I'm getting so tired of hearing that Americans attacked ourselves on September 11th that I think I'm going to scream!
That said, I would like to learn more about the conspiracy theories so that I can approach them with knowledge. Could anyone provide me with links to photos that "prove" that airplanes never actually hit the Pentagon and reasons that people use to argue that Americans and Jews were behind the attacks?
Then, could someone please help to provide me with information that refutes such claims? *************************************************** 12-27-03, 12:25 PM newnickname ourworld-top.cs.com *************************************************** 12-27-03, 03:39 PM Sarai Thank you, Newnickname! Smile *************************************************** 12-28-03, 12:45 PM JohnGalt As far as the claim (made popular by a French author) that a hijacked plane didn't cause the damage at the Pentagon on the very same day that 3 other hijacked planes did cause damage, here are some points:
Click here to see a photo showing airplane debris at the Pentagon.
Click here to see a photo showing where the fuel-laden wings burned each side of the impact point at the Pentagon.
When someone claims a hijacked plane didn't cause the damage at the Pentagon, ask them the following questions:
What happened to Flight 77 and the 64 people onboard? It took off that day. Where did it land?
Why did Barbara Olson, a CNN and FOX political commentator, author and wife of U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, call her husband (twice) from the plane and describe the hijacking?
Why did al-Q'eada admit guilt to doing the very thing the conspiracy theorists claim didn't happen?
And when someone claims the Jews were behind 9/11, ask them why Palestinians celebrated the attaccks on that day by dancing in the streets? Why would Palestinians celebrate anything that any Jews would do? They can't have it both ways. They can't hate the Jews then celebrate something the Jews do.
When the conspiracy theorist claim that the footage of the dancing Palestenians was old footage (and they will), then once again go to this portion of Snopes.com to once again proove them wrong.
For other various hoax rebuttal info that may or may not fit into the conspiracy theory category, check out CSICOP's 9/11 Hoax Watch.
But don't expect the facts sway a conspiracy theorist. For many conspiracy theorists, the conspiracy itself is far more exciting than the facts. Just look at the claim that the Apollo Lunar Landings were faked, or some super-secret group of men (no doubt wearing dark suits and smoking in dark-wood lined back rooms ) were the real killers of JFK.
For some reason, many people want to believe in a conspiracy, any conspiracy! And if said conspiracy helps put the final stamp of evil on their political or ideological foe, then all the better for them - and the more desperate they are to believe it, and close their eyes to any and all facts that point to the contrary.
[This message was edited by JohnGalt on 12-28-03 at 12:57 PM.]
[This message was edited by JohnGalt on 12-28-03 at 12:58 PM.] *************************************************** 12-29-03, 07:18 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by JohnGalt:
And when someone claims the Jews were behind 9/11, ask them why Palestinians celebrated the attaccks on that day by dancing in the streets? Why would Palestinians celebrate anything that any Jews would do? They can't have it both ways. They can't hate the Jews then celebrate something the Jews do.
Just one exception to your otherwise excellent post. The Palestinians did not celebrate the attacks. In the photograph you linked, I notice that someone seems to be waving a flag which might be that of Sa'udi Arabia but looks more like that of Pakistan. In any case, not Palestinian. Shortly after the attack, I had occasion to debunk the same claim which provided photos which had already been published some months before. In any case, there was no public Palestinian celebration of the attacks on the World Trade Center or on the Pentagon. What some Palestinians may have said and done privately, I don't know. I do know that a number of Palestinain public figures immediately condemned the attacks.
Alan Moore *************************************************** 12-29-03, 11:07 PM Sarai Thanks, John.
Alan, where did you see those photos before 9-11? Did you go to the snopes link John provided for people who believe that the images of Palestinians celebrated were old images? It seemed pretty convincing to me that those images are legit. *************************************************** 12-29-03, 11:08 PM JohnGalt
quote:Originally posted by AMoore: In any case, there was no public Palestinian celebration of the attacks on the World Trade Center or on the Pentagon. What some Palestinians may have said and done privately, I don't know. I do know that a number of Palestinain public figures immediately condemned the attacks.
