IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Debunking 9/11 Myths

Beached
post Dec 2 2006, 04:50 PM
Post #21





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Michael Chertoff's connection to Popular Mechanics editor Ben Chertoff

911Myths Claims:

QUOTE
We never actually thought to doubt this claim, simply believing it irrelevant. The piece needs to be judged on its contents, not the surname of one of those involved. But then we heard a suggestion that Benjamin Chertoff denied the story altogether, so decided to email him to hear what he had to say. Was he really related to Michael Chertoff? And if he wasn't, then how could he explain the quote from his mother?

This is what he had to say.

Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I'd heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we'd already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only "Chris"), she said "they might be distant cousins." Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context. (Another case in point: Bollyn called me earlier and asked "Were you the senior researcher on the story?" I said, "I guess so," -- that's not a title I have ever used, nor is it at all common in magazine journalism, but I was the research editor at the time, so it kinda made sense.) Nonetheless, I was one of 9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story.

Chertoff paints a very different picture from the original story. Some will say he’s lying, of course, but in that case it shouldn’t be too difficult to prove: go to it. And in the meantime, this acts as a useful reminder to everyone, including us: don’t take any 9/11-related claims for granted, whether they come from someone on your “side” of the argument or not."


Our Take:

Mike's claim that he had no reason to doubt Benjamin's relationship to the Department of Homeland Security chief is a faux humility on his part. It functions to create the impression that he is an honest researcher who does not jump to conclusions, and restricts himself to statements that he can support with well-informed arguments. However, as we've seen throughout this thread, this is far from reality.

Benjamin's claim that Bollyn introduced himself to his mother as only "Chris" fly’s in the face of those who know Bollyn personally. Bollyn has always been known to addresses himself formally and as a journalist.

In fact, Bollyn has strongly denied the accusation that he took Mrs Chertoff's words out of context. He called Benjamin Chertoff's mother and asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff. His mother said that they were cousins. Now, let's make this very clear... she didn't say that they "might be distant cousins", nor did she say that they were 2nd or 3rd cousins, she simply said that they were cousins. In fact, her very words were "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."

Is Benjamin a liar? Is his denial merely a rhetorical tactic intended to quell accusations of nepotism, and to cast doubt upon Bollyn's integrity? It shouldn't be too difficult to prove: compare Bollyn's articles with the yellow journalism Benjamin employed in the 9/11 piece and you'll have your answer.

Look into the facts, do your own research, be discerning, and make up your own mind.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 08:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 3 2006, 08:59 AM
Post #22





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Taking FBI Agents off the Bin Laden Family Trail

911Myths Claims:

QUOTE
This story came about through a BBC Newsnight report with Greg Palast. Here’s one take on it, from the Times of India

America was itself to blame for the events of September 11 because the US administration was using "kid gloves" in tracking down Osama bin Laden and "other fanatics linked to Saudi Arabia", a special BBC investigation has alleged in a damning indictment of the two presidents Bush and American foreign policy.

The report, which the BBC claimed was based on a secret FBI document, numbered 199i wf213589 and emanating out of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, alleged that the cynicism of the American establishment and "connections between the CIA and Saudi Arabia and the Bush men and Bin Ladens" may have been the real cause of the deaths of thousands in the world trade centre attacks.

The investigation, which featured in the BBC’s leading current affairs programme, Newsnight , said the FBI was told to "back off" investigating one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers, Abdullah, who was linked to "the Saudi-funded World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation...
http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cm...t_id=1030259305

Impressive stuff, and this is just a part of it. We'd strongly recommend you read the full article above, and the transcript of the original Newsnight program at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm .

What you'll find in that transcript is The Big Palast Discovery...

Newsnight has obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of other members of the] Bin Laden family for links to terrorist organisations before and after September 11th... for some reason, agents were pulled off the trail
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm

What you won't find is exactly what Palast means by "before 9/11", and when the agents were "pulled off the trail".  Presumably because the date was September 11th 1996 ( see http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a96wamy and a partial scan of one of the pages at http://www.gaianxaos.com/SpecialReports_files/199I-WF.htm ). Which means that Clinton took the FBI agents off this case, and not Bush. Or at least would have done, if there were any evidence of Presidential involvement at all (there isn't).

So what exactly is there to justify the "Bush took FBI agents off the bin Laden family trail" claim, then?  Just this, right at the end.

Palast:
I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence agency. He tells me that while there's always been constraints on investigating Saudis, under George Bush it's gotten much worse. After the elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents. I'm told that since September 11th the policy has been reversed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm

If you've been lead to believe that the FBI case mentioned earlier was closed down by Bush, then this seems like the final nail in the coffin. But once you know that happened under Clinton, then this is just a second-hand account of a comment from an unnamed source: it may be accurate, it may not.  There's no way to tell, and it's certainly not sufficient to prove the original claim.

[Not everyone feels this way, of course. In fact some people actually misinterpret this to the point of taking the 1996 FBI case number, then describing it as a “Bush Executive Order” telling the FBI to “back off bin Ladin”. Click here for a list].


Our Take:

Mike is referring to an executive order called W199i, which was signed by Clinton. He claims that it has been misinterpreted as signed by Bush, and points out that the date Newsnight were referring to was actually September 11th, 1996.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a96wamy

However, what Mike doesn't tell you is that it was signed back into place by George Bush 5 years later.

Here is a section of the W199i document from Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy":

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/W199I.gif

The following footnote accompanies the document:

The designation "199" means "national security matter." This is a first of over 30 pages of documentation obtained by the BBC and the National Security News Service (Washington) indicating that the FBI was pulled off the trail of "ABL" (Abdullah Bin Laden) on September 11, 1996 - and reactivated exactly five years later. According to agents and higher level sources in the CIA who spoke with us, before the attack on the World Trade Center, these cases were shut down for political reasons. While President Clinton "constrained" investigations of alleged Saudi funding of terror networks and the making of the "Islamic" atomic bomb, Bush "Jr" effectively "killed" those investigations - until September 2001.

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 08:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 3 2006, 11:17 AM
Post #23





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



PNAC

911Myths claims:

Mike claims that there is nothing sinister in the PNAC document, especially the oft cited quote from the section entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

QUOTE
Plenty of people share this interpretation of the quote. Here’s a few other takes on it.

The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/...l_harbored.html

The victims of the 9/11 attacks have been disaster for Muslims because 19 Arabs were named as hijackers of the planes, but they've been a dream come true for the PNAC 'think-tank' whose 2000 Statement of Principles stated a "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" would advance their policies, i.e. justify wars and "regime changes".
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_reichstag.html

There is circumstantial evidence that some part of the US administration was involved in the attack. It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor,3 in order to provide the impetus for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.
9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions
Frank Legge, Journal of 9/11 Studies
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Demol20Legge.pdf

Fetzer: Jim do you know the exact part of the New American Century where that shows up?

Marr: Well, it is in there. Basically, and I am paraphrasing. Maybe at the next break I’ll have a chance to find that. It’s thoroughly covered in my new book “The Terror Conspiracy”. What it is, is that the authors of this report for the New American Century called “Rebuilding America” state that we need to invade Afghanistan, have a regime change in Iraq and increase military presence in the Middle East. Exactly echoing Cheney’s words, but they were a little bit astute, they said that this is going to be kind of a tough sell unless there is a “catastrophic and catalyzing event like Pearl Harbor”.

