Largest Swiss Newspaper Asks if Bush Was Behind 9/11

http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/9-11/artikel45057

ZÜRICH – 2973 Menschen starben bei den Anschlägen von 9/11. «Bin Laden» und «Al Kaida», schrie der Bush-Clan. Die Welt glaubte ihm. Inzwischen zweifeln selbst Wissenschaftler an der Bush-Version. Auch die Schweizer Uni-Dozenten Albert A. Stahel (63) und Daniele Ganser (34) stellen jetzt heisse Fragen.

«Etwas stimmt nicht», sagt Strategieexperte Stahel in der «Weltwoche» und verweist auf den «lückenhaften» offiziellen 9/11-Report der US-Regierung von 2004.

Gegenüber BLICK bestätigt der Uni-Professor die Kritik:

Osama Bin Laden kann «nicht der grosse Pate» hinter den Anschlägen sein. Er habe nicht genug Kommunikationsmittel gehabt.

Stahel bezweifelt, dass ein Passagierflugzeug ins Pentagon krachte: «Für Flug-Anfänger ist es eigentlich unmöglich, das Gebäude so genau zu treffen.»

Sieben Stunden nach den Twin Towers stürzte daneben das World Trade Center 7 ein. Die offizielle Version: Es brannte lange. Stahel: «Gar nichts ist klar.»

Noch weiter als Stahel geht Historiker Daniele Ganser, sein Kollege an der Uni Zürich. Auch die offizielle US-Version nennt er «eine Verschwörungstheorie»: «Es gibt 3 Theorien, die wir gleichberechtigt behandeln sollten»:




By Elie Peter - Sept 15, 2006, BLICK newspaper, Zurich, Switzerland


2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and "Al Qaeda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed them. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version. Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel and Daniele Ganser raise new questions.

"Something is not correct", says strategy expert Stahel in "World Week", and here he refers to the "incomplete" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004.

The university professor confirms his criticism in BLICK: "Osama Bin Laden cannot be 'the large godfather' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication".

Dr. Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon: "For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World Trade Center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear."

Raising questions along with Stahel is historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, his colleague at the University of Zurich. Dr. Ganser also calls the official US version "a conspiracy theory".

"There are three theories, which we should treat equally":

1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks.

2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars.

3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services.

Ganser: "3,000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests. The more we research, the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible. Bush has lied so much already! And we already know that the US government planned an operation in 1962 that was approved by the Pentagon that would have sacrificed innocent US citizens for the government's own interests."

As for Ganser and Stahel: "We only ask questions."

The paper is not asking if Bush was behind 9/11. They are reporting about two professors asking that question. Do you know how to read? You ought to correct this egregious error.

3 Theorien, die wir gleichberechtigt behandeln sollten»:



«Überraschungs-Theorie» Bin Laden und Al Kaida führten die Anschläge aus.


«Lass es absichtlich passieren» Teile der US-Regierung kannten die Al-Kaida-Pläne. Sie reagierten nicht, um eine Serie von Kriegen zu legitimieren.


«Führe es absichtlich selbst aus» Die Anschläge wurden vom Pentagon und/oder Geheimdiensten ausgeführt. Die Bin-Laden-Videos sind gefälscht. 3000 Menschen wurden für strategische Interessen geopfert.




"There are three theories, which we should treat equally":


1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks.

2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars.

3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services.

That is NOT the same thing as the paper saying or asking it. I repeat my question. Can you read or are you deliberately misrepresenting this?

Asks

Will you admit that you are seriously misrepresenting the article in your headline?

Let me put this in context for you. Let's say the San Francisco Chronicle runs an article about evolution-deniers or ID proponents and cites them extensively. Does that mean that the SF Chronicle is denying evolution or promoting Intelligent Design? Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding and embarrassing.

ASKS

http://www.answers.com/topic/ask
., asked, ask·ing, asks.

v.tr.
To put a question to: When we realized that we didn't know the answer, we asked the teacher.
To seek an answer to: ask a question.
To seek information about: asked directions.

To make a request of: asked me for a loan.
To make a request for. Often used with an infinitive or clause: ask a favor of a friend; asked to go along on the trip; asked that he be allowed to stay out late.
To require or call for as a price or condition: asked ten dollars for the book.
To expect or demand: ask too much of a child.
To invite: asked them to dinner.
Archaic. To publish, as marriage banns.
v.intr.
To make inquiry; seek information.
To make a request: asked for help.
idioms:
ask for it (or trouble) Informal.

