36 replies to this topic

[Stardrive]

tribalactivity, on 02 November 2011 - 10:18 AM, said:

Osama Bin Laden trained by the CIA is that enough evidence, The US created it!

Half truth.  Ah never mind, I prefer this spin, discourages recruitment.

[Q24]

Stardrive, on 04 November 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

Half truth.  Ah never mind, I prefer this spin, discourages recruitment.

True - that’s not even a fraction of the full story, and it only gets worse.

Do you know how many agents the CIA had inside Al Qaeda come 9/11?

[Dan'O]

tribalactivity, on 02 November 2011 - 10:18 AM, said:

Osama Bin Laden trained by the CIA is that enough evidence, The US created it!

Where is your proof?

All I am aware of is US financed some small arms purchases and a few crates of hand held SAMs for the ISI who sponsored Mujahideen in Afghanistan. ISI did way more to train/create Bin Laden and Mujahideen then the US ever did or ever could. Bin Ladens role in Soviet occupied Afghanistan seemed to be more of an semi-independant/Islamic financier bringing in big bucks from the M.E. with some close ties to ISI then a fighter or battlefield commander anyway. wtf do I know I wasn't there, educate me with some of your facts.

Is he lying here to cover for his supposed CIA led masters: http://www.guardian....ida.september11
Please...1+1=2 not 666

[Stardrive]

Q24, on 05 November 2011 - 12:33 AM, said:

True - that's not even a fraction of the full story, and it only gets worse.

Yep, it gets worse because of the many countries involved. You can try to paint the US as the sole perpetrator, but the facts state otherwise.

Quote

Do you know how many agents the CIA had inside Al Qaeda come 9/11?

I'm sure that's common knowledge/not. (Just don't say 19, LOL)  Q, if your gonna give me a link, make it a good one! While your at it, look up how many other foreign agents were inside Al Qaeda on 9/11. It would be most strange if the only country able to actively infiltrate Al Qaeda with it's agents was the US.

[Q24]

Dan, on 05 November 2011 - 09:41 AM, said:

Where is your proof?

I don’t know about proof, but there is evidence in the testimonies of former government workers that bin Laden was in direct contact with U.S. agents.

Ted Gunderson, former FBI Special Agent: -

“In late Spring or early summer of 1986, Ralph Olberg, one Tim Osman, Michael Riconosciuto and I met in a room at the Hilton Hotel, Ventura Blvd., Sherman Oaks, California.  I accompanied Michael Riconosciuto, and Osman and Olberg were together.  We were there to discuss Olberg's role with the worldwide support network involving the Mujahaden, Afghanistan Resistance Movement against the Soviets.

http://www.lycaeum.o...st_circle/6.htm

Michael Riconosciuto, former U.S. government contractor: -

In the 1980's, Ted Gunderson , myself, and Ralph Olberg were involved in negotiations with the Afghan Mujahadeen on behalf of the US govt. Ted will verify that we had these meetings and that OSAMA BIN LADEN was present in the US under the name of TIM OSMAN.  Mr. Osman was taken to special demonstrations at US military bases.

http://educate-yours...xbA5feb01.shtml

Jack Cloonan, former FBI Special Agent: -

Ultimately, we ended up talking to bin Laden's first trainer, Ali Mohammed, Ali Abdul Saud Mohammed, who is currently in jail.  He taught bin Laden.  In one of the first training classes that Ali Mohammed conducted was Sheikh bin Laden; Ayman al-Zawahiri; Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who's chief of military operations at the time; Saif al-Adel, who's still one of the 22 most wanted fugitives, and others.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ws/cloonan.html

For full implication of the last statement it is necessary to understand that bin Laden’s first trainer, Ali Mohammed, was in employment of the CIA.

