386 replies to this topic

[Blazar]

Q24, on 16 March 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

There would be a lot of hangings if every provocateur of resistance against U.S. military intervention is addressed.  For that is what bin Laden was.  It has never been shown that bin Laden played a direct role in the operational planning of 9/11.

Bin Laden himself credited Atta as general of the operation on more than one occasion, himself denying responsibility and made a prediction as far back as 1998 that the U.S. would use him as the bogeyman with which to invade Afghanistan - he was right.

The evidence available suggests bin Laden did not know every specific of the attack.  Heck, he tuned into his radio at around 9 a.m. New York time, missing the first WTC plane impact.  Hardly the action of someone eagerly awaiting news on success of the attack he had allegedly masterminded for years.  No, the evidence is that bin Laden did not know what time it was scheduled.

A legal case never was presented as to bin Laden’s involvement you know.  What we have is a propaganda campaign; a politically driven witch hunt, the likes of which should not exist in a civilised world where the rule is “innocent until proven guilty”.

There are too many other points to mention in one post.

He didn't know every specific of the attack or so you say.. BUT HE KNEW ABOUT IT! You were there when he turned on his radio at around 9am?  Or that's what you read some where ha ha ha.  I'm assuming that only the pieces crap that actually committed this coward act knew the exact time. Even after hi-jacking the plane I'm sure the time of impact was unknown.  If I handed you a knife and said go stab this person today... Would I know the exact moment you carried out the crime?  When are you "propaganda campaign" people gonna get it?  THESE PEOPLE HATE YOU!  They would slice your head off if they had the chance.  Don't think so?  Fly over there and hang out with them.  Its just propaganda they're probably friendly.  Of course you have researched the internet for data and are probably well aware of how everything went down on 9/11 LMAO.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 16 March 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Bin Laden's alleged voice claims responsibilities to carry out the attacks were given to 19 men and Moussaoui was not one of them.

"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the voice said. "I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission."

"Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden continued.

Source

The audiotape is fraudulent.

How do we know?

Because it makes zero sense, that’s how...

Moussaoui stood trial for over four years, all that time accused of being the 20th hijacker.  And, bin Laden spoke not a squeak for his innocence.  Come on bin Laden, speak up, now is the time, Moussaoui needs help, where are you?  Nothing…

On May 3rd 2006, Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison after the jury decided there was insufficient evidence to pass a death penalty.  The lack of evidence to Moussaoui’s guilt, and failure of the U.S. prosecution to prove it, was an embarrassment which drew considerable media attention at the time.  If Moussaoui’s role cannot be upheld, what else cannot be proven?

A little over two weeks later, May 23rd 2006, ‘bin Laden’ comes riding to their aid:  “No, you did the right thing, Moussaoui was not involved for I am the bogeyman!”  Well that was jolly good of you… *cough*… ‘bin Laden’.  It was no favour to Moussaoui to whom sentencing was already passed, but it sure vindicated the U.S. prosecution.

It is the same as previous ‘bin Laden’ tapes which intelligence analysts stated appeared to be designed to support the Bush administration.  It is the same as previous tapes which independent verifiers stated did not appear to be the voice of bin Laden.

Add that bin Laden was under lockdown at the time – that was no ‘hideout’ in Abbottabad, it was a Pakistani safehouse; effectively a prison.  Bin Laden was under control and through these fraudulent tapes, others were speaking for him.

However did you get so trusting, booNy?
When did you start defaulting to believe everything you hear?
You do know politicians will fabricate great untruths to drive their ideologies right?

The slightest of critical thinking and research reveals this.

Blazar, on 16 March 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

He didn't know every specific of the attack or so you say.. BUT HE KNEW ABOUT IT!

Yes bin Laden certainly knew about it, someone had informed him.  As he said, “We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day.”  Note the distinction:  someone told bin Laden when the attack would take place, bin Laden did not decide the date.

So what I would really like to know, is what detail of involvement in the operational planning, if any, bin Laden did have.  That is where the evidence is lacking and the propaganda driven witch-hunt has taken over.  Do you know it seems bin Laden wasn’t even aware how much his alleged own operation cost, until after the official U.S. report told him?

Bin Laden had foreknowledge but was not running the show.

The implications of that are potentially huge.

We need to look at those who were running the show, their background, circumstances, and to what end.

Bin Laden wasn’t shy admitting his direct involvement for past attacks.  Listen to this from a 1997 interview where bin Laden admits to his involvement in Somalia: “… I had sent 250 Mujahidin. We got moral support from local Muslims. In one explosion one hundred Americans were killed, then 18 more were killed in fighting. One day our men shot down an American helicopter.”

Then it comes to 9/11 and we get: “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.”

