Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Persia

Stop Spreading 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

37 posts in this topic

lol... Al Qaeda is without a doubt a branch of the CIA operations. Some people say Iran might be on the same side but just bsing the public for disinformation. Keep yo busy with news, bills, mortgages, threats, terror, inflation, etc.

You see, us rational people would take your conspiracies more seriously if you weren't so damn sure of yourself.

Scientists won't preach that kind of certainty for the theories that they've dedicated years of hard work and mountains of evidence to.

It's called a conspiracy THEORY for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, I would also argue, it was not the US attacked, but the New World Order, and this would be compliant with the Koran war rules. The way this argument would go is, the targets are obviously New World Order targets, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and probably a government building.
So the buildings and the citizens weren't in the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think grandma really liked baskets… but that is not evidence she weaved every one.

Carefull now, grandma doesn't like it when others take credit for her work. Can't have it both ways.

I mentioned Britain as part of the European Union.

Gottcha..

I am not aware of Chinese agents within Al Qaeda - do you have any information?

Well I was refering more to the Soviet occupation days and the mujahideen. China has a Muslim population, so yes, they have a dog in this fight (so to speak). Good luck at getting any info about Chinese agents, mums the word in China.

It is no secret that the official story to date is a half-truth at best.

Well to think any of us will ever know ALL of the facts and details is wishful thinking. But I'm not about to play connect the dots because, for one, they aren't numbered, and two, because they aren't numbered, we can draw any picture (with most of them turning out to be blurry and distorted if not just down right ugly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carefull now, grandma doesn't like it when others take credit for her work. Can't have it both ways.

On the contrary, grandma was not taking the credit: -

  • “Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it.
    ~bin Laden statement through Peshawar Afghan Islamic Press, 16th Sep. 01
  • “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie.”
    ~bin Laden interview with Karachi Ummat, 28th Sep. 01
    http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-fbis.pdf

In actual fact, grandma gave credit where it was due: -

Woah there grandma old girl…

I got told you were responsible and giving out the orders.

Surely you meant to say, “I, Commander-General bin Laden, ordered Lieutenant Atta…”?

Now you tell us Atta was actually “in charge”, “Commander-General” and you but “agreed” with him.

This is really ruining your mastermind image, grandma.

Seriously for one moment, if this had ever gone to trial bin Laden could never have been convicted of the official charge, prosecutors would struggle to even mount a case. An accessory to the crime? Yes, there is enough evidence of foreknowledge. The director of the crime? No, the admissible evidence is just not there.

Mohammed Atta on the other hand could be nailed every step of the way. But then who was Atta? He was no lifelong Al Qaeda supporter, he was a well educated Westernised man who liked nights out drinking and dropped on bin Laden’s doorstep only when a CIA infiltration plan began, he was no Jihadist. The same goes for the majority of the other hijackers.

Even a 9/11 Commissioner later questioned it: -

“Well, at the top of my list happens to be a personal one, and that is, I could never figure out why these 19 fellas did what they did. We looked into their backgrounds. In one or two cases, they were apparently happy, well-adjusted, not particularly religious - in one case quite well-to-do, had a girlfriend. We just couldn’t figure out why he did it. I still don’t know. And I think one of the great unanswered questions - a good topic for investigative reporters - would be: why did these 19 do what they did? We speculated in the report about why the enemy hates us, but we simply weren’t able to answer the questions about the 19.”

~Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of 9/11 Commission

Well of course you could not answer the question, Lee - you were looking in the wrong direction.

It is beyond doubt to me, and all the evidence I’m putting forward supports it - some group(s), whether that be rogue intelligence or a political faction, domestic or foreign, wanted a greater U.S. influence in the Middle East, 9/11 was their operation and bin Laden was setup as the pretext for intervention.

Well to think any of us will ever know ALL of the facts and details is wishful thinking. But I'm not about to play connect the dots because, for one, they aren't numbered, and two, because they aren't numbered, we can draw any picture (with most of them turning out to be blurry and distorted if not just down right ugly).

True there are no numbers to guide.

But wait up - is that an elephant in the room?

We’d better investigate…

d8d8a.jpg

What do you mean my dots don't fit?

The unconnected dots - well they are irrelevant!

No elephants here - it’s OBL!

:lol:

That may seem like an exaggeration but it is not far off the mark: -

“The [9/11 Commission's] investigation was not what we call an investigation. It was to develop a storyline of what happened to be fed to the American people and to receive their acquiescence.”

~Mike Gravel, U.S. Senator

These are not Alex Jones conspiracy theories I’m quoting - it’s Senators, Commissioners, FBI officers, official reports and interviews, mainstream sources. That the official 9/11 story presented is a whitewash, is now in the open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, grandma was not taking the credit: -

Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it.

