Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#1141    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,014 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

Ok, I’m pleased that you do not try to validate or defend the misleading Fox News report and false headline, “Bin Laden Claims responsibility for 9/11”.  I was led to believe that your intent was the opposite, since your first post addressed to me (more on that below) asked what I do not find correct about the Fox News report in question.

I do not hink you read my first post in full. I think you skimmed it and took what you wanted from it. However, as you seem to be partial to 2 part questions and answers, I'll accomodate in greater detail, below.

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

The transcript provided by Al Jazeera is accurate – it is taken directly from the source videotape subtitles.

When claims cannot be checked through supporting/contradictory evidence, i.e. when media reports state that something happened and I cannot validate the claim, then I generally give benefit of the doubt.  For the third time, whether we are dealing with Western or Middle Eastern media doesn’t come into it.

It is simply reality that in this particular case of the 2004 bin Laden videotape, Al Jazeera provided a more factual report, with less opinion (and certainly no false and sensationalist headline), than any Western media I have seen.

That's what your doing with Al Jazeera is it? Usama's own personal release network. In his control, under his watch. What the heck would happen to Al Jazeera if they posted something against Bin Ladens wishes hrrmm? Wouldn't be here now would they.

You are doing what you accuse Fox of doing, but they are just offering opinion based on the ambiguous messages by Bin Laden. Being Al Jazeera, and in Arabic makes it so much easier for you, so it is little wonder you hold that source in high regard.

Rather than media, what about existing facts? Like ONeils investigation wich shows all roads lead to Bin Laden? That is personal investigation, not tainted by popularity nor threat. I find it more accurate.

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

I have no issue with the sentence which you bolded.  You know what I take issue with - the prior paragraph which reports the supposed admission of bin Laden, beginning, Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks...” (the statement we have been talking about).  There is no indication that it is an opinion, rather it appears (misleadingly) as a statement of fact.  

Then you need to read the context, Headlines often take a leap, and when you read closely the actual story is more mundane. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but a few weeks ago, there was an announcement that Curiosity on Mars was about to re-write the books. Massive information, but when push cam to shove, it was  an indicator, nothing so grandiose as the headline made out. I do not know where you are at, but you seem to not have a complete understanding of how Western media works. Its not a science manual, its a field report.

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

Please refer to previous response which you do not appear to have taken onboard.

Taken on board? You mean I did not race out and link you to what I thought was relevant? Well I wont be  doing that, if you are too lazy to click the last few pages over, but yet dismiss them, that is your problem. Stundie and I have discussed that which you are regurgitating, and to say the pages are a waste and not worth considering contradicts your own position about being thorough. I am not your personal link provider. As with my posts, you have skimmed a section and come to a personal conclusion.  It seems to be how you roll to be frank.

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

So you admit: -
  • there is no evidence that bin Laden ‘ordered’ the 9/11 attack.
  • there is no evidence that bin Laden ‘funded’ the 9/11 attack.
  • you have no answer to the question: “What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the 9/11 attack?”
  • there is “no direct evidence” of bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attack.
Do you think perhaps, rather than continue this witch-hunt of bin Laden based on his peripheral role, exaggerated media headlines, a vast amount of rhetoric and, lack of evidence, that we should look for the direct hand behind the 9/11 attack?


The above all comes down to the last line doesn't it? Direct evidence, without it, a clever lawyer can use justice against one as opposed for one. Like OJ Simpson. He walks today, there is no direct evidence, not one person thinks he really is an innocent man. The evidence lies in the tral if FBI bungles that only happened because of personal choice, which is not a US plot, but some cow with her panties in a bunch and some scumbag who supported her. That link ought to be investigated IMHO, Bodine-Pickard.

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

This is where we could look at the hijackers and actual attacks in more detail, if you agree.

Sure, as long as we try to stay on topic. I suggested the same myself more than once to date I believe.

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

Yes, as well as considered innocent until proven guilty, it is the right of the accused to defend themselves.  That you appear to think otherwise on both counts is worrying and really shows the extent to which the political media driven witch-hunt has taken over.  To pronounce bin Laden guilty of responsibility for the 9/11 attack on a whim (after admitting to lack of evidence above) and deny the accused a voice, that really is a method for the Dark Ages.  Even more so when bin Laden’s earlier comment I quoted was corroborated by FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, i.e. it is seen in that case that bin Laden’s comments were correct.

He is proven guilty, of 1993 and 1998, I siad already, this was a war on terror. Bin Laden was, and continues to be a main suspect in the 911 event. As such, he was a high profile target. That is not a witch hunt. That is bringing a murderer to justice. Have you seen pictures of the victims from these bombings? The Cole? Tanzania? In Tanzania he killed 240 innocents to kill 12 Americans. And you are trying to tell me that human scum is not lying through his teeth about 911? That is not emotion, which you keep trying to sway the debate upon, that is fact. People are dead by Bin Ladens hand and he said all American women and children are targets in Jihad. That shows he has no regard for life, truth, or pretty much anything other than his twisted religious ideals and that he has not place in any society on earth.

So what if Bin Ladens statement was corroborated by Edmonds, you keep saying do not run with half measures  it remains still to be seen if Edmonds testimony is beneficial to any investigation, because as you have ignored, her claim is full of holes, and if not for the fact that some basic procedures had been overlooked by the FBI, it would likely have been dismissed by now! It was claimed that Edmonds performed poorly in her job, there is no reason to dismiss that claim, are you giving that information the benefit of the doubt?

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

Anyhow, you responded to the digression and missed out the point.  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, hypothetically speaking to begin, the potential setup/entrapment of bin Laden would be easy.  Can we agree?

