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

This has nothing to do with why the FBI never indicted him.

I'm not assuming anything, all I am doing is pointing to the fact the FBI never indicted him and if they had evidence of his guilt, then there would have been one.

I am afraid it has much to do with it. The paper trail just vanished. So did having to prove an action to bring a killer to justice who has used every resource at his disposal to evade such so he ay continue brainwashing people and sending them to their deaths. You know why he was not indicted, the FBI have no hard evidence. That is not to say they have no evidence, they simply have evidence that might result in decades of court battles giving people in the Jihad an opportunity to eventually free him, and do something even worse. One thing, OBL had no conscience, no humanity, he was going to kill again, and again. Until he was stopped, that is the sort if person he was. This shortcut curtailed slaughter and brought one man to justice.

And what lessons did you learn from Al Capone which means that OBL was not indicted by the FBI??

Same ones that were mentioned in Q24's clip regarding mafia. That heads of these organisation who fund and control them distance themselves from any direct action, so they can continue to wage wars on any legal system that may disagree with their personal views. OBL took full advantage of this system, so the FBI had to acto on an older order to remove him from existence for public safety. It's not a new system, Mafia, Triads, even KGB have used these methods for centuries. This goes all the way back to Thomas Becket who exposed this system and paid for it with his life, but made the world a better place as a result.

He never fought for my backside?? :blink: I am not American.

Where are you from? You do not post it, why may I ask? Or do you not post your origin because it might expose an Agenda?

And I don't see anything wrong with offering anyone a little respect, but you can not expect to get respect when you are being dishonest.

I am not seeing dishonesty, I am seeing a man answer to the best of his ability, and you should be happy with that, it is all one can do. It's like your poking and prodding Sky with a stick. He gave you his answer, asking for what you want to hear time and again is not going to produce it is it?

Of course I could, but wouldn't it be much easier if Skyeagle just admitted it??

Ad it would be much easier if you just spoke your mind instead of doing a dance yourself. You asked repeatedly, he answered repeatedly. If the point is not getting across, I suggest you bridge that gap so we can move on and stop the song and dance.

Then we could move on, but he thinks by ignoring a point, it never existed and he can carry on fooling himself and the gullible. Skyeagle never admits he is wrong or incorrect.

He is not ignoring a point, Because he is an experienced man who has seen the world trough wars, he can smell a rat too, and probably had a better nose than you and I put together in these matters. This is what he does - defend the country, he works for the pople you are accusing, and if antyhing, Sky is not biased. He will expose his superiors at the drop if a hat if they do not follow procedure that benefits everyone, in fact, ,he is hanging out with the Red Tails right now. Do you know who they are, and what they were up against? If you do now know who the Red Tails are, may I please request that you have a look into that chapter of history, then when you understand Sky as part of such history you will see his is nobody's puppet. You are just asking too much in the wrong way is all. Like Douglas Adams said, the answer is no good if you do not know how to ask the question.

It has nothing to do with fighting the system for the wrong reason, its about the law and due process. I know things like "Innocent until proven guilty!" is an outdated concept to some people but I on the other hand thinks it's a fairer system than "Guilty until proven innocent!"

Guilty of what? 911? Do you really and honestly believe from one second that the most prominent man in a terrorist organisation that carried out 911 is completely innocent of the entire event? It was a war on terror, not a war on OBL, OBL was just a major target, as all superior people are.

What about the bombings, the Fatwa against America? That makes him guilty until proven innocent, The man declared war on America, and his merry band of followers carried out his wishes in return for a mythical afterlife. Declaring war on a country would be considered quite a bad thing, wouldn't you say?

If the evidence against OBL is overwhelming, then the FBI would have just indicted him like they did against him for his other crimes. Lets put it this way, if you have a suspect and there is no evidence of their guilt, does critical thinking mean you continue with the line of enquiry that they are still guilty even though there is no hard evidence of their guilt or do you pursue other suspects??

He was guilty of the 1998 bombing, he was guilty of funding the organisation that carried out 911. The man is a murderer, and wants American people dead. All he did was cover his tracks well, and for that I think he deserves no pardon, and yes, in this case I do not have a problem with considering this person guilty before being proven so. His rejoicing in 911 was enough for that. Like I say, the FBI have no hard evidence. that does not mean no evidence, it just means it will take a long, long time to sift through the legal system.

You know your second line makes it clearer if anything. Do you pursue a line when there is no hard evidence? Nope, you just act. That is what the US did before more people could be slaughtered under this madman's belief system and frankly, I thank goodness that they did. That is why people vote. So the public can decide if they have some wishy washy hippy who cannot make a decision, or someone who will just call a spade a spade and act when they have to act. The world is a better placer today because the US did act, instead of pushing this back and forth for decades to come.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The taliban offered to hand him over to a third independent state and asked for evidence of his guilt and the US wasn't listening or interested in bringing him to trial.

