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 6
Still Waters

Bin Laden was not buried at sea,

781 posts in this topic

Perhaps not ignoring, but surely, not trusting data from a source you don't trust is perfectly reasonable though?

As I said, "Honesty from the source doesn't make the work of a researcher any easier."

The same applies in reverse.

Trust isn't something you give to any source. Trust is something you apply to the level of verification. Haven't you heard all those TV dramas about how a tip or a report has a "high probability of confidence"? They aren't saying they trust whomever gave them the tip. They are saying that the tip itself has checked out as being extremely likely to be true. This is the running theme in intelligence gathering.

"Again, the source is a consideration, but hardly (or even mostly) the most significant factor in determining the truth. "Trust, but verify" refers to the individual reports, not to the general credibility of the source."

"As far as sources go, one never (at least, the people who matter) trust them right off the bat."

"You don't look for truth in terms of credibility. You look for facts, but being as they are occasionally difficult to come by, you conditionally settle for conclusions that can be verified."

"It is up to the individual to determine whether or not what they hear is true or false by determining the circumstances, because they won't be able to determine a thing just thinking in terms of credibility and reliability."

True. But if people are intelligent, and aware enough then they can at least operate in the knowledge that they are forever biased and humiliated by their own brains.

Why would you trust them to be so?

Trusting individuals and people won't get you any closer to determining whether or not they are telling the truth or lying. The only way to determine that is to vet the data itself, not the sources.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post-50209-0-03457200-1395636866_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-50209-0-03457200-1395636866_thumb.j

"Zero Dark Thirty" was a great movie!

I am sure that al-Qaeda can vouch for events that were depicted in the movie.. After all, al-Qaeda has admitted U.S. special forces killed Osama bin Laden, which explains the leadership change within al-Qaeda shortly after its admission.

In other words, Osama bin Laden is no longer around.

.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should have told anyone interested in the discussion that regarding Bin Laden's death, the Leader of Pakistan is clearly not the best source of information.

You are correct, however, years later, Osama bin Laden mentioned President Obama by name, and that, in addition to a number of tapes released over the years after the 9/11 attack.

I've numbered your questions, to make this response a little easier to follow...

1 - Probably.

It has since been confirmed from a variety of sources that bin Laden was killed in the U.S. raid in Pakistan.

2 - Yes, but they also strenuously denied it on a number of occasions. A source who can commit to roughly one story would be more useful here.

Let's take another look.

Al Qaeda Confirms Bin Laden’s Death

Al Qaeda released a statement on militant Web sites Friday confirming the death of Osama bin Laden, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadi Web sites.

http://www.nytimes.c...qaeda.html?_r=0

Al Qaeda admits bin Laden's death online

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

http://www.cbsnews.c...s-death-online/

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

Bin Laden's death would be a "curse" for the US and urged an uprising in Pakistan, the statement added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...h-asia-13313201

With statements such as those, it doesn't sound like al-Qaeda has any plans to print a retraction in the future.

3 - Yes.

That is correct! There was a leadership change within al-Qaeda, and changes were made in leadership shortly after al-Qaeda announced the death of bin Laden.

4 - Yes, but also No. Very similar to answer number 2.

Read from this link.

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=13527830

5 - DNA was used to confirm that the DNA was from Osama. It did not prove his death. It did not prove much, beyond that someone had some OBL DNA in their back pocket.

Let's take another look.

DNA Confirms bin Laden Death

http://www.nbcnews.c...h/#.Uy_cQiqF-_A

Multiple methods used to confirm the death of Osama bin Laden.

They did indeed. A LOT of warnings. From intelligence agencies and governments all around the world. After the attacks Cheney, Bush, Rice and a host of others have made inaccurate statements about their level of knowledge beforehand.

When Bush can stand in front of the world's media, and openly say "We had no way of knowing." and everyone just says 'OK' even though that's a bare-faced-lie, you end up with all manner of odd conspiracy theories popping up all over the place.

Bush simply could not admit that he dropped the ball because he ignored numerous warnings from around the world that al-Qaeda would use aircraft to attack America. Rice, the CIA, FBI and the FAA, had numerous warnings the attack was coming from the air.

The Philippine government had warned the United States in 1995 that terrorist would use aircraft to kill thousands of people and in case you missed it, CIA headquarters was targeted for an aerial attack as well. One of those terrorist of the Bojinka Plot went on to bomb WTC1 in 1993, and he is the nephew of the mastermind of the 9/11 attack.

