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

#1156    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,127 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:03 PM

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

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.

You failed to understand that the overwhelming majority of people blame al-Qaeda, not the U.S. for the 911 attacks. Only 7% for the United States vs. 46% for al-Qaeda.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1157    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,127 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:06 PM

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

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

You might want to do further checking and find out who General Tommy Franks is. What was the end-result for Osama bin Laden? Who killed Osama bin Laden?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1158    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:06 PM

Hi psyche.  I’m going to take a few bits we’ve been around the block with which are perhaps now unproductive (descending off-topic or into pointless argument) and drop them into this post.  The following is to tie up some loose ends and I’ll probably not respond on these points again.  Please see the post after this one for hopefully more productive discussion which I will respond to.


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

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.

I am not ‘doing’ anything with Al Jazeera.  Usama’s personal release network?  You don’t seem to have a clue about Al Jazeera.  I... it’s just... what are you talking about?  You seem to be under the false impression that Al Jazeera is held to the bin Laden or ‘Al Qaeda’ network.  Never mind, please just read up on Al Jazeera: -

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Al_Jazeera

Look, it’s very simple...
  • Bin Laden/‘Al Qaeda’ released a videotape to Al Jazeera.
  • The videotape contained English subtitles inserted by bin Laden/‘Al Qaeda’.
  • The subtitles are the message that bin Laden/‘Al Qaeda’ wanted to convey.
  • Al Jazeera reported the complete subtitles under the headline, “Full transcript of bin Ladin’s speech”.
  • Fox News reported only excerpts of the subtitles intersected with opinion under the headline, “Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11” (despite that no such claim is found in the transcript).

Then you go on some nonsensical/unfounded attack against Al Jazeera and myself.  Perhaps it would be better to congratulate Al Jazeera for factual reporting in this case, accept that Fox News got it wrong and draw a line under it.


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

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.

Yes, that’s it!

The whole problem comes when people like skyeagle spam media headlines and editorial as ‘evidence’.


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

Taken on board? You mean I did not race out and link you to what I thought was relevant?

I mean, since you still say that I, “dismiss the forum at the wave of a hand”, that you have not taken onboard where I said, “It was mostly tongue in cheek, I actually read every page and there were some interesting points.”


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

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?

Actually, you quoted editorial from the report (not the headline) and ended by asking, “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?”  I also later addressed bin Laden’s comment regarding Lebanon and Palestine.  I addressed what you asked and more, and it’s here for all to see.  You seemed quite content with my responses at the time, until you got caught out and went on your backtrack rant, “I was never here to discuss media reports...” here.  Anyway, never mind, like I said, it’s free for all to see.


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

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.

It is fine to present what’s written in a newspaper until such reports contradict proven fact.  Especially when that is pointed out and, ok not you, but skyeagle continues to spam the same report.

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.

#1159    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,127 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:18 PM

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:


It is fine to present what’s written in a newspaper until such reports contradict proven fact. .

Looking at it this way,  911 conspiracist jumped up and down and claimed that United 93 landed at Cleveland airport and not crashed near Shanksville and based on a flawed newspaper report but what happened when that newspaper report was found to be in error? After the smoke cleared, it was determined that 911 conspiracist misread the fine print and mistaken Delta 1989, a B-767, as United 93, a B-757, and mistaken NASA scientist at the airport as passengers of United 93.

Ever wondered why after more than 11 years, not one shred of evidence has surfaced that implicates the United States government in the 911 attacks? The fact the U.S. received many warnings from around the world that muslim terrorist were planning attacks on America should have told you why there is no evidence that implicates the United States.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1160    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:23 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

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.

I think Stundie said it earlier – it appears that O’Neill may have known too much, his end coming after taking up a new job in the WTC just 19 days before 9/11 – unlucky, perhaps.  However, O’Neill had established no direct order or action from bin Laden prior to 9/11.


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

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.

Yes, why not?  I don’t think ‘justice’ should be predisposed for or against an individual.  And lack of evidence is lack of evidence – we cannot draw a ‘guilty’ verdict on that basis.  As your friend skyeagle says, “no evidence, no case!” haha.  I think we are done on this line of discussion – you have admitted there is no evidence against bin Laden in regard to 9/11.  Now we really need to look at those who were responsible for the attack.


