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
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

Your mention that the hijackers actually talked on some ATC frequencies, and therefore we know the story is true, made me fall off my stool in laughter!

Why?? The hijackers made major mistakes in that regard. During flight training, we were told to becareful when switching certain frequencies on the transponder, otherwise, ATC will be a bit unsettled because a certain code depicts a hijacking in progress.

During my many years of flying, I have encountered pilots who were on the wrong frequency and unknowingly broadcasted on my radio.

The point is that your placing so much faith in ATC radio calls as being authentic is consistent with your believing the Official Conspiracy Theory.

But, the calls were authentic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I can't get my head around is that Bin Laden never once refers to himself or his group as "Al-Qaeda" before 9/11.

He only mentions the name after it was given to him by the western government/media.

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people. Injecting himself into the campaign four days ahead of the presidential election, bin Laden said the United States can avoid another Sept. 11-style attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html#ixzz2Kzs2M0QT

Osama bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the 911 attacks, which is no secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a hearing scheduled in Britain regarding the BBC's complicity in suppressing the truth regarding the events of 11 September.

http://tinyurl.com/d2janxo

As many already know, the mainstream media role in promoting the OCT is paramount. Without it, the hoax might never have survived.

Now some well prepared truth seekers have standing in court to present their case. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. This sort of action could never ever make it into a US court, demonstrating perhaps that the British system is more open and less corrupted than ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a hearing scheduled in Britain regarding the BBC's complicity in suppressing the truth regarding the events of 11 September.

http://tinyurl.com/d2janxo

As many already know, the mainstream media role in promoting the OCT is paramount. Without it, the hoax might never have survived.

Now some well prepared truth seekers have standing in court to present their case. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. This sort of action could never ever make it into a US court, demonstrating perhaps that the British system is more open and less corrupted than ours.

The information contained in that link you've posted has serious flaws that have already been discredited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in your mind Sky, has that information been discredited.

That information proves that the government story is a lie and that the coverup is almost worse than the crime.

Firemen For 911Truth, Pilots 4 911Truth, Architects and Engineers 4 911 Truth, Physicians, Nurses. Everybody but the Milkman knows that the official story is bunkum, pure and simple.

Your view Sky, is quickly becoming a minority view. The Japanese Diet was talking about the specious aspects of the story 5 years ago, because several Japanese nationals had been killed there. It's not rocket science that the OCT doesn't add up.

The government has had its investigation, and as far as they are concerned it's all over. There will not be another government investigation, because that's how the bureaucracy works, and you and I both know that.

Close examination of the official story reveals all its flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in your mind Sky, has that information been discredited.

You know good and well you cannot change reality from the comfort of your keyboard. :no:

That information proves that the government story is a lie and that the coverup is almost worse than the crime.

But, American Airlines is not a government agency. :no:

Firemen For 911Truth, Pilots 4 911Truth, Architects and Engineers 4 911 Truth, Physicians, Nurses. Everybody but the Milkman knows that the official story is bunkum, pure and simple.

Pure bunk!! The evidence and damage inside and outside leading up to the Pentagon proved beyond any doubt that American 77 did not pass north of the gas station. :no: There are no downed light poles that indicated a northern approach, :no: but there's lots of evidence of a southern approach. :yes:

Your view Sky, is quickly becoming a minority view.

Caught you playing with your flawed calculator again!! Since when does 2 + 2 = 1? :lol: Just another reason why you are not taken seriously. :no:

Edited by skyeagle409
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing absurd or misleading about the questions. The answers are designed to weigh up two options through comparison to actual events, answering the question, "did the CIA action best prevent an attack or facilitate an attack?" The answer is simply, "the CIA action best facilitated an attack." I’m sure you don’t like that, but it is fact, and one that should be considered along with the wider body of evidence. The questions are equally fair applied to the Dahmer case though less useful, as I have shown, it is necessary to understand background to the events.

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?