I left the Philippines a month before the 911 attack and commented in Manila as to why airport security in the United States was not up to the level in the Philippines. The very next month on September 11, 2001, my concern was realized.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply to Skyeagle's questions:

1. GOV says they 'got OBL'

Not just the U.S. government, but from al-Qaeda and other sournces as well, which explains why al-Qaeda announced that bin Laden was killed by the United States and explains the leadership change within al-Qaeda shortly after its announcement..

2. Internet websites claiming to be al-Qaeda 'claim' OBL killed by American military

Which once again, explains the leadership change within al-Qaeda shortly after that announcement.

3. Internet websites claiming to be al-Qaeda 'claim' OBL killed by American military and leadership

changed.

Which explains why no one has heard from bin Laden lately.

4. Amal al-Sadah (purportedly OBL's 5th and youngest wife from Yemen) purportedly admited

to Pakistani authorities that she witnessed OBL killed by a single shot to the head as he looked

out the 3rd floor window of the building inside the compound in Abottabad..... ~she also admitted

, through extremist an extremist websites with claims to be with al-Qaeda,

that she witnessed a helicopter explode upon take off, crashing and killing all occupants inside,

including her late husband OBL.

The helicopter was already airborne when it crashed and did not explode on takeoff, which can be determined by the way the intact tail rotor was hanging over the wall.. The destribution of debris within the compound indicated the helicopter was blown up on the ground, not in the air. There would have been clear indicators if the helicopter exploded in the air.

You have to read the rest of the story and not judge a book solely by its cover.

5.GOV says DNA was used to prove DNA was OBL's

We also know that other means were used to confirm the body of bin Laden.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly do not know what to believe surrounding OBL's purported existence, alleged claims of

activities and death.

Everything is circumstantial in my opinion.

If you were President of the United States, would you have made such an announcement to the international community that bin Laden was dead if you were not 100% sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were President of the United States, would you have made such an announcement to the international community that bin Laden was dead if you were not 100% sure?

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No

I would not do so either, however, President Obama reported to the world that Osama bin Laden was killed and short time afterward, al-Qaeda admitted that bin Laden was killed and shortly after that, al-Qaeda reported that Ayman al-Zawahiri, is now the new leader of al-Qaeda.

Ayman al-Zawahiri to head al-Qaida following Bin Laden's death

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/16/ayman-al-zawahri-al-qaida

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It cant get any more Stupid than Believing anything but What actually Happened ! Fish -DIsh of the Day one serving of a Osama bin Laden !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take another look.

No. Let's not. we've established that Al-Qaeda sources have supported BOTH arguments at various points. We can both go and find a quote to back up our story from those same people over and over AND OVER and OVER again, ad infinitum. It suited them to change their story, several times, so quoting them when they happen to agree with you means nothing. The same goes for OBL's daughter, alleged wife and a bunch of other sources who haven't told the same story twice.

Multiple methods used to confirm the death of Osama bin Laden.

I could pull a hair out of your head SkyEagle, and use that to 'prove' it's your DNA. I believe that due to your repeated posting on this messageboard, you are very much alive. DNA in and of itself proves nothing more than genetic identity.

Bush simply could not admit that he dropped the ball because he ignored numerous warnings from around the world that al-Qaeda would use aircraft to attack America. Rice, the CIA, FBI and the FAA, had numerous warnings the attack was coming from the air.

So what they did, for over a year, was repeatedly, and enormously, lie to the American public and the world. Lie, after lie after lie and no-one ever taken to task. Endless press conferences and appearances: "we couldn't have known", "it was inconceivable", "never could have guessed", "unpredictable".

In ANY OTHER country IN THE WORLD, for a politician to so obviously lie about such an event would have raised questions, or been involved in a specific inquiry. Not in the good ol' US of A though...

If you were President of the United States, would you have made such an announcement to the international community that bin Laden was dead if you were not 100% sure?

If In was the POTUSA, I wouldn't tell lies to millions of people, on camera, about the deaths of thousands and then continue about my business as if it was no problem. Clearly, me and ol' George "dubya" are very different people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Let's not. we've established that Al-Qaeda sources have supported BOTH arguments at various points. [ We can both go and find a quote to back up our story from those same people over and over AND OVER and OVER again, ad infinitum. It suited them to change their story, several times, so quoting them when they happen to agree with you means nothing. The same goes for OBL's daughter, alleged wife and a bunch of other sources who haven't told the same story twice.

During accident investigations, there are usually conflicting eyewitness testimony, but in such cases, what methods are used to make a determination as to what truly happened?

