763 replies to this topic

[Mike 215]

Let us say that he died years go and his body was just discovered earlier this year. IF the annoucement was made, there was the possiblity that former president Bush might make a statement that his program to harass and try to kill him put him in an early grave. So where does that leave Obama? Nowhere with not even on little point added to his polls.
  But by faking his assassination with SEALS, secret helicopters, and intrigue helped his poll numbers. Remember him seating with the generals, Ms. Clinton and others on his staff listening to the SEALS reports? Even Hollywood could not do better.

[Q24]

frenat, on 29 October 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

NONE of those pictures were released by the US media or military.  They were released in other sources first.

Pictures of Hussein’s dead sons, Uday and Qusay, and also his capture were released by the U.S.

http://www.guardian....ul/24/iraq.usa2
http://en.wikipedia....ration_Red_Dawn


This done specifically to end rumours.

[Q24]

Mike 215, on 29 October 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

Let us say that he died years go and his body was just discovered earlier this year. IF the annoucement was made, there was the possiblity that former president Bush might make a statement that his program to harass and try to kill him put him in an early grave. So where does that leave Obama? Nowhere with not even on little point added to his polls.
  But by faking his assassination with SEALS, secret helicopters, and intrigue helped his poll numbers. Remember him seating with the generals, Ms. Clinton and others on his staff listening to the SEALS reports? Even Hollywood could not do better.

Bush might have claimed he harassed bin Laden to death so Obama staged an operation to counter that?

Is that more likely than the theory I set out on the previous page?

[MID]

Q24, on 29 October 2011 - 05:07 PM, said:

Pictures of Hussein’s dead sons, Uday and Qusay, and also his capture were released by the U.S.

http://www.guardian....ul/24/iraq.usa2
http://en.wikipedia....ration_Red_Dawn


This done specifically to end rumours.

No...it wasn't.

...from The Guardian, UK, 7-24-03...

Quote

Photographs of Saddam Hussein's feared sons laid out in plastic body bags were released by the US today in a bid to convince sceptical Iraqis that neither would follow their father into power.      A spokesman for the US-led civil authority in Iraq said that journalists would be allowed to film the bodies for themselves tomorrow to dispel any doubts that the photographs were authentic.

Seems there's some disagreement.  


How would this be relevant to Bin Laden's death?
Did we have to convince sceptical Iraquis that the terror that oppressed them wouldn't return?
DNA, he was photographed, we had multiple eye witnesses, there was no doubt.


I think there was no reason to show those photos.
Is it that we must publish such things to convince you and people like you that he really is dead?
What's the point?

[Scott G]

MID, on 29 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

Scott G, on 28 October 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

Mike may have not provided sources, but he's essentially correct.

I think he's as correct as anyone who wants to believe, and who uses his energy not to study and learn, but to troll forums with nonsensical repititions.

Perhaps you might put a little energy into finding a few sources of your own instead of just bad mouthing those you disagree with.

MID, on 29 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

They're sources alright.  they're the only sources you're going to be able to find.

How would you know? You spend more time criticizing then researching.

MID, on 29 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

However, they're all highly suspect, and of dubious if not complete irrelevance...

According to you, right? Seriously, do some research instead of just continuing with these pointless insults.

MID, on 29 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

Who cares where he was on September 11, 2001?

Yeah, what does it matter if the U.S. could have apprehended him mere moments after 9/11? The FBI admitted they had no hard evidence on him anyway. That about right?

MID, on 29 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

He didn't execute a well designed plan.

Or he didn't execute the plan at all. But who cares right?

MID, on 29 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

He could've been anywhere and it would've happened.

On this, we agree completely. However, we probably have differing views as to why this is so. However, it still does matter where the Patsy was. Mainly because if the U.S. didn't care where he was after 9/11, it tends to suggest that they knew he wasn't guilty; or they knew he was guilty but didn't care. Either way, your cavalier attitude to where Osama bin Laden was shortly before and perhaps during 9/11 doesn't do you much credit.

MID, on 29 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

So what?  19 million hits is significant how?

It suggests that there are a lot of people who don't believe the official story.

MID, on 29 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

Iranian intelligence???
Now you're really stretching.

No, I'm reporting the news. Am I saying that I believe Iranian intelligence point blank? Ofcourse not. But neither will I dismiss it just because they don't generally agree with the U.S.

MID, on 29 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

And even more ridiculous, Pakistani Intelligence?
How good is that intel????

