Korean Airlines Flight 007
Evidence that the plane and passengers survived a water landing and were taken to be kept as prisoners by Soviet government.
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Downing of KAL Flight 007
Korean Airlines Flight 007
Evidence that the plane and passengers survived a water landing and were taken to be kept as prisoners by Soviet government.
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Downing of KAL Flight 007
Hmmm...... isn't this a bit irrelevant in todays world?
Plus, the idea that large numbers of people were kept prisoners etc seems like a conspiracy theory of the first order.
It would seem to anyone who is still a prisoner and to the 22 children who were adopted out to small communities not to be irrelevant for them.
Всё это была американская провокация. Самолёт, скорее всего, был на автопилоте, и пассажиров там не было.
Нет, я говорю вполне серьёзно. То, что это провокация, факт. Насчёт второй части уверенности нет, но это вероятно.Quote:
Although I think he meant this sarcastically
What do you mean? That people are scared of saying what they really think?
I don't think so, not based on people who participate here. I think it was perhaps like that, to a degree during the Stalin era and for a while later. But I think it was a very long time since a Russian person was seriously concerned about expressing a political view.
And in addition, this is an anonymous forum, hosted in the USA.
They only exception, I think, might be perhaps government officials, based on what I have been reading.
If they value their career they should probably not be too outspoken. But that is not very different from anywhere else.
If you think I am wrong, please say, but that is my impression.
Маркус, позвольте познакомить вас с Вилльяамом Оккамом...
If you think it's вероятно that since 1983, the US and S. Korean governments have paid thousands of actors to pretend that they're the grieving friends and family of 269 imaginary people from KAL 007, then, evidently, I completely misunderstand the meaning of вероятно...
That's why I said to Hanna that there are different degrees of conspiracy theory. For a government to make 269 real people completely disappear is merely маловероятно. For a government to make 269 non-existent people "real" (by pretending they were on an empty airplane, and then hiring hundreds or thousands of other people to pretend that they are mourning the deaths of these imaginary persons, and to maintain this fiction for decades) is not merely improbable; it's nearly невозможно.
Then again, there are some 911 Troofers who continue to believe that no one died aboard American Airlines Flight 77, because there was no AA Flight 77 at all, and the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile, not by an airliner with almost 70 persons on board; and that people who claim to have known the passengers and crew of Flight 77 are delusional, or paid liars; that the cell-phone calls made by terrified passengers right before they died never happened, etc.
So by comparison, Marcus seems almost reasonable here.
P.S. As to whether this was an American провокация -- I think it's fair to say that the U.S. government did their best to needlessly demonize the Soviet government AFTER the shootdown happened. For example, Reagan's characterization of the incident as "barbarism" was unnecessarily provocative (and Reagan's words seem especially rash when you consider that the shootdown of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes happened less than five years later). Also, I completely agree that the US was already engaging in "provocation" BEFORE the destruction of KAL 007, with regular USAF fly-overs of Soviet space earlier in 1983. So in both those senses, I agree it's a fact that there was провокация from the US side.
However, I reject the idea that the US government in some way either planned or hoped for the shootdown of KAL 007. In addition to the points I made above about the logistical difficulties in faking the deaths of so many people, there's also the point that both the US and Japanese governments compromised their own intelligence capabilities by voluntarily releasing their recordings of intercepted Soviet radio communications after the incident (as a result of which, the USSR quite predictably upgraded their codes). Why would the US and Japan have done something to make things more difficult for the CIA, if KAL 007 was part of some complicated CIA plan?
Also, by the way, "Occam's Razor" has been paraphrased in many ways, but the original Latin phrasing is often given as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (Не следует множить сущее без необходимости; "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity").
And the "KAL 007 was a nearly-empty spy plane with no passengers" theory thus violates the бритва (razor) in a quite literal way -- it "multiplies entities" by requiring that a far larger number of persons (namely, the hired actors pretending to be loved ones of the imaginary passengers) must be participating in the conspiracy.
The "passengers were abducted alive by the Soviets" theory could in principle be done with a smaller number of conspirators, but it still violates Occam's Razor (in my opinion) because of the significant number of orphanage officials, etc., who would be involved in re-settling the kidnapped passengers within the USSR.