~bin Laden statement through Peshawar Afghan Islamic Press, 16th Sep. 01

Now there's a classic. Of course he didn't do it himself. Nice play on words.

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie."

~bin Laden interview with Karachi Ummat, 28th Sep. 01

http://www.fas.org/i...ra/ubl-fbis.pdf

I don't think anyone would admit to something that would put thier own life in danger.

In actual fact, grandma gave credit where it was due: -

"Muhammad ((Atta)) from the Egyptian family was in charge of the group."

~bin Laden videotape, 2001

http://www.defense.g...20011213ubl.pdf

Great! But, me wonders why most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi instead of Egyptian.

And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa…"

~bin Laden videotape, 2004

http://english.aljaz...3336457223.html

Can I connect some dots of my own here?

Woah there grandma old girl…

I got told you were responsible and giving out the orders.

Surely you meant to say, "I, Commander-General bin Laden, ordered Lieutenant Atta…"?

Now you tell us Atta was actually "in charge", "Commander-General" and you but "agreed" with him.

This is really ruining your mastermind image, grandma.

Osama bin Laden was first indicted by the United States on June 8, 1998, when a grand jury indicted Osama bin Laden on charges of killing five Americans and two Indians in the November 14, 1995, truck bombing of a U.S.-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh. Bin Laden was charged with "conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States" and prosecutors further charged that bin Laden is the head of the terrorist organization called al-Qaeda, and that he was a major financial backer of Islamic fighters worldwide. Bin Laden denied involvement but praised the attack. Link

See a pattern developing?

Seriously for one moment, if this had ever gone to trial bin Laden could never have been convicted of the official charge, prosecutors would struggle to even mount a case. An accessory to the crime? Yes, there is enough evidence of foreknowledge. The director of the crime? No, the admissible evidence is just not there.

In the case of 9/11 that's true. But as usual, Bin Laden denied involvement but praised the attack. Ever heard the saying deny or die?

Mohammed Atta on the other hand could be nailed every step of the way. But then who was Atta? He was no lifelong Al Qaeda supporter, he was a well educated Westernised man who liked nights out drinking and dropped on bin Laden's doorstep only when a CIA infiltration plan began, he was no Jihadist. The same goes for the majority of the other hijackers.

Even a 9/11 Commissioner later questioned it: -

"Well, at the top of my list happens to be a personal one, and that is, I could never figure out why these 19 fellas did what they did. We looked into their backgrounds. In one or two cases, they were apparently happy, well-adjusted, not particularly religious - in one case quite well-to-do, had a girlfriend. We just couldn't figure out why he did it. I still don't know. And I think one of the great unanswered questions - a good topic for investigative reporters - would be: why did these 19 do what they did? We speculated in the report about why the enemy hates us, but we simply weren't able to answer the questions about the 19."

~Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of 9/11 Commission

http://web.archive.o...11hamilton.html

Well of course you could not answer the question, Lee - you were looking in the wrong direction.

I'm sure Lee doesn't need anyone to do his thinking for him. I'll have to look into this one.

But wait up - is that an elephant in the room?

Don't you know a bunny when you see one? :lol:

These are not Alex Jones conspiracy theories I'm quoting - it's Senators, Commissioners, FBI officers, official reports and interviews, mainstream sources. That the official 9/11 story presented is a whitewash, is now in the open.

I'm sure Alex Jones praises all this but denies involvement. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course he didn't do it himself.

And the truth is revealed!

So what direct input did bin Laden have to the operation?

I suggest minimal, compared to that of Atta.

Osama bin Laden was first indicted by the United States on June 8, 1998, when a grand jury indicted Osama bin Laden on charges of killing five Americans and two Indians in the November 14, 1995, truck bombing of a U.S.-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh. Bin Laden was charged with "conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States" and prosecutors further charged that bin Laden is the head of the terrorist organization called al-Qaeda, and that he was a major financial backer of Islamic fighters worldwide. Bin Laden denied involvement but praised the attack. Link

See a pattern developing?

There is a pattern.

Please consider this example in the mix: -

“… I had sent 250 Mujahidin. We got moral support from local Muslims. In one explosion one hundred Americans were killed, then 18 more were killed in fighting. One day our men shot down an American helicopter. The pilot got out. We caught him, tied his legs and dragged him through the streets.”

~bin Laden interview, 1997

It appears bin Laden was not shy of admitting where he was involved and had ordered direct action. If my calculations are correct, bin Laden admitted right there that over 119 Americans were killed by Mujahideen fighters in Somalia, brutal detail and all, specifically under his direction.

Yet in the same interview, immediately prior to the above excerpt, he denied responsibility for the killing of five Americans in the Riyadh bombing.

The pattern seen is…

  • When bin Laden gave a direct order, he accepted responsibility for the action.
  • When bin Laden had a peripheral role (moral support, incitement, foreknowledge), he denied responsibility.