To persist in an action despite the likelihood that it will result in difficulty or punishment.
ask out
To invite (someone) to a social engagement.



asker ask'er n.

The paper is running an article about two professors, not drawing a conclusion or asking the question itself. If the paper is asking the question about the three theories or making the claim themselves, WHY do they put them inside quotation marks? It's clear they are quoting one of the professors. Your attempts to weasel out of this are very telling. Why can't you simply admit that your headline seriously misrepresents the article and misleads the readers of your post?

Please show where the paper itself is asking if Bush was behind 9/11 as opposed to running an article in which it REPORTS about the two professors asking that question. I despise George Bush for precisely the very tactics you are using here. Either you cannot read or the truth does not matter to you.

this is REAL simple, ASKS SDuderstadt

a STATEMENT SLAD, not a question. Do you have any critical thinking or reading skills at all?

I can read a newspaper quoting someone and make a distinction as to who said it as opposed to merely quoting it. You apparently can't. Why can't you simply admit that you either misrepresented the article or you're just a sloppy writer?

Show us where the newspaper (as opposed to the subjects of the article) question whether Bush was behind 9/11. This should be easy. Or do you not understand what quotation marks mean?

Your lack of integrity is stunning, SLAD and is quite similar to what I would expect from the Bush administration. Let me give you an example:

Bushb gives a speech in which he defends the invasion of Iraq and lays out his rationale for doing so.

The SF Chronicle reports on Bush's speech and quotes his rationale.

Bush, in turn, cites the SF Chronicle as, thus, supporting his rationale, when all they did was report on it.


Do you get it? Again, your lack of integrity is every bit as stunning as Bush's.

how does reposting the article in Swiss resolve anything or address my posts, SLAD? Are you incapable of admitting a mistake?

Are you incapable of..........?

Why are you obfuscating? Is this more of your lack of integrity.

I'll keep going, all day if you want, you let me know and then I'll stop


I wonder have you ever tried fly fishing?

Too bad you can't answer simple questions or admit you made a mistake. Your "data dump" does nothing to support your dishonest headline. Enough of your silliness. You simply have zero critical thinking skills.

SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-01-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The paper is QUOTING Ganser, SLAD...
That is NOT the same thing as the paper saying or asking it. I repeat my question. Can you read or are you deliberately misrepresenting this?

THE NEW YORK TIMES ASKS WHY SO FEW WOMEN REACH THE TOP OF BIG LAW FIRMS, PART 1 OF 3: MENTORING AND NETWORKING

http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/03/the_new_york_ti.html

have NOTHING to do with the OP. Are you doing this deliberately? Are you being silly on purpose? If you were, how could we tell (cmpared to your normal M.O.)?

You seem to think that a paper quoting someone as asking something is the same thing as asking that themselves. As I said before, you have zero critical thinking skills if you cannot grasp that distinction. Nuance is not your thing, SLAD. I'd avoid it, if I were you.

in the same way, If you want to condemn also I will stop.

misrepresents the article, SLAD? The myriad of blog citations you're peppering us with here does nothing to mitigate your mistake and intellectual dishonesty. You're now getting worse than Bush in your grasping for straws.

your examples, I can't help you. Like I said before, nuance is not your strong suit (paraphrased). Now, I've given up on you ever simply admitting your error and I'm done with your silliness and utter lack of integrity.

Largest Swiss Newspaper Asks if Bush Was Behind 9/11


New York Times Asks: Why No War Coverage??

seriously. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

In your example about the NYT and tribute, the headline of the NYT actually says: "A debate arises: How much tribute is enough?", The blogger made the same mistake you made. The NYT is not asking the question. It is saying that a debate has arisen over how much tribute is enough. Do you get that? Or, is your defense that "everyone is doing it"? In the case of the Swiss newspaper, they are simply quoting 2 professors who question whether Bush was behind 9/11. As I challenged you before, please show us where the newspaper itself is questioning it, as opposed to merely citing someone else's questioning of it. Again, I doubt if you will grasp the nuance here. It reminds me of trying to debate RWers who claim that direct eyewitness (earwitness) testimony as to what someone said is hearsay (it's not....hearsay is when someone claims to KNOW something based only upon what someone else said....but I doubt you'd comprehend that distinction either). In any case, I despair that you will ever do something as simple as admit your mistake. Instead, you will absorb countless hours of your time trying to rationalize that mistake. Pathetic.

