Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 2 Share on Twitter 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Why Bin Laden Attacked Us (500k Iraqi children, Israel, and Oil)

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Patrick Butler       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   23 comments

Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Interesting 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 6/6/18

Author 511391
- Advertisement -

When Bush said after 9/11 that the we were attacked because the terrorists hate our freedom and democracy, he was all but lying:

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber - a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

In six separate messages (letters, fatwas, and interviews), Bin Laden has remained consistent on three grievances that he thought demanded retaliation: the sanctions against Iraq, which we thought killed half a million children; aid to Israel while Israel killed anyone in the vicinity of those who fought against its conquest of Greater Israel; and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, which he believed was part of an American strategy to force Saudi Arabia to sell its oil below what he thought would be fair.

The grievance that involved the most deaths was the sanctions on Iraq, which we thought had killed half a million children. Madeleine Albright told Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes on May 12, 1996, when asked about this number, that it was a very hard choice, but they thought the sanctions were worth it. By that point, few people had questioned the 1995 UN study on which the figure was based (though they would soon) because no one knew that the regime had inserted false data through the Iraqis tasked to conduct the surveys. The supposed morality rate was less than that of some countries in Africa, and Iraq had imported most of its food, so it was plausible that the sanctions (even after they were lifted on food and medicine at the end of the Gulf War) prevented Iraq from getting enough foreign currency to buy enough food, medicine, and water-treatment equipment (which had been damaged in the Gulf war).

- Advertisement -

The first instance of faking data was in a 1992 New England Journal of Medicine study finding that there were 46,900 child deaths in the first eight months of 1991 (the war had ended 2 months in), due only in small part to injuries. While that study claims that it used an international team of experts, post-invasion studies show that even that study was not correct. Figure 2 in that last link (which compares Iraq's child-mortality rate to its neighbors over time, including oil-rich neighbors like Saudi Arabia and Iran) does suggest that the sanctions could have caused the deaths of thousands of children. The authors of the article in that link hastily blame Saddam for the entire period as though there should have been no improvement after the end of a decade of war as long as Saddam was in power. I first found out about the illegitimacy of the old numbers in Michael Spagat's article "The Iraq Sanctions Myth" in the Pacific Standard.

We had already offered Saddam what would later become the Oil for Food Program after the Gulf War (UN Security Council Resolution 706), but he didn't accept it at the time because he said it would legitimize the rest of the sanctions.

Apparently because he was discovering that the US didn't care how many deaths we thought we were causing, he ultimately accepted the Oil for Food Program. A memorandum of understanding was sent on May 20, 1996. Awareness of the negotiations for this agreement might have influenced Albright to be so blunt in saying that sanctions were worth it eight days earlier, but the close timing is probably just a coincidence. I also don't think that the way she said it was what led to 9/11. It was the policy of the administration, which she couldn't avoid articulating, that mattered.

- Advertisement -

When we had the Oil for Food program, we slow-walked the delivery of equipment. The head of the UN humanitarian effort in Iraq, Dennis Halliday, quit in protest of the sanctions in 1998. In 2000, his successor, Hans von Sponeck, quit for the same reason.

Americans had more reason to question the death-toll estimates from the studies until the period roughly after start of the Oil for Food program, by which point data from an Iraq population survey and mortality data from the autonomous region in Kurdistan suggested a different story.

One can ask, if the goal of the sanctions was to get Saddam to give up WMDs, what else could the US have done? Supposing that Saddam could prevent enough food from being delivered by any means, would giving up the sanctions or overthrowing him have been clearly better options? Yes, because the actual goal of the sanctions was not removing WMDs; it was removing Saddam through his own people, despite how much suffering we were finding out it would require to even start a revolt, let alone complete it. Ousting Saddam ourselves would have been the clear choice to minimize casualties if we needed him out, particularly considering that Saddam's opponents would be truthfully be labeled by Saddam as being on the American side if they revolted anyway.

