2185 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Oh right. Glad to hear it.

Gidday Stundie

Just in the interests of discussion and all that mate

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

I think there would be paper trails. I do not know what level of responsibility OBL had in the attack if any at all. Maybe he funded them, trained them, gave them his blessing or may have had knowledge of the plot. I do not think a lack of a paper trail absolves him of responsibility when there is no hard evidence of his responsibility in the first place.

I think there would be paper trails too, but I do not think they woud have Usama on any one of them. I really do not think he woud be so careless. He was too rich and educated to do so. This is why I think the FBI said they have no hard evidence. I bet they have reams and reams of evidence that leads to purposeful dead ends. Behind the simple act of using box-cutters to hijack a plane was some deep planning. The way Usama keeps referring to Bush as sitting on his hands whist the carnage ensued seems like OBL is challenging him. I think there is much that was planned that did not go off, that died with the bombers and OBL.

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Now just because there is no hard evidence, that doesn't mean I think he is entirely innocent either, it just means that I do not know and neither claim to know where as others such as Skyeagle, will claim to know based on what the media/government have told us.

That is fair enough, I agree, but remain with Skyeagle on that one. The taunting, the glee, the celebrations are all a kick in the teeth that they did this, mostly got away with it, wrote themselves into history and I am 100% of the opinion, and I realise that is personal, that all of this is like Usama thumbing his nose at the world over slaughtering and running. Don't get me wrong, many such crimes go unpunished because they conform to Western views, such as France's Nuclear testing. Someone should have been tarred and feathered over that, but they stand in line for the most part, so they avoid the full wrath they deserve. The Middle East does not, Shari'ah is against everything we stand for, and Shari'ah demands we die or become slaves. Al Qaeda makes no secret about this position. As such, the 1+1=2 seem pretty blatant to me, these people are rejoicing in what they deem their own victory. To decide the US is responsible is to me refusing an outright confession by way of action.

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

I think this is where we do part ways, I'm no fan of religion full stop but I do not think faiths should be outlawed.

Fair enough, I admit it is probably a knee jerk reaction, but I do feel Shari'ah contravenes enough human rights for the UN to downgrade it's religious status to cult. And from there it could be disolved, which would be a service to humanity as a whole. I still think John Lennon had a point though

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

I think intelligence agencies were aware something was brewing, this is evident by things like Able Danger, John O'Neil who died at the WTC and the PDB from 6th Aug entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike US"

Hrmmzz, John O'Neil. Good call. Hard to say there, he does seem to have had enough experience to realise what was going on, and the FBI should have taken him more seriously, but I gather, much like myself  he is blunt, and damn can that get you into trouble. People do not like one calling a spade a spade, they like you to be "Politically Correct". I personally have no patience for that BS. But that seems to be how he managed to cheese people of, who should have listened to him. I do not see it in any way as indicating the US was involved, rather that the FBI was arrogant, and those who did not listen to O'Neil ought to be questioned as to why, and if they could have prevented this, then they should be held responsible for that. And you and I know that is not going to happen in a billion years. There is graft and corruption, I realise that, one would have to be blind not to, but this does not indicate US responsibility  it indicates a US bungle, which to me is far more plausible than the long winded ridiculous CT claims, and I am sure the reasons for wanting to cover such up do not even need mentioning.

I think Able Danger was way, way overdue. I think something like that should have implemented when all that nasty business that ruined the middle East when the Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) was overthrown happened. Iran was a nice place in the day of the Shah.

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Sorry but I do not see how that is possible, a plea bargain or corruption or even a jail break is possible but highly unlikely, if he escaped I think most Americans would take up arms in the hunt for him.
Regardless of what happened Yemen, I see none of these things happening for KSM and therefore believe that it would be the same for OBL.
There is a huge difference, the Taliban never killed a US citizen or solider (as far as I'm aware!) before the invasion of Afghanistan.

I see one in a million chance as unacceptable. Even if Usama way dying, I do not feel he had the right to ever see a blue sky again. Scotland Yard let Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi out to die on compassionate grounds. I do not agree with that. Who knows what influence he might have with such a barbaric mindset in that time. He should have rotted away in jail, and not even had his cell attended until a good decade after his death. Usama IMO deserved worse yet. Would you be willing to bet your child's life (if you have one I suppose!) on a certainty that Usama would never be freed, had he been taken alive? Would you be confident enough to stake that much?