In contrast, at risk of repeating myself, CIA agents on the case were aware of the 9/11 hijackers connection to ‘Al Qaeda’ and attacks on the USS Cole and US embassies. The aforementioned crimes were already committed, the case underway, and along with an immigration violation were sufficient to act upon – indeed should have been acted upon, according to law and standard procedure. The accompanying warning from the FBI could not have been clearer, "these guys are clearly bad" and "someone will die", and yet the CIA blocked action – the CIA blocked upholding of the law and standard procedure. All agents involved, unlike the Dahmer police officers, were in possession of this intelligence. What followed was not due to lack of information or inaction.

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

Then account for the CIA’s Saudi agent who actually assisted the hijackers and it’s ever further from the Dahmer case - agents had the knowledge and were aware of the threat, along with an operation and deliberate moves surrounding the hijackers prior to 9/11. The intelligence involvement and ongoing action with the hijackers is entirely incomparable to that one instance of inaction from the Dahmer police officers. Heck, did police officers pay Dahmer’s rent and put him in contact with a combat training school? The CIA’s Saudi agent paid the hijackers’ rent and put them in contact with flight schools.

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'?

This is more like it, you are being serious now. Well, it’s a ‘conspiracy’ even if you believe the CIA were trying to infiltrate ‘Al Qaeda’ (and I do believe this is what lower level CIA agents were told). It is still a ‘conspiracy’ against the FBI, the law and standard procedure – heads should have rolled, preferably those who put such an approach in place. Do I have an issue with this approach? You mean... except for the fact that it allowed the 9/11 attack, 3,000 deaths and war to proceed? It would be better to ask, how can you not have an issue with this approach? An approach which so conveniently supported the new Neocon government ideology. You have no issue with that? No questions?

Well yes I have an issue with that approach, in hindsight. In 2000, would I have had an issue with it? It depends, again, I'm not privy to a lot of classified information and recognize that fact, do you? I have very little background on how many AQ plots have been threatened, and for the zillionth time it is that kind of information that provides the necessary context to determine whether these bad decisions are unusual. Even if they are not unusual, yes, it still leaves open the possibility that this was a conspiracy on their part but it makes it significantly less suspicious.

Yes it was risky. Would you have taken that approach off your own back? Would you have disregarded the law and standard procedure, allowed known terrorists free passage in America and risked a terrorist attack, to gain some intelligence? Of course you would not, neither would I, neither would redhen. It is unreasonable – you don’t gamble with lives like that – unless there is clearly a greater aim to be achieved. The order to do so came from higher. The only conclusion is exactly as Richard Clarke said, "it is inexplicable" and "there was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share information." In fact, we know that the order you mention, to not go after the terrorists/catch them in a ‘big one’, came from Bush. It was described by Condeleeza Rice: "President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."

Yes, I saw that quote from Bush also, I was actually going to quote it back to you. I had also read something that an emphasis on covert approaches to infiltrating AQ was a carry-over from the administration of that raging neocon Bill Clinton. Again, you're asking me questions when I don't have any background knowledge of the history and the classified efforts we've taken against Al Qaeda, anything I say should rightly be taken as ignorant. Do we know that there clearly was no 'greater aim to be achieved', that no one even thought there was? More importantly, does the strategy of not focusing on swatting flies not make any rational sense whatsoever?

What are you not getting? The Neocon administration stated the requirement for a "new Pearl Harbor". The Neocon administration placed an order that facilitated a "new Pearl Harbor".

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

There sure is an argument, though it doesn’t require response. Suffice to say that you just labelled your own defence of CIA actions, "loony".

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.

Is it not telling you anything that in all your examples of stonewalling the accused was found guilty?

But Bush was found guilty, of presiding over a dysfunctional intelligence apparatus. It's too bad there was so much ineptitude that provides a possible explanation for their stonewalling.

That’s an interesting note - I just found that Bush specifically requested that information contained in the August 2001 brief I quoted – he specifically asked about threats inside the United States - so he was certainly interested. Anyhow, it doesn’t matter whether the warnings referred to separate occurrences. The intelligence warnings in regard to an ‘Al Qaeda’ attack reached a crescendo in Summer 2001 – as CIA director George Tenet put it, "the system was blinking red". You need to read the chapter named after that Tenet quote in the 9/11 Commission report to understand the level and severity of threat warnings received – it is necessary to understand these rising and imminent ‘Al Qaeda’ threats were not a drop in the ocean of intelligence... they were the ocean. Against that backdrop, you cannot rationally do what Bush and the Neocon administration did, or what that "loony" CIA unit did, if you are interested in preventing the foreboding attack.