Watch CNN video of the Palestinians publicly celebrating the Sept. 11th attacks by clicking here
Of course, not all Palestinians celebrated the attacks. But of the thousands who did, it is very likely that some of these same people would be the ones who, later on, would adopt the conspiracy theory that says, "the Jews did it." The two would seem to be a condratictory viewpoints. But contradictions, like lack of evidence, never stopped a good conspiracy theory. *************************************************** 12-30-03, 01:53 AM newnickname 'Thousands'? Are you sure?
The following link is obviously a biased source, but it presents another view, and I think makes a couple of good points:
electronicintifada.net *************************************************** 12-30-03, 03:48 AM newnickname John, I couldn't get that CNN link to work. Here's another link: www.mideasttruth.com (scroll down to the 'celebrate' clip). From the tone of that website, I guess they used the most damning video they could find - but it doesn't show 'thousands' of Palestinians celebrating. It shows a bunch of idiots - as do other pictures you link to. Idiots, yes, but just a bunch of them, and half of them children.
Searching back through the BBC news site (it's my fond belief that the BBC tries not to be biased) I found reference to " some" Palestinians celebrating, and this:
Did the Palestians rejoice this week? Some did but by no means a majority. In the squalor of some refugee camps, guns were fired in the air and sweets were handed out. There was a larger celebration in the West Bank town of Nablus, but... There was only one tape, and it is now known that the Palestinian authorities seized that...
People did stupid things in North America, too, in the aftermath of 9/11. I remember reading of an assault on a Sikh taxi driver - motivated by his wearing a turban, and therefore (obviously) being a member of al-Qaeda.
The conspiracy theory that the CNN footage was a set-up is wrong, but it's wrong also to suggest an image of Palestine celebrating the horror of that day. *************************************************** 12-30-03, 09:56 AM JohnGalt
quote:Originally posted by newnickname: ...(it's my fond belief that the BBC tries not to be biased)
That may just be the funniest thing I've heard all week! Smile Smile Smile
And getting back to Sarai's main point: The majority of people in the Arab world don't believe that Arabs were behind the attacks. And even if it was a minority of Palestinians celebrating the attacks, I have no doubt that, of those who were celebrating, there are many who will now claim that no Arabs were involved in the attacks. They want it both ways! They praise and thank bin Laden for carrying out the attacks, then they turn around and have the audacity to claim, "Oh, there were no Arabs involved in the attacks!" How silly can someone be? But most conspiracy theories are silly when looked at rationally. And whether it was a majority of Palestinians celebrating, or whether it was a minority, all it takes is a small minority to start a conspiracy theory that snowballs into something huge and accepted as fact despite the lack of any evidence or common sense.
I'm not debating the minority or majority of those who celebrated. That's not the point. The point is that the conspiracy theories are out there. And of those who did celebrate, their beliefs and actions are contradictory. And those contradictions can be used to help defeat the spread of silly conspiracy theories. *************************************************** 12-30-03, 11:44 AM FredPuli How does the BBC report above show bias? It is perfectly possible that few Palestinians celebrated in the streets; they may have good reasons for not openly attracting attention from Israel, for a start. That does not mean that more than half did not secretly think that the US, that arch-supporter of Israel, suffering such an attack was a cause for schadenfreude at the very least.The source quoted, asserting such support as 90% 'in the Arab world', seems to rely upon one speaker and then looks to Tripoli and Syria for further support for this statement rather than Palestinians, anyway.
Those who accuse the BBC of bias will have to try a lot harder than that. A body which regularly receives praise and complaints of prejudice or bias from both sides of the same argument is probably neutral. This happens quite a lot with internal UK matters; in their World Service their efforts at displaying impartiality and putting the claims of all sides are almost painful or comic to hear sometimes ( depending on the subject matter). They even avoid the words terrorist or terrorism if they can; they have a strict in-house policy about when such words may be permitted. We shall wait a long time for Fox News and other new services to show such restraint.
[This message was edited by FredPuli on 12-30-03 at 11:57 AM.] *************************************************** 12-30-03, 12:55 PM JohnGalt
quote:Originally posted by FredPuli: Those who accuse the BBC of bias will have to try a lot harder than that.