I responded to the digression because I had already adressed the Edmonds claim as I have above, and which I expect you to ignore again with some snarky retort claiming I did not adress your post, when in reality I have, but not provided the answer you seek.

No, I do not agree, the Edmonds claim has a long way to go as far as verification goes, and plenty of holes she needs to fill in her story, and quoting Bin Laden? Surely you jest. Do you expect me to actually take him at his word on this subject? Like I say, that would be like getting Manson or Bundy to decide their own punishments.

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

That’s an absolutely bizarre statement, taking into account that you first addressed me (not vice versa)on the subject of media, specifically requesting I demonstrate which elements of the Fox News article are incorrect.  Here is your post: -

http://www.unexplain...25#entry4663333

It is also you who has provided the further false media claim below...

OK, back to the first line again. Strange how you like to stretch these thing out, but I have my suspicions as to why. I asked you if you felt the headline was a valid statement I did not insist the headline was true, I asked about the relationship between Lebanon and Palestine. You took a leap and decided I was speaking of the headline, when in fact, I asked your opinion fo the situation it states. Regardless, it is you who did not read the post initially, instead of just a link, lets have a look at what I said shall we?

Quote


Now I do not trust the media either, they c*** up what they hear, and they twist it, why? Because they have to sell headlines, I understand that, so should you, so lets have a look at that articles (did you follow the links? Same one isn't it) they reckon:


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


Now that seems a good place to start. Do you feel this is not at all the case, and that Bin Laden did not feel the US had interfered? Because it seems to be a pretty common theme from what I hear. I do not care what the article says, but I would like to break it down to little pieces for accuracy. Is that an accurate stament? Did Lebanon and Palestine have a friendly relationship with the US before 911, or is this at least true? Lets determine the level of exaggeration in this article, and see if it is deserving of your mockery. As a news article  I agree verification is required, so perhaps proving what elements are incorrect might be a good start I think, do you agree?


You also never seemed to have read this post, in where I say outright that I did not come to this thread to discuss news-headlines, but technical aspects. LINK

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

It is apparent that you are not interested in the truth here at all.  It appears that you only want to regurgitate and attribute to bin Laden false statements like, "Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida...”.  If that were not the case then you would find the full transcript of the bin Laden interview with the Daily Ummat and confirm for yourself that he said no such thing.  It isn’t hard to do, if you have ever heard of Google?

Ohh get real. Are you being serious? The prose indicates the "my organisation" was taken out, removed, look at the bloody thing!!!


Quote

As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks nor I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Where does that say I stand behind the headline, or that it is true? I asked if we could break the headline apart, and examine the questions within it to determine what it actually represents and how accurate it's elements are. Next thing you are off talking about Murdoch ruling the world and political agendas.  I said I do not care what the media says, I said I just want to know what claims are true, and those which are not, no matter the source.


Neither I had???????


Yeah, real impartial aren't you!!!!!! You go with the best sources when the information is ambiguous? Pardon me, but BS.

However, thank you for the link, I did look, but did not find it. Bookmarked for future references. Make fun of me for not being a professional Googler if you feel the need, I do not think that is what is relevant to this discussion to be frank.


View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

The link you provide is not a transcript, nor an accurate quoting of bin Ladens’ words.  Here is the transcript as translated by the FBIS (hit Ctrl F and search “Ummat”).  And for some level of corroboration, here is the transcript as translated by the BBC.  These are both reasonably reliable sources.

Note that the false quote you linked to is simply not present in the text attributed to bin Laden.

Anyhow, if you feel our discussion on media has run its course, I’m content that my point has been made.

Your point was made all along, you refuse to discuss anything other than that which you insist in discussing, see the above quoted post. You do not even see if others have another point, you just barrel along with what you want.

BBC is better, if this was the BBC maybe it is not, it ia another paper who is copying the BBC release. IN this version, the word Neither is completely omitted, unlike the source you claim is more accurate, even if the grammar indicates it has been doctored.

I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. -

So your source that you deem the most accurate strongly indicates alterations to the transcript  in line with that which I had posted. Well done.

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

Ok, so I can provide multiple sources stating that bin Laden was to be put under house-arrest in Pakistan, multiple sources showing that he indeed travelled to Pakistan, was permitted free passage by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and was found under the physical conditions of house-arrest, multiple American security analysts who agree bin Laden was under house-arrest, but... you ‘simply do not believe it’.  Well, what can I do against that level of denial?  At least you are consistent - that does fit in with other views from the Dark Ages that you have expressed.

The further problem with your attempted logic above is the assumption that those responsible for the house-arrest actually wanted bin Laden shot or that those responsible equate to, “the U.S.”  It’s a common failing of OCTs to overlook the individual factions involved.  Of course, bin Laden was far more valuable as a propaganda tool to drive the Neocon ‘War on Terror’ whilst his spectre was alive.

You did not provide multiple sources that prove Bin Laden was in custody, you have presented some rumours that made it into headlines. That is all. The only denial I see is you refusing to consider the points I made about your links, which were:


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.


And yet this kidney condition? What does Bin Laden say about that?


In the course of the wide-ranging interview, Mr. Mir asked bin Laden about his kidneys: “A French newspaper has claimed that you have a kidney problem and have secretly gone to Dubai for treatment last year [2000]. Is that correct?”
Bin Laden responded: “My kidneys are all right. I did not go to Dubai last year. One British newspaper has published an imaginary interview with an Islamabad dateline with one of my sons in Saudi Arabia. All this is false.”

Well, so much for accuracy I suppose.

You presented rumour that was written in a newspaper, you are guilty exactly of what you are accusing Skyeagle, and myself of. Being loose with the facts.