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.

I’ll keep in mind that in lieu of an explanation for your own double-standard, you are trying to make some sort of attack on me, with a false argument too.

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?

Seriously, can you explain why you will come up with any and all kinds of speculative excuses to defend a warmonger Neocon administration and "loony" CIA unit, yet will quickly disregard the word of FBI agents knowledgeable of the case? The only answer I see is that you are arguing what you want to believe, rather than accepting expert evidence/statements on a fair basis, not to mention refusal to answer questions.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree... if people watch the video. However, I think there are plenty of people who would not take time to click the link, accepting the link title - “9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous – Al Qaeda” – at face value and misconstrue the little whistling smiley to be indication that it rebutted my prior post. That is how I interpreted the post at first glance before watching the video. I’m happier now that it has been made clear there is no rebuttal to my post #814.\

Well, nobody seems to have considered it anything other than a joke in hindsight. I guess I did not look at it the same way, I saw the smiley as an indicator of mirth. To be frank, it seems most did.

I agree that the grass roots and fringe media is free. I’m referring more to politics of the giant corporations. For example, it is no coincidence that every single one of Rupert Murdoch’s television, radio and newspaper media outlets across the globe, including Fox News, editorialised without exception in favour of the Iraq War. Murdoch himself has said, “I give instructions to my editors all round the world”. But no, of course I don’t think that, “the CIA has control over every paper in the world”, that is silly.

I don’t believe, generally speaking, there is much difference between the way that Western and Middle Eastern media operate; neither are immune to the politics of their respective regions. Neither do I think it straightforward to label one ‘more reliable’ than the other – it depends on the case. I do recall a study some time ago which reported that Al Jazeera broadcasts more factual news and less opinion pieces than Fox News. Whether this means the former is less biased or simply has not perfected propaganda to the extent of the latter I’m not sure.

The reason I linked the Al Jazeera news article in my post is because we are discussing a bin Laden video release. On this issue, not only are Al Jazeera the original broadcasting source of the videotape (undiluted news is always preferable), but I have discovered Middle Eastern media transcripts to be more accurate and complete on occasion than their Western counterparts.

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.

Ok that’s good, we agree that the Fox News editorial, that bin “ordered” the 9/11 attack, is unevidenced.

Yes, until we have Bin Laden in tape saying "I Order You" it's unsupported right? I said he did not fly the plane, however, I do not believe for one second that such absolves him from the action at all. He was part of a group that planned, and managed to slaughter thousands. And he rejoiced in it. He funded it. When he rejoiced in it, he then too, was a part of it to me.

Your argument that follows is to hold bin Laden responsible as head of the organisation. Unfortunately the premise of that argument is way off base to begin... no formal organisation exists in the first place. Al Qaeda is not a political party, nor jurisdiction, nor of fixed structure. There is no official membership, prerequisite or initiation rite. Al Qaeda has no legally defined hierarchy or chain of command.

What Al Qaeda is, is an intangible entity, a Western term to describe a loose collection of ideologies held by various groups and individuals, none of which are answerable to one another. A lead figurehead of this collection was Osama bin Laden who, due to being the wealthiest and most influential of the Mujahideen, was sought out by those other factions for favour. Although all groups and individuals are placed under the collective Western term of Al Qaeda, they are not contained within any chain of command and can act independently. It is easy to understand how an attack can be carried out in the name of Al Qaeda, without ever receiving bin Laden’s approval. So who can speak and act on behalf of such a non-organisation? Anyone, it seems. This is ‘Al Qaeda’.

