What's the non-conspiracy version of 911?

[skjpm]

Ok, if the conspiracies aren't true, then what did happen? Who was behind it? What did Bush actually know? What's the version we're supposed to believe in place of the tinfoil hat theories?

[KG]

1. 19 guys armed only with box cutters & a few hours in simulators

took over 4 jet liners, navigated them over hundreds of miles, and flew 3 of them into relatively small targets at high speed, hittng them on the first pass.

yeah, right.

[JHB]

6. Right, except for the "relatively small targets" part.

These were some of the largest buildings in the world involved (the Pentagon in size, not height).

Past that, there's plenty of questions that need to be answered, but there's no need to conjure missiles or demolition charges to account for the damage done that day.

[NoKingGeorge]

20. The guy who hit the Pentagon decended from 4,000 ft in

2 minutes ,at a 210 degree bank, and held level on the deck at 10 feet, going very fast. Anyone ask Chuck Yeager for his opinion?

[Minstrel Boy]

23. And Hani Hanjour was refused a Cessna four weeks earlier

because he was such a crummy pilot the instructor refused to ever fly with him again.

But never mind. The questions begged by such facts are too embarassing to ask.

[RH]

60. decended from 4,000 ft ?

and you believe this because it is the official version?

Or because of what?

Did you examine the 'black box'?

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Evildoers who hate freedom did it

[Q]

3. Don't ask such questions in General Discussion...

...as the bitchy, vocal few have convinced DU that we shouldn't talk about it here.

- I'm frankly disgusted. The few have overridden the opinions of the many.

[Selwynn]

9. Says you.

Thank you for the illicit appeal to the masses however, I haven't have a good logical fallacy yet today.

[rman]

15. Q has good reason to be cynical

.. please pay a visit to the 'Ask The Administrators' forum

[Selwynn]

22. Good - I'm glad their doing it.

You want to talk about unevidenced, wildly speculative clandestine conspiracy theories, you should do it in some other forum that doesn't waste my time or sever as an embarassment and humiliation to the public face of the Democratic Underground.

[Minstrel Boy]

27. Those who most loudly disparage "conspiracy theory"

are most often the ones with the least knowledge of the actual evidence being presented.

I was glad to see you acknowledge at last, when a cite was provided, that the bin Ladens were flown out of the country at the order of the White House.

Leave "theory" alone for a while and look to the evidence.

Start with Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline. From 1979 to the present, a damning record of complicity between the National Security State and terrorist proxies. And every single entry is supported by a "mainstream" source.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html

[Selwynn]

43. You are mistaken --

The problem I was having was that I kept hearing that Bush flew Bin Ladin himself out of the country. This was what I heard four different times said here on these boards.

And I thought to myself, I can never find anything anywhere that provides proof for this. And it turns out that is not at all true, however there is some evidence about the family of bin ladin being flown out of the country.

Well, the bin ladin family, a Saudi family, is actually estranged from Osama I believe. And its a little misleading because actually there were more Saudi nationals flown out of the country, including bin ladin family, but not limited to them. So really what we have here is that a bunch of Saudi Arabia nationals of significance to the administration were flown out of the country out of fear. That's embarrassing to the administration, and draws unwanted (by them) attention to the cozy relationship of the US to certain folks in the middle east, but it does nothing to prove a clandestine criminal conspiracy.

So, its not so much "lack of knowledge about events" as it was being totally buried in false information or mistaken information for fifty different varieties that it was difficult to get to the straight story.

I'm well aware of Paul Thompson's timeline - its the thing everyone always quotes. It's great - I love it. I don't think it comes anywhere near proving a clandestine criminal conspiracy in which the administration willfully and deliberately chooses to actively participate in the murder of 3,000 Americans in New York. No where close. Not even remotely.

What it does who us is just how ridiculous our so called "war on terrorism" really is, and how many embarrassing cozy relationships the US has to unsavory people in the ME, and how inept our government was at every level in dealing with the events of 9/11.

Proving a clandestine conspiracy by the government to murder its people is still not even remotely evidenced, in fact if anything, the evidence points away from that to more plausible explanations.

[rman]

30. did you investigate, so that you know these theories are 'unevidenced'?

Now can you please explain how embarassing the Watergate conspiracy theory was?

Are you still maintaining that any conspiracy theory is just plain nonsense simply because it is a theory about a conspiracy?

[Indiana Democrat]

44. Thank you so much!

I wish I could speak (Write) as well as you. You say everything I want to say but without the "SHUT-UP YOU STUPID KOOK" part getting in the way.

[Q]

54. Since when are 'theories' banned in General Discussion?

...and who are you to decided what is 'unevidenced'? It's telling that you spend more time complaining about theories than trying to debunk them with anything other than your Nah, Nah, Nah approach to debate.

- DU hasn't announced an official policy of removing 9-11 threads from GD. Some have been allowed to remain and others arbitrarily moved to some obscure forum.

- If you're speaking for DU...then just say so. But the opinions of a few posters who feel 'embarrassed' by 9-11 threads shouldn't be able to intimidate others into not posting on this subject.

[homelandpunk]

86. oh keeeeeeeeeeeeeee-riced!!!!

Get a load of this bs: <<You want to talk about unevidenced, wildly speculative clandestine conspiracy theories, you should do it in some other forum that doesn't waste my time>>

We...ARE...in...some other forumm-m-m-m-m-m-m-uh!!!!

why are you HERE if it is a waste of your time????????????????

Now that the bitchy vocal minority has us in a Free Speech Zone, why the hell is it that that minority feels the fucking need to come in for a visit? To say hello??? Good fuckn kriced.

[radwriter0555]

4. That bin laden hates us for our freedoms and wanted to kill all the

Americans. And from a cave, deep in the rugged afghanistan mountains, plotted and planned with 20 hijackers, on how to buy plane tickets and learn to fly jumbo jets JUST good enough to hit a target some 20 yards wide.

They say the hijackers trained in afghanistan, (trained to do what, I don't know), which is the reason that bush et al warranted an invasion to wipe out the taliban who apparently trained the hijackers to do.. something...

But since no one ever took credit for this event, we'll never know.

[Selwynn]

18. Or, how about ...

There are forces in the world that hate the United States (government) and what it represents in the world. No its not as silly as "they hate us for our freedom" -- they hate us for our brutal, imperialistic, arrogant, domineering attitude over the world, they see us as a "Christian" nation waging a "war" on Islam, and they happen to be fanatical fundamentalists.