Fetzer: Like a New Pearl Harbor, exactly.

James Fetzer radio interview with Jim Marr(hour 2)
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html

So the first quote tells us it’s about war in Iraq and huge increases in military spending, the second says it’s about justifying war and regime changes, the third and fourth link the quote to war on Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems there’s broad agreement, so can they all be wrong? Let’s see.

First, the actual full quote is this.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

The odd word here seems to be "transformation". What do they mean? Let's look back to the beginning of the same chapter.

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".

So "transformation" refers to the process of introducing more information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with that? Nothing at all. In fact, the attacks demonstrated that one of the PNAC's pet schemes, a global missile shield, is entirely useless when planes can become bombs.

Now, it’s certainly true that Bush has continued to fund it, and with significant budget increases immediately post 9/11, but who says he wouldn’t have done so anyway? The reality is that the attacks themselves only give ammunition to his critics. And some of them had it immediately:

Some elected officials got the message. Sen. Carl Levin told Rumsfeld at a June 2001 hearing that we were lavishing money on missile defense and not "putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security ... like terrorist attacks."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...INGQ58FN831.DTL

So how did 9/11 make Levin look wrong, and the Bush administration right?

Back to the PNAC, where there's still the "Pearl Harbor" aspect. What did they mean by that? We can get an indication from the one other sentence in the document that uses the phrase.

"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age".

The use of Pearl Harbour here means "a form of attack which we don't have the technology to counter", which now lets us make more sense of the first quote. All they're saying is that "the process of updating the US military will take a long time, unless the problems are made apparent by an attack that reveals our technical failings". 9/11 undoubtedly revealed failings in intelligence and response on the day, but nothing that matches the PNAC’s agenda. There’s no military technology fix that would have prevented it.

What about the other claims? 911Truth say the document wants Hussein to be "toppled immediately". Other sites also claim the PNAC wanted war with Iraq, but what do they say in the document?

"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene."

Not much demand for his removal there. What about Syria, Iran, or other countries that aren’t so popular in the White House?:

"...according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America – North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad".

And did the neo-cons want these regimes to be destroyed? Wrong again, this sentence appeared in a chapter recommending that America develop a global missile shield. The shield is required because these countries exist.

Now, we’re not saying that the PNAC didn’t see 9/11 as presenting opportunities (in fact some of the members said publicly that it did). It did deliver increased military spending, of course, but that isn’t purely what the PNAC were after. They’re after targeted spending on new technologies, not simply more money. After the Pearl Harbor quote, for instance, the document reminds us it recommended a decision to “suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production”, and mentioned that the “Joint Strike Fighter... seems an unwise investment”. Yet as we write, 4 years on, neither issue is resolved:

Different versions of the Joint Strike Fighter are being developed for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines, and there have been discussions that one of the models could be eliminated. The Pentagon also could delay the development of the next generation aircraft carrier - the CVN 21 - which is scheduled to begin construction in 2007.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...cs/13079279.htm

Where we do think people really oversell this quote is in portaying it as some spookily accurate piece of foreknowledge, that the “New Pearl Harbour” was to justify regime change, war in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East. That really is a step too far, as you’ll find out if you download "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and read if for yourself.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm


Our Take:

How Mike could even attempt to defend the PNAC almost defies belief. While the PNAC did not predict a New Pearl Harbor, they claimed one would be needed for their plans to come to place. Let's take a closer look at the PNAC document:

"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification. The need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
(Page 26, Rebuilding America's Defenses)

"Establish Four Core Missions For U.S. military forces:

* defend the American homeland;
* fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"
(Page 11, Rebuilding America's Defenses)

1. The U.S. is now playing a permanent role in Gulf regional security.

2. The U.S. is now involved in multiple wars one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq, and most probably soon Iran.

Now the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" states:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
(Page 63, Rebuilding America's Defenses)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf

The PNAC document requires the U.S. to be involved in multiple wars, and therefore we need to ask ourselves if the U.S. would be in Afghanistan had 9/11 not occurred?

Since the official purpose of invading Afghanistan was to capture Osama Bin Laden, the answer is no.

Although hardcore neo-conservatives will debate this, the U.S. wouldn't be in Iraq either if 9/11 hadn't occurred. Mike also claims that the last thing the PNAC would want would be war as it would hurt the military, however, you need to ask yourself this:

Is it not true that U.S. Military spending has increased as a result of the so-called "War on Terror"?

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 11:41 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 3 2006, 02:41 PM
Post #24





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Cell Phone Calls at Altitude

911Myths Claims:

Mike claims that cell phone calls are possible from altitude, and provides several articles to back this up (see below).

Our Take:

From the evidence put forth by Mike, it would seem that in theory cell phone calls are possible at altitude, however, having studied several independent experiments, it would seem that in practice this is easier said than done:

Project Achilles Report Parts One, Two and Three
by A.K. Dewdney
http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm

Cell Phone Experiments in Airliners
By Germar Rudolf
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/3/Rudolf271f.html

"Cell phones traveling in airliners can get a service signal at heights up to some 6,000 ft, but it is not possible to make a connection, at least not while traveling at the usual cruising speed of a normal airliner (500-550 mph). Since in all cases (if at all) connections could only be established well after the pilots have pulled out the landing gear at some 2,000 ft and at a cruising speed of 230 mph or less, it seems safe to conclude that in summer of 2003, no connection could be made with a cell phone from an airliner flying in the U.S. when above an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) and when traveling with a speed over 230 mph. Considering the fast descent of the planes and the fact that they kept slowing down as they approached the runway, the height at which a connection could be established might actually be as low as 1,500 ft (457.5 m), and the speed around 200 mph."

So far the evidence for being able to successfully place a call above 6,000 ft is not very compelling. To investigate this further, let's look at some of Mike's evidence:

"Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations... From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added."

So, Alexa suggests that calls may be possible at altitude, however, she doesn't specify how high. According to Marco Thompson of the San Diego Telecom Council:

“Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.” The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so. “Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says. “At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes."

He suggests that "it may work momentarily while near a cell site", however, explains that due to the speed of the airliner, the hand-off process is more difficult.

So far the experts' opinions are consistent with our own observations.

However, Mike presses on with an excerpt from the New York Times:

"According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."

The New York Times are claiming that older phones which operate on analog networks can be used up to a maximum altitude of 10 miles. Great! So that must mean my Motorola StarTAC 130 (purchased in 2000) will work at full cruising altitude? At least I should be able to get a signal?

Wrong! In an effort to investigate, I surreptitiously tried calling my voicemail while flying several routes. As soon as I got above the low-level clouds (7,000ft approx) I had absolutely no service whatsoever.

So, it would seem that the opinions of the "industry experts" were purely theoretical.

Mike's last "substantial" piece of evidence is the following excerpt from an FCC study in 2000:

"An FCC study in 2000 found that cell-phone use aboard aircraft increases the number of blocked or dropped calls on the ground. That's because at high altitude, cellular signals are spread across several base stations, preventing other callers within range of those base stations from using the same frequencies."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

The article mentions cell phone use at "high altitude." However, you will see that the term "cell phone use" is ambiguous to say the least, and certainly doesn't imply the sending and receiving of calls.

