The training received by commercial pilots of that era with regard to dealing with hijackings has always been a significantly under-reported element of the 9/11 story.
Osama Bin Laden was unofficially convicted of the 9/11 attacks within a time frame that could not possibly have allowed any intelligence to have been gathered which supported the accusation. That is, it would be impossible if they did not already have that information. How could they have had no warning of an operation, which must have been very difficult to keep under wraps, but then be able to name the culprit in less than a day? And if they had some forewarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, then it raises even more questions about government agencies’ complicity.
From day one, there has not been a shred of publicly available evidence against Bin Laden. Up until December of 2001, there was nothing but the continued repetition of his name. The official documents detailing allegations against Bin Laden provide no convincing evidence. Of the 69 points of "evidence" cited, ten relate to background information about the relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban. Fifteen relate to background information regarding the general philosophies of Al Qeada, and it's relationship to Bin Laden. None give any facts concerning the events of 9/11. Most do not even attempt to directly relate anything mentioned to the events of that day. Twenty-six list allegations related to previous terrorist attacks. Even if they were convictions of previous terrorist attacks, everybody knows that this isn't worth the paper it's written on, in terms of evidence for involvement of September 11th.
Within 20 minutes of the attacks taking place, the media were fed comments, which assumed Bin Laden's guilt, comments made on the basis of events, which could not possibly have occurred. The Pentagon and the Department of Defense used dialogue attributed to Bin Laden, in an effort to incriminate him, while refusing to release all of the dialogue, and refusing to issue a verbatim, literal translation.
Dan Rather's interview with Jerome Hauer at 1pm on 9/11, just 2 hours after the attacks took place:
Rather: What perspective can you give us? I mean, there have been these repeated reports that, well, yes, Osama Bin Laden, but some think he's been over-emphasized as, as responsible for these kinds of events. I know many intelligence people at very high levels who say, listen, you can't have these kinds of attacks without having some state, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, somebody involved. Put that into perspective for us.
Hauer: Yeah, well I'm not sure I agree that, umm, this is necessarily state-sponsored. Umm, it, as I mentioned earlier, certainly has, umm, the, uh, fingerprints of somebody like Bin Laden.
In the months leading up to the Septmber 11, 2001 attack, it is reported, the Taliban "outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles." The Bush administration did not accept the Taliban's offer.
On September 16, 2001, CNN reported that in a statement issued to Al Jazeera, bin Laden said, "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks".
"On September 20, 2001," according to the Guardian, "the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer."
Bin Laden, in a September 28, 2001 interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, is reported to have said:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
October 3, 2001: Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in an interview with The New York Times, said administration officials had been briefing allies on what he called "pretty good information" establishing the link between the airplane attacks and Mr. Bin Laden. But, he added, "it is not evidence in the form of a court case."
One Western official at NATO said the briefings, which were oral, without slides or documents, did not report any direct order from Mr. Bin Laden, nor did they indicate that the Taliban knew about the attacks before they happened.
A senior diplomat for one closely allied nation characterized the briefing as containing "nothing particularly new or surprising," adding: "It was descriptive and narrative rather than forensic. There was no attempt to build a legal case."
George W Bush's speech at UN, November 10, 2001: "We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror."
9/11 Commission Report stated in 2004 “that bin Laden was a financier with a fortune of several hundred million dollars is an “urban legend.”
“Some within the government continued to cite the $300 million figure well after 9/11, and the general public still incorrectly gives credence to the notion of a ‘multimillionaire bin Laden."
“To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks.… Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance.”
In 2005, when asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
I have another "what if". What if those with a platform stopped perpetuating the government lie that two hijacked planes defied that laws of physics and brought down three steel towers? What if they stopped ignoring the fact that 9/11 was planned and perpetrated by psychopathic traitors in the United States Government, military and other ally countries, such as Israel, but instead published the truth? Then maybe Americans would know who the real enemy is.
Read "The Politics of Heroin" by Prof Alfred McCoy. And google David Sassoon. Also check who used to run the trade in the 19th century by checking greatgameindia.com HSBC.