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Its has nothing to do with the answer I want, it is to do with addressing the question.

Yes I agree, it is not the answer you want, but it is Sky's answer, and it does answer the question, if not directly.

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

How is it a moot point that even after OBL confession, the FBI still had not indicted him for his biggest crime, yet manage to do this for his other less significant crimes?

It is not a moot point, because I accept the fact that he apparently confessed. It would be a moot point if the FBI had indicted him because it would irrelevant to his confession.
I agree that now he is dead, it is a moot point because the case has is closed. What is not moot is that even after his confession, before his death there was no indictment of him.

I honestly think it was a moot point from day one. Usama had covered his tracks well, we agree on that, regardless if covering or non-existant, it's not a direct link. He declared war in America, he is a public enemy. But he would be taunting America to arrest him on 911 so he can walk away legally. And that is what many of the general public think, that he is responsible for 911, regardless of the level of involvement, he is seen as the leader who made the attacks possible by the larger majority. So why give him what he wants? A court case, media, everything possible to help him contact more people for his cause, and look at this thread. American people turning on their own Government over the rubbish a terrorist mastermind killer has them believe. I think the FBI went the smart route, and let him rant rave and carry on as much as he wanted, and then the seals shot him dead over another atrocity that cost less lives, and had less of an impact on the US ublic. Like taking Al Capone for tax evasion. Except they shot Usama dead. I think they were smart.

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

I like how you at least address the points raised psyche, Sky just repeated himself.  
Because the point is that when he was alive. there was no indictment.

This means that if he was captured, as it stood, he would have been charged for all his crimes with the exception of 9/11. Yes I am sure that they would have found the evidence to indict him.

Thank you, I try hard to make sure my posting is worthwhile and contributes to the discussion.
I guess this is why we agree on these points, I try to insist that facts lead a discussion. Fact is you are right. The FBI did not indict Usama for 911. But there is more to the story than that, and that is where good discussion comes in. This is the part I am sorry Sky misses, because with his world experience, he would be a more valuable contributor. I only ever had a problem with Sky's debating, as you do, outside of that, I respect him, and have for some time. We are just all different, and we have to find way to accomodate our nuances.

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

The result of repeating the same question is that at some point, he will have to answer it. No doubt the mods will come to his rescue and close the thread or remove my posts, like others are now before any of that actually happens.

So what do you suggest I do? Shall I just let him carry on lying while ignore things which prove him wrong so he can carry on lying like he does on most other threads?

The thing is that I notice is that no one is challenging Skyeagle on his behaviour, mine is seen as unacceptable, yet he is beyond reproach and that we should accept it, just because it's Skyeagle, that is the way he is! Sorry but that is absolute nonsense. lol

If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got. I have ignored him in the past but I'm afraid that is not happening any more because it doesn't work!

Ohh, I hear you, I managed to draw Saru's attention more often than I wished when I was debating Sky. I for one hope you do not get into trouble, I think you offer a good discussion.

I suggest we try to discuss aspects that do not rely on the papers and media sources? As I say, much like myself, Sky is old school, and more of a hands on person. I am sure he will offer excellent conversation if the discussion is focussed in that direction, With myself joining the discussion, I hope to be able to assist Sky in these matters, and rely on him when I need that experience factor.  Ignoring wont work, and I can tell you from experience demanding will only get you into hot water.
Douglas Adams comes to mind when he said: You have the answer, you need to learn how to ask the question.

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Thanks pysche.

You see I prefer honest debate with people and would rather have points of agreement and focus on the other issues because there is plenty of them to discuss.

You are most welcome mate, I appreciate good manners and a technical approach. In fact I have to say I never envisaged this part of the forum being so civil and interesting. You are a good ambassador for the CT section Stundie! Thank you for your civility, good manners, and a fine conversation. I get along great with smart people! No matter if I agree with them or not. Anyone can see you are an astute poster mate.

I certainly will prefer an honest and open debate, because I do not want to win, I just want to see aholes like Jones and Berger exposed for the childish jerks they are and all their nincompoopery exposed for what it is. Tossers like that who refuse to get a real job and waste peoples times and lives by just doing their damnedest to upset others I see as parasites on society. I seriously hate people lying to, or trying to take advantage of me. CT's I see in this category, I have a personal reason for wanting to oust 911 as well, wich I do not wish to mention here in public. I have no time for a snake oil salesman.