Let's look at these facts once again because I think you are missing something.

* The President of the United States reported that Osama bin Laden was killed in a message to the whole world.

If you were the President of the United States, would you announce to the international community that bin Laden was killed if you were not absolutely sure? I don't think so!

* What can be determined from the helicopter wreckage at bin Laden's compound?

* Why does the wreckage support President Obama's announcement that bin Laden was killed by the United States in Pakistan?

* What information can be ascertained from the design of the tail rotor that was photographed at bin Laden's compound in Pakistan?

* Was there a report from a local resident as the raid was unfolding? Let's take a look here.

http://mashable.com/...bin-laden-raid/

The answers to the questions above can firmly establish the United States conducted a raid in Pakistan, as witnessed by the local residents, which resulted in announcements by the United States and al-Qaeda that Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. special forces.

The fact there was a leadership change within al-Qaeda after the announcements by the United States and al-Qaeda was another indicator that bin Laden was terminated in May 2011. In other works, bin Laden was very much alive in the years after the 9/11 attack and the United States pulled the plug on bin Laden's life in 2011.

No amount of denial can change those facts. The questions above are just a few of the pieces of a puzzle that when placed in their proper positions, they can reveal an image of what the puzzle is all about despite conflicting accounts from witnesses.

There is no question that al-Qaeda reported the death of Osama bin Laden and was killed by the United States and there is no question there was a leadership change within al-Qaeda shortly after the announcement by al-Qaeda that bin Laden was killed by the United States.

When there are conflicting testimonies, facts and evidence are used to determine the true nature of what occurred.

I could pull a hair out of your head SkyEagle, and use that to 'prove' it's your DNA.

As a reminder, DNA was not the only method used to determine the identity of Osama bin Laden's body.

How did U.S. confirm the body was bin Laden's?

http://www.cnn.com/2....laden.body.id/

There are those who were unaware that other methods were used to identify bin Laden's body.

So what they did, for over a year, was repeatedly, and enormously, lie to the American public and the world. Lie, after lie after lie and no-one ever taken to task. Endless press conferences and appearances: "we couldn't have known", "it was inconceivable", "never could have guessed", "unpredictable".

I will step to the front of the line and tell you that Bush received warnings from international sources that al-Qaeda planned to attack the United States with aircraft and the government took those reports seriously., which explains a number of anti-terrorist exercises. How many involved aircraft in the following list?

PRE-9/11 PREPARATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Drill Date Scenario

1 NORAD Between 1991 and 2001 Foreign hijacked airliner crashing into famous US building

2 White House, Richard Clarke 1998 Terrorists load Lear Jet with explosive, attack Washington DC

3 NORAD 1999-2001 Hijacked aircraft hit many targets, including WTC, MASCAL

4 Able Danger: DIA, US-SOCOM, LIWA Dec. 1999-2001 Manipulate al Qaeda; data mining (patsy control)

5 Stratus Ivy: DIA Dec. 1999-2001 (?) Operate on patsies “out of the box” (patsy control)

6 Door Hop Galley: DIA (?) Dec. 1999-2001 (?) Still secret (patsy control?)

7 Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group (P2OG) unknown “Stimulating reactions” of terrorists (patsy control)

8 NORAD (NEADS) Exercises: UN HQ, NYC October 16, 2000 Terrorist crashes Federal Express plane into UN HQ NYC

9 NORAD (NEADS) Exercises: UN HQ NYC October 23, 2000 Terrorist crashes FedEx plane with WMD into UN HQ NYC

10 Pentagon MASCAL exercise Oct. 24-28, 2000 Commercial aircraft hits Pentagon, MASCAL

11 FAA drill December, 2000 Scenario: a chartered flight out of Ohio that had turned its transponder off

12 Positive Force ’01: NORAD plus a dozen agencies; worldwide April 17-26, 2001 COG; attacks on transportation; one scenario: terrorist group hijacking commercial airliner and flying it into Pentagon (Pentagon attack)

13 Unified Vision ’01: US JFCOM; US CENTCOM; US SOCOM: 40 agencies May 7-24, 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan (prepared Operation Enduring Freedom)

14 Red Ex (Recognition, Evaluation, and Decision-Making Exercise); NYC OEM; FDNY; NYPD; FEMA; FBI May 11, 2001 Plane crashes and building collapses in New York City (WTC attack, demolition)

15 Amalgam Virgo ’01: US-Canada multi-agency drill; NORAD; SEADS; Coast Guard, Army, Navy June 1-2, 2001 UAV drone launched from rogue freighter in Gulf of Mexico or cruise missile from barge in Atlantic Ocean; Joint Based Expeditionary Connectivity Center (JBECC) mobile radar command center tested. (Pentagon attack)

16 Mall Strike 2001, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (near Shanksville); 600 local first responders and emergency managers June 16, 2001 Toxic chemical agent and the simulated release of radiation and radiological contamination; (indoctrination of first responders).