When you first power up your phone, it will automatically attempt to communicate with local base stations. Cellular signals will be sent out for as long as the phone remains on, regardless of whether a call is being placed. http://www22.verizon.com/about/community/l...,1008z2,00.html

Therefore, it is most probable that these were the "cellular signals" detected from the ground. It's certainly one of the main reasons the FCC made the rule requesting all cell phones to be turned off while in the air. Does everyone remember to switch off their phone before take-off?

Furthermore, cell phones can store address books, games, music and more. There's ample reason for a person to switch on a phone without intending to place/receive a call. Also, bear in mind many older phones did not have a "flight safe mode".

The FCC study merely suggests that cellular signals have been detected from above base stations, nothing more.

We know that some of the alleged cell phone calls of 9/11 took place at full cruising altitude. One such call, a voicemail message left by CeeCee Lyles was apparently made from around 20,000ft. If you listen to the call, you will hear that the reception was incredible! However, neither Mike, nor any other proponent for the official story has put forth any evidence to explain this.

Mike rounds it off with several vague, anecdotal tales of cell phone use aboard commercial aircraft. However, none of these are specific as to the altitude or airspeed. Hardly convincing.

After reviewing Mike's evidence, we must conclude that he puts forth a very poor argument. As with many things, what is possible in theory will not necessarily work in practice. If Mike wishes to persue the claim further, he will need to conduct some experiments of his own to prove his point.

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 08:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 4 2006, 11:27 AM
Post #25





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Removal of Bomb Sniffing Dogs from the WTC complex

911Myths Claims:

The idea that all bomb-sniffing dogs were removed appears to be incorrect. Mike refers to the following quote:

"Police K9 Sirius... ...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. Sirius, along with his partner, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center in New York, where their primary duty was to check vehicles entering the Complex, clear unattended bags and sweep areas for VIP safety...
On the morning of September 11, 2001, Sirius and Officer Lim were at their Station located in the basement of Tower Two..."
http://www.novareinna.com/bridge/sirius.html

Mike claims that: "Presumably there would have been at least one other dog in tower one, perhaps others working different shifts. It looks like these at least were fixed and not wandering the building, but this would still pose a problem for vehicles bringing explosives. Maybe the WTC wasn't quite so insecure, after all."

Our Take:

Let's take a look at Mike's source:
http://www.novareinna.com/bridge/sirius.html

Firstly, Sirius, the only dog reported on site, only checked for explosives in the parking lot. Mike's argument that other dogs had to be on duty lacks any supporting evidence. Also, note that this article refers to the presense of Sirius on September 11th, 2001. It says nothing of whether Sirius had been on duty in previous days, nor does it specify whether Sirius had actively been searching for explosives that day.

By the morning of 9/11, all explosives would have been placed in the Towers. At the time of the first explosion, Sirius was "locked in his six-foot by ten-foot crate" and was later found dead in his kennel.

Furthermore, the site referenced by Mike does not have any contact information whatsoever. At http://www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org/sirius.htm the following quote was added to the story:

" ... one must have gotten by us."

...which is missing from this site:
http://www.novareinna.com/bridge/sirius.html

However, this site contains a quote missing from http://www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org/sirius.htm:

"I'll be back to get you,"

... which is very strange, and suggests that it is probably not the most reliable source.

Even if the "WTC wasn't quite so insecure", the WTC was still insecure! Bomb sniffing dogs were called off, and the only dog on site that day would only patrol the parking lot!

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 08:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 4 2006, 04:38 PM
Post #26





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Bin Laden's Denial of Involvement in 9/11

911Myths Claims:

QUOTE
The denial most commonly quoted comes from an interview by a Pakistani newspaper, the Daily Ummat.
The paper quoted bin Laden as saying: "Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida is involved in the attacks and the US has traced the attackers within America.

"The attackers could be anybody, people who are part of the American system yet rebel against it, or some group that wants to make this century a century of confrontation between Islam and Christianity," he said.

Referring to evidence obtained by American intelligence, bin laden said: "Ask this question to these intelligence agencies that get billions of dollars every year."

Ummat quotes bin Laden as saying: "We are against the American system but not the American people. Islam does not allow killing of innocent people, men, women and children even in the event of war."
http://web.archive.org/web/20010929010503/.../sm_410936.html

This is fairly unequivocal, and many people ask why would he deny responsibility for the attacks? Well, maybe because the Taliban were reportedly always against them, and understandably didn't want to be bombed into oblivion by the US. Perhaps they pressured him into issuing this statement. Perhaps they even made it themselves, after all no-one at the Daily Ummat actually met bin Ladin for the interview:

The newspaper says it submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010929010503/.../sm_410936.html

What’s more, if bin Ladin admitted the attacks immediately then he instantly gave America a pretext for war. By denying them he ensures a degree of uncertainty, meaning the US will be criticised if they begin any attacks.

There may arguably have been similar reasoning behind a statement to CNN, where bin Ladin specifically defended “the current leader” of Afghanistan:

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

Hamid Mir, bin Laden’s Pakistani biographer, revealed a very different story in account given to Peter Bergen:

I was not ready to say that bin Laden is involved in the [9/11] attacks. You see, I was questioning the assumption that he is involved. When I visited Afghanistan, I spent some days there, I was totally changed because I saw the pictures of Atta [the lead hijacker] hanging in the [al Qaeda] hideouts. Privately they admitted everything. They said, they [who attacked on 9/11] are our brothers, but they said that “When the Americans kill Muslims in Sudan, they don’t admit that we are responsible for the attacks. When the Indians kill Kashmiris, they don’t admit that we have killed them. So now this is our turn. We have killed them and we are not going to admit that.

My tape recorder was on and one very important al Qaeda leader he turned off my tape recorder and said, “Yes, I did it. Okay. Now play your tape recorder.” I played the tape recorder and he said “No, I’m not responsible”.

Hamid Mir interview with Peter Bergen, Islamabad, May 11 2002 and March 2005
Chapter 10
The Fall of the Taliban and the Flight to Tora Bora
The Osama bin Laden I Know
Peter L Bergen

This approach didn’t last for long, though. Soon after the initial denial, both bin Ladin and other Al Qaeda members have made many admissions that variously accept that Muslims were involved, that they were those named by the US, or that Al Qaeda were directly responsible.

7th October 2001: bin Ladin

In this statement he appears to be saying that the attacks were committed by Muslims, and threatens the possibility of more

When Almighty God rendered successful a convoy of Muslims, the vanguards of Islam, He allowed them to destroy the United States...

I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God's peace and blessing be upon him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/south_asia/1585636.stm

October 9th, 2001: Suleiman Abu-Ghaith

Just in case that’s not enough, another Al Qaeda spokesman makes the threat explicit:

"He issued a chilling warning to the U.S., saying there would be no peace until it stops supporting Israel and ends blockades against Iraq.

"The youths who did what they did and destroyed America, they have done a good deed," he said. "The storm of airplanes will not stop. There are thousands of young people who look forward to death like the Americans look forward to living."
www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2001/10/09/alqaeda_warn011009.html

14th October: Suleiman Abu Ghaith

And the same message is repeated a few days later. Why would someone who knew nothing of, and disagreed with the attacks threaten more?

Finally, I address the US secretary of state, who cast doubt about my previous statement and downplayed what we said that there are thousands of Muslim youths who are eager to die and that the aircraft storm will not stop, God willing.

"Powell, and others in the US administration, know that if al-Qaeda organisation promises or threatens, it fulfils its promise or threat, God willing.