Damn this quote limit
Q24 Said:
I addressed that in my post #1062.  In response to that, you posted the false bin Laden quote allegedly sourced from the Daily Ummat, which is discussed above.  There is nothing else to be said about bin Laden’s involvement in the formation of ‘the base’ – we all know that occurred during Operation Cyclone – whether ‘the base’ remained as any structured/coherent organisation with bin Laden at the helm is unproven.

I’ll stop here because there’s really nothing to say to the rest of your post – it’s just a lot of rhetoric, appeal to emotion, and regurgitation of the official story adorned with your own imagination: “some influential b******* managed to talk some lost souls into killing themselves”?  Such is sheer speculation and in all probability, fantasy.  There is no evidence base to anything much you are saying when it comes to 9/11.  There is no indication that the hijackers were mindless, rather than in possession of their own motivations
.


Well I guess there is not much more to say, because the above is not true, you did not respond to my post, you "addressed" the subject in the post, to which I offered a reply that rebuts your claims and proves there is indeed an organisation and that Bin Laden founded it. Just as Australian traitor David Hicks let out of the bag when he came back here.

And that reply can be found right here - LINK

In that post, you will find the following:

In some circles it has become fashionable to suggest that bin Laden has not been especially significant to the global jihadist movement, or that al Qaeda has always, in reality, been only a loose knit collection of like-minded Islamist militant groups, or even that al Qaeda is an organization that was fabricated by US law enforcement. The fullest exposition of this point of view was made in 2004 in the three-hour BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares," directed by Adam Curtis, which argued that "Beyond his small group, bin Laden had no formal organization, until the Americans invented one for him."
Curtis claims that al Qaeda was first "invented" in 2001 when US prosecutors put four men involved in the 1998 plot to blow up two US embassies in east Africa on trial in New York. During the trial they drew heavily on the testimony of former bin Laden aide Jamal al-Fadl, who Curtis explains spun a story about the Saudi militant that would make it easier for US prosecutors to target bin Laden using conspiracy laws that had previously put Mafia bosses behind bars. Curtis says: "The picture al-Fadl drew for the Americans of bin Laden was of an all-powerful figure at the head of a large terrorist network that had an organized network of control. He also said that bin Laden had given this network a name, al Qaeda. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term 'al Qaeda' to refer to the name of a group until after 11th September, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it."

All of these assertions are nonsense. There is overwhelming evidence that al Qaeda was founded in 1988 by bin Laden and a small group of like-minded militants, and that the group would eventually mushroom into the secretive, disciplined, global organization dominated by bin Laden that implemented the 9/11 attacks. That evidence can be found in the documents in this chapter, which were recovered in Bosnia in 2002, and can also be found in the interviews throughout this book.

What follows are excerpts of a key document: The minutes of the first meeting about the establishment of al Qaeda on August 11, 1988.  This document outlines the discussion between bin Laden, referred to as the "the Sheikh," and Abu Rida, or Mohamed Loay Bayazid, to discuss the formation of a "new military group," which would include "al Qaeda (the base)." Abu Rida refers to a disagreement with Abdullah Azzam, with whom bin Laden had founded the Mektab al Khidmat (Services Office).

with this LINK

That part you most certainly have not adressed.

You have refused to answer pertinient points, and keep going back to Fox News headlines, and even tried to say I was the one starting that discussion, but as we can see above, I never did, I asked you what aspects of the claim could be verified and what could not be, paper source notwithstanding. None of that is emotion, nor rhetoric but I find your very god at concealing your own rhetoric with bold claims. But that does not work on me. You have presented rumour that Bin Laden was under house arrest as fact, when those rumours also indicate he had kidney disease which Bin Laden also denies. You gave me a source that is obviously doctored by Bin Laden's command, and which seems to prove my original claim was correct whereby Bin Laden calls Al Qaeda "his". From where I am standing, your perspective looks pretty skewed.

Q24 Said
So tell me, what do you think of the fact that Ziad Jarrah had a comfortable Western life, wealthy upbringing, attend Christian schools, went on to be university educated, liked to drink (as in, beer), had a girlfriend, spoke about and had bought a new suit for attendance at a family wedding on 22nd Sep, and... was related to an Israeli intelligence informant?

Then one day, all of a sudden, inspiration strikes, “I’m going to be a suicide pilot for bin Laden’s Jihad!”

You think that’s your standard profile of a suicide terrorist?



Yep, seen it first hand here in Oz. That is the motivation I mentioned that brought me to this thread, and why I want to learn more about the sickos that think 911 was justified so I can spot them early and report them to federal police ASAP. Obviously nobody flew a plane into a building, but the inclination, and approval of that disgraceful act is there, and these people sit around talking like you do. That I'd like to see justified or punished. 911 cost too many lives to be bandied around so lightly. I do not want to see my children grow up with people like Bin Laden in the world, I cannot stop that, but I will do my level best to see every single one of them in my vicinity arrested and removed.

However, I see even more motivation with Jarrah, being Sunni by religion, living that lifestyle and when he was seven years old, Israel invaded southern Lebanon, a fact he referred to later in life. He also decided to travel to Chechnya to fight Russian soldiers.

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

Oh, there is Jarrah’s video will, which even Jarrah could not take seriously and he had to be coached to read the script: -



Oh give me a break.

As Peter Bergen states at 6:44 below, “a more unlikely suicide attacker you could hardly think possible”: -



May I reiterate that I ask all who debate to refrain from Youtube if at all possible. I prefer to read thanks where that can be done.
My signature might be something of a hint there. I'll try to view it on my phone later.


Q24 said:
Did I mention that Jarrah was trained in close quarters combat by a former U.S. special forces soldier?

A further fact is that Atta (the real ringleader of the hijackers, unlike bin Laden) wanted Jarrah out of the operation, and it seems that someone within the CIA had Jarrah interviewed in 2001 in all appearance to determine his reliability for the operation.

