Posted on 07/29/2002 5:51:10 PM PDT by mhking
I participate on a TV geek-type message board based in the UK. Generally, conversation talks quite a bit about the various news channels and how they present the news. Most of the time I don't have a problem with folks over there; I try to stay away (on purpose) from political discussions, because primarily they always fall into a mindset of 'the US is bad and evil, and we (the UK) are right' which does nothing but tick me off. The latest vitriol from there has me fuming to the n'th degree. They traditionally seem to hate FNC, and the other US TV networks as well - short CNN (some of the time). As you could imagine, in their collective mind's eye, BBC is 'God' and everyone else in the 'news game' is stupid. That is bad enough. The larger problem is demonstrated by the post I've got listed below. Some people there imply that what the US government is doing is 'evil' and even go as far as to imply that the US government had something to do with the events of 9/11. I'm beyond anger, and as a result, I'm not posting there at present.
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women children and common people..."
Questions about the events of September 11
BBC LDN
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 290
Right.
I have rather a lot to say on this matter, because my work is currently directly related to it, and as such I have been doing rather extensive research on it.
So... let's start here:
The person who, shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center, was announced as "the prime suspect" (without any evidence being publicised) was Osama bin Laden, who has made no secret of his animosity toward the US for its support of Israeli subjugation of the Palestinians, for what he sees as the Americans' defilement of Saudi Arabia (the location of two of the three holiest Islamic sites), the continued bombing of Iraq, and the Americans' support of the (what he believes to be) apostate regimes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The contempt with which the US is regarded by certain Arab organisations, and the involvement of Arabs in the ineffective bombing of the WTC in 1993, means that Arabs are automatically suspected in any terrorist attack against the US (as they were in the Oklahoma City bombing, until the US Government announced that Timothy McVeigh was the culprit.
Within hours of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, the mainstream media whores were quoting "Government sources" as stating that Osama bin Laden was the likely culprit. As the WTC bombers intended, most Americans (and indeed most of the world) immediately believed this claim, and now regard him as the perpetrator of this atrocity and the entire Arab world as their enemy - a reaction welcomed by many in Israel. Many people in Arab countries also believe he did it, because for them Osama bin Laden personifies the resentment against American exploitation of the third world which they themselves feel. But although he praised the attacks themselves, bin Laden has never said that he was behind the attacks himself; indeed, he has explicitly denied this:
-- Osama bin Laden, interview with Pakistani newspaper Ummat (Karachi), September 28 2001
After one of the video broadcasts from Al-Jazeera (which, it has been suggested even by the Western media, may have been an American forgery, since Osama bin Laden is shown wearing a US Army jacket - much as if Churchill had delivered his wartime speeches wearing a swastika armband and the uniform of a Luftwaffe colonel), Condoleeza Rice declared that this was an "admission" by bin Laden of responsibility for the attacks. It was not, but by claiming it was, she maintains the focus on "Arab terrorists", for whom no satisfactory evidence of implication has ever been publically presented.
Several thousand civilians died in the collapse of the WTC towers, and dozens of military personnel were killed in the attack on the Pentagon - though the numbers are small compared to:
the hundreds of thousands of civilians incinerated in the US fire bombings of Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo, and in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
the two to five million post-World War II refugees from the Soviet Union who were forcibly returned to Stalin, to face either immediate execution or a slow death in the Gulag, on the orders of Roosevelt and Eisenhower in Operation Keelhaul
the millions of civilians who died from hunger and disease as a result of US-instigated mass starvation of Germans during 1945-1950 under a plan overseen by Henry Morgenthau
the hundreds of thousands of Native Americans killed by white settlers in the 19th century or allowed to starve to death by the US Government in the 20th century
the murder of between 20,000 and 40,000 Vietnamese military personnel and citizens from 1968 to 1971 by the CIA in their political assassination program, Operation Phoenix
the million or so Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians killed by the American military in the 1960s and 1970s whilst defending their countries from American domination (or simply because they happened to be where the Americans carried out their carpet bombings)
the 200,000 civilians killed (using US-supplied equipment) as a result of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in 1975, for which prior approval was given by the then US President and US Secretary of State (Ford and Kissinger)
the six million Brazilian Indians who have died as a result of the policies of American multinational corporations
the 10,000 to 20,000 people - mostly civilians - killed in the US-supported invasion of Lebanon by Israel in 1982
the 6,000 (perhaps as many as 20,000) Iraqi civilians killed during the 41 days and nights of bombing by the British and the Americans in 1991 (during which time the civilian infrastructure was targeted - this is in itself a war crime)
the tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts slaughtered on the "Highway of Death" by US Navy pilots during their attempted retreat from Kuwait in 1991 (another war crime because the soldiers killed were not in a combat situation)
the tens of thousands of civilians in Sudan who have died due to the absence of medicines resulting from the destruction of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant by American cruise missiles in 1998, and from the economic sanctions imposed on Sudan
the one to two million Iraqi civilians, two-thirds of them children, who have died in the last ten years as a result of the effects of tons of cancer-causing depleted uranium left over from the million or so exploded rounds of ammunition used in attacks by American warplanes in the 1991 American/British 6-week campaign against Iraq, and from the subsequent US/British-imposed economic blockade.