After the First Gulf War, H.W. Bush said that the sanctions on Iraq weren't going to end until Saddam was overthrown, even if inspections were allowed: "At this juncture, my view is we don't want to lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." Baker and others said this as well. Clinton ultimately continued much the same policy, though his officials would say that he needed to comply with all of the UN Security Council Resolutions as opposed to just inspections, something which Albright said she pretty much knew he wouldn't do. A very comprehensive source for these and numerous similar statements by officials during the H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations is this page from the Institute for Public Accuracy. It also has one from an Iraqi: November 7, 1997: Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz: "The American government says openly, clearly, that it's not going to endorse lifting the sanctions on Iraq unless the leadership of Iraq is changed."

Scott Ritter, the chief weapons inspector for the 1998 inspections, pointed out that the Americans sabotaged the inspections by forcing too many inspectors into certain sites against the agreed-upon rules. We had, after all, launched an attempted coup in 1996.

The US knew that the Iraq's water-sanitation system would be fully degraded by sanctions within a year back in 1991, shutting down industries that need pure water and forcing Iraqis to boil their water to prevent epidemics. The linked page has a link to the original document on Gulflink, a .mil website that I've accessed before (including from the DoD website) to read the Riegle Report, but this time my antivirus software won't let me.

- Advertisement -

Bin Laden was clearly wrong not just in the way that everyone else was, but also because he appeared to believe that Iraqi children were still dying at the rate that they were before the Oil for Food Program. While the top officials of that program believed that the program wasn't enough, I doubt they would have agreed that the mortality rates would have been the same as before the program started. Nevertheless, the reason why the US media never talks about such an important topic, whether on its own or in relation to 9/11, is that there isn't a good explanation for trying to depose a dictator (knowing that the WMD threat was not real because he only initially avoided inspections because of H.W. Bush and Baker's statements) by making the situation unbearable for his people rather than ending the sanctions or overthrowing him to save the children. If half a million children had died, the US would have been complicit in continuing the policy since the 1992 and especially the 1995 study until they stopped on their own accord. Saddam merely gave in because he figured that they didn't care about Iraqi children. The reasoning may not be dead simple, but that doesn't mean we can't recognize that we were at fault, and that the core of Bin Laden's grievance was actually based on the truth. Moreover, the statements of Madeleine Albright and Tariq Aziz were sufficient reason to believe that the Iraqis were not likely to see us as liberators.

To draw from my essay "Proof that Rumsfeld intentionally started the civil war in Iraq through the Badr Brigade": Incidentally, it turned out that they almost all saw us as liberators until we fired the government, had them tortured/killed, imprisoned/tortured/killed them ourselves without due process, shut down Moqtada al-Sadr's newspaper, and tried to make money from their oil. Thus, if we took Saddam out in 1991 or 1996, it would have been not only far more justified (though not necessary or the best idea), it could have worked out fairly well. What Saddam did before he invaded Kuwait was even worse, so intervening in 1991 would have been late if we wanted to intervene. Lastly, the Israel lobby was probably the most powerful group pushing for Saddam to be removed, though I do not doubt the influence of defense contractors.

The second grievance was our support for Israel. He was upset by the killing of men, women, and children in Palestine and Lebanon. We gave Israel $1.8 billion a year in military-aid grants from 1984 to 1999, growing ever since then. In the article (I haven't read the book) "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" Walt and Mearsheimer note: "Since 1982, the United States has vetoed 33 United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members." This is why settlements, which the US used to say it was technically opposed to, go unpunished by sanctions. Even the target was chosen to mirror Israel's aggression (Washington Post, 2004): "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."

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   Interesting 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

I'm trying to get others to know of evidence that Rumsfeld intentionally started the civil war in Iraq through the Badr Brigade. Derek Harvey, who later served on Trump's National Security Council, told Reuters in 2015 that in 2003 and 2004 we (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Proof that Rumsfeld intentionally started the civil war in Iraq through the Badr Brigade

Proof that Rumsfeld intentionally started the civil war in Iraq through the Badr Brigade

Why Bin Laden Attacked Us (500k Iraqi children, Israel, and Oil)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

7 people are discussing this page, with 23 comments


Patrick Butler

Become a Fan
Author 511391

(Member since May 14, 2018), 3 articles, 12 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

I know that people won't want to accept that we've been lied to by the government and the media, but we can't afford to ignore this truth any longer. We've already lost thousands, killed hundreds of thousands, and spent trillions. Yet now, with Trump on the verge of becoming the dictator of the most powerful country by way of a savage war against Iran, the costs for us (including most of the government and the media) and the world couldn't be higher.