17 FAA Drill: FBI Miami field office, Miami-Dade County Police Department. Summer 2001 Varig airlines Boeing 767 hijacked over Florida

18 Ft. Belvoir, Davison Army Airfield helicopter base MASCAL June 29, 2001 Scenario based on plane hitting Pentagon (indoctrination of first responders).

19 US Department of Transportation Hijacking Exercise August 31, 2001 US Dept. of Transportation Crisis Management Center drilled hijacks; simulated cell phone calls.

20 NORAD, NEADS (Vigilant Guardian) September 6, 2001 Tokyo to Anchorage flight hijacked by “Mum Hykro” to Vancouver and San Francisco

21 NORAD, NEADS (Vigilant Guardian) September 6, 2001 Seoul to Anchorage flight hijacked by “Lin Po” to Seattle

22 NORAD, NEADS (Vigilant Guardian) September 9, 2001 UK to NYC flight hijacked, blown up

23 NORAD SEADS NEADS (Vigilant Guardian) September 10, 2001 Ilyushin IL-62 from Cuba hijacked by asylum seekers, lands at Dobbins Air Force Base in Georgia

ON 9/11

Drill Date Scenario

24 FBI training exercise in Monterey, California for FBI/CIA Anti-Terrorist Task Force Through 9/11 Diverts top FBI, CIA anti-terrorist and special operations agents and heavy equipment away from Boston, NYC, Washington DC

25 NORAD annual readiness drill, Cheyenne Mountain, CO (Vigilant Guardian) 9/11 Full ‘battle staff’ levels to test entire organization

26 Vigilant Guardian: NORAD, NEADS, US-Canada 9/11 Live-fly hijacking and air defense; hijack multiplication, diversion and confusion

27 NORAD/JCS Vigilant Warrior Through 9/11 Reported by Richard Clarke

28 Operation Southern Watch Through 9/11 Diverts 174th Fighter Wing, New York Air National Guard, to Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, to impose no-fly zone over southern Iraq

29 Operation Northern Watch Through 9/11 Diverts 6 fighters from Langley AFB sent to Incirlik AFB, Turkey to impose no-fly zone over northern Iraq

30 Operation Northern Vigilance Through 9/11 Diverts fighters, 350 personnel to Alaska and northern Canada to counter a Russian bomber drill

31 Operation Northern Guardian, Keflavik AFB, Iceland Through 9/11 Diverts fighters from Langley Air Force Base (Virginia) deployed to Keflavik AFB, Iceland to counter a Russian bomber drill

32 Red Flag, Nellis AFB, Nevada: 100 pilots 9/11 Diverts most F-15s of 71st Fighter Squadron, Langley AFB, VA; DC ANG’s 121st Fighter Squadron of Andrews Air Force Base also depleted.

33 Andrews AFB local drill 9/11 Diverts 3 F-16s to North Carolina

34 National Reconnaissance Office drill, Chantilly, Virginia 9/11 Simulated plane crash into high-rise government building; satellite imaging (WTC attack)

35 Tripod II, New York City 9/11 Response to biochemical attack; run from backup command center at Pier 92, Hudson River.

36 Fort Meyer VAEducation Centertraining drill for local firemen 9/11 Assembled and indoctrinated Pentagon first responders.

37 Timely Alert II, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 9/11 Indoctrination of WTC first responders.

38 World Trade Center Emergency Drill, Fiduciary Trust Co., 97th floor, South Tower 9/11 Meeting called to assemble and silence unreliable outside contractors?

39 Global Guardian, STRATCOM: Offutt AFB, Nebraska; Barksdale AFB, Louisiana; Minot AFB, North Dakota; Whiteman AFB, Missouri. 9/11 Nuclear warfighting; Armageddon. (deterrence of Russia and China during invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan)

40 Amalgam Warrior 9/11 Large live-fly air defense and air intercept, tracking, and surveillance drill; air defense against foreign retaliation.

41 Crown Vigilance, Air Combat Command 9/11 No details known.

42 Apollo Guardian, US Space Command 9/11 No details known.

43 AWACS drill, ordered by NORAD commander Gen. Larry Arnold 9/11 Two AWACS aircraft from Tinker AFB, Oklahoma sent over Washington DC and Florida; surveillance of capital and president during coup.