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

His debating style is to obfuscate and repeat things idiomatically. I do not expect him to agree with me which is obvious from our differences of opinion and although I still not feel he has addressed the question honestly, I'm quite happy to move on cause we all know why the FBI never indicted OBL.

Cause as we know....

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Cheers

Stundie

It is my hope that I can offer that which is missing from the debate, it is a big world, and it takes many types to go around. As I say, I understand your frustration, I can only say for me, with time, it did get better. To a point where I would be honoured to buy Sky a cold frosty beer, and listen to any story he might be willing to share. I think his wealth of experience is undervalued and not seen for what it is worth only because times are moving a bit quick from some of us to keep up with. But I admit, it took me some time to realise that.
Like I say you are 100% right, I cannot deny fact, and fact is OBL was not indicted for 911, but I think we both agree that in no way absolves nor clears him fro the atrocity, and by action and association, I think everyone in the world knows he was involved, he just planned himself out of it well. I still think he had some ploy to work for him if he was, and that might well be why the FBI decided to keep him just one the one charge they did have, that did stick. Like Jailing Al Capone for tax evasion I suppose. Sometimes, one has to make do with what ne has. Capone did not suffer as much as the average man in jai, far from it, but boy howdy was he angry at going to jail. He was busted, and in front of everyone. All of sudden he was not some high class businessman, he was a street thug. During his early months at Alcatraz, Capone made an enemy by showing his disregard for the prison social order when he cut in line while prisoners were waiting for a haircut. James Lucas, a Texas bank robber serving 30 years, reportedly confronted the former syndicate leader and told him to get back at the end of the line. When Capone asked if he knew who he was, Lucas reportedly grabbed a pair of the barber's scissors and, holding them to Capone's neck, answered "Yeah, I know who you are, greaseball. And if you don't get back to the end of that ******* line, I'm gonna know who you were."

Cheers

Edited by psyche101, 21 February 2013 - 04:59 AM.

[psyche101]

Nathan DiYorio, on 20 February 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

Until it has been demonstrated, it is certainly faith. Whether or not the odds are in your mathematically deduced favor.
Faith is also not believing in things regardless of conditions, that's stubbornness. Faith is simply the belief in something which you have been told.

"Complete trust or confidence in something."

I don't see anything in that definition (which is available via Google) about being unwavering.

Math does not just change odds, math can answer a question in full without anyone witnessing anything, and with regards to witness testimony it is. We know the Alcubierre drive works, but we do not know how to build it.

I do not agree, I have seen faith that is placed upon stories that are not true, but a persons faith negates the fact. Faith is stubborn by nature! What if what one has been told a fact, but one's faith refuses to accept this person could be telling the truth?

Also, how far does one go, can seeing a video that is certainly corroborated be called faith? Would it not be faith to consider that so many people would be lying when you have digital evidence, which is incapable of making such a decision as to lie or not?

Why do I feel like I just was unwillingly transported to the Philosophy section of the forum?

Edited by psyche101, 21 February 2013 - 05:11 AM.

[psyche101]

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

No I understand your 48/Homeland induced scenario perfectly, why would holding OBL present a risk, yet holding KSM (AQ No2 and mastermind behind 9/11 apparently!) doesn't present a risk to innocent people?

You do not think it is possible for these small minded people to retaliate to such an action?

[psyche101]

Nathan DiYorio, on 21 February 2013 - 01:39 AM, said:

And my response is: why avoid it? What is inherently wrong with the concept of faith that it must be avoided?

Because fact is superior and can be achieved with hard work. Faith requires no hard work, so I see that as a red flag that it is useless. It is my experience that anything worth having is going to cost you in some form or fashion. Faith is handed to one to accept or not.

[Nathan DiYorio]

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

Math does not just change odds, math can answer a question in full without anyone witnessing anything, and with regards to witness testimony it is. We know the Alcubierre drive works, but we do not know how to build it.

I do not agree, I have seen faith that is placed upon stories that are not true, but a persons faith negates the fact. Faith is stubborn by nature! What if what one has been told a fact, but one's faith refuses to accept this person could be telling the truth?

Also, how far does one go, can seeing a video that is certainly corroborated be called faith? Would it not be faith to consider that so many people would be lying when you have digital evidence, which is incapable of making such a decision as to lie or not?

Why do I feel like I just was unwillingly transported to the Philosophy section of the forum?