This is what the American people choose to ignore. The sheer arrogance of the American citizens is beyond comprehension, the overwhelming air of supremacy and delusions of utter innocence, astounding.
There is no denying that, whoever was responsible for the attacks - and as my opening paragraphs suggested, the exact identity of the perpetrators remains questionable - they were atrocious, but what is almost more shameful is the American attitude that they did nothing to deserve it, that they, the great American people, were attacked completely without provocation or reason. Yet they utterly fail to understand that the attacks - if indeed they were conceived by the Arab world - were a reaction to American foreign policy, to years of interference and ill-considered boosting of their own interests abroad, NOT an unprovoked, incomprehensible, meaningless act of terrorism.
America expresses outrage at the deaths of several thousand of its citizens, but ignores responsibility for the deaths of tens of millions of civilians at the hands of its military and its CIA - and still expects-- no, DEMANDS the world's sympathy for its loss.
On September 11, I will pay my respects to the innocent victims of the attacks, for those that were killed were not warriors on a battlefield, but people going about their own business - even if, for most of the victims, that business was taking place in the greatest symbol of America's conceit and self-interests, the vast business centre encased in a monumental duolith showcasing the United States' capitalist mindset and sheer arrogance.
But it was tragic that so many had to die. The great sadness is that the ignorance continues; September 11 did not 'hammer the point home'; rather it propagated an even greater ignorance of America's own culpability for its actions, and developed it further to include total blind advocation of anything and everything proposed by the US Government under the banner of the "war against terrorism".
In view of the $30 billion given annually to the FBI, the CIA and other US intelligence agencies, why were these agencies so completely unaware of this conspiracy before they saw its results on CNN?
Why has the apparent incompetence described above been rewarded with yet more billions of dollars?
The four United Airlines and American Airlines jets took off with an average occupancy of 27%. That four airliners from the top airlines leaving from the East Coast around 0900 on a weekday for the West Coast would all have such low occupancy is unlikey. Why was this?
Why would hijackers intending to crash planes into the WTC hijack jets taking off from Boston, rather than from somewhere nearer such as JFK in New York, which would conserve fuel aboard, thus maximising destruction?
Why would hijackers intending to crash a place into the Pentagon hijack a jet from Dulles Airport, and allow it to fly for an hour away from its target before turning around and flying another hour back to it (knowing that military jets during this time could have been expected?
American Flight 77 (the jet which supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, although evidence for this is somewhat sketchy) was hijacked at about 0900, at about the same time as the WTC impacts, and its change of course back towards Washington, or its transponder being turned off, would have been known to flight controllers, who were aware of the impacts; why then were US Air Force jets not scrambled to intecept AA77, when there were US Air Force jets at seven locations normally ready to take off at ten minutes' notice, and when particularly the Pentagon, Capitol Hill and the White House were unguarded potential targets for a plane acting suspiciously shortly after two other aircraft were used as makeshift missiles elsewhere?
Where are the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder (the black boxes)? These black boxes are designed to survive any crash. Have they been examined by experts from the National Transportation Safety Board, the American agency which usually investigates plane crashes? If not, why not?
In particular, what is on the CVR and FDR from United Flight 93, the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania? Were there any recorded radio transmissions from this jet just prior to its crash, and if so, what were they? Why, exactly, did this jet crash?
"Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from where UA93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06am Tuesday." (--Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 13 Sep 2001) If the plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes , when there was only a 10mph wind blowing? (For wind-borne debrus to travel six miles in, say, six minutes, requires a 60mph wind.)
Why did President George W Bush do nothing (except listen to a little girl's story about her pet goat) during the thirty minutes between when he was informed that the second jet hit the WTC and the Pentagon impact?
Why did the significantly less badly damaged South Tower collapse first, 47 minutes after it was hit, rather than the North Tower (which was hit first and collapsed 104 minutes after being hit, even though the fire (and damage caused by the initial impact) in the North Tower (the alleged cause of the collapse) was much more intense?