This whole profile is intriguing and not at all to be expected of your random suicidal terrorist – the indication, by and large, is that Jarrah was a pawn who didn’t know what he was getting into.



No, I take it you mean  the instructor, Bert Rodriguez, but he did pay $500.00 for that privilege too. What does paying for fighting training have to do with anything? Bert told him:

"Find ways to blend in with your opponent and control him,"

when he walked into US-1 Fitness, a gymnasium.
Now, settling into a seat in first class, Jarrah had blended in. You can bet that no one on board would have guessed that back in the Florida apartment he'd left four days earlier, Jarrah had set up a full-size, cardboard replica -- three panels in all -- of the cockpit of the airplane they had just boarded.

Q24 said
What do you reckon, psyche?  These circumstances surrounding Jarrah are all just a big oddity/coincidence, don't you think?


Nope. Seems to fit together to me.

Edited by psyche101, 28 February 2013 - 05:51 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#1142    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,014 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 28 February 2013 - 07:52 AM

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

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.

That is not what I said yet again BR. I said that if I have repeated anything, then expect it, I did say I had the entire thread to catch up on, but each time I visit I see to have a post to address so I have not managed to read the entire thread. If any points are revisited that have been answered, I have asked for people to point me at such information, such as Q has.

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

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

Stundie and I seem to have quite  dialogue happening, and rather amicable I must say. If Q24 seems to find my questions worthy of response, then I do not think you have a point here. I am yet to see you offer a single supporting argument, only protests that people should not challenge the CT.

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

I am not repeating headlines, in fact few links I have provided do go to news sources, I try to avoid them if at all possible, however, as Q24 is discussing the accuracy of headlines whilst dismissing that the articles state it is opinion, it is a bit hard to avoid.

Evidence does not contradict the official story, that is not what I have seen in the pages so far, and you have not proven anything like that you just keep saying it is so, which I find extremely unconvincing. Evidence please.

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

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?

You vote them in you have the right to ask them, not hide behind their backs and accuse them. But you have not contributed to the subject at all. You just Cheerlead Q24 so far. If you wish to make a treasonous statement, then you need to qualify it 110%. It will not be accepted on your say so.

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

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

You seem to be the minority, and therefore not representing the nations best interest IMHO.

Posted Image

Just admit it, it is personal, and you have a chip on your shoulder. It does not matter what the subject, you have a problem with the Government, in here it is that they killed their own people, in the ET section they are hiding flying saucers from us, in Crypto they are hiding Bigfoot from us. You make no sense, and just display a very paranoid viewpoint. No matter what, with you it is the Governments fault. I am honestly amazed I have not seen you claiming the moon landings are a hoax. To be frank, it sounds rather like OCD.

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

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.

I am an engineer. Unlike Zoser, a real one. And I have built more buildings than you might care to imagine, including many High Rise buildings. And the 911 crap I have seen from the "truthers" is flawed and mostly fabricated. I am looking for such a thread specifically to address these erroneous claims.

Edited by psyche101, 28 February 2013 - 07:53 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#1143    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,972 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:24 PM

I have no problems with, and do not doubt your qualifications Psyche.  No sir, not at all.

What I have questions about is your ability to think in an analytical fashion, your tendency to accept without question a story that simply cannot be true.

We can agree to disagree on anything you would like, but please do not hold up as true and acccurate a story already proved many times to be false and contrived.  It is 11 years after the fact, and much more has been learned in that time, even though you might be completely unaware of it down there in Oz.


#1144    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,690 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:20 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 February 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

We can agree to disagree on anything you would like, but please do not hold up as true and acccurate a story already proved many times to be false and contrived.  It is 11 years after the fact, and much more has been learned in that time, even though you might be completely unaware of it down there in Oz.

And, after more than 11 years, not one shred of evidence has surfaced implicating the U.S. government in the 911 attacks.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1145    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:33 PM

Hi Psyche :)

View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

Gidday Stundie

That happens to me a lot, rather frustrating. I use a magic mouse on my Mac, and there is some keyboard shortcut that backspaces. Annoying to be near the end of a post, it backspaces and I lose everything.
Computers, who would have them hey?? lol Luckily it was only a post and not something more important..

View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

I just figure it is a clever ploy by Usama, he lies through his teeth in Interviews and is evasive. He claims to have the WMD's America went looking for, I really think he was setting the US to appear unjust by retaliation. I do not think it worked, but enough elements exist to create CT's. Here in Australia, Anthony Mundine, and Indigenous boxer who found Islam condoned the slaughter. Unfortunately he is still here and did not leave the country in shame for the one he prefers. Usama had many people tricked into thinking killing is justified. Many of his own did not, and still do not consider him even a terrorist, when he most certainly is. Public opinion can be a powerful tool. Government uses it, the only reason we have the useless Government in place here that we do is because some clown befriended thousands on faceboook to make them feel special, and then gave everyone a thousand dollars to spend, which would have been very useful in the devastating bush-fires a few months later. Smart politics to appear heroic instead of mad.
I do not doubt OBL is a liar and I wouldn't trust him, but then again I wouldn't trust Bush to comb my hair either, even though I haven't got much...lol I can't comment on Anthony Mundine seeing as I don't lknow that much about him, I know he's suppose to be a pretty good boxer but I know nothing about his conversion to Islam. And of course, there are people who do not think that OBL is a terrorist because he is fighting for their causes, they will likely see the opposite and regard Bush as a terrorist and OBL as a freedom fighter. Personally, I think they are both terrorists. They both have the blood of innocent people on their hands.

