Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

How the US government framed OBL's "confession"

 

 

The New York Times Headline Reads:

BIN LADEN, ON  TAPE, BOASTS
OF TRADE CENTER ATTACKS;
U.S. SAYS IT PROVES HIS GUILT

The critical words of course are "boasts of,"
because they imply that he made statements
carrying the semantics "Hey, I did it, it was
me, aren't I great."

Under the headlines the "nation's newspaper
fo record" shows three pictures from the
video with captions of the allegedly incriminating
statements. But are they really incriminating?

The first:

"They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building,
so I said to them: be patient."

But if you look at context, you see that bin Laden says this
in a discussion of dreams that several people had had of
dreams of planes hitting buildings, and one of bin Laden's
associates telling of a dream in which two planes hit a building.
In other words, bin Laden is saying "I said to them be patient --
(because I know from the dreams relayed to me that there would
be two planes.)"   And highly suspicious is the fact that it is just
in the statement by the associate about his two dreams that
the hired translators chose not to translate but merely to summarize:

   OBL: .........At that point, I was worried that maybe
      the secret would be revealed if everyone starts
      seeing it in their dream. So I closed the subject.
      I told him if he sees another dream, not to tell
      anybody, because people will be upset with him.

     (Another person's voice can be heard recounting
       his dream about two planes hitting a big building).

   OBL: They were overjoyed when the first plane hit
      the building, so I said to them: be patient.

He is saying that he told them to be patient because of
his expectation of two planes based on the dream of
his associate.  The theme of this whole segment of conversation
was set by the refernce to one man's "vision of Allah" about
a plane hitting a building --  and thus bin Laden's statement
about his telling others to "be patient" is merely his shareing
his state of faith in the other man's vision that there would be
"two planes."  There is nothing in the context to suggest
that the instruction to be patient derived from an expectation
born of any other source.

The second "smoking gun" quote offered on the front page of
the New York Times is this:

"We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event
would take place that day.  We had finished our work that day
and had the radio on.  It was 5:30 our time."

But this merely means that there was a tip-off from somewhere
that there would a terrorist attack on September 11  -- which is
exactly the information that Mossad gave to the CIA and which
at the WTC which normally would have held 30 to 40 thousand
when the planes struck.  The tip was in the air -- and it reached
bin Laden on Thursday, September 6.  Thus this statement
exhonorates bin Ladin rather than incriminates him.

The third NYT "smoking gun" statement is this:

"Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire
from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the
building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the
floors above it only."

But what is the field bin Laden is talking about.  It is construction.
The bin Laden family is primarily involved in construction throughout
the Moslem middle east.

Bin Laden is simply saying that as he watched the tower burning,
first North Tower and then, twenty minutes later, South
Tower he was speculating based on his knowledge of construction
what was finally going to happen to the buildings.  In other words,
bin Laden was doing what everyone on earth with a television was
doing, except that he was doing it with the perspective from his
"experience in this field."   It is absurd to imagine that this is in
any way incriminating.

And the third front-page "smoking-gun" statement in the NYTs
is this:

"We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy,
who would be killed based on the position of the tower.  We
calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four
floors."

Yet these two sentences completely destroy the govenment case that
Osama bin Laden "boasts"  in the video how he "planned the attack."

Bin Laden's "guesses and expectations" about who the building would
collapse and how many people would be killed was not done before
September 11.  Absolutely nothing suggests that.  On the contrary, the
entire context shows -- in fact the transcript of bin Laden's words outright
states  that these guesses and expectations we have heard about were
his expectations and guesses that he made while watching North Tower
and South Tower burning on live televsion (and/or radio).  In fact this is
proven by the text quoted by the New York Times itself:  He says he

" calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who
would be killed based on the position of the tower"

in other words he "calculated the enemy deaths their would be
based on where the planes hit the tower"  (certainly he is not
referring to the "position of the tower" with respect to the layout
of New York City as on a map  -- but to the level of floors
where the planes hit.)  He is telling us that as he sat and took in
the news he was figuring that "the floors that would be hit would
be three or four floors"  out of the total floors in the two towers,
and that "based on the position (of impact) of the tower", meaning
that he is doing this kind of reasoning:  if the plane hit three quarters
of the way to the top, then eveyone in the top quarter of the tower
would be killed"  -- which is what milllions of people were also
thinking at those moments, although admittedly with a lot more
grief and dread and a lot less exhilaration --  but remember,
being glad about the commission of a great crime and welcoming
its implications for helping ones cause  is not the same as committing
a great crime.  (Think of the secret thoughts of all people who profit
greatly from wars and disasters --  we can't approve, but we also
cannot attach to them blame for the disasters and wars simply
because of their wishing for them and their joy at profiting from them.)

I must also point out that not only have the hired translators resorted
to blotting out context with the frequent "inaudible" at highly suspiciously
convenient places  -- they also depart from translation and resort to
summary on statements that I would deem essential for inclusion.
Here is one example:

    "Note: Ayman Al-Zawahri says first he commended
     OBL's awareness of what the media is saying. Then
     he says it was the first time for them  (Americans) to
     feel danger coming at them."

But as we have just seen the deciet behind this "smoking
gun evidence" is that bin Laden's "calculating and expecting"
was calculating and expecting of what was going to happen
next as he watched the news, it was calculating and expecting
based on data he was receiving from the news  --  he is
definitely not referring to some planning session before
September 11.  And it is just this discussion of
"OBL's awareness of what the media is saying" that
the translators choose not to translate at all.

No you know who really is incriminated in they eyes of
every truth-seeking thinking person of good will who
read the New York Times headlines but also knew
what was really on those transcripts.

(another messages follows below this one)

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.

=======================================

Letter #2:

The translation job is transparant disinformation.  Let us make the
point with a made up example:
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
EXTRA:  Abraham Lincoln accusses Founding Fathers of Euthanasia Plan
 (actual transcript from 1865 pre-Edison voice-o-graph provides evidence)

Actual Gettysberg recording shows Lincoln claimed that Founding Fathers
had conceived a program of  euthanasia  for the feeble minded and plotted
to rob their graves afterwards -- transcript of actual voice-o-graph
recording
verifies the story.  (Please send Princeton University more money so we can
research this further.)

Transcript:

(Lincoln's voice is scratchy.  Earlier, speakers spoke often of mass
killing.)

"Fours score and seven years ago our fathers (inaudible) conceived
(inaudible)
a final resting place for those who (inaudible) little note, nor long
remember (inaudible) that from these honored dead we take (inaudible) the
last full measure (inaudible) that these dead shall not have died in vein.
(inaudible)"

(End of voice-o-phone transcription.)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

What the government's shill translators have done is
little different than this.  For example,  look at this
convenient occurance of inaudibility in exactly the right
place to make the truncated sentence fragment  one of
the key passages in the government's alleged case
for complicity:

OBL: He did not know about the operation. Not
everybody knew
(...inaudible...). Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian
family (meaning the al Qaida Egyptian group), was in
charge of the group.
----

All over the United States newspapers and electronic
media are blazoning how "incriminating" these words
are:

"Not everybody knew..."

but it is the sentence being   cut off  with the
excuse "inaudible" that  gives this  fragment its
presumptivly incriminating  meaning.

But the incrimination  is presumptive and
that presumption is most certainly
unjustifiable given the words left to us
by the translators here.

Certainly the  broken sentence we have has
a different meaning than the complete
sentence would have had if it were audible, and
we don't know how different.  We don't know
what the complete sentence was.   But there is
more to the weakness of this evidence than this:

In Arabic the words we translate "Not everybody knew ..." could
also be translated as  "Not everybody knows ..." or
"Not all know..."

If the translators where careful to be nonbiasing they would
have rendered the sentence fragment like this:

"Not everybody knew (knows)..."

 But that would have exercise of scrupulous care would
have undercut  the incriminating suggestion that invites the
presumptive conclusion that fits the governments story line.