Would a limited amount of jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (some 1538°C/2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and ALL the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 47 minutes? If so, wouldn't the twin towers have buckled and bent, and toppled over onto the surrounding buildings of the Lower Manhattan Financial District, rather than collapsing neatly upon themselves in the matter of a controlled demolition?
Why were such huge quantities of ash and dust produced? How could fire convert concrete into dust? Has the ash been chemically analysed to determine what it really is, and how it might have been produced?
Why were no aircraft fragments, identifiable as coming from a Boeing 757, recovered from the Pentagon crash site?
Why were no remains of the approximately sixty passengers and crew on the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon returned to relatives?
Far too many questions - no-one willing to offer satisfactory replies.
For example: the Brits invented the object and coined the term "concentration camp."Coined the term, yes. During the Boer War, such camps were set up in South Africa, camps for whites and camps for blacks. The government referred to them only as "refugee camps". The Liberals, campaigning against the camps and other barbarous and evil practices employed during the war, coined the term "concentration camp" in Parliament.
The use of these camps was the worst thing in a very bad war, a war we should never have fought. A war, started by Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner and Joseph Chamberlain, for Transvaal gold and Tory pride, aganinst the protestations of not just the Liberals but also the military itself.
But Britain didn't invent concentration camps. They were based on the system of camps used by the Spanish in Cuba, which were seen as having been effective. And America also used concentration camps, in the Phillipines a few years after the Boer War.
Actually, the greatest number of Native Americans were killed by diseases brought over by the British fishing boats long before America was a country. Most of the east coast poplulations were decimated by the time the Pilgrims arrived. Blame the Brits for carrying over small pox, influenza and other European diseases which killed many more Native Americans then our own westward expansion.
The numbers are exagerrated, but the point is taken. The American Indians got a bad deal. I hope the casinos and cigarette sales go well for them.
Actually, he's almost completely wrong here, just as he is on all his other "points." The vast majority of Indians who died did so purely because they had no immunity to the various diseases we carried over with us from England. Every time our settlers came in contact with a new tribe, we unknowingly transmitted viruses and other nasties to them - malaria, smallpox, TB, etc - and thus large numbers of them died. It is no different from when the Black Plague killed off 1/3 of the European population some centuries earlier. Was that a genocidal plot too?
Besides, the Indians introduced us to tobacco, so I think they've more than evened the score in the end.
This moron's second "argument" about the government letting Indians starve to death in the last century is complete BS, nothing more than a thinly-veiled straw man: "The Americans owed them all free housing, health care, and giant monthly paychecks for life."
How anyone can allot this guy one iota of credibility after he makes this hilarious statement, I'll never know.
...was hijacked at about 0900, at about the same time as the WTC impacts, and its change of course back towards Washington, or its transponder being turned off, would have been known to flight controllers, who were aware of the impacts; why then were US Air Force jets not scrambled to intecept AA77, when there were US Air Force jets at seven locations normally ready to take off at ten minutes' notice, and when particularly the Pentagon, Capitol Hill and the White House were unguarded potential targets for a plane acting suspiciously shortly after two other aircraft were used as makeshift missiles elsewhere?
Because, Captain Clueless, "ready to TAKE OFF at ten minues' notice" is not the same as ABLE TO INTERCEPT within ten minutes' notice. Why do you think they started putting F-16s in the air 24/7 after September 11? Because they're usually not able to intercept in time unless they're already in the air when they're alerted.
Where are the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder (the black boxes)? These black boxes are designed to survive any crash. Have they been examined by experts from the National Transportation Safety Board, the American agency which usually investigates plane crashes? If not, why not?
For which planes, you dope? And like denydenydeny said, they're not absolutely indestructable. Now, from the NTSB web site:
Please note: information regarding the investigation into the events of September 11, 2001 will be released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is the lead investigative agency. The Safety Board is providing technical assistance to the FBI, as described in the September 13 Press Advisory.Perhaps if you'd bothered to take all of thirty seconds to research this question as I did, instead of just continuing to bang out your pathetic little screed of America-envy, you too could have found this out for yourself. And yet again, from just a few moments of searching, I found this on the FBI web site:
Forensic Audio, Video, and Image Analysis Unit personnel collaborated with personnel from the National Transportation Safety Board to try to recover audio from cockpit voice recorders on American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93. Flight 77's magnetic tape cockpit voice recorder was destroyed in the fire. The solid state cockpit voice recorder from Flight 93 was damaged in the crash; however, with assistance from the manufacturer, the data were recovered. The audio data were transcribed and translated. Unit personnel also worked with Federal Aviation Administration personnel to obtain air traffic control audio from the four flights.This is from a PR release of theirs from a couple months back. I'm not going to bother searching to see whether the WTC black boxes have been found yet or not. We've already proved he's lying. Let's move on to his next falsehood.
