I wouldn't place too much emphasis on bin Laden. I'd be very surprised if bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attack. All the evidence points to Saddam Hussein. (Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were presumably deeply involved, but that's not where the buck stops.)
We have repeated reports of sightings of Mohamed Atta (and two of the other hijackers, al-Shehhi and Jarrah) meeting with Iraqi agents in Europe on a variety of occasions. Are there any sightings of the hijackers meeting with known al-Qaeda operatives? (I'm not saying that they didn't, but the evidence is that the hijackers were more closely associated with Iraq than with al-Qaeda, since they met with Iraqi agents so often that multiple such meetings were observed.)
It is well-documented that many of the hijackers did not follow strict Islamic lives. Many of them drank alcohol. Jarrah had lived with his girlfriend, in Germany. They visited strip clubs and casinos. Their friends generally say that they were not Islamic extremists. This suggests that they were not Islamic fundamentalists, such as one would expect from members of al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein's Iraq, on the other hand, is not a fundamentalist state; it's not exactly secular in Western terms, but it's fairly close. It's quite believable that the hijackers were agents of, or associated with, Iraq.
And why should we believe bin Laden's statements on operational matters anyway?
Seems to me that it would have been imprudent to set a date certain so far in advance. Instead, initial planning could have aimed at "sometime in September" and preparations proceeded on that basis.
Once all the pre-planning and preparations were in place, the final date of 9/11 could have been a function of the weather forecast. I agree that, once final preparations were set in train (e.g., on 8/28), a one or two-day delay would have been impractical.
That the saudi-binladin-group.com domain name was not renewed on, say, Sept. 9 or 10, suggests that, by that time, it was a done deal. That the domain name was registered on 9/11/2000 (so that it would expire on 9/11/2001) suggests that Sept. 11 was the intended date for at least a year.
Was there ever any confirmation of the rumors that these particular flights were heavily over-booked, presumably so as to reduce the number of passengers who would have to be controlled by the hijackers? I assume pre-planning would have focussed on a Tue-Wed-Thu timeframe, because of a.) somewhat lighter load factors and b.) high office occupancy at the WTC and Pentagon/Capitol/White House offices.
I remember this being stated shortly after 9/11, but I've seen no confirmation since. I don't know whether it's a fact or an unfounded rumor.
We also know that the hijackers "cased" these particular flights and routes in some detail. Presumably, they (or their accomplices) would have done the same for the WTC.
They seem to have planned the whole thing in detail.
And we do have the one plumber involved in the Memphis case who was known to have had a WTC pass immediately prior to the event.
This is new to me. What is the story?
The closest that I know of can be derived from James Woods's recounting of his August 1, 2001 flight from Logan Airport to Los Angeles , the Flight 11 route. In what was clearly a dry run for the 9/11 hijackings, four Arabs acted suspiciously in first class, and there was a report filed with the FAA.
The really interesting thing was that Woods later positively identified two of the 9/11 hijackers on the plane that day--one who would be on flight 175, the other on Flight 77. This, I thought, was a vital bit of information, since it indicated that the hijackers from different flights worked closely together, and were not separated from each other in isolated cells.
In this thread, Freeper xm177e2 theorizes that
The terrorists probably put the men in different combinations on this test flight so they wouldn't raise any suspicions when they flew on the 11th. They wouldn't want to be seen travelling in the exact same groups, that's the kind of thing computers would be able to pick up on...
But to return to your question, I would note that Woods said something else very interesting in that same transcript linked above. He said that a "higher" government official confirmed to him that the two Arabs he didn't identify as 9/11 hijackers were definitely "terrorist-involved." Which means that it's a fair assumption that we're talking about al-Qaeda.
Yes, but martyrs for the faith go to Heaven even if they led bad lives.
One of the side benefits of being a suicide terrorist,
you get to drink and fornicate all you want
"This is new to me. What is the story?"
Go here -- a thread from the "TN drivers license scandal" links...
Feds fear license examiner is dead -- Memphis woman's co-defendant tied to 9/11, judge told
"She responded that a visitor's pass for the World Trade Center, dated Sept. 5, 2001, was found in Sakhera Hammad's wallet. Hammad told authorities he was a plumber and worked on the center's sprinkler system, Nash said."
There is no direct evidence that these particular people, or the fake ID operation, is tied to 9/11. At least, none that is public. But it looks suspicious enough to set off alarm bells...
There is, indeed, a lot of logic and circumstantial evidence supporting that notion. I hadn't thought this element through but, upon reflection, am inclined to agree -- Iraq could well have been calling the shots on the WTC attacks.
Another observation inferentially supporting the idea: recall how much evidence was left behind in the automobiles, clearly implicating bin Laden? It smelled so much of a set-up that I was initially inclined to disbelieve it -- but couldn't figure which terrorist group would benefit from laying a false track. However, it would clearly be beneficial for a terrorist state, wouldn't it...?
Recall the stories about the Iraqi terrorist training camp? Salman Pak, I believe it is, about fifty miles downriver from Baghdad.
I wonder if there is any evidence that Atta, or any of the other terrorists, passed thru Salman Pak...