Math does not give answers, it give suggestions using a system formulated by faulty human minds. As such, whatever answers it would suggest are just as faulty until such time that they can be proven.

You're not understanding. It does not matter if the facts are true or false. The belief in them without self-experience is faith. Whether or not gravity is real is irrelevant. If someone walks up to you and says "Hey, gravity is a real thing and it's why you can't float off into space." and you say "Oh, hey cool." you are taking it on faith that gravity is real. It doesn't matter whether or not it is, because you're taking it on faith that you were told the truth.

You're continuing to equate "Faith" with "False beliefs" which is... wrong.

Editing to add: You're right, though, that this isn't really the topic and morphed into something else completely. If a mod cut a piece of this off and moved the posts to the philosophy board, that would be cool.

I don't know if mods split threads around here, though. I haven't been around frequently enough to know. I'll take it on faith that they do.

Edited by Nathan DiYorio, 21 February 2013 - 05:34 AM.

[psyche101]

Nathan DiYorio, on 21 February 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

Math does not give answers, it give suggestions using a system formulated by faulty human minds. As such, whatever answers it would suggest are just as faulty until such time that they can be proven.

You're not understanding. It does not matter if the facts are true or false. The belief in them without self-experience is faith. Whether or not gravity is real is irrelevant. If someone walks up to you and says "Hey, gravity is a real thing and it's why you can't float off into space." and you say "Oh, hey cool." you are taking it on faith that gravity is real. It doesn't matter whether or not it is, because you're taking it on faith that you were told the truth.

You're continuing to equate "Faith" with "False beliefs" which is... wrong.

Editing to add: You're right, though, that this isn't really the topic and morphed into something else completely. If a mod cut a piece of this off and moved the posts to the philosophy board, that would be cool.

I don't know if mods split threads around here, though. I haven't been around frequently enough to know. I'll take it on faith that they do.

Math is more accurate than self experience  Self experience led us to believe that God sat in the sky and threw thunderbolts at earth and pounded a mighty hammer to make thunder. Science and math taught us that unbalanced electrical charges in the atmosphere from lightning and when it splits ait it creates thunder. Who can see air splitting?

Ya know, I hate philosophy, hippy BS I reckon.

[Nathan DiYorio]

psyche101, on 21 February 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

Math is more accurate than self experience  Self experience led us to believe that God sat in the sky and threw thunderbolts at earth and pounded a mighty hammer to make thunder. Science and math taught us that unbalanced electrical charges in the atmosphere from lightning and when it splits ait it creates thunder. Who can see air splitting?

Ya know, I hate philosophy, hippy BS I reckon.

I don't know who can see the air splitting. I can't, so I'm taking it on faith that the mathematics are correct.

Edited by Nathan DiYorio, 21 February 2013 - 06:52 AM.

[Q24]

I’m going to pretend like the last 10 pages didn’t just happen...

Liquid Gardens, on 17 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

I don't know why you think I wouldn't like it, I just don't really think you are making much of a point. Fine, if you'd like to term the prevention of the FBI arrest by the CIA 'facilitating' that's fair, but that's not the pertinent question; NASA officials 'facilitated' the Challenger disaster by the same logic. The pertinent question if we're stuck on 'facilitation' is 'was the facilitation intentional or inadvertent?'. That's the problem I have with your binary question; where does 'inadvertent facilitation' fit? Because it's possible that they may have taken some action in an effort to prevent future attacks that unintentionally 'facilitated' 9/11, or is that impossible in your view? Which answer of yours does that fall under?

We are getting somewhere.

“if you'd like to term the prevention of the FBI arrest by the CIA 'facilitating' that's fair”

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.

Liquid Gardens, on 17 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

You mean except for the lack of information about when, where, how, what, and if an attack was going to occur?

No, the information was not lacking.  It seems that you still have not read the chapter ‘The System Was Blinking Red’ from the 9/11 Commission Report.  The when, where, how, what and if are all raised.  It’s not detailed down to the day and target(s), but the answers are:  imminent/near-term, in location of Al Qaeda operatives, possibly in the U.S., airliner hijackings, spectacular/multiple attacks.  

It is in no way reasonable for the CIA to facilitate Al Qaeda terrorists inside the U.S. and taking flying lessons under these circumstances.  FBI agent Steve Bongardt knew it: “If this guy [Almihdhar] is in the country, it’s not because he’s going to ****ing Disneyland!”

