2236 replies to this topic

[bee]

Babe Ruth, on 22 February 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

Bee

What I find interesting about the dancing Israelis is that they were set up and filming, as and before the planes struck the towers.  That provides some measure of insight.

The story goes.....that a woman had a phone call from a neighbour AFTER the first plane had hit and this is when she

got her binoculars out to take a look and this is when she saw (what turned out to be) the Israelis....kneeling on top of

the van....and seeming to be videoing or taking pictures...

So there are no witnesses to them setting up and filming BEFORE the planes struck.

Just that one woman who saw them AFTER it had all started...

Correct me if you have anything to show this is is not what happened....


.

[Babe Ruth]

Bee

That certainly could be the case.  Maybe they did not have prior knowledge and just happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right equipment.  Maybe the moving company they worked for really was not a front company for Mossad, despite the fact that investigators could not really find any "movers" working there, or any signs of having done business at all.  Yes, maybe if a frog had wings, he would not bump his rear end, and maybe George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were telling us nothing but the truth, and the whole truth, eh?   

The final disposition of their case is equally interesting, IMO.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 23 February 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Bee

That certainly could be the case.  Maybe they did not have prior knowledge and just happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right equipment.  Maybe the moving company they worked for really was not a front company for Mossad, despite the fact that investigators could not really find any "movers" working there, or any signs of having done business at all.  Yes, maybe if a frog had wings, he would not bump his rear end, and maybe George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were telling us nothing but the truth, and the whole truth, eh?   

The final disposition of their case is equally interesting, IMO.

You might want to review this.

Quote

Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks

ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre's twin towers and the Pentagon were humiliating blows to the intelligence services, which failed to foresee them, and to the defence forces of the most powerful nation in the world, which failed to deflect them.

The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 23, 2001: According to German newspapers, the Mossad gives the CIA a list of terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.

Air Defense of the United States

Norad, the command headquarters in Colorado responsible for defending all of North America from air attack, was notified of the first hijack at 8.38am and six minutes later two F-15 fighter jets were ordered into the air from Otis airforce base on Cape Cod. Before they could take off, however, the first hijacked airliner crashed into the World Trade Centre's north tower at 8.46am. Six minutes later the two military jets were airborne, but when the second hijacked airliner hit the south tower shortly after 9am they were still 70 miles from Manhattan. The only successful action against the hijackers was taken by passengers of the fourth airliner, whose heroic decision to fight back led to its crashing into the fields of Pennsylvania.

The reason lies in the strict distinction America draws between civil and military power, combined with the fact that until last week nobody had confronted the possibility that a terrorist hijacker might turn kamikaze pilot.

Although Norad has its own radar system to track aircraft over the US, its prime task is to watch for hostile aircraft approaching America from outside. "We assume anything originating in US airspace is friendly," said a spokesman.

For the same reason, the 20 or so American fighter planes on permanent full alert in case of a suspect intruder, were deployed at half a dozen bases in the likeliest flightpaths of an attack from the former Soviet Union, several hundred miles from New York or Washington DC.

All aircraft flying over American airspace are monitored and controlled by a network of 20 regional Federal Aviation Authority air traffic control centres, backed up by individual airport control towers. Military aircraft under Norad control can intervene with domestic traffic only if called on for help by their civilian colleagues.

That is what happened on Tuesday, but in no case was there apparently enough time after the FAA's warning for fighter planes to reach the hijacked airliners. More puzzling, there were 45 minutes between air traffic controllers losing contact with the third airliner, which took off from Dulles airport just outside Washington, and its crash on to the Pentagon. At that point, however, the aircraft was still flying on its intended course westwards. It may not have been until later, possibly after a passenger's mobile phone call to the Justice Department, that the civil authorities finally twigged what was happening. It was not the military but civilian air traffic controllers at Washington's Reagan National Airport - tipped off by their colleagues at Dulles - who alerted the White House to the fact that an unauthorised jet was flying at full throttle towards it.

http://www.telegraph...or-attacks.html

I would like to add this as well.

Quote

AFGHANISTAN: Al-Qaeda is planning an imminent "huge attack" inside the US that will kill thousands

Late July 2001: The Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learns that bin Laden is planning a "huge attack" on targets inside America.

The attack is imminent, and will kill thousands. He learns this from Tahir Yildash, leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), which is allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sends an emissary to pass this information on to the US consul general, and another US official, "possibly from the intelligence services," also attends the meeting. The message is not taken very seriously; one source blames this on "warning fatigue" from too many warnings.

Also, supposedly the emissary was from the Foreign Ministry, but didn't say the message came from Muttawakil himself. The emissary then takes the message to the Kabul offices of UNSMA, the political wing of the UN. They also fail to take the warning seriously. [Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]

http://s3.amazonaws....ters090702.html

If you want to see a real celebration regarding the 911 attacks, check this out.



As a result of the 911 attacks, Osama bin Laden is now lying in a watery grave and  most of the senior leadership of al-Qaeda has been taken out.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 February 2013 - 06:25 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

Lets just Keep our Look out to the Sky`s !

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 22 February 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

Let's take another look.

Well, another predictable response.

On the plus side, you just demonstrated that PBS can be just as propagandistic as Fox News with their false headlines – it doesn’t show the U.S. mainstream media in a good light, not at all.  What you should realise skyeagle, is that it doesn’t matter how many false reports you can find that bin Laden ‘admitted responsibility for 9/11’, such a claim is not contained within nor can be logically or legally concluded from the actual transcript reported on, and therefore is misleading.

Like psyche, you need to learn to research and understand facts for yourself, rather than relying on the word of certain mainstream media who demonstrably broadcast propaganda to deceive the public and suit political aims of their country.

I have no idea what you think the second link adds to your view, but I recommend that anyone who wants to understand the grievances bin Laden had against America give it a read.

skyeagle409, on 22 February 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

Definitely doesn't sound like Osama bin Laden has proclaimed his innocence in the 911 attacks.

Of course not, because you completely and wilfully ignored the denials of bin Laden, as I said that you would.  You are a fantastic example of what no OCT should aspire to.  How blind and hollow your views are.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 25 February 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Well, another predictable response.

What can you say? You can't deny Osama bin Laden's admission on the 911 attacks and his threat to inflict further attacks on America.

Quote

On the plus side, you just demonstrated that PBS can be just as propagandistic as Fox News with their false headlines –

For the record, are you claiming that Al-Jazeera television is part of FOX news and the PBS network?

Quote

it doesn’t show the U.S. mainstream media in a good light, not at all.  What you should realise skyeagle, is that it doesn’t matter how many false reports you can find that bin Laden ‘admitted responsibility for 9/11’, such a claim is not contained within nor can be logically or legally concluded from the actual transcript reported on, and therefore is misleading.

You can't change the reality that Osama bin Laden has admitted his responsibility in the 911 attacks from the comfort of your keyboard.

Quote

Like psyche, you need to learn to research and understand facts for yourself, rather than relying on the word of certain mainstream media who demonstrably broadcast propaganda to deceive the public and suit political aims of their country.