Their anger comes not from our being "free" as much as from our policy of hypocrisy, exploitation and destruction in the middle east -- that kind of reckless policy is a breeding ground for extremist groups who will lash back at the United States in any possible way using any means necessary.

It won't be the last time we are attacked in this fashion - are we to believe that there is no terrorism that is actually terrorism, and it is all just a plot of our government? The only reason I call that ridiculous is because there is so much evidence that seems to make other explanations far more plausible and next to no hard evidence that makes this explanation make intelligent sense.

What happened 9/11 was that we were caught horribly tragically asleep at the wheel. Our agencies were inefficient and negligent, our leadership was ignorant and disinterested, and our Administration was so thoroughly not up to the task of leading the nation, and so pre-occupied with its own agenda that it fundamentally ignored its responsibility to security.

Negligent? YES! Inept? YES! Negligent enough to be worthy of impeachment? YES! Criminal, clandestine deliberate conspiracy to actively murder 3,000 US civilians? NO. Why? Because it takes more faith to believe that explanation than it does to believe more plausible far more well evidenced explanations. Occam's razor demands I embrace the simplest explanations that best fit the facts and the simplest explanations that actually have credible evidence do not currently include a vast unevidenced criminal conspiracy theory.

Ineptitude, not conspiracy.

[stickdog]

47. Occam's Razor doesn't apply to human interactions.

And it doesn't apply to anything in the manner you are attempting to use it.

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/6742902.htm

Why did Bush sit there reading about a goat?

Why did Rumsfeld continue his meeting about terrorist threats DURING a real, live terrorist attack?

Why did General Myers continue his meeting (again about terrorist threats) with Max Cleland DURING a real, live terrorist attack?

Why didn't we intercept Flights 77 and 93?

Who made a small fortune "shorting" airline and insurance stocks before Sept. 11?

Where are the planes' "black boxes"?

Why did 7 World Trade Center collapse?

Why did the Bush administration lie about dangerously high levels of toxins and hazardous particles after the WTC collapse?

What was the role of Pakistan's spy agency in the Sept. 11 attacks and the subsequent murder of U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl?

Who killed five Americans with anthrax?

What is in the 28 blacked-out pages of the congressional Sept. 11 report?

Considering the volume of legitimate but heretofore stonewalled and completely unanswered questions, LIHOP is a far more parsimonious explanation than an incomprehensible level of negligence.

[Selwynn]

61. Oh, yes it does.

Occam's razor applies to theories, inference, deduction speculation and hypothesis.

The simplest explaination that fits the facts is usually the correct one.

Just becuase you have a bunch of unanswered questions there, is not to be mistaken at ANY POINT for evidence of a criminal conspiracy by Bush to murder Americans.

[jmcgowanjm]

83. So bush was just lucky?

[homelandpunk]

87. Having reprimanded us

in a post in this thread that we were wasting your time when this was allowed in GD, and that it is good we were assigned a Free Speech Zone so you would not have to waste your time with us, it begs the question: why are you so addicted to wasting your precious time coming here voluntarily, while arguing for Bush and Cheney's innocence on 9/11?
Please inform me of the virtues of wasting time, since you do not think wasting time is bad.

[jmcgowanjm]

82. But no one's been punished for ineptitude and

this Admin has shown an aptitude for delivering
immediate punishments (see Plame Affair)
when needed.

Qui Bono.

[cthrumatrix]

5. they should show how they did it "step by step" like a crime investigation

however they can't...


they can't explain how they know the 19 hijackers soo quickly...they are not on passnger lists and they said they used fake id's..so how did they know???????????


too many loose ends...then people ask questions...as they should

[skjpm]

8. Why were we surprised?

What's the explanation for not knowing anything about this happening? What's the official reason for the failure of intelligence and airport security (at 4 different airports)?

[RH]

65. Loose ends?

The hijacker's purchase of tickets by ordinary means was confirmed by independent agents. Their seat numbers were published.

[jmcgowanjm]

84. Could you post links to this info? Thanx

[Selwynn]

7. Ineptitude not conspiracy.

Was it a conspiracy between the government and terrorist in '92? What was that, just a botched attempt? Oh no, of course not because the almighty infallible Clinton was on the job. Was it a conspiracy when it was the USS Cole? No, it was actually honest to god terrorism, or if you don't like that term, then people or groups who do not like what the US does in the world who are willing to take militant violent action against us. But now that we have a president we don't like in office, suddenly everything is a conspiracy.

Conspiracy theories are embarrassing and immature because they usurp the place of actual critical reasoning and credible, verifiable evidence and factual data and put in its place emotionalism, conjecture, leading questions, circumstantial inferential evidence, and preformed biases.

Ineptitude not conspiracy.

[skjpm]

10. OK, so what's the non-conspiracy version?

If you don't believe the conspiracies, then what did happen?

[Andy_Stephenson]

17. Silence Patriot.

Or you will be charged with sedition under PA1 and PA2.

[Selwynn]

24. #18. But I also want to point out...

Absence of proof is not proof --

The line of thinking that goes, "well we have open, unanswered questions about 9/11, therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN A SWEEPING MASSIVE BRUTAL CONSIPACY FOR MUDER AND OTROCTIY GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP AND IMPLICATING EVERYONE EVERYWHERE OMG OMG OMG!!!!!!!!! /sperms himself" is pretty ridiculous...

It is jumping over a few rungs of logic to say the least... I'm interest in credible factual evidence, not wild speculation without any possibility of cooberation. The evidence, points to negligence and ineptitude and many different levels of government.

[Gordon25]

46. Ignored evidence

..."It is jumping over a few rungs of logic to say the least... I'm interest in credible factual evidence, not wild speculation without any possibility of cooberation. The evidence, points to negligence and ineptitude and many different levels of government..."

The best evidence that the official Bushista version of 9-11 is a cover story for explicit involvement (as opposed to surprised incompetence) is the evidence so far uncovered and yet ignored by both the government and the media.

