What makes you think I didn't read the link? More assumptions on your part. How was Atta identified as an al qaeda agent?
I mentioned the smaller airport because that's where the bags were delayed. Context is kind of important yo. Maybe you should do a little more reading on the topic. We're one on one right now, and I'm anything but impressed so far.
My assumption you didn't read your own link comes from the fact that you failed to notice the mention of AQ in it. Go do some research on Able Danger and their data mining program and find out how they ID'ed him.
I posted the evidence. The only one running and apparently having a complete nervous meltdown is you. So refute the evidence in the 9/11 report. Go ahead. We're watching. Or are you going to come up with some Peter Pan ate my homework excuse?
As did I. I'm not sure what I'm supposedly dodging. Attempt to win the internets with someone else master debater.
I posted the evidence. The only one running and apparently having a complete nervous meltdown is you. When are you going to address the FACT you've been presented with evidence? Do you think your childish games are endearing yourself to anyone? While it is funny to watch the mental meltdown of a truther, it is also sad that they actually think they are being clever.
Being obtuse is never cool. You can ignore the fact it is ridiculous to think a hijacker would carry all that evidence onto a plane he was planning to hijack but it does not change anything.
I posted the evidence. The only one running and apparently having a complete nervous meltdown is you. When are you going to address the FACT you've been presented with evidence? Do you think your childish games are endearing yourself to anyone? While it is funny to watch the mental meltdown of a truther, it is also sad that they actually think they are being clever.
That's what we keep telling you, yet you insist on being obtuse. Your claim is NOT a fact, it is an opinion. There was nothing in Atta's luggage that would have alerted anyone to anything UNLESS they could read Arabic AND had the time to sit down and go through all the papers. So once again your claims of "fact" are, in reality, pure bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
Get this. Here is what SS posted: I informed him of the fact that this type of insult is a bannable offense as we both know. His reply was..... you ready for this? He was talking about Peter Pan! Of course, if you substitute "Peter Pan" for every place he put peter, what he said makes no sense. He is hoping everyone and their mother is too stupid to realize his excuse is as lame as the rest of his posts. And then, to make matters more hilarious, he now pretends I am fixated on homosexual imagry. How is THAT for proof that SS's posts are and always will be completely dishonest. I didn't report him, but do you honestly think a mod would be fooled with his "Peter Pan" excuse?
Was everything supposed to be committed to memory? Why would he not have some of his information with him? More importantly, WTF would Atta care? He probably assumed it was going to be destroyed when he crashed the plane. He, obviously, didn't take into account the incompetence airlines have with regards to baggage, as millions of air travelers every year can attest to. Always carry on if possible.
Hey NAB. How many people do you know that are fluent in Arabic? Now what are the odds of a security bag checker being fluent in Arabic and has the time to actually read and comprehend all the documentation in the luggage. I'm guessing there is a lot of zeros in that number....
You DID ask! It is a prime example of truther dishonesty and their inability to ever be wrong no matter what kind of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) excuse they have to use to try and pretend they didn't screw up.
After years of planning, yes everything was committed to memory. Or do you think once the planes were airborne they had to try and contact each other again? "Hey Atta, what were we supposed to hit again????? What are you aiming for? I think you know very well it is absurd to think after years of planning he is going to take a bag of everything revealing their intentions to the airport.
OK, so the security people are suppose to psychicly know whether or not the baggage belongs to pilots?!? I was not aware having a uniform in your luggage was against the law. Do other pilots know this? How does a uniform equate to a hijacking, especially when the uniform is LOCKED UP IN THE HOLD! Do you ever think things through before posting them?