The media and the state haven't proven their untrustworthiness by being left-wing (as Trump would have you believe) but by being right wing. Centrist democrats and media (including the NYT) supported the wars in Iraq and Vietnam even though we now know that they were based on lies which the left saw at the time. Money from the rich is what enables the right to create its own reality. Defense contracts and donor support for Israel push us towards war with Muslim countries and Islamophobia. If you want to let others know about this article, please let them know about my previous article, "Proof that Rumsfeld intentionally started the civil war in the Badr Brigade" first, as that is known by even fewer people. Thank you.

Submitted on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:31:02 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 9 fans, 10 articles, 20 quicklinks, 1084 comments, 26 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

You missed a quote by Bin Laden:


"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. - Osama bin Laden, Sept 22, 2001, Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat.

You need to look into the truth about what happened on 9/11. It is quick and easy to do. If you have an open mind, you will be open to the truth. Bin Laden did not retaliate, we attacked ourselves...

Submitted on Thursday, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:40:12 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (6+)
Help
 
Indent

Daniel Geery

Become a Fan
Author 1198

(Member since Jul 9, 2009), 71 fans, 183 articles, 3314 quicklinks, 14397 comments, 180 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

I have to question and why the hell you keep posting this sh*t on this site! Everyone here knows better. Thank you David for speaking out for so many of us.

Submitted on Thursday, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:38:11 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (4+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

Ramani K V

Become a Fan
Author 77250

(Member since Mar 8, 2012), 28 fans, 4 articles, 13 quicklinks, 2529 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Daniel Geery:   New Content

Exquisitely put Dan, as always!

Anyone who swallowed the 'Bin Laden attacked the US' pill and still has it stuck in the throat all these years doesn't merit serious attention.

Submitted on Friday, Jun 8, 2018 at 12:44:13 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (4+)
Help
 
Indent

Patrick Butler

Become a Fan
Author 511391

(Member since May 14, 2018), 3 articles, 12 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

It is not disputed that Bin Laden denied responsibility for carrying out the attacks at first, perhaps because he wanted the people who he was asking for help to have some level of deniability. I am only giving a guess to show that there is a possible reason aside from the idea that he didn't do 9/11.

The government would never want to call attention to the 500,000 deaths statement or have us think that we were paying the costs of 9/11 and the war on Afghanistan just because we didn't/wouldn't stop our funding of Israeli aggression. This is why the media never talks about this.

Also, when I said in a comment on my first article that "Advance knowledge would be a lot more plausible, but there's just no evidence of that" I made a mistake. I should have said that it was the a bit less impossible. The idea that they would cause all of those deaths in their most important centers and that there would be no leaks is not plausible at all. I have also, out of curiosity about the diversity of ideas, spent a bit of time looking at their claims, and there is nothing remotely convincing.

That being said, truthers do point out something interesting when they note that Bush didn't move even though his position was public. That was just another failure of imagination, though.

I should also add that the situation in Yemen truly could become a tragedy like the one that we created, and perhaps even one like Stalin created.

Submitted on Friday, Jun 8, 2018 at 3:10:30 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

Patrick Butler

Become a Fan
Author 511391

(Member since May 14, 2018), 3 articles, 12 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

The following doesn't matter when it comes to the issue of who did it, but I might as well note that it has not been proven that that message was in fact from Bin Laden. His statements (including the post 9/11 ones) that I use are all consistent with what he has said in interviews. He said that killing civilians is permissible in his 1998 fatwa. Here is a quote from a CNN article on an October 21st videotaped interview (by Al Jazeera) with Bin Laden: "The reporter then said, "So what you are saying is that this is a type of reciprocal treatment. They kill our innocents, so we kill their innocents?"