The training received by commercial pilots of that era with regard to dealing with hijackings has always been a significantly under-reported element of the 9/11 story.
Osama Bin Laden was unofficially convicted of the 9/11 attacks within a time frame that could not possibly have allowed any intelligence to have been gathered which supported the accusation. That is, it would be impossible if they did not already have that information. How could they have had no warning of an operation, which must have been very difficult to keep under wraps, but then be able to name the culprit in less than a day? And if they had some forewarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, then it raises even more questions about government agencies’ complicity.
From day one, there has not been a shred of publicly available evidence against Bin Laden. Up until December of 2001, there was nothing but the continued repetition of his name. The official documents detailing allegations against Bin Laden provide no convincing evidence. Of the 69 points of "evidence" cited, ten relate to background information about the relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban. Fifteen relate to background information regarding the general philosophies of Al Qeada, and it's relationship to Bin Laden. None give any facts concerning the events of 9/11. Most do not even attempt to directly relate anything mentioned to the events of that day. Twenty-six list allegations related to previous terrorist attacks. Even if they were convictions of previous terrorist attacks, everybody knows that this isn't worth the paper it's written on, in terms of evidence for involvement of September 11th.
Within 20 minutes of the attacks taking place, the media were fed comments, which assumed Bin Laden's guilt, comments made on the basis of events, which could not possibly have occurred. The Pentagon and the Department of Defense used dialogue attributed to Bin Laden, in an effort to incriminate him, while refusing to release all of the dialogue, and refusing to issue a verbatim, literal translation.
Dan Rather's interview with Jerome Hauer at 1pm on 9/11, just 2 hours after the attacks took place:
Rather: What perspective can you give us? I mean, there have been these repeated reports that, well, yes, Osama Bin Laden, but some think he's been over-emphasized as, as responsible for these kinds of events. I know many intelligence people at very high levels who say, listen, you can't have these kinds of attacks without having some state, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, somebody involved. Put that into perspective for us.
Hauer: Yeah, well I'm not sure I agree that, umm, this is necessarily state-sponsored. Umm, it, as I mentioned earlier, certainly has, umm, the, uh, fingerprints of somebody like Bin Laden.
In the months leading up to the Septmber 11, 2001 attack, it is reported, the Taliban "outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles." The Bush administration did not accept the Taliban's offer.
On September 16, 2001, CNN reported that in a statement issued to Al Jazeera, bin Laden said, "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks".
"On September 20, 2001," according to the Guardian, "the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer."
Bin Laden, in a September 28, 2001 interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, is reported to have said:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
October 3, 2001: Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in an interview with The New York Times, said administration officials had been briefing allies on what he called "pretty good information" establishing the link between the airplane attacks and Mr. Bin Laden. But, he added, "it is not evidence in the form of a court case."
One Western official at NATO said the briefings, which were oral, without slides or documents, did not report any direct order from Mr. Bin Laden, nor did they indicate that the Taliban knew about the attacks before they happened.
A senior diplomat for one closely allied nation characterized the briefing as containing "nothing particularly new or surprising," adding: "It was descriptive and narrative rather than forensic. There was no attempt to build a legal case."
George W Bush's speech at UN, November 10, 2001: "We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror."
9/11 Commission Report stated in 2004 “that bin Laden was a financier with a fortune of several hundred million dollars is an “urban legend.”
“Some within the government continued to cite the $300 million figure well after 9/11, and the general public still incorrectly gives credence to the notion of a ‘multimillionaire bin Laden."
“To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks.… Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance.”
In 2005, when asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
I have another "what if". What if those with a platform stopped perpetuating the government lie that two hijacked planes defied that laws of physics and brought down three steel towers? What if they stopped ignoring the fact that 9/11 was planned and perpetrated by psychopathic traitors in the United States Government, military and other ally countries, such as Israel, but instead published the truth? Then maybe Americans would know who the real enemy is.
Read "The Politics of Heroin" by Prof Alfred McCoy. And google David Sassoon. Also check who used to run the trade in the 19th century by checking greatgameindia.com HSBC.