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

He is proven guilty, of 1993 and 1998...

I think that is debatable.  The same questions apply – guilty of what, exactly?  Anyhow, we are discussing who was responsible for the 9/11 attack which occurred in 2001.  You have already admitted there is no direct evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility.


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

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.

The fact there were overlapping areas between the CIA/ISI/‘Al Qaeda’ is not dependent on Sibel Edmonds’ testimony, whether you choose to disregard her expert testimony or not.  You are ignoring the further corroborating evidence I set out:  “Bin Laden’s ‘first trainer’, Ali Mohammed, was a CIA/‘Al Qaeda’ double-agent who operated with both groups up to 1998 for one example, and has now ‘disappeared’ in U.S. detention.  Then you look at Jamal al Fadl, recruited to ‘Al Qaeda’ from Brooklyn in the U.S. in 1988, and who ended up being the star witness that helped define ‘Al Qaeda’ as a coherent ‘organisation’.  We look at CIA infiltration of ‘Al Qaeda’ that was ongoing...”

Also I should add that you are very selective in where you choose to take bin Laden at his word or not.


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

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


Neither I had???????

There is nothing wrong with the prose in context of the previous sentence.

“As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks...”

Ok, it sounds a little awkward but that is frequently the case in translating Urdu to English.  All it is saying is, “I try my best to avoid telling a lie [and] neither I had any knowledge of these attacks...”.

But you think that both the FBIS and BBC conspired to edit “Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida” out of their transcripts?  Why ever would they do that?  And you think that ‘Ananova’ which you linked - the world’s first computer-simulated “cyberbabe” newscaster - got it right.

Ok, you just brightened my day :lol:


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

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.

I did not say that one source - the FBIS or BBC - was better than the other.  I linked both transcripts because they each corroborate that bin Laden did not say, “my organisation Al-Qaida”.  And neither indicates such alteration to the transcript.


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

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:

Which were, in summary:  that you don’t accept anything Pakistani or Taliban sources say where it suits, that you ignore corroborating facts on the ground (that is, bin Laden’s travel to Pakistan permitted by the U.S. Secretary of Defence and the prison-like nature of his ‘hideout’) and likewise refuse to accept further corroborating conclusions of multiple U.S. security analysts.


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

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".

This is crazy.  You were telling me that I shouldn’t quote bin Laden and that he can’t be trusted.  Now you are discarding multiple media reports, along with supporting facts and security analyst corroboration, on the basis of bin Laden’s word contradicting one irrelevant fact in a report.

And, “a source that is obviously doctored by Bin Laden's command”?  Oh?  What’s that then?    Are you talking about the Daily Ummat report again?  You think the Daily Ummat and Al Jazeera are both in with bin Laden and ‘Al Qaeda’ now?  Are you saying the Daily Ummat edited out “my organisation Al-Qaida”, the FBIS and BBC reported it, and Ananova somehow got hold of the ‘real’ transcript?  Well... the conspiracy/paranoia deepens...


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

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.

Yes I did address it, for the second time, in my post #1062, where I wrote: -

“The documents refer to “the base” or “the military base”.  It’s a generic term so much as Western politics and media would like it to be a name chosen and attached to bin Laden.  We already know “the base” was the database of Mujahideen created and funded with help of the U.S. to combat the Soviets in Afghanistan (a U.S. Muslim recruited through the Brooklyn cell attended the initial meeting and would later be the prosecution star witness in their case against bin Laden in regard to the U.S. embassy bombings).  There is no indication there was to be a unit that would go by the formal name “the base”.  Again, that idea is a Western creation which bin Laden disavowed and only used long after 9/11 for benefit of a Western audience who had picked up on the term.”


View Postpsyche101, on 28 February 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

Nope. Seems to fit together to me.

That’s what I thought you would say.

Ziad Jarrah: -
  • had a comfortable Western life.
  • wealthy upbringing.
  • attend Christian schools.
  • was 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.
  • was related to an Israeli intelligence informant.
  • could not take his own ‘will’ seriously.
  • was trained in close quarters combat by a former U.S. special forces soldier.

But no, nothing to see here, it all fits together.