"Therefore, we tell him tomorrow is not far for he who waits for it. What will happen is what you are going to see and not what you hear.

"And the storms will not calm, especially the aircraft storm...

We also say and advise the Muslims in the United States and Britain, the children, and those who reject the unjust US policy not to travel by plane.

We also advise them not to live in high-rise buildings and towers...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/1598146.stm

27th December 2001, bin Ladin:

"Those who carried out the act (September 11) were not 19 Arab countries... they were 19 secondary school students..." He then went on to say how they should all become martyrs, ie: "Another, Muhammed Atta came from Egypt. We beseech God to accept them all as martyrs".
www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin_122701.pdf

February 2002, bin Ladin:

Now he appears to be accepting that the attacks were carried out by the Muslims named by America, but claims he did no more than "incite" them:

"What many leaders have said so far is that America has an indication only, and not a tangible proof. They describe those brave guys who took the battle to the heart of America and destroyed its most famous economic and military landmarks.

They did this, as we understand it, and this is something we have agitated for before, as a matter of self-defense, in defense of our brothers and sons in Palestine, and to liberate our sacred religious sites/things. If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists".
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf...ript/index.html

April 4th, 2002: al Qaeda statement

The first charge of the heroes of the New York and Washington attacks was obedience to all of their orders, an obedience that was established before their departure to the enemy's land, beginning with the hero Ahmad al-Ghamdi, may Allah almighty have mercy on him...

We have put forth this directive in order to deliver a new blow to America and to expose to the world the fallacy of the American propaganda which claims it has irrefutable evidence regarding the warriors (mujahideen) who carried out the operation. It claims it has twenty-four thousand threads leading to knowledge of the agents of the operation. But what appears to it as evidence is weaker than a spider's web, and the American case cannot rely upon it to indict the suspects, let alone convince the world with it. In this directive we say to America that hiding all trace of the agents of the operation was not something we considered. Rather, some of the heroes were intent on leaving Islamic fingerprints on the operation. This is a new blow received by the American security agency that has looked here and there in confusion unlike anything ever seen before. On account of the hunt for a trace of the heroes who entered their country, noses have sniffed with honor and pride.

[there then follows a lengthy justification explaining why they claim the attacks were permissible under Islam]

These comments about the permissibility of the martyrdom operations in the attack of New York and Washington are taken from the book The Truth about the New Crusader War. Whoever wants further evidence and a detailed discussion of the matter should consult the entire book.
http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol...306_alqaeda.asp

Why are al Qaeda writing about and naming a “hero” of 9/11 if they don’t know anything about it? Doesn’t the statement “hiding all trace of the agents of the operation was not something we considered” indicate their involvement? Why are they bothering to justify the attacks (and write a book about them) if they had nothing to do with it?

No, this is clear acceptance of al Qaeda involvement. Read a detailed analysis of the statement here.

April 2002, Ahmed al-Haznawi:

"For the first time, one of the 19 suicide hijackers involved in the September 11 attacks has been shown explaining his motives, with the broadcast yesterday by an Arab television network of a videotape made last year by a man identified as a Saudi conspirator.
The Qatar-based al-Jazeera station named the man as Ahmed al-Haznawi - a hijacker on United Airlines flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11. He is shown angrily reciting a prepared statement, which al-Jazeera described as a last will and testament".
www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,685127,00.html

September 10th, 2002: bin Ladin and others

"Two days before the anniversary of the September attacks and at a time the U.S. is using its war on terror to launch an attack against Iraq, Qatar’s Al-Jazeera satellite channel on Monday, September 9, aired video-clips in which it says Osama bin Ladin claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on the United States"...

Apart from Atta, bin Ladin named Lebanese Ziyad al-Jarrah, Marwan al-Shehhi from the United Arab Emirates, “who destroyed the second tower” of the World Trade Center, and Hani Hanjour (from the Saudi city of Taef) “who destroyed the Pentagon.”

Al-Jazeera showed photographs of Hamza al-Ghamdi (alias Julailib al-Ghamdi), Saeed al-Ghamdi (alias Mutaz al-Ghamdi), Wael al-Shehri (alias Abu Suleiman) and Ahmad Naami (Abu Hisham), whose names, like those cited by bin Ladin, figure on the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) list of hijackers.

Al-Jazeera also aired footage of one of the hijackers saying in his “will” that he was trained by Laden.

“May God reward all those who trained me and made possible this glorious act, notably the fighter and mujahid (Islamic warrior) Osama bin Ladin, God protect him,” said Saudi kamikaze Abdul Aziz al-Omari.

Al-Omari, who according to the FBI was one of five hijackers who slammed an American Airlines Boeing 767 into the north tower of the World Trade Center, was shown wearing a grey robe with his shoulder-length hair turbaned in a keffiyeh (chequered headdress).

The September 11 attacks were “a message to all infidels and to America to leave the Arabian peninsula and stop supporting the cowardly Jews in Palestine,” he said.

“Let it be known that we can bring you and other enemies down,” Al-Omari said, addressing the United States.
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2...article02.shtml

September 2002: Ayman Al Zawahiri

it is imperative that we acknowledge the victory achieved by the Muslims against the Crusader forces, in New York and Washington... This small group, in numbers and equipment, were able to inflict immense slaughter on the greatest idol worshipped today, despite its power and arrogance...
http://www.mediareviewnet.com/translation_...%20zawaahri.htm

October 2002: Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

In an interview by Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda, Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed admit responsibility for 9/11, and describe their planning. These interviews were audiotaped, and segments broadcast on Al Jazeera.

“Immediately, Khalid introduces himself as head of the military committee of Al Qaeda,” says Fouda. “That committee actually was the arm of Al Qaeda, which decided, first of all, according to Khalid, to strike America inside America and to eventually choose the targets, which were actually hit on Sept. 11.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/08/...ain524794.shtml

In the second part of a documentary aired by the Arabic television news network Al-Jazeera, two al Qaeda terrorists wanted by the United States give an account of their planning of the September 11 attacks and describe the actions of some of the main hijackers in their final days...

About three weeks before September 11, targets were assigned to four teams, with three of them bearing a code name: The U.S. Capitol was called "The Faculty of Law;" the Pentagon became "The Faculty of Fine Arts;" and the North Tower of the World Trade Center was code-named by Atta as "The Faculty of Town Planning."

One of the terrorists, Abu Abdul Rahman, pretended to send a love message via an Internet chat room to his German girlfriend, who was actually Binalshibh. It contained more code for the attacks:

"The first semester commences in three weeks. Two high schools and two universities. ... This summer will surely be hot ...19 [the eventual number of hijackers] certificates for private education and four exams. Regards to the professor. Goodbye."

Soon after, Fouda says, the hijackers began "moving fast," picking the flights to be hijacked, choosing ones involving large planes with "maximum volume of fuel and best punctuality."

Seats in business class were chosen for some to allow for "mobility and maneuverability," according to Binalshibh.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/0...laim/index.html

March 2003: bin Ladin

...because of the way they oppress us in the Muslim world, especially in Palestine and Iraq, and because of their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Places... the Mujahideen... decided to act in secret and to move the battle right into his [the U.S. president's] country and his own territory.