There is further evidence of bin Laden’s direct role with the U.S. in picture: -




The images at either end are U.S. National Security Advisor, Zbigneiw Brzezinski at a Pakistani military outpost on the border of Afghanistan in 1980, accompanied by a man in military uniform who appears to be Osama bin Laden.  The centre image is a younger bin Laden for comparison - look at the nose, cheekbones, eyes, mouth, chin, brow, facial hair - it could not be a better match.

In addition, date of the images above is shortly after beginning of the Soviet/Afghan war and U.S. Operation Cyclone to assist the Mujahideen resistance - it all fits well.  And with the wealthy and influential bin Laden family well known to the U.S. (reference Bush family connection - Arbusto and Carlye) there would be few more obvious candidates than Osama bin Laden with which to open contact.

Of course… the former U.S. government workers could all be providing false testimony… and the man pictured with Brzezinski could just look remarkably like bin Laden… and the well fitting circumstances could all just be a big coincidence…

Though personally I’d keep an open mind that there was direct contact with bin Laden.

Dan, on 05 November 2011 - 09:41 AM, said:

All I am aware of is US financed some small arms purchases and a few crates of hand held SAMs for the ISI who sponsored Mujahideen in Afghanistan. ISI did way more to train/create Bin Laden and Mujahideen then the US ever did or ever could. Bin Ladens role in Soviet occupied Afghanistan seemed to be more of an semi-independant/Islamic financier bringing in big bucks from the M.E. with some close ties to ISI then a fighter or battlefield commander anyway. wtf do I know I wasn't there, educate me with some of your facts.

I agree the direct role of the ISI was greater than that of the United States.  Then, U.S. funding was channelled through the ISI so it is to be expected.  $630 million per year of U.S. taxpayers money by 1987.  The evidence is that the U.S. had agents on the ground, contacts and infiltrators within the Mujahideen… there was even a recruitment office based in Brooklyn.  I don’t think the U.S. role should be downplayed - it was an extensive operation and significant investment in countering the Soviets.

All of the connections established were not possible to simply erase with the end of the war or operation, rather after the level of investment it would have made more sense to maintain them within both Pakistan, Afghanistan and the database; Al Qaeda.  If we are aware of the joint U.S. and NATO operation known as Gladio, then it is clear to understand how this might be used for future benefit.

Dan, on 05 November 2011 - 09:41 AM, said:

Is he lying here to cover for his supposed CIA led masters: http://www.guardian....ida.september11
Please...1+1=2 not 666

I don’t think he lied there.  If we judge by the past two decades of statements it seems apparent that bin Laden turned completely against the United States.  However, this is no proof he was the mastermind or leading instigator of the 9/11 operation.

The CIA were all over, and inside, Al Qaeda.  The fact is, those known as the hijackers would never have made it to 9/11 if not for certain direct actions of the CIA, apparently at behest of the Bush administration, which paved their way.

It appears bin Laden was deliberately implicated as the perfect fall guy; pretext for U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.

[Q24]

Stardrive, on 05 November 2011 - 02:58 PM, said:

I'm sure that's common knowledge/not. (Just don't say 19, LOL)  Q, if your gonna give me a link, make it a good one! While your at it, look up how many other foreign agents were inside Al Qaeda on 9/11. It would be most strange if the only country able to actively infiltrate Al Qaeda with it's agents was the US.

Yes it was nineteen!  No, haha  

I don’t know how many agents the CIA had inside Al Qaeda come 9/11.  I would think more than nineteen considering CIA director George Tenet stated the infiltration network covered the whole of Afghanistan.

The point I was making is that the nineteen in question may have formed a part of that network.  Actually, I think fifteen.  That is judging by dates they first travelled to Afghanistan, became affiliated with Al Qaeda and/or met bin Laden.  It coincided with the CIA infiltration plan 1999>.

There were certainly individuals with Pakistani ISI and British MI6 connections within Al Qaeda also (see Omar Sheikh).  Others too if Ziad Jarrah being realated to an Israeli intelligence asset is anything to go by.