Look, it's information, alright? Pakistan, unlike Iran, is allegedly the U.S.'s friend, although you've probably seen recently that that relationship wasn't perhaps as cozy as some may have believed. That being said, there are some interesting connections between Pakistani intelligence and what occurred on 9/11, that also ties in with certain U.S. officials. Take, for instance, the case of Pakistania General Mahmud:
India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links

MID, on 29 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

It's interesting (not) how all of this supposedly significant stuff you posted came out after Bin Laden was killed...not when it should've been published...before the US raid that actually killed him.

Actually, it did. It just didn't get so much coverage before he was "officially" killed. If you're actually interested in learning more about the reports of his death before 9/11, feel free to read more on that in this wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia....piracy_theories

Edited by Scott G, 29 October 2011 - 07:38 PM.

[Q24]

MID, on 29 October 2011 - 06:14 PM, said:

No...it wasn't.

...from The Guardian, UK, 7-24-03...


Seems there's some disagreement.  

I’m not sure what you are attempting to cause confusion about.

The U.S. released pictures of Hussein and his dead sons to prove their claim and allowed journalists access to obtain independent footage to “dispel any doubts” about their authenticity.  This is in contrast to the bin Laden situation where pictures have not been released and no independent access was granted.

It is quite understandable that people question reason for the inconsistency.

MID, on 29 October 2011 - 06:14 PM, said:

I think there was no reason to show those photos.
Is it that we must publish such things to convince you and people like you that he really is dead?
What's the point?

The point is, after many contradicting reports of bin Laden’s whereabouts and death over the years, not everyone is so trusting as you that the U.S. word is the definitive word.

Anyhow, if you had read my last few posts you would know I don’t want or need to see pictures - I believe bin Laden was assassinated on that day, May 2nd 2011, in Abbottabad.  Not simply because the U.S. told me, but because in my consideration of the complete evidence it is the most logical answer that follows.

I would still like to know the official U.S. stance on whether Pakistani intelligence and military elements were complicit in protecting bin Laden.  I know U.S. authorities and the CIA director seemed convinced and were asking questions, then… nothing.  Why the lack of response to this state harbouring the biggest terrorist of all?

Perhaps it is that the U.S. and Pakistan are on the same page, where it matters.

[MID]

Q24, on 30 October 2011 - 01:04 PM, said:

I’m not sure what you are attempting to cause confusion about.

The U.S. released pictures of Hussein and his dead sons to prove their claim and allowed journalists access to obtain independent footage to “dispel any doubts” about their authenticity.  This is in contrast to the bin Laden situation where pictures have not been released and no independent access was granted.

It is quite understandable that people question reason for the inconsistency.

The confusion is yours alone.
You said those pictures were released to dispell rumors, and attempted to equate those Hussein photos to the pictures that weren't released of Bin Laden.

The Hussein pictures, as I said, were released to prove to the Iraqi people that some of their tormenters were indeed dead. The Bin Laden photos didn't need to be released to convince any oppressed people that their tormenter was dead.  

Quote

The point is, after many contradicting reports of bin Laden’s whereabouts and death over the years, not everyone is so trusting as you that the U.S. word is the definitive word.

And who needs to have this proof about Bin Laden?

Quote

Anyhow, if you had read my last few posts you would know I don’t want or need to see pictures - I believe bin Laden was assassinated on that day, May 2nd 2011, in Abbottabad.  Not simply because the U.S. told me, but because in my consideration of the complete evidence it is the most logical answer that follows.

Well, that's something at least.

Quote

I would still like to know the official U.S. stance on whether Pakistani intelligence and military elements were complicit in protecting bin Laden.  I know U.S. authorities and the CIA director seemed convinced and were asking questions, then… nothing.  Why the lack of response to this state harbouring the biggest terrorist of all?

I don't know.
Write them and ask.

[Q24]

MID, on 31 October 2011 - 12:13 AM, said:

The Hussein pictures, as I said, were released to prove to the Iraqi people that some of their tormenters were indeed dead.

Right, we are saying the same thing here: the U.S. released pictures to prove Hussein’s sons were dead, thus dispelling rumours they may still be alive.  I’m not sure why you felt the need to disagree on that in the first place.  It distracted from the reasonable point you were really making…

MID, on 31 October 2011 - 12:13 AM, said:

The Bin Laden photos didn't need to be released to convince any oppressed people that their tormenter was dead.  


And who needs to have this proof about Bin Laden?

You are highlighting that pictures of Hussein’s sons were released for the specific purpose of putting the Iraqis’ minds at ease; to enable reform without the spectre of the previous regime hanging over them.  The argument is that there was no equivalent reason to release pictures of bin Laden.

I would agree with that - it is true bin Laden never had the same iron-grip over people that Hussein did.