Interesting that you use Peter Bergen as a source in your previous post but auto-disregard here when the same Peter Bergen states, “a more unlikely suicide attacker you could hardly think possible”.  That quote can be found at the link below since you had difficulty with the original news report on YouTube: -

“Jarrah was sort of a Lebanese playboy who actually had a girlfriend. And she may have even secretly been his wife, somebody who was drinking occasionally. A more unlikely suicide attacker you could hardly think possible. Somebody who made American friends when he was in the United States.”


http://transcripts.c.../01/cnr.05.html



Does Jarrah have the profile of a Western agent?  Nooo, never.  At least, not so far as you would like to admit.

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.

#1161    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:35 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 01 March 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

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'.

I think the first set of numbered points I mentioned certainly take an advertent facilitation option off the table in respect to the Challenger disaster and therefore it is not an accurate reflection of the 9/11 case.

I ultimately agree with your comment concerning point 1, though it does lead to a conclusion which sparks my incredulity to a degree: ‘They wanted it, they facilitated it... but it was all an accident.’ I think even in isolation of the details, wider evidence and circumstances, it’s certainly not a conclusion that I would buy into.  And that is kind of a problem, I’m not taking point 1 in isolation – I have researched these individuals for other potential indiscretion or suspect ‘fortune’ that passed their way, and the occurrence is consistently too convenient by far - even the suggestion of an incredulous accident presents a huge anomaly in known precedent.  So whilst I ultimately agree with you, and could not conclude guilt on that point 1 alone, for the reasons given I sure would not sway anywhere close to the conclusion you are suggesting.

I think the Bush quote you mention only serves to reinforce point 2 and does not counter point 3, that there was no sense/rationale in the decision (more on that below) other than to achieve the motive described.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 01 March 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

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?

When this occurs it is moving into the realm of enticement and entrapment which may not only provide a legal defence to the accused but also means that the undercover agents are equally/more responsible for the crime as the eventual perpetrator.  I think whenever possible this should be avoided and actions such as allowing terrorists into the country, putting them in contact with flight schools and holding off the FBI go a step too far.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 01 March 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

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?

Yes, in certain cases where the ‘low level soldiers’ do not pose a severe and imminent threat, i.e. drug networks, money launderers, gangs of armed robbers, even certain other criminal rings where the situation is stable and unlikely to rapidly escalate.  Sure, it can make sense.

No, absolutely not in the case of large-scale terrorism.  This is not at all difficult to work out.  Here, it is the ‘low-level soldiers’ who pose a severe and imminent threat.  Bin Laden was never going to carry out an attack personally and neither would other terrorists be deterred by his demise.  It is entirely unreasonable to focus on capture of the moral supporters, or even mastermind if that is what you believe (i.e. bin Laden), to the exclusion of those who actually commit the terrorist attack.  Especially when we go that step further and actually pave the way/make it easy for those who commit the terrorist attack.  It’s clearly asking for trouble.  Bush with his comment was therefore asking for trouble, and he got it, and he wanted it.

To top it off, when the administration did have the chance to take out bin Laden, under the Taliban offer and battle of Tora Bora for two examples, those opportunities were declined with bin Laden described as “irrelevant”.  So if the administration was “tired of swatting flies” and neither was bin Laden a priority, then what was?  It is clear: the war in Afghanistan, it always was.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 01 March 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

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.

As mentioned above, I don’t agree with what you are suggesting in this specific case.  I think there is no sense/rationale to become “tired” of shutting down the severe and imminent terrorist threat; the low-level soldiers.  Yes, I think we must give benefit of the doubt that the top-tier government has a basic level of intelligence – that is all required to conclude that the ‘stop swatting flies’ strategy could only end one way.  I mean, what are you trying to say?  The top-tier government is stupid, and there was a mistake, and there was an accident, and... oh, well look at that... it all fell into place as pre-stated in those Neocon strategy documents?  Come on, get outa here.  I know you don’t really believe that LG, you’re not that naive.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 01 March 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

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.