It appears the Hamburg Cell led by Mohammed Atta presented the operation and bin Laden took the bait.

[Dan'O]

Quote

Osama Bin Laden trained by the CIA is that enough evidence, The US created it!

There is no evidence that I can seriously consider for backing of the above quote. I appreciate those links and pictures but they provided nothing.

These groups are all very much in it for their own means and not controlled or created by the CIA. There is some obvious proxy cold war support though.

Quote

The CIA were all over, and inside, Al Qaeda.  

Darn it, I am just not seeing it. How or why are you thinking that? Is there proof?

Quote

The fact is, those known as the hijackers would never have made it to 9/11 if not for certain direct actions of the CIA, apparently at behest of the Bush administration, which paved their way.

Again, I'm not seeing it. How or why are you throwing these things out? I see no direct (or indirect) evidence. I'm not even sure if providing CT based or irrelevant links will help me to see it either.

Quote

It appears bin Laden was deliberately implicated as the perfect fall guy; pretext for U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.

I'm sorry. I am just not seeing it. No facts...nothing. And if we can go on heresy then Saddam did set up a training ground and a aircraft for Al Qaeda to practice and one of Saddam's agents did meet Atta in a European country before 9/11. Unfortunately all I see is blatant CT promotion. Sometimes I wonder if that is as fun as it seems to be...

[Q24]

Dan, on 06 November 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:

tribalactivity, on 02 November 2011 - 10:18 AM, said:

Osama Bin Laden trained by the CIA is that enough evidence, The US created it!

There is no evidence that I can seriously consider for backing of the above quote. I appreciate those links and pictures but they provided nothing.

I have shown that Ali Mohammed worked for the CIA and was bin Laden’s first trainer.  The information in the links provided comes from FBI, military and mainstream sources - it is well documented.

Why do you not seriously consider this?

Regarding U.S. creation of Al Qaeda, a couple of additional statements: -

• “Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”
  ~Robin Cook, former British Foreign Secretary
  
  http://www.guardian....ly7.development
  
  
• “So the situation isn't like the West portrays it, that there is an "organization" with a specific name and so on. That particular name [Al Qaeda] is very old. It was born without any intention from us.”
  ~bin Laden
  
  http://www.fas.org/i...ra/ubl-fbis.pdf

So not only did the former British Foreign Secretary state that Al Qaeda was “literally” a database of Mujahideen assisted by the CIA, but bin Laden himself labelled Al Qaeda a Western portrayal that occurred without his intent - he never used the term until 2004.

Why do you not seriously consider this?

Dan, on 06 November 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:

These groups are all very much in it for their own means and not controlled or created by the CIA. There is some obvious proxy cold war support though.

I would loosely agree there.

Dan, on 06 November 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:

Q24, on 05 November 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

The CIA were all over, and inside, Al Qaeda.

Darn it, I am just not seeing it. How or why are you thinking that? Is there proof?

Evidence the CIA were inside Al Qaeda is seen through the previous evidence I have provided regarding Ali Mohammed - he was a CIA/Al Qaeda double-agent.  It’s difficult to get much more inside than that.

Evidence is further seen in the CIA plan that began in 1999 to infiltrate Al Qaeda: -

• “In going after the organization, we were doing several things simultaneously:
  
  First, we had to penetrate the threat—to do this we needed to penetrate both the al-Qa’ida
  safehaven in Afghanistan and the organization itself to collect better human and technical
  intelligence on its activities and to understand it well enough to conduct effective
  operations against it.”
  ~Cofer Black, former director of CIA CTC
  
  http://www.fas.org/i...k_statement.pdf
  
  
• “By 9/11, a map would show that these collection programs and human networks were in place in such numbers to nearly cover Afghanistan.”
  ~George Tenet, director of CIA
  
  http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31650.pdf

In all, it is seen the CIA had assets inside Al Qaeda from the word go (Ali Mohammed a known case) and continued efforts to “penetrate” the organization in the years prior 9/11 (the CIA plan).  If we judge by Tenet’s statement above, one could say the plan was a success - there were agents in the network.