44 Global Guardian Computer Network Attack 9/11 Enemy forces “war dialed” STRATCOM’s telephone and fax systems; “bad insider” has access to key C³ system (missile launch option)

45 STRATCOM Strategic Advisory Committee, Offutt AFB, Nebraska; Andrews AFB, MD; Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio. 9/11 Three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes (Doomsday or Looking Glass) airborne; passengers include Brent Scowcroft; Warren Buffet at Offutt. (Committee. of Public Safety option?)

IN ADVANCED PREPARATION ON 9/11

Drill Date Scenario

46 Amalgam Virgo ‘02 Scheduled for June 2002 Air defense, interception, surveillance, and pursuit drill; Delta 757 with real Delta pilots, actors as passengers, FBI as hijackers – deviated from Salt Lake City to Hawaii; Canadian police to hijack

When there are conflicting accounts, and yes, even lies, there are means that can be used to determine who is right and who is wrong. The government doesn't always tell the truth, however, there are means that can be used to determine the rest of the story.

In ANY OTHER country IN THE WORLD, for a politician to so obviously lie about such an event would have raised questions, or been involved in a specific inquiry. Not in the good ol' US of A though..

Bush, Jr. was not very popular aboard nor even in America, but I would not have expected Bush, Jr. to go on camera and admit that he was aware of numerous warnings within the United States and from abroad and failed to take proper action. How could he not have known when he was bombarded with warnings from abroad of an impending terrorist attack on the United States by terrorist using aircraft?

As I have mentioned before, Rice, the CIA, FBI, and the FAA were responsible for dropping the ball as well but dropping the ball is not unique solely to the U.S. government. Dropping the ball on a regular occasion is why Winston Churchill did not want to kill Hitler because Hitler's blunders were actually assisting the allies in defeating Germany in World War II.

If In was the POTUSA, I wouldn't tell lies to millions of people, on camera, about the deaths of thousands and then continue about my business as if it was no problem. Clearly, me and ol' George "dubya" are very different people.

The government doesn't always tell the truth and it is very unfortunate that Bush was not forthcoming in telling the whole truth to the American people, and that is, he was aware of warnings of an impending terrorist attack on America..

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So..... according to your logic Skyeagle. .. GWB, like Churchill who didn't want to kill the enemy leader, the 911 attacks were 'allowed' to happen in order to defeat al-Qaeda?

This has been the theory I, and many others, believe is what really happened.

The coming attack was known (think Rumsfeld here) by the intelligence community and was allowed to carry out in justification for invading the ME. America was the sacrificial lamb so to speak.

Edited by acidhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So..... according to your logic Skyeagle. .. GWB, like Churchill who didn't want to kill the enemy leader, the 911 attacks were 'allowed' to happen in order to defeat al-Qaeda?

Hitler continued to overrule common sense tactics of his senior officers and one of the worst things that the allies could have done was to kill him. In regard to the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Bush administration didn't believe al-Qaeda could have pulled it off, which angered one Philippine official after the attack because years earlier the Philippines had warned the United States terrorist would use airliners to kill thousands of people and as I have mentioned before, CIA headquarters was also targeted.

Even though the FBI was warned that something suspicious was going on flight schools, the FBI failed to take the warnings seriously enough to take proper action, which is on par with J. Edgar Hoover disregarding warnings from an European double agent on Japanese preparations and training prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor.

In 1924, General Billy Mitchell had warned that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor on Sunday, December 1941.

Billy Mitchell the Prophet

During World War II, some of Billy Mitchell's warning came through, none more so than his famous prediction of war with Japan. In an official report submitted after his trip around the Pacific Ocean in 1924, Mitchell warned that Japan's expansionism would lead to conflict with the United States, and he foretold how a war would start. He stated that the war would begin with a surprise attack by Japanese forces on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in conjunction with an assault on the Philippines.

Attack will be launched as follows:

Bombardment, attack to be made on Ford Island (in Pearl Harbor) at 7:30 a.m. ... Attack to be made on Clark Field (Philippines) at 10:40 a.m.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=739

A prediction of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines that was predicted in 1924, which came to past on Dec. 7, 1941. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor at 7:55 a.m. and Clark Field,Philippines just hours later.

Governments ignoring warnings is nothing new, however, our forces in the Philippines prepared for the Japanese attack after receiving its warnings, but that was after Pearl Harbor was struck yet Clark airbase was bombed despite those warnings.