I have no idea what you think the second link adds to your view,...

Here, let me add another.

Quote

Bin Laden: Yes, I did it

OSAMA BIN LADEN has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal. In a previously undisclosed video which has been circulating for 14 days among his supporters, he confesses that "history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents". In the footage, shot in the Afghan mountains at the end of October, a smiling bin Laden goes on to say that the World Trade Centre's twin towers were a "legitimate target" and the pilots who hijacked the planes were "blessed by Allah".

The killing of at least 4,537 people was justified, he claims, because they were "not civilians" but were working for the American system. Bin Laden also makes a direct personal threat against Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, for the first time, and warns nations such as Australia, Germany and Japan to stay out of the conflict.

http://www.telegraph...s-I-did-it.html

Quote

...but I recommend that anyone who wants to understand the grievances bin Laden had against America give it a read.

So in your mind, the grievance of Osama bin Laden justified the 911 attacks on America.

Quote

Of course not, because you completely and wilfully ignored the denials of bin Laden, as I said that you would.

Of course I can ignore the denials of Osama bin Laden because since his denials, he has reversed himself and displayed his admission on the world stage for all to see.

Quote

You are a fantastic example of what no OCT should aspire to.  How blind and hollow your views are.

Blind!! Facts and evidence support our case, not yours?

Edited by skyeagle409, 25 February 2013 - 10:42 AM.

[psyche101]

Babe Ruth, on 22 February 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

With all due respect mate, what you offer here is not reasoned argument or analytical thinking.  

With all due respect, I am not sure what your rude comment will change about what you think. Had you an ounce of courtesy you would have given me a chance to read the entire thread before such responses as I did make it very clear that was my intention given the chance  but I suspect you do not want people offering a reasoned argument and will try to quell it as soon as you see something challenging your treason driven view.  I take offence to your statement and ask you what is unreasonable about what I have posted to date, other than bothering to pander to your veiled insults. Ya know, a man with a real set does not have to veil his insults babe.

Babe Ruth, on 22 February 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

What you present is a regurgitation of the talking points of a story proven many times to be a hoax.  

Not at all proven, you are so full of crap babe. If it was proven, this thread would not exists, it could be shut and we could all just forget about it. All I have seen proven is that people like yourself would rather bonafide murderers walk free rather than give your own Government a moments peace.

I was not even here to discuss if the evidence to tie Bin Laden into 911 was valid but I did offer to discuss that, I stated originally that I wanted to see the BS about controlled demolitions and all other such claims that people with no morals make. If I wanted to regurgitate for pages, I would then point out to Q24 that the evidence he seeks died with the man who knew. His records show a multitude of lines all connecting to Bin Laden, I was trying to be courteous until the actual point of discussion I originally said I can here for arises.

Babe Ruth, on 22 February 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

You present stale claims that cannot be true.  

What claims? You like to generalise, and nothing has been proven false, I have been taken out of context, and the far superior to your debating skills, Stundie, and I had had a productive discussion considering the actual position of the FBI with regards to this case.

Babe Ruth, on 22 February 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

IMO, that is not really discussion.  

Awesome, I guess your mother never told you about keeping your mouth shut of you really have nothing productive to say?

Stundie and I were having a good discussion. That is debate, you should take a page from his book and learn something.

But at least we are getting to the truth, the above is your opinion, which you have now voiced, so unless you have something constructive to input you can go back to the sidelines throwing a can at the opposing team every now and then.

Babe Ruth, on 22 February 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

I wonder if next you might present a 'discussion' about how the world is actually flat?

Ya know, at least if I did it would be a discussion, and not some pathetic weakling hiding behind a curtain throwing stones every now and then when nobody is looking. Besides, your tho one who opposes science, or you do when you are in the ET section does that change when you post in this section does it? As such the flat earthers would be in your dugout Babe. I would not bother to present a discussion to yourself only, you have never proven yourself to be much of a debater. Just a scaredy cat who sites behind things and throws a stone at the opposition every now and then, and then ducks back for cover. Got any info man? Spit it out, but somehow, I think all you have is opinion. And a pretty ordinary one at that going by the posting I have seen in this thread.

[psyche101]

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

I agreed with your suggestion in my last post, that media claims should be checked for validity.  It would be nice if you could apply your own suggestion, though judging by your attempt to defend Fox News in this case, response above and other comments, I’m not sure you really know how to.  

My method of determining validity does not rely on running anything past Al Jazeera or believing one local government more accurate (I thought that would have been clear from my post #847: “I don’t believe, generally speaking, there is much difference between the way that Western and Middle Eastern media operate; neither are immune to the politics of their respective regions”).

What I have done, in the case discussed, is to compare the subtitles/transcript of the bin Laden videotape (the source material), against what each of Al Jazeera and Fox News actually reported...

Al Jazeera simply reports the facts and transcript in full: -
http://www.aljazeera...3336457223.html

Fox News provides only excerpts of the transcript, with addition of a propagandistic headline and editiorial, “Bin Laden Claims responsibility for 9/11” and “Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks” (neither of which are contained within or can be concluded from the actual transcript): -
http://www.foxnews.c...,137095,00.html

One is an example of factual reporting, the other an example of propagandistic ‘reporting’.  I would urge everyone to click on the links above to compare and contrast the reporting styles.  It is a fine example of what we are dealing with when it comes to the Western media witch hunt that followed 9/11.  Please be aware of what you are reading – then at least it is an informed choice whether to be sucked in or not.

This is of course one specific case, and whilst a repeating pattern can be seen through further examples, each case should regardless be judged on its own merit.

Thats s a ridiculous thing to say, I did not say Fox News was more accurate, I did not try to validate Fox news. When you say I try to defend Fox, you are lying, I said that no matter your source it has to be checked, has that speech been checked against the original to show it is accurate? The above states that I say all claims should be checked. Sometimes they cannot be, and in those cases I assume that you deny western sources, and run with Middle Eastern ones?

In fact, in your charge to knock over Fox News, what is written it is indeed factual, it is you I feel who is at fault. It says:

Quote

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.

In what appeared to be conciliatory language, bin Laden said he wanted to explain why he ordered the airline hijackings that hit the World Trade Center (search) and the Pentagon so Americans would know how to act to prevent another attack.

"To the American people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another Manhattan," he said. "I tell you: Security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security."

See where they say this is their opinion of what Bin Laden is trying to say? I will grant that the headline takes a leap, but the paragraph where the reporter believes Bin Laden makes an admission is also included for the reader to make their own minds up, as you and of course, I have done. They say "In what appears to be" they do not say "this concludes".

I do not think it is myself that is not reading the papers closely. It is not propaganda, I will grant it is opinion, and one (well, at least 3 I suppose considering FOX News' Bret Baier, Ian McCaleb, Anna Persky and The Associated Press contributed to this report.) persons definition, but that does not make Fox news a political player who takes sides. It means their reporters have quite some freedom with that which they are responsible for.

