9/11 discussion [split]

[Joe Splink]

No need to get super deep in minutia though, building 7 should make things patently obvious. If it isn't enough, look at the nist study controversy and the clash between nist and UL.

The NIST report explains how WTC 7 came down. You do not understand it. I do not understand it, and I'm a PhD engineer with years of experience in mathematical/computer analyses of complex aerospace phenomena, but not structural analyses, and if I wanted to understand it it would probably take me 6 months of study a with knowledgeable tutor.

The ease with which the truthers dismiss something that they have absolutely zero understanding of is somewhat amazing. And then, of course, to maintain epistemic context, you have to extend the conspiracy to NIST - engineers at NIST are part of the 9/11 conspiracy. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

[Stubble]

No need to get super deep in minutia though, building 7 should make things patently obvious. If it isn't enough, look at the nist study controversy and the clash between nist and UL.

The NIST report explains how WTC 7 came down. You do not understand it. I do not understand it, and I'm a PhD engineer with years of experience in mathematical/computer analyses of complex aerospace phenomena, but not structural analyses, and if I wanted to understand it it would probably take me 6 months of study a with knowledgeable tutor.

The ease with which the truthers dismiss something that they have absolutely zero understanding of is somewhat amazing. And then, of course, to maintain epistemic context, you have to extend the conspiracy to NIST - engineers at NIST are part of the 9/11 conspiracy. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

You need to look at the Alaska study of it, the UL controversy and the recent supreme court findings that NIST has no responsibility to be truthful in its reports.

You don't get a symmetrical failure like that from haphazard office fires fueled by simple office furnishings. It fell inside it's own footprint at free fall and met 0 resistance on the way down.

As an PHD holder in Engineering, the problems with an office fire should stand out to you like a fox in a hen house.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 2:05 pm

WS: And I don’t see how you “clearly demonstrated the German article is suspect”.
You haven't even seen it, read it or read a translation of it, have you?

??? I've read the article on the Irving site, not the translation of the conversation, and I showed to my satisfaction that removing the 'in advance' from the US/Merkel translation does not change it's meaning one whit, and implying that it does, as per the German article, is misleading. The rest of the paragraph clearly shows it refers to events before 9/11.

WS: You are still arguing from a position of ignorance.

??? It appears to me to be a perfectly knowledgeable, coherent, not to mention persuasive argument that is fully supported by information available to me, and cited !

Straight answer: you are deluding yourself.
As previously explained to you but ignored by you.

[Wahrheitssucher]

No need to get super deep in minutia though, building 7 should make things patently obvious. If it isn't enough, look at the nist study controversy and the clash between nist and UL.

The NIST report explains how WTC 7 came down. You do not understand it. I do not understand it, and I'm a PhD engineer with years of experience in mathematical/computer analyses of complex aerospace phenomena, but not structural analyses, and if I wanted to understand it it would probably take me 6 months of study a with knowledgeable tutor.

Wow!

The ease with which the [reasonable people] dismiss something that they have absolutely zero understanding of is somewhat amazing.

You don’t have to have a degree in engineering to understand basic laws of physics, Joe.

And then, of course, to maintain epistemic context, you have to extend the conspiracy to NIST-engineers at NIST are part of the 9/11 conspiracy. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

You are too trusting of authorities. Plus you are again projecting your ignorance onto others.
It makes perfect sense why people go along with deceptions. It’s been called ‘peer-pressure compliance’ and also ‘group conformity’. There are three main types of conformity. This has been empirically proven numerous times since Solomon Asch’s original experiments of it in 1951. I recommend you check out his experiments and conclusions. Ask for help if you can’t find info on this.

[Wetzelrad]

Thus, I conclude that what I know about the German translation is inconclusive. Beyond that, citing the missing 'in advance' as disproving the gist of the US/Michael translation is misleading. True or false?

I agree that it would be misleading if the issue of the translation's accuracy starts and ends there, but it doesn't. The German press video noted three inconsistencies and added that there are more, plus two of their translators made general statements against the validity of the American government's translation, plus Morris regarded the American government's second translation (involving Michael) somewhat negatively. With that in mind, I can't tell whether the paragraph you quoted is incriminating or not. I am skeptical either way. The only way to get at the truth of it is with a proper full translation.