But if one seeks to explain why only two confirmed bodies were found (on Japanese beaches) from a plane that had 269 people on board, the simplest and smallest conspiracy (if one wants a conspiracy at all) would be the Soviet navy recovered a significant number of floating bodies/body parts, but sailors were instructed to lie and say that they'd found zero bodies; and the recovered bodies were incinerated or secretly buried. That the Soviet navy lied to American, S. Korean, and Japanese search-and-rescue teams about the probable crash location is a matter of record, and also that the Soviets lied for years about the fact they'd found Flt 007's black boxes.
The "no conspiracy" hypothesis would be that the corpses were scattered by ocean currents and eaten by sharks, crabs, etc., before they could be recovered.
Russia has actually been relatively honest about this kind of stuff from the 1990s and onwards. At least towards my country, the USSR was not very dishonest or plotting, and when ex Soviet military people were able to speak off the record without any risk of reprimands, they confirmed the officia USSR version of events, and digging around in archives that were opened up, again confirmed the USSRs version. Sweden had some issues with the USSR about a some missing people, submarines and a small plane that was shot down. Even though the assumption was always that the USSR was lying and covering things up, as it turned out,they had been telling the truth, more or less, including when it was not particularly flattering on them. Actually, our own polititicians and media had been MORE dishonest than the USSR, simply lying about what the military, and individuals had been up to, on Soviet territory.
I honestly think this is a fanciful story that probably doesn't have a lot of substance although undoubtedly dramatic and intriguing.
Any kids that had survived something like this would surely remember it and look into it as adults. Any surviving adults would surely have spoken up by now.
I agree with you on this point, Hanna. I think the simple truth is that 269 people were killed as a result of accidental mis-identification, technological failure, and human error, all compounded by political paranoia and military over-zealousness -- similar to the tragic case of Iran Air 655 in 1988.
To answer your earlier question about the relevance of this in today's world, I would say that if you're interested in Soviet history, the KAL 007 tragedy was a highly significant event in the late Soviet period. And even if you believe, as I do, that this was essentially a terrible accident and that Reagan was totally wrong to spin it as "barbarism" by the "Evil Empire," the internal Soviet response in the aftermath of the accident (particularly the decision to engage in international deception about the black boxes) is also possibly revealing about the willful lack of transparency within the Soviet political system. And I admit that "lack of transparency" has been an issue in American policy, too -- but I would insist that it's much easier to be massively deceitful in a country with only one political party and complete state control of the media.
One other interesting thing I learned as a result of this thread: rather amazingly, KAL 007 was actually the SECOND South Korean airliner in less than a decade that was shot down by the Soviet "ВВС" (Военно-Воздушные Силы, "Air Force"), after blundering into USSR airspace as a result of navigational errors!!
In April 1978, KAL 902 was flying with 109 people on board from Paris to Seoul (via Anchorage) by a trans-polar route. When the flight was passing over the North Pole, the magnetic compasses failed, and the flight crew attempted to navigate by visual sightings of the sun. The result of this was that the plane made an almost 180° U-turn and entered Soviet airspace over Murmansk, east of northern Finland. As in the KAL 007 incident, the plane was initially suspected to be a US Air Force RC-135; Soviet military pilots in the air visually confirmed that it was a civilian plane, but were ordered by superiors on the ground to open fire.
But this incident ended much less tragically -- two passengers were killed by shrapnel from the Soviet missile strike, but the plane made a safe emergency landing, and the other 107 survived and were taken into custody. The passengers were released and flown to Finland after two days, while the civilian airline crew members were held a little longer (and forced to make a public "apology" for political purposes), but also released.
Since the plane was "embarrassingly far" into Soviet airspace before it was finally intercepted by fighter planes, some analysts think that this incident contributed to the over-zealous response of the Soviet Air Force in the KAL 007 incident less than six years later.
P.S. I was not even 7 years old when the KAL 902 incident took place, which is probably why I don't recall ever hearing about it until now -- I certainly remember the news reports about KAL 007, by which time I was almost 12 and in junior-high school.