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

I did not say the last 10 pages are “not worthy” of me.  It was mostly tongue in cheek, I actually read every page and there were some interesting points which could have been responded to.  But the following turned me off digging through to find them and is what my comment was aimed at: -

Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?
Skyeagle:  bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11.
Stundie:  Why didn’t the FBI indict bin Laden for 9/11?

This type of spamming is not so interesting (say, after the first three times) and in my opinion disrupts the chain of constructive discussion/reduces informative value of the thread.  I should add that I hold most responsible the member who refuses to directly address a question, which can be frustrating for the member attempting to hold an open and honest discussion.

Along with Stundie and Shrooma bickering about a “12 year old girl”, yeah screw it, I’m going to take the easy option and pretend like those 10 pages didn’t happen.  Sorry if you think that’s rude.  If there was anything raised that was vital to our discussion then please point me in the right direction and I’ll respond.

You can think what you want, no need to come here and dismiss the forum at the wave of a hand as being below you. As I pointed out, Stundie and I have had a valuable dialogue, and it addressed directly the main points we are going over here. Mainly the level of Bin Ladens involvement. You are obviously an intelligent person, such should be below you.

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

From the perspective that my research suggests, it was obviously necessary for the agents to implicate themselves with bin Laden, ‘Al Qaeda’ and the Taliban – the purpose of the operation was to entrap the target and provide pretext for the ‘War on Terror’.  I also believe that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi official in Prague prior 9/11 for exactly the same reason, but that source of propaganda fell apart when Czech intelligence distanced themselves from the claim – anyway, that’s another story.  Had the meeting with bin Laden not occurred, the Bush administration may have been left with a quite useless, though perhaps interesting, pretext for a ‘War on Hamburg’ (referring to the Hamburg cell of hijackers who formed the lead pilots).

From an official story perspective, the Hamburg cell left their comfortable Western lives, travelled to Afghanistan and met with bin Laden to become Jihadists.  Bin Laden ‘ordered’ them, under his non-existent ‘command structure’, to carry out the 9/11 attack and these men became the suicide pilots of Flight 11, 175 and 93.  Interesting that not one of them said, “Err, screw flying a plane into a building” as apparently was the case during planning of the 1995 Bojinka plot, and as the majority of sane people, capable of long term planning, would.

I think there is truth in both version of events above.  Whilst bin Laden would welcome hearing from anyone willing to carry out such a suicide attack on U.S. interests, Western agents damn well knew that and took advantage of it.

Well it seems they learned something from the Bojinka plot, like how to select a suicide squad, but that is also where this drills back down to, Ramzi Yousef. He and Bin Laden had been killing people together for years already, and Bojinka as anyone with hindsight can see was no doubt a main inspiration for 911. This is how Bin Laden is involved in 911. But it is not "hard evidence". Western agents only took advantage of their own backsides which is why O'Neil was ignored and the plot went ahead and killed many.

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

All very true... which is no basis to launch a war and assassination team.

1993 was. 1998 was, war on terror remember? 911 was simply the trigger. It was always going to happen as long as fundamental Islamists grew bolder, which they did by the day. If 911 did not kick of the war on terror, maybe Bali or some other equally horrendous slaughter might have.

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

I specifically asked,  “What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack?”  When you come back stating that bin Laden ‘rejoiced’ or was ‘happy’ after the attack, of course this does not provide an answer to the question in any way.

I do “get” that there are many people who think it justified to victimise any person who opposes U.S. policies in the Middle East, wars and all, and who express ‘glee’ when reciprocation occurs.  How many from that region have been killed as a result of U.S. supplied and/or funded arms?  Many times more than 3,000 that’s for sure.  Again, bin Laden’s satisfaction at the attack, which many shared, is not evidence of his responsibility, nor alone in my opinion is it moral justification, when we look at the whole story, to put a bullet in his head.

Following the above, let me restate that it is not my aim here to absolve bin Laden of responsibility for any acts of violence that he did coerce.  In the grand scale of things it makes no difference that bin Laden is now swimming with the fishes, though in an ideal world, it is my opinion that bin Laden should have been put on trial and faced punishment for his actions, along with a great many others.  

My argument here is simply ‘who is directly responsible for/who perpetrated the 9/11 attack and for what reason’.  If the conclusion is that a false flag operation/setup occurred to provide pretext for yet more war, then I think it quite right that the American government/Bush administration deserve to be kicked for that.

The direct order is hidden in the notes of O Neil. Not much I can do about that, We do know he had many ties going directly back to Bin Laden concerning this style of attack before it happened. I do not believe this is false flag, I do not believe it was in any way planned, I think some mentally unbalanced people managed to hit a country that was caught of guard. I think the one person who should be held up as possibly being able to have prevented this atrocity is Bodine, and or Pickard.

How many have been killed by US supplied or funded arms? It's down to that is it? You know what, I really do not know the answer. How many people who were killed at 911 delivered those arms? How many selected them for use? How many brandished such a weapon? This is the sort of thing that really gets my back up. 911 is not justified, no matter how much people want it to be. It's an outright act of open slaughter. If anything, these people should be more aware of the atrocity of killing innocent people if the above has an ounce of truth to it, but they just want a crack at killing people themselves wh do not agree with their religion and law and use this as an excuse.

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Ah, so you have admitted there is no evidence that bin Laden ‘ordered’ the 9/11 attack and now you accept there is no evidence that bin Laden ‘funded’ the 9/11 attack.  Neither are you able to answer the question: “What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack?” (the answer, we all know, is “none”).  

Therefore, we might ask, why did the Bush administration and Western media so quickly make bin Laden and regime change in Afghanistan the top priority target?  Like that could ever solve the problem.  The public initially swallowed it hook, line and sinker, including myself, though it’s sheer madness that any informed person could support this line of action as a way to prevent a future attack.

Why were not all resources put into shutting down that support network closest to the hijackers said to be responsible for direct perpetration of the attack?  If 9/11 were the result of a genuine ‘terrorist’ attack then the administration might have been more interested in getting to that truth of the matter.  Why are Omar al Bayoumi, Omar Sheikh, Israeli agents, the CIA, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc, who did more to facilitate 9/11 than bin Laden ever did, getting off scott free?  Is it that those who held the strings of the investigation and response knew there was little threat without their approval of the false flag to begin?

I have said over the last ten pages that you chose to ignore that no direct evidence could be found. And yes the FBI might well be responsible for that, and it was not some big cover up to draw Bin Laden into a place where they could kill him, it was as simple as a battle of ego, and this is that part of Western culture that not only lets us down, but allows people without morals to undermine a way of life.

How many years did it take to acquire this top priority target? Does that not in itself indicate how top priority he was? they wanted him dead, no two ways about it, and he deserved it. Everyone in the FBI top ten is a top priority target. Hussein went down long before Bin Laden. He seemed to have been much more of a focus until he was taken out.

The names mentioned above did not facilitate any attack. Some b**** with her panties in a bunch refused to give a professional the time of day. And the links placing Usama as a central point for 911 were lost. Not that they would be much help with everyone dead anyway.