If the plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes , when there was only a 10mph wind blowing?
1) What's the frickin' difference if it WAS shot down? We know the order had been given. The American people almost unanimously supported Bush's decision when they were told about it.
2) But since it wasn't shot down: Take a 3rd-grade physics class, you twit. Planes spiraling out of control only 500 feet off the ground are usually being pushed well past their design limits. All it would have taken was one broken window or opened door to start sucking papers and crud out of the plane.
Why did President George W Bush do nothing (except listen to a little girl's story about her pet goat) during the thirty minutes between when he was informed that the second jet hit the WTC and the Pentagon impact?
Bzzzt. He's lying. Air Force One left the ground, with Bush on it, at 9:57 am. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:43 am. Not only was there only a 14-minute lapse, less than half the time that Hate Boy falsely claims, but Bush also gave his speech and hightailed it out of the elementary school at 9:30, only 27 minutes after the second tower was hit, and 13 minutes before the next plane hit the Pentagon. As to why Bush even waited that long, the answer's right in front of this guy's nose; he's just intentionally ignoring it. 1) Bush was meeting with a bunch of little kids. He wasn't going to start jumping up and down, screaming "TERRORISM! TERRORISM!" and scaring the hell out of a bunch of second-graders. 2) At the time, which, again, was WELL before the Pentagon or Pennsylvania crashes, there was no reason for Bush to believe that anything else was going to happen that day. We all knew the WTC was a target for years, now they finally hit it. There is nothing Bush could have done with that extra 27 minutes but sit around and yell at people to get him more information, something they were already doing for him anyway while he sat there with the kids.
Why did the significantly less badly damaged South Tower collapse first...
Pure lie. The South Tower was not "significantly less badly damaged." Pure damned LOGIC would tell you that, since IT COLLAPSED FIRST.
Would a limited amount of jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (some 1538°C/2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and ALL the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 47 minutes?
Again, take a physics class, you twerp. Heat and temperature are not the same thing. I'm not going to waste my time going into any more detail than that.
Why were such huge quantities of ash and dust produced? How could fire convert concrete into dust? Has the ash been chemically analysed to determine what it really is, and how it might have been produced?
Pure bottom-fishing in the hopes of finding something - ANYTHING - that will support his psychotic claims. Alas, he fails here as well. When the concrete floors started pancaking, each of which weighed hundreds of tons, and shot the pressure up exponentially as more and more floors fell on top of each other, the concrete - and everything and everyone smushed in between - was atomized, vaporized and pulverized. It didn't have anything to do with the fire. And yes, the "ash" has been analyzed. Ever heard of the EPA?
Why were no aircraft fragments, identifiable as coming from a Boeing 757, recovered from the Pentagon crash site?
Another pure lie. It was reported early on that the crash was so intense that it was hard for any lay people (non-aviation professionals) at the scene to "find more than a few pieces that actually looked like an airplane," the pros had no trouble identifying the parts. Oh, by the way Hate Boy: If no plane hit the Pentagon, can you please tell us a) what did cause the explosion and fire; and b) where are all the people that were on that plane that morning?
Why were no remains of the approximately sixty passengers and crew on the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon returned to relatives?
Go visit a crematorium and you'll have your answer as soon as they shove the next body into the furnace. Even better, why not try the furnace out for yourself?
Since you're either dealing with a leftist or a lunatic (mostly the same thing), it's pointless to engage in any attempt at a rational dicussion although some of the above posters have effectively countered the stupidest leftist claims.
You're right. Plymouth Rock was the scene of a deadly smallpox plague that wiped out a nation of American Indians.
But there were instances like the Cherokee Trail of Tears, where the Cherokees and Chocktaws were forcibly marched from the Appalachians to Oklahoma. This was a 1000 mile hike during the winter of 1838 & 1839. More than 3000 Cherokee died on the Trail of Tears, 1600 in stockades and about the same number en route. 800 more died in 1839 in Oklahoma. The Chocktaws also suffered greatly.
I don't know about starvation in the 20th Century, but where I disagree with the US policies is the fact that we have forced treaties on these nations, forced them onto tiny reservations, and we have failed to live up to the treaties.
A few American Indian nations are beginning to make some money from gambling and tobacco sales. I'm very happy for them. If they are, in fact, separate nations then they should be able to make a living without the states or feds interfering.
In fact, that might be a good idea for everybody.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.