They carried out the raid by means of enemy planes in a courageous and splendid operation the like of which mankind had never before witnessed. They smashed the American idols and damaged its very heart, the Pentagon. They struck the very heart of the American economy, rubbed America's nose in the dirt and dragged its pride through the mud. The towers of New York collapsed, and their collapse precipitated an even greater debacle: the collapse of the myth of America the great power and the collapse of the myth of democracy; people began to understand that American values could sink no lower. The myth of the land of freedom was destroyed, the myth of American National security was smashed and the myth of the CIA collapsed, all praise and thanks to Allah.
http://memri.org/bin/opener.cgi?Page=archives&ID=SP47603
http://www.robert-fisk.com/englishtext_usa...e_14Feb2003.htm

May 2003: Ayman Al Zawahiri

Learn from your 19 brothers who attacked America in its planes in New York and Washington and caused it a tribulation that it never witnessed before and is still suffering from its injuries until today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3047903.stm

September 21, 2003: Abu Muhammad al-Ablaj

Abu Muhammad al-Ablaj, "the man in charge of training in al-Qa'ida", describes bin Ladin as "the one who destroyed its economic pride, sullied its military dignity and wrecked the impregnable Pentagon fortress". Also says of "The September Team": the soldiers of The Most Gracious who implemented are gone to their Lord in that regiment. The brains that plan still remain".
http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/09/21/alqaidas.html

August 2004: Abu-Jandal

The former personal bodyguard of bin Ladin and leading Al Quaeda member in Yemen says "among the elements that carried out the September incidents I knew Muhammed Atta..."
http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/08/03/binladin.html

October 30th 2004: bin Ladin

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind..."

"And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children"
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm

September 12th 2005:
American Al-Qaeda operative Adam Gadahn:

Four years after the blessed raids on New York and Washington, we find the people of the West continuing to speculate about the causes and objectives which lie behind those historic events and subsequent developments. We find them in disagreement over the nature of the people who carry out operations like those on September 11th, March 11th, and July 7th, the nature of their motives, and the nature of the demands they harbor, if any. And most crucially, and as a result of their speculation and disagreement, we find them uncertain about which steps or actions they must take to achieve the restoration of the security they once enjoyed.

Allah is our witness that the numerous audio and videotapes issued by Sheikh Osama bin Ladin, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the other leaders of the jihad have... been released to explain and propound the nature and goals of the worldwide jihad against America and the Crusaders and convey our legitimate demands to friend and foe alike...

As Sheikh Osama has told you repeatedly, your security is dependent on our security. You can't have one without the other. If you ensure our security, you will have automatically ensured your own.
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=850


Our Take:

First of all, when Ayman Al Zawahiri or other figures in the As-Sahab videos acclaim sole responsibility for 9/11 it is a figment of their imaginations. In fact, to label these men delusional is an understatement. These men know full well that they have no ability to live and breathe without intelligence (Mossad, CIA, ISI, GID) help. Hence, they are applying the Al Harb Al Khida role (war is deceit) for many purposes:

1. To further their goal and to be the "legitimate authority" in the Muslim World.

2. To push their "covert" ideology (Wahabism) and gain mass appeal.

3. To boost the morale of the weakened, colonized, oppressed Muslim nations. In other words, to exploit their feelings.

4. To fool the world, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that they are an established unit or foe that is capable of masterminding these events.

5. To instill fear. This helps to perpetuate the myth that the"war on terror" is real and legitimate.

6. While they know that they are a tool of Western propaganda and are no "real" threat, yet due to the weakening of the Muslim nations, they play a "deceitful" role purposefully and portray themselves the as a formidable foe due to desperation on their part primarily.

If the mysterious and ever elusive "Al Qaeda" were as they appear, they would debunk every claim that is thwarted at them. So why don't they do it? I believe reasons 1-6 provide a satisfactory answer.

Furthermore, the organization known as "Al Qaeda" does not even exist. Literally translated as "the database", it was actually the computer file of the thousands of Mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Soviets back in the 1980's.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/...1523838,00.html

It has since been coined as a collective term for loose knit terror cells, the majority of which are guided by the Pakistani ISI, Mossad, Saudi GID, MI6 and the CIA.

Former French Military Intelligence official, Pierre Henry Bunel, explains that "Al Qaeda" was an early form of intranet, used by Islamic nations and influential families to communicate with each other. This was also used by Bin Laden to send covert messages back to his CIA handlers from Afghanistan.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=1291

More on "Al Qaeda" can be found in the 2004 BBC documentary, "The Power of Nightmares". You can watch the relevant excerpt here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY

We strongly encourage you to obtain and view the complete documentary.

With regards to the apparent "9/11 admissions" by Bin Laden, let's look at these idividually:

7th October 2001 - In this statement Bin Laden appears to be claiming that the attacks were committed by Muslims. He threatens the possibility of more, however, Bin Laden does not take responsibility for the attacks of 9/11.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/south_asia/1585636.stm

27th December 2001 - In his last authentic statement, Bin Laden states that: "Those who carried out the act (September 11) were not 19 Arab countries... they were 19 secondary school students..." However, he does not take responsibility for the attacks of 9/11.

Since Bin Laden's statement of December 27th, 2001, none of his later videos or audio tapes have been confirmed as authentic.

Numerous Intelligence agencies have commented on the supposed Bin Laden videos, and most of them have confirmed the Bin Laden tapes to be fake. They have compared the voiceprint to actual recordings of Bin Laden, and have stated that this is clearly not Bin Laden in the videos. Many of the videos have actually been compilations of footage from the 1980's...

A French terrorism expert, Roland Jacquard, head of the International Observatory on Terrorism based in Paris, told French radio that these tapes were mostly a collection of old footage and soundtracks:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,...1040347,00.html

In fact, the evidence strongly suggests that Bin Laden died in December, 2001:

"Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication.

With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/11/opinion/...todaysheadlines

Bin Laden has often been reported to be in poor health. Some accounts claim that he is suffering from Hepatitis C, and can expect to live for only two more years. According to Le Figaro, last year [2000] he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to his base at Kandahar in Afghanistan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/stor...,584444,00.html

In response to the December 2001 video, Peter Bergen of CNN stated that, "This is a man who was clearly not well. I mean, as you see from these pictures here, he's really, by December [2001] he's looking pretty terrible."
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/02/01/gen.b...cnna/index.html

According to the Telegraph, "The [December 27, 2001 video] was dismissed by the Bush administration ... as sick propaganda possibly designed to mask the fact the al-Qa'eda leader was already dead. 'He could have made the video and then ordered that it be released in the event of his death,' said one White House aide."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/28/wbin28.xml

Pakistan's President Musharraf said that he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/...arraf.binladen/

Afghan President Hamid Karzai claimed that Osama bin Laden is "probably" dead.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/...arzai.binladen/

The FBI counter-terrorism chief, Dale Watson, says he thinks Osama bin Laden is "probably" dead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2135473.stm

The a London-based Arab news magazine claimed that a purported will it published was written in late 2001 by Osama bin Laden, and shows that "he's dying or he's going to die soon."
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/1.../binladen.will/

According to FOX News: "Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. 'The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead,' the source said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

A Funeral Article was published by the Egyptian Paper: al-Wafd, on Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633:
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m275/be...000/funeral.jpg
The translation reads:

"News of Bin Laden's Death and Funeral 10 days ago: A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death."
http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/

And according to Israeli intelligence: "Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen: Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December. They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications, Middle East Newsline reported."
http://216.26.163.62/2002/me_terrorism_10_16.html

So, in light of his death, it seems highly unlikely that any of Bin Laden's alleged statements made post December 2001 would have been authentic.