P.P.S. On ru.wikipedia, the articles about the shootdowns are called Инцидент с южнокорейским Боингом [1978] and Инцидент с южнокорейским Боингом [1983] ("Incident with a South Korean Boeing, 1978/1983") as though they were talking about two movies with the same title!
[Edited by author because of unnecessary rudeness: The only relevant thing I said was that Sweden's small population (and corresponding lack of military power) gave the USSR less incentive to plot against Sweden. -- Th.M.]
Hanna, if you saw my post, I apologize for being so impolite. I was rattled by Marcus's "empty spy plane" claim, which I think was beyond rational defense, but I should not have taken out my frustration on you, just because you were commenting in the same thread.
Well, there should have been a proportional level of plotting relative to the size and importance of the country then.
And there was a connection based on gegraphical proximity and historical relationships.
My impression is that the USSR was acting in a relatively predictable way militarily and was actually more honest about its intent than anyone in the West gave it credit for at the time. This seems to be the picture that is emerging now that statements can be verified.
Its' interests being primarily protecting Russia and having a sphere of interest surrounding it, protecting USSR and the socialist state they had created. Secondly it was driven by ideology which spurred it to support "liberation movements" in various countries and socialism in the third world.
The US on the other hand was a lot less predictable, driven by the objective of ruining socialism and by fluctuating financial motivations. This meant it was less predictable and more volatile. "Our enemy's enemy is our friend" which lead to it supporting some gruesome dictators and crazy radicals.... the results of which we can see today. It also lead to it spying and plotting on countries for no other reason than economic gain.
I have nothing against critisizing the USSR for the many things it did wrong, but I think the shooting down of this plane was an unfortunate mistake in a tense military situation. No conspiracy and no covering up that involved any survivors.
If you are outraged by Marcus' theory you probably should read a full version. The theory was ploted by a Michel Brun. He wrote a book about the incident. It involves tens planes from both sides engaged in air figths. Some of them (not only KAL 007) were presumably downed. Marcus at least occam-razored that staff.
While many people in Russia believe that the flight throuh Soviet air space was intentional, the Brun's theory isn't very popular.
Sacré merde, WTF is wrong with these паршивые лягушатники?!?! Может, французские мамы намазывают свои сиськи ртутью и свинцом, чтобы у детей мозги развивали ненормально?
I mean, I thought that Thierry Meyssan was a rare freak, but now you tell me that Michel Brun was doing the same thing 20 years earlier!
Well, to quote "The Muppet Movie"...
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a52...nakeWalker.jpg
;)
А вы считаете, что 9 сентября 2001 года теракты в Нью-Йорке совершили какие-то исламские террористы?Quote:
мозги развивались
Не знаю, поскольку не знаю, что оно значит по-английски. Что вы имели в виду?Quote:
Как сказать по-русски "Well, DUH"?
Ваша бритва как раз вопиет о том, что эти теракты были организованы американскими властями.
Понятно: ты веришь всему, что тебе больше по вкусу.:mosking:
Duh = :fool" = Чего ещё можно было от тебя ожидать...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19SfD3kG5Es
Спасибо.Quote:
Duh = = Чего ещё можно было от тебя ожидать...
Вы думаете, я просто так к этому выводу пришёл?
Я могу аргументировать.
1. Америка обладает самыми сильными и хорошо финансируемыми спецслужбами мира, сотрудничающими со многими странами. Аль-Кайду по американской версии поддерживали только Судан, Афганистан и ещё какая-то мелочь. При этом Америка не смогла помешать террористам ни на каком этапе. Это невероятно.
2. Если спецслужбы проморгали подготовку теракта и не смогли ему помешать, то откуда Буш сразу знал, кто виноват и что делать. Как он мог знать, что это сделал именно Бен Ладен, что он находится в Афганистане и т. д.
3. Серьёзные вопросы есть к возможности осуществления теракта и к его расследованию. Здания рухнули, как взорванные изнутри. Нашли документы, Коран, которые волшебным способом уцелели.
4. Главное. События 11 сентября послужили поводом для войн в Афганистане и Ираке, принятия Патриотического акта, наращиванию оборонных расходов в течении последующих лет.
Римляне всегда начинали расследование со слов "Cui prodest?" - "Кому выгодно?". Выгодно американским властям, цели же мифических террористов вообще не поддаются логике.