Since you were unaware of the rest of the story, here it is.

The United States launched the airstrikes Oct. 7 after weeks of pressing the Taliban to give up bin Laden unconditionally.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh there is no way he was going to survive be tried.

Of course not. Most of the world are disgusted in his actions and his beliefs. People less deserving of execution have perished on route to trial.

I think OBL was considered a great warrior and fighter against the Russians in Afghanistan, so I do not think he needed to dress like a goat herder.

By the people he wandered amongst in this videos and so forth? Almost every single one of them also admit they cannot read, they rely on tales from the great warrior, whom no doubt appears more powerful to wide eyed listeners when his is a ordinary man who appears like ordinary people. How else do you garner support from the ignorant? These people will killed themselves for mythical virgins in the afterlife!! They will believe anything from a fellow Muslim leader !!!! I think they just want some part of life to be better than what they must endure daily.

The taliban offered to hand him over to a third independent state and asked for evidence of his guilt and the US wasn't listening or interested in bringing him to trial.

Because he knew they had no hard evidence. The Taliban recruited smart men for 911, and planned it for at least 2 years. Why the heck do you think they made such a boast when the US could quite legally appropriate Usama via the 1998 bombing? The US could still have come in and taken them, they tried to make this a ploy to Muslims worldwide that an innocent man was being tried, but it only worked in small volumes, which eventuated to become the CT's we know today. I think the US just cut them of before they could try to get even more support for these killing machines.

They knew no hard evidence existed, and I would wager were trying to use that. Didn't help them in the end though Usama's reputation had already done enough damage to eradicate him.

I'm not after anyone, just trying to uncover the truth...or should that be twoof!! lol

If you are trying to uncover the twoof, then you need to go to the source of the information correct? Therefore you are indeed "after" the press if your claim is genuine. Everyone in these threads keeps pointing a finger at Fox, I suggest no paper is exempt, as they are almost all just copied and pasted anyway. This is where the Chinese whispers begin. And it is not going to get better along the way.

I do not doubt that.

Then what is indeed the problem? That he was killed for a murder that he merely instigated instead of the one they do have hard evidence of?

He was indicated without a trial or evidence and more importantly, if no paper trail exist , then it could be due to the fact there is no evidence connecting him to 9/11.

Lets face reality for one second, who in their right mind thinks OBL is completely innocent with regards to 911?

Do you honestly believe that for one second? There may be no paper trail because it was easier, Heck, he is operating out of sand dunes you know.

Well thanks for your opinions but I do not share the same sentiment.

I did not ask you to share anything, I suggested you speak to a real scientist, and ask them if what I have said is true, heck ask a dozen.

I will agree that some CT exist due to sloppy journalism but it doesn't account for every CT out there, because sloppy journliasm doesn't make molten steel appear in the rubble at GZ for instance.

No, heat and construction methods do. Yes, that is a direct result of sloppy journalism, how is it not? Please show me an article that definitively states that the collapse was impossible in a 911 situation, with proof, because if such existed, you and I would not be having this discussion would we? Not opinions, not possible outright proof that the US Government canot refute. I have quite reasonable engineering experience, and the tower collapse is genuine I an afraid, and that is not opinion.

To dismiss all 9/11 CT as rubbish/sloppy journalism/making light of Bin Laden is a misunderstading of the conspiracy itself.

Ohh, I know there is more to it than simple lazy and stupid journalism, but that is I feel likely to be by far the most major contributor.

Oh good, the FBI website.

Considering you are asking everyone in the forum what their actual information is, your reply is most puzzling. Would you suggest that people do not consult the FBI when you are asking questions about the FBI? That's rather a slanted view is it not? Do you understand directing the witness, because of you refuse the FBI website when asking questions about the FBI, that is what you are doing. And the FBI website itself says no Hard Evidence connects Usama to 911. But it does have an indictment for Usama doesn't it?

Now maybe you can find out why OBL was not indicted for his 9/11 crimes??

How many time do you need me to say they had no hard evidence? Are the above replies insufficient in some way? I fact, it feels rather that we have come full circle, shall I start with Al Capone again?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am afraid it has much to do with it. The paper trail just vanished.
There was no paper trail, so it didn't not vanish. It never existed. They turned over 2 countries which were suppose to have all kinds of links to Al-Qaeda and they didn't find a single thing implicating him.
So did having to prove an action to bring a killer to justice who has used every resource at his disposal to evade such so he ay continue brainwashing people and sending them to their deaths
Did he evade the US or was he given a safe passage as some people seem to suggest because with the worlds best technological resources couldn't find him for many years.
You know why he was not indicted, the FBI have no hard evidence. That is not to say they have no evidence, they simply have evidence that might result in decades of court battles giving people in the Jihad an opportunity to eventually free him, and do something even worse.
Free him?? :blink: Please explain to me if they captured OBL, how anyone would be able to free him? The US have KSM, No2 in AQ circles and he has never been freed??
One thing, OBL had no conscience, no humanity, he was going to kill again, and again. Until he was stopped, that is the sort if person he was. This shortcut curtailed slaughter and brought one man to justice.
Well did it bring justice or just revenge? Because I see no justice in someone being executed before being tried.
I am not seeing dishonesty, I am seeing a man answer to the best of his ability, and you should be happy with that, it is all one can do.
Sorry but ignoring my question and then repeating himself is not answering my questions.
It's like your poking and prodding Sky with a stick. He gave you his answer, asking for what you want to hear time and again is not going to produce it is it?
I'm sorry if you think I am prodding and poking him, but I will not accept dishonesty from him.