It’s not like it would be that difficult - have a Westernised Muslim man turn up at an Al Qaeda training camp spouting anti-U.S. rhetoric and declaring Jihad (perhaps volunteering to be a suicide pilot for added effect) - that’s it, he’s in.

Onto the second point below, the CIA all over Al Qaeda…

Dan, on 06 November 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:

Q24, on 05 November 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

The fact is, those known as the hijackers would never have made it to 9/11 if not for certain direct actions of the CIA, apparently at behest of the Bush administration, which paved their way.

Again, I'm not seeing it. How or why are you throwing these things out? I see no direct (or indirect) evidence. I'm not even sure if providing CT based or irrelevant links will help me to see it either.

It is a revelation to some that the CIA, and later FBI, were well aware Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi (two of those who would go on to be the hijackers) were inside the United States illegally long prior to 9/11 - the terrorist connection, link to Al Qaeda and inherent threat were all known.

The FBI were quite frantic, as would be expected.

FBI agent, Steve Bongardt…

June 2001, in connection with the USS Cole bombing: -
“What’s the story with the Almihdhar information, when is it going to get passed, do we have anything yet, when is it going to get passed?”

August 2001, upon receiving an e-mail from FBI HQ: -
“Dina, you got to be kidding me! Almihdhar is in the country?”

After a subsequent argument with FBI HQ and CIA bin Laden unit: -
“If this guy [Almihdhar] is in the country, it’s not because he’s going to ****ing Disneyland!”

Upon being denied permission to pursue a criminal investigation: -
“Whatever has happened to this—someday someone will die—and wall or not—the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems’. Let’s hope the [Justice Department’s] National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL [Osama bin Laden], is getting the most ‘protection’.”

http://fl1.findlaw.c...2002fbiagnt.pdf

At seeing Al Mihdhar’s name on one of the passenger flight manifests after 9/11: -
“This is the same Almihdhar we’ve been talking about for three months!”

Sources for the quotes (except the one linked above) are from interviews conducted by U.S. author Lawrence Wright.

FBI agent Steve Bongardt wanted to open an investigation into these terrorists - if he had been permitted to do so, the 9/11 operation could have been taken down right there.  It didn’t happen.  Agents of the CIA bin Laden unit took deliberate action to keep the FBI out of it despite the obvious threat - it was they who had a stand-up row with Bongardt and put the case to the NSLU to rule against him (despite the 9/11 Commission later confirming this decision was legally incorrect).

The sources for this CIA obstruction are from various available official testimonies.  Rather than find, detail and link to them all here, I provide this confirmation of the end situation sourced to former U.S. government State Department and counter-terrorism employee, Richard Clarke: -

Ex-White House counter-terror chief charges CIA shielded 9/11 hijackers
…
Clarke suggests that the CIA shielded the Al Qaeda members from the scrutiny of other agencies because its aim was to “flip” them, recruiting them as informants inside the terrorist group.  He describes this theory as “the only conceivable reason that I’ve been able to come up with” as to why the CIA would fail to inform the FBI or even the White House about their presence inside the US.

https://wsws.org/art.../clar-a13.shtml

The only theory Clarke was able to “come up with” was that the CIA were attempting to recruit the two terrorists.  I could suggest another reason.  Whatever the reason, the fact is that had the CIA not taken deliberate action to protect those terroists by blocking the FBI, the hijackers would never have made it to 9/11.

The 9/11 operation would not have happened without that CIA intervention.

And this is just one case; a snippet of the full information…

For example, Saudi intelligence met and assisted the hijackers inside the United States to obtain fake social security cards, arrange flying lessons and rent accommodation (which happened to be with a U.S. informant) - it is little reported but right there in the 9/11 Commission Report - they concluded it was a coincidental meeting.  Oh give me a break.