In fact, based on the fragment alone, bin Laden could
just as easily have been saying "Not everybody knows
everything that is going on in this organization" or
Not everyone knew about the rumors, the visions, the
warnings,  the existence of independent cells,  etc.
just as readily as  government's presumed interpretation
"Not everybody knew exactly how I planned the
WTC bombing."

The first possibility, that he meant "not everyone knows what
is going on in this movement"  we know to be true and we
know that bin Ladin knew it to be true and we know that it
also fits the context presented in the raw transcript.  But what
of the government's proffered presumptive meaning, is it
"smoking gun" evidence?    How can it be?  In order to
attain this "smoking gun" we need to make the presumption
of the meaning of the rest of the inaudible sentence.  But we
have to base our presumption on what we understand of
the conversation.  So the govement says, the "smoking gun"
statement has the "smoking gun" interpretation because we
choose to accept our presumption of sentence meaning based
on our knowledge of the case  --  a case that needs the
"smoking gun" to be established.  The to qualify the "smoking gun"
as a case-clinching smoking gun"  we have to make assumptions
about the missing part of the sentence -- and we supply the
missing meaning based on assumptions that we are upholding
with this very smoking gun.

In short they are trying to establish premises with the
very conclusions the premises are intended to prove,
and that doesn't work.

This is deceit and the translators have cooperated.

One more think. Bin Laden mentions Muhammad Atta
in the above passage, identifying his as a planner of the
WTC crashbombings.  But is that incriminating when that
is what the U.S. media had been leading the world to think
for weeks and when bin Laden has been following the media
(based on this transcript) and (in other video interviews) claims
that his only knowledge of the event came through the media.
(With mention of a September 6 tip-off introduced in this
video).

 What we have is bin Laden saying what every American
understanding and thinking on that same day of the recording:
  That Muhammad Atta was responsible for the hijackings based
on what the American news media were  reporting of FBI findings.
  Atta was on the front of every newspaper
and on every U.S. network very soon after the operation.
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT BIN LADEN IS AWARE
OF ATTA'S INVOLVEMENT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE.
But they do know of him, obviously  -- but so did the Mossad and
the CIA.

Simply bin Laden is being a perfect patsy for the
frame-up here.  His happiness at the fall of the
symbol of world capitalism, of globalism, of
New York fiancial and oil elites  is something those
who planned this frame-up knew they
could count on, knew they could exploit to their
own advantage, knew they could use to frame
their patsy
--and here, with this outrageous "translation,"
they are doing so -- but, most obviously, not honestly.

In fact even when he says "Muhammad of the Egyptian
family" he could also have meant  "Muhammad of theThe New York Times
Headline Reads:

BIN LADEN, ON  TAPE, BOASTS
OF TRADE CENTER ATTACKS;
U.S. SAYS IT PROVES HIS GUILT

The critical words of course are "boasts of,"
because they imply that he made statements
carrying the semantics "Hey, I did it, it was
me, aren't I great."

Under the headlines the "nation's newspaper
fo record" shows three pictures from the
video with captions of the allegedly incriminating
statements. But are they really incriminating?

The first:

"They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building,
so I said to them: be patient."

But if you look at context, you see that bin Laden says this
in a discussion of dreams that several people had had of
dreams of planes hitting buildings, and one of bin Laden's
associates telling of a dream in which two planes hit a building.
In other words, bin Laden is saying "I said to them be patient --
(because I know from the dreams relayed to me that there would
be two planes.)"   And highly suspicious is the fact that it is just
in the statement by the associate about his two dreams that
the hired translators chose not to translate but merely to summarize:

   OBL: .........At that point, I was worried that maybe
      the secret would be revealed if everyone starts
      seeing it in their dream. So I closed the subject.
      I told him if he sees another dream, not to tell
      anybody, because people will be upset with him.

     (Another person's voice can be heard recounting
       his dream about two planes hitting a big building).

   OBL: They were overjoyed when the first plane hit
      the building, so I said to them: be patient.

He is saying that he told them to be patient because of
his expectation of two planes based on the dream of
his associate.  The theme of this whole segment of conversation
was set by the refernce to one man's "vision of Allah" about
a plane hitting a building --  and thus bin Laden's statement
about his telling others to "be patient" is merely his shareing
his state of faith in the other man's vision that there would be
"two planes."  There is nothing in the context to suggest
that the instruction to be patient derived from an expectation
born of any other source.