I'll admit that FOX news has a conservative bias - the lone conservative TV broadcaster. Too bad others won't admit that the BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, the New York Times, et. al. all have a liberal bias. *************************************************** 12-30-03, 03:22 PM FredPuli You do rather miss the point of the BBC don't you, JG ?What is wrong with using neutral language? Is there anything factually incorrect in the BBC's description? Let's leave other language to politicians, newspapers and news services of one particular persuasion (and to ourselves on AP of course).
Throughout WW2 the BBC referred to the enemy leader as "Herr Hitler, the German Chancellor" not "the German dictator" or whatever you might have called him.. I suppose you would see that as showing Nazi sympathies !
That the BBC has this neutral language in reporting is one reason why the BBC's reports are trusted worldwide as giving an impartial, balanced account.You may feel comfortable that they will not use language suggesting even the slightest bias. If you personally prefer a slanted presentation you'd best look elsewhere. *************************************************** 12-30-03, 08:09 PM JohnGalt
quote:Originally posted by FredPuli: What is wrong with using neutral language?
Nice try. But it is a historical, political, and linguistic fact that Saddam Hussein was a dictator. When reporting on the shape of the Earth, one doesn't assume "neutral" language. You simply call a spade a spade and report it for what it is: Round. The same goes for the now-deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein.
Besides, the BBC's own website used the term "dictator" 501 times when referring to Chile's former dictator, Augusto Pinochet. Roll Eyes Where was their "neutrality" then? Oh, I forgot, it didn't matter then, because their reporting on that particular dictator couldn't be spun, via subtle use of selective words, to try and make the President of the United States look bad.
It wasn't until after the dictator, Saddam Hussein, was captured that the BBC suddenly decided to send out its memo mandating how the former dictator was to be addressed in their "neutral" (read "biased") manner. *************************************************** 12-30-03, 08:32 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by JohnGalt: __Besides, the BBC's own website used the term "dictator" 501 times when referring to Chile's former dictator, Augusto Pinochet.__ Roll Eyes Where was their "neutrality" then? Oh, I forgot, it didn't matter then, because their reporting on that particular dictator couldn't be spun, via subtle use of selective words, to try and make the President of the United States look bad.
The BBC does not need to use biased language to make the current President of the US look bad. George Bush is doing a remarkably thorough job of that with no assistance from the BBC whatever.
By the way, I noticed that you chose not to comment specifically on my pointing out that your "Palestinians" were waving Pakistani flags...
Alan Moore *************************************************** 12-30-03, 09:16 PM notinmyname How exactly did you arrive at this number JG, you have a rather well documented tendancy to make things up. *************************************************** 12-30-03, 09:26 PM JohnGalt
quote:Originally posted by JohnGalt:
quote:Originally posted by AMoore: The BBC does not need to use biased language to make the current President of the US look bad. George Bush is doing a remarkably thorough job of that with no assistance from the BBC whatever.
When it comes to Bush's domestic imitation of a big government, big spending liberal, I agree completely. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, on government growth, Bush is worse than Clinton.
quote:Originally posted by AMoore: By the way, I noticed that you chose not to comment specifically on my pointing out that your "Palestinians" were waving Pakistani flags...
So what? The presence of one particular flag was neither in dispute nor relevant to the facts. Your statement of, "The Palestinians did not celebrate the attacks" was, and still is, factually incorrect. There were Palestinians who did celebrate the attacks on September 11th, 2001. I don't know (or care) why one among the crowd was waving a Pakistani flag. Perhaps it was a Pakistani visiting a Palestinian friend. Perhaps it was a Palestinian who was sympathetic towards Pakistan. There are numerous possibilities, none of which change the historical fact that some Palestinians were celebrating that day. *************************************************** 12-30-03, 09:32 PM JohnGalt
quote:Originally posted by notinmyname: How exactly did you arrive at this number JG...
From This site, scroll down to the December 20, 2003 entry, for which they link to a Google search, which I now notice is up to 708!
quote:Originally posted by notinmyname: ...you have a rather well documented tendancy to make things up.
I try to always back up my statements with links. Have you any proof of my "well-documented tendancy" of [making] things up? Or are you just going to level the charge and hope it sticks?