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Yes, read the 9/11 Commission report, chapter 5.4 “A Money Trail?”, to understand that neither funding of ‘Al Qaeda’ nor the 9/11 attack came from bin Laden’s pocket.

I have not only read it, I have quoted it. How does that fit in with historical record? How was Bin Laden recognised during the mid 90's? As a terrorist or do documents say terrorist financier?

LINK - Usama Bin Ladin: Islamic Extremist Financier


Bin Ladin’s work force grew to include militant Afghan war veterans seeking to avoid a return to their own countries, where many stood accused of subversive and terrorist activities. In May 1993, for example, Bin Ladin financed the travel of 300 to 480 Afghan war veterans to Sudan after Islamabad launched a crackdown against extremists lingering in Pakistan. In addition to safehaven in Sudan, Bin Ladin has provided financial support to militants actively opposed to moderate Islamic governments and the West:


LINK - ‘Leading Bin Laden Financier On Board At Bahamas Bank’


Buried deep in the US permanent subcommittee’s report on HSBC is the claim that Sulaiman bin Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, head of Saudi Arabia’s largest private bank, sat on the Board of Akida Bank, which was described as a Bahamian financial institution.
#Al Rajhi Bank, Mr Rajhi’s institution, was alleged by the Senate report to have been used as a conduit to channel funds to Islamic extremist groups, while the man himself was said to have been named among al Qai’da’s so-called ‘Golden List’ - its Top 20 financiers - on documents seized in 1992.


LINK - 2011-09-26 Alleged terrorist financier escaped U.S. sanction


Media reports state that evidence linked Nasreddin (a former bin Laden family employee) to the funding of international terrorism, primarily through Al Taqwa Bank, which Nasreddindirected. Described as "a major source and distributor of funds for Osama bin Laden's terrorist operations" and "the most important financial structure of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic terrorist organizations," the bank was said to boast shareholders including Arab royalty, two sisters of Osama bin Laden, and members of Hamas.
Large sums of cash were allegedly funneled through Al Taqwa Bank to Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and other groups labeled as terrorist organizations.


How did he get the name "The Ford Foundation of Terrorism"?

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

This is important because ties were not severed with the end of Operation Cyclone.

Bin Laden’s ‘first trainer’, Ali Mohammed, was a CIA/‘Al Qaeda’ double-agent who operated with both groups up to 1998 for one example, and has now ‘disappeared’ in U.S. detention.  Then you look at Jamal al Fadl, recruited to ‘Al Qaeda’ from Brooklyn in the U.S. in 1988, and who ended up being the star witness that helped define ‘Al Qaeda’ as a coherent ‘organisation’.  We look at CIA infiltration of ‘Al Qaeda’ that was ongoing, we understand through Operation Gladio how the CIA were proficient in creating ‘stay-behind’ factions, we listen to former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds: -

“I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know.  For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.

I know you are going to say 'Oh my God, we went there and bombed the medical factory in the 1990s during Clinton, we declared him Most Wanted' and what I'm telling you is, with those groups, we had operations in Central Asia, and that relationship - using them as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict - we used them all the way until September 11.

There is so much information that of course our Mainstream Media has not reported, but there have been some good books written on the topic, and that is: What we have been doing, what we were doing in those years, all the way, all the way until that day of September 11, in Central Asia, in what they call East Turkistan where we are talking about the Uighurs, and with Bin Laden, via Turkey.”

Incidentally, the “intimate relationship” described above is something that bin Laden suspected, and given Edmonds’ statement, he was correct: -

Sibel Edmonds proves nothing more than she has made some claims. I really do not think she has the story straight or it would be all out in the open now, what I do know is that subsequent investigations have found holes in her claims. She has drawn her own inferernces from inforamtion that it appears is not correct as the OIG found many holes in her story, her main savoiur being that the FBI had procedures in place that should have stopped any misconduct from happening to begin with. For some reason, these procedures were overlooked. Wether her information helps a 911 investigation or not still remains to be seen.

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

“The United States wants to incite conflict between China and the Muslims.  The Muslims of Xinjiang are being blamed for the bomb blasts in Beijing.  But I think these explosions were sponsored by the American CIA.”

~bin Laden, 18 Mar 97

What betting he was also correct when later stating of 9/11: -

“The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it.  Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive.  They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia.  In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction.  Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.  Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year.

…

Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates?  That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.”
~bin Laden, 28 Sep 01

Anyhow, I digress.  The point is, there were certainly overlapping areas with the CIA/ISI and with Western intelligence all over and inside ‘Al Qaeda’ all the way to 9/11 – from there, the setup/entrapment of bin Laden was easy.

Digress is certainly right, quoting bin Laden? Heck, lets get Ted Bundy to prove himself innocent too. I bet he has many things to say. Like this perhaps:


The Islamic sharia (law) says Muslims should not live in the land of the infidel for long.

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

As I began this post, this is another example of your poor ability or unwillingness to validate media reports.  I’ll give you a chance, and because I’m tired of spoon-feeding this stuff that’s available to anyone.  Find the actual transcript of the interview from the Daily Ummat newspaper which your linked article is reporting second-hand on.  Check for yourself whether bin Laden states, "Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida...".  Then please come back and confirm for us that bin Laden didn't say that at all.  Perhaps even apologise for spreading the misinformation in bolded and red text?

You are the one hung up on Media pal. Not me. I want to speak to people who think Bin Laden is innocent. You seem to have some convoluted view that he did some bad things but it was set up by the US anyway, and that it's OK to fly planes into towers, because the US you claim gave weapons to someone who used them in the middle East, somehow making the US solely responsible and justifying 911,and all reported politically by Fox to cover the right backsides. I was never here to discuss media reports, nor long winded delusions I came for the title that says if 911 was an inside job, then for what? I am trying to be polite and follow the discussion, but I never came here to work out what headlines you deem accurate and appropriate. Do not think for a second that I did. That is your agenda. I am here to say planes did fly into the building, and that is was done by some crazy religious jerks who were happy to kill themselves to strike a blow to the west and collect their virgins in the afterlife.  You know, the people who say these twisted asswipes are not responsible for the death they caused, people who say 911 is a hoax man. Those ignorant nitwits. The ones who think  they have a reason for the US to instigate 911. Is that what you are getting at eventually, or do you wish to simply segregate media sources? I will accomodate the discussion but be aware, you are not what I am here for. That is not unwillingness, it is you forcing yourself upon someone. I simply keep up the conversation because you are an obviously intelligent person, and as such, I appreciate your discussion. I appreciate a good mind, even if I do not agree with it.

No, I do not have the transcript, that is why I posted you the closest possible source in English, this being an English speak forum. Not only hat, but I do not have the  Daily Ummat newspaper delivered to my oor on the bottom of the globe, but I also do not speak the language. Do you? If you can translate then show me what it does say instead of trying to play this game, or do you have the same access to that story that I do? I told you I would leave the links to the sources, and I have done that, if you dispute it did you net tell me yourself in your last post that it is up to you to prove guilty  What happened in this case? Did you prove me guilty? I gave you the source, you challenged it but provided nothing more than protest, you are that which you complain about!! You can say you have given me 2 chances to prove paper sources, however I have to say this is the second time I can label you as a hypocrite for not practising that which you preach.