Можно сказать следующее: настоящая теория заговора - это вера в международный исламский терроризм, который угрожает всему миру.
Можно добавить, что Бен Ладены - друзья и партнёры Бушей, что в 2001 году не было технической возможности разговаривать с самолётом по мобильному телефону и многое другое.
I accidentally said "some Russians". My crazy thought was that might give somebody the idea I wasn't talking about all of them.
And no, I don't say they are scared. It's just for some reason they tend to stand for those in power whatever the latter do, just like those in my metaphor about discussing a boss. Not all, but the tendency does exist.
Наоборот -- я думаю, что вы попугайничаете те же самые аргументы, которые наши американские "Troofers" предлагали уже с 12-го сентября, 2001 г. If I had hoped to hear some truly new, genuinely interesting, and originally Russian version of "9/11 Conspiracy Theories", your performance was very disappointing!
:roll:
To take these briefly:
(1) Greatly overestimates the power and intelligence and overall competence of the CIA -- at best, there is often a lot of "pure guessing" involved in Intelligence work. At the same time, this argument underestimates the flexibility and ingenuity and other advantages of a very decentralized guerilla network.
(2) If a shipment of illegal alcohol was discovered in 1930s Chicago, police would have immediately named Al Capone -- not because the police "сразу знали" that Capone was truly guilty, but because Capone had a long career of activity that made him a very logical suspect. In Bin Laden's case, he had been on the FBI's "Top 10 Most Wanted" list at least since 1998, after he personally claimed credit for the US Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.
(3) "которые волшебным способом уцелели" -- An enormous quantity of paper materials, cloth, and other easily-burned materials from the airplanes and from offices in the WTC survived the fiery crashes of the two airplanes, and the collapses of the two towers. I've personally seen photographs that were taken on the streets after the two airplanes hit, but before the buildings collapsed -- one could clearly see intact items like shoes, eyeglasses, handbags, books, airplane magazines, and other items, along with airplane engines and wheels, etc. And personal papers/documents belonging to passengers or flight crew (such as drivers' licenses and plane tickets) were recovered along with the passport of "Satam al-Suqami", one of the Saudi Arabian terrorists. So no sort of "волшебство" was necessary. Furthermore...
(4) ...if the US deliberately planned the 9/11 attacks because the Bush Administration needed a casus belli as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, wouldn't it have been чуть-чуть по-логичнее to tell the public that the hijackers were Iraqis and Afghanis, and to "magically" find an Iraqi passport at the WTC site, instead of a Saudi passport?
On this last point, actually, I agree with you, at least partly: On the basis of the 11 September attacks that were planned and carried out by probably fewer than 100 Muslim conspirators (the hijackers, the top-level bosses, and the middlemen), the US did indeed work hard to create a mythologized "global jihad" under the umbrella term of "Al Qaeda". And every act of violence by Muslims against non-Muslims anywhere in the world (Bali, London, Madrid, Beslan, southern Thailand...) was attributed to Al-Qaeda, and taken as proof of a "global jihad", when the reality is that many of these attacks were by independent groups motivated by very localized grievances.
However, to argue that the US government seized an opportunity by politically exploiting the 9/11 terror attacks after the fact, and by engaging in myth-creation and propaganda after the fact, is utterly different from arguing that the US government planned the attacks before the fact.
Потому что нужно было создать образ глобального и неуловимого врага, чтобы потом оправдывать им что угодно. Любую войну, любой закон и т. д.Quote:
wouldn't it have been чуть-чуть по-логичнее to tell the public that the hijackers were Iraqis and Afghanis, and to "magically" find an Iraqi passport at the WTC site, instead of a Saudi passport?
Взрыв башен-близнецов (рухнули три башни, но говорят только о двух) и атака на Пентагон произвели сногсшибательный эффект, который не мог быть достигнут другим путём.
Моя версия предлагает наиболее простое объяснение всего. В вашей версии остаются совершенно неясными цели террористов.
Incidentally, I would explain the original meaning of "duh" as something like "это должно быть самоочевидно, и человеку с синдромом Дауна" -- although now it simply means "должно быть самоочевидно."