Bin Laden's response: "So we kill their innocents, and I say it is permissible in Islamic law and logic.""

In the message you mention, he says ""nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as 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." He was even asked about Muhammad's prohibition about that in one of his interviews, to which he replies that there are other texts which say that the prohibition is not absolute. So that's a reason to question whether it's authentic.

Submitted on Friday, Jun 8, 2018 at 3:12:26 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

Lance Ciepiela

Become a Fan
Author 14196
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Apr 4, 2008), 50 fans, 58 articles, 46 quicklinks, 3569 comments, 213 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Patrick Butler:   New Content

#BinForgotten #NotWanted by the #FBI for 9/11 - lack of evidence. Have you considered #911Treason?

"Overwhelming evidence exists that the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were instances of controlled demolition. But al-Qaeda operatives could not have obtained the needed access to the buildings to plant the explosives and would not have ensured that the buildings come straight down.

The controlled demolition, therefore, had to be the work of insiders"..#GrandJuryPetition #SignThePetition - "preset explosives used at the WTC" (scroll to Page 13).

#HugeExplosion says Donald Trump at the time, adding "they had bombs that exploded almost simultaneously".

Submitted on Friday, Jun 8, 2018 at 3:57:15 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (7+)
Help
 
Indent

Kenneth Johnson

Become a Fan
Author 94318

(Member since Jun 24, 2014), 18 fans, 11 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2500 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

As I remember it, Bin Laden was about preserving the Muslim lands for his people. He wanted 'the infidel' to stay closer to home. Things worked better that way.

It was we Americans who didn't approve of his people hogging 'our' oil market. (What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too.)

Sometimes simply recalling events, if you are of age to do so, is better than trying to grab on to the plethora of political and media spin to make a case.

Submitted on Friday, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:34:33 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (4+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

Patrick Butler

Become a Fan
Author 511391

(Member since May 14, 2018), 3 articles, 12 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Kenneth Johnson:   New Content

I agree that we hoped to steal oil money from other countries for our oil companies (though we didn't care enough to force Iraq to sign contracts with our companies, which would have brought more violent resistance against us), and Trump actually wants to outright steal massive amounts of oil money. He wanted the Libyans to give us 50% of their oil in exchange for our support.


Unless you have read the reasons that he was giving us from the original texts, what you'll remember will have come from media spin, or someone's spin anyway. I do want to give the media credit for publishing his messages, though I should note that his 1998 fatwa was uploaded by the Federation of American Scientists, so there might not have been any point in choosing not to upload the other messages which say the same thing.

Submitted on Friday, Jun 8, 2018 at 5:55:40 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 9 fans, 10 articles, 20 quicklinks, 1084 comments, 26 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

Let me say that Patrick is practically brand new on this site and no doubt did not know what he is dealing with here as to 9/11. But Patrick, open your mind. There are SO many ways to prove it was not carried out by OBL and his supposed fellow compatriot "hijackers" who were not even on the original passenger lists. Do you believe Isaac Newton knew what he was talking about? If not, end of discussion. If so, and you still believe OBL was responsible, you then also have to believe the laws of physics were suspended for a day. Am pretty sure Newton did not allow for any suspensions of his laws even for one day and even it was for a holiday. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine that I am...

Submitted on Friday, Jun 8, 2018 at 9:44:55 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (3+)
Help
 
Indent

Ramani K V

Become a Fan
Author 77250

(Member since Mar 8, 2012), 28 fans, 4 articles, 13 quicklinks, 2529 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

Let's say his heart is in the right place. But...

Submitted on Friday, Jun 8, 2018 at 2:22:52 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (3+)
Help
 
Indent

Kenneth Johnson

Become a Fan
Author 94318

(Member since Jun 24, 2014), 18 fans, 11 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2500 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

Was physics involved in Isaac's coming up with the idea for the Fig Newton?

Submitted on Friday, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:31:16 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 9 fans, 10 articles, 20 quicklinks, 1084 comments, 26 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Kenneth Johnson:   New Content

Very good Ken. Actually yes, but I will have to explain later. Not sure why but I never did like fignewtons.