Hopeless. I applaud your valiant effort, though, but if someone can't answer a simple question or come to realize the error of their statement (i.e. a newpaper article does not equate the newspaper advocating a particular position), dumb as a rock comes to mind.

CAN'T YOU READ A SIMPLE SENTENCE?




New York Times Asks "Digital Projection of Films Is Coming. Now, Who Pays?"

New York Times asks S. Fournier about small companies with big brands

the New York Times asks the question, "How Much Tribute Is Enough?"

New York Times Asks - How Does The New Nikon D200 Stack Up?

New York Times Asks: Why No War Coverage??

Washington Post Asks Is the Palm OS Dying?

The Washington Post asks the two eternal Russian questions

The Washington Post Asks, Is Tom Davis a Eunuch?

Washington Post asks: Why Isn't Jenna Bush Serving In Iraq?

Washington Post Asks Ron Paul if He's Too Angry to be President


The Washington Post asks readers to put their 10 cents in as it raises its cover price

Flying Pigs moment; The Washington Post asks, `Will the West fight back?'

The Washington Post asks "Where Did the French Go?"

that other people have made similar mistakes or misrepresented the meaning of something, so you should be let off the hook. You do realize how flimsy a post hoc rationalization that is, right?

New York Times Asks "Digital Projection of Films Is Coming. Now, Who Pays?"

New York Times asks S. Fournier about small companies with big brands

the New York Times asks the question, "How Much Tribute Is Enough?"

New York Times Asks - How Does The New Nikon D200 Stack Up?

New York Times Asks: Why No War Coverage??

Washington Post Asks Is the Palm OS Dying?

The Washington Post asks the two eternal Russian questions

The Washington Post Asks, Is Tom Davis a Eunuch?

Washington Post asks: Why Isn't Jenna Bush Serving In Iraq?

Washington Post Asks Ron Paul if He's Too Angry to be President


The Washington Post asks readers to put their 10 cents in as it raises its cover price

Flying Pigs moment; The Washington Post asks, `Will the West fight back?'

The Washington Post asks "Where Did the French Go?"

why didn't you simply say so? And it would be nice if you would proof your posts first, rather than post with incoherent subject lines. i do have to admit, however, that this is written better than your famous, "I could have went on all night" post. That was a SLAD classic.

New York Times Asks "Digital Projection of Films Is Coming. Now, Who Pays?"

New York Times asks S. Fournier about small companies with big brands

the New York Times asks the question, "How Much Tribute Is Enough?"

New York Times Asks - How Does The New Nikon D200 Stack Up?

New York Times Asks: Why No War Coverage??

Washington Post Asks Is the Palm OS Dying?

The Washington Post asks the two eternal Russian questions

The Washington Post Asks, Is Tom Davis a Eunuch?

Washington Post asks: Why Isn't Jenna Bush Serving In Iraq?

Washington Post Asks Ron Paul if He's Too Angry to be President


The Washington Post asks readers to put their 10 cents in as it raises its cover price

Flying Pigs moment; The Washington Post asks, `Will the West fight back?'

The Washington Post asks "Where Did the French Go?"

I ask again...if a newspaper runs an article about an Intelligent Design proponent and quotes them denying evolution, is that the same thing as the newspaper questioning evolution? Why can't any of you answer this simple question? Why do you seem to have such trouble with precision and critical thinking? Also, since this was your OP, I'd really be interested in your answers to my post questioning why the german and english versions of the article don't synchronize. I hope you didn't "play" with them. I find it troubling that the English "translation" contains text the German version does not.

Try and keep up it was a very long time ago, I know


SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-01-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The paper is QUOTING Ganser, SLAD...
That is NOT the same thing as the paper saying or asking it. I repeat my question. Can you read or are you deliberately misrepresenting this?

quoting someone asking a question and asking that question yourself???????

I give up. Not only do you have no integrity, you're now trying to rationalize it. I don't care how many examples you give. You also might want to consider anger management classes.