Almost without doubt, "duh" was first meant to imitate the speech of "retarded" people, or at least the cruel popular stereotyping of their speech. However, while that was the original meaning, nowadays people who say "duh" don't intend any offense towards those with real learning disabilities. (In a similar way, the word "moron" was originally a polite clinical term for persons with an IQ below 70; then it became a rude term for such people; today it means a person of normal intelligence who behaves stupidly.)
In the famous 1939 film version of John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, the simple-minded character Lennie (as played by Lon Chaney Jr.) does not say "Duh" even once, so far as I know. However, in the many, many parodies of the 1939 film (for example, from old Bugs Bunny cartoons), the parody version of "Lennie" is always saying "Duh! Duh, George, I wanna pet the rabbits, duh!" So, at least since the early 20th century, "duh" was already associated in the popular imagination with the speech of mentally-retarded people.
А почему, по-вашему, эта версия показалась мне более убедительной, чем официальная американская?Quote:
Наоборот -- я думаю, что вы попугайничаете те же самые аргументы, которые наши американские "Troofers" предлагали уже с 12-го сентября, 2001 г
:dunno: Young Earth Creationists say the very same thing про свою версию.
Of course, believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old requires one to believe that God (or the Devil) planted fake fossils of non-existent trilobites and dinosaurs in the ground; that God created "light trails" from distant stars and galaxies in order to produce the FALSE appearance that a 6000-year-old Universe is more than 20 billion years old; that millions of scientists are involved in a massive worldwide conspiracy to promote the Satanic ideology of Darwinism because they hate Jesus and are probably secret homosexuals; etc.
And yet Young Earth Creationists really and sincerely believe that their Genesis-literalist "theory" has an elegant simplicity and is favored by logic -- because, to use Lampada's words, it's больше по вкусу.
At some point, one must recognize the utter futility and uselessness of arguing :wall: -- and either ignore Young Earth Creationists altogether, or simply ignore your scientific and philosophical disagreements with them, while being open to friendship.
Но вы принципиально отклоняете возможность провокации, хотя история знает бесчисленное количество подобных примеров. Особенно когда надо было начать войну или ограничить свободу жителей страны.
After thinking about it, there is one other point I want to offer for Marcus to consider, although I don't expect to change his mind.
In his meticulously detailed diary, Norwegian bomber/gunman Anders Behring Breivik describes at great length how he spent almost a year obtaining the materials needed for his carbombs -- a few chemicals here, a few electronics there -- in order to avoid attracting attention to himself by making a large purchase at one time. And also in the diary, Breivik calculates that if he had worked with four co-conspirators, he could have made the bombs in six months, and if he'd had nine co-conspirators, he could have done it in less than two months.
But, instead, ABB decided that it was better to act totally alone -- and his reasoning was that each additional co-conspirator would represent another potential "leak". A co-conspirator might have a loss of nerves and betray the conspiracy to the authorities; or he might say something careless to his wife, and she gets worried and calls the police; or perhaps he simply gets arrested for drunk driving, and in the standard background-check, the police find that he has a past connection with white-supremacist groups, which in turn leads the cops to accidentally discover his link to the conspiracy.
I think the truth of what Breivik wrote is obvious, and that any "CIA black-ops / false-flag" conspiracy theory about 9/11 must recognize the importance of minimizing the number of conspirators. But in my opinion, most of these "alternative 9/11 theories" tend to fail Breivik's "too many cooks spoil the broth" test.
For example, the theory that there were explosives inside the WTC buildings overlooks the fact that it generally takes a LARGE TEAM of demolition experts (= more co-conspirators) to place the explosives for the controlled demolition of a tall building. In principle, it could be done by fewer people, but then it requires much more time, increasing the risk that the explosives would be accidentally discovered by employees in the building.
So in my opinion, the "official American government version" has the advantage of limiting the number of conspirators -- there may have been fewer than two-dozen operating within the US, with an unknown number of middlemen engaged in money-laundering outside the US, plus a few "top bosses."