Yes, this provides plausible deniability to those lower-level agents for their role in the attack.  I’m not blaming everyone connected, at least, I’m not claiming they are a part of the false flag.  Clarke states that 50 low-level agents of the CIA were aware of the Al Mihdhar threat in the country, but there is no necessity to believe they were knowingly part of an inside job, only following orders.  The same with Bayoumi – was he doing this off his own back?  Was he aware of who he was dealing with?  I think probably not.  All it would take to enact this false flag/inside job, is one high-level individual to set the wheels in motion; to give the order that you mention.  I’m not even sure that Bush was mastermind of his ‘stop swatting flies’ strategy.  Is it just that he received advice?  But somewhere in the chain, someone with influence – prime suspects: Vice President Dick Cheney and head of the CIA bin Laden unit, Cofer Black – took an exceedingly and obviously negative decision which facilitated the attack.  A competent investigation would have nailed all this, precisely down to where and why the order originated.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 01 March 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

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.

It is difficult when your questions most usually appear as challenges to my conclusions.  You are asking me to believe your position is not that inherent in your question.  Like when you ask, could facilitation of the terrorists all be an accident?  It’s then natural to assume that you think it’s an accident.  Judging by your protests when I do this, I’ll have to try to consider that you’re playing devil’s advocate or something.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 01 March 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

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.

It depends what you mean by direct evidence.  If you mean to the degree (which I think you do), ‘Is there a CIA badge with Bayoumi’s name on it?’ or ‘Is there evidence that Bayoumi carried out work with the CIA before?’, then no, there is not.  To use your term, it is rather an extrapolation of the facts, though a well founded one it must be said.

I’m not sure I linked to Clarke’s quote previously, but referred to his comment: -

"If we assume that this Saudi intelligence officer was the handler for these two, then presumably he would have been reporting to the CIA office in Los Angeles.  There was a strong relationship between the CIA director and the minister of intelligence of Saudi Arabia."


Yes Clarke uses words like, “assume” and “presumably” to cover himself, he even says that he cannot prove his theory.  Despite that, these are Clarke’s well-educated conclusions, based on the facts at hand and his years of experience at the top level of government counter-terrorism, including during the lead-up and fallout of the 9/11 attack, and he has said he is unable to come up with a conceivable alternative theory.

I think that once you consider the facts I mentioned - the heavy CIA interest in Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi, prevention of the FBI to act against the terrorists, particularly the quick absolving of Bayoumi after his meeting and direct assistance to the terrorists - then you will understand Clarke’s conclusion and reasonably cannot help but agree.  I certainly came to the same conclusion independent of Clarke.  It was no ‘chance’ meeting and assistance that so led the hijackers to live with a U.S. informant – it appears Bayoumi was used to circumvent restrictions on CIA domestic operations, and of course because he would be more approachable to the terrorists coming from the same culture.

Taking all into account it’s as much direct evidence as could ever be expected that Bayoumi was working at behest of the CIA.

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.

#1162    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:41 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

You failed to understand that the overwhelming majority of people blame al-Qaeda, not the U.S. for the 911 attacks. Only 7% for the United States vs. 46% for al-Qaeda.

Jesus... you can't even get the absolute basics correct... the pie chart shows 15% for the U.S. govt.

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.

#1163    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:02 PM

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

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.

"Don't Know' does not equal 'disagreement', nice try though.  If I say "don't know' to the question, 'do ghosts exist', that doesn't mean at all that I 'disagree' with either proposition that ghosts do or do not exist, I have to have a position on the question in order to agree or disagree (although, "no one can know", I agree would be in disagreement).  

To properly wordsmith it we should state a minority of all people surveyed are of the opinion that Al Qaeda is behind the 9/11 attacks, a wordsmithing whose vacuousness becomes apparent as soon as you look at the actual pie chart.  It's very easy to word it another way that is also accurate but gives the opposite impression: 'of people who have an opinion on who is responsible for 9/11, 61%, a majority, say Al Qaeda', 'the number of people who believe that Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11 is more than the number of people who believe some other entity is responsible combined', etc.  

Fun with marketing, and I know you are just responding to another poster; I think you and I both agree that what the polls show really has very limited applicability to the question of what is true.

"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

#1164    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 - 08:45 PM

"only 46% of people believe aq were behind the attacks" is a more pertinent description, and this is in spite of a full repetitious media and government campaign trying to protect the official narrative.

Edited by Little Fish, 01 March 2013 - 08:46 PM.


#1165    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:19 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 01 March 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

"only 46% of people believe aq were behind the attacks" is a more pertinent description, and this is in spite of a full repetitious media and government campaign trying to protect the official narrative.

Actually it's the most slanted description in favor of CTs.  The most pertinent description is the pie chart itself; we're all just demonstrating that those results can be spun easily into soundbites in either direction.  