It would be like calling the police... “There’s a guy wanted for armed robbery waving a gun at people in the street!”... and getting the response, “Can you tell us the minute he plans to shoot, the model of firearm and his specific target?”... “What the hell, someone is going to die”... “Sorry, can’t help, lack of information.  Oh, and by the way, don’t try to stop him yourself - this is a police case.”  You think that’s reasonable LG?  It’s what you are attempting to defend here.

Liquid Gardens, on 17 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

I looked up some quick info on the FBI agent who was prevented from going after the terrorists, did that happen in January 2001? Weren't the warnings and threats reaching their crescendo in August? How 'red' were the threats when the FBI was blocked? I'm just asking, not sure on those specifics.

The CIA withheld information from Bongardt (the investigator on the USS Cole case) from February 2001.  By June 2001 there were stand-up rows between Bongardt and the CIA bin Laden unit.  It was August 2001 when Bongardt learnt that al Mihdhar was in the United States and, after denial of his attempt to pursue the terrorist, made his exclamation quoted above, said that, “someday someone will die” and declared that, “the biggest threat to us now, UBL [Osama bin Laden], is getting the most ‘protection’.”  So we see that all throughout the period when ‘The System Was Blinking Red’ there was a consistent and concerted effort by the CIA to facilitate the 9/11 hijackers.

Liquid Gardens, on 17 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

I tried googling this but didn't see anything, but it might be hard to filter out of all the other results; do you have a more specific source or keyword I could google on this 'CIA's Saudi agent'?

Omar al Bayoumi.

A few facts: -

Bayoumi was employed by a Saudi government contractor but carried out no apparent work - he was described by a colleague as a “ghost employee”.  Both the FBI and even 9/11 hijacker, al Hazmi (who travelled with al Mihdhar), believed that Bayoumi was a Saudi spy.  Inside the United States, Bayoumi met al Mihdhar and al Hazmi, assisted them to open a bank account, co-signed their lease agreement (the landlord a U.S. intelligence informant), paid the rental deposit from his own account, allowed them to borrow his phone and provided information on flight schools.

That is direct assistance to the 9/11 terrorists.  Here is where it gets good...

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.

Along with Richard Clarke, the best sources on this are the 9/11 Commission report and Senator Bob Graham: -

"That a suspected Saudi spy would drive 125 miles to a meeting at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, where he would meet with a consular officer with suspected terrorist ties, and then drive another 7 miles to the one Middle Eastern restaurant—out of more than 134 Middle Eastern restaurants in Los Angeles—where he would happen to sit next to two future terrorists, to whom he would happen to offer friendship and support, cannot credibly be described as a coincidence."

http://www.historyco...omar_al-bayoumi
http://www.salon.com...09/08/graham_8/

Liquid Gardens, on 17 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

We've already thoroughly gone over the out of context 'new Pearl Harbor' quote 'argument'.

The “new Pearl Harbor” quote appears in context of a military roadmap written by those who came to power in 2001.  The only people who attempt to re-frame that context – to pretend it is something to be overlooked - are OCTs.

Liquid Gardens, on 17 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

No, actually I referred to your response as loony, it had nothing to do with CIA actions or the argument content. You seem to have an issue with just defending your position without having a contrasting theory to divert attention to. I asked you questions that vetted your points, you strawmanned me and assumed and stated what my personal position was and what I would and wouldn't do, which I did not state, from these questions. Thus, it was loony.

You said: -
Had our intelligence agencies stopped other potential attacks prior to 9/11 by pouncing on AQ agents as soon as they discovered them, only to find that strategy was not stopping at all the continued attempts, so they had moved on to other strategies?

So would you, or would you not, carry out that action which you are trying to reason the CIA might do?  I mean, if you were pouncing on AQ agents, but terrorist attempts continued, then would you move on to the strategy of tolerating their presence in the United States, assisting them, protecting them from the FBI?  I’m trying to determine if you really think that is a reasonable course of action.

Liquid Gardens, on 17 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

You may have read the same thing as I, I just found out that Bush had requested that threat assessment also, I think it was from Condi's testimony. Quick question: did the CIA prevent the FBI from doing something in August? Did they know where the terrorists were? Was just curious about the timeline.

Please see above.

Liquid Gardens, on 17 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

Here's my supposed "some sort of attack" you are referring to:

"I'll keep in mind that this perspective is being offered by someone who thinks scientists who do not agree with a conspiracy and whose opinions and analysis of the details of the WTC collapses are not at all in conflict with the scientific consensus should be tried for treason."