In the words of U.K. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, “Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working”

To summarize the above paragraphs: Al Qaeda is not comparable to government, the military, the CIA, a media corporation, or even the Vatican, etc. Al Qaeda is an umbrella, catch-all term, like “Communism” (and it’s a fine replacement for Communism that Al Qaeda has turned out to be too).

Allow me to expand further. Al Qaeda was originally the name given to the database of Mujahideen recruited by the United States to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during Operation Cyclone. This has been confirmed by former British foreign secretary, Robin Cook: “Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” The link between the CIA, bin Laden and Al Qaeda began there and is a whole topic in itself, for another time – suffice to say the connections run deep and remained right up to 9/11.

Osama bin Laden also essentially corroborated the above origin when asked of his association to Al Qaeda. His response was that he does not see the question as one of ‘Al Qaeda’ but that he is representative of all Muslim people. He said that ‘Al Qaeda’ is a Western portrayal that occurred without his intent. His words: “So the situation isn't like the West portrays it, that there is an "organization" with a specific name and so on. That particular name [Al Qaeda] is very old. It was born without any intention from us.” It wasn’t until the 2004 videotape that bin Laden began to associate with the name ‘Al Qaeda’, probably for the benefit and understanding of the Western audience that he addressed.

I’m not one to throw YouTube videos around but this short 10 minute video from the BBC is revealing and corroborates everything above. Please watch: -

In conclusion, bin Laden was not in a position to place an “order” and cannot be held responsible for the 9/11 hijackers, whose own actions and motivations must be looked at separately to unravel the direct hand behind the attack.

And I suppose the Jihad is not a holy war? Its a holy police action? So all Muslims are included if they like or not? That is what the Sunni Muslim Bin Laden was fighting, and I really think you would have to be quite the fast talker to absolve him of responsibility. It actually saddens me that a person, any person, would try to stand up for this such a low form if humanity. I honestly do not understand your mentality, it is like trying to say a convicted pedophile deserves a normal life because he has been castrated.

What is Lashkar-e-Taiba for if there is no official training? David Hicks seems to have something of a different story to the one you are telling, He talks of a hierarchy as well, not to mentioned being honoured to meet the Exalted OBL. Meh. I hope I see hicksy in the street one day........

DAVID Hicks described Osama bin Laden as "lovely" and trained with al-Qaeda a month before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a court was told

You do not consider David Hicks under Murdoch's control I assume.

He also detailed letters from Hicks to his family in Adelaide during 2001.

Mr Berger said in a May 2001 letter to family, Hicks wrote: "By the way I have met Osama bin Laden 20 times now, lovely brother, everything for the cause of Islam. The only reason the west calls him the most wanted Muslim is because he's got the money to take action."

Hicks admitted he attended al-Qaeda training camps in Pakistan in an interview with AFP officers while detained at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba in May 2002, Mr Berger said.

Hicks undertook "substantial training" in basic arms and combat training, guerilla warfare and advanced marksmanship, he told the court.

"It was a systematic and sustained attempt to seek out training," Mr Berger said.

"This is not a man who was full of hot air."

LINK

I have listened. It does not change that Bin Laden was a leader. It's a different structure. That much you have illustrated That we use different models does not negate that Bin Laden was considered of a higher order than the average religious fundie murderer. You know he funded Al Qaeda, would it exist without Bin Laden? They said in the clip you provided that this type of prosecution was brought in so that mafia heads could be brought to justice. Great, it should catch Bin Laden when he was not on the plane. Terminology is the plaything of the legal system. But with me, a spade is still a spade. You say yourself above that he probably used the term Al Qaeda for the convenience of the West. He allowed the West to call Al Qaeda an organisation, he did not protest it and say we are not an organisation. Because, it is. It might not meet the strictest Western definitions, it might not be as tight as the USAF, it is still an organisation, and when you call it an "umbrella" catch all term, you are saying the same thing, it is a bunch of people, it is just that the organisation does not follow the hierarchy models we are accustomed to. That does not mean such a model does not exist. Whats the general rule? He with the money makes the rules. Bin Laden funded Al Qaeda Or whatever you want to call a bunch of twisted mentally deficient murderers who send kids to their deaths for religion.

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?