Do you need the link again? I have been completely transparent, so here it is again - please show the original, which is in Arabic is it not? And an accurate translation with proof of your translation being accurate. Just to make sure we are doing things in a way that you claim to approve of.

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

We are discussing bin Laden’s views, it doesn’t matter what other people think.  Bin Laden thought of himself as representative of Islam, it doesn’t matter that others of the faith did not conform to his views – it does not shake bin Laden’s belief that he is representative of Islam.

Your initial point does not stand, nor ever did, because you have not proven who bin Laden refers to by “we”.

Hell yes it does. If he is speaking for all the Muslims, then it sure as heck does matter what other people think. His views can be that he speaks for all Muslims, but the larger majority of Muslims will say to your face that he is not at all speaking for them. What Muslim outside of Sunni Islam conforms to the views he was expressing?

The Islamic sharia (law) says Muslims should not live in the land of the infidel for long. (interview given by Osama bin Laden to Hamid Mir)

Bin Laden no doubt refers to his Muslims, Sunni sect. This is pretty bloody obvious I think, hard to believe you would make this statement in the same post as the term "spoon fed".

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

I provided a link to information that bin Laden was detained after 9/11 and remained in imprisonment in Pakistan up to his assassination.  You complained of the Telegraph reports and declined to comment on the rest of the information.

I think it is unfair to say I ignored that, I did not, I simply said I do not believe he was under house arrest, or the US would have shot him earlier.

Ohh, so the US with all their technological might could not confirm it, but a bunch of extremists are telling the truth.

Your link leads to this

Today a spokesman for the Taliban embassy in Pakistan confirmed the reports, initially made in Pakistani newspapers, and told United Press International: "We have placed him under control after the attacks."

Which then goes on to say:


The extremist Taliban regime, which is not recognised by any Western countries and has only three embassies worldwide, had earlier said it had "severed" communications between bin Laden and the outside world.

So the Taliban, a bunch of extremists who say what they want to get what they want, made a claim that Bin Laden was under arrest but they wont show us. I remember hearing that one at primary school, went something like "where's the cheese"

Of course, you provided more than one link though, so to be fair:

Under the proposal, Jamaat-i-Islami would have guarded bin Laden at a house in Peshawar that would have been equipped with a dialysis machine to treat his kidney condition.

Gee, how did the US manage to miss out on that Golden opportunity. The Muslim extremists who want to take over Pakistan with an Iron fist were able to negotiate with the US to give them a wanted man, but refused to show that they actually had him, but gave their word that they did, and somehow this was not trusted as genuine and it never happened. All the US' fault no doubt.

The Tora Bora link you re just going to have to wait for. I have a lot on this week, and do not have the time to chew through that today, if you have a relevant section, please note it. Going by the above two attempts, I cannot say I am expecting much.

I did notice you gave my link explaining Bin Ladens involvement of the formation of Al Qaeda the same treatment, however, in the interests of fairness, I'll just assume you have not had time to address it.

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Shout it enough and you will believe it unconditionally.  The real question is, bin Laden is guilty of what, specifically?  And as we are discussing 9/11 here, does his guilt outweigh that of others; the direct perpetrators and those within the the U.S. system itself?  Judging by the answers to my questions you have provided, it seems not.

I have no need to shout anything, I have a memory of planes slamming into buildings and watching terrified innocent people having to take a choice between being roasted alive or willingly plunging to their deaths because some influential b******* managed to talk some lost souls into killing themselves and many others, to make a few men feel all the more important, ant think they are spreading their religion across the world. I have seen the barbarism of the worst Islam has to offer put under a spotlight for all to see. That's 911. Bin Laden is guilty of killing many people, helping to put together a terrorist organisation, being an vital figure in it, and assisting and or condoning slaughter as some twisted eye for an eye vendetta. The war resulting from 911 was a war on terror, and as such, Bin Laden was one prominent target, who has been appropriately acquired. The US is only responsible for being complacent, and having the wrong people in the wrong jobs. That is the downfall of the Western society, that favour and familiarity are regarded over skill, but I really do not think that is merely a Western ideology. It's global. Do not judge me, you have no such right, you may form an opinion, and yours is exactly what I would expect. No surprises there, but as I said, I am not here to discuss your agenda, I want to know if someone is dim enough to think the US is responsible, and claim to be able to prove that planes were sent by the US, and not some extreme twisted religious group of genuine nutcases, then I want to know how they managed to pull a crap that big out of their behind. However, you have plenty to say, and do not get me wrong, I appreciate that you took the time to address my views, intelligently and eloquently I admit, and gave a good rebuttal, not some stupid fly by comment like another poster I will not bother to mention, I am just not sure we have anything to actually discuss, unless you wish to get into depth about the Hijackers as mentioned early in the piece.  As far as I am concerned  Bin Laden earned a death sentence with previous bombings, and ties with Yousef and Atta, not to mention O Neil's trails show Usama Bin Laden was a key figure in the group that masterminded the 911 attacks. He is responsible for Al Qaeda, and therefore responsible for 911, as outlined in this, and other posts. His Fatwa on the US IMO makes him the prime target, and surely lead to his eventual involvement with 911, all the while, I feel this was well covered up form day one, with Bin Laden expecting the US to target him with 911, so that he could make the argument you are making here, but in the end, it did not work. In fact, this last paragraph is probably all the information you require from me regarding your inquiry.

Edited by psyche101, 27 February 2013 - 08:54 AM.

[psyche101]

Nathan DiYorio, on 22 February 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

Nope, because you're the ignorant one. It's your brain I want to engage, not the people whose brains are already engaged.

Well flattery will get you nowhere. I still manage to get attention even when not in person *sighs*

Thanks for the offer, but engagement and you - well, I am just not confortable with both those words in the same sentence thanks. But just to make you feel better, I did see your veiled insult, but I think your a pretty small person for hiding behind it.

Nathan DiYorio, on 22 February 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

Science has not ditched philosophy at all. Poor science has ditched philosophy. The kind of people who treat science like an infallible religion have ditched philosophy. That would be you by the way.

No it would not be me. Gosh, so open minded aren't you. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, not a repository of it, it is not regarded as you seem to think  it is.

Nathan DiYorio, on 22 February 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

By simplifying all of the worlds equations into 1+1=2, you're wilfully missing the point. Wilfully missing a lot of points, I bet. When you ask a scientist "Will the outcome of this experiment be this based on these calculations you have provided?" they will never say "Yes, absolutely." The response is always "There's a good chance." or "Most likely."
My point, my whole point, is that you have to leave room for error. Because every now and then, one is going to crop up.