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 11:43 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 4 2006, 04:49 PM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Beached. .you da man! good work...

cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Dec 4 2006, 05:02 PM
Post #28


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Beached is kicking some serious ass. Go head Beached.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 4 2006, 05:48 PM
Post #29





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Thanks guys! cheers.gif I want to try and get the important stuff done a.s.a.p. since the rest of Mike's site is mainly strawmen like "the was no 757 wreckage at the Pentagon" etc.

Just wondering, do you guys think it's worth turning his strawmen into a valid claim such as "no Boeing hit the Pentagon" or just not bother with the strawmen and merely focus on the more important points?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 4 2006, 06:05 PM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Focus on important stuff. .stick to facts... my 2 cents.. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 5 2006, 06:49 AM
Post #31





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 4 2006, 10:05 PM)
Focus on important stuff. .stick to facts... my 2 cents.. wink.gif

Agreed! cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 5 2006, 08:57 AM
Post #32





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Automated Control of the 9/11 Aircraft

911Myths Claims:

QUOTE
Remote control of large planes isn’t in itself a new idea. Successful tests have been carried out long ago, for example this experiment in 1984. However, some go further and say the Boeing 757 and 767 come with this ability already.
"The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury... No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.”
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=Ne...le=print&sid=48

Unfortunately, it's mostly nonsense. The Boeing 757 and 767 do have autopilot, but turn it off and you can do what you like.  What's more, the 757 and 767 do not have "fly by wire" capabilities (their control systems are mechanical, not electronic, with cables and hydraulics to move the control surfaces).  The only plane that did at the time was the 777, and even this could be overridden by the pilot.

"On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.
"It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority.""
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml

But okay, let’s take this further. Maybe the planes were modified to be remote controlled.  After all, America has remote controlled planes like the Predator and Global Hawk, so why couldn’t the technology be applied here?

Some people point to the planes final movements as indications of remote control.  They talk about last minute corrections as planes flew into the WTC, or the difficulty of flying low-level into the Pentagon, as being far beyond the capabilities of the inexperienced hijackers. So is this really plausible?

We say no. Problem  #1 is the major modifications that would be necessary to the plane, and the control system.  You’d need several cameras mounted on the plane to show the “remote controller” what was going on, too, and a transmission system to send images back, and receive commands.  All to be achieved without anyone noticing.

But that’s only the first issue. Consider this press conference reply from American General Ronald Keys:

Q: Referencing the E-10, if we can control a Predator from Nevada, why do we need to put a battle staff airborne in the E-10?

General Keys: Well, you can control them, but for example, we missed shooting down a MiG-25 during the war because of the latency in the system. We had the Hellfire-armed Predator up and the MiG-25 was coming in to intercept and we had him locked up, but by the time we had fired the missile, he had started his turn and so he broke lock. The reason was there's about a several second delay in the latency.
http://www.afa.org/Media/scripts/Keys_AWS05.asp

The “latency” the General refers to here is the delay any remote controlled plane faces. To take an example of flying into the Pentagon, what would happen if you appear to be coming in too low?  First, there would be a delay while the cameras on board the plane processed the image. There’s then a delay while the image is transmitted, and another while it’s displayed to the remote pilot. There’s a natural delay while he reacts to the situation, then another in transmitting his commands back to the plane, and another while it adjusts the control surfaces accordingly.

How long is this delay, in total?  The general says “several” seconds, and that’s based on current technology, not anything available in 2001. But let’s be generous, and say the latency adds just an extra two seconds to a pilots response time.  What does that mean for the 9/11 flights?

A little math begins to make it clear. At a flight speed of 500 mph, say, our planes would be covering 733.33 feet per second. In other words, even on our generously low estimate, they would fly 1466.33 feet, heading for a third of a mile, before they could possibly even begin react to anything the remote pilot has seen. Any sudden reactions in the final fraction of a second, as has been claimed at the WTC, just don’t look possible by remote control. In fact, they more than anything indicate the presence of a real, live pilot flying the aircraft.


Our Take:

While the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are not "fly-by-wire" in the same sense as the more recent 777's; according to Boeing, they can be flown entirely under the control of their Flight Management Computer Systems (FMCS):

"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/a...background.html

Boeing also provides information on the ease of reprogramming various systems including the FMCS:

"Airplane systems that can be modified with loadable software are standard on several later-model Boeing airplanes (see table 1). This feature allows operators to change the configuration of loadable systems without physically modifying or replacing hardware components. Benefits include the ability to meet new requirements, incorporate design improvements, and correct errors. In addition, software often can be loaded just in the time required to turn an airplane around for the next flight. A major advantage of changing system functionality without changing hardware is the reduced number of line replaceable unit (LRU) spares both operators and Boeing must keep in stock."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/a...background.html

So, if the FMCS had been hacked to take control of the aircraft, then the only remaining problem would be the flight crew attempting to override this. However, had the crew and passengers been incapacitated, the FCMS would have been able to fly the aircraft directly into their targets.

One way the crew and passengers may have been taken out is if the cabin were filled with a potent gas at a predetermined point in flight. Since pressure variations are a predictable behavior of changing altitude, a barometric-triggered device could have been used.

The scenario of the aircraft flying under the control of the FMCS seems the most likely, however, as Mike has brought up the subject of remote control, let's look into this too...

Interestingly, British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that, the 757 and 767 flight control computers incorporate a feature which enables them to be remotely controlled, for the purpose of aborting hijackings. In a January 2002 interview, Former German secretary of defense, Andreas Von Bulow claimed that this technology has existed for decades. He also said that if such systems were operative on 9/11, they should have been used to take control of and land the hijacked jets.
http://911review.com/articles/vonbuelow/tagesspiegel.html

More on this system can be found here:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/home_run.htm

Regardless of whether this feature had already been incorporated into 757 and 767 aircraft, the possibility of such a modification is not at all far fetched. Furthermore, Mike's claim that the flights could not be remote controlled, as last minute corrections would be prevented by a time delay is also fallacious.

Here is Mike's source:

"Q: Referencing the E-10, if we can control a Predator from Nevada, why do we need to put a battle staff airborne in the E-10?

General Keys: Well, you can control them, but for example, we missed shooting down a MiG-25 during the war because of the latency in the system. We had the Hellfire-armed Predator up and the MiG-25 was coming in to intercept and we had him locked up, but by the time we had fired the missile, he had started his turn and so he broke lock. The reason was there's about a several second delay in the latency."
http://www.afa.org/Media/scripts/Keys_AWS05.asp

General Keys was referring to a missile lock broken due to the MiG-25 turning before they had a chance to fire. In other words, this was an unpredictable moving target! Had the MiG-25 been static, it is unlikely that the remote pilot would have had the same problem. Under those circumstances, an experienced military pilot could have easily taken the time delay into consideration.

The only 9/11 plane which hinted at a last minute correction was Flight 175 just prior to impacting the South Tower. However, WTC 2 was a very large, stationary target.

It is clear that while the aircraft was flying a straight path into the tower, it was descending too rapidly, and therefore, the remote pilot needed to pitch up slightly. Had the aircraft pitched-up several seconds earlier, it would have hit WTC 2 higher up, closer to where Flight 11 impacted WTC 1. Furthermore, it would appear that the upper floors were the intented target, and thus strongly suggests that the late change in altitude was due to a poor estimation of the time delay.