And I wonder how many others knew of the coming attack?  Certainly the CIA bin Laden unit who were aware of two of the Al Qaeda terrorists illegally inside the U.S. for months prior, that they were connected to previous attacks and were now training for plane hijacking operations… yet took sustained and deliberate action to prevent the FBI from acting on this information.

I also wonder if those like Bush and Cheney had foreknowledge of the hundreds of thousands of innocents who would be killed in their unnecessary wars based on a pretense.  Perhaps they are in line for some justice, if the punishment you suggested for such crime is to be applied objectively across the board.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

You are asking far too much of Boo and others.  Skepticism and critical thinking are not part of their job description.  

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 17 March 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

booNyzarC, on 16 March 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Well, we do appear to have a pretty blatant confession from Usama bin Laden...

Bin Laden's alleged voice claims responsibilities to carry out the attacks were given to 19 men and Moussaoui was not one of them.

"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the voice said. "I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission."

"Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden continued.

Source

The audiotape is fraudulent.

How do we know?

Because it makes zero sense, that’s how...

Moussaoui stood trial for over four years, all that time accused of being the 20th hijacker.  And, bin Laden spoke not a squeak for his innocence.  Come on bin Laden, speak up, now is the time, Moussaoui needs help, where are you?  Nothing…

On May 3rd 2006, Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison after the jury decided there was insufficient evidence to pass a death penalty.  The lack of evidence to Moussaoui’s guilt, and failure of the U.S. prosecution to prove it, was an embarrassment which drew considerable media attention at the time.  If Moussaoui’s role cannot be upheld, what else cannot be proven?

A little over two weeks later, May 23rd 2006, ‘bin Laden’ comes riding to their aid:  “No, you did the right thing, Moussaoui was not involved for I am the bogeyman!”  Well that was jolly good of you… *cough*… ‘bin Laden’.  It was no favour to Moussaoui to whom sentencing was already passed, but it sure vindicated the U.S. prosecution.

It is the same as previous ‘bin Laden’ tapes which intelligence analysts stated appeared to be designed to support the Bush administration.  It is the same as previous tapes which independent verifiers stated did not appear to be the voice of bin Laden.

Add that bin Laden was under lockdown at the time – that was no ‘hideout’ in Abbottabad, it was a Pakistani safehouse; effectively a prison.  Bin Laden was under control and through these fraudulent tapes, others were speaking for him.

However did you get so trusting, booNy?
When did you start defaulting to believe everything you hear?
You do know politicians will fabricate great untruths to drive their ideologies right?

The slightest of critical thinking and research reveals this.

Is the following section of my original post some kind of proof for my psychic powers of premonition?

booNyzarC, on 16 March 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Of course most CTs will claim this tape wasn't genuine.  There is always an out.

Nah, just a sign of how predictable the likely response would be.


So your argument is that it makes zero sense?

What kind of sense does a controlled demolition of WTC 7 make?

Hrmmmm...

I want to destroy some documents so...

I'll light my building on fire and let it burn for over 7 hours...  then I'll demolish it with unconventional explosives which I secretly implanted before the attacks...  Because that is obviously the most efficient and effective way to get rid of documents that I don't want to be discovered by...  who exactly?

That makes perfect sense...

Babe Ruth, on 17 March 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Q

You are asking far too much of Boo and others.  Skepticism and critical thinking are not part of their job description.  

On the contrary, I'm skeptical of everything originating from your keyboard.  I'm critical of outlandish claims, and the claim that 9/11 was inside job is completely outlandish.

You have produced absolutely nothing to substantiate your biased opinions and outlandish claims.  Nothing.

So yes, I'm highly critical and skeptical of everything you present.

Q24 at least makes an effort to substantiate his position.  Unlike you, he has many compelling arguments.  Unlike you, I respect that about him; even though I disagree with his interpretations of many things.

[Belial]

What a crock  

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 18 March 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

Is the following section of my original post some kind of proof for my psychic powers of premonition?

Nah, just a sign of how predictable the likely response would be.

Answers are not invalidated by their predictability.

Indeed the obvious answer, accounting for all evidence, is usually the best.

The answer 1+1=2 is predictable.

booNy:  I guess you will say 1+1=2
Q:  The answer is 2, and here is why…
booNy:  Ahhh you are wrong because I predicted it!
Q:  Eh??

Sorry, just a bit of fun  

booNyzarC, on 18 March 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

So your argument is that it makes zero sense?

Yes, for the reasons set out, in addition to the other points I mentioned.

And your counter-argument is an off-topic diversion to… WTC7?  Apologies for saying, an ill-conceived view of it at that.

You guys are really struggling lately.  Do you see the weak arguments you are forced to take up?  That’s what happens when one chooses to defend propaganda.