Have you noticed how many people around the world don’t believe a thing the U.S. say anymore?  For a growing number, if the U.S. is making the claim, it is automatically assumed to be a lie, whether it is the truth or not!  That hasn’t happened by chance.  It is at the stage where even staunch supporters of officialdom no longer accept all of the public explanations we are given.  For example, near every one of us knows that hunting terrorists, disarming weapons of mass destruction and/or saving civilians is a cover to securing energy resources, i.e. oil, in recent conflicts.  Even you have acknowledged it before, MID.  Look at the recent Libya action - I haven’t seen anyone defend the official reason the U.S. and NATO went in.  This general awareness of the real aim has been on the rise for some time now - the lies are all too frequent.

So who needs this proof about bin Laden?  The U.S. as much as anyone.  If for nothing more than a confidence exercise with citizens both foreign and domestic.  This claim it would incite extremists is weak; extremists have plenty bigger cause to be incited already.  Had pictures of bin Laden been released it could only have increased U.S. credibility.

Well, unless such pictures would reveal something more damning, as I’ve previously mentioned.

[psychoticmike]

booNyzarC, on 15 October 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:

Quote

I wasn't proven wrong.  All that was proven was that we have different opinions about the implications of Bin Laden's speech.  I see it meaning one thing, you see it meaning something else.  I don't agree with your interpretation, and you don't agree with mine.  I see little point discussing it further as I'm doubtful that either side will budge.

sorry for the late response, my computers been acting up. I still think you were proven wrong, because you think that that was been laden confessing responcibility for the 911 attacks. But like you said, thats all up for interpretation. Sure i think he played a part no doubt, but i don't see how you read that as a direct confession. I personally don't believe the official story, there are many unanswered questions so to me its not a waste of time.

Quote

Or should I attempt to reword my position better?  Should I rebut your statements?  Would that not also be a waste of time?  In my opinion it would.

Theres no need for that, i see your point, but if you want to go right ahead.

Quote

Right now, based on the responses both you and Q24 gave, I don't expect a truthful assessment from either of you on the core issues that I pointed out.

So what are you saying here? that if someone disagrees with your position they must be lying?

Quote

As an example of what fueled this decision I will address a concern you raised which you apparently believe has "proven me wrong."


You are comparing random thoughts that have come to your mind with a deliberately written and carefully worded speech by Bin Laden specifically about the September 11th attacks.  And you think this has proven me wrong?  If you can't inherently see the difference between these two things and how they are completely dissimilar, I doubt that anything I can say will ever convince you of my point of view.

how is that in any way dissimilar? Its a perfectly valid point, just because someone thought of something, does not mean they acted on it, what don't you understand about that? Thats a nice assumption on your part, but it doesn't help you much. Your assuming i think that 1 point is what proved you wrong. Well if thats the case then i would have only wrote that 1 point as a response.


Hence, it is a waste of time.

We disagree, so thats a waste of time? Well then i guess all human existance is a waste of time, since we all disagree about a multitude of things. Would that make every post on um a waste of time? since no matter what theres almost always someone who disagrees with it?

Quote

From my position the speech is a blatant confession of Bin Laden's involvement in the whole thing, from your position I'm misinterpreting what he said.

correct.


For the time being, I simply agree to disagree.

Cheers



fair enough, care to refute the rest of my points?


sorry, i don't know how to quote the right way.

Edited by psychoticmike, 31 October 2011 - 10:39 PM.

[booNyzarC]

psychoticmike, on 31 October 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

sorry for the late response, my computers been acting up.

No problem.

psychoticmike, on 31 October 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

I still think you were proven wrong, because you think that that was been laden confessing responcibility for the 911 attacks.

That's nice.  I still think that I wasn't proven wrong.  I guess that leaves us...  where we were.

psychoticmike, on 31 October 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

But like you said, thats all up for interpretation.

It is indeed.

psychoticmike, on 31 October 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

Sure i think he played a part no doubt, but i don't see how you read that as a direct confession.

Well that's comforting.  The first part anyway.

psychoticmike, on 31 October 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

I personally don't believe the official story, there are many unanswered questions so to me its not a waste of time.

Enjoy your continued search for answers then.

psychoticmike, on 31 October 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

So what are you saying here? that if someone disagrees with your position they must be lying?

No, I didn't say that at all.

psychoticmike, on 31 October 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

Your assuming i think that 1 point is what proved you wrong. Well if thats the case then i would have only wrote that 1 point as a response.

No, not at all.  I only addressed 1 point because I didn't feel like dealing with any others.  Why not?  Because it is a waste of time.

psychoticmike, on 31 October 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

We disagree, so thats a waste of time? Well then i guess all human existance is a waste of time, since we all disagree about a multitude of things. Would that make every post on um a waste of time? since no matter what theres almost always someone who disagrees with it?