Had a correction been made by a kamikaze pilot in the last seconds of his life, due to the intensity of the situation it is more than likely that he would have pitched-up too far, and over-exaggerated the maneuver.

However, the impact video hints at another possibility - What was thought to be a "correction" to the trajectory of Flight 175, may not have been a correction after all. Had the aircraft been flying under the FMCS, then this maneuver may have been a part of the pre-defined route, taking the aircraft through the tower. Since this took place just prior to impact, it is easy to see how this could have been misinterpreted as a "correction".

If you believe that there were real, live hijackers in control, then you have to ask yourself how these men, without any training in flying 757/767 aircraft, could have flown these at full-throttle, and with such skill and precision into the Twin Towers.

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 08:39 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 5 2006, 04:29 PM
Post #33





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Coleen Rowley, and the FBI's Sabotage of the Moussaoui Investigation

911Myths Claims:

Mike claims that in her letter, Rowley's phrase, "deliberately sabotage" has appeal for those who want to believe in a Government conspiracy, however this is not her view at all:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_whistleblower1.htm

Mike claims: "Plenty of institutional reasons why the FBI behaved as it did, then, without requiring foreknowledge of or complicity in the attacks."

Our Take:

So, as with everything, Mike's excuse is incompetence. Isn't that the same excuse given for the stand down? Isn't that the same excuse given for pretty much everything relating to 9/11, the so-called "war on terror" and The Bush Administration? It's amazing how incompetent these people can be when it comes to incidents from which they stand to gain.

Did you hear about the time the US Military accidentally airlifted 8,000 members of the Taliban and "Al Qaeda" to safety?

"NEW YORK, Nov. 29, 2001 - The United States took the unprecedented step this week of demanding that foreign airlines provide information on passengers boarding planes for America. Yet in the past week, a half dozen or more Pakistani air force cargo planes landed in the Taliban-held city of Kunduz and evacuated to Pakistan hundreds of non-Afghan soldiers who fought alongside the Taliban and even al-Qaida against the United States."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340165

Can anybody else see what's wrong with this picture? Anybody at all??

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 08:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Dec 5 2006, 05:06 PM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Slow down, Beached, I can't keep up with you! (this is all getting linked)
biggrin.gif

Great stuff.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 5 2006, 05:09 PM
Post #35





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



HEHEHE... Well, I'm planning on taking a break from this over the Christmas holidays! But I still have a few more to go... biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 6 2006, 09:56 AM
Post #36





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



The "Put" Options and Unclaimed UAL Stock

911Myths Claims:

QUOTE
This is a complex story, but the reality is a little different from the claims.

Although there were high volumes traded on these days, for instance, they weren’t as exceptionally high as some sites like to claim. Here’s one analysis.

There were very good reasons to sell American Airlines shares, too, as they’d just announced a string of bad news. Read more here.

United Airlines stocks were falling in price, too. If investors anticipated they were about to release bad results then their put options would also be worth buying (although keep in mind that the UAL put volumes weren’t the highest in the year anyway). Here’s our thoughts.

Some point to stories like the “unclaimed millions” from UAL puts as having a sinister explanation, but we disagree.  Here’s why.

There was plenty of talk about potential insider dealings in other stocks, too.  We haven’t researched these in any depth, but it’s worth pointing out that some people believe the claims were overblown.

What about most of the options being put through a CIA-linked bank?  We weren’t convinced.

The 9/11 Commission Report mentions this issue in its notes to Chapter 5:

"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10...

Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10th was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades".

Some suggest they should have paid more attention to it, but we’re not entirely sure why.  As you can see from the other links here, the UAL trades weren’t exceptional, and there was news to justify the sale of American Airlines shares.  Foreknowledge of 9/11 isn’t required to explain these trades.


Our Take:

Firstly, let's take a look at how the 9/11 Commission Report responded to the issue of insider trading on 9/11 (chapter 5, note 130):
QUOTE
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options--investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price--surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10--highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).


So, according to the 9/11 Commission, "Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11."

What was the reason for the Commission's claim that "the trading had no connection with 9/11"? Because these trades were made by "a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda". That means the investigation is blocked for the reason that the trail doesn't lead to the largely mythical Al-Qaeda! What is that for an "investigation" when the result stands before the investigation has even begun?

The commission are claiming that a "single U.S.based investor... purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts".

Therefore, as this turned out to be only one company, how could such a claim be made that said trading is referred to a general fall of airline-options and a general recommendation made by a trading newsletter? That fact that 95% of the put options were purchased by one investor is proof that this options-trade wasn't result of general business. This investor had a very special interest in these put-options. Who was this single investor?

The bank which purchased 95% of the UAL-Put-options was Alex Brown Inc, headed until 1998 by "Buzzy" Krongard, who became executive director of the CIA in March 2001 (resigned December 2004). Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc, America's oldest investment banking firm. Alex Brown was acquired by Bankers Trust, which in turn was bought by the German Deutsche Bank. His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust – Alex Brown's private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.

Now, as we've just seen that the Commission Report contradicts itself, let's look directly at these suspicious trades:

On Sptember 10th, 1,535 contracts changed hands on options that bring a profit if AMR stock falls below $30 per share before Oct. 20. That was more than 60 times the previous daily average, according to a Bloomberg analysis of options market data (BLOOMBERG NEWS, Sept.20, 2001, also CBS News, Sept.26,2001)

In "Unusual Options Market Activity with an Application to the Terrorist Attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" by Allen M. Poteshman of the University of Illinois, the author states:
QUOTE
"When the option market activity in the days leading up to the terrorist attacks is compared to the benchmark distributions, the volume ratios and call volume indicators are seen to be at typical levels. The indicator of long put volume, however, appears to be unusually high, which is consistent with informed investors having traded in the option market in advance of the attacks."


According to Bloomberg News, Sept.20, 2001, October $30 put options for UAL soared, with 2,000 contracts traded on Sept. 6, three trading days before the attack. That was 285 times the previous average trading.

According to CBS News, Sept. 26, 2001, there has been a jump in UAL put options 90 times above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.

The Put/Call Ratio for UAL was 25 times higher than normal:


But there were more suspicious trades before 9/11:

On 21 September 2001, the Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, states in the report entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" :
QUOTE
„Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45.00 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6.“


That means 719 daily average the last three day before 9/11, compared to 27 daily average. That's 26 times more than before. The report goes on:
QUOTE
„Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45.00 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in these options had been 252 contracts per day“

That's 12 times more than the previous average volume.
QUOTE
Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened.

Again, Bloomberg News, Sept.20, 2001:
QUOTE
Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack, had about 45 times the normal volume during three trading days before the attack for options that profit if the stock falls below $40. Citigroup shares fell $1.25 in late trading to $38.09.