It is VERY apparent to me

Rather than admit your error, you're now projecting it onto me. Hint: I am not the one claiming that a newspaper article quoting someone asking questions is the same thing as the newspaper asking the questions. Do you honestly think if a newspaper quotes someone questioning the patriotism of someone questioning Bush, that is the same thing as the newspaper questioning their patiotism? Do you?

I am only giving you a simple direct answer to your inquiry

In the case you linked to, it's appropriate to say "The New York Times Asks", because the New York Times employs O'Brien to fucking write for the New York Times. Timothy O'brien's article is about Timothy O'brien's pov.

Please read for comprehension.

Is the palminfocenter the standard of journalism you'd like to aspire to?

By publishing a story about these academics questioning the 9/11 OCT they are implicitly lending it credibility as a question to be asked.

If the NYT runs an article with some ID proponent questioning evolution, can one conclude that the NYT is implicitly lending Intelligent Design credibility? Are you kidding?

This is an article that presents evidence supporting the charge that BushCo's version of 9/11 cannot be true. It is not an article about the two professors, it is an article questioning the official version of 9/11, supported by the comments of the two professors. The paper is clearly intending to put the question before it's readers. (SLaD did use the word "asks" in the subject line)

And thank you to SLaD for posting the article.

If you read it carefully, it's actually the opinions of the professors. How anyone can confuse opinion with fact is beyond me. If you read the quotes, the professors are making evaluative claims, not statements of fact. I'll ask my question again. Suppose a newspaper ran an article citing the arguments of Intelligent Design proponents and quoted them denying evolution. Are you seriously suggesting that the newspaper "clearly intended to put Intelligent Design and questioning evolution before its readers"? Are you serious? Do you actually know what reporting is? I don't know how one can read the wording of the article and divine that the newspaper was pushing a belief. Are you claiming to know the state of mind of the reporter or the paper?

If the paper was making the claim or raising the question, why wouldn't they put it on the editorial page? As I've long believed, the underlying problem with CT's or "truthers" is your abject lack of critical thinking skills, compounded by your inability to grasp nuance. I would highly recomment a class in Critical Thinking or Logic. I'm sure your local community college provides them.

The subject line did not say "Largest Swiss Newspaper Endorses 9/11 Truth", which would have had to be the case for you to have a leg to stand on.

This is an argument over semantics (started by you) and not a critical thinking issue, however I would suggest signing yourself up for that class -- it might help you stop believing in fairy tales told by the Bush Crime Family.

your response makes you look silly. As to your lead-off thought, I ask again. If a newspaper runs an article about an Intelligent Design proponent, in the process quoting him or her questioning evolution, does that mean the newspaper is also questioning evolution? Hint: no. I think you need to understand the subject of reporting better and gain the ability to understand the difference between merely reporting and advocacy. How anyone can read that article and draw the conclusions you're drawing is beyond me. At best, one cannot deduce the leaning of the newspaper, which is as it should be.

As to your suggestion about critical thinking, I'll take you on any day. Consider that a challenge, although it is probably one-sided because your posts indicate your lack of crtical thinking skills, especially since you think this is an issue over "semantics", again indicating your inability to think logically. Back to my original point, do you honestly deny that many of the sources for information about 9/11 could not possibly be "controlled" by the "Bush crime family"? Are you seriously suggesting that the FDNY or ASCE is "in on it"? I'd really like to hear you lay out the case for either entity being a part of the "cover-up", especially since the FDNY lost something just shy of 350 members that day.

Last but not least, please point to any part of the article in which they advocate anything or ask anything. Good luck.

or are they Morons?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2017006,00.html

Hey, this can be fun!

Sid

WTF? How have I been proven wrong, SLAD?

UK's 4th Largest Paper asks if Conspiracy Theorists are Idiots

It's kinda sad when people are making fun of you and it goes right over your head.

it's getting old.

Why do you talk about yourself that way?

:eyes:

go ahead be my guest, all I've seen from you is babble

:eyes:

As should be blatantly apparent, my posts about your "brilliant ripostes" were wholly tongue in cheek commentaries on your juvenile posts above.

Your juvenile posts above, on the other hand, were wholly, well... juvenile.

Why don't you address the substance of the issue under discussion instead of playing silly buggers? See post #105.

the 3 Musketeers.




Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.

Dale Carnegie

:crazy:

Um, no. Not even in the wildest fantasies of the most delusional conspiracy fantasists can your interpretation be sustained. You realize that, right?