If he had said "I do not know why the FBI indicted him!" or "Because they have no evidence!" or "The FBI remit wasn't to charge the FBI" or something along those lines, you would have a point. But what happens is that he dismisses my argument and then proceed spam the thread saying that OBL admitted responsibility even though I accept he has and have never denied it in the posts I have made.

If you can't see skyeagle pure stubborness in never admiting he is wrong or incorrect about something, then you are going to be further disappointed with my posts.

He is not ignoring a point, Because he is an experienced man who has seen the world trough wars, he can smell a rat too, and probably had a better nose than you and I put together in these matters.
He is ignoring a point...lol

He is ignoring something which proves he is wrong.

You might like Skyeagle very much and he might be experienced, have a better nose or is a good rat detector but I see a intellectual coward who refuses to admit he is wrong.

This is what he does - defend the country, he works for the pople you are accusing, and if antyhing, Sky is not biased.
So how can he not be biased when he works for the people I am supposedly accusing?? lol
He will expose his superiors at the drop if a hat if they do not follow procedure that benefits everyone, in fact, ,he is hanging out with the Red Tails right now.
Well i only have your word for that but judging from the dishonesty in his posts, i am not seeing anything even close or resembling critical thinking.
Do you know who they are, and what they were up against? If you do now know who the Red Tails are, may I please request that you have a look into that chapter of history, then when you understand Sky as part of such history you will see his is nobody's puppet. You are just asking too much in the wrong way is all. Like Douglas Adams said, the answer is no good if you do not know how to ask the question.
I do not know who they are and to be honest i do not see how this affects the debate.
Guilty of what? 911? Do you really and honestly believe from one second that the most prominent man in a terrorist organisation that carried out 911 is completely innocent of the entire event? It was a war on terror, not a war on OBL, OBL was just a major target, as all superior people are.
In the eyes of the law, he is completely innocent...I do not know if he is truly guilty or not and will never know.

I know it was a war on terror and OBL wasn't a major target, this is why he was never found for many years after the events.

If OBL was a major target, then Bush would have been focusing on him rather than Saddam and Iraq.

What about the bombings, the Fatwa against America? That makes him guilty until proven innocent, The man declared war on America, and his merry band of followers carried out his wishes in return for a mythical afterlife. Declaring war on a country would be considered quite a bad thing, wouldn't you say?
Of course declaring war is a bad thing, but just because someone declares a war doesn't automatically mean they are guilty.

I have no doubt that he had some resposibility behind the US embassy bombings because there is evidence to support it, it's why the FBII indicted him for it.

He was guilty of the 1998 bombing, he was guilty of funding the organisation that carried out 911. The man is a murderer, and wants American people dead. All he did was cover his tracks well, and for that I think he deserves no pardon, and yes, in this case I do not have a problem with considering this person guilty before being proven so. His rejoicing in 911 was enough for that. Like I say, the FBI have no hard evidence. that does not mean no evidence, it just means it will take a long, long time to sift through the legal system.
He didn't cover any tracks well and although you think making a person guilty before being proven is just, I don't think it is and if the justice system operated that way, there would be more innocent people in jail for crimes they didn't commit because proving your innocence is much harder than proving your guilt.
You know your second line makes it clearer if anything. Do you pursue a line when there is no hard evidence? Nope, you just act. That is what the US did before more people could be slaughtered under this madman's belief system and frankly, I thank goodness that they did.
Well you might act but the more thoughtful people will think before acting.
That is why people vote. So the public can decide if they have some wishy washy hippy who cannot make a decision, or someone who will just call a spade a spade and act when they have to act. The world is a better placer today because the US did act, instead of pushing this back and forth for decades to come.
Not sure how you consider the world to be a better place when we are told it is more dangerous tioday than it has ever been? lol
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is not moot, because even though OBL admitted responsibility, the FBI never indicted him.

So why would the FBI not indicte him for his biggest crime even though he as admitted responsibility for it?? :blink:

Can you guess why yet?

So you do agree his carful word play does not absolve him from responsibility I take it?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you were unaware of the rest of the story, here it is.

The United States launched the airstrikes Oct. 7 after weeks of pressing the Taliban to give up bin Laden unconditionally.