And we allo know what happened on the 23rd of the same year, don't we. Bin Laden published a fatwa declaring jihad against all Jews and Crusaders. So I deny that he has no special leadership as far as radical fundamental Muslims go. This states he is leading a war. Who leads a war if not the leader??

It is not clear who bin Laden refers to by “we”. Is it his closest counsels? Is is Al Qaeda? Is it the Mujahideen? Is it wider Jihadists? Is it all Muslims? Well, I just pointed out above how bin Laden saw himself as representative of all Muslims. It would be reasonable to deduce that when bin Laden states “we”, he is speaking not for himself personally, but for the Muslim people. It certainly fits the overall context.

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.

About the sentence which you say, “sounds like a confession to me”, it is not. It is an attempt to explain how the idea came about – reciprocation for American and Israeli aggression. For sure, it was a desire of bin Laden, but that is not the same as directing or perpetrating the attack - thought-crime is not legally punishable.

This video is an excellent representation of the difference between desire and action, which can be applicable to the bin Laden statement and demonstrates what I am saying. You only need to watch the first 3 minutes. Please pay close attention: -

[media=]

When you say, “sounds like a confession to me” you are a parallel to the prosecutor, who makes that mistake of thinking he has a “slam-dunk” confession when he does not at all.

Ok, so there is no confession, no evidence of an order, we agree he did not fly the plane... 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? Exhibit A of the prosecution case: Fox news editorial, “Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks”. Ha.

He funded the act. My boss does not know what I do 3 out of 5 days a week. He just wants me to bring him the profit margins and tell him we are making money, not going broke, and all our staff are gainfully employed a coule times a week. Pretty loose too, but he can trust my skill and industry knowledge. Does that mean he has nothing to do wityh the business? Complete outsider, no involvement at all? He does not know what projects I am working on, or what I have just won. He does not know what I am desiging, but he will ask me to tell him how to put a project together if I am successful and has to run it. But he is my boss, my superior, he has the organisation sorry, bunch of people, who all know a common goal is to be achieved. He points me in a direction, then I am like a new puppy, let me at it let me at it, until I succeed or fail and move on to the next one. He never gives me a direct order, he discusses plans and strategies with me. And if you are saying that Bin Laden did not do that, then I simply do not believe it. His comments are of glee, and victory. Any person on earth can see that no matter how it is painted. He was happy his organisation had achieved an important goal, and any major plan takes more than one person. And they all have a key figure, and even David Hicks indicates he was a key figure. A different brush still paints.

Just a quick detour here: bin Laden did not evade capture, he was a prisoner in Pakistan. Please read down from the third quote box in post #91 and respond here if you wish: -

http://www.unexplain...90#entry4240550

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?

That is the proof you gave to Boon. He has a feind in Pakistan as well, Azzam. He used his money with Azzam to fight Soviet intervention, He had contacts, and it was a place to hide.

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?

I did not respond to the first question because Bin Laden’s belief that Israel and the United States committed injustice against Lebanon and Palestine is not in doubt. It’s not an issue. Hey, I think that Israel and the United States committed injustice against Lebanon and Palestine, and they still do – it is a belief shared by many - but that does not make me responsible for 9/11.

I think it is an issue, motivation is an issue. Twisted, justified, or not, motivation motivates, and Bin Laden was motivated to see his merry band of butchers kill innocent people for the wrong reasons.

I hope this and previous posts make clear what I think of bin Laden’s involvement with 9/11. It would be quite incorrect to claim that bin Laden had, “no involvement with 9/11 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 last question above: What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack?

Feel free to open up the case for each murdered one at a time. I agree, better to see that as an individual case, I would ever suggest perhaps a dedicated thread outlining one slaughtering fundi at a time.

What order? A money order.

If I had to keep it short as you requested, then comparison to a cheerleader comes to mind.

A simple yes or no would have sufficed. In a roundabout way, you went with yes in the end I see. Although I do love cheerleaders, and would not object to one.

Yes sorry, I did paint all of the hijackers with the same brush to keep it simple. That does not change that the facts I mention, and which you don’t address, apply to the individual hijackers.