Submitted on Friday, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:41:46 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

Devil's Advocate

Become a Fan
Author 500650

(Member since Nov 9, 2014), 6 fans, 1279 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Kenneth Johnson:   New Content

I thought those were invented by Hercules' sidekick centaur.


(Artist: Marco Domanico)


Submitted on Friday, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:02:10 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 9 fans, 10 articles, 20 quicklinks, 1084 comments, 26 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Devil's Advocate:   New Content

With all due respect, your thought is wrong. It really was Isaac Newton's physics principles that led directly to the not very good fignewtons. Trust me, I have studied this. :)

Submitted on Saturday, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:59:27 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 9 fans, 10 articles, 20 quicklinks, 1084 comments, 26 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

Patrick, I appreciate your thinking and your article. But your thinking that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 is wrong. There are many here at OEN and millions here and around the world that would tell you the same thing. Bottom line, the chances of the official story being true? Absolute ZERO!!

Submitted on Saturday, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:04:11 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (3+)
Help
 
Indent

Devil's Advocate

Become a Fan
Author 500650

(Member since Nov 9, 2014), 6 fans, 1279 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

As I've said many times here, it's time to stop giving any credence to the "ObL" and "19 hijackers with boxcutters took down America" fairy tales.

It's time to stop repeating all this BS, and pushing back at everyone who continues to promote it (whether intentionally or not). The sooner everyone does this, the sooner more constructive conversations can emerge.

Now, everyone, repeat after me...

Osama bin Laden did NOT "attack America".

ObL could NOT have been thrown into the ocean. (Not only is this a pretty silly premise, but ObL wasn't even alive at that point in time for them to have captured him.)

There's no proof of actual hijackers. (FYI: At least 6 of the "19 Hijackers" were alive on Sept. 12, 2001, and after.)

(And, here's one fact people seriously need to wrap their brains around...)

Passenger jets CANNOT do any of the things we were told they did on 9/11.

- They CANNOT cruise at 500mph at ground level.

- They CANNOT "disappear" into buildings.

- They CANNOT "vaporize into nothingness" (Pentagon).

- They CANNOT "bury" themselves into the ground (Shanksville).

- They CANNOT take down steel-framed skyscrapers.

- Their fragile structure CANNOT successfully "penetrate" a solid, immovable object, at any speed - they would TOTALLY COME APART.

- Any plane accomplishing any of these things, CANNOT BE A COMMERCIAL PASSENGER JET.

Submitted on Saturday, Jun 9, 2018 at 5:08:02 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 9 fans, 10 articles, 20 quicklinks, 1084 comments, 26 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Devil's Advocate:   New Content

Thank you for the list. I have repeated it several times now and almost have it memorized.

You have looked into the 9/11 subject an awful lot for how many years I don't know. You have studied up on the airplanes, that is for sure. I will add a couple of things to your list that I am sure you already know.

They CANNOT "vaporize into nothingness" (Pentagon).

True, but to their credit they did realize TOTAL nothingness might be a little suspicious. So they did manage to plant an engine, a little aluminum piece painted with American Airlines colors on the front lawn, and probably a couple of other things that 'avoided' vaporization. Also, I think they were incredibly lucky -- and I would think you would agree -- to find and identify DNA from many of those on board the vaporized "Boeing 757."

One more for now. Airline pilots who flew the boeing airplanes, including captains with many years of experience and many thousands of hours in airliners were not able to do in a simulator what little Hani Honjour was able to do. What Hani did was fly the AA 757 in a perfectly spiraling descent at speeds well above designed maneuvering speed to hit the recently reinforced wedge in the pentagon where the computers and the programmers and accountants who would have been working on the $2.3 Trillion unaccounted for as said by Donald Rumsfeld on camera just the day before and was able to do it his first time ever piloting a large airliner even though he could not fly a tiny small single engine cessna as said by his instructor who would not go up with him again.

(Note: I do not know how to define a run on sentence but I am guessing my last sentence might qualify. :))

Submitted on Saturday, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:51:31 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndent

Devil's Advocate

Become a Fan
Author 500650

(Member since Nov 9, 2014), 6 fans, 1279 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

(While it may strike some as a run-on sentence, it was created with a marked precision!)