To wit (as just samples): At least four of those identified as hijackers who died in the attacks have turned up alive in places throughout the middle east with stories about thier identities being stolen, and yet the FBI continues listing them as the attackers. There is evidence that five of the hijackers trained at US military schools. Ignored. Three of them listed Pensacola Naval Air Station as their home addresses on their driver's liscences. Ignored. Multiple eyewitness testimony that Mohamed Atta was living for many months in south Florida, living with an anglo girlfriend, going to strip clubs and hosting cocaine parities. Doesn't much sound like a Muslim religious fanatic suicide bomber . Evidence ignored. 9-12, a military kc-135 lands at the Florida airport where Atta trained while Florida state police cordon off the airport. According to eye witnesses, men in miliatry fatigues, accompanied by Jeb Bush, take all files and records from the flight schools, load them aboard the plane and fly off. Ignored.

This hardly constitues a "lack of evidence." Look at the evidence. Look at the evidence. Look at the evidence. If you can convincingly explain these pieces of evidence to me in a way that is consistent with the government's version of events, I will personally write a letter of apology to Bush for my past doubts and statements about him and will work for his reelection. Until then, in my view, the evidence implicates him complicitly in the events of 9-11 and I will not be happy until he is in a courtroom under oath defending his actions.

Gordon25

[Indiana Democrat]

53. Prove to me...

...that Santa Clause does NOT exist.

I believe he does...What's your proof that he doesnt??

Answer that and then I'll prove to you why the conspiracy theories are not true.

No offense intended...Just making a bit of a point and using your post to do so. :)

[Selwynn]

62. Exactly (n/t)

[Minstrel Boy]

12. The criminal history of the National Security State.

That's what we're really taking about, when you turn up your nose at "conspiracies."

[Junkdrawer]

14. Is this embarrasing too?

U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

More...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

[Selwynn]

29. It also didn't happen, did it.

Why?

Because they did a calculated cost/benefit analysis and realized that reaction was too unpredictable and it was too risky -- they couldn't have a high enough confidence percentage that they would actually get the effect they intended.

So yeah, that's embarrassing - its embarrassing to act as though that's some kind of proof, or even any kind of evidence to indicated a vast clandestine criminal conspiracy.

Any time anyone would like to show me credible, factual, non-speculative, verifiable evidence that proves a conspiracy, I'll be happy to listen. Until then, I have much better explanations that better fit the facts that we do have, even if there remain unanswered questions.

[stickdog]

50. But the Tonkin Resolution happened.

And so did slavery, Jim Crow laws, plutonium milkshakes, MK Ultra, the Holocaust, the U2 incident, a biological weapons study on SF bay residents, asbestos mining, the House UnAmerican Committee, Hoover's FBI spying ring, etc, etc.

Until then, I have much better explanations that better fit the facts that we do have, even if there remain unanswered questions.

What are they?

[rman]

19. again i'd like to point out the Watergate conspiracy,

which initially was nothing but theory. And it's not the only one of its kind.

It is blatendly untrue that "Conspiracy theories are embarrassing and immature".

I say it is naive to believe there can't be any such thing as a conspiracy.

[Selwynn]

32. I never said there can never be a conspiracy --- I want evidence not ...

Blind conjecture.

People around here are so eager to hate Bush that they are over-eager to believe anything, even if there is little or not evidence to support it. I didn't say there can never be a conspiracy. I said there is no credible evidence for a criminal conspiracy here.

We have evidence now that confirms a conspiracy in the Watergate affair. I don't mind people looking for evidence, actually looking for actual evidence, of a conspiracy.

What I do mind are people shouting with absolute confidence "Conspiracy!" without a shred of real credible, hard evidence to support that.

Right now a lot of credible evidence points to ineptitude on many levels. So far no credible hard (ie. non-circumstantial or speculative) evidence supports criminal conspiracy.

[YNGW]

37. Exactly!!

>What I do mind are people shouting with absolute confidence "Conspiracy!" without a shred of real credible, hard evidence to support that.

So far, all I've EVER recieved is a bunch of connect-the-unrelated-dots. All I've ever asked for is indisputable documented evidence to prove these "theories". I'm confident I'm not asking for too much.

[Minstrel Boy]

49. "I want evidence not blind conjecture" Okay:

There's plenty of evidence. Have you looked? I think it was just yesterday you finally admitted the bin Ladens had flown free on order of the White House. The evidence had been there for years, and the admission for months, if you'd care'd to look.

How much have you researched? How many questions have you asked? I ask, because you evidently have a resistance to this line of inquiry.

Here's a wee speck of evidence you may have missed.

Have you ever heard the name of, say, Michael Springman? He's a 20-year veteran of the State Department. He's the former head of the visa bureau in the Saudi city of Jeddah. (Jeddah, coincidentally, is the headquarters of the bin Laden family business, Osama's birthplace and base of operations before his expulsion.)

Springman told Greg Palast, "I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with silence.... What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA."
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=104&row=1

Did this recruitment end with the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan? Springman says no. In an interview with CBC Radio January 19, 2002, he claims he was told the CIA was working with bin Laden through the Jeddah office as a channel to send al Qaeda recruits to the United States for training as terrorists, and that the partnership continued as late as the summer of 2001. Springman objected repeatedly and strenuously, and eventually was fired.

The interview can be heard here:

http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/dispatches/audio/020116_springman.rm.

What's so important about the Jeddah visa bureau? Well, fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers entered the US through Jeddah.

And what does Springman see as the explanation for the CIA's helping bin Laden send terrorists into the US after the Soviet defeat? "It's only a few thousand dead, and what's that against the greater gain for the United States in the Middle East?" Those who died on September 11, Springman says, "may have been sacrificed in order to further wider US geopolitical objectives."

Did you know any of this? Does this sound like ineptitude on the part of Washington? Or is Springman simply out of his mind?

[rman]

57. then what with "conspiracy theories make us look bad"?

sounds like there's something inherently wrong with conspiracy theories, while now you admit there isn't.

Besides, evidence for a 9-11 government conspiracy has been and is being provided by many DU-ers. It's just that they nay-sayers choose to ignore it.

They only real problem i see here is that not all conspiracy theories are created equal: 4 passenger airplanes converted to be flown by remote control seems practically near impossible, and the WTC buildings being rigged with demolition charges seems even more practically impossible.
But that's an entirely different matter then the notion that the goverment did have foreknowledge about 9-11.

People who have doubts are likely to dismiss all 9-11 conspiracy theories because some are incredably far fetched. Kinda like Bush having caused the Iran earthquake.

I say each theory should be judged on its own merit, because we do know for a fact that it is possible for government conspiracies to exist - there's no rational reason to dismiss any such theory outright.
If you agree on that, then why don't you have a look all the evidence that supports LIHOP? Links abound all over DU, even in this very threat.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. My Take As Well, Selwynn

Idiots with agendae, looking for the bogeymen in the wrong places, despite the fact that they had evidence of where they were. They ignored the signals, failed to act, and 3000 people died.

One thing i don't understand about these debates in GD is this: Why would anyone think that if someone doesn't buy the "Georgie was in on it" idea, that somehow they are absolving Li'l Georgie? I would say that negligence and ineptitude that resulted in 3000 deaths is pretty damning. It's not excusing anything to suggest that they screwed up badly, and then reacted in a less than glorious fashion.

All that being said, i don't believe that, at the very least, the Pentagon pilot, were just simulator trained guys. I'd be scouring the records for Saudi Air Force deserters.
The Professor

[stickdog]

52. Either they knew it or they blew it -- with a level of incompetence

that quite simply strains credulity.

[ProfessorGAC]

56. It Doesn't Strain My Credulity At All

I explained why in my first post. I really think these people are that incapable of multitasking and they couldn't think about tax cuts, SDI, and the real threat of terrorism at the same time.

People here say, don't underestimate these folks intelligence. Well, i disagree. I suggest we don't overestimate it. There's a big difference between intellect and ambition. A big difference between cleverness and deviousness.

There are parts of the official story that bug me. But, i don't believe it was necessary for anything more nefarious than gross incompetence and some religious fanaticism for this to have happened.
The Professor

[jmcgowanjm]

85. So why hasn't anyone been fired for incompetence in 911

Like the Marine Commander was fired on the spot
in Najaf for moving too slowly, March 2003

[demodewd]

80. immature?

What is immature or more politely naive are those who insist upon believing a very corrupt statement of events.

[homelandpunk]

88. boy!

Still here, huh?
I am looking forward to your essay "The Virtues of Wasting Time".

[Bandit]

11. When ninteen people get together and plot a crime it is a conspiracy

by definition. There is no non-conspiracy version. Whether some high level Americans were involved is another matter. No one has ever come forward and said who collected on the stock shorts that were placed days before the event. Millions were paid but no one knows to who. There are many unanswered questions and the Administration is stonewalling for some reason. Usually when people stonewall they have something to hide. Not saying they do but if you have nothing to hide why not let the information come out? Something is definitely amisss.

[htuttle]

16. Thank you for pointing that out

The conspiracy the Bush administration would have us accept is responsible for 9/11 is not a whole lot less fantastic than the LIHOP theory.

As you mentioned, there IS no non-conspiracy theory version. It's a matter of who's conspiracy theory do you believe.

[Selwynn]

36. I agree something is amiss

... but I believe it is much more likely to believe that the following is amiss:

1) The Bush Administration knows it royally blew 9/11 -- it had enough information to prevent it but did not take it seriously enough to act appropriately

2) The Bush Administration knows that deep investigating into what is behind 9/11 will reveal a lot of relationships to other people and powers that they would rather keep under wraps. Not, in a criminal conspiracy to blow up the towers sort of way, but in an ongoing mechanism of foreign policy sort of way. No one wants the public to know how cozy we are to Saudi Arabia, nor how many so-called "terrorists" have frequently been on our payroll, or how many times we have engaged in our own US-authorized "terrorism" around the world.

If you want to talk about a conspiracy to cover these things up, fine -- why is that fine? Because there is already a huge amount of evidence about these connections, good and credible evidence that makes concluding that there may be something to these links reasonable.

This is a far cry from believing that one day Bush got up and thought, God you know what I'm going to do with my presidency, I'm going to plan the murder of 3,000 Americans to advance my agenda -- a plan that is so risky and so wildly unpredictable that no man interesting in domination, imperialism or power would ever do it.

To me it just takes far more of a blind leap of faith to believe something like that then it does to keep following the evidence which keeps leading to ineptitude and attempts to hide or downplay US relationships in the middle east and the long history of the US terrorist like intervention in other countries with the help of some pretty unsavory characters -- all of this is well evidenced, and it's really what we should be focusing on. Anything else is a red herring in my opinion.

[YNGW]

41. Perfect!!

>The Bush Administration knows that deep investigating into what is behind 9/11 will reveal a lot of relationships to other people and powers that they would rather keep under wraps. Not, in a criminal conspiracy to blow up the towers sort of way, but in an ongoing mechanism of foreign policy sort of way.

At least that's a reasonable, thought-out proposal. The USA has all sorts of smoke-filled backroom deals with foreign countries. That kind of stuff has been going on for thousands of years, long before America was even "discovered". And if that's the case, it's deeper than the Bush Administration. Democrats and Republicans alike are equally in bed when it comes to these matters. One side has just as much to keep under wraps as the other.

[RH]

66. Indeed

It is astounding to behold the sheer naivety of so many so shocked to learn that the USA employs a secret service.

Where did their preconceptions come from, the Muppet Show?

From the other side of the Atlantic the shock would rather be that so much has been revealed.

[homelandpunk]

91. It takes a blind leap of faith

for me to believe a passenger jet can fit thru a hole a Hummer would barely get thru. Take a look at The Hole. It all falls apart, all of it, once you realize the passenger jet THEY claim went into the Pentagon could not physically make a hole smaller than it's physical properties. It happened within an hour or so of jets hitting the WTC. The assaults are linked by THEM. Problem is, if this one assault, in which THEY say is part of the grand picture of that day, has huge gaping holes of proof and logic and physics, and then proven as false, then the WTC attack, by their linkage is justifiably under high suspicion as well. I don't care if they don't investigate the WTC...let the Pentagon attack be investigated...that is all that is needed. Once that is shown for what it was, it will be self-evident the towers were part of the same sick treachery. And the Pentagon attack has so many proofs that the official story is false as to be incontrovertible...only to the masses who rely on CNN is there this "Bush would not kill 3000 fellow-americans" bullshit ignorance.
Why do you honestly believe they are hindering and obstructing the investigation? Will you answer that? I want to "waste your time" per your own assessment: <<You want to talk about unevidenced, wildly speculative clandestine conspiracy theories, you should do it in some other forum that doesn't waste my time>>
Since you like wasting your time here in this forum (your words, not mine) then please tell me your view as to why they are obstructing the investigation. I can't wait.

[rman]

13. - we could not have known they would do something like this...

.. in spite of many reports indicating the contrary

- there never was a policy to scramble fighter planes in case of suspected highjacking of plane

- Bush business family has no ties with Bin Laden business family

- Bin Laden family did not finance Osama, nor was he trained by the CIA

- the 28 pages missing from the official 9-11 report are irrelevant

- Osama did it so we punisched Afganistan, and Saddam did it so we got him to, but then again there's no evidence that he did.

- it happened because there are evildoers who are just evil because that's what they are, and because we ourselves are incompetent, and it's all just a big coincidence.

- and we needed another Pearl Harbour in order to advance our plans for global domination, so it was in fact "a blessing in disguise".

[skjpm]

26. There's a Far Side cartoon. . .

where a scientist stands in front of blackboard filled with equations. At the end of the equations, he writes, "And then a miracle happens!" That's what I sense in all the non-conspiracy theories. They start logically--"Well, there's this guy in the Mideast who hates us, and he sat in his hole and planned how to crash planes into buildings, and then he sent some of his people to the US to be trained, and they lived here for years with no one being suspicious, and they got past airport security at four different airports, and no one in the government had ever thought that anyone would hijack planes into buildings so there were no precautions taken. . .and. . .and. . .then a miracle happens! So just shut up."

[truthspeaker]

21. I'll bite

Bin Laden "inspired" it, but didn't plan it and may not even have known any details. I suspect Al Qaeda operates more like organized crime than a disciplined paramilitary organization. Bin Laden's role is to whip up inflammatory rhetoric (infidels are desecrating the holy sites of Islam with their presence! The US supports Israel's 'occupation' of Jerusalem!) and provide cash.

Mohammed Atta (and/or some others) planned it in Germany and recruited extremists to do it. I think there were a few trained as pilots who knew the plan and the rest were muscle who didn't know it was a suicide attack.

Unanswered questions:

1) Logan Airport knew of at least one hijacking before any of the planes hit. Why the delay in a US military response?

2) Why the continued delay after the first plane hit?

3) Why did Bush keep reading to kids for 30 minutes after he got the news?

4) Why did bin Laden's family members get special treatment in flying out of the US?

5) Why did the Bush national security team seem so unconcerned with bin Laden's followers prior to 9/11/01?

6) Why is the Bush white house stonewalling the very investigation it ordered?

Possible answers to the above questions:

*Gross incompetence by an administration that's more skilled at spinning perception than dealing with reality and that hates admitting mistakes. (most likely in my opinion)

*The knew some kind of attack was coming and let it happen on purpose, possibly believing the attack would be much less severe. The reason to let it happen is a "Pearl Harbor" scenario to get the American people to accept expanded executive powers, erosion of civil liberties, and a militarily aggressive foreign policy. (I believe this is possible. That doesn't mean I believe it happened, I just believe it could have happened)

*Bushco was behind the whole thing, for the reasons I listed above. (I doubt this one very much)

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skjpm]

28. OK, and once again, what DID happen?

What would a logical, reasonable, non-psychotic person believe?

[WoodrowFan]

33. See official version

The official version is correct, EXCEPT you need top add in ineptness and stupidity. Unless you are racist enoguh to think some silly Arabs are too stupid and unskilled to carry out the attack.


I love these threads, my idiot list (ie ignore list) just gets larger and larger...

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rman]

38. you'll never find out there

Ask anyone who beliefs the official government version, and you'r automatically dealing with complacently naive folks or deliberatly cooperative sociopaths.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rman]

35. what does belief have to do with this?

don't you know that fact can be stranger then fiction?

[RH]

67. Most often

fact is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.

:hug:

[Bridget Burke]

31. Whatever the government decides to tell us.

Don't ask any questions at all. Accept what is offered; if the story changes, forget the old one & embrace the new.

You don't want to make Democrats look bad, do you?

[JHB]

40. This whole thread is an example of what the problem is...

Do we really need to point out that there are different levels of "conspiracy theories" involved, some of which are pretty damn likely and demand close scruitiny, while others are off in harmonic-convergence-land, and not every "official" version comes out of the Bush propaganda mill under orders from der Texazfuhrer.

For instance, at the "reasonable" end (but may underestimate the culpability of the administration) is the proposition that * & crew are arrogant bastards who brushed off terrorism as a Clinton obsession and were caught flatfooted on 9/11, but are also amoral opportunists who have used it shamelessly ever since, but they're covering up their failures past & present.

Further afield (or at least demanding a higher level of direct intentional criminality by the Bushies) but still demanding some hard questions, are things like LIHOP.

And then out past the outfield fence are the "demolition charge" people, who are convinced the damage from plane impacts, fires, and collapses could not have brought about the damage done that day and invoke missiles or demolition charges in the buildings, despite tge lack of evidence to that effect.

Newsflash: all "conspiracies" are not created equal, and just because we don't see pods on planes doesn't mean we think Chim-Chim & the PNAC Gallery have clean hands either.

[Selwynn]

48. Perfectly stated what I believe:

Man, you are my hero:


For instance, at the "reasonable" end (but may underestimate the culpability of the administration) is the proposition that * & crew are arrogant bastards who brushed off terrorism as a Clinton obsession and were caught flatfooted on 9/11, but are also amoral opportunists who have used it shamelessly ever since, but they're covering up their failures past & present.


That is EXACTLY what I think. And I think this, because to the best of my investigation, an honest thoughtful, critically reflective look at the evidence seems to support this.

[rman]

59. yes that needs to be pointed out, since so few seem to notice

-

[leftofthedial]

42. it was a conspiracy

there is no way for the government cover story, or any of the competing theories to be true without a conspiracy.

Nomatter which version of which story you believe, multiple bad guys had to meet and plan it (that is, "conspire"), in order for 9-11 to happen.

[Q]

51. Saying there is no 'conspiracy' is actually a defense of the official...

...position. Caught 'flatfooted'? Sure...the Bushies want you to believe that. Why? Because it makes them look incompetent as opposed to criminal. They want you to scoff at any 'theory' that alludes to complicity or prior knowledge. It doesn't matter that Bush* had a national security briefing right in front of his nose that spoke of flying airplanes into buildings.

- America has become a land of the suckers who will quickly give up their freedom for the illusion of security.