And 'protecting the official narrative' from what exactly?  The challenges provided by the 29% of people who don't think it is AQ but can't even settle amongst themselves who actually is responsible?  Sounds like the non-official narratives already have plenty of challenges from the other non-official narratives.

"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

#1166    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,787 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 02 March 2013 - 03:27 AM

HEres a real idea of what it was a CT point of view they should adopt ! :tu:
THis quite is from Mark Boslough he`s a Sandia National Lab`s physicist." When somebody is makeing a claim that something extraordiary happend,something out of the ordinary and with a very low probability,they have ambiguous evidenence,the default is that it didnt happen !"

This is a Work in Progress!

#1167    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,127 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 02 March 2013 - 03:41 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

You failed to understand that the overwhelming majority of people blame al-Qaeda, not the U.S. for the 911 attacks. Only 7% for the United States vs. 46% for al-Qaeda.


Should have read:

Al-Qaeda 46%

United States 15%

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1168    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,127 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 02 March 2013 - 03:43 AM

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

Jesus... you can't even get the absolute basics correct... the pie chart shows 15% for the U.S. govt.

That was a mistake on my part, however, I have made the correction, but 15% is still much lower than al-Qaeda's 46%. In other words, the United States is not even close. You can even add Israel and still, the United States cannot catch up to al-Qaeda. Even If you add, the United States, Israel, and 'others' together, there is still not enough to catch up to al-Qaeda.

In other words, al-Qaeda is far in the lead and the United States is way behind in the poll.

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 March 2013 - 03:58 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1169    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,127 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 02 March 2013 - 04:23 AM

View PostQ24, on 01 March 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

As your friend skyeagle says, “no evidence, no case!” haha.

Well, it has been over 11 years, and  yet, no evidence has surfaced implicating the United States in the 911 attacks. Governments around the world blame al-Qaeda, not the United States and they even warned the United States. Question is; who was the leader of al-Qaeda?

Answer: Osama bin Laden

Quote

Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden was the founder of al Qaeda, the jihadist organization that claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the United States, along with numerous other mass-casualty attacks against civilian and military targets.

http://www.mofa.gov..../May/PR_150.htm

On November 8, 1990, the FBI raided the New Jersey home of El Sayyid Nosair, an associate of al-Qaeda operative Ali Mohamed. They discovered copious evidence of terrorist plots, including plans to blow up New York City skyscrapers. This marked the earliest discovery of al-Qaeda terrorist plans outside of Muslim countries.


Who was the leader of al-Qaeda?

Answer: Osama bin Laden.

Continue:

Quote

Nosair was eventually convicted in connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and later admitted guilt for the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City on November 5, 1990.

http://web.archive.o....jsp?caseid=332

From 2001 to 2011, bin Laden was a major target of the War on Terror, with a $25 million bounty by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

http://www.fbi.gov/w...usama-bin-laden

Question; Who later admitted to his responsibility for the 911 attacks?

Answer: Osama bin Laden.

Quote

Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

http://www.pbs.org/n...n_10-29-04.html


9/11 and Osama bin Laden’s insidious attacks

In stark contrast to such a public statement, when bin Laden was privately shown the video clips of the horrific attacks, he reportedly remarked that the acts of terror were “spectacular” and when he eventually came out of the closet and admitted complicity in the incident, he praised the hijackers as freedom fighters exhibiting “defiant spirits” in a fight against an evil oppressive empire.  The reason for killing Americans was because of the “jihad” or religious war against the infidel and the suicide squad of 19 who carried out the lethal plans were acting in the name of freedom.

http://communities.w...idious-attacks/

Based on the evidence, authorities in the United States quickly asserted that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization were solely responsible for the attacks, and other suspects were ruled out. The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion.


Edited by skyeagle409, 02 March 2013 - 04:36 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1170    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,502 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's histories.

Posted 02 March 2013 - 04:38 AM

Let's say that the Establishment version was true beyond a shadow of a doubt and that members of Al Qaeda attacked us. That said, did anyone in the government have foreknowledge of the tragedy? If so, what was done and said in response to that information or intelligence? There might have been more sins of omission than sins of commission on the parts of a few individuals.

There is one reality with billions of versions.




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users