common people are still left unsafe, to guess which Muslims are decent people, and which are ticking time bombs.
ISBN 1-58574-754-8......"Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why".....The 1999 Government Report on Profiling Terorist's......by Rex A. Hudson.
I'm halfway through the text and can't suggest this read enough. (5.95$ paperback)
Stay Safe Ya'll !!
No, it isn't good because it isn't directed at arabs. The American version of what you experienced back home exempts arabs and concentrates on everyone except those who attacked us. Leave it to Americans to decide what's good and bad about what our government does to us, allright?
Good point. However, these passages in the article were italicized in the version posted to the site referenced here, showing that the author was quoting. The snips included between paragraphs were quotes of someone. While he didn't make clear who he was quoting, the way it came out here made it appear that the author was simply slipping the text in unattributed.
We'll know we're winning this war when the mullahs are lynched by fellow muslims. (Don't hold your breath.)
If muslims turn on each other, that won't necessarily be a win for us. When muslims are banned from immigration, and muslims here now are deported enmasse, that will be a start. A win will be when civilized countries cut off all trade and contact with countries ruled by this cult of subjuation. I won't hold my breath waiting for the current administration to wake up from its Rainbow People/Kumbaya view of islam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.