Not always absolutes do exist. You are simply stuck in an eddy of situational ethics. 1 + 1 does = 2. That is absolute. By saying "there are no absolutes" you are making an absolute statement. Did you realise that hippy?

Nathan DiYorio, on 22 February 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

Also, there's a difference between sitting around pondering, and pondering and then going to figure it out. So I go and figure it out. The people who say "Science says this as a fact" and then move on with their day are the people who just kind of sit around and accept what they're given. That would be you, by the way.

Not what I am seeing, but you do have a high opinion of yourself, you damn hippy.

I Already said, science is the pursuit of knowledge, yet science can be both fact and theory as it is with evolution, I think your paramaters on science and fact are far too limiting for me. I do not sit around pretending I have answers, I work with what I know to achieve answers. But then again, you do not seem to understand science.

Nathan DiYorio, on 22 February 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

Also, the philosophy of hippies revolves entirely around justifying the legalization of various drugs. This isn't really that discussion.

No it is not. Hippy philosophy is finding an alternate to any conforming aspect of society. That seems to be what drives you hippes, and what this conversation seems to be revolving around.

Nathan DiYorio, on 22 February 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

Editing to add: This discussion is happening in this thread because my original post on this subject was on topic. It's you who dragged it out into something more. If you don't like it, that's tough. Reap what you sow.

Your offtopic. And for a pretty silly side track IMHO. But is obviously means something to you. It seems you are just wishing to be adversarial by refusing to take your conversation to an appropriate section, and prefer to discuss this hippy BS with someone who does not want to. Do you feel empowered when you are making someone do something you want them to?

[psyche101]

Q24, on 25 February 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Well, another predictable response.

On the plus side, you just demonstrated that PBS can be just as propagandistic as Fox News with their false headlines – it doesn’t show the U.S. mainstream media in a good light, not at all.  What you should realise skyeagle, is that it doesn’t matter how many false reports you can find that bin Laden ‘admitted responsibility for 9/11’, such a claim is not contained within nor can be logically or legally concluded from the actual transcript reported on, and therefore is misleading.

Like psyche, you need to learn to research and understand facts for yourself, rather than relying on the word of certain mainstream media who demonstrably broadcast propaganda to deceive the public and suit political aims of their country.

I have no idea what you think the second link adds to your view, but I recommend that anyone who wants to understand the grievances bin Laden had against America give it a read.




Of course not, because you completely and wilfully ignored the denials of bin Laden, as I said that you would.  You are a fantastic example of what no OCT should aspire to.  How blind and hollow your views are.

I think perhaps we are just a little better at realising the obvious, and acting on it instead of sitting on our hands waiting for the next pane to fly into a building and pondering each and every way to blame anyone but the perpetrators. O Neil knew Bin Laden was involved, and he had the tracks to follow. And he knew more about the subject than anyone on this forum.

[Stundie]

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

Gidday Stundie

Just in the interests of discussion and all that mate

I think there would be paper trails too, but I do not think they woud have Usama on any one of them. I really do not think he woud be so careless. He was too rich and educated to do so. This is why I think the FBI said they have no hard evidence. I bet they have reams and reams of evidence that leads to purposeful dead ends. Behind the simple act of using box-cutters to hijack a plane was some deep planning. The way Usama keeps referring to Bush as sitting on his hands whist the carnage ensued seems like OBL is challenging him. I think there is much that was planned that did not go off, that died with the bombers and OBL.

Hi Pysche,

I did reply but I lost it as I have been extremely busy after having a period of twiddling my thumbs. Anyway....

I do not think that OBL would care whether there was a paper trail leading back to him or not, seeing as he had already declared war against the west. So why would it matter to him? I think the reason is there isn't a paper trail, or evidence unearthed in Afghanistan or in any other raids showing evidence of his involvement is probably because he was not involved in the plotting or planning.

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

That is fair enough, I agree, but remain with Skyeagle on that one. The taunting, the glee, the celebrations are all a kick in the teeth that they did this, mostly got away with it, wrote themselves into history and I am 100% of the opinion, and I realise that is personal, that all of this is like Usama thumbing his nose at the world over slaughtering and running. Don't get me wrong, many such crimes go unpunished because they conform to Western views, such as France's Nuclear testing. Someone should have been tarred and feathered over that, but they stand in line for the most part, so they avoid the full wrath they deserve. The Middle East does not, Shari'ah is against everything we stand for, and Shari'ah demands we die or become slaves. Al Qaeda makes no secret about this position. As such, the 1+1=2 seem pretty blatant to me, these people are rejoicing in what they deem their own victory. To decide the US is responsible is to me refusing an outright confession by way of action.

Not all muslim countries were celebrating. I seem to remember that the people of Iran held a huge vigil, I thought the only countries who celebrated were Iraq and Palestine.

As for Sharia, I do not care whether it stands against everything I stand for, if people want to pratice it, then they are free to do so providing they do not expect me to follow it or impose it on me.

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

Fair enough, I admit it is probably a knee jerk reaction, but I do feel Shari'ah contravenes enough human rights for the UN to downgrade it's religious status to cult. And from there it could be disolved, which would be a service to humanity as a whole. I still think John Lennon had a point though

Imagine no religion indeed!!

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

Hrmmzz, John O'Neil. Good call. Hard to say there, he does seem to have had enough experience to realise what was going on, and the FBI should have taken him more seriously, but I gather, much like myself  he is blunt, and damn can that get you into trouble. People do not like one calling a spade a spade, they like you to be "Politically Correct". I personally have no patience for that BS. But that seems to be how he managed to cheese people of, who should have listened to him. I do not see it in any way as indicating the US was involved, rather that the FBI was arrogant, and those who did not listen to O'Neil ought to be questioned as to why, and if they could have prevented this, then they should be held responsible for that. And you and I know that is not going to happen in a billion years. There is graft and corruption, I realise that, one would have to be blind not to, but this does not indicate US responsibility  it indicates a US bungle, which to me is far more plausible than the long winded ridiculous CT claims, and I am sure the reasons for wanting to cover such up do not even need mentioning.

I'm sure the FBI is full of guys who are blunt and say what they see types. I think he started working for the FBI in the late 70's, so if it was his style, I think the powers that be would have dealt with him ages ago. I know that he upset a few people within the FBI and CIA etc etc but I think what alienated him was the knowledge he had on OBL and that he was obviously getting to close. He apparently made some comment to the effect that next time they bomb the towers, they would finish the job.

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

I think Able Danger was way, way overdue. I think something like that should have implemented when all that nasty business that ruined the middle East when the Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) was overthrown happened. Iran was a nice place in the day of the Shah.

Iran was a nice place in the day of the Shah??

You are joking aren't you? Because before the installation of the Shah, Iran had a democracy which was overthrown with the help of the UK and US governments. The Shah was famous for its secret police the SAVAK and torture dungeons and executions.