I tried running the video through OpenAI's Whisper but the translation that came back is very poor quality. It picked up only some of the words in the first couple minutes, no words at all after 3 minutes.

On the one hand, I think the lack of work done here by the truther movement is suggestive. The German media coverage dates to 2001, and it is only this that truthers cite. Some examples of that:
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/the-faulty-b ... anslation/
https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHA ... atape.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_an ... _bin_Laden

What I mean is that there was no continued effort to fix the translation or clarify the issue. For a matter of such importance, with so many people skeptical of Bin Laden's involvement, I think there should be years of arguments over what the most accurate translation should be. Instead we don't even seem to have the one German group's complete translation. This suggests the story had been squeezed for all its juice on the first go.

On the other hand, I can't see where the primary accusation has been rebutted, that being that the American government's translation is "manipulative". If there really was a deliberate mistranslation then it rather poisons the whole subject for me in a way that I will automatically lean away from any lesser claim.

This strange website might stand alone in attempting to debunk what truthers say about the translation. It takes a similar position as yourself, that there may indeed be problems with the translation but that other parts of the video remain incriminating.
https://www.911facts.dk/?p=7680&lang=en

A great deal more could be said here, but I'll add just one thing -- does it even pass the basic smell test that Bin Laden would go into a meeting with some friends, one of them holding up a camcorder, and begin discussing his secret participation in 9/11 that he had already expressly denied (or was just about to deny) in public? I don't think so. I can't imagine why such a video would be created except to incriminate himself in the eyes of Westerners. Its appearance was incredibly convenient at a time when there was so little connecting Bin Laden to the attack.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Thus, I conclude that what I know about the German translation is inconclusive. Beyond that, citing the missing 'in advance' as disproving the gist of the US/Michael translation is misleading. True or false?

I agree that it would be misleading if the issue of the translation's accuracy starts and ends there, but it doesn't. The German press video noted three inconsistencies and added that there are more, plus two of their translators made general statements against the validity of the American government's translation, plus Morris regarded the American government's second translation (involving Michael) somewhat negatively. With that in mind, I can't tell whether the paragraph you quoted is incriminating or not. I am skeptical either way. The only way to get at the truth of it is with a proper full translation.

That isn’t possible because some of the audio-recorded conversation is inaudible so indecipherable.

I tried running the video through OpenAI's Whisper but the translation that came back is very poor quality. It picked up only some of the words in the first couple minutes, no words at all after 3 minutes.

Precisely. And the American/Zio transcription ascribed incriminating words that can not be ‘heard’ even upon multiple listenings.

On the one hand, I think the lack of work done here by the truther movement is suggestive. The German media coverage dates to 2001, and it is only this that truther cite.
Some examples of that:
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/the-faulty-b ... anslation/
https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHA ... atape.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_an ... _bin_Laden…

On the other hand, I can't see where the primary accusation has been rebutted, that being that the American government's translation is "manipulative".
If there really was a deliberate mistranslation then it rather poisons the whole subject for me in a way that I will automatically lean away from any lesser claim.

This strange website might stand alone in attempting to debunk what truther say about the translation. It takes a similar position as yourself, that there may indeed be problems with the translation but that other parts of the video remain incriminating.
https://www.911facts.dk/?p=7680&lang=en

A great deal more could be said here, but I'll add just one thing -- does it even pass the basic smell test that Bin Laden would go into a meeting with some friends, one of them holding up a camcorder, and begin discussing his secret participation in 9/11 that he had already expressly denied (or was just about to deny) in public? I don't think so. I can't imagine why such a video would be created except to incriminate himself in the eyes of Westerners. Its appearance was incredibly convenient at a time when there was so little connecting Bin Laden to the attack.

Bingo!!!

[Joe Splink]

I agree that it would be misleading if

It is misleading in and of itself. First, since that was the only discrepancy noted in the paragraph, we have to assume that the rest of the paragraph is accurate in the Michael translation. And that paragraph as translated, but omitting the 'in advance', still clearly describes Bin Laden discussing events before 9/11.

Given that, I didn't bother with the other two discrepancies noted.

What I mean is that there was no continued effort to fix the translation or clarify the issue. For a matter of such importance, with so many people skeptical of Bin Laden's involvement, I think there should be years of arguments over what the most accurate translation should be.

Exactly.