This has been the theory I, and many others, believe is what really happened.

Wars are expensive in lives and can be detrimental to an economy. In fact, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost the United States trillions of dollars in the coming decades and the military was basically broke afterward and in fact, has been forced to cancel a number of public events such as air shows. One commander mentioned to me that his squadron had very little money left to buy anything and while other units had even less.

The United States did not need the 9/11 attack as an excuse to hunt down Osama bin Laden and senior leaders of al-Qaeda since the hunt for al-Qaeda's leadership was already in progress long before the 9/11 terrorist attack.

Remember, the United States didn't go to war when terrorist bombed WTC1 in 1993, which was carried out by the nephew of the mastermind of the 9/11 attack, nor did the United States go to war when terrorist bombed our embassies in Africa and the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen in 2000.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During accident investigations, there are usually conflicting eyewitness testimony, but in such cases, what methods are used to make a determination as to what truly happened?

Finding sources capable of telling a consistent story more than once.

* The President of the United States reported that Osama bin Laden was killed in a message to the whole world.

If you were the President of the United States, would you announce to the international community that bin Laden was killed if you were not absolutely sure? I don't think so!

I think our discussion has shown that it is necessary for the holder of the office of 'POTUSA' is required to lie sometimes. Sometimes on camera. Sometimes in front of millions. Sometimes about the deaths of thousands of their very own people.

* What can be determined from the helicopter wreckage at bin Laden's compound?

We can determine that a helicopter arrived, and that it didn't get back.

Bush, Jr. was not very popular aboard nor even in America, but I would not have expected Bush, Jr. to go on camera and admit that he was aware of numerous warnings within the United States and from abroad and failed to take proper action. How could he not have known when he was bombarded with warnings from abroad of an impending terrorist attack on the United States by terrorist using aircraft?

So why, has the government of the time, not been taken to task for outright lies about the deaths of thousands of their own people?

As I have mentioned before, Rice, the CIA, FBI, and the FAA were responsible for dropping the ball as well but dropping the ball is not unique solely to the U.S. government. Dropping the ball on a regular occasion is why Winston Churchill did not want to kill Hitler because Hitler's blunders were actually assisting the allies in defeating Germany in World War II.

The same Churchill that allowed Coventry to be utterly destroyed despite knowing the attack was coming? Imagine that, the leader of a free country letting an enemy perform an attack upon their own country and allowing people to die... All to protect secrets and ensure continued support for a war. That sort of thing could NEVER happen... And definitely not be kept secret and lied about for over 50 years...

The government doesn't always tell the truth and it is very unfortunate that Bush was not forthcoming in telling the whole truth to the American people, and that is, he was aware of warnings of an impending terrorist attack on America..

THOUSANDS.

OF.

PEOPLE.

DIED.

and it's 'unfortunate' that Bush didn't tell the 'whole truth'????

In any REAL democracy, In any other country in the world, that would lead to an inquiry at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finding sources capable of telling a consistent story more than once.

Once again, when there are conflicts, there are means to make a determination as to what happened. Accident investigators are faced with that fact on a regular basis and use evidence and data to make a final deterrmination. as to what occurred and who is right and who is wrong. Radar, FDR, and other data and communication tapes are used to determine what happened. An examination of wreckage and other evidence collected at the scene can also be used.

I think our discussion has shown that it is necessary for the holder of the office of 'POTUSA' is required to lie sometimes. Sometimes on camera. Sometimes in front of millions. Sometimes about the deaths of thousands of their very own people.

I know from firsthand experience that government doesn't always tell truth and I was involved in such a case because my aircraft, which was a C-5 transport, was involved in flying recovery gear from Cubi Poiint, Philippines to Japan. The Intel folks told one story and we were reading a completely different story in the newspaper and the reason was, the Soviets were also looking for the black box and we didn't want them to know everything we knew.

In another case, which involved the crash of an F-117 stealth fighter near Bakersfield, CA. The Air Force said the airplane was nothing more than a conventional jet on a training flight, and then, delclared the crash site a national secuity zone. For those of us who knew better, we knew then, the aircraft was not a conventional aircraft because the Air Force would not have gone to such lengths for a typical training aircraft on a training flight nor truck in and spread the wreckage of an F-101 over the crash site of a conventional aircraft on a typical training flight, but that is exactly what happened and in doing so, the Air Force had set off alarm bells in the minds of aviation experts because it was a major blunder on the part of the Air Force, but once again, facts and evidence are used to override conflicting reports and eyewitness terstimony.