[YNGW]

55. Logical Fallacy

>Saying there is no 'conspiracy' is actually a defense of the official position.


Unsubstantiated Allegation

For more about logic, see:

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

[Q]

58. I'm not going to make it a habit of posting to these threads...

...because it's an insult that many posts have been moved here to get them out of the way.

- A conspiracy by definition can be between two people or between twenty. There are many provable conspiracies among the many theories floating around on this board. That Bush* and Cheney agreed to obstruct investigations of 9-11 is a conspiracy.

- Don't presume to lecture others about 'logic'. It makes you look incredibly naive and out of touch with reality.

[Selwynn]

63. Well, perhaps if you would use some logic...

...other's wouldn't post about it so much.

I like how it makes someone look incredibly naive and out of touch with reality to point out that you are breaking a HARD AND FAST rule of logic in making the statement you did.

It's not like its a subjective definition or anything. You can make whatever argument you want, just to break rules of logic in doing so.

[homelandpunk]

89. So is it logical

to say in one post that these discussions were wasting your time, and then you keep voluntarily posting? You believe we waste your time...in fact you know we waste your time. And you have the power not to come here to waste your time. But you come. You post lengthy posts which must take time to write...not to mention the posts you have to read...lots of time wasted, knowingly, by you.
Please explain why it is logical to waste one's time.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seixon]

68. Just checking...

For all of you saying that Bush & Co were behind this...
bin Laden says on the video that "we planned" this and that, talking about how they planned for the building to collapse only above the floor where the airliner would hit, that this was bin Laden's area of expertise (engineer background?) yadda, yadda, yadda.

So, if the US government was behind this, then bin Laden is on their side, and is lying through his teeth?

Is that what you people supporting the conspiracy that the US government carried out or was behind 9-11 are saying?
Just asking.

[RH]

69. Just checking?

"planned" does not appear at all in the official defense department translation:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/d20011213ubl.pdf

:spank:

The word used is "calculated", e.g. "we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy" which might just as well mean in advance of an official body count. As the news was relayed live on TV pundits were routinely performing similar calculations. Estimations of as many as 25000 deaths were frequent.

[reorg]

70. here is what the guy on the video (whoever it was) didn't say

as shown on German tv in one of the most respected, left-leaning political magazines, "Monitor":

(...)

Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini, one of the translators, states, "I have carefully examined the Pentagon's translation. This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."

Whereas the White House would have us believe that OBL admits that "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy.", translator Dr. Murad Alami finds that: "'In advance' is not said. The translation is wrong. At least when we look at the original Arabic, and there are no misunderstandings to allow us to read it into the original."

At another point, the White House translation reads: "We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day." Dr. Murad Alami: "'Previous' is never said. The subsequent statement that this event would take place on that day cannot be heard in the original Arabic version."

The White House's version also included the sentence "we asked each of them to go to America", but Alami says the original formulation is in the passive along the lines of "they were required to go". He also say that the sentence afterwards - "they didn't know anything about the operation" - cannot be understood.

Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg sums it up: "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it." (...)

http://www.rense.com/general18/inac.htm

[seixon]

72. Ah yes

Monitor.
The ones who claimed that the US used napalm in Iraq and that using napalm was a violation of the Geneva Conventions, neither of which is true. The US used MK77, incindiary bombs, which cannot qualify as napalm due to the lack of benzene... (or was it gasoline?). The Geneva Conventions do not speak of napalm explicitly, so saying that using it, napalm, is in violation of the conventions is a lie.
Anyways...

I was prepared for such a response ("well, bin Laden didn't actually say that").

However, it isn't just the White House who translated the tape, just about every news agency has also done this, and all of those read the same way. Since I don't speak nor read Arabic, I can't really know, and nor do I have any friends who do. Yet, since the Monitor has lied before, I am inclined not to believe their biased and deceptive coverage...

Even if you take out those words that this guy claims weren't in bin Laden's statements, you are still left with him saying he calculated the numbers of deaths, that the floors above the impact point would collapse, and all of this. Removing "previous" or "in advance" doesn't change the overall message.

"we asked each of them to go" and "they were required to go" is tomay-to, tomato. Obviously the translation was done in a manner that would be more understandable to Americans, direct translations end up funny-sounding most of the time. "They were required to go" goes along the lines of their duties in the jihad against America, etc.

Here is an account from ABCNews:

"The tape was released with English subtitles. According to the Pentagon, the translation was prepared independently by George Michael, a translator from the Diplomatic Language Services, and Kassem M. Wahba, the Arabic language program coordinator from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University."

So, you can either believe that or not.
The thing still is, that your source only says that two things were "inaccurate" about the translations, two things that don't matter much about the content of the tape at all.
The rest of it is whining about the US media not "picking up" on that the translations weren't perfectly translated literally...

Gimmie a break.

[reorg]

73. Monitor - very good and reliable German tv magazine

"Monitor. The ones who claimed that the US used napalm in Iraq and that using napalm was a violation of the Geneva Conventions, neither of which is true."

Having checked back with the transcript of this particular show (which you can find at: http://www.wdr.de/tv/monitor/beitrag.phtml?bid=513&sid=100) it appears to me that you are the one who is lying here, and twice in one sentence to boot.

1.

Quote from transcript, Monitor August 7, 2003 (my translation, German original on the bottom of this message)

>>... They are called MK77, an improvement to the Napalm bombs that were used in Vietnam. The US weapons industry uses the same name for both: MK77 (Napalm).

James Snyder, Physicians for Social Responsibility: "There is no difference in the effects of MK77 and Napalm. They are both made for the same purpose. The only difference is in the fuel. Both are supposed to kill as many human beings as possible, bust bunkers and spread fire."