If Marcus wants an "alternative version," however, I'd suggest a somewhat simpler one: the "official version" is MOSTLY true (there were 19 hijackers on four airplanes; there were no explosives in the buildings; the towers fell because the burning jet fuel caused heat-failure of the steel, etc.), EXCEPT that the hijackers were actually fanatical American CIA agents, and not fanatical foreign Islamists.
Or, one could argue that there were, in a sense, TWO conspiracies: the "kamikaze" attacks on 9/11 planned and executed by a group of Middle Eastern fanatics of unknown identity; and a second conspiracy by Bush and the CIA after 9/11, to link the attacks specifically with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and thus create an excuse for the Afghanistan war. Indeed, there are probably millions of Americans who believe some version of this: that the 11 September terror attacks truly were carried out by Islamic terrorists, but that Bush lied and lied and lied about the the connection to "Al Qaeda" in order to justify a hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Whether you agree with this or not, it's a better "alternative interpretation" of the known facts than what Marcus has offered.
Let me emphasize very clearly that I don't personally believe this!Quote:
the hijackers were actually fanatical American CIA agents, and not fanatical foreign Islamists.
But I will certainly admit to Marcus that this line of argument is "less weak", and more difficult to disprove, than many of the other "Truth About 9/11" alternative theories.
Вы думаете, что какие-то террористы смогли обмануть ЦРУ, ФБР и прочие американские структуры, а ЦРУ и ФБР не смогли бы обмануть простых работников?!Quote:
For example, the theory that there were explosives inside the WTC buildings overlooks the fact that it generally takes a LARGE TEAM of demolition experts (= more co-conspirators) to place the explosives for the controlled demolition of a tall building. In principle, it could be done by fewer people, but then it requires much more time, increasing the risk that the explosives would be accidentally discovered by employees in the building.
Also...
А вы склоняетесь к необходимости провокации! As you wrote, "атаки... произвели сногсшибательный эффект, который не мог быть достигнут другим путём."
If one is predisposed to believe in the necessity of a big Machiavellian conspiracy, then every piece of evidence will seem to you to support the existence of the conspiracy -- and any contrary piece of evidence only proves that the conspiracy is even bigger than you suspected.
Just as for Young Earth Creationists, the fact that biologists, physicists, geologists, and astronomers are all in general agreement that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, simply proves that they're all participating in an atheist conspiracy to discredit the Bible!
So, while I respect Marcus for being skeptical about the "official government version", and I understand that it's important to consider alternative hypotheses, I also think that a склонность к теориям заговора -- это вредно умственному здоровью! (I'm not sure if I said that correctly -- I meant, "a tendency towards conspiracy theories is harmful to intellectual health").
Как "обмануть"? The terrorists had valid visas and were living legally in the US, along with millions of law-abiding Muslim immigrants among whom they were able to hide themselves. They wisely choose to use simple box-cutter blades, and thus avoided drawing attention by purchasing guns or materials for explosives. They purchased their plane tickets legally. In short, they were extremely well-behaved, and there was no reason for the CIA or FBI to take much notice of them, until 11 September, когда они вдруг вели себя ОЧЕНЬ некультурно и по-хамски!
Also, again, я думаю, что вы слишком высоко оцениваете способности ЦРУ. If the term "total cluster fuck" did not already exist in US military slang, the CIA would make it necessary to invent the term! Not to disrespect them, because most of them are highly conscientious people who do the best they can at a difficult job, but real life is not a Hollywood movie, and in real life, the CIA has often made embarrassing errors.
First, consider these words of wisdom from Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."
To paraphrase this, I am doubtful that the "ЦРУ и ФБР" could have fooled enough of the "простые работники", for a long enough time, to have placed explosives in the buildings without detection (which would have probably taken several weeks at minimum, because the buildings are so large, and because the explosives would have to be smuggled in a little bit at a time).
In addition to the thousands of office workers, the WTC buildings had a huge staff of cleaning people, elevator technicians, security guards, heating/air-conditioning specialists, electricians, fire inspectors, etc. -- many of whom normally had access to the "hidden" areas where any explosives would logically be hidden. And these people did not all have the same employer -- some were actually employees of the New York Port Authority that owned the WTC, while others were employed by outside contractors, and thus the minimum number of co-conspirators is increased.