I'll be the first to admit that I have been wrong, I have made mistakes and I have been fooled by one or two Urban Legends, which I have posted prior to checking out. But when I discover the truth, I try to always admit my mistakes. I'll admit that I am biased - something nearly all news orginazations won't admit to, but I don't "make things up". *************************************************** 12-30-03, 09:36 PM newnickname
quote:"some Palestinians"
Aha! That's better. You could apply for a post at the BBC, now. Smile *************************************************** 12-30-03, 09:39 PM JohnGalt
quote:Originally posted by newnickname:
quote:"_some_ Palestinians"
Aha! That's better. You could apply for a post at the BBC, now. Smile
Could I get gratis DVDs of all the episodes of The Office if I worked there as a perk? That just might make it worth it! *************************************************** 12-30-03, 10:52 PM notinmyname JG weak link
You can hunt for it, there's one here and references to others. *************************************************** 12-31-03, 05:01 AM FredPuli JohnGalt: If look through the cited Google search you will find 1) you must distinguish between the official BBC description in news broadcasts and direct or indirect qoutes or summaries of the opinions and words of others given therein
2) the official BBC term for Pinochet was "the former military leader of Chile" . It was how they invariably referred to him.Indeed it can still be heard on their World Service now. It occurs for example in the Google search for an item on 15th May 2001. You may note that this mouthful was being used after he had been overthrown.
Now, without access to the BBC codes for both World Service/ satellite 24 hour service and their domestic, terrestrial BBC service I cannot say whether the 'dictator' term is now officially permitted to reporters for both i.e. there has been a change for the World/ 24 hour service ( where the rules are particularly sensitively set).Note:This year that service even barred its newsreaders from wearing the poppy badge that Britons wear for Armistice Day, badges sold for a disabled veterans' charity, because the symbol was not used worldwide and was not 'neutral' enough for a world service of the BBC.
However the use of 'dictator' in the official BBC reports on Google seems to originate in relation to an attempt to extradite him from the UK . Even in cases where they are reporting attempts to seize his assets before this the BBC were sticking to the 'military leader' description. Whether the BBC had relaxed its rule for all reporters by this time or whether they were doing so just for a case in which his status as a military dictator, rather than military leader, was an agreed fact by all sides I cannot say. He was contesting extradition and avoiding a trial on grounds of ill-health ; in which , ultimately, he was successful.
However from the outset, far from making a special case for Saddam Hussein as against Pinochet, the BBC has been following a neutral and standard practice.
By the way, your original source for this story is well up to standard. It cannot even get the name of the BBC right. It is the 'Broadcasting Corporation' not 'Company'. You might be slow to accept all that stuff about widespread condemnation, left-wing bias etc in it if you knew just how careful it was over checking a fundamental fact.
[This message was edited by FredPuli on 12-31-03 at 05:11 AM.]
[This message was edited by FredPuli on 12-31-03 at 05:16 AM.] *************************************************** 12-31-03, 07:27 AM JohnGalt
quote:Originally posted by FredPuli: You might be slow to accept all that stuff about widespread condemnation, left-wing bias etc in it if you knew just how careful it was over checking a fundamental fact.
I didn't accuse them of being loose with facts, lying, or making up stories. In other words I didn't call them The New York Times! Smile I said they were biased - which they are. All humans are. Bias doesn't necessarily manifest itself via lies or failure to check facts, but rather through what is and (more importantly) what is not reported on, how much time is spent reporting on something, the selective use of words, etc. And it doesn't even have to be intentional. Indeed, much of the bias in the media (and by all people) is unintentional bias! And the apparent inability of some people to recognize those facts is indicative of the inherent bias in media (and all people).
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. *************************************************** 12-31-03, 07:53 AM FredPuli The last few entries found by using the BBC website 'search' facility for 'Pinochet':
Last Tuesday, 23rd December; He is described as 'the former military ruler'. He is not called 'dictator' once. Amusingly it refers to 'lawyers representing victims of Chile's military dictatorship'; this is a nice distinction between junta and man though, no doubt, this is how the lawyers describe themselves so is their wording rather than an official BBC title. It may be a distinction that Pinochet himself was making : see this next entry.
5th November this year:He is described as 'ex-dictator' but in the heading 'Chileans have expressed outrage over an interview in which ex-dictator....claimed he was an "angel"' to a story which quotes the Interior Minister's indignant reply to Pinochet's claim that he never 'aspired to be a dictator'. So there too the word is chosen because of the context.
22nd October this year: He is described as the 'past president'' the General' and as one who 'led a military government' The report is on a Chilean Supreme Court decision on his claim to presidential immunity over some killings.'Dictator' does not occur.
11th September this year: A report for the BBC home, not world, service, on Chile's economy. Here the man is 'General Pinochet' but we get this curious ' the military dictatorship' and 'military junta' again referred to though no 'dictator'.
8th September; He is 'the General' again in a story about any support for him.
27th August this year. He is 'ex-dictator' in the headline but is 'the military leader' in the text. The report is of a case about his immunity again. This is either an example like the 5th November court case, where the term is contextually from his accusers or the BBC was developing some split mind (which it later recovered from Smile
So you see,JG, the BBC does try to live up to its charter and keep to its codes .Writing 'dictator' or 'ex-dictator ' would be so much simpler than all this 'military leader/ruler' stuff, after all. Smile *************************************************** 12-31-03, 09:31 AM FredPuli BTW John, and completely off-topic, you want The Office on DVD ? What good taste ! Beware ! American producers are negotiating for the rights to remake the show for the US market. Fear not, the original show will still be avaiable to you.
The prospects for the US version seem dire. They want to play down the main character of Brent to the level of some incidental irritant and promote the office romance to centre stage. This is rather like "King Lear; The Musical" might be or trying to rewrite Fawlty Towers while playing down the fact that Basil is a loser ( as is Brent in his own way).
Outsiders reading this should understand that The Office seems like a 'fly-on-the-wall' documentary with the characters being secretly filmed. The 'joy' of it is that it is really painful to watch sometimes because the viewer gets an insight into the people involved and can sense their problems looming. It is, of course, billed as a comedy here (!) , and is the biggest selling DVD of any show.
The office manager,David Brent,seems to have the delusion that he is a good, efficient,aware manager, right up to the moment and without any bias or prejudice about anything ; if this is as true as he thinks then he is comically embarrassing in trying to show it.You get touching glimpses into his own minmal insight into his weaknesses from the awkward steps he takes to protect his image. The other characters are equally well-defined, rounded individuals and excellently played.
Although Brent is very important to the drama it really plays as an ensemble piece with lots goimg on in it beside his involvement. *************************************************** 01-01-04, 03:24 PM JohnGalt Going back to the original topic:
In regards to debunking the conspiracy theory that claims no Arabs were involved in the September 11th attacks, here is a little-known, but very interesting fact that can be shown to those who subscribe to this particular conspiracy theory.
A calendar, for distribution to an Islamic school, printed in Egypt in 2001 - 3 months before the September 11th attacks - shows a passenger plane crashing in Manhattan with the Statue of Liberty in the background. The month for this particular picture was . . . you guessed it, September! The quote under the picture reads, "I am supported by Allah, to die for Allah."
Now I'll agree that there are such things as coincidences. But when you start to have several coincidences, all pointing in the same general direction, it soon becomes mathematically improbable (or even impossible) for there to be too many coincidences, and Occam's Razor suggest a simpler alternative. In this case, that alternative is rather obvious.
See a picture of this September, 2001 calendar NewsMax
I've checked the Urban Legend sites, and as of yet, I can't find this one on any of them. In other words, this calendar most likely was published before the attacks. *************************************************** 01-01-04, 03:31 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by JohnGalt:
quote:Originally posted by AMoore: By the way, I noticed that you chose not to comment specifically on my pointing out that your "Palestinians" were waving Pakistani flags...
So what? The presence of one particular flag was neither in dispute nor relevant to the facts.
All right, the fact is that your photograph is a photograph of Pakistanis, not of Palestinians as you asserted, without any grounds whatever. You are a liar, and are attempting to further malign a nation you have wronged intolerably. That you apparently feel neither shame nor remorse for this is a further indictment of your already poor character.
I have no doubt that some Palestinians cheered the destruction of the World Trade Center. So, however, did some of the residents of a local high school -- I know of the police being called to escort one of them home. Does this make the inhabitants of Cupertino, California supporters of terrorism in your view?
Alan Moore *************************************************** 01-01-04, 04:02 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by JohnGalt: Going back to the original topic:
In regards to debunking the conspiracy theory that claims no Arabs were involved in the September 11th attacks, here is a little-known, but very interesting fact that can be shown to those who subscribe to this particular conspiracy theory.
A calendar, for distribution to an Islamic school, printed in Egypt in 2001 - 3 months _before_ the September 11th attacks - shows a passenger plane crashing in Manhattan with the Statue of Liberty in the background. The month for this particular picture was . . . you guessed it, September! The quote under the picture reads, "I am supported by Allah, to die for Allah." . Now I'll agree that there are such things as coincidences. But when you start to have several coincidences, all pointing in the same general direction, it soon becomes mathematically improbable (or even impossible) for there to be _too many_ coincidences, and Occam's Razor suggest a simpler alternative. In this case, that alternative is rather obvious.
See a picture of this September, 2001 calendar NewsMax
I've checked the Urban Legend sites, and as of yet, I can't find this one on any of them. In other words, this calendar most likely was published before the attacks.
OK. I looked at the link. The only thing I can make out on it is the number 2001. The text overlying the picture is mostly illegible, as are the months, and the numbers of the days on the calendar. One thing, however, is certain. This is, although possibly in Arabic (it might also be Farsi or Urdu, or any of several lesser known languages) it is _not_ an Islamic calendar. After all September 11th 2001 of the Gregorian calendar (the one we use) corresponds to 23 Jumaada athThaani 1422 on the Islamic Calendar. You can verify the dates for yourself here: http://www.rabiah.com/convert/convert.php3
I will also note that the Newsmax report is dated September 27, 2001, and I don't recall a lot of follow-up about tracing the antecedants of the calendar. This would normally be the case if the story fizzled out when the picture was discovered to represent something else altogether.
Alan Moore *************************************************** 01-01-04, 05:40 PM JohnGalt
quote:
Originally posted by AMoore: You are a liar, and are attempting to further malign a nation you have wronged intolerably. That you apparently feel neither shame nor remorse for this is a further indictment of your already poor character.
I typed in Google "Palestinians celebrate September attacks" and got the picture to which I linked. When I saw Business Week.com, I clicked on the link and saw the picture. Try it for yourself. If the picture displayed did not show Palestinians then I was mistaken and wrong. And if that picture was not Palestinians, then I apologize for providing and inaccurate link and for mistakenly identifying them as Palestinians. But I must say, I do resent you calling me a "liar" and saying that I was "...attempting to further malign a nation...[that I] have wronged intolerably." I was not. I have made it clear with my own statements:
Quote by JG: Of course, not all Palestinians celebrated the attacks. Quote by JG I agree that not everyone in the Muslim world viewed the attacks favorably. In fact, "[t]wo-thirds [in 6 Muslim nations] say the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were morally unjustifiable..." Quote by JG: I'm not debating the minority or majority of those who celebrated.
Why on Earth would I purposely provide a link to Pakistanis and call them Palestinians when there is no doubt that the video I provided from CNN does show Palestinians? Once again, Occam's Razor would say the simpler answer is of me being mistaken rather than some conspiracy on my part to malign any group.
And if the calendar showing the plane crashing in Manhattan is a fake, then please provide some evidence. I clearly said I tried looking it up to see if it was an Urban Legend. If it is, I'll accept that. I've fallen for Urban Legends before. But as of now, I can't find any evidence that it is.
You have a Happy New Year Mr. Moore. May I suggest for your New Year's resolution you switch to decaf? Good bye. *************************************************** 01-01-04, 06:34 PM FredPuli There is nothing odd about an Arabic speaking community in Europe ( or Arab businesses anywhere) having a Gregorian calendar; Arabic Moslem communities here all have them in their businesses . Do you know, the Jews here, understandably, use a Gregorian one too, for everyday matters; September 2001 would have been be Elul 5761 in the Jewish calendar, apparently ? Big Grin ('Understandably' because the rest of us have enough trouble with ours, let alone reconciling it with one with lunar cycles and years of 353 to 385 days !)
It's probably of no significance; most of the details of the sinking of the Titanic were described in a novel written about a similar, fictional, liner before she was even built, but nobody thought the writer psychic ( or a conspirator in her destruction Big Grin).That was a possible scene for the future then;the crashing of a plane into Manhattan could equally be wished, imagined, rumoured and talked of in broad terms.That only leaves the month; the other details do not fit the true events closely but seem to draw on an earlier incident. *************************************************** 01-01-04, 07:04 PM DvdGStwrt Try ]http://members.tripod.com/therev67/tableofcoinc/tableofcoinc.htm[/URL]
David *************************************************** 01-01-04, 08:21 PM JohnGalt And I thought the Radical Right's whacked out conspiracy theories about Clinton murdering hundreds of people connected to him (all while being involved in a massive drug-running scheme out of Arkansas) were ridiculous! But the Looney Left has outdone them with all their "Bush is a Nazi" conspiracy theories! Whoa! Red Face They all need to tell their doctors to up the dosage on their medications! Watch out for those black helicopters! Roll Eyes *************************************************** 01-01-04, 10:45 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by JohnGalt:
quote:Originally posted by AMoore: You are a liar, and are attempting to further malign a nation you have wronged intolerably. That you apparently feel neither shame nor remorse for this is a further indictment of your already poor character.
I typed in Google "Palestinians celebrate September attacks" and got the picture to which I linked.
Well, that search sounds like an open invitation to any anti-Palestinian propogandist to put up anything whatever for you. If you invite liars to the party, you've no right to be surprised if you get called for repeating their lies. Instead, why not go and look at the original news. On September 11th, 2001, a co-worker pointed at footage alleged to be of Palestinians celebrating the destruction of the WTC being shown on CNN which was being fed to our company's employee information closed-circuit TV system. The feed was coming from Israel (duh) but the footage was clearly morning footage from the angle of the sun, and the attack didn't occur until 8:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, well after noon in Israel. CNN pulled that footage from their coverage within an hour or two, but by then other news carriers had picked it up, giving further support to the old adage "A lie can fly around the world while the truth is still putting on it's overcoat."
quote: You have a Happy New Year Mr. Moore. May I suggest for your New Year's resolution you switch to decaff? Good bye.
Happy new year to you, too. And sorry, but I've a long-term, untreatable chronic addiction to caffeine, dating back to my time in the middle east. Besides, I like the stuff.
Alan Moore *************************************************** 01-02-04, 06:07 AM JohnGalt
quote:
Originally posted by AMoore: ...the footage was clearly morning footage from the angle of the sun, and the attack didn't occur until 8:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, well after noon in Israel.
Originally posted by AMoore: I've a long-term, untreatable chronic addiction to caffeine...
It shows. Your high strung. *************************************************** 01-02-04, 06:37 AM Fourbrick The World Clock shows that Jerusalem is 7 hours ahead of New York, not 6. *************************************************** 01-02-04, 07:16 AM JohnGalt Perhaps what Snopes was doing was using the time comparisons during the month of September. I don't know how Israel's Daylight Saving Time works, or how Palestine's Daylight Saving Time works, or how it all ties into New York's time during the month of September.
But even if Snopes made a one hour calculation error and was off by one hour, it still doesn't prove some massive Jewish/CNN conspiracy. The fact of the matter is that some Palestinians did celebrate the September 11th attacks on that day. That is a fact. I know some people don't like that fact, but they will simply have to deal with that for themselves. *************************************************** 01-02-04, 10:12 AM Fourbrick Quote originally by J.G. "But of the thousands who did, it is very likely that some of these same people would be the ones who, later on, would adopt the conspiracy theory that says, "the Jews did it."
(My emphasis).
Changing slowly to "some Palestinians".
Don't believe in the conspiracy theory here, myself, J.G., but facts given must be correct. *************************************************** 01-02-04, 11:05 AM JohnGalt According to this site, there are around 7.5 million Palestinians in the world.
According to this site, there are 2.8 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strp.
So when we are dealing with millions of human beings, the term "some" can easily describe thousands. I never said it was "all Palestinians." I never said it was "most Palestinians." I used the term "thousands" (which is "some") because that is exactly the same numerical term that this site used when it says, "... thousands of Palestinians applauded the devastating blows, cheering openly in the streets..." and (in reference to 3 days after September 11, 2001) "About 1,500 Palestinians...marched in a Gaza Strip refugee camp on Friday, burning Israeli flags and carrying a large poster of Osama bin Laden..."
I'll come right out and say that all Palestinians did not celebrate the attacks. I"ll even go so far as to say that not even the majority of Palestinians celebrated the attacks. But some did. And "some" can easily be - and apparently was - thousands.
If it turns out that it was not thousands of Palestinians who celebrated the September 11th attacks, then fine. I'd be happier if it were not thousands! But there is no doubt that some Palestinians did celebrate the attacks. If that "some" is a dozen it would be better than something like 1,500. But there is no doubt that a celebration took place. *************************************************** 01-02-04, 01:25 PM newnickname I'd agree that 'some' is perhaps the best quantifier. When you first posted, John, you simply said 'Palestinians'. This, of course could mean anything, but it tends to suggest Palestinians in general celebrated, which most likely isn't true.
When you say 'thousands', it could mean, as you say, a total of thousands, over a few days, out of millions. But that's not what it suggests. It suggests the kind of street demonstration that has to be filmed from a first (UK) or second (US) floor window; thousands all at the same time and place.
That's not what is shown in any of the pictures. They're all relatively tight shots; if the camera pulled back a little, what would we see? Crowds of other people looking puzzled or just going about their business?
The tight shots are more newsworthy of course; more dramatic. Many news outlets would say 'thousands' instead of 'hundreds', in the same way that they would say 'psycho killer' instead of 'person accused of murder'.
So, 'some' is perhaps best. *************************************************** 01-11-04, 05:45 PM JohnGalt
quote:Originally posted by FredPuli: BTW John, and completely off-topic, you want The Office on DVD ? What good taste ! Beware ! American producers are negotiating for the rights to remake the show for the US market. Fear not, the original show will still be avaiable to you.
Oh God! First we Americans destroyed "Mr. Bean" when it was made a big screen movie, now they want to mess with the perfection displayed in The Office! Luckily I have all the original Mr. Bean video tapes!
You see, FP, despite all our differences on war, WMDs and the like, we can at least agree on this one thing! Smile
That's the beauty of AnswerPool (and the comedic genius of The Office)!
FredPuli, if you would be so kind as to click here for some questions I have about the show. Thank you. *************************************************** 01-21-04, 05:27 PM JohnGalt Let me see if I get this straight: This massive, world-wide conspiracy (which is apparently somehow encoded in several fictional movies) stretches all the way to the moderators here at AnswerPool? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Can't argue with airtight logic like that. But where does the mothership fit into everything and can Fox Mulder uncover the truth before he is liquidated by the smoking man? Smile Smile Smile *************************************************** 01-21-04, 06:56 PM DorianGreyed Aw, Man, 138 years of planning down the drain. Great! Now I have to notify the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Bavarian Illuminati, the Comte St. Germaine, Oliver Stone, the Sons of Alexander, the Brotherhood of the Rose, the Elders of Zion, and Chuck Barris. I wonder who leaked this time. We almost had it with that Burr character, but he got too greedy. And don't get me started on Pope whatsisname.
[This message was edited by Doriangreyed on 01-21-04 at 07:21 PM.] *************************************************** 01-21-04, 07:33 PM JohnGalt Don't forget the following:
The Freemasons, The Bilderbergers, The Trilateral Commission, The Illuminati, The Council on Foreign Relations, The PI-40 Committee, The Jason Group, The Club of Rome, The Group, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Open Friendly Secret Society, The Rosicrucians, The Brotherhood of the Dragon (or Snake), The Russell Trust, The Black Families (of Europe), Skull & Bones, the Scroll & Key or The Knights of Malta Smile *************************************************** 01-22-04, 10:02 AM JohnGalt Speaking of conspiracy theories:
* Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, "Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?"
* Washington Democratic Representative Jim McDermott said that the Bush administration could hav
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
) were the real killers of JFK. 