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

I see one in a million chance as unacceptable. Even if Usama way dying, I do not feel he had the right to ever see a blue sky again. Scotland Yard let Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi out to die on compassionate grounds. I do not agree with that. Who knows what influence he might have with such a barbaric mindset in that time. He should have rotted away in jail, and not even had his cell attended until a good decade after his death. Usama IMO deserved worse yet. Would you be willing to bet your child's life (if you have one I suppose!) on a certainty that Usama would never be freed, had he been taken alive? Would you be confident enough to stake that much?

I know most peoples sentiment to OBL because he is possibly guilty of a multitude of different crimes. I do not think he would be freed, even in the unlikely situation that he was found not guilty.

As for Al-Megrahi, I think that they released him on passionate grounds rather than him appeal because the initial case I think was flimsy at best. I think most of the families from the UK people who died at Lockerbie thought it was a grave miscarriage of justice. I personally think releasing him rather than have an appeal which would have highlighted the poor case against him and begged the question of if it wasn't him, who was it?

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

Yes I agree, it is not the answer you want, but it is Sky's answer, and it does answer the question, if not directly.

I wouldn't call it an answer, it was a response but his response never addressed the question directly or indirectly. He ignored it and unless you think ignorance is an answer, then I can't see how you could say that.  

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

I honestly think it was a moot point from day one. Usama had covered his tracks well, we agree on that, regardless if covering or non-existant, it's not a direct link. He declared war in America, he is a public enemy. But he would be taunting America to arrest him on 911 so he can walk away legally. And that is what many of the general public think, that he is responsible for 911, regardless of the level of involvement, he is seen as the leader who made the attacks possible by the larger majority. So why give him what he wants? A court case, media, everything possible to help him contact more people for his cause, and look at this thread. American people turning on their own Government over the rubbish a terrorist mastermind killer has them believe. I think the FBI went the smart route, and let him rant rave and carry on as much as he wanted, and then the seals shot him dead over another atrocity that cost less lives, and had less of an impact on the US ublic. Like taking Al Capone for tax evasion. Except they shot Usama dead. I think they were smart.

I'm not sure what to make of this to be honest. I do not think it is a moot point because critical thinking says that if you have no hard evidence of someones guilt, even if he is suspect No1, then you must look for someone else. I see critical thinking being thrown out the window because of the repeated mantra from government/media sources that OBL was behind 9/11, therefore guilty. I do not  think he would taunt America knowing that if he was arrested and charged, he would walk away cause even if they could not convict him of 9/11, they would convict him of his other crimes. He knows that his capture would mean he would never be released. However, I'm sure they would find a way to shoehorn evidence or create a miltary trail like they are doing with KSM which would ensure a guilty verdict.

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

Thank you, I try hard to make sure my posting is worthwhile and contributes to the discussion.
I guess this is why we agree on these points, I try to insist that facts lead a discussion. Fact is you are right. The FBI did not indict Usama for 911. But there is more to the story than that, and that is where good discussion comes in. This is the part I am sorry Sky misses, because with his world experience, he would be a more valuable contributor. I only ever had a problem with Sky's debating, as you do, outside of that, I respect him, and have for some time. We are just all different, and we have to find way to accomodate our nuances.

Well I would respect him more if he actually addressed issues which challenge what he believes. I know nothing about Skyeagle other than what he posts on this forum and I have no interest whether he is a pot washer or a nobel peace prize winning scientist as it makes no difference to the discussion. What matter is the integrity of the character replying in conversation to admit that when the evidence doesn't support what they believe, they change the belief, not to ignore it and repeat their belief again to the annoyance of the person they are debating. Respect is something that is earned and not given and until there is some honesty in his responses, they he will find little to no respect coming from me.

I disagree with lots of things that you are posting, but I think I am being respectful to you because you do not appear to be dishonest. So for that reason alone, I treat you differently to how I would treat Skyeagle, hence you are not getting the lols.

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

Ohh, I hear you, I managed to draw Saru's attention more often than I wished when I was debating Sky. I for one hope you do not get into trouble, I think you offer a good discussion.

Well I have been in trouble a few times but it's not like I am here to cause trouble.

As I said, I love debate but if someone wants to play smart ass and to deliberately obfusticate the debate, fine by me. Both will be dealt with.

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

I suggest we try to discuss aspects that do not rely on the papers and media sources? As I say, much like myself, Sky is old school, and more of a hands on person. I am sure he will offer excellent conversation if the discussion is focussed in that direction, With myself joining the discussion, I hope to be able to assist Sky in these matters, and rely on him when I need that experience factor.  Ignoring wont work, and I can tell you from experience demanding will only get you into hot water.

Douglas Adams comes to mind when he said: You have the answer, you need to learn how to ask the question.

Well I will await for him to offer excellent conversation as I have not seen it yet and honestly do not think it will be forthcoming. Admittedly my only involvement in the forums is in the conspiracy threads, so maybe he has more to say outside of the conspiracy threads.

And if demanding that Sky answers a question gets me into bother, then so be it, I would rather be in hot water than allow a poster to ride roughshot over a post or point I have made because it's the easier option for them. If that gets me into trouble, then this forum is not on a level playing field or what I thought it was and not the place for open and honest debate.

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

You are most welcome mate, I appreciate good manners and a technical approach. In fact I have to say I never envisaged this part of the forum being so civil and interesting. You are a good ambassador for the CT section Stundie! Thank you for your civility, good manners, and a fine conversation. I get along great with smart people! No matter if I agree with them or not. Anyone can see you are an astute poster mate.

I certainly will prefer an honest and open debate, because I do not want to win, I just want to see aholes like Jones and Berger exposed for the childish jerks they are and all their nincompoopery exposed for what it is. Tossers like that who refuse to get a real job and waste peoples times and lives by just doing their damnedest to upset others I see as parasites on society. I seriously hate people lying to, or trying to take advantage of me. CT's I see in this category, I have a personal reason for wanting to oust 911 as well, wich I do not wish to mention here in public. I have no time for a snake oil salesman.


It is my hope that I can offer that which is missing from the debate, it is a big world, and it takes many types to go around. As I say, I understand your frustration, I can only say for me, with time, it did get better. To a point where I would be honoured to buy Sky a cold frosty beer, and listen to any story he might be willing to share. I think his wealth of experience is undervalued and not seen for what it is worth only because times are moving a bit quick from some of us to keep up with. But I admit, it took me some time to realise that.
Like I say you are 100% right, I cannot deny fact, and fact is OBL was not indicted for 911, but I think we both agree that in no way absolves nor clears him fro the atrocity, and by action and association, I think everyone in the world knows he was involved, he just planned himself out of it well. I still think he had some ploy to work for him if he was, and that might well be why the FBI decided to keep him just one the one charge they did have, that did stick. Like Jailing Al Capone for tax evasion I suppose. Sometimes, one has to make do with what ne has. Capone did not suffer as much as the average man in jai, far from it, but boy howdy was he angry at going to jail. He was busted, and in front of everyone. All of sudden he was not some high class businessman, he was a street thug. During his early months at Alcatraz, Capone made an enemy by showing his disregard for the prison social order when he cut in line while prisoners were waiting for a haircut. James Lucas, a Texas bank robber serving 30 years, reportedly confronted the former syndicate leader and told him to get back at the end of the line. When Capone asked if he knew who he was, Lucas reportedly grabbed a pair of the barber's scissors and, holding them to Capone's neck, answered "Yeah, I know who you are, greaseball. And if you don't get back to the end of that ******* line, I'm gonna know who you were."