But anyway, why bother with explosives in the buildings? If the CIA/FBI team was as clever and omnipotent as you believe, then wouldn't it have been rather simple for them to "fake hijack" four FedEx cargo planes full of fertilizer, diesel fuel, and C4, instead of using passenger planes? This would have guaranteed HUGE fiery explosions without a need to put bombs in the buildings, while at the same time avoiding the risk of passenger rebellion, as in the case of United Airlines Flight 93 that failed to reach its target and crashed in a Pennsylvania field.
For that matter, they could've gotten a much higher number of deaths (your claim is that the goal was to create an artificial casus belli, remember!) by hitting the WTC towers at, say, the 25th floor, and in the early afternoon rather than in the early morning (easily 30,000 deaths that way, instead of 3,000).
Quote:
когда они вдруг повели себя
Насколько я знаю, погиб обслуживающий персонал - руководители не пострадали. Возможно, они хотели пожертвовать только незначительными, с их точки зрения людьми.Quote:
For that matter, they could've gotten a much higher number of deaths (your claim is that the goal was to create an artificial casus belli, remember!) by hitting the WTC towers at, say, the 25th floor, and in the early afternoon rather than in the early morning (easily 30,000 deaths that way, instead of 3,000).
Один вопрос всё равно остаётся без ответа: какие цели преследовали террористы?
I don't know where the line is drawn between "обслуживающий персонал" and "руководители". What I do know is that the victims of the WTC attacks included people from illegal-immigrant restaurant workers to millionaire executives with "Vice President of..." titles, and many different levels of middle-class workers in between.
Х*й его знает, the terrorists are all dead and we can't ask them what their motivations were -- for example, did they really believe that this was the logical first step towards the establishment of a Global Caliphate, as many American conservatives claim?
However, one can suggest some more general answers:
(1) They simply wanted to "prove that it could be done", by succeeding where the 1993 truck-bombings in the WTC had failed;
(2) They hoped that the attacks would symbolically humiliate the USA, and also weaken it economically;
(3) They hoped that others would imitate their example, and encourage others to attack America;
(4) They hoped that a weakened USA would be forced to remove its military bases from Saudi Arabia and to stop supporting the Saudi regime, so that they (the terrorists) could take political control of "the holy peninsula";
(5) They truly believed that Allah would reward their efforts in the afterlife.
All of these are possible explanations even if you reject the theory that "a huge global network of Al-Qaeda jihadists is working to establish a worldwide caliphate because they're still angry about losing Andalusia"...
А на это у сторонников теории заговора есть "простой" ответ: взрывчатка была заложена в здания во время их строительства.
Согласно методу Шерлока Холмса надо отбросить неправильные версии и тогда оставшаяся, какой бы невероятной она ни была, будет ответом на загадку. Многочисленные теории заговоров показывают, что бывает, если на начальном этапе отбросить правильную версию. Приходится придумывать всё более и более невероятные объяснения. Взывать к логике бесполезно. Им кажется, что это они проводят расследование, руководствуясь логикой. Самое смешное, что в каком-то смысле так и есть, просто в основе рассуждений ошибочная предпосылка. Например, Маркус почему-то верит, что спецслужбы не могут ошибаться. В его представлении это аксиома. Поэтому любое утверждение, которое ей противоречит, включая предположение о теракте, легко опровергается с помощью логики. Если вы продолжаете считать, что это были теракты, то, значит, вы руководствуетесь не логикой, а чем-то ещё, верой.
And they waited for 30 years to blow it up?Quote:
А на это у сторонников теории заговора есть "простой" ответ: взрывчатка была заложена в здания во время их строительства.
Not to mention that out of thousands of construction workers some would have noticed something suspicious.
As throbert said - "fake hijacking" 4 remote controlled cargo planes is a lot easier...
Я не помню деталей, кажется, утверждалось, что это секретное условие контракта, чтобы башни можно было быстро снести, когда на их месте захотят построить что-нибудь ещё более грандиозное. Заряды можно заложить в балки на заводе и уже в таком виде привезти на строительную площадку. Но дело не в этом. Если известно, что башни взорваны и во время эксплуатации их невозможно было заминировать, из этого логически следует, что их заминировали, когда строили. Не так ли? :?