Here's you on Talking Turkey last September:

"I’d charge Bazant with treason and sedition against citizens of the United States. The court case would require a full computer physics model of the towers, proving his collapse theory impossible and further evidence that due to his qualifications this could not be an accidental error."

Bazant is a scientist who does not agree with the conspiracy, his opinions and analysis are not in conflict with the consensus, and you stated he should be tried for treason. What definition of 'false' are you using?

Noted that in lieu of an explanation for your own double-standard, you are still trying to press an attack on me, still with a false argument too.  I’ll address it quickly...

Please understand the distinction between “scientists” and “Bazant”.  I’d charge “Bazant” with treason, not “scientists”.  Whilst there is reason to believe that “Bazant” is a collaborator, I actually provided many legitimate and broader reasons why more “scientists” do not speak out.  Thank you, but I’m not sure why you are now applying the specific “Bazant” case to all “scientists” for me.

Now what is your excuse?  Why would you not challenge CIA actions (because intelligence work is too much like brain surgery you say) but when an FBI agent on the case states he is not concluding with hindsight, but on the basis of information and procedure prior 9/11, you don’t want to know?

Liquid Gardens, on 17 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

There's a big difference between 'defending' an administration, which I'm not doing, and asking you if you've vetted your points. I don't know why you can't differentiate between the two. I had asked you if you had asked yourself what other threats and 'noise' were being made and providing the environment where these actions and inactions were occurring in and you said yes, almost like you understood that it was necessary to provide context. I don't see what the problem is if I do the same.

I hope the above better defines the environment in which these actions and inactions were occurring.

[psyche101]

Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

I’m going to pretend like the last 10 pages didn’t just happen...

Well that's constructive.

[acidhead]

Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

The “new Pearl Harbor” quote appears in context of a military roadmap written by those who came to power in 2001.  The only people who attempt to re-frame that context – to pretend it is something to be overlooked - are OCTs.I hope the above better defines the environment in which these actions and inactions were occurring.

HW Bush has his prints all over this.

[psyche101]

Nathan DiYorio, on 21 February 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

I don't know who can see the air splitting. I can't, so I'm taking it on faith that the mathematics are correct.

Math can, it has a better understanding than we do. It is our eyes in this case. Your eyes might see a thing, but your constructive brain will lie to you, you can witness an event and still describe the process completely incorrect. Math does not require man to be correct. 1 + 1 stars in the sky will equal 2 stars wether you see it or not no matter what language you speak.

[Q24]

psyche101, on 18 February 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

Good, because such a notion is indeed rather silly, it would seem we are agreed on this as well. So Fox News should not be a reason to dismiss any claim at all, the level of validity should determine that, correct? If Murdoch insists that his paper send out a certain headline, despite it coming from one man in power, or one man on the street, we should only care about what can be proven. Not the label. Fox plagiarises just like reporters plagiarise from Fox. So we need to check a claim as thoroughly as is possible.

Yes of course.  I’m quite happy to use Fox News as a source when there is no reason to doubt validity of a report.  In the case we have discussed I do not accept the Fox News headline and editorial because it is clearly propaganda, i.e. not an accurate reflection of the source video/transcript broadcast by Al Jazeera.

Now this is interesting...

I asked some questions in my last post:  So what did bin Laden do?  Did he select the flights, choose the day, pick the time?  No, none of that, we know from other of his statements.  Did he seek out and recruit the hijackers?  No, the hijackers went to bin Laden.  Did he provide the funding?  There is no evidence of that - the funding is a question that the 9/11 Commission bizarrely claimed to be of no practical significance.  So what direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack?  You won’t ever prove one, because there is none.  Was bin Laden necessary at all?  Along with bin Laden, a great many people were involved with 9/11.  Perhaps we should look at some of those.  But is bin Laden a main player?  I’ll wait for you to answer my question above:  What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack?

I’ll ignore your repetitive claims that bin Laden ‘rejoiced’ or was ‘happy’, neither are necessary to facilitate the attack.  The best/only potential viable answer you provided is this...

psyche101, on 18 February 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

He funded the act.