The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.

Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you do agree his carful word play does not absolve him from responsibility I take it?

Where did I say it absolved him from responsibility?? lol

Have you read my posts?? Because I think you will find I agree that he admitted responsibility time and time again, no matter how many times he spams the forum with it. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.

Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.

The United States told the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden unconditionally. Now, why would the United States demand that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden unconditionally?

September 10th, 2002: bin Ladin and others

"Two days before the anniversary of the September attacks and at a time the U.S. is using its war on terror to launch an attack against Iraq, Qatar’s Al-Jazeera satellite channel on Monday, September 9, aired video-clips in which it says Osama bin Ladin claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on the United States"...

Apart from Atta, bin Ladin named Lebanese Ziyad al-Jarrah, Marwan al-Shehhi from the United Arab Emirates, “who destroyed the second tower” of the World Trade Center, and Hani Hanjour (from the Saudi city of Taef) “who destroyed the Pentagon.”

Al-Jazeera showed photographs of Hamza al-Ghamdi (alias Julailib al-Ghamdi), Saeed al-Ghamdi (alias Mutaz al-Ghamdi), Wael al-Shehri (alias Abu Suleiman) and Ahmad Naami (Abu Hisham), whose names, like those cited by bin Ladin, figure on the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) list of hijackers.

Al-Jazeera also aired footage of one of the hijackers saying in his “will” that he was trained by Laden.

http://www.911myths....onsibility.html

-------------------------------------------------------------

May 2003: Ayman Al Zawahiri

Learn from your 19 brothers who attacked America in its planes in New York and Washington and caused it a tribulation that it never witnessed before and is still suffering from its injuries until today.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/3047903.stm

As I have asserted time and again, there was no US government 911 conspiracy.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no paper trail, so it didn't not vanish. It never existed. They turned over 2 countries which were suppose to have all kinds of links to Al-Qaeda and they didn't find a single thing implicating him.

Now you are catching on, I too believe, it never existed, It was in planning for years before the event, and with OBL's high profile, he is not ever going to do anything but help their mission fail. False signatures, representatives, smart people and cash deals got this as far as it did get. Hell, I built half my house on cash, on paper it does not exist, but I live in it.

Did he evade the US or was he given a safe passage as some people seem to suggest because with the worlds best technological resources couldn't find him for many years.

I think people want to believe he was given safe passage so they can justify their crusade against the Government. However if he was given safe passage, and that can be proven, I would not like to be living in Pakistan.

Free him?? :blink: Please explain to me if they captured OBL, how anyone would be able to free him? The US have KSM, No2 in AQ circles and he has never been freed??

The same BS people are playing here, no hard evidence, I doubt any person would insist the legal system is perfect, not to mention with people ready to kill themselves for religion, what act is too desperate? He is a liability because of his position within Al Qaeda. I do not think the US allows preconceptions since Kamikaze pilots.

Well did it bring justice or just revenge? Because I see no justice in someone being executed before being tried.

Justice. 1998 bombing.

Sorry but ignoring my question and then repeating himself is not answering my questions.

I'm sorry if you think I am prodding and poking him, but I will not accept dishonesty from him.

I know Sky, and I believe he feels has has answered your questions. I do not see what continually repeating both achieves, you know what you know, Sky knows what he knows. Lets lay down the guns and put it all on the table and discuss it like grown ups.

If he had said "I do not know why the FBI indicted him!" or "Because they have no evidence!" or "The FBI remit wasn't to charge the FBI" or something along those lines, you would have a point. But what happens is that he dismisses my argument and then proceed spam the thread saying that OBL admitted responsibility even though I accept he has and have never denied it in the posts I have made.

Fair enough, but we can see that is not going to happen. Goading Sky is only going to fill the thread quickly with non productive responses because as far as Sky is concerned, he has answered the question. To move on, you need to examine his response and then guide it if it is in a different vein. After all, you are asking the question, it is your responsibility to make it as clear is is possible.

If you can't see skyeagle pure stubborness in never admiting he is wrong or incorrect about something, then you are going to be further disappointed with my posts.

He is ignoring a point...lol

He is ignoring something which proves he is wrong.

Or, he believes that with what he knows, this is an adequate reply. As you say, OBL is responsible, that might to some mean enough evidence wether it be on paper or not. Many of us old school guys are used to making a thing happen and worrying about paperwork later. Sometimes we have to remember we are talking across Oceans, and it is not always as easy as one might imagine, it certainly has it's drawbacks, I have had many such misunderstandings myself. I do not think Sky would deliberately annoy you with this, I have a feeling he is as frustrated as you are.

You might like Skyeagle very much and he might be experienced, have a better nose or is a good rat detector but I see a intellectual coward who refuses to admit he is wrong.