Cheers

Thanks for the kind words, although I think they are undeserved. I am certainly no ambassador to the CT as I'm often reffered to a truther/twoofer/toofer or other names given to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, even though I have never joined a truth group.

I'm not here to win either, although I wouldn't blame you for thinking otherwise. I do not think Jones or Berger who I don't know much about are childish jerks. I think like a lot of people I speak to, they have concerns like I have that we are not being told the truth about what happened on 9/11.

I do not claim to know what happened on 9/11, but what I object to is the notion that the US government couldn't have orchestrated and pulled this type of operation off or that they never allowed the terrorists the opportunity to commit the attacks. When I hear the objects to why the conspiracy is not true, I usually here arguments like......

• It would take thousands of government people to pull this off, yet these same people believed that 19 people in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off.
  
• The government wouldn't do this to its people, yet the government has happily killed other people and send their own to die for it's own purposes such as Vietnam. If they can kill other people, there is nothing stopping them from killing their own, especially when there is so much to gain from it.
  
• Conspiracies are never true and are only held by the deluded. Even though there are plenty of conspiracies which turned out to be true. Here in the UK, we have the exposing of Jimmy Saville, an entertainer who for years worked endlessly for charities and young children being exposed as the worst pedophille the world has ever seen. David Icke exposed him years ago and if you had have asked a few people years ago if Saville was a pedophille, you would have been told you were off your rocker. Another recent conspiracy that has been exposed in the UK is that of the Hilsborough disaster, a footballing tragedy that claimed the lives of 96 people who were crushed. It has now been shown that evidence was tampered with and police statements changed so that the blame could be solely laid on the fans and not the police/government/Football Association.

Given the choice, I would rather it be OBL behind 9/11 because psychologically, it is much more comforting to think it was the bogeyman than those who are suppose to protect us. I am not a terrorist sympathiser as some might say because I condem the terrorists whether it was OBL or the US government or both. I am no fan of Islam either or many other religions as I'm an atheist. I'm not anti american cause I have been to the US twice and it's a wonderful place, I met some wonderful people and I love some of the stuff the US outputs to the rest of the world in media and enterainment, although your beers and chocolate suck! I am not anti government cause I undestand the need for a central organisation to the things that society needs and relies on.

The only thing I am interested in is the truth, now some people think that we have been told the full picture of what happened on 9/11 or the nearest account of what happened, but there are many people like me who have questions and do not believe we are being told the truth. All I am doing is asking about certain events surrounding 9/11 to understand whether or not the commission told the people the truth and I have come to the conclusions based on the evidence I have evaluated that things don't add up and that it shows us that the government may have had a part in this, whether they orchestrated it or just turned a blind eye.

I understand that not everyone is going to hold the same opinion as me, even those who agree with mostly with what I say will not agree with everything I have to say and vice versa, but what I find is those who hold the official account as the truth will defend it, even when it is evidently wrong and even justify why things are wrong because being wrong is not an option and it is a better option than those crazy twoofer conspiracy claims.

I find myself on the side of those who claim there is a conspiracy for no other reason that the evidence shows it as a possibility. That doesn't mean there is definelty a conspiracy, but the evidence doesn't show the OCT to be a true account of what happened that day.

Sorry for going on and I hope this clears up a few things.

Cheers

Stundie

[Babe Ruth]

Psyche

I cannot control what posts you read or do not read, at which position you begin to read a given thread, or anything else about your perceptions.  "Let you respond?"  Puhleeze sir, I do not control your responses.

I love good debate and differing opinions, and would be happy if you would provide something like that.

My point was that the repetition of government claims does not constitute good debate.  The government claims cannot be proved in accordance with any sort of scientific scrutiny, and 11 years later, evidence has emerged that utterly contradicts the official story.

Give my government a moment's peace??? I give them several thousand dollars a year in taxes, and all they do is wage fraudulent wars 'round the globe and defecate upon constitutional government.  What obligation do I have to give them a moment's peace?

None.  On the contrary, because I took the same oath they do, I have an obligation to defend the US Constitution.

And in case you are unaware of it, which seems to be the case, there is considerable evidence that the towers were taken down by controlled demolition.  The group known as Architects & Engineers For 911 Truth has analyzed the evidence and presented a pretty persuasive case.  You should consider reading it.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 February 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

My point was that the repetition of government claims does not constitute good debate.  The government claims cannot be proved in accordance with any sort of scientific scrutiny,...

On the contrary, scientific evidence, along with a collection of other evidence, proves beyond a  shadow of a doubt the official story is true and claims of 911 conspiracist are false.

Quote

...and 11 years later, evidence has emerged that utterly contradicts the official story.

That is false! The fact of the matter is, claims of 911 conspiracist have been successfully refuted with facts, evidence and common sense. I might also add that non-government sources have also confirmed the official story as true.

When I posted the fleet history of American Airlines in regards to the loss of its B-757 and B-767 on 09/11/2001, conspiracist were unable to respond in a satisfactory manner, not to mention that if you claim those airliners were switched then you have to account for the airframe, passengers and crew of those flights.

Did ACARS depict any of those aircraft landing at an airport? No! Did radar track those flights to any airport? No! Did satellites track those flights to any airport? No!

Question is, who came up with the false idea that those flights were switched without accounting for the airframe, passengers and crew? Could that false story have been intentionally planted as a prank?

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 February 2013 - 07:32 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 27 February 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

I do not think that OBL would care whether there was a paper trail leading back to him or not, seeing as he had already declared war against the west. So why would it matter to him?

Why did Osama bin Laden admit to his responsibility for the 911 attacks?

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 February 2013 - 07:19 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

Why did Osama bin Laden admit to his responsibility for the 911 attacks?

I can't say why he or the right handed fat bin laden admited his responsibility because I do not know what was he responsible for exactly? Did he plan it? Did he pay for it? Did he give them blessings? Did he give them contacts? Was it his masterplan? DId he do all of this?

OBL says "While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women."

He is not admitting responsibility here exactly either, he is saying that in his mind, he thought that the US should be punished, so they can see what its like for us and stop them killing our people. That is not an admission!

Do you know the difference between "I wanted someone killed" and "I killed someone" in that wanting someone dead or punished is not the same as that person actually doing it.

I have 3 simple questions for you..

• Why did he deny it at first?
  
• Why do you think the FBI have no hard evidence of his involvement even after his admitted responsibility?
  
• And what are your opinions on the timing of is supposed admission in reflection to the presidentials in 2004 which boosted Bush popularity as the goldstein bogeyman appeared on video confessing all sorts apparently?

Edited by Stundie, 28 February 2013 - 12:08 AM.