View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

Yes, but a few more countries I think Jerusalem was taking film away from reporters I have read to quell the flow of this display.  I alos thought the Philippine's had a contingent that were quite happy about it too. Yes, it is not all Muslims, I realise that, but I do not feel they actively fight that which their own faith has produced. Rather than simply say "sorry for these misguided brothers" they need to take these harmful elements, like Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali and whoever put eight-year-old Ruqaya up to her "speech" really does not deserve to be part of a social community. That to me is child abuse. These men need to be seen as ousted by the Muslim community for the greater good of all people, but they are not, they are men in high positions within the Muslim community. They are not, at best we see an apologist. I think many people are getting tired of hearing "sorry about that".
I would have to disagree with you as I think you will find that Saudi Arabia banished OBL back in the 90's for his involvement with terrorism and Saudi's are no fans of any of the pupils of Sayyid Qutb. I also think these countries shouldn't have to apologise for the misguided brothers of Islam no more or less than the US for it's misguided service men who commit attrocites such as Haditha.

I've never heard of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali?? So I can't comment on him or this 8 year olds speech.

View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

I just cannot agree, I think there needs to be guidelines for behaviour. Currently they can be circumvented as Scientology has proven, however, I think that is simply a wake up call lthat we wear kid gloves with religion, when relgion most certainly does not. Time to dish out a little of what we get. I feel the only far solution to a barbaric system such as Shari'ah is to downgrade it to cult status, when you can stone a family member to death for speaking to a non family member of the opposite sex, and have the justified by religious law, the step too far has been taken. In todays society, there is no place for such barbarism. That is contravening human rights, and that is where I think that toothless tiger the UN needs to step in. They wont, but I think they should
I'm in favour of freedoms and while I am no fan of stoning or even the US death penalty, I think if the people of that country think it is right to stone a family member for speaking to someone of the opposite sex, then it is their right to do so, even if they are foolish enough to believe it's gods law. While I do not condone such tragic behaviour, I do not believe that making the world conform to mine or the west view is good practice.

Just imagine for a second you downgraded Islam to a cult status (not that I think the UN could do that!) do you think they would take it lying down? There would be war on a grand scale and I'm not in the habit of creating a genocide just because people hold different views to me, even if I think they are barbaric and downright disgusting.

View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

Bodine had a problem because O Neil was a player. Women detest players to my experience. He had 2 families. He was always slick, well presented, and not disheveled like the average employee working a million hours a week. He had it all, and that really got under some peoples skin. I think his knowledge was all that kept him around for as long as he did, he often burned the midnight oil making something come together. He was a hard worker, who got results, and reaped the benefits from doing double time. Yes, I heard that comment, and he did seem to be expecting it to happen, and regarding his knowledge and position, yes I agree the FBI did drop the ball. I do not challenge that, had Bodine and her cronies been a bit more honest and left personal feelings out of it, yes, 3,0000 people might be alive today. I do not know how she lives with that weight on her shoulders to be frank. Pickard too, he and Bodine obviously were in cahoots.
You appear to know more about him than I do but at least we agree the FBI dropped the ball.

View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

My understanding is that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi understood the value in a Western lifestyle, and promoted it. I have read, and seen pictures of even bikini billboards in the street during his reign. Which I heartily approve of. SAVAK was organised by the CIA as far as I know, and is still operating today under a different name. Didn't the Shah try to have the entire faction completely reorganised, but failed due to Khomeini beginning the overthrow? I thought it was disbanded just before the overthrow, and then repatriated with the Khomeini regime under a new name? SAVAK personel were personally trained by Major General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf of the CIA as far as I know. I think many long established countries have their own version of a "secret police" with seemingly unlimited power?
I think the only reason he understood the value in a western life style was that he was a puppet dictator who was installed against the wishes of the people who already had a democratically elected government. I thought SAVAK was closed down and most of its members were hunted down.  know that Iran doesn't have a great human rights record and I'm not a fan of them either, but after watching a documentary about Iran and their relationship with the west, I think it's fair to say they are a little paranoid, but have every right to be.

However I think this is a conversation for another thread on another day.

View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

I did not think it was "most" however, the Clintons did their damnedest to keep him in Jail, but failed. Barrack even called, and was turned down. These things can become beyond the control of the US, and if that was to happen, the world would not be a noce place to be with a vengeful Bin Laden on the loose. The justice system needs to make a stand, but across waters, justice is not always united.
I think that the representative from the UK families thinks that he was Meghari was innocent and I seem to think there were others too. I know that those in the US were determined to keep him in jail because the courts had already found him guilty. In Scotland, they have compassionate grounds, so that if someone has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and have been given a short time to live, providing they are not a danger, the Scottish legal system allows for that person to be released. Some people are not a fan of it while others think it's very humane. However, I thnk this is another discussion for another day.

View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

Well I think your quite the gentleman, and I respect that. Passions are very easy to heat in debates such as this, and I appreciate your calm demeanour, and very good debate. I wish I had better control of my own temper. I understand what you are saying, truly I do, but experience tells me that this approach will not work, and once one gets to know Sky, he is a pretty bang up bloke with some very interesting history to share, and he is in the company of some fine people. I honestly believe the debate might be far more amicable in person and over a beer. I hope to one day shout Sky a beer and shake his hand and say thanks for the debates, I learned a few things along the way. There was a time when I was saying what you are right now, and would never have thought myself to be in this position, but here I am, and with a good helping of respect.
Thanks for the compliments. Sky might well be a pretty bang bloke, he might even be in the company of fine people and I'm sure he might be a top bloke when you shove a beer in his hand. However on this forum, I do not see anything that would suggest that but I do not know him to make a judgement.