I must say here that Sky and I have fought bitterly in the past, to a point where mods have stepped in. Like I say, I call a spade a spade, and if I do not agree, I will passionately argue what I believe to be a truthful claim. But I do know that even with repetitive answers that seem to lead nowhere, Sky can often after pages suddenly uncover a nugget of information that everyone has missed. Like I say, we have fought bitterly, but he made me a stronger person for it. I respect him as one of the best I have debated, but it took me some time to recognise that. Sky is not what I call an intellectual debater, he is hands on. An experienced person. He wont tell you the technical tolerances of an engine, but by gum, he will know what it can do, and how to build it, who uses it and it's flaws. But in regular speak. He is different to most posters, I suppose I understand his style of discussion because I am old school too. I doubt too many men who call Sky a coward to his face manage to retain their balance for long afterwards.

So how can he not be biased when he works for the people I am supposedly accusing?? lol

As I said above, ask him about any cover up. Like I say, Sky is old school, and he expects everyone to play by the rules, even the USAF. He outright has accused the USAF of witholding information where he believes they are.

Well i only have your word for that but judging from the dishonesty in his posts, i am not seeing anything even close or resembling critical thinking.

I do not know who they are and to be honest i do not see how this affects the debate.

It affects the debate only because it shows Sky is not a poster boy for the USAF, he does his job, and if he feels the job is not being done how it should be, he makes a noise about it. The Red Tails had more than their share of unfairness to overcome from racist authorities. Sky does not allow that sort of BS to stand in the way of the truth as he knows it to be.

In the eyes of the law, he is completely innocent...I do not know if he is truly guilty or not and will never know.

Not completely, it is just we will never know what has been uncovered. All the FBI would state is that they do not have hard evidence. Which really means any sort of trail. And in todays digital world, I completely believe that is not at all impossible. Not like there would have been much to cover up is there. A very small operation, and what did remain is not considered "hard" evidence.

I know it was a war on terror and OBL wasn't a major target, this is why he was never found for many years after the events.

I do not know if that was why he managed to hold out so long, I have not been personally to the zone, but my little sister did. From what I understand, it is a pretty big place and easy to hide in. It does not seem outrageous to me at all considering many prisoners manage to evade capture for years at a time all the while living in a community under the very noses of authorities. And I think Saddam was doing more direct harm to innocent people at the time, as you say, taking the focus.

If OBL was a major target, then Bush would have been focusing on him rather than Saddam and Iraq.

One things at a time I suppose. OBL was never going to make his death easy, and he was always going to die. They managed to uncover some atrocities in the meantime, and put a stop to such behaviour.

Of course declaring war is a bad thing, but just because someone declares a war doesn't automatically mean they are guilty.

Even if their own soldiers attack your country?

Stundie

I have no doubt that he had some resposibility behind the US embassy bombings because there is evidence to support it, it's why the FBII indicted him for it.

That it seems was enough.

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a longtime and prominent member of the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list, which notes his role as the suspected mastermind of the deadly U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998.

But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.

The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

LINK

Stundie

He didn't cover any tracks well and although you think making a person guilty before being proven is just, I don't think it is and if the justice system operated that way, there would be more innocent people in jail for crimes they didn't commit because proving your innocence is much harder than proving your guilt.

OhhI think he covered his tracks very well. Every person alive knows he had extensive wealth, can you account for his whereabouts in the 2 years before 911 and ever since? Can anyone prove he had nothing to do with 911, or is everyone just focused on the hard evidence the FBI failed to locate after the event? If anything, I think that displays that we cannot be trusting with each other any more any place.

Indeed on can cover tracks, and particularly so when you have had time to prepare for such. So why give him this luxury when he does have a number on his head for other murders? I think every sane person in the world knows he was involved, and funded the operation. I do not feel he deserves lighter treatment because the processes of justice, are like his own trail, made difficult to follow? To me it seems to be rewarding criminals for being very good at crime. We know he did it, we know he covered it up, can we prove something when he destroyed the evidence?

Stundie

Well you might act but the more thoughtful people will think before acting.

I see what you are saying, and I do believe that being thorough is beneficial, however I also feel there is a difference between being thorough and wasting time, and I feel a wise person can differentiate the two. The time had passed, people had died, and would continue to die under his order. OBL was killed, Al Qaeda took a serious blow. I would like to know however where his funds have gone, no doubt to family, but it should go to victims, and rebuilding the WTC.

Stundie

Not sure how you consider the world to be a better place when we are told it is more dangerous tioday than it has ever been? lol

Because one less insane murderer exists today. Several in fact. Statistics are BS, I can find one to suit whatever I want. Maybe I am spoiled in the luck country, we have no guns, we have no wars. But it seems like a pretty good place to me. Man's achievements are something I find worth being proud of. I watched the camera on the bottom of Curiosity as it landed, I looked upon another planet. I think that is a good world to be in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I say it absolved him from responsibility?? lol

Have you read my posts?? Because I think you will find I agree that he admitted responsibility time and time again, no matter how many times he spams the forum with it. lol

I am still catching up with the thread as earlier mentioned, so I apologise if I have repeated you position, in fact I caught on after posting the above, but had not got around to correcting this misunderstanding as yet, if that is even possible.