We asked the Pentagon whether these MK77-Napalm bombs were used in Iraq. A spokesperson of the Pentagon stated towards Monitor:

"I can confirm that MK77 bombs were dropped at the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border." And on the question if the MK77 bombs are indeed Napalm firebombs: "MK77 is called Napalm due to the fact that their impact on targets is remarkably similar." <<


In addition, I found at the site of Physicians for Social Responsibility (http://www.psr.org/home.cfm?id=home) searching for "napalm", on page 3 of the "Medact" report: "continuing collateral damage - the health and environmental costs of war on Iraq 2003", table

"Weapons of disputed legality: quantities, incidents and immediate effects":

Type of weapons: Napalm bombs

Official quantities: US Colonel says 30 canisters of napalm
used in 30 days of war (Monitor-TV 7.8.03)

Description of weapon: Mark 77 Firebombs use kerosene instead of petrol; thus Pentagon denies the use of napalm. But MK77 and napalm have exactly the same impact (James Snyder in Monitor-TV 7.8.03)

Targets and specific incidents (deaths and damage caused, when known):
Unknown date: ‘Dozens’ of bombs dropped on bridges over the Saddam Canal and Tigris River south of Baghdad (The Independent 10.8.03)
March 21: Napalm attack on Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill near Kuwait border (The Independent 10.8.03)






2.

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

(http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/3a507447d94ad829c125641f002d2729?OpenDocument)

>>Article 1

Definitions

For the purpose of this Protocol:
1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.


Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.<<


---------------------------------------------------

>>... MK 77 nennen sie sich, eine Weiterentwicklung der Napalm-Bomben, die auch in Vietnam eingesetzt wurden. Die US-Rüstungsindustrie verwendet den gleichen Namen dafür. MK 77 (Napalm).

James Snyder, Physicians for Social Responsibility: "Es gibt keinen Unterschied in der Wirkung zwischen MK 77 und Napalm. Sie sind beide für den gleichen Zweck gemacht. Der einzige Unterschied liegt im Treibstoff. Aber sie sollen beide möglichst viele Menschen töten,
Bunker angreifen und Feuer verbreiten."

Wir wollten vom Pentagon wissen, ob diese MK 77-Napalm-Bomben im Irak zum Einsatz kamen. MONITOR gegenüber erklärt ein Sprecher des Pentagon:

"Ich kann bestätigen, dass MK 77-Bomben an der irakisch-kuwaitischen Grenze abgeworfen wurden." Und auf die Frage, ob es sich dabei auch um Napalm handelt: "MK 77 wird Napalm genannt, weil die Wirkung auf Ziele sich auf bemerkenswerte Weise gleicht." <<

[reorg]

75. more on napalm use in Iraq

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq
By: Andrew Buncombe

Independent, The Date: 08/10/2003

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect." ... more

[seixon]

76. Yeah... and?

I don't care if your grandma calls MK-77 napalm, it isn't napalm by the very definition of napalm, which is:

na·palm: An incendiary mixture of polystyrene, benzene, and gasoline

Yes, MK77 acts similarly to napalm, but it isn't napalm.
A veggie-burger may taste similar to a meat burger, but it isn't a meat burger.

Monitor says "we asked the Pentagon whether these MK77-Napalm bombs..."

The thing is, MK-77 is, from your own source:

"Mark 77 Firebombs use kerosene instead of petrol"

Ooops. There goes the definition of napalm right out the window.

So, as I said, MK-77s are NOT NAPALM. They are firebombs, similar to napalm, but not in fact napalm.

Monitor calling them MK77-Napalm implies that they are in fact napalm, which they are not according to the very definition of napalm.

Was that so hard?

Secondly...

The Geneva convention bans the use of incindiary devices in the cases listed as:

1. To make civilians the target of such devices.
2. To make military objects within a concentration of civilians a target with such weapons.

Now, prove to me that the US did any of those two things, please.

The US has said they used MK-77 firebombs on the Kuwait-Iraq border, MK-77 not qualifying as being napalm due to the lack of gasoline.

In order for this to be a violation of the Geneva Conventions, they must have targeted civilians or targeted military within a concentration of civilians.

You have any evidence to support that this happened?

Are you willing to admit that MK-77 are in fact not napalm, as Monitor vehemently portrayed?

[reorg]

79. Liar, liar, pants on fire ...

In your message #72, in an attempt to slander the German tv magazine, Monitor, you stated the following two blatant lies in one sentence:

"Monitor. The ones who claimed that the US used napalm in Iraq and that using napalm was a violation of the Geneva Conventions, neither of which is true."


You were then shown in my message #73 that Monitor in fact did NOT just "claim that the US used napalm in Iraq" but carefully pointed out that

1. the US military used stuff called "MK77" in Iraq,

2. that this very same stuff is called "napalm" by the weapons industry and those in the military who have to deal with it - even though it is of slightly different composition than the infamous stuff going by that name which was used during the Vietnam war,

3. that independent experts as well as Pentagon spokespersons describe the impact on targets of napalm (as used in Vietnam) as practically identical or "remarkably similar" to that of MK77 (currently called napalm by those in the US military dealing with it and by the weapons industry).

That is a very responsible and informative way to deal with the issue at hand. Several news outlets in the US and in Britain have dealt with it in similar fashion, by the way. All of them pointed out that MK77 is not 100% identical with napalm, but for all practical purposes is, particularly with respect to its impact on targets, "... It s no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."


You apparently don't deny any of this.

So what is your problem, other than your continued attempt to slander a widely respected tv magazine that you obviously know nothing about?



As to your second lie (you said that Monitor "falsely" claims the use of napalm is against the Geneva Conventions): I already quoted to you the protocol wich bans the use of FIRE-BOMBS whenever civilians are in danger to be affected.

Monitor quoted the relevant part of that protocol, added the statement of a law professor to the effect that, in terms of international law, the use of such fire-bombs is ALWAYS problematic, and put this in contrast to a cynical statement made by some arsehole in the US military. Very specific, very appropriate, not one false statement to be found in the Monitor report. And there goes your hare-brained slander.

This is what was actually said:

(my translation, German original below)

>>The images from Vietnam. They finally led to the proscription of such fire-bombs by international law.

"It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons."

Prof. Hans-Joachim Heintze, Bochum University: "Napalm bombs are against international law. They are against international law because they work indiscriminately, they destroy at the same time civilian and military targets, and because they cause unnecessary suffering by the victims of such bombs."

For the US Marines in San Diego, however, napalm is not different to any other weapon.

Joseph Boehm, colonel in the US Marine Corps: "For us this is not very important. We don't consider it very dangerous. I cannot say much about its impact, since I have never been attacked with it. It's certainly lethal, which is why we are using it, but not more lethal than any other weapon." <<
--------------------------------
Die Bilder aus Vietnam. Sie führten schließlich zur völkerrechtlichen Ächtung solcher Brand-bomben.