I might appear to be hard on Skyeagle and this might change in the future, as you say who knows, but as it stands, i have very little respect for his debating style and until I see an improvement in his debating style and some honesty, then he will get the respect he deserves, which is little to none.

View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

With each post, I see you in a new and brighter light. I think we are after the same thing, but come from different starting points.
Well I hope so. I think the thing with most 9/11 conspiracists, is that most if not all of them believed in the official story, but came to question it when they examined or researched the subject. However, I'm sure there are those who still believed the official story, even if they don't agree with all the facts and data after they had researched it. There are extreme ends of the polar opposites, but chances are, the truth will lie somewhere in the middle.

View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

That is more than fair enough, and to me, confirms the above line I just wrote. I agree, both sides can offer zealous information in order to win an argument. And the points you have raised are indeed worth questioning, however, it does not mean that the worst is indeed the case because some people are putting the cart before the horse. And you have to admit, Icke got lucky with that info, he has been harassing the royal family for a long time with his nutcase claims, and happened upon a victim, and with 450 of them out there,  it was going to eventually happen. To be honest, with behavour like this I am not sure why nobody every suspected him. Being an Aussie, I know little of his public profile.

Posted Image

Well I wouldn't say Icke got lucky or guessed this about him, I think it's hard/nigh on impossible to guess something like that about someone and then it turns out to be correct without having some kind of knowledge about it. Even though Saville was a weird looking fella and eccentric and there were plenty of rumours, I think most people would have said you were nuts if like Icke, you claimed that Saville was a pedophile/necrophile. Not that I'm a fan of Icke either. Again, it's another subject for another day

I'll continue this in another post, possibly later on.

Cheers

Stundie :)

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1146    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,690 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:06 PM

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

I might appear to be hard on Skyeagle and this might change in the future, as you say who knows, but as it stands, i have very little respect for his debating style and until I see an improvement in his debating style and some honesty, then he will get the respect he deserves, which is little to none.

Why argue with the facts?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1147    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:29 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 28 February 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

Why argue with the facts?
I'm not arguing with the fact that the FBI stated they had no hard evidence of his involvement even after he is so called admission. You are the one arguing with facts? FBI ones at that.....lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1148    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,484 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 01 March 2013 - 12:12 AM

View PostQ24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Yes, the CIA facilitated the 9/11 attack, that is fair to say.

I’m glad we are in agreement up to that point.

Indeed NASA management also facilitated the Challenger disaster.  But here there is the third option you mention – it was inadvertent facilitation of the disaster.  This answer exists because 1) there was no obvious motive/benefit to achieving the disaster, 2) there was no attempt to prevent engineers correcting the o-ring problem prior to launch (except time constraints of the launch itself) and 3) we know there were budget/time constraints involved in the decision to launch (i.e. factors which had nothing to do with achieving a disaster).

If the same points could be applied to CIA facilitation of the 9/11 hijackers then I would accept a third option in that case also.  It doesn’t work because 1) there was an obvious/stated motive to achieving the attack, 2) there was a high level decision to prevent correction of the terrorist problem and 3) there was no sense/rationale (alternative to the stated motive) involved in the decision to facilitate the terrorists.  In all, the answer is non-existent/impossible.

Wait now, that's not quite how it works, those latter numbered points of yours don't just erase the possibility of an inadvertent facilitation, at best you've just redistributed the probability to an unknown extent towards the possibility of an advertent facilitation.  Your point 1 concerning a motive I think pretty obviously doesn't take an inadvertent assistance option off the table at all, you can find someone who benefits from almost everything that ever happens, and points 2 and 3 I thought you partially addressed potentially with the quote from W that I had just seen also, that he's tired of 'swatting flies'.  Do you disagree that undercover work, especially at this level as well as more mainstream law enforcement, sometimes involves actions by undercover agents that indeed 'assist' criminals and possibly 'facilitate' their crimes?  Do you agree that undercover/intelligence work can produce benefits that can't be obtained by continually chasing and busting asap the low-level soldiers?  If you agree with that at all, then there is a possible rationale to this 'facilitation', namely that W was tired of swatting flies, and thus the FBI was prevented from interrupting other agencies' undercover infiltration of these current/future terrorists because that is how the 'stop swatting flies' strategy was implemented.  Note that the wisdom or effectiveness of this strategy is pretty much irrelevant, unless you are prepared to defend the pretty obvious falsehood that the government typically is efficient, effective, and intelligent when tackling problems, and combatting terrorism has got to be one of the most complex problems to address.

To put it more detailed, is this possible scenario unlikely, which of these steps do you think is the most suspicious:

1. Bush is tired of swatting flies, meaning go after the higher-level terrorists
2. Intelligence agencies, not cooperating, proceed with how they believe best to go after higher-level terrorists, which involves undercover work/not busting the low-level guys as soon as you can.

Obviously if this was the actual scenario it was a resounding failure and a terrible strategy, just by the results of it.  But that does not remove any sense/rationale from the 'facilitation' as those words are defined by the environment in which they are occurring, since people, again especially government people, coming up with crappy and ineffective and risky strategies happens all the time.  It is not senseless for lower-level agents to 'assist' the people who turned out to be the future hijackers if they are ordered to do so, and it may not be senseless that they were ordered to do so depending on what specific strategy was being pursued to get at higher-level terrorists.

Just a quick note also before you do it again, my questioning of your points doesn't give you the license to then assume what my position is on these points or what my specific theory is.  I've got no problem with you criticizing my argumentation style or lack thereof, accusing me of bias, noting my bad breath(ha), etc, those are all fair game and are to be taken as largely opinion-based.  Don't get me wrong, those are just examples, I don't think you've been unfair or excessive on those types of attacks, but when you state your opinion of what my specific position or theory is merely from me challenging your points with questions, when your opinion is wrong it is also then to a large extent a strawman.