If that is what you choose to believe, have at it.

psychoticmike, on 31 October 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

fair enough, care to refute the rest of my points?

No, I have no interest in engaging in 9/11 conspiracy theory discussions any longer.  I find them tedious and completely unrewarding.

psychoticmike, on 31 October 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

sorry, i don't know how to quote the right way.

It isn't very difficult.  I'm confident that you can learn how if you put your mind to it.

[Little Fish]

[Scott G]

Little Fish, on 02 November 2011 - 07:48 PM, said:

Good stuff :-). I just found and read an article from Kevin Ryan regarding some good points on 9/11 that he published October 30, here's the link to it in case you'd like to see it:
The 9/11 Commission claims that we found 'no evidence'

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 02 November 2011 - 07:48 PM, said:

That video is highly flawed, and to underline my point, no evidence of planted explosives was ever found after more than 10 years. Here is another example that foreign terrorist, not the U.S. government, were responsible. I have said that many times that heat weakened the structural supports to the point of failure, so it was just a matter of time before the buildings would collapse.

Quote

NY judge: Al-Qaida owes $9.3 billion for 9/11 harm

YORK (AP) — A magistrate judge in New York has recommended al-Qaida be assessed $9.3 billion for the damage done to properties and businesses in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Federal Magistrate Judge Frank Maas in a ruling Friday sent the recommendation to a district judge presiding over a lawsuit brought by several insurance companies.

The companies in 2003 sued various defendants, seeking damages for the 2001 terror attacks, which demolished the World Trade Center's twin towers. Al-Qaida never responded to the lawsuit and was found in default in 2006. Maas determined the actual damages and then tripled them as allowed by law.

At this time, the companies were only seeking an assessment of damages against al-Qaida. The organization founded by Osama bin Laden is blamed for orchestrating the terror attacks.

My link

To sum it up, no one planted explosives and there was no evidence that explosives were used.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 November 2011 - 12:45 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Scott G, on 02 November 2011 - 08:15 PM, said:

Good stuff :-). I just found and read an article from Kevin Ryan regarding some good points on 9/11 that he published October 30, here's the link to it in case you'd like to see it:
The 9/11 Commission claims that we found 'no evidence'

I disagree with that message. In regards to United 175, a message was sent from United 175 to San Francisco and then relayed to Chicago, so United Airlines knew that United 175 was hijacked.

In regards to American 11, check it out.

Quote

American Flight 11

Fifteen minutes into the flight, the hijackers injured at least three people, forcibly breached the cockpit, and overpowered the captain and first officer. Mohamed Atta, an al-Qaeda member and trained pilot, took over the controls. Air-traffic controllers noticed the flight was in distress when the crew was no longer responding. They realized the flight had been hijacked when Mohammad Atta mistakenly transmitted his announcements for passengers to air traffic control. On board, flight attendants Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong contacted American Airlines, and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.

My link

The fact that airline pilots aboard United 175, American 11, United 93, and American 77 failed to respond to ATC communication attempts, the unauthorized course changes, and transponder tampering should have been the message that all four aircraft were hijacked.  Add to the fact that crewmembers aboard those flights are now deceased along with their passengers should have been another message that they were victims of hijackers.

Seems those facts have been ignored by the 911 conspiracy theorist.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 November 2011 - 12:40 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Scott G, on 28 October 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

Iranian Intelligence on the matter:
'Bin Laden dead long before US raid'

Bin Laden was not dead before the US raid. In fact, Al Qaeda admitted that Bin Laden was taken out by our forces.

Quote

'Al-Qaeda statement' confirms Osama Bin Laden's death

CAIRO - Al Qaeda on Friday confirmed the killing of Osama bin Laden and warned of retaliation, saying Americans' "happiness will turn to sadness."

The confirmation came in an Internet statement posted on militant websites, signed by "the general leadership" of al Qaeda. The announcement opens the way for the group to name a successor to bin Laden. His deputy Ayman al-Zawahri is now the most prominent figure in the group and is a very likely contender to take his place.

My link


Taliban: Bin Laden's death reinvigorates war against U.S.

The Taliban, one of Osama bin Laden's closest allies, confirmed late Friday that the al Qaeda founder had been killed by U.S. commandos during a raid in Pakistan.

The admission by the Taliban comes on the heels of one earlier in the day by al Qaeda, removing any question about whether bin Laden's closest allies and his terror network believed he was dead.

My link

So here is where Al Qaeda and the Taliban admit that Bin Laden was taken out by our forces.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 November 2011 - 02:19 AM.