We can determine that a helicopter arrived, and that it didn't get back.

Not returned that night, however, the wreckage of that helicopter has since arrived back into the United States.

So why, has the government of the time, not been taken to task for outright lies about the deaths of thousands of their own people?

The governement should have been held accountable to the point that some people should have lost their jobs.The government covered up its rear-end for dropping the ball for not taking appropiate action prior to the 9/11 terrorist attack even though they were aware of internaitonal warnings flowing in.from intelligence circles around the world of an impending terrorist attack. We can take a look back at the Watergate scandal and the removal of then, Vice President Spiro Agnew. Despite their lies, facts and evidence were used to tell the rest of the story.

I didn't expect Bush to come out and admit to the American people that he'd received warnings of an impending terrorist attack and did nothing. Once again, he, and others in his administration didn't think the terrorist could have carried out such an attack, but he was wrong and the rest is now history. In other words, they were too narrow-minded to see what was forming before their very eyes.

Their lack of foresight of our government reminds me of these few words: "It can't happen to me, it only happens to the other guy."

The same Churchill that allowed Coventry to be utterly destroyed despite knowing the attack was coming?.Imagine that, the leader of a free country letting an enemy perform an attack upon their own country and allowing people to die

Winston Churchill tried to get America involved in the war but that prove to be very difficult at the time until the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the attack on our forces in the Philippines just hours later. There was an operation planned to kill Hitler, but that operation was later canceled. Why would Churchill authorize the killing of Hitler when Hitler's military blunders were actually helping the allies win the war in Europe? In doing so, would have been like shooting his on foot.

..... All to protect secrets and ensure continued support for a war. That sort of thing could NEVER happen... And definitely not be kept secret and lied about for over 50 years.

Had Hitler been killed, chance are, the war in Europe would have had dire conseqences for the allies and would have lasted much longer.

THOUSANDS.

OF.

PEOPLE.

DIED.

and it's 'unfortunate' that Bush didn't tell the 'whole truth'????

Not just the fact he didn't tell the truth afterward, but most of all, the fact that it was very unfortunate that Bush didn't take appropiate action before the 9/11 terrorist attack as he was receiving those terrorist warnings of an impending attack on the United States.

...In any REAL democracy, In any other country in the world, that would lead to an inquiry at least.

It is now very clear the Bush adminstration was far too near-sighted to see what was coming down the tracks. We can no longer ignore terrorist attack warnings now or in the future or else, we will live by these few words again:

Those who ignore the past, are doomed to relive it.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So..... according to your logic Skyeagle. .. GWB, like Churchill who didn't want to kill the enemy leader, the 911 attacks were 'allowed' to happen in order to defeat al-Qaeda?

This has been the theory I, and many others, believe is what really happened.

The coming attack was known (think Rumsfeld here) by the intelligence community and was allowed to carry out in justification for invading the ME. America was the sacrificial lamb so to speak.

No, there was far more to it than that. Many goals were achieved besides the invasion of Iraq.

Most notably was the destruction of records and audit members at ONI

See http://www.doeda.com/y911.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most notably was the destruction of records and audit members at ONI

See http://www.doeda.com/y911.html

From your link.

"Oops! That page can’t be found."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the Truthers and the C.T`s there truth cannot be Found ! :tu:

What is found Is real Factual evidence funny how that works in the Real World ? :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know from firsthand experience that government doesn't always tell truth and I was involved in such a case...

Those accounts are interesting Sky, but a whole WORLD away from a government's campaign of contrived dishonesty to cover their own backs. Same sort of thing, but a world apart....

The governement should have been held accountable to the point that some people should have lost their jobs.The government covered up its rear-end for...

The government should be held accountable? The government covered something up???

Sky: We'll make a Truther out of you yet!!!! :tsu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres only one way to Look At this ! Little-bitty-tenny-Bin Laden bits of Fish Food !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those accounts are interesting Sky, but a whole WORLD away from a government's campaign of contrived dishonesty to cover their own backs. Same sort of thing, but a world apart..

How many people, if in the president's shoes, would have called for a press conference after the 9/11 attack and tell the American people they knew of a number of warnings flowing in from around the globe of an impending terrorist attack upon the Unted States, but decided at the time that such an attack would have been impossible?

How many people would have tried to cover their tracks after the fact? Would you cover your tracks if you were in the shoes of the president had you made the same mistake as Bush? It is no question that Bush was aware of the warnings, and it is no question he made a mistake by not properly preparing to meet the attack head-on.