I could have went on all night

"I could have went on all night"? Do you know the proper use of "went" and "gone"? I really have a hard time taking someone who commits such egregious grammatical errors as saying "I could have went on all night", when they mean "I could have gone on all night", seriously. I guess we should be thankful you didn't say, "I could OF went on all night". I honestly used to think that part of the problem with communicating with you is that you are quite ill-informed. I am starting to realize you don't appear to be very educated either. Thus, I am starting to understand why many of your posts are incoherent, disjointed and/or ponderously long (I assume you subscribe to the old saw, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit"). In fact, many of your posts read like a rather huge non sequitur.

As a young child, I was usually embarrassed when my grandmother and great-aunt (her sister) said things like "he don't" or "she don't" instead of "he doesn't" or "she doesn't". I would, however, take into account that neither of them had much in the way of formal education and usually just bite my tongue. I am willing to extend you the same courtesy, but I am inclined to pay little attention to your posts in the future. I'd write more but I am late for my NWO executive board meeting.

It seems quite obvious that you do not comprehend the difference between a newspaper reporting on something and a newspaper adopting an editorial position on something.

It is a very important difference, and one that you should consider learning before you embarrass yourself further.

New York Times Asks "Digital Projection of Films Is Coming. Now, Who Pays?"

New York Times asks S. Fournier about small companies with big brands

the New York Times asks the question, "How Much Tribute Is Enough?"

New York Times Asks - How Does The New Nikon D200 Stack Up?

New York Times Asks: Why No War Coverage??

Washington Post Asks Is the Palm OS Dying?

The Washington Post asks the two eternal Russian questions

The Washington Post Asks, Is Tom Davis a Eunuch?

Washington Post asks: Why Isn't Jenna Bush Serving In Iraq?

Washington Post Asks Ron Paul if He's Too Angry to be President

SPARE A DIME? The Washington Post asks readers to put their 10 cents in as it raises its cover price

Flying Pigs moment; The Washington Post asks, `Will the West fight back?'

The Washington Post asks "Where Did the French Go?"

between a newspaper asking a question (i.e. when it adopts a particular editorial stance on the subject matter) and someone else asking a question (i.e. when the newspaper merely reports upon the subject matter and the fact that someone else is asking a question).

A newspaper, by reporting upon a question asked by someone does not = the newspaper asking that question. It is merely telling a story, which is what newspapers do.

To reduce it to even more simple terms for you, seemslikeadream, consider this scenario:

1. You post something on the Internet in which you ask whether or not 9-11 was an inside job.
2. I write a story in my newspaper about you asking that question and the Internet discussion that ensued.

Q. Who is questioning whether 9 11 was an inside job?

The answer is you. Not me, not my newspaper. I merely reported upon it.



And to take it a bit further, if in addition to reporting in my paper about your question, I also write an editorial about it and espouse the view that your question is a legitimate one that ought to be vigorously explored, etc. etc. because there are so many "unanswered questions" and so many "anomolies" and so many "smoking guns", then it would be fair to contend, at least metaphorically, that I too am asking the question.

Alternatively, if in addition to reporting in my paper about your question, I also write an editorial about it and espouse the view that your question is entirely devoid of merit, that your arguments are utterly ludicrous, baseless and unfounded, and that only individuals lacking any rational or critical thinking skills could possibly be taken in by the snake oil salesmen who peddle such ridiculous conspiracy theories to the credulous and the gullible, then it would not be fair to contend that I too am asking the question.

Do you honestly not understand this? It is really, really, basic and fundamental stuff.

one that very clearly demonstrates why the title of the OP is misleading.

Sid

I am embarrassed about this being done in my name, why would I hold the same weight to something so trivial. Do you really entertain the notion that I would care one iota what you or SD spew.




YOU HAVE REALLY WEIRD PRIORITIES

I simply responded to your lack of comprehension on a subject that you raised and pointed out your error.


Now, you seem to be suggesting that instead of responding to your post, I should be doing...something else...and that the fact that I responded to your post indicates...something.

How very, very strange.

It actually appears that you know now that you were wrong and that you are just too stubborn and perhaps too embarrassed to admit it, so instead you are going off on a tangent that is completely out in lalaland.