[Babe Ruth]

Boo

I already knew that you don't believe a word I say.  Copy that.

The funny part, fairly well irrational in my view, is that you believe EVERYTHING & ANYTHING the government said 10 years ago. You prefer to ignore things that have been discovered since.  You take at face value the words of an outfit well known to be liars.

You see that behavior as rational, I see it as irrational.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 18 March 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

Answers are not invalidated by their predictability.

Indeed the obvious answer, accounting for all evidence, is usually the best.

The answer 1+1=2 is predictable.

booNy:  I guess you will say 1+1=2
Q:  The answer is 2, and here is why…
booNy:  Ahhh you are wrong because I predicted it!
Q:  Eh??

Sorry, just a bit of fun  

Ah, but I wasn't suggesting that your reasoning was invalid simply because I anticipated it.  I was merely pointing out the predictable nature of your mindset when it comes to evidence which refutes your theories; If it doesn't agree with my theory, it must be fake.

Q24, on 18 March 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

Yes, for the reasons set out, in addition to the other points I mentioned.

And your counter-argument is an off-topic diversion to… WTC7?  Apologies for saying, an ill-conceived view of it at that.

You guys are really struggling lately.  Do you see the weak arguments you are forced to take up?  That’s what happens when one chooses to defend propaganda.

Struggling?  Need I actually respond to your reasoning with counter points?  Your position is solely based on your personal opinion and personal interpretation of the motives behind the purported tape.  You've invented a purpose for the tape in order to nullify its content within your mind.  What if the purpose of the tape had nothing to do with what you suggest?

Why would bin Laden want to help Moussaoui?  Could it not be that the tape is merely a response to the trial and sentencing and intended to embarrass the US justice system in the eyes of the world?  Could it not be that he was intending to point out the errors of the trial in an effort to further fuel the terrorism apparatus?  Bring down the infidels because of their unjust nature?

How about this...  if it wasn't a genuine tape...  why did he not release a statement denouncing the tape and denying it?


I guess that doesn't matter though, because your compelling argument that "it doesn't make sense" is all that really counts...  right?

[Babe Ruth]

Don't ya hate when you have to resort to ad hom.  

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 18 March 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

Don't ya hate when you have to resort to ad hom.  

I assume that you are accusing me of resorting to ad hom?  Can you quote the relevant portion of my post which you believe to be ad hom?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 18 March 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Ah, but I wasn't suggesting that your reasoning was invalid simply because I anticipated it.  I was merely pointing out the predictable nature of your mindset when it comes to evidence which refutes your theories; If it doesn't agree with my theory, it must be fake.

Oh I see, you just misunderstood the logic.

I’ll say again, the audio tape is not determined to be fraudulent because, “it doesn't agree with my theory”.

The audio tape appears fraudulent because: -

• the statement makes no sense, i.e. is of no value to ‘Al Qaeda’.
  
• the statement vindicated the U.S. justice system.
  
• the statement contradicts early bin Laden messages.
  
• previous audio tapes have been demonstrated fraudulent.
  
• previous audio tapes appear designed to support the Bush administration.
  
• the CIA are known to have planned such fabrication before.
  
• indications are that bin Laden was under control at the time.

Just brainstorming above, a number of the points require an essay of their own.

Knowing all this, it would be foolish to accept the audio tape as genuine without question.

booNyzarC, on 18 March 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

What if the purpose of the tape had nothing to do with what you suggest?

Then I’d be absolutely amazed.

I await the evidence…

booNyzarC, on 18 March 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Why would bin Laden want to help Moussaoui?  Could it not be that the tape is merely a response to the trial and sentencing and intended to embarrass the US justice system in the eyes of the world?  Could it not be that he was intending to point out the errors of the trial in an effort to further fuel the terrorism apparatus?  Bring down the infidels because of their unjust nature?

Moussaoui was one of those Al Qaeda boys, you know, bin Laden’s army of mind-controlled Jihadists.  It seems to me that bin Laden would want to get his guy off the hook if he could.  And if you are going to make a statement in Moussaoui’s defence, you do it before sentencing, not after.

Judging by what you have said, I’m not sure you understand what happened at the trial, have a read – Moussaoui was sent down on terrorism related charges but could not be found guilty for charges relating to 9/11.  There was a huge media fuss about it.  Fortunately the ‘bin Laden’ statement, less than three weeks after sentencing, completely vindicated the U.S. justice system – they got it right on, yeah, even bin Laden said so.

I’m sure you believe that was very good of bin Laden.

I think it’s bull****.

booNyzarC, on 18 March 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

How about this...  if it wasn't a genuine tape...  why did he not release a statement denouncing the tape and denying it?

The answer to that, is something I’m surprised a lot more have not jumped on.