Ok, can you show me?  Can you back up this claim which you think makes bin Laden responsible for the attack?  I’d be most impressed if you could.  Heck, I’ll not post here again if you can prove that one cent of bin Laden’s money went to the 9/11 hijackers to facilitate the attack.  My understanding of facts is altogether different.  Here is what I know about the funding: -

From my previous post above – Omar al Bayoumi, on the payroll of the Saudi government, assisted two of the hijackers in opening a bank account and personally paid their rent deposit.  Well, no bin Laden there.

Omar Sheikh, known to be connected to Pakistan’s ISI and said to be a British MI6 asset, is reported to have wired $100,000 to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta.  Hmm, no bin Laden here either.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a separate entity of the Al Qaeda “bunch of people” (that’s how you defined them isn’t it), said that he sent the hijackers funding.  Though I’m not sure that such a confession obtained under waterboarding torture can be trusted.  Anyhow, no bin Laden still.

Let’s ask the 9/11 Commission: -

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks.  Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

Damn.  Bin Laden, where are you?

It’s very interesting that bin Laden cited a British source who calculated that the operation cost $500,000 and only after the 9/11 Commission report had also affirmed this figure three months earlier.  Why ever is bin Laden quoting the British and 9/11 Commission rather than his ‘Al Qaeda’ accountants?  Hahaha.  No bin Laden here.

How about FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds, talking of 9/11: -

But I can tell you that the issue, on one side, boils down to money--a lot of money. And it boils down to people and their connections with this money, and that's the portion that, even with this book, has not been mentioned to this day. Because then it starts touching some people in high places.

The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points - and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.

I cannot comment on that. But I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.

http://baltimorechro...elEdmonds.shtml

Still nothing on bin Laden.

So help me out psyche, where are you getting your info?

I think you’ve allowed yourself to be consumed with propaganda.

psyche101, on 18 February 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

Bin Laden funded Al Qaeda

Even that is a misconception – ‘Al Qaeda’ were not funded by bin Laden, not by the mid 90s anyhow.  You need to read the 9/11 Commission report.

And don’t forget that the U.S. taxpayer bankrolled the Mujahideen, which included ‘Al Qaeda’, by $630 million per year come 1987.  That’s a significant investment, far more than bin Laden could ever dream of providing, and not one that would be dropped with the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

psyche101, on 18 February 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

Peter Bergen states that two documents seized from the Sarajevo office of the Illinois based benevolence international foundation show that the organisation was established August 1988. Both of these documents contain minutes of meetings held to establish a new military group and contain the word Al Qaeda. Lawrence Wright also says the same. Also, notes of a meeting Bin Laden and others attended on August 20 1988 indicate "The Military base (al qaida al askariya) was a formal group, basically an organised Islamic faction, it's goal being to lift the word of God and to make his religion victorious, followed by a list of membership requirements. No intention hey? But they noted it twice in documents before it existed?

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.

psyche101, on 18 February 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

Not clear to you, but fair go, only because you are using political correctness to remain deliberately obtuse in this regard.

I do not think that Bin Laden considers a non Sunni a true Muslim. I see no reason to consider that he would regard all Muslims as true Muslims.

A little Mulsim advice from a man well known at times square

He says that "jihad, holy fighting in Allah's course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam....By jihad, Islam is established....By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim."

These twisted mental cases seem to think if you are not with us, you are against us. Some of these people are so deranged that they think that slaughter is holy and pure. I do not think people like that can be helped. It's not as simple a "being a Muslim," as I mentioned, it is just as confusing as Christianity with many factions and many reading and creating their own idea of Islam. Many say it is the religion of peace, and that these men are not Muslims. So if Bin Laden was in fact talking to Muslim's what's a real Muslim then? A Jihadist, or one of the people that say Jihad is wrong? What do Muslim people say? With all this in mind, how could he be speaking for all Muslims?

That's how they get Dhimmi people is it not? He was not speaking for Muslims in general or he might as well include Americans.

Well that is your view, not that of bin Laden: -

Interviewer:  The question posed to you is:  How attached is Al-Qa’ida to the person of Usama Bin Ladin?

Bin Ladin:  Praise be to God, I say in response to your question and repeat what I said before that the matter does not concern this humble subject or Al-Qa'ida.  We are the sons of an Islamic nation, whose leader is Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him.  Our God is one and He is the Almighty Allah.  Our prophet is one, who is Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him.  Our qibla is also one.  We are one nation, with one book.  This Holy Book and the prophet's traditions oblige us under the shari'a to become brothers in faith. All the faithful are brothers -- the faithful are brethren.