"Es ist unter allen Umständen verboten, die Zivilbevölkerung, einzelne Zivilisten oder zivile Objekte zum Angriffsziel von Brandbomben zu machen."

Prof. Hans-Joachim Heintze, Universität Bochum: "Napalm-Bomben sind völkerrechtswidrig. Sie sind völkerrechtswidrig, weil sie unterschiedslos wirken, in gleicher Weise Zivilisten und militärische Ziele beschädigen, und weil sie unnötige Leiden bei den Opfern dieser Bomben hervorrufen."
Für die US-Marines in San Diego jedoch ist Napalm eine Waffe wie jede andere.
Joseph Boehm, Oberst US Marine-Corps: "Für uns ist das nicht so wichtig. Wir halten es nicht für sehr gefährlich. Zu der Wirkung kann ich nicht viel sagen, denn ich bin damit noch nicht angegriffen worden. Es wirkt wohl tödlich, deshalb benutzen wir es ja, aber nicht tödlicher als andere Waffen."

[reorg]

74. omygod

"it isn't just the White House who translated the tape, just about every news agency has also done this, and all of those read the same way."

Any quotes, links or whatever to prove this claim? Or did you just make it up?



"Since I don't speak nor read Arabic, I can't really know, and nor do I have any friends who do."

I can believe that.



"Yet, since the Monitor has lied before, I am inclined not to believe their biased and deceptive coverage..."

Hu? Since we have established in my message #73 that it is you who is lying about MK77 etc and not Monitor ... I am still at a loss why someone on DU would slander a very respectable (in my humble opinion indeed the MOST respected in Germany), slightly left-leaning (but hardly radical) mainstream political magazine.



"Even if you take out those words that this guy claims weren't in bin Laden's statements, you are still left with him saying he calculated the numbers of deaths, that the floors above the impact point would collapse, and all of this. "

Yes, but that's hardly proof of anything. I also calculated the number of deaths, thought about why and when the towers would collapse, many times over.



"Removing "previous" or "in advance" doesn't change the overall message."

Or so you would have us believe. Of course, it changes everything if the idea was to prove FOREKNOWLEDGE with that dubious movie.



"... The thing still is, that your source only says that two things were "inaccurate" about the translations, two things that don't matter much about the content of the tape at all."

No, you didn't pay attention. Monitor cited these as examples only. After having two Arabic native speakers, professional translators (Dr. Murad Alami and Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini) and a widely known Arabist authority in Germany, Professor, Gernot Rotter, examine the video independently from each other, these experts stated that ALL parts that were supposed to prove Bin Laden's foreknowledge were translated incorrectly. Says Professor Rotter:

"The quality of this tape is so bad that it is impossible to understand large parts of it. And that what you can understand is often so much out of context that it is impossible to construe it to be proof of anything. The American translators who listened to and transcribed the tapes obviously wrote things into them which they wanted to hear. However -- even after listening many times, these things cannot be heard on these tapes."
--------------------------------
"... Dieses Band ist von einer so schlechten Qualität, dass es streckenweise überhaupt nicht zu verstehen ist. Und das, was zu verstehen ist, oft aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen ist, dass man daraus kein Beweismittel konstruieren kann. Die amerikanischen Übersetzer, die die Bänder abgehört haben und transkribiert haben, haben offensichtlich an vielen Stellen Dinge hinein geschrieben, die sie hören wollten, die aber so - auch nach mehrmaligen anhören, nicht zu hören sind."

[seixon]

77. Alright then

Two people were hired to translate the tapes independently with the Pentagon, and there was nothing to prevent any news agency from translating it on their own. The State Department released an Arabic transcript as well.

You haven't established anything in regards to message #73, as you failed to even get the point of why MK-77 can't be called napalm, and that Monitor calling them napalm is a lie. They also said that use of this violated the Geneva Conventions, which it does if you use incidiary devices IN CERTAIN MANNERS, which you still haven't proved the US did anyways.

How did you calculate the number of deaths of an attack you didn't even know was going to happen? Why would you calculate the numbers of deaths as it was happening? bin Laden says several times that they "planned" for it to happen in this and in that way. He even says names of people involved in planning and carrrying it out. You won't find any Arabic-speaking people who deny that bin Laden says these things in the tape. The one on Monitor was nit-picking on literally translating what was said, which doesn't change the overall message of the tapes that they in fact planned the 9-11 attacks.

Why would you plan something without having foreknowledge? Obvioulsy you plan something before it happens... LOL

Yes, large parts of the tapes were very hard to understand. That is why the original transcripts released in the US were only partial transcripts of the tape. The tape lasted for like close to an hour, yet the transcript only translates a small part of that, the one that was most audible.

Monitor cited those examples, yet the thing is, those examples don't undermine the translated transcript's message and theme.

If you take out "in advance" it doesn't really change what is said.

You still have bin Laden saying they planned for this and that, that his expertise helped him account for this and that aspect of the attack, etc.

You wouldn't be talking like that unless you were the one planning it.

And still, Monitor lied about MK-77 being napalm. Come to grips with it man.

Napalm has three components: polystyrene, gasoline, benzene.

Unfortunately, MK-77 doesn't have gasoline, therefore it cannot be called napalm.

[RH]

78. Where?

"You still have bin Laden saying they planned for this and that,"???

:shrug:

MY search of the defense department version discovered no trace of "planned"

[plaguepuppy]

81. With all this quibbling about translations

We might ask is the tape itself seems authentic. It was awfully convenient to what Bush needed at the moment, and the quality was up to the usual shoddy standard of this bunch. Looks like a crude forgery to much of the world, US excepted.

http://www.rense.com/Datapages/binl.html


"Speaking both as an American and as an Arab I must ask my reader not to underestimate the kind of simplified view of the world that a handful of Pentagon civilian elites have formulated for US policy in the entire Arab and Islamic worlds, a view in which terror, pre-emptive war, and unilateral regime change -- backed up by the most bloated military budget in history -- are the main ideas debated endlessly and impoverishingly by a media that assigns itself the role of producing so-called "experts" who validate the government's general line. Reflection, debate, rational argument, moral principle based on a secular notion that human beings must create their own history have been replaced by abstract ideas that celebrate American or Western exceptionalism, denigrate the relevance of context, and regard other cultures with contempt."

Preface to Orientalism, 7 August, 2003

Edward Said died on 25 September, 2003.

[RH]

90. It is not about translation.

It is about integrity.