No offence intended, and thank you for answering. I just wish to know where everyone stands, because it seems to be something of a default position that goes hand in hand with the CT. Q 24 seems to be of the understanding that he is not responsible at all as I understand.

Your biggest point appears to be that the FBI did not have hard evidence to indict him with 911, is that right? Do you feel that makes the good work the Navy Seals did unjustified? May I ask you where you intend leading with that, and what it changes with the situation as we know it?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States told the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden unconditionally. Now, why would the United States demand that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden unconditionally?

As I have asserted time and again, there was no US government 911 conspiracy.

Gidday Sky

Indeed, unconditional being the key word here. If Al Qaeda were happy to hand over OBL, then why were conditions placed on the transfer?

We are to believe this religious fundi group with a record of sending children to their deaths to place their religion in a noticeable position, and selfishly claim gifts of the afterlife as service for crime are really just trying to get a fair deal for Usama?

Yeah, And I'll take two of them bridges thanks LOL. Those poor hard done by terrorists! Imagine nobody believing them at their word simply based on a long history of lies deceit and murder! What have we become LOL

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Sky

Indeed, unconditional being the key word here. If Al Qaeda were happy to hand over OBL, then why were conditions placed on the transfer?

We are to believe this religious fundi group with a record of sending children to their deaths to place their religion in a noticeable position, and selfishly claim gifts of the afterlife as service for crime are really just trying to get a fair deal for Usama?

Yeah, And I'll take two of them bridges thanks LOL. Those poor hard done by terrorists! Imagine nobody believing them at their word simply based on a long history of lies deceit and murder! What have we become LOL

Cheers.

How's it going? Yes indeed, "unconditional" is the word of the day. The terrorist are killing foreigners, and slaughtering hundreds of innocent Muslims as well, and for what?! .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's it going? Yes indeed, "unconditional" is the word of the day. The terrorist are killing foreigners, and slaughtering hundreds of innocent Muslims as well, and for what?! .

Gidday Mate

Bud, it's coming down cats and dogs, I hope we do not get another flood.

For a misguided religious principal twisted by mortal men to benefit themselves. Indeed, unconditional is the word of the day, Al Qaeda refused it, but why is anyone guess. I somehow doubt that Al Qaeda were just after a fair shake.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who hold that 911 was an inside job, I would like to discover why you believe those responsible would have executed this plan.

I can only think of one possible reason that might make sense; to launch a war, to give the armed forces combat experience.

You go.

Thanks

So Bush JR. could finish what Bush SR. started.

To make Bush look like a hero in the eyes of America.

If it is a conspiracy, its sole purpose would be propaganda and nothing more.

If it is a conspiracy, I don't think it went or is going according to plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Bush JR. could finish what Bush SR. started.

Bush Sr. invaded Afghanistan too?

To make Bush look like a hero in the eyes of America.

By dragging America into another quagmire for years? Brilliant plan, just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident launched the ever popular Vietnam war.

If it is a conspiracy, its sole purpose would be propaganda and nothing more.

Hmm, not money, power or oil? Well, you sir have an original theory, congrats.

If it is a conspiracy, I don't think it went or is going according to plan.

Hmm, yeah, not exactly geopolitical/realpolitik masterminds. (without all their staff, I don't think these politicians could plan a wedding party)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you are catching on, I too believe, it never existed, It was in planning for years before the event, and with OBL's high profile, he is not ever going to do anything but help their mission fail. False signatures, representatives, smart people and cash deals got this as far as it did get. Hell, I built half my house on cash, on paper it does not exist, but I live in it.
I;m not catching on at all, I do not believe there is a paper trail because OBL was clever or smart or high profile. I believe there was a lack of paper trail because I do not think that OBL was behind the attacks, he might have funded them or even support them but I do not think he planned them.

There is no way that OBL could have planned an operation on this scale without help and that help I believe came from within the intelligence agencies within the US and mahybe other countries.

I think people want to believe he was given safe passage so they can justify their crusade against the Government. However if he was given safe passage, and that can be proven, I would not like to be living in Pakistan.
I do not want to believe he was given a safe passage at all but there is plenty of evidence for it.
The same BS people are playing here, no hard evidence, I doubt any person would insist the legal system is perfect, not to mention with people ready to kill themselves for religion, what act is too desperate? He is a liability because of his position within Al Qaeda. I do not think the US allows preconceptions since Kamikaze pilots.
I'm at a loss here?? You said that if OBL was captured, that there would be people trying to free him. I do not see how this would be the case when no one has made an attempt on his No2.
I know Sky, and I believe he feels has has answered your questions. I do not see what continually repeating both achieves, you know what you know, Sky knows what he knows. Lets lay down the guns and put it all on the table and discuss it like grown ups.
No, lets not let Sky off the hook. lol

If you believe he has answered the question, then all you have to do is provide the post where he supposedly answered it but you can't, if he answered it then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?? But he chooses to ignore it and that is not acceptable behaviour.