The question is not as portrayed in the West that there is an organization known by such and such a name.  This name is very old. It emerged without our intention.  Brother Abu- Ubaydah al-Banshiri, may his soul rest in peace, set up a military training camp for youths to fight the tyrannical, oppressive, and atheist Soviet Union, which really terrorized peaceful civilians. We used to call that training camp the base. The name then stuck. As to ourselves, we are not separate from the nation. We are the sons of the nation and an indivisible part of it. These massive demonstrations from the Philippines in the Far East to Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and Mauritania only express the conscience of the nation. These youths that sacrificed their lives in New York and Washington -- and we pray to God to accept them as martyrs -- were the spokesmen of the true conscience of the nation.

I must accept that bin Laden knows his own views better than you do.

Of course not all Muslims agree with bin Laden, but we are discussing bin Laden’s views, not other peoples’.

psyche101, on 18 February 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

bunch of people

I’ll reiterate that is a good description for those responsible for the 9/11 attack.

psyche101, on 18 February 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

WTF is that???????

You say above that Fox is Murdoch's empire and as such politically tainted and not admissible, but the UK Telegraph is exempt?

What?

I didn’t say that Fox News is inadmissible at all.  It’s only that in the case discussed above (and others I’ve witnessed) the Fox News report demonstrably does not reflect facts of the source material.  In such cases the report is inadmissible, or rather just demonstrably false/worthless.  If you have an equally sound case against the Telegraph reports I linked then let us know.  At least the Telegraph reports cite and, unlike Fox News, quote their sources.  Further, the reports are corroborated by the U.S. Senate report, facts on the ground and numerous security analysts, all of which I referred but you ignore.  I really don’t know what you are complaining about.

psyche101, on 18 February 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

Yes he evaded capture, what sort of a play on words is that? Not that I believe he was under any arrest in Pakistan, he was not able to leave was he? You call it a gentle house arrest, I am not sure what you think changes there. If any Western person who saw him recognised hi, he would have been dead in minutes. He managed to hang you for years, what would have happened if he was found in 2005? 2006? 2008? Captured of shot dead on the spot. He evaded that did he not? Did Pakistan tell anyone hey, you can all stop looking we have him under arrest?

Ah, so you meant that bin Laden evaded death, not evaded capture - a ploy facilitated by and which suited those with an agenda for a ‘War on Terror’.  Anyhow, the whereabouts of bin Laden and detention by the ISI was just a point of interest in opposition to the idea that he was sneaking undetected around the desert, or his non-existent cave network, or whatever lair such villains reside.

psyche101, on 18 February 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

What you have not done is prove him innocent or removed from 911, the hijackers or even so much as a want to slaughter innocent people for fundamentalist twisted religious values.

Don’t you understand?  In a civilised and just society, where rule of law, not rule of the jungle are to prevail, it isn’t up to anyone to prove bin Laden innocent.  It is required to prove bin Laden guilty.  And you are doing a terrible job of that so far.  I’ll say again that I do find bin Laden guilty on certain charges, just not to anything like the degree that Western politics and media have made out – bin Laden is an accessory to the crime, not the principle.  It’s all of those direct perpetrators, from Atta to Bayoumi to the CIA who need to be investigated to reveal the true hand behind 9/11.

[acidhead]

I'm responsible for 911.  It was me.  I planned everything.

[Stundie]

Liquid Gardens, on 21 February 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

The very same to you, Stundie.  Sorry if I jumped down your throat and was too harsh, I'm thinking I read more animosity in your posts than was actually there, my bad.  Ha, indeed, laughing a lot is good policy especially around here, and don't worry if maybe you're slightly annoying at times, you're just joining me as a member of a very large club that includes all of us.  

No problems and don't worry, I take such criticisms on the chin.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 21 February 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

I’ll ignore your repetitive claims that bin Laden ‘rejoiced’ or was ‘happy’, neither are necessary to facilitate the attack.  

Why would you ignore bin Laden rejoicing for the 911 attacks?

Q24, on 18 July 2009 - 08:02 PM, said:

Five Israelis were detained in New York on 9/11 after witnesses within view of the Twin Towers reported them to authorities as…

• "videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery"
  
• "congratulating one another"
  
• "happy"
  
• "jumping for joy"
  
• "celebrating with high fives"

Now ignoring that the above behaviour is disgusting,...

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 February 2013 - 03:56 PM.