Thanks for the reference to the 9/11 Commission Report, just found out it was free online, and definitely some interesting stuff in the 'blinking red' chapter.  I'd skimmed the Report quite a while ago but wasn't interested in plowing through 500+ pages, but I've been jumping around in the document and it's more interesting now that I have more background on it (from the crash course I've received since last summer here at UM).  I'm planning on more closely skimming after I reread the chapter you pointed out.  I had considered splitting this little discussion of 'CIA, FBI MIHOP conspiracy evidence', this thread has become more of a jungle it seems then most of the 9/11 threads, but I'll just keep it here for now.

Quote

Ten days after 9/11, Bayoumi is detained by British police for the above involvement. U.S. authorities are quick to release Bayoumi, apparently leaving British police in some bemusement: “Giving financial aid to terrorists is a very serious offence and there is no way they would have let him go scot-free.” The 9/11 Commission later interview Bayoumi, and despite his story being inconsistent, one of his network lying about contact with Bayoumi and knowing the man who collected the 9/11 hijackers from the airport stated he did so at Bayoumi’s request... the 9/11 Commission readily speculate that Bayoumi’s involvement may have been chance/coincidence, also noting what an “obliging and gregarious” soul he is. Bayoumi is now living back in Saudi Arabia without a care.

Why do you think that happened? Why did U.S. authorities and the 9/11 Commission let Bayoumi, who provided direct assistance to the 9/11 terrorists, off the hook so lightly? It is not simply ‘because he’s a Saudi’. No, bin Laden and majority of the hijackers were Saudi. Think about it. Who were following those terrorists, secretly filming them, breaking into their hotel room, knew they had U.S. visas and were holding off FBI intervention? All of this action shows the keen interest the CIA had. Then the terrorists arrive in the U.S., the CIA lose their track and this meeting with Bayoumi occurs by ‘chance’?? No. It is as Richard Clarke said – Bayoumi was the CIA handler/intermediary to the hijackers, and as such had to be distanced from that assistance he provided.

Thanks also for the references on al-Bayoumi, again interesting stuff.  Quick question, I didn't see or maybe read too quickly anything referring to his being 'connected' to the CIA.  You referred to what Clarke said concerning him being a CIA handler and I looked back a couple posts and didn't see a reference to that, I may have missed it, again, jungle.  Just so I'm clear, is that just an extrapolation, or is there direct evidence to link the two?  Still reading up on him.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#1149    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:09 AM

View PostQ24, on 28 February 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

was permitted free passage by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
not wishing to detract from your discussion, but can you provide a reference for that?


#1150    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,690 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 March 2013 - 03:14 AM

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

I'm not arguing with the fact that the FBI stated they had no hard evidence of his involvement even after he is so called admission. You are the one arguing with facts? FBI ones at that.....lol

Seems everyone else in the world knows that Osama bin Laden was guilty. In addition, I am very sure that you were unaware of this.

Quote

Bin Laden: Europeans should end US help

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden called on Europeans to stop helping the United States in the war in Afghanistan, according to excerpts of a new audiotape broadcast Thursday on Al-Jazeera television. Bin Laden said it was unjust for the United States to have invaded Afghanistan for sheltering him after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, saying he was the "only one responsible" for the deadly assaults on New York and Washington.

"The events of Manhattan were retaliation against the American-Israeli alliance's aggression against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, and I am the only one responsible for it. The Afghan people and government knew nothing about it. America knows that," the al-Qaida leader said.

FBI Spokesman Richard Kolko in a 2007 statement

"As the FBI has said since 9/11, bin Laden was responsible for the attack," Kolko said in a statement. "In this latest tape, he again acknowledged his responsibility. This should help to clarify for all the conspiracy theorists, again — the 9/11 attack was done by bin Laden and al-Qaida."

http://classic-web.a.../bin_laden_tape

Now, for the rest of the story.

Quote


The proof they did not reveal

For several months after the 9/11 attacks, no one, nor any group, claimed responsibility for the attacks, so the primary responsibility fell solely upon the hijackers, all of whom were killed and all of whom left no message or any claim of responsibility behind at explaining why they had carried the attacks out. As the media covered the 9/11 attacks unfolding, many quickly speculated that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. On the day of the attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden, as did German intelligence agencies. This helped rule out other immediate suspects, such as Croatian nationalists, who had bombed Grand Central Terminal on September 11, 1976.

Authorities in the United States and Britain also obtained electronic intercepts, including telephone conversations and electronic bank transfers, which indicate that Mohammed Atef, a bin Laden deputy, was a key figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. Intercepts were also obtained that revealed conversations that took place days before September 11 between bin Laden and an associate in Pakistan. In those conversations, the two referred to "an incident that would take place in America on, or around, September 11" and they discussed potential repercussions. In another conversation with an associate in Afghanistan, bin Laden discussed the "scale and effects of a forthcoming operation." These conversations did not specifically mention the World Trade Center or Pentagon, or other specifics.

But one possibility emerged last week: an informed Whitehall source revealed that, among the proof collected, were intercepted exchanges between Bin Laden and his lieutenants, made shortly before September 11.

http://web.archive.o...sausa02012.html

In addition:

Quote


Arabic network claims taped 9/11 confessions

The Arabic television news network Al-Jazeera said Thursday it has taped confessions of two al Qaeda members claiming responsibility for the September 11 attacks on behalf of Osama bin Laden's terror group. Al-Jazeera said the men, both of whom are wanted by the U.S. government, spell out how they planned and executed the attacks. It said it would play their statements next week as part of a documentary it is airing.

"In the second part of this documentary, there will be the first direct confession as to how al Qaeda planned and executed September 11," Al-Jazeera journalist Yosri Fouda said in the first part of the documentary, which began airing Thursday.