In the case of 9/11, he denied responsibility and credited Mohammed Atta. If the pattern above is followed, this suggests bin Laden was not involved in directing the operation, but rather had the peripheral role seen before.

It seems the 9/11 Commission would have done better to investigate backgrounds of the actual hijackers, their movements, associates and support network. This would have revealed all those who were directly responsible for the attack.

And what would they have found?

Hijackers who were Westernised.

Hijackers protected by the CIA.

Hijackers living with a U.S. informant.

Hijackers related to an Israeli informant.

Hijackers funded by an MI6 asset.

Hijackers assisted by Saudi government agents.

Hijackers in a plot that would benefit all those links - the United States, Israel, Britain, Saudi Arabia.

As you said… bin Laden didn't do it himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has said the U.S. had been using the bin Laden network as proxies in the Xinjiang region (East Turkistan/Uighurs) of China: -

“I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.

I know you are going to say 'Oh my God, we went there and bombed the medical factory in the 1990s during Clinton, we declared him Most Wanted' and what I'm telling you is, with those groups, we had operations in Central Asia, and that relationship - using them as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict - we used them all the way until September 11.

There is so much information that of course our Mainstream Media has not reported, but there have been some good books written on the topic, and that is: What we have been doing, what we were doing in those years, all the way, all the way until that day of September 11, in Central Asia, in what they call East Turkistan where we are talking about the Uighurs, and with Bin Laden, via Turkey.”

In relation to the above, I came across this: -

The United States wants to incite conflict between China and the Muslims. The Muslims of Xinjiang are being blamed for the bomb blasts in Beijing. But I think these explosions were sponsored by the American CIA. If Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and China get united, the United States and India will become ineffective.

~bin Laden interview, 18 Mar 97

Why is this important?

When Muslims terrorists Xinjiang were blamed for attacks, bin Laden denied it and suggested the CIA were responsible. FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has effectively validated that claim. This tactic of intelligence agencies carrying out attacks and blaming Muslims or others is not new - see the Lavon Affair and Operation Northwoods - but the above example is far more recent and relevant to the same group(s) held responsible for 9/11.

After the above, it’s interesting bin Laden said this of 9/11: -

“The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him. Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year.

Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.”

~bin Laden, 28 Sep 01

It is possible this statement was prompted by genuine surprise at the extent of the attack.

And he was right about Xinjiang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what would they have found?

Hijackers who were Westernised.

Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawafal-Hazim were both experienced and respected jihadist in the eyes of al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden. Mihdhar and Hazmi both had prior experience fighting in Bosnia and had trained during the 1990s at camps in Afghanistan. When Bin Laden committed to the September 11 attacks plot idea, he assigned both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the plot. Both were so eager to participate in operations within the United States, that they obtained visas in April 1999. Once selected, Mihdhar and Hazmi were sent to the Mes Aynk training camp in Afghanistan. In late 1999, Hazmi, Attash, and Yemeni went to Karachi, Pakistan to see Mohammed, who instructed them on Western cultue and travel; however, Mihdhar did not go to Karachi, instead returning to Yemen.

Hijackers protected by the CIA.

Hijackers and the ISI connection.

9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta receives $100,000 from accounts in Pakistan. The money is transferred to two of his accounts in Florida.

Link

Summer 2000: Saeed Sheikh Fequently calls ISI director.

In 2002, French author Bernard-Henri Levy is presented evidence by government officials in New Delhi, India, that Saeed Sheikh makes repeated calls to ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed during the summer of 2000. Later, Levy gets unofficial confirmation from sources in Washington regarding these calls that the information he was given in India is correct. He notes that someone in the United Arab Emirates using a variety of aliases sends Mohamed Atta slightly over $100,000 between June and September of this year (see June 29 2000-September 18 2000 and (July-August 2000), and the timing of these phone calls and the money transfers may have been the source of news reports that Mahmood Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send $100,000 to Mohamed Atta (see October,

2001. However, he also notes that there is evidence of Sheikh sending Atta $100,000 in August 2001 (see Early August 2001, so the reports could refer to that, or both $100,000 transfers could involve Mahmood Ahmed, Saeed Sheikh, and Mohamed Atta.

Link

ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is replaced in the face of US pressure after links are discovered between him, Saeed Sheikh, and the funding of the 9/11 attacks. Link

Thanks for the idea. It never occured to me to look for a Pakistani-ISI link to 9/11. Looks like we're on the same mission now (sorta). You implicate the CIA and US, and I'll implicate the ISI and Pakistan.

Hijackers in a plot that would benefit all those links - the United States, Israel, Britain, Saudi Arabia.

I hate to burst your bubble, but, I don't see how any of the nations you mention here have benefitted. Worse off if anything.