I might add that Bill Clinton got the ball rolling because he didn't go to war when the USS Cole was bombed, which only infuriated Osama bin Laden who wanted war with the United States and would have done anything possible to pull America into a war to what he thought, would end in a victory for al-Qaeda, and his repeated attempt to pull America into a war was his 9/11 attack upon the United States.

I am sure that bin Laden looked back at Vietnam and decided that America wouldn't stand for a long protracted war, but what many people were unaware of, America was closer to a victory in Vietnam than people thought and the communist suffered huge defeats on the battlefield..

It has now been revealed that General Giap, the military leader of Communist North Vietnam admitted in his memoirs that had the air campaign, known as "Linebacker II, continued just days longer, the communist would have been prepared to surrender, but President Nixon halted the bombing campaign much too soon, which only puzzled General Giap who also admitted the United States defeated the communist during the TET offensive.

I served in Vietnam during the TET offensve and remembered that first night. I experienced a B-52 strike a year later when I was TDY at another base, which was miles away from the base yet the base was shaken to the core by the concussions of those bombs so I can imagine what the communist were experiencing under Linebacker II.

My base at Phan Rang also supported U.S. Marines during the siege at Khe Sanh, which also resulted in the defeat of the communist NVA and I might add that the Vietnam War was not lost on the battlefield, it was lost at home.

Now, you know the rest of the story just how close the United States was from total victory in Vietnam. Osama bin Laden failed to read the rest of the story regarding the Vietnam War and as a result, he miscalculated American resolve, which eventually resulted in his death.

The government should be held accountable? The government covered something up???

Sky: We'll make a Truther out of you yet!!!! :tsu:

I have been at odds with the Bush administration, our intelligence services and the FAA over the fact they dropped the ball regarding the 9/11 terrorist attack, but I have to say the government did not plan nor carry out the terrorist attack. Some people say the United States carried out the 9/11 attack to start a war in the Middle East, but that is incorrect because it was Osama bin Laden who wanted war, not the United States,

Had the Taliban compllied with U.S. demands to turn over bin Laden, there would not have been a war in Afghanistan.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people, if in the president's shoes, would have called for a press conference after the 9/11 attack and tell the American people they knew of a number of warnings flowing in from around the globe of an impending terrorist attack upon the Unted States, but decided at the time that such an attack would have been impossible?

Not many, sure, but there's a world of difference between not mentioning it, and deliberate falsehood. What Bush, Cheney, Rice and various others did (and continue to do) since 9/11 is deliberate, contrived falsehood.

Deliberate, contrived falsehood about the deaths of thousands of people.

Without a single repercussion.

I have been at odds with the Bush administration, our intelligence services and the FAA over the fact they dropped the ball regarding the 9/11 terrorist attack, but I have to say the government did not plan nor carry out the terrorist attack. Some people say the United States carried out the 9/11 attack to start a war in the Middle East, but that is incorrect because it was Osama bin Laden who wanted war, not the United States,

To deny that there are people in the US establishment who don't 'want war' is incredibly naïve.

I never said the government planned or carried out those attacks. If you pressed me for a theory, I'd lean towards a few, maybe as few as 3 or 4 people in government, below the level that appears on TV, but high enough up to give orders, knew damn well it was gonna happen, and, deliberately acted, or failed to act in order to help the event happen.

Just my personal take, nothing that I'm out to prove or sell to anyone. That's just where my hunch lies.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your link.

"Oops! That page can’t be found."

Fortunately, I printed out the article by E.P. Heidner. I have no idea why it "can't be found", but I do have my suspicions, as it was rather inflammatory if one believes the official conspiracy theory.

Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz did a lot of research, and Heidner wrote his synopsis of the financial shenanigans associated with the events of 11 September back in June of 2008.

It's funny how things that work against the OCT have a way of "vanishing" from the internet. Thank God for printers, eh? :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately, I printed out the article by E.P. Heidner. I have no idea why it "can't be found", but I do have my suspicions, as it was rather inflammatory if one believes the official conspiracy theory.

Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz did a lot of research, and Heidner wrote his synopsis of the financial shenanigans associated with the events of 11 September back in June of 2008.

It's funny how things that work against the OCT have a way of "vanishing" from the internet. Thank God for printers, eh? :tu:

Perhaps they came around to the reality there was no government conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they are too honest and far too informed to reach that absurd conclusion.

To "come around to the reality" that the OCT is true, one must deny virtually all the facts and evidence. They did the reverse--researched and studied on their own.

1 person likes this

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 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.