And still there’s so much more…

Yes, Al Qaeda and bin Laden were involved, no doubt about it, but if you research all of the information there is similarly no question it was more than a simple Al Qaeda operation alone that led to 9/11 - there were other players involved one way or another, it is not theory but on record fact.

[Stardrive]

Q24, on 05 November 2011 - 05:45 PM, said:

Yes it was nineteen!  No, haha  

Good one!

Quote

I don't know how many agents the CIA had inside Al Qaeda come 9/11.  I would think more than nineteen considering CIA director George Tenet stated the infiltration network covered the whole of Afghanistan.

Well that's my point, I would think no one would be privy to such information without extremely high level clearance. But it sounds like someone needs to work on thier spacial skills. Afghanistan is huge.

Quote

The point I was making is that the nineteen in question may have formed a part of that network.  Actually, I think fifteen.  That is judging by dates they first travelled to Afghanistan, became affiliated with Al Qaeda and/or met bin Laden.  It coincided with the CIA infiltration plan 1999>.

That's like saying they may have been part of grandma's basket weaving class. The point I'm making is the information you seek would be highly classified, even if the number of agents in place was anywhere from zero to a thousand.

Quote

There were certainly individuals with Pakistani ISI and British MI6 connections within Al Qaeda also (see Omar Sheikh).  Others too if Ziad Jarrah being realated to an Israeli intelligence asset is anything to go by.

You forgot China and the EU.

Quote

It appears the Hamburg Cell led by Mohammed Atta presented the operation and bin Laden took the bait.

Then he must have really liked the idea. What does that say?

[Q24]

Stardrive, on 06 November 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

Then he must have really liked the idea. What does that say?

I think grandma really liked baskets… but that is not evidence she weaved every one.

Stardrive, on 06 November 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

You forgot China and the EU.

I mentioned Britain as part of the European Union.

I am not aware of Chinese agents within Al Qaeda - do you have any information?

FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has said the U.S. had been using the bin Laden network as proxies in the Xinjiang region (East Turkistan/Uighurs) of China: -

“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.”

http://letsibeledmon...ike-malloy.html

If anyone is interested in understanding there is more to 9/11 than bin Laden and nineteen hijackers then it is well worth looking up other interviews with Sibel Edmonds.  The information she has provided indicates others involved, inside and outside of the United States, and highlights the lacklustre investigation we have seen to date.  Or Senator Bob Graham - he has confirmed that Saudi government agents played a role leading up to 9/11.  It is no secret that the official story to date is a half-truth at best.

[Soul Kitchen]

seller2006, on 28 September 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:

lol... Al Qaeda is without a doubt a branch of the CIA operations. Some people say Iran might be on the same side but just bsing the public for disinformation. Keep yo busy with news, bills, mortgages, threats, terror, inflation, etc.

You see, us rational people would take your conspiracies more seriously if you weren't so damn sure of yourself.
Scientists won't preach that kind of certainty for the theories that they've dedicated years of hard work and mountains of evidence to.

It's called a conspiracy THEORY for a reason.

[Rlyeh]

me-wonders, on 23 October 2011 - 02:48 PM, said:

On the other hand, I would also argue, it was not the US attacked, but the New World Order, and this would be compliant with the Koran war rules.  The way this argument would go is, the targets are obviously New World Order targets, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and probably a government building.

So the buildings and the citizens weren't in the US?

[Stardrive]

Q24, on 07 November 2011 - 12:47 AM, said:

I think grandma really liked baskets… but that is not evidence she weaved every one.

Carefull now, grandma doesn't like it when others take credit for her work. Can't have it both ways.

Quote

I mentioned Britain as part of the European Union.

Gottcha..

Quote

I am not aware of Chinese agents within Al Qaeda - do you have any information?

Well I was refering more to the Soviet occupation days and the mujahideen. China has a Muslim population, so yes, they have a dog in this fight (so to speak). Good luck at getting any info about Chinese agents, mums the word in China.