Sid

she IS serious. It's incomprehensible to me that people can be so devoid of critical thinking skills and still function normally.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you should know SD

If you look at the excerpt of the original article (in German, I presume), then compare it to the "english translation" below, it's clear that they don't synchronize. For example, in the German version, the first references to the professors apparently list their ages behind their names (61 and 34). This is completely missing from the english "translation", however, this is not a major concern, although it does indicate it is not a literal translation.

Towards the end of the German version, it appears to end a full nine lines earlier than the so-called "english translation" below. I'd like to know: who translated this? Why did they leave out the relevant German portions? More importantly, are the last nine lines of the "english translation" actually from the article or did someone add or surmise that? If these questions cannot be answered properly, it might just be that this is, yet, one more example of the dishonesty or plain sloppiness of the "truth movement". Does anyone here actually speak German?

My German is quite ok.
The translation is correct. Only the last German sentence in the original it is said that Ganser is going even further in his criticism then Stahle.
The rest of Ganser's argument:
"There are three theories, which we should treat equally":

1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks.

2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars.

3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services.

Ganser: "3,000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests. The more we research, the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible. Bush has lied so much already! And we already know that the US government planned an operation in 1962 that was approved by the Pentagon that would have sacrificed innocent US citizens for the government's own interests."

As for Ganser and Stahel: "We only ask questions."



is not in the German quote.
Yet, knowing Ganser's work pretty well I can confirm that this is "modell" as he has presented it in several discussions on Swiss television.
This guy btw is not a nobody but maybe the historian with the biggest knowledge on Operation Gladio. In fact he wrote his PhD on this and published his thesis in English which was translated in several languages.
So no reason to be paranoid and imagine dishonesty of the so called "truth movement"

My point that the text does not appear in the German version is true, but "you can cofirm that" this is what the article says??? Would you accept that from a so-called "OCTer"? Why doesn't the author include all the text and let the reader decide??? Oy.

Here it is again, in case you missed it:

http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/9-11/artikel45057



There's also this thing called "Google". It's a pretty popular search engine. You can use it to search a term such as "German to English translation free" and find a link, like this: http://ets.freetranslation.com/

That link didn't translate as well as the OP, but it's the first link I tried.. there's many more translators to choose from. Here's what this one gave me:



Hell, if she would have posted all that, you'd just complain that her posts were too long...

A tiny little "thanks" would be appreciated and I hope that you allow me to write although I'm a foreigner and my English not as perfect as yours.... :sarcasm:
Yes, I confirm it.
Maybe a little food research would have helped you:
Noch weiter als Stahel geht Historiker Daniele Ganser, sein Kollege an der Uni Zürich. Auch die offizielle US-Version nennt er «eine Verschwörungstheorie»: «Es gibt 3 Theorien, die wir gleichberechtigt behandeln sollten»:

«Überraschungs-Theorie» Bin Laden und Al Kaida führten die Anschläge aus.

«Lass es absichtlich passieren» Teile der US-Regierung kannten die Al-Kaida-Pläne. Sie reagierten nicht, um eine Serie von Kriegen zu legitimieren.

«Führe es absichtlich selbst aus» Die Anschläge wurden vom Pentagon und/oder Geheimdiensten ausgeführt. Die Bin-Laden-Videos sind gefälscht. 3000 Menschen wurden für strategische Interessen geopfert.

Ganser: «Je mehr wir forschen, desto mehr zweifeln wir an Bushs Version.» Für ihn ist denkbar, dass die Bush-Regierung verantwortlich war. «Bush hat schon so viel gelogen! Und bereits 1962 gab es im Pentagon einen Plan, unschuldige US-Bürger für eigene Interessen zu opfern.» So weit wie Ganser geht Stahel nicht: «Ich stelle nur Fragen.»

Hier der Link zum Blick:
http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/9-11/arti...splay=kommentar

Why I could confirm it?
Maybe because I know Ganser's work pretty well.
Or maybe watched this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1681122417182180547&q=Ganser&ei=mPFESInpIoPo2QLZt934CA

where he presents the three theories around 6'20''

I think it was out of his hands. There is a darker side.

Isn't it amusing how much time some people spend here babbling


“Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.”
Dale Carnegie

although IMO it should. When I heard about the attacks, my first thought was "Now where does Bush fit into this? It just goes to show you how cynical I'd become by 2001. However, almost seven years later I still wonder to what extent he was involved.