Fair enough, but we can see that is not going to happen. Goading Sky is only going to fill the thread quickly with non productive responses because as far as Sky is concerned, he has answered the question.
I'm not goading him, I'm asking him to respond to a question and if it appears like Im goading him, then all he has to do is answer it and I'll shut up about it.

Sky posts are non productive responses and if he as answered the question, then post it but pretending he has when he clearly hasn't is just strange behaviour.

To move on, you need to examine his response and then guide it if it is in a different vein. After all, you are asking the question, it is your responsibility to make it as clear is is possible.
How can I make it more clearer...

Why was OBL not indicted for the 9/11 charges?

What is so challenging about that question which requires me to guide in a different vein? How clearer can it be?

It is bizzare that you feel the need to defend Skyeagle, you answered it in your last post and that is all it took, am I asking you again the same question? No, I moved on.

I find it both hilarious and strange that you challenge my behaviour when it is only a response to Skyeagole refusal to address a simple question which you answered in a single post.

Or, he believes that with what he knows, this is an adequate reply. As you say, OBL is responsible, that might to some mean enough evidence wether it be on paper or not. Many of us old school guys are used to making a thing happen and worrying about paperwork later. Sometimes we have to remember we are talking across Oceans, and it is not always as easy as one might imagine, it certainly has it's drawbacks, I have had many such misunderstandings myself. I do not think Sky would deliberately annoy you with this, I have a feeling he is as frustrated as you are.
Well I'm sorry but looking at Skyeagle posting history, I believe he would deliberately annoy me and many other posters. I have had run ins with him in the past and know his style which is to deny/ignore anything he is wrong about.

All he has to do is answer a simple question, which yourself answered in a single post.

I always address whatever questions are put in front of me and I expect the person I debate to be honest and do the same, Skyeagle is not honest and ignores anything which challenges his position and continues on with the self deception. If you think it is acceptable behaviour to allow a poster to continuosluy ignore questions posed by the other side, then you are going to be further disappointed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States told the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden unconditionally. Now, why would the United States demand that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden unconditionally?

As I have asserted time and again, there was no US government 911 conspiracy.

All they had to do was hand show the taliban the evidence of his involvement.....which makes you wonder he was never indicted by the FBI?

Have you worked it out yet and are you ready to tell the lurkers. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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!!

Thank you for being honest enough to admit you are placing faith in the official story, and thereby in the US Government press releases. Blind Faith was the name of a band several decades ago, and the driver of most of the public perception--faith that the government does not deceive them, and has their best interests at heart.

If you actually listen to the tapes, or read the transcripts, you will see what I mean. Without actually listening to the tapes or reading the transcripts, your blind faith does not qualify you as having any sort of informed opinion on the subject. Indeed, it qualifies you has have an UNinformed opinion on the matter.

More important that the script-like quality of the calls is the fact that cell phones do not work at altitude and airspeed. That is, the cell phone calls as described in the story were physically impossible to make. Yes, as you implied, science frequently trumps blind faith.

In the American literature, Huck Finn observed that "faith is when you believe something you know ain't true." That's where so many people become hypnotized by the constant repetition of a story.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for being honest enough to admit you are placing faith in the official story, and thereby in the US Government press releases. Blind Faith was the name of a band several decades ago, and the driver of most of the public perception--faith that the government does not deceive them, and has their best interests at heart.

If you actually listen to the tapes, or read the transcripts, you will see what I mean. Without actually listening to the tapes or reading the transcripts, your blind faith does not qualify you as having any sort of informed opinion on the subject. Indeed, it qualifies you has have an UNinformed opinion on the matter.

More important that the script-like quality of the calls is the fact that cell phones do not work at altitude and airspeed. That is, the cell phone calls as described in the story were physically impossible to make. Yes, as you implied, science frequently trumps blind faith.

In the American literature, Huck Finn observed that "faith is when you believe something you know ain't true." That's where so many people become hypnotized by the constant repetition of a story.

While I agree with you, all we generally know is decided on faith. Whether or not you believe in "the science" is itself based upon faith, faith that you are not being lied to by your scientific sources. And the same for any supposed transcripts. Everything you do not experience first-hand is believed almost entirely on faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with you, all we generally know is decided on faith. Whether or not you believe in "the science" is itself based upon faith, faith that you are not being lied to by your scientific sources. And the same for any supposed transcripts. Everything you do not experience first-hand is believed almost entirely on faith.

I disagree. Is it on faith that I accept that a meteor fell in Russia last week? I didn't experience it first-hand.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who hold that 911 was an inside job, I would like to discover why you believe those responsible would have executed this plan.

I can only think of one possible reason that might make sense; to launch a war, to give the armed forces combat experience.

You go.

Thanks

It's simple you jsut need to look at the facts.

The US is building a pipeline across afghanistan to pump gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. (so they can use the docks at Pakistan to pump the gas into ships) Al Qeada attacked the Pipeline a few times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

Afghanistan's central bank is now owned by the Rothcilds etc.

Iraq's central bank is now owned by the Rothcilds.

Iraqs oil fields are now controlled by the US/UK etc. (Which means Iraq can't sell the oil to anyone else for other currencies)

Put it this way, 11 of the 15 terrorists who where involved in 9/11 where from Saudi Arabia NOT Afghanistan or Iraq. Do you know why we didn't attack Saudi Arabia? Becuase Saudi Arabia sells it's oil for the dollar ONLY in exchange for US military protection.....

As for more evidence towards the central banks being handed over to the rothcilds etc control.... Libya had a debt free goverment run central bank. It is now owned by the Rothcilds etc as well. Now their country will be in debt just like all the others.

Now for the last piece of the puzzle.... Iran..

Iran does not have a Rothcilds controlled central bank, oil and gas reservoirs. (A lot of oild and gas reservoirs) They sell their oil and gas to China and Russia.. Not for the dollar.

That is why there will be a war with Iran eventually and whyt he western media is really hammering the agenda home. Just like they pushed for war with Iraq and Afghanistan.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I;m not catching on at all, I do not believe there is a paper trail because OBL was clever or smart or high profile.

Osama bin Laden had declared war on the United States and has admitted to his responsibility in the 911 attacks so there is nothing for you to debate upon in that respect.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple you jsut need to look at the facts.

The US is building a pipeline across afghanistan to pump gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. (so they can use the docks at Pakistan to pump the gas into ships) Al Qeada attacked the Pipeline a few times.

http://en.wikipedia....nistan_Pipeline

We didn't need to go to war to build a pipeline in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan's central bank is now owned by the Rothcilds etc.

Iraq's central bank is now owned by the Rothcilds.

Iraqs oil fields are now controlled by the US/UK etc. (Which means Iraq can't sell the oil to anyone else for other currencies)

Put it this way, 11 of the 15 terrorists who where involved in 9/11 where from Saudi Arabia NOT Afghanistan or Iraq. Do you know why we didn't attack Saudi Arabia? Becuase Saudi Arabia sells it's oil for the dollar ONLY in exchange for US military protection.....

As for more evidence towards the central banks being handed over to the rothcilds etc control.... Libya had a debt free goverment run central bank. It is now owned by the Rothcilds etc as well. Now their country will be in debt just like all the others.

Now for the last piece of the puzzle.... Iran..

None of which was an excuse to go to war. Did we go to war when the USS Cole was bombed? No! Did we go to war when WTC1 was bombed in 1993? No! Did we go to war when our embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania? No! How much oil did Libya produced when it downed Pan Am 103? Did the United States go to war with Libya afterward? No!

How much oil did the United States import from Iraq before the Gulf War? Iraq was warned to get out of Kuwait or else. Iraq refused and the rest became history after many nations participated with the United States that drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Saddam continued to remain a threat to the Gulf region and once again, attacked. Remember, Iraq warned its Gulf neighbors to forgive its debts or else. You should have seen Iraq's huge super gun and I am very sure that it wasn't to be used for duck hunting.

Edited by skyeagle409
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All they had to do was hand show the taliban the evidence of his involvement.....which makes you wonder he was never indicted by the FBI?

I am very sure the Taliban already knew that Osama bin Laden was guilty. After all, then, President Clinton, didn't send cruise missiles into bin Laden's trainin camp in Afghanistan for a celebration.

Have you worked it out yet and are you ready to tell the lurkers. lol

I have already been working out.

Edited by skyeagle409
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We didn't need to go to war to build a pipeline in Afghanistan.

No but they needed to protect the pipeline being built. It was attacked by Al Qeada numerous times along witht he embassy.

None of which was an excuse to go to war. Did we go to war when the USS Cole was bombed? No! Did we go to war when WTC1 was bombed in 1993? No! Did we go to war when our embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania? No! How much oil did Libya produced when it downed Pan Am 103? Did the United States go to war with Libya afterward? No!

How much oil did the United States import from Iraq before the Gulf War? Iraq was warned to get out of Kuwait or else. Iraq refused and the rest became history after many nations participated with the United States that drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Saddam continued to remain a threat to the Gulf region and once again, attacked. Remember, Iraq warned its Gulf neighbors to forgive its debts or else. You should have seen Iraq's huge super gun and I am very sure that it wasn't to be used for duck hunting.

Iraq had no WMD's and Saddam was used by the US, thye helped him ge tinto power. They made him attack iran. He was the US's puppet, then he stopped doing as they said and thye wanted him out.

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.