Quote

It is no secret that the official story to date is a half-truth at best.

Well to think any of us will ever know ALL of the facts and details is wishful thinking. But I'm not about to play connect the dots because, for one, they aren't numbered, and two, because they aren't numbered, we can draw any picture (with most of them turning out to be blurry and distorted if not just down right ugly).

[Q24]

Stardrive, on 07 November 2011 - 04:44 PM, said:

Carefull now, grandma doesn't like it when others take credit for her work. Can't have it both ways.

On the contrary, grandma was not taking the credit: -

• “Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it.
  ~bin Laden statement through Peshawar Afghan Islamic Press, 16th Sep. 01
  
  
• “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie.”
  ~bin Laden interview with Karachi Ummat, 28th Sep. 01
  
  http://www.fas.org/i...ra/ubl-fbis.pdf

In actual fact, grandma gave credit where it was due: -

• “Muhammad ((Atta)) from the Egyptian family was in charge of the group.”
  ~bin Laden videotape, 2001
  
  http://www.defense.g...20011213ubl.pdf
  
  
• “And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa…”
  ~bin Laden videotape, 2004
  
  http://english.aljaz...3336457223.html

Woah there grandma old girl…

I got told you were responsible and giving out the orders.

Surely you meant to say, “I, Commander-General bin Laden, ordered Lieutenant Atta…”?

Now you tell us Atta was actually “in charge”, “Commander-General” and you but “agreed” with him.

This is really ruining your mastermind image, grandma.

Seriously for one moment, if this had ever gone to trial bin Laden could never have been convicted of the official charge, prosecutors would struggle to even mount a case.  An accessory to the crime?  Yes, there is enough evidence of foreknowledge.  The director of the crime?  No, the admissible evidence is just not there.

Mohammed Atta on the other hand could be nailed every step of the way.  But then who was Atta?  He was no lifelong Al Qaeda supporter, he was a well educated Westernised man who liked nights out drinking and dropped on bin Laden’s doorstep only when a CIA infiltration plan began, he was no Jihadist.  The same goes for the majority of the other hijackers.

Even a 9/11 Commissioner later questioned it: -

“Well, at the top of my list happens to be a personal one, and that is, I could never figure out why these 19 fellas did what they did.  We looked into their backgrounds.  In one or two cases, they were apparently happy, well-adjusted, not particularly religious - in one case quite well-to-do, had a girlfriend.  We just couldn’t figure out why he did it.  I still don’t know.  And I think one of the great unanswered questions - a good topic for investigative reporters - would be: why did these 19 do what they did?  We speculated in the report about why the enemy hates us, but we simply weren’t able to answer the questions about the 19.”
~Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of 9/11 Commission

http://web.archive.o...11hamilton.html

Well of course you could not answer the question, Lee - you were looking in the wrong direction.

It is beyond doubt to me, and all the evidence I’m putting forward supports it - some group(s), whether that be rogue intelligence or a political faction, domestic or foreign, wanted a greater U.S. influence in the Middle East, 9/11 was their operation and bin Laden was setup as the pretext for intervention.

Stardrive, on 07 November 2011 - 04:44 PM, said:

Well to think any of us will ever know ALL of the facts and details is wishful thinking. But I'm not about to play connect the dots because, for one, they aren't numbered, and two, because they aren't numbered, we can draw any picture (with most of them turning out to be blurry and distorted if not just down right ugly).

True there are no numbers to guide.

But wait up - is that an elephant in the room?

We’d better investigate…




What do you mean my dots don't fit?

The unconnected dots - well they are irrelevant!

No elephants here - it’s OBL!



That may seem like an exaggeration but it is not far off the mark: -

“The [9/11 Commission's] investigation was not what we call an investigation. It was to develop a storyline of what happened to be fed to the American people and to receive their acquiescence.”
~Mike Gravel, U.S. Senator

http://www.wanttokno...ommissionreport

These are not Alex Jones conspiracy theories I’m quoting - it’s Senators, Commissioners, FBI officers, official reports and interviews, mainstream sources.  That the official 9/11 story presented is a whitewash, is now in the open.

[Stardrive]

Q24, on 07 November 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

On the contrary, grandma was not taking the credit: -

Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it.
~bin Laden statement through Peshawar Afghan Islamic Press, 16th Sep. 01

Now there's a classic. Of course he didn't do it himself. Nice play on words.

Quote

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie."
~bin Laden interview with Karachi Ummat, 28th Sep. 01

http://www.fas.org/i...fbis.pdf<br />

I don't think anyone would admit to something that would put thier own life in danger.

Quote

In actual fact, grandma gave credit where it was due: -

"Muhammad ((Atta)) from the Egyptian family was in charge of the group."
~bin Laden videotape, 2001

http://www.defense.g...20011213ubl.pdf

Great! But, me wonders why most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi instead of Egyptian.

Quote

And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa…"
~bin Laden videotape, 2004

http://english.aljaz...3336457223.html

Can I connect some dots of my own here?

Quote

Woah there grandma old girl…

I got told you were responsible and giving out the orders.

Surely you meant to say, "I, Commander-General bin Laden, ordered Lieutenant Atta…"?

Now you tell us Atta was actually "in charge", "Commander-General" and you but "agreed" with him.

This is really ruining your mastermind image, grandma.

Osama bin Laden was first indicted by the United States on June 8, 1998, when a grand jury indicted Osama bin Laden on charges of killing five Americans and two Indians in the November 14, 1995, truck bombing of a U.S.-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh. Bin Laden was charged with "conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States" and prosecutors further charged that bin Laden is the head of the terrorist organization called al-Qaeda, and that he was a major financial backer of Islamic fighters worldwide. Bin Laden denied involvement but praised the attack. Link

See a pattern developing?

Quote

Seriously for one moment, if this had ever gone to trial bin Laden could never have been convicted of the official charge, prosecutors would struggle to even mount a case.  An accessory to the crime?  Yes, there is enough evidence of foreknowledge.  The director of the crime?  No, the admissible evidence is just not there.

In the case of 9/11 that's true. But as usual, Bin Laden denied involvement but praised the attack. Ever heard the saying deny or die?

Quote

Mohammed Atta on the other hand could be nailed every step of the way.  But then who was Atta?  He was no lifelong Al Qaeda supporter, he was a well educated Westernised man who liked nights out drinking and dropped on bin Laden's doorstep only when a CIA infiltration plan began, he was no Jihadist.  The same goes for the majority of the other hijackers.

Even a 9/11 Commissioner later questioned it: -

"Well, at the top of my list happens to be a personal one, and that is, I could never figure out why these 19 fellas did what they did.  We looked into their backgrounds.  In one or two cases, they were apparently happy, well-adjusted, not particularly religious - in one case quite well-to-do, had a girlfriend.  We just couldn't figure out why he did it.  I still don't know.  And I think one of the great unanswered questions - a good topic for investigative reporters - would be: why did these 19 do what they did?  We speculated in the report about why the enemy hates us, but we simply weren't able to answer the questions about the 19."
~Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of 9/11 Commission

http://web.archive.o...11hamilton.html

Well of course you could not answer the question, Lee - you were looking in the wrong direction.

I'm sure Lee doesn't need anyone to do his thinking for him. I'll have to look into this one.

Quote

But wait up - is that an elephant in the room?

Don't you know a bunny when you see one?

Quote

These are not Alex Jones conspiracy theories I'm quoting - it's Senators, Commissioners, FBI officers, official reports and interviews, mainstream sources.  That the official 9/11 story presented is a whitewash, is now in the open.

I'm sure Alex Jones praises all this but denies involvement.