I’m not sure what you are referring to about “Boston controllers”.

Yet you keep saying it is not simple. I think it is. I think religion motivated some weak minded overly enthusiastic idiots who were stupid enough to allow their lives to be directed by religious propaganda. I bet I can pull a precedent if need be, perhaps hundreds exist in antiquity.

Do not worry about Boston, you have enough to reply to, Babe Ruth is trying to say something about them, I will adress the situation there.

Ha, “uneducated goat herder” is more the profile of most terrorists, including four of the 9/11 hijackers who I believe were genuine Jihadists. Where are the links to/profile of intelligence agents? Apart from the whole Westernised, university educated, not particularly religious, using aliases, suddenly travel to Afghanistan with the onset of a CIA infiltration program thing, certain hijackers were...

protected by the CIA.

associate of CIA asset.

living with a U.S. informant.

related to an Israeli informant.

funded by an MI6 asset.

assisted by Saudi government agents.

Much of the evidence is contained in the thread. I won’t go into it more just yet because this post is long enough.

Like I say, a Goat Herder will not be able to fly a plane into a building. I know that these inhumane animals use all sorts of people ignorant to the atrocities they are set up to commit, why would people who have an education not be the prime target for an operation like this? And the operation was years in the making. To think they would not have fooled other Governments to kill so many people in one hit is not really believable, they set them up, used trust, and then caught people of guard, That is the key to the success of the slaughter. The comments from the Bin Laden speech from the source you provided go on to say how they managed to hit Bush before he knew it, made fun of him being at a school reading to kids (how dare a world leader waste his time on kids huh) and mentioned many times that they would strike before Bush could react.

This would have taken smart people with a good Western cultural understanding, decent education levels and absolutely no ethics. AKA the Hijackers.

In the civilised world, and in the legal system, there is a rule, “innocent until proven guilty” (in contrast to witch-hunts of the Dark Ages or er... Fox News... and a naive public whipped into a misguided frenzy dressed up as patriotism). With that in mind, we are not at a stage were bin Laden needs to be absolved of responsibility, and neither is that what I want to do – I simply say what I see, or don’t see. The initial accusation needs to be proven first. And that is where evidence is conspicuous by its absence. Of course, Fox News editorial does not count.

Has Bin Laden Killed? Did he deserve to live?

You deny him being a founder of a religious movement (hey, that works better than "organisation" because a "movement" does not have to be organised does it) but information exists to the contrary. You say he was not speaking for himself but all Muslims, when he, and all Muslims have distanced each other from each other, yet you know he was happy the so many innocent people died because his twisted mind misconstrued American values and he could not think like we do, just as the word "organisation" is not politically correct as a description for Al Qaeda. 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.

The rest of the world gave up holy wars like 400 years ago. It is little wonder their barbaric archaic murderous ways do not fit into a modern definition. We have no place for people like this on earth any more. If he really loved his people, he would have done the Navy Seals job for them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good.

I have a friend in Cootmundra, N.S.W. that want to visit someday and I will keep you in mind. :yes:

It would be my honor mate! They do have an Airport out there I believe, I'll keep an eye out for Raptors coming in!

Cheers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with asking questions bud.... even if you think you have heard it all before.

I agree acidhead, but in this case (911) it's gone well beyond the question, and more importantly I think the real question is why keep asking one that ha been answered? I can only surmise one hopes to find that which they have not yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psyche

You failed to explain just why seeking the truth, or asking politically incorrect questions, offers nefarious purposes. I do understand why one might want to dodge that question.

I did answer it BR. This is beyond seeking the truth.

The truth exists not in stories, but in engineering reports and analyses that confirm that planes hit the towers. I do not bother with CT until this thread, actual facts are all that really matter. Now, I am finding opinions are mattering because young people are beginning to consider CT's a reason to consider Jihad.

Your mention that the hijackers actually talked on some ATC frequencies, and therefore we know the story is true, made me fall off my stool in laughter!