Yeah, it's amazing what we're supposed to believe.

The engine PARTS found at the Pentagon didn't match a 757, and there was only one (757s have two). There was another engine on the scene UNDER A TARP (what?!) that belonged to a 727.

On the right, a supposed plane part, seen being carried around the lawn by Donald Rumsfeld himself (again, what?!). I have a video more clearly showing it is Rumsfeld. Then there's the part you're talking about, which certainly isn't part of a 757...

A lot of these scenes have something in common - random stuff strewn about that has no place in the story.

An engine was planted on Murray Street in New York, which I imagine was supposed to be taken as "fallout" from one of the Towers "collisions". That one was soon proven to not belong to any of the planes in question.

I'm gonna stop here. :)


Submitted on Saturday, Jun 9, 2018 at 7:49:20 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 9 fans, 10 articles, 20 quicklinks, 1084 comments, 26 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Devil's Advocate:   New Content

You should probably stop there because I know that you could go on and on and on. I have seen what you said about the engines but I saw different opinions about what kind of airplane they are from. I saw a picture of something being carried away under a blue tarp but I am sure it was not an engine; it would have been too heavy to be carried by six or eight people. But, what was it?

To add to what I said about the DNA being identified from people aboard the vaporized airliner there were also of course the hijacker passports that were found at ground zero and also in Pennsylvania from the airplane that vanished underground in a rather small hole. No fuel contamination was found in the soil even though the airplane would have had a lot of fuel onboard. But they did find that pristine bandana which of course would have been worn by a muslim hijacker. I could go on and on as well but won't. Btw, if you don't know, I was an airline pilot with a lot of time in both the 757s and 767s so I know something about the capabilities of airliners.

I know you must have visited pilotsfor911truth.org. I have several of their DVDs.

Submitted on Saturday, Jun 9, 2018 at 11:58:47 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

Devil's Advocate

Become a Fan
Author 500650

(Member since Nov 9, 2014), 6 fans, 1279 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

Of course, I've been through countless sites that had anything to say about 9/11.

It's interesting to find out you were a pilot of these planes. Unlike most people, you would have recognized a lot of the physical discrepancies we're talking about here.

You already knew how fragile a commercial airliner really is. You must have really scratched your head on 9/11.

Submitted on Sunday, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:57:52 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 9 fans, 10 articles, 20 quicklinks, 1084 comments, 26 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Devil's Advocate:   New Content

Actually, I did not question what happened on 9/11 at the time. But I do remember thinking how strange it was that both towers collapsed in exactly the same way. It was May 2007 when something led me to a video of WTC7. I did remember seeing it collapse on 9/11 but don't remember my reaction. But when I saw the video in 2007 I said to myself, WHAT THE F__K!! So I watched the video again and then said to myself THERE BETTER BE A DAMN GOOD EXPLANATION FOR THIS OR SOMETHING IS REALLY F-CKED UP!! That began my journey.

Submitted on Sunday, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:21:24 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

Devil's Advocate

Become a Fan
Author 500650

(Member since Nov 9, 2014), 6 fans, 1279 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

My crusade pretty much started right on 9/11.

The reports about the first crash only showed the "aftermath" (footage of the impact didn't show up until the next day, I believe). Coverage of the second crash showed the impact, and as the news caster told of "Flights AA11 and UA175" I experienced my first mental tailspin.

I kept saying out loud (to no one there) "WTF?!? Passenger jets?! That CAN'T be!!"

I was expecting cameras to start zooming in on the ground immediately before the buildings, to show things that surely would have separated from the planes - wings, tails, engines, fuselage components, people(!), luggage, SOMETHING - but there was absolutely NOTHING.

Two planes supposedly "went in" (first anomaly), yet not a scrap was visible at either point of impact (second anomaly).

As the day progressed, there were two more planes at two different sites, and again, NOTHING to indicate the crash of commercial airliners.

Submitted on Sunday, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:00:23 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment