9/11 United airlines flight #93

quote:

Op vrijdag 8 mei 2015 18:08 schreef arie_bc het volgende:

[..]
Kijk ik weet wel waarom niet, maar het zou fijn zijn als jullie daar ook eens achter komen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 8 mei 2015 21:41 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

OK. Dus zijn redenatie mbt de vliegtuigen in het WTC geloof je ook niet?

quote:

Op vrijdag 8 mei 2015 21:52 schreef Baconbus het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 11 mei 2015 12:37 schreef Terecht het volgende:
Ninja-edit.

quote:

Op maandag 11 mei 2015 12:39 schreef UncleScorp het volgende:

[..]

soms de beste keuze :p

quote:

Loog het Witte Huis over dood Bin Laden? Twijfels over nieuwe theorie

Heeft de gelauwerde Amerikaanse journalist Seymour Hersh weer een grote primeur te pakken of overspeelt hij zijn hand? In een lange reconstructie in de London Review of Books wijst Hersh op tal van gaten en onwaarheden in de weergave van het Witte Huis van de operatie in het Pakistaanse Abbottabad, waarbij in mei 2011 Osama bin Laden werd gedood.

Zo zouden de Amerikanen niet alleen hebben gehandeld, zoals het Witte Huis claimt, maar zouden twee Pakistaanse generaals geweten hebben van de operatie. Ook zouden de Amerikanen Bin Laden niet getraceerd hebben via zijn koeriers, maar door 25 miljoen dollar te betalen aan een zogeheten ‘walk-in’, een Pakistaan die wist waar Bin Laden zat en de informatie prijsgaf aan het hoofd van de CIA in Islamabad in ruil voor een passende beloning.

De informant zou met zijn gezin naar Washington gesmokkeld zijn en nu voor de CIA werken. Ook was er, anders dan het Witte Huis heeft voorgesteld, geen sprake van een overmeestering. Bin Laden zou ziek en verzwakt zijn geweest. De Witte Huis-versie van de operatie, concludeert Hersh, had “ook door Lewis Carroll” (van Alice in Wonderland, red.) geschreven kunnen zijn.

Hersh schrijft:

“This spring I contacted Durrani (een gepensioneerde Pakistaanse inlichtingenfunctionaris, red.) and told him in detail what I had learned about the bin Laden assault from American sources: that bin Laden had been a prisoner of the ISI at the Abbottabad compound since 2006; that Kayani and Pasha knew of the raid in advance and had made sure that the two helicopters delivering the Seals to Abbottabad could cross Pakistani airspace without triggering any alarms; that the CIA did not learn of bin Laden’s whereabouts by tracking his couriers, as the White House has claimed since May 2011, but from a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer who betrayed the secret in return for much of the $25 million reward offered by the US, and that, while Obama did order the raid and the Seal team did carry it out, many other aspects of the administration’s account were false.
‘When your version comes out – if you do it – people in Pakistan will be tremendously grateful,’ Durrani told me.

KRITIEK
Maar opmerkelijk is, dat Hersh’ zijn verhaal niet zoals gebruikelijk in The New Yorkerpubliceert, maar in de London Review of Books, waar eerder zijn zeer omstreden stuk over de betrokkenheid van Turkije bij de gifgasaanval in Syrië verscheen. Onder meer The Guardian plaatste er vele kanttekeningen bij. Wees The New Yorker dit Osama-stuk af? Want nog opmerkelijker is dat Hersh - tegen elke journalistieke regel in - slechts één anonieme bron opvoert, een “gepensioneerde hoge inlichtingenfunctionaris.”

http://www.nrc.nl/longrea(...)van-osama-bin-laden/

quote:

Op maandag 11 mei 2015 15:43 schreef Terecht het volgende:

[..]

Link naar het bronartikel: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/(...)g-of-osama-bin-laden

Eindconclusie is nog steeds dat Bin Laden dood is, alleen dat het heel anders is gegaan dan het Witte Huis vertelde. Het verklaart in ieder geval:
1. waarom de verklaring van het Witte Huis zo vaak veranderde,
2. waarom er geen enkele foto van de begrafenis geopenbaard is,
3. waarom het Pakistaanse leger niet ingreep terwijl Bin Laden pal naast een militaire basis woonde.

quote:

The many problems with Seymour Hersh's Osama bin Laden conspiracy theory

On Sunday, the legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh finally released a story that he has been rumored to have been working on for years: the truth about the killing of Osama bin Laden. According to Hersh's 10,000-word story in the London Review of Books, the official history of bin Laden's death — in which the US tracked him to a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan; killed him in a secret raid that infuriated Pakistan; and then buried him at sea — is a lie.

Hersh's story is amazing to read, alleging a vast American-Pakistani conspiracy to stage the raid and even to fake high-level diplomatic incidents as a sort of cover. But his allegations are largely supported only by two sources, neither of whom has direct knowledge of what happened, both of whom are retired, and one of whom is anonymous. The story is riven with internal contradictions and inconsistencies.

The story simply does not hold up to scrutiny — and, sadly, is in line with Hersh's recent turn away from the investigative reporting that made him famous into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

(..)

Some of the problems with Hersh's history of Abbottabad

Perhaps the most concerning problem with Hersh's story is not the sourcing but rather the internal contradictions in the narrative he constructs.

Most blatant, Hersh's entire narrative turns on a secret deal, in which the US promised Pakistan increased military aid and a "freer hand in Afghanistan." In fact, the exact opposite of this occurred, with US military aid dropping and US-Pakistan cooperation in Afghanistan plummeting as both sides feuded bitterly for years after the raid.

Hersh explains this seemingly fatal contradiction by suggesting the deal fell apart due to miscommunication between the Americans and Pakistanis. But it's strange to argue that the dozens of officials on both sides would be competent enough to secretly plan and execute a massive international ruse, and then to uphold their conspiracy for years after the fact, but would not be competent enough to get on the same page about aid delivery.

And there are more contradictions. Why, for example, would the Pakistanis insist on a fake raid that would humiliate their country and the very military and intelligence leaders who supposedly instigated it?

A simpler question: why would Pakistan bother with the ostentatious fake raid at all, when anyone can imagine a dozen simpler, lower-risk, lower-cost ways to do this?

Why not just kill bin Laden, drive his body across the border into Afghanistan, and drop him off with the Americans? Or why not put him in a hut somewhere in Waziristan, blow it up with an F-16, pretend it was a US drone strike, and tell the Americans to go collect the body? (Indeed, when I first heard about Hersh's bin Laden story a few years ago from a New Yorker editor — the magazine, the editor said, had rejected it repeatedly, to the point of creating bad blood between Hersh and editor-in-chief David Remnick — this was the version Hersh was said to favor.)

If Pakistan's goal is increased US aid, why do something that will virtually force the US to cut aid, as it indeed did? For that matter, why retaliate against the US for the raid that you asked them to conduct? Pakistan's own actions against the US, after all, ensured that it had less influence in Afghanistan.

By the same token, why would the US cut a secret deal with Pakistan to allow that country a "freer hand" in Afghanistan — essentially surrendering a yearslong effort to reduce Pakistani influence there — rather than just taking out bin Laden without Pakistan's permission?

There are smaller but still troubling inconsistencies. Why, for example, would the US need to construct a massive double of the Abbottabad compound for special forces to train in, if the real compound were going to be totally unguarded and there would be no firefight?

See also, for example, the intelligence material that the US brought back from bin Laden's compound and then displayed to the world. Hersh says that, in fact, bin Laden had spent the previous five years a hostage of Pakistani intelligence rather than an active member of al-Qaeda. The intelligence "treasure trove" was thus a fabrication, cooked up by the CIA after the raid to back up the American-Pakistani conspiracy.

This is a strange thing to argue, as Carnegie Endowment Syria research Aron Lund points out, because al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri subsequently said the intelligence materials were real, and had quoted from them himself. So either Hersh is wrong or, Lund writes, "Zawahiri is helping Obama forge evidence to boost US-Pakistan relations, which seems like an unusual hobby for an [al-Qaeda] leader."

In other words, for Hersh to be correct that the intelligence material was faked, and thus that bin Laden was a secret prisoner of Pakistani intelligence, and thus that the raid to kill him was a staged American-Pakistani ruse, then al-Qaeda would have had to be in on it — even though al-Qaeda was also the supposed victim of Pakistan's plot.

As for Hersh's story of what really happened to bin Laden's body — "torn to pieces with rifle fire" and thrown bit by bit out the door of the escaping helicopter, until there was not enough left to bury — it is difficult to know where to begin. It is outlandish to imagine small arms fire reducing a 6-foot-4 man "to pieces," not to mention the sheer quantity of time and bullets this would take. Are we really to believe that special forces would spend who knows how long gleefully carving up bin Laden like horror movie villains, and then later reaching into the body bag to chuck pieces of him out of a helicopter, for no reason at all? On the most sensitive and important operation of their careers?

When Hersh acknowledge the vast evidence against his theory, he typically dismisses it out of hand, at times arguing that it is in fact proof that the Pakistani-American-Saudi architects of this plan were so brilliant that they spent years meticulously engineering their actions at every level so as to appear to be doing the opposite of what Hersh suggests.

For example, Hersh says the CIA station chief in Islamabad, Jonathan Bank, was a key player in helping the Pakistanis stage the bin Laden raid. But the year before the raid, a Pakistani journalist publicly named Bank (many suspect, and Hersh agrees, that this was done at Pakistani intelligence's behest), thus imperiling his life, forcing him to flee the country and sparking a diplomatic incident that set back US-Pakistan relations. Hersh says this entire monthslong incident was staged, a "cover in case their co-operation with the Americans in getting rid of bin Laden became known."

Hersh's story is littered with such justifications: when facts seem to squarely contradict his claims, his answer is that this only goes to show how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Lees meer: http://www.vox.com/2015/5(...)ersh-osama-bin-laden

quote:

One question Seymour Hersh never answers in his alt-history of the killing of Osama bin Laden

As a rule, conspiracy theories are more elaborate than the truth, requiring subscribers to suspend their judgment. Someone called every Jewish person in the World Trade Center, and told them to stay home on the morning of 9/11, when the planes brought down the twin towers. The United Nations, along with the vast majority of the world’s scientists, concocted the myth of global warming. The CIA, or the KGB, or the World Health Organization—or perhaps all three of them—manufactured AIDS in a laboratory. In the minds of the theorist, the truth is too simple, too simplistic, to bear consideration.

But in Seymour Hersh’s stunning new account of the killing of Osama bin Laden, the truth is by a magnitude more complex than the conspiracy it claims to uncover. Hersh, who usually writes for The New Yorker, is the doyen of investigative journalism, having revealed some of the most disturbing abuses of military and intelligence authority, from the My Lai massacre in Vietnam to the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. His connections in the intelligence community are the stuff of legend. But the core contentions of his latest exposé are attributed to a single named source—a former Pakistani spymaster, who retired nearly two decades before bin Laden was killed—and a clutch of unnamed intel sources. The White House has described Hersh’s assertions as baseless.

The official version of bin Laden’s killing is that US intelligence, after years of hard grind and many missteps, located bin Laden in Pakistan. A SEAL team dispatched to get him came under fire. When the men burst into his room, bin Laden reached for a gun, and was shot dead. The SEAL team departed with his body, which was subsequently buried at sea, and a huge trove of documents.

Hersh’s alt-history differs from the official one on several key points. Here’s a brief summary:

In 2006, Pakistani intelligence captured the founder of al-Qaeda. Rather than handing him off to the US, the Pakistani authorities decided to hide bin Laden away, to use him as leverage in future negotiations. He was eventually housed in the now-infamous compound in Abbottabad, a stone’s throw from the country’s military academy. Saudi Arabia helped pay for his upkeep. But four years later, after a Pakistani turncoat alerted the US to bin Laden’s hideout, Islamabad made a deal with Washington: Send your SEAL team to kill bin Laden, and we’ll look the other way. In exchange, the Obama administration would give Pakistan more aid, and a bigger role in the future of Afghanistan.
The SEAL team did arrive in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011, but it did not, Hersh says, encounter any resistance, much less gunfire, at the bin Laden compound. Pakistan’s military and intelligence chiefs were warned that the helicopters were on their way, and they cleared the airspace for the operation. The SEALs killed their target with a hail of bullets, reducing him to body parts that they later threw out of their helicopters as they returned to their base in Afghanistan. There were no papers found in the compound.

In Hersh’s telling, president Barack Obama then went on TV and lied to the world about the circumstances of the raid, the burial at sea, and the haul of documents.

The unanswered question

The story is certainly sensational. But it is also highly questionable. And that is mainly because, throughout his riveting account, Hersh never adequately answers the one question that undermines all conspiracy theories: Why?

Why should the Pakistanis, the Saudis, and the Obama administration have played such an elaborate ruse on the world? Hersh’s explanation of Pakistan’s motive for holding bin Laden—as a hostage, to ensure al-Qaeda and the Taliban didn’t mount attacks on Pakistani soil—doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Neither group has demonstrated much interest in mounting attacks in Pakistan. The Taliban has concentrated on fighting the US-led coalition in Afghanistan; and since the group’s top leaders operate from Pakistani soil, Islamabad has long enjoyed plenty of leverage over them.

Al-Qaeda, meanwhile, relies on its far-flung affiliates—in Yemen, Iraq and North Africa—to do most of its heavy lifting. Both groups seem perfectly happy to leave the job of mayhem-making in Pakistan to their ideological cousins, the Pakistani Taliban. Holding bin Laden hostage was never going to give Pakistan any leverage over its homegrown terrorists. (It’s also worth asking why Pakistan would need US approval for a bigger role in Afghanistan: When American soldiers withdraw from the country, Islamabad and its Taliban ally will have plenty of freedom to operate there.)

Why should the Saudis have paid to maintain bin Laden in the Abbottabad compound? Hersh quotes a retired official as saying Riyadh was worried that, if the Pakistanis handed him over to the US, the al-Qaeda leader—himself from a rich Saudi business dynasty—would blab about his group’s connections to the Saudi elite. But this assumes the Obama administration would be shocked—shocked!—at such revelations. And if keeping bin Laden from spilling the beans was the objective, why pay to keep him alive?

Next, why would the US, when told by a turncoat of bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad, have sought confirmation from Pakistan’s military and intelligence chiefs—the very men who had been concealing the Saudi terrorist and lying to Washington about it? The US would surely expect such consultation to prompt the Pakistanis to immediately relocate their prized “hostage,” and possibly quietly even eliminate him.

And, upon being alerted by Washington, why would the Pakistanis have concocted a plan for an American raid on Abbottabad that would essentially expose Islamabad’s duplicity, as well as suggest that its much-vaunted military was incapable of preventing an American operation deep inside Pakistani territory? Why would the Obama administration have gone along with a plan that required placing enormous trust in the Pakistanis—who had, by the very act of concealing bin Laden, proven themselves completely untrustworthy? After all, had the raid failed, one of Hersh’s interlocutors points out, it could have done for Obama and his legacy what the botched 1980 attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran did for Jimmy Carter.

Why, for that matter, would the White House imagine that SEAL Team Six—it is not a CIA covert-ops squad—would participate in a sham operation, kill a sick, unarmed bin Laden—and agree to lie about it? A single SEAL with a conscience would blow such a subterfuge to smithereens.

Hersh’s telling of how the SEALs killed bin Laden, and what they did to his body parts, also raises the inevitable question. There are so many easier ways to dispose of a body—including giving it a burial at sea—so why should the men go through the trouble of shooting it up into pieces, gathering those pieces into a bag, and then scattering it over mountains?

The why’s keep piling up through Hersh’s story, and—for this reader, at least—they eventually overwhelm the narrative. Unless the great investigative journalist has a sensational, join-the-dots sequel up his sleeve, this story seems destined to be little more than grist for conspiracy theorists. And they will no doubt find ways to make it more complex still.

http://qz.com/402375

quote:

Op woensdag 20 mei 2015 17:03 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

[..]

1. Dat was bekend. binnen 10 seconde wist MSM al 100% zeker Bin Laden.
2. Doelwit was ook vooraf bekend.

quote:

[..]

Echt! Je snapt politiek spelletjes niet he!?

quote:

[..]

Heb je uberhaupt wel onderzoek gedaan ?!

quote:

[..]

en dus werd O'neill op een zij spoort gezet. Hij moest hoe dan ook dood.

quote:

[..]

is het uberhaupt wel in je op gekomen dat als je het zelf verzint en uitvoert. Dat je dan alle info hebt?

quote:

[..]

Heel veel zake, instituten waren heel toevallig die dag uit hun bevoegdheid gezet.
En bovendien waren er doelbewust die dag drills met vliegtuigen die gebouwen vernielen. Zodat alles en iedereen op een cruciale positie in verwarring is.

quote:

[..]

Bin Laden is gebombardeerd tot ...
Bin Laden was ten tijden aan een nierdyalise apparaat. Een de broer van was op de koffie bij Papa Bush.

quote:

[..]

Dus je bent voor MIHOP!?

quote:

Op woensdag 20 mei 2015 21:59 schreef Terecht het volgende:

Nee, MIHOP is denk ik nog veel onwaarschijnlijker dan LIHOP. Ik ben voor de officiële lezing. Je hebt overigens wel gelijk dat als je ervan overtuigd bent dat er sprake is van een complot, de logische stap is om van een LIHOP-theorie naar een MIHOP-theorie te gaan.

quote:

Op donderdag 21 mei 2015 08:25 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

[..]

Waarom ben je voor de officiele lezing? Met alle feiten is dat de meeste absurde en onmogelijke variant.

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op donderdag 21 mei 2015 10:47 schreef jogy het volgende:

[..]

Neh, als je kijkt naar de gevolgen van 11 september zie je gewoon dat die aanslag het westen en de bedrijven geen windeieren heeft gelegd. De wereld was zo in shock door de omvang van de aanslag dat de VS een paar weken/maanden praktisch een vrijbrief kreeg om te doen wat ie wilde. Dat is ook wat waard. En ik ben er zeker van overtuigd dat het meer is geweest dan "never let a good crisis go to waste"

Afghanistan, Irak en de patriot act zijn er door het 11 september glijmiddel heel soepel doorheen gedrukt.

quote:

Op donderdag 21 mei 2015 11:47 schreef Terecht het volgende:

[..]

Als je kijkt naar wie de aanslagen hebben gepleegd (15 Saoediers, 2 Emiraten, een Egyptenaar en een Libanees), en je vervolgens kijkt wie de regering Bush als schuldige voor de aanslagen heeft aangewezen (Osama Bin Laden en Saddam Hoessein), dan zit daar nogal een discrepantie tussen.

quote:

Dit gegeven strookt gewoon niet met een MIHOP-scenario. Als je zelf de aanslagen regisseert met als doel een voorwendsel te scheppen om Afghanistan en Irak binnen te vallen, is het uiterst vreemd om 1) geen enkel verband in de samenzwering te stoppen dat Irak linkt aan de aanslagen, en 2) dat Osama Bin Laden, die zogenaamd een handpop van de CIA zou zijn en dus in het complot is betrokken, vlak na de aanslagen ontkent er iets mee te maken te hebben.

Het is op zich wel consistent met een LIHOP-scenario waarbij je geen invloed hebt over die de aanslagplegers zijn, maar zoals ik heb uitgelegd vereist een LIHOP-scenario een alwetende Kwade Genius en er is tot nu toe geen enkele plausibele verklaring geopperd die uitlegt hoe de Kwade Genius aan deze informatie is geraakt.

quote:

Op donderdag 21 mei 2015 11:19 schreef Chewie het volgende:
9/11 was voor de economie nu niet echt een zegen.

ook zegt het officiele raport ook niks over misbruik van de macht na 9/11 maar wel over hoe de ramp gebeurd is en dat is tot op heden nog steeds de meest logische verklaring, voor de alternatieve verklaringen moet je zelfs natuurkundige wetten overboord gooien.

quote:

Op donderdag 21 mei 2015 12:37 schreef motorbloempje het volgende:
Lambiekje is een door de overheid betaalde 'troll', zoals dat heet, die alles tot in het schandalige en vergezochte trekt, om zo normaal denkende mensen die oprecht een en ander voor zichzelf willen bekijken af te schrikken omdat ze het risico niet willen lopen om met complotgekkies geassocieerd te worden. Er zal vast meer bekend zijn dan dat men naar buiten brengt via de media, al dan niet vooraf geweten of achteraf, zo werkt dat namelijk met overheden + media, maargoed, écht kritische weldenkende mensen worden zo flink afgeschrikt. Slim wel, van die overheden