„European regulators are examing trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster.... It is not clear if any trades in these stocks ring alarm bells.“

Also, note that German central bank president Ernst Welteke reports that a study by his bank indicates,
QUOTE
„There are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge“,
not only in shares of heavily affected industries such as airlines and insurance companies, but also in gold and oil. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/01] His researchers have found
QUOTE
almost irrefutable proof of insider trading“ [Miami Herald, 9/24/01]. „If you look at movements in markets before and after the attack, it makes your brow furrow. But it is extremely difficult to really verify it.“
Nevertheless, he believes that
QUOTE
„in one or the other case it will be possible to pinpoint the source.“ [Fox News, 9/22/01]
Welteke reports
QUOTE
fundamentally inexplicable rise
in oil prices before the attacks [Miami Herald, 9/24/01] and then a further rise of 13 percent the day after the attacks. Gold rises nonstop for days after the attacks. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/01]

There were also other suspicious winners of 9/11:

Raytheon saw its stock rise immediately after the attack. Purchases of call options on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on the day before the attack.
QUOTE
A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. A contract represents options on 100 shares. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U.S. trading. Bloomberg News, 10/3/01


Five-year US Treasury notes were purchased in abnormally high volums before the attack, and their buyers were rewarded with sharp increases in their value following the attack.
QUOTE
The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2 that the ongoing investigation by the SEC into suspicious stock trades had been joined by a Secret Service probe into an unusually high volume of five-year US Treasury note purchases prior to the attacks. The Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade. As the Journal explained: "Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks." The value of these notes, the Journal pointed out, has risen sharply since the events of September 11.Suspicious trading points to advance knowledge by big investors of September 11 attacks, wsws.org, 10/5/01


In conclusion:

1. A jump is seen in United Airlines put options. This is 90 times above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack. In the case of the UAL put options, even Mike admits that, "[he] cannot definitively show why the UAL put options were purchased".

2. A jump is seen in American Airlines put options. This is 60 times above normal on the day prior to the attacks.

We should also consider that while the American Airlines shares were falling in price, if we look at the share prices, we will see that their decline in previous months was not as dramatic as Mike makes out:

According to Mike's chart, between July 16th and September 10th 2001, the price of AA stock fell from $38 to $29.95. However, if we review the complete history, we will see that between June 26th and July 16th, the opening price had gone from $32.50 - 38.00, where it peaked. Of course, Mike begins his chart from July 16th, thus presenting the illusion of a more dramatic, long-term decrease!

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=AMR&a=08&b...e=30&f=2001&g=d

From July 16th there had been a gradual decline in price, albeit very slow. Considering none of Mike's evidence suggested a huge plummet on the horizon, the sheer volume of put options purchased appears to be overly speculative.

To put this into perspective, we should consider that the price of Continental Airlines stock was also in decline. This was also the case with many other airlines. In 2001, Continental stock fell from $51.85 on July 16th, to $39.75 on September 10th. In fact, it fell further than the American Airlines stock in less than 2 months!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=CAL&a=08&b...e=30&f=2001&g=d

The Continental share prices followed a similar pattern to those of American Airlines, however, no similar trades occured on this airline, or any others in the days immediately prior to 9/11.

3. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co, which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 26 times in the purchase of put options on its shares. 2,157 of its October $45 put options were purchased in the three trading days before Black Tuesday. This compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. In the aftermath of the attacks, Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50.

4. Merrill Lynch & Co., whose headquarters were near the Twin Towers, saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put opinions in the four trading days before the attacks. 12,215 of their October $45 put options had been bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day. That's an increase of 1200%!

5. A jump is seen in Raytheon call options, more than 6 times their daily average

6. Extraordinary high volumes of trading is seen in both gold and US Treasury notes.

What a coincidence! In the days prior to 9/11, a large spike is seen in the stock of American and United Airlines, together with several other businesses also to be directly affected by the disaster!

Don't you think there should be a real investigation, even if the result would be that the investors have "no conceivable ties to al Qaeda"?

This post has been edited by Beached: May 6 2007, 08:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 6 2006, 12:39 PM
Post #37





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Ok, I think I've covered most of the important stuff, and so I'm going to take a break until the new year! Having trawled through Mike's site, the rest are strawmen and idiotic "claims" such as:

"The Pentagon had foresight of AA77's impact because they had a drill of an aircraft crashing into their building"

..to which Mike's reply is something like...

"The Pentagon is near a major airport and so such drills could normally be expected"

What a stupid strawman/reply! It debunks the strawman of "foresight", however, it doesn't mean they hadn't envisioned such a scenario!! laugh.gif

Interestingly, I also noticed that he's updated his Hanjor "debunk" and now conceeds that it was a 330 degree turn. Hmmm.. I wonder if we've had a secret the govt loyalist site visit? dunno.gif

But the rest of it is still the same crap about how he had to make the turn to be able to "find" the Pentagon! [laugh] I noticed there's now even a link to a pseudo "expert" (and probably a closet JREFer) "backing it up"! laugh.gif

This post has been edited by Beached: Dec 6 2006, 05:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
conspiracy_chest...
post Dec 6 2006, 10:26 PM
Post #38





Group: Newbie
Posts: 463
Joined: 22-November 06
Member No.: 252



I missed what a the govt loyalist site is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 6 2006, 10:37 PM
Post #39





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (conspiracy_chestnut @ Dec 7 2006, 02:26 AM)
I missed what a the govt loyalist site is.

the govt loyalist site are the Randi cult tongue.gif I think it stands for James Randi Educational Foundation
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 7 2006, 10:03 AM
Post #40





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



I was just looking at the 911myths FAQ page and this cracked me up...

QUOTE
What do you think happened on September 11th?

I think the attacks were carried out by al Qaeda, and involved the 19 named hijackers.


[laugh]

There is no way a genuinely intelligent, critical thinker could believe such tripe! On his website, he conveys himself as a seemingly intelligent individual, especially in his manipulative style of writing, which is why his "takes" appear so convincing. However, it's only when people carefully dissect, and analyze what he's written, that it becomes apparent that most of it is nonesense.

Interestingly, his FAQ goes on to say:

QUOTE
Why spend so much effort on this?

Why do you ask? Oh, I know. It’s the old one where anyone who spends a lot of time promoting a particular 9/11 theory is A Fearless Seeker After Truth (even if their site is packed with “Donate” buttons and invitations for you to “buy the book/ DVD/ video”), but anyone who spends the same amount of time on the other side of the argument is A Government Shill/ Paid Disinformation Agent, right?

Well, believe what you like, but I do this because I enjoy it. It’s an interesting exercise in collecting information online, and sharpens my research skills. Plus I didn’t see anyone else bothering to do the same thing (plenty of sites making these claims, not so many questioning them), so arguably the site is performing a useful function as well. Although that’s really just a side issue: I’m doing this for me, not for anyone else.


Well, despite what Mike says, his motivation is too suspicious. He blindly accepts the "official" fairytale despite the many holes in the story. However, when it comes to an alternative explanation, he follows the Randi methodology; dictating that unless full confessions are provided by all parties involved, he denies all possibility.

There is no way he could be so obtuse, unless it were deliberate. However, the top of his FAQ may hint toward his true motivation...

QUOTE
Who are you?

I'm Mike Williams, a software developer and freelance writer from the UK.


Could he be doing this on behalf of a particular client? Considering his talent for spin, Mike could even give "Mein Kampf" an innocuous twist! laugh.gif

Well, if he is doing this on behalf of a client, it may be one who pays very well...

... but of course, I may be wrong, and it may turn out that Mike is just a misguided fool, however, as with everything else, common sense dictates taking an alternative explanation into consideration.

This post has been edited by Beached: Dec 9 2006, 10:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd August 2019 - 12:37 PM