Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Why Al-Qeada isn't responsible for the WTC

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jun 07, 2002
I would like to disperse the negative publicity that has been focuses on Al-Qaeda lately and show you what really caused the September 11th event.

More diaries by PotatoError
Hackers: Misunderstood
To all you Windows Criminals
The financial time bomb
Too controversial for Adequacy
A big HI! from Linuz Zealot
Linux Zealot Tells a Story
Why the GNU licence is a good thing
Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.
Okay I'll pay for music
Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000.
Human behaviour - my thinking on it
Patenting of hyperlinks
The little things
What is god?
Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan
The consequences of Determinism
I think nuclear weapons are good
What IS adequacy all about????
Where are we going?
Secret World Conspiricy Revealed!!!
Diary Entry 24/05/02
The Internet - where is it heading?
Terrifying and Shocking news
w0w I must be 1337 h4X0r
An Introduction to Online Gaming
Linux Zealot - My thoughts about him
How many Adequacy members are there?
Why Internet Piracy is Moral
Trees and Grass. Two more lies of society.
Why US bombs should be banned
The Hunt for God
My vacation to America and what I found there
Are you an Enemy Combatant?
Rock vs Pop
Why we should make all guns illegal
Invasion: America
One Year since 9/11 and Americans haven't changed
First thing most people think of when "Al-Qaeda" is mentioned, is terrorists who deliberately fly planes into towers.

Now step back for a moment and ask yourselves is that really the truth? It's hard to imagine why any club would want to deliberately fly its members into a brick wall. For one thing its counter-productive to the membership count and it also hurts.

Remember that it has not been proved that Al-Qaeda set out to deliberately fly into the towers. No mathematical proofs on the subject have been released to the public. All we get is sketchy reports by "Government Officials" who are more likely than not, trying to cover up their own mistakes...mistakes which I lay out below.

The first mistake by officials was allowing the Al-Qaeda people to fly the planes in the first place. As we know, many of them didn't have proper flight training and some couldn't land. So which morons decided that they could be trusted with a 747?!

What's more, those World Towers were pretty high and building an airport right below them was a pretty dumb thing to do. If you imagine an infinite number of aircraft taking off then by probability, one of them is bound to hit the WTC eventually right?

That's why I prefer to blame the NY city planners. What were they thinking? Anyhow, the Government has obviously tried to cover up their mistakes by pretending that Al-Qaeda actually flew the planes at buildings on purpose! The public must be really stupid nowadays because they swallowed the story so easily.

Anyhow the problem is corrected now. The government seeing their mistake minutes after the plane collisions, decided to take action by detonating the two towers and reducing them to dust. No longer will innocent pilots accidently fly into those monstrocities.

So next time you see Mr Bush giving mouth to Al-Qaeda remember the truth.


How did this get by the editors? (none / 0) (#1)
by mrt76 on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 01:00:53 PM PST
I think its a safe bet this qualifies for a position in the 'Diary of a Lunix Hacker' section. PotatoError, you're slipping. May I ask your Nationality?
"...I'm in no mood for a freak show this afternoon..."

One of two. (none / 0) (#3)
by tkatchev on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 01:05:15 PM PST
Either a "freedom-loving" Chechen, or a self-loathing subversive Jew.

Peace and much love...

Definitely. (none / 0) (#2)
by tkatchev on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 01:03:21 PM PST
Obviously, 911 was a secret conspiracy intended to bring Bush Jr. to power.

I'd post more gloating, sarcastic commentary on the recent creation of an American KGB (read the news) but I don't much feel like it; this time, it actually might be for real. :(

Peace and much love...

I am curious... (none / 0) (#5)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 02:04:02 PM PST
...what will float atop in next couple decades.

It will surely be interesting reading...

Oy... (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 01:27:40 PM PST
Any responses that are written will probably just be woven into a conspiracy theory, but anyways.

Why would the Japanese air force train young pilots for a week only to have them deliberately crash into an enemy vessel.

I'm no expect in NY state geography, but the WTC is on the Lower Side of Manhatten, and Laguardia is several KM's east of that, and JFK is south of Laguardia. Also the flights originated from Boston, west of New York, and were headed to the west coast.

The towers were designed to take the impact of a plane.

You're forgetting the CN Tower, the twin Singapore Towers, the Empire State Building, the Sears Tower, etc. Should all those buildings be "reduced to dust" so innocent pilots won't fly into them.

This is sad, even for Adequacy

Sorry (none / 0) (#13)
by gohomeandshoveit on Sat Jun 8th, 2002 at 02:38:18 PM PST
Any diary entry that is submitted is posted. The editors have no control over which are posted and which are not. This is why this vainglorious idiocy actually found its way onto this fine site. PotatoError must stop his entries fit for "Diary of a Lunix Hacker." Have pity on the intelligent people present at this site.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------If ignorance is bliss, then knock the smile off my face.

Actually, (none / 0) (#6)
by hauntedattics on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 02:18:21 PM PST
the two planes that crashed into the Twin Towers were Boeing 767 widebodies, not 747s. United and American typically use 767s for cross-U.S. flights, and sometimes for trans-Atlantic flights as well.

great! (none / 0) (#9)
by PotatoError on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 07:43:04 PM PST
your comment is the most enlightening.

When you travel as much as I do... (none / 0) (#14)
by hauntedattics on Sun Jun 9th, 2002 at 07:35:09 AM PST
it's almost impossible not to pick up such irrelevant and trivial knowledge about airplanes and airlines.

Everyone give him a hand (none / 0) (#7)
by Narcissus on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 02:42:35 PM PST
finally the Spud makes a point and actually backs it up with support ... no matter how flawed that support might be at least he tried.

Ok, who picked the flower???

PotatoError.. (none / 0) (#8)
by DG on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 06:20:41 PM PST
I'm sorry to say this but, Please stick to computer related topics. Any other subject seems to bring out your surprisingly trollish nature.. I have to agree with other posters this is a bad troll..
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

haha a troll???? (none / 0) (#10)
by PotatoError on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 07:48:34 PM PST
A troll it is not. Rather a diary of a contraversial nature. A diary which fights against the flow of political correctness which poisons our society.

This diary had two purposes.

Firstly I wanted to make a point about the WTC incident - why do we believe what we are told? How come we don't at least question the "facts" the media feeds us with? Even if it is the truth it is still healthy to question it.

Secondly I wanted to see how far you people would let me go. Could I be too contraversial for Adequacy? The answer is a reassuring NO! At least at adequacy a story of this kind (lets forget the innaccuracies and poor attempt at satire) is not simply deleted by the editors (at least not yet anyway).


Dear Mr Error, (none / 0) (#11)
by iat on Sat Jun 8th, 2002 at 09:51:02 AM PST
Could I be too contraversial for Adequacy? The answer is a reassuring NO! At least at adequacy a story of this kind (lets forget the innaccuracies and poor attempt at satire) is not simply deleted by the editors (at least not yet anyway).

After reading comments like this and this in which some readers don't seem to appreciate the reader-driven everything-goes nature of the My Adequacy Diary (TM> feature, I would be grateful if you would append the disclaimer "This is a diary entry which has not undergone Adequacy's usual scrutineering process and does not represent the views of the" to all of your future diary entries. Thank you. - love it or leave it.

no problemo [nt] (none / 0) (#12)
by PotatoError on Sat Jun 8th, 2002 at 10:18:35 AM PST



All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to