The second "smoking gun" quote offered on the front page of
the New York Times is this:

"We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event
would take place that day.  We had finished our work that day
and had the radio on.  It was 5:30 our time."

But this merely means that there was a tip-off from somewhere
that there would a terrorist attack on September 11  -- which is
exactly the information that Mossad gave to the CIA and which
at the WTC which normally would have held 30 to 40 thousand
when the planes struck.  The tip was in the air -- and it reached
bin Laden on Thursday, September 6.  Thus this statement
exhonorates bin Ladin rather than incriminates him.

The third NYT "smoking gun" statement is this:

"Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire
from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the
building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the
floors above it only."

But what is the field bin Laden is talking about.  It is construction.
The bin Laden family is primarily involved in construction throughout
the Moslem middle east.

Bin Laden is simply saying that as he watched the tower burning,
first North Tower and then, twenty minutes later, South
Tower he was speculating based on his knowledge of construction
what was finally going to happen to the buildings.  In other words,
bin Laden was doing what everyone on earth with a television was
doing, except that he was doing it with the perspective from his
"experience in this field."   It is absurd to imagine that this is in
any way incriminating.

And the third front-page "smoking-gun" statement in the NYTs
is this:

"We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy,
who would be killed based on the position of the tower.  We
calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four
floors."

Yet these two sentences completely destroy the govenment case that
Osama bin Laden "boasts"  in the video how he "planned the attack."

Bin Laden's "guesses and expectations" about who the building would
collapse and how many people would be killed was not done before
September 11.  Absolutely nothing suggests that.  On the contrary, the
entire context shows -- in fact the transcript of bin Laden's words outright
states  that these guesses and expectations we have heard about were
his expectations and guesses that he made while watching North Tower
and South Tower burning on live televsion (and/or radio).  In fact this is
proven by the text quoted by the New York Times itself:  He says he

" calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who
would be killed based on the position of the tower"

in other words he "calculated the enemy deaths their would be
based on where the planes hit the tower"  (certainly he is not
referring to the "position of the tower" with respect to the layout
of New York City as on a map  -- but to the level of floors
where the planes hit.)  He is telling us that as he sat and took in
the news he was figuring that "the floors that would be hit would
be three or four floors"  out of the total floors in the two towers,
and that "based on the position (of impact) of the tower", meaning
that he is doing this kind of reasoning:  if the plane hit three quarters
of the way to the top, then eveyone in the top quarter of the tower
would be killed"  -- which is what milllions of people were also
thinking at those moments, although admittedly with a lot more
grief and dread and a lot less exhilaration --  but remember,
being glad about the commission of a great crime and welcoming
its implications for helping ones cause  is not the same as committing
a great crime.  (Think of the secret thoughts of all people who profit
greatly from wars and disasters --  we can't approve, but we also
cannot attach to them blame for the disasters and wars simply
because of their wishing for them and their joy at profiting from them.)

I must also point out that not only have the hired translators resorted
to blotting out context with the frequent "inaudible" at highly suspiciously
convenient places  -- they also depart from translation and resort to
summary on statements that I would deem essential for inclusion.
Here is one example:

    "Note: Ayman Al-Zawahri says first he commended
     OBL's awareness of what the media is saying. Then
     he says it was the first time for them  (Americans) to
     feel danger coming at them."

But as we have just seen the deciet behind this "smoking
gun evidence" is that bin Laden's "calculating and expecting"
was calculating and expecting of what was going to happen
next as he watched the news, it was calculating and expecting
based on data he was receiving from the news  --  he is
definitely not referring to some planning session before
September 11.  And it is just this discussion of
"OBL's awareness of what the media is saying" that
the translators choose not to translate at all.

No you know who really is incriminated in they eyes of
every truth-seeking thinking person of good will who
read the New York Times headlines but also knew
what was really on those transcripts.

(another messages follows below this one)

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party