The other terrorist on the Al-Jazeera tape was identified as Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, a Kuwaiti who is on the United States "most wanted" terrorist list. Mohammad is believed to have been one of the primary planners behind the September 11 attacks, authorities have said. Mohammad is the uncle of Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who is now serving time in a U.S. prison.

Mohammad was indicted in 1996 for plotting to bomb U.S. airliners flying from southeast Asia to the United States. Al-Jazeera said the interviews with the two men were conducted in Karachi, Pakistan. Sources familiar with the interviews told CNN that both men were interviewed this summer.

http://articles.cnn....ibh?_s=PM:WORLD

That should leave no real mystery as to why the United States targeted Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 March 2013 - 03:47 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1151    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,690 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 March 2013 - 03:56 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 28 February 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

What I have questions about is your ability to think in an analytical fashion, your tendency to accept without question a story that simply cannot be true.

Well, let's take a look at this story.

Quote

Suicide-pilot plan uncovered six years ago in Philippines

A plan to use suicide pilots against US targets was uncovered as early as six years ago during the investigation that led to the arrest of the alleged mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a Philippine police official said yesterday.

Chief Superintendent Avelino Razon also said it was "too much coincidence" that Tuesday's attacks using commercial jets as flying bombs was close to the anniversary of the Sept. 5, 1996, conviction of Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah for a plot to bomb US airliners in 1995.

Murad was arrested in Manila in January 1995 after fire broke out in an apartment he shared with fellow Pakistani Yousef, the alleged mastermind of the 1993 bombing that killed six people and injured 1,000 others. Shah says he is Saudi Arabian with links to Afghanistan.

Razon, then commander for special operations of the Presidential Security Group providing security for the visit of Pope John Paul II that began days after Murad's arrest, said he was captured after he returned to his apartment to dispose of bomb-making materials. Yousef was captured in Pakistan. "When we interrogated Murad, he mentioned that he was a skilled pilot, trained in the US, in Afghanistan and also here in the Philippines, who was recruited to undertake a suicide mission," Razon said.

"He was committed to ... fly a plane and ram it into some targets," Razon said, adding that information from a laptop computer seized from Murad indicated one target was CIA headquarters. "There was mention of about a dozen" trained pilots to be recruited for such attacks.

"I didn't imagine that they would ram a 757 aircraft into the World Trade Center. I thought the suicide mission [would involve] a Cessna light aircraft loaded with several kilos of explosives, like a Japanese Kamikaze World War II pilot diving into a target," he said.

He said the investigation started with reports on threats to the pope that led to Murad and the discovery of an international terrorist cell in the Philippines that also "had plans to bomb US aircraft and the US CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.''

Yousef and his group allegedly planned to bomb 11 US commercial aircraft under "Project Bojinka." But Murad's arrest foiled the plan, Razon said.

http://taipeitimes.c...01/09/14/102905


Edited by skyeagle409, 01 March 2013 - 03:57 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1152    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:27 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 March 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

Seems everyone else in the world knows that Osama bin Laden was guilty. In addition, I am very sure that you were unaware of this.



Now, for the rest of the story.



In addition:



That should leave no real mystery as to why the United States targeted Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Even though there were warnings coming in from all over the world, the US were never prepared for it...

Here is what Richard Clarke says...

Quote

Contrast December '99 with June and July and August 2001. In December '99 we get similar kinds of evidence that al-Qaida was planning a similar kind of attack. President Clinton asks the national security advisor to hold daily meetings with attorney-general, the CIA, FBI. They go back to their departments from the White House and shake the departments out to the field offices to find out everything they can find. It becomes the number one priority of those agencies.

Contrast that with June, July, August 2001 when the president is being briefed virtually every day in his morning intelligence briefing that something is about to happen, and he never chairs a meeting and he never asks Condi rice to chair a meeting about what we're doing about stopping the attacks. She didn't hold one meeting during all those three months.
I already know that the FBI think OBL is responsible, he is suspect No1, but they still never had enough evidence to indict him for 9/11.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1153    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 01 March 2013 - 06:51 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

You seem to be the minority, and therefore not representing the nations best interest IMHO.

Posted Image


Actually that puts you in the minority under the question, 'Was Al Qaeda behind the 9/11 attacks?'

The split is 46% in your favor and 54% in disagreement.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1154    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 01 March 2013 - 06:56 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 01 March 2013 - 02:09 AM, said:

not wishing to detract from your discussion, but can you provide a reference for that?

U.S. Senate report: -

"On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.

The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld..
."


http://www.foreign.s...Bora_Report.pdf

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1155    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,690 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:00 PM

View PostStundie, on 01 March 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Even though there were warnings coming in from all over the world, the US were never prepared for it...

That is nothing new with the U.S. government. Look how the United States ignored warnings regarding the Shah of Iran, which lead to his overthrow and the attack on our embassy, the USS Cole, Pearl Harbor, and 911. Remember, the CIA and the FBI later admitted in public that they made mistakes in not stopping the 911 attacks.

The Philippine government was shocked that the United States did not take extensive security measures as needed.  I left the Philippines in August 2001, and as I was going through security, I remarked about the lack of heavy security at U.S. airports in comparison to security at the airport in Manila. Three weeks later, my concern about U.S. airport security became valid when terrorist crashed four airliners during the 911 attacks.

Quote

Here is what Richard Clarke says...

I already know that the FBI think OBL is responsible, he is suspect No1, but they still never had enough evidence to indict him for 9/11.

Was Osama bin Laden indicted in the attack on the USS Cole? What action did the U.S. take against Osama bin Laden in that regard? In other words, what was he listed as.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users