Do you really think bin Laden was living it up in his Abbottabad holiday home, free to release whatever he wanted?

Have you read about that place?  Or the agreements reached beforehand?

It was a prison.

That is why bin Laden did not denounce anything after his two initial denials late 2001.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 18 March 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Oh I see, you just misunderstood the logic.

I’ll say again, the audio tape is not determined to be fraudulent because, “it doesn't agree with my theory”.

The audio tape appears fraudulent because: -

• the statement makes no sense, i.e. is of no value to ‘Al Qaeda’.
  
• the statement vindicated the U.S. justice system.
  
• the statement contradicts early bin Laden messages.
  
• previous audio tapes have been demonstrated fraudulent.
  
• previous audio tapes appear designed to support the Bush administration.
  
• the CIA are known to have planned such fabrication before.
  
• indications are that bin Laden was under control at the time.

Just brainstorming above, a number of the points require an essay of their own.

Knowing all this, it would be foolish to accept the audio tape as genuine without question.

Then I’d be absolutely amazed.

I await the evidence…

I await the evidence as well.  You list out a bunch of assumptions, opinions, and interpretations.  You attempt to paint this as some kind of evidence in support of your claim that the tape is fraudulent, but it doesn't measure up to the question.

• the statement makes no sense, i.e. is of no value to ‘Al Qaeda’.  In your opinion.
  
• the statement vindicated the U.S. justice system.  By your interpretation.
  
• the statement contradicts early bin Laden messages.  Only his denial, which you appear to blindly accept as truth?
  
• previous audio tapes have been demonstrated fraudulent.  This has no bearing on any given tape.  Using the same logic we should unilaterally declare all of them as fraudulent, including his denials which you so blindly accept as truth.
  
• previous audio tapes appear designed to support the Bush administration.  Completely irrelevant if your interest is in identifying the authenticity of this individual tape.
  
• the CIA are known to have planned such fabrication before.  Completely irrelevant if your interest is in identifying the authenticity of this individual tape.
  
• indications are that bin Laden was under control at the time.  Assumption on your part, but for the sake of argument...  What of the other tapes which were released after this one?  Also fraudulent for the same reason?

Q24, on 18 March 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Moussaoui was one of those Al Qaeda boys, you know, bin Laden’s army of mind-controlled Jihadists.  It seems to me that bin Laden would want to get his guy off the hook if he could.  And if you are going to make a statement in Moussaoui’s defence, you do it before sentencing, not after.

Judging by what you have said, I’m not sure you understand what happened at the trial, have a read – Moussaoui was sent down on terrorism related charges but could not be found guilty for charges relating to 9/11.  There was a huge media fuss about it.  Fortunately the ‘bin Laden’ statement, less than three weeks after sentencing, completely vindicated the U.S. justice system – they got it right on, yeah, even bin Laden said so.

I’m sure you believe that was very good of bin Laden.

I think it’s bull****.

Had Moussaoui been freed he would not have been as valuable to the terrorist cause.  Being locked up by the infidels makes him out to be a living martyr, wrongfully imprisoned by the great devil of the west.  That is a lot more juicy for inciting anger and hate among extremists than freeing him would be.  For this reason alone bin Laden may have had no interest in helping this "Al Queda boy" with the trial.

Q24, on 18 March 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

The answer to that, is something I’m surprised a lot more have not jumped on.

Do you really think bin Laden was living it up in his Abbottabad holiday home, free to release whatever he wanted?

Have you read about that place?  Or the agreements reached beforehand?

I have read some about it, but most likely not all there is to read.  Is there a particular link that you think would help support this position?  I am particularly curious about the agreements you mention.

Q24, on 18 March 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

It was a prison.

That is why bin Laden did not denounce anything after his two initial denials late 2001.

So is it your position that all of the 24 additional tapes purportedly released by bin Laden after this were also fake because he could not have released them from his "prison?"  And of the tapes prior?  Which of these are authentic and which ones aren't?

[Babe Ruth]

The OBL assassination story was a PR coup, meant to increase Obama's ratings, which it did.  Also meant to distract from other more important issues, which it did.

[Wandering]

Babe Ruth, on 19 March 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

The OBL assassination story was a PR coup, meant to increase Obama's ratings, which it did.  Also meant to distract from other more important issues, which it did.

Wasn't there some Draconian bill pushed through that day while everyone was looking somewhere else? Or am I thinking of another time.

[Babe Ruth]

You might be right about that Wandering, but I'm not sure.

It seems that Obama's ratings were going down, and he was under fire for some other issues.  I want to say that happened right after his incredible faux pas regarding Bradley Manning's guilt as he was embarassed at a very expensive campaign event in San Francisco, but again I'm not sure today.