I'm hoping you know what a handheld transceiver is, and that they are not too expensive and very useful if one flies? Somehow I doubt you are aware of the several stories here in the US over many years, in which pranksters make prank calls on these radios, both marine and aviation, in an effort to send the authorities off on rescue missions that are bogus?

Great, with this confidence I take it you have concrete proof that this is the case here, and not some Evil Government CT thing.

Can I see it please.

Anyway, it has happened many times. The point is that your placing so much faith in ATC radio calls as being authentic is consistent with your believing the Official Conspiracy Theory. Any ruse the government puts by you, you accept. Whether impossible cell phone calls or easily faked ATC conversations, you take it all in like a sponge, indiscriminate belief in government stories. Some of those Blokes down under are as gullible as the bloody yanks up here! :w00t:

No, I am placing faith in the fact that this was not a prank call. I would hope you are not either because that would not make much sense.

Prove the calls connected with the incident were faked please. Or are you just running with an ideal of "The Government is involved, it must be a lie"? And if so, then what would you call that?

Indiscriminate belief? Just because I understand construction, and know the planned demolitions stories are so full of it you could not pop one more turd in there, is anything but belief BR. That much is genuine knowledge that I worked for thanks very much. You lot are the ones bandying around papers, after saying one cannot trust the papers!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firemen For 911Truth, Pilots 4 911Truth, Architects and Engineers 4 911 Truth, Physicians, Nurses. Everybody but the Milkman knows that the official story is bunkum, pure and simple.

I see a great many professionals without the 911 for truth sticks on the tailgate who say the opposite.

911 for truth sounds more like propaganda to me. If they had the truth, it would not be able to be refuted. That's the beauty of it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a great many professionals without the 911 for truth sticks on the tailgate who say the opposite.

911 for truth sounds more like propaganda to me. If they had the truth, it would not be able to be refuted. That's the beauty of it.

I heard that!! :tu: The 911 conspiracy websites are guilty of spreading false and misleading information.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Osama bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the 911 attacks, which is no secret.

[media=]

[/media]

Even after the so called confession, he was STILL never formally charged with 9/11.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even after the so called confession, he was STILL never formally charged with 9/11.

Thanks for confirming Osama bin Laden's confession regarding the 911 attacks, and he was charged, or should I say, U.S. special forces charged Osama bin Laden with the backing of the U.S. government and summarily executed on the spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for confirming Osama bin Laden's confession regarding the 911 attacks, and he was charged, or should I say, U.S. special forces charged Osama bin Laden with the backing of the U.S. government and summarily executed on the spot.

He wasn't charged even after his confession........lol

Even if the US special forces or government think he's guilty, there would be enough evidence to charge him.

Don't worry, I don't expect someone whose been awarded the Civil of the Quarters to understand?? lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasn't charged even after his confession........lol

Osama bin Laden admitted his responsibility in the 911 attacks, so by his own admission, he is guilty. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Osama bin Laden admitted his responsibility in the 911 attacks, so by his own admission, he is guilty. :yes:

Unfortunately, the court of law doesn't work like that, you also need this thing called evidence.

I know you struggle with the concept of evidence but if he was guilty, there would be evidence in abundance, but nothing to indicte him for 9/11...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the court of law doesn't work like that,...

It is no secret that Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States and admitted his responsibility regarding the 911 attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is no secret that Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States and admitted his responsibility regarding the 911 attacks.

Yeah, he may have declared war on the US/West but even after his confession and declaration, there was no hard evidence for the FBI to indite him. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, he may have declared war on the US/West but even after his confession and declaration, there was no hard evidence for the FBI to indite him. lol

Osama bin Laden plead GUILTY for his responsibility in the 911 attacks, and did so in the eyes of the world in his video.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Osama bin Laden plead GUILTY for his responsibility in the 911 attacks, and did so in the eyes of the world in his video.

Plead GUILTY........lol

Which court was that? The court of public opinion?? lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plead GUILTY........lol

Yes, and he did it on video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and he did it on video.

And there was still not enough evidence to indite him for 9/11, even after his so called confession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there was still not enough evidence to indite him for 9/11, even after his so called confession.

He did it on video. :yes:

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.