As you said… bin Laden didn't do it himself.

As it would be humanly impossible to do so for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawafal-Hazim were both experienced and respected jihadist in the eyes of al-Qaeda leader…

Yes Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi have backgrounds to be expected of suicidal Jihadists. They were unaccustomed to the West, uneducated, their English was poor, held longterm association with Al Qaeda, had terrorist connections and ties to the U.S. Embassy bombing and U.S.S. Cole attack. These were the two hijackers assisted by Saudi government workers inside the United States and protected by the CIA , described in my post #23.

Another of the hijackers (Nawaf’s brother, Salem al-Hazmi) also had longterm connection with Al Qaeda.

Due to the above evidence, it appears those three were genuine Jihadists.

Then look at the rest; the majority

Their first association with Al Qaeda only came in 1999-2000, a number of them were university educated, not particularly religious and/or had spent significant time living in the West, including the ringleader Mohammed Atta. It is exactly these background circumstances of the hijackers that led the 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman, Lee Hamilton, to ask: “why did these 19 do what they did?”

That is before considering reports that an associate of Atta, a certain Wolfgang Bohringer, worked for the CIA. And that Ziad Jarrah was related to an Israeli informant - recruiting through friends and family is a favourite of intelligence services. And the further CIA, ISI, MI6 and Saudi connections.

I mean, come on, don’t tell me this is all normal or coincidence.

Thanks for the idea. It never occured to me to look for a Pakistani-ISI link to 9/11. Looks like we're on the same mission now (sorta). You implicate the CIA and US, and I'll implicate the ISI and Pakistan.

Why would you pick and choose like that?

If there is evidence implicating any group then they go in the pot.

I don’t find it relevant where they come from - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Britain, Israel or the United States.

The evidence leads the way, not the nationality.

I think that is a very relevant ISI connection you put forward and if you search “Omar Sheikh” or “$100,000” you will see that I have brought it up many times before.

It is this issue I was referring to in my post above when I mentioned a British “MI6 asset”. Omar Sheikh was ISI/MI6/Al Qaeda rolled into one - the ‘go between’. As you have noted, Omar Sheikh is reported to have wired funds to Mohammed Atta in the United States.

Here is what the 9/11 Commission had to say on the funding issue: -

“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.”

Is it really “of little practical significance” if the money came from an intelligence asset?

You see how the official investigation whitewashed areas?

I hate to burst your bubble, but, I don't see how any of the nations you mention here have benefitted. Worse off if anything.

No worries, it’s a ‘fact bubble’ - what anyone sees or not doesn’t affect it :P

You don’t see that neutralising bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, fierce regional enemies of Israel and Saudi Arabia long prior to 9/11, was a benefit to those countries; U.S. allies? How do you think 9/11 has weakened the position of Israel and Saudi Arabia?

To see the separate U.S. benefits, it is necessary to understand the initial objectives: -

  • To increase influence in the Gulf region.
  • To increase military spending back to Cold War levels.
  • To control access to the region’s oil.

These were stated objectives prior to 2001 deemed essential to maintaining American global pre-eminence into the 21st century. To those who set these objectives there was no greater prize or benefit to be had. All were then achieved due to 9/11, an event within the year those same policy-makers came to power.

It doesn’t matter here if we think 9/11 has somehow been bad for American global pre-eminence. Next to what the policy-makers believed were the vital objectives, our own opinion is not important. It is they who drive the strategy, not us, and it is their objectives which have been achieved.

It also doesn’t matter if we think 9/11 was not necessary to achieving the objectives, because once again, they thought an event of such scale was necessary.

All of the above is well documented - if you need a source on any particular area please let me know.

As it would be humanly impossible to do so for anyone.

Yes.

But you know what I’m asking: what was the involvement of bin Laden compared to others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the latest issue of the al Qaeda English-language magazine "Inspire", an author appears to take offense to the "ridiculous" theory repeatedly spread by Ahmadinejad that the 9/11 terror attacks were actually carried out by the U.S. government in order to provide a pretext to invade the Middle East.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-iran-ahmadinejad-stop-spreading-911-conspiracy/story?id=14620643

A parody from 2008 reflecting the above opinion:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful conversation Q24 & Stardrive. Really nice to see the issues discussed rationally.

I personally side with Q24 on the issue. Not in that I can connect any dots, but in that the facts seem to place the official 9/11 story in doubt. make the official story an insult to the American public and the global population in general.

Q24 - Great work :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful conversation Q24 & Stardrive. Really nice to see the issues discussed rationally.

Thanks, something else came up and our debate had slipped my mind. Stay tuned, I'll be back. original.gif

Edit: Q24, my apologies. I didn't mean any disrespect. You have my word I'll return and respond.

Edited by Stardrive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.