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

For the record for all to see, are you denying that Osama bin Laden admitted that he was responsible for the 911 attacks?

I thought I made my thoughts quite clear.........

I can't say why he or the right handed fat bin laden admited his responsibility because I do not know what was he responsible for exactly? Did he plan it? Did he pay for it? Did he give them blessings? Did he give them contacts? Was it his masterplan? DId he do all of this?

OBL says "While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women."

He is not admitting responsibility here exactly either, he is saying that in his mind, he thought that the US should be punished, so they can see what its like for us and stop them killing our people. That is not an admission!

If you know the difference between "I wanted someone killed" and "I killed someone" in that wanting someone dead or punished is not the same as that person actually doing it, then why are you suggesting that he admits responsibilty when he clearly doesn't..and yet you claim to know the difference...lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I made my thoughts quite clear.........

Apparently, they are not clear at all because Osama bin Laden admitted that he was responsible for the 911 attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, they are not clear at all because Osama bin Laden admitted that he was responsible for the 911 attacks.

Where does he admit his responsibility?...proving again that you are completely clueless and do not know the difference between "I wanted someone killed" and "I killed someone" in that wanting someone dead or punished is not the same as that person actually doing it and neither is it an admission...lol Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=Stundie' timestamp='1362018382' post='468

1087]

Where does he admit his responsibility?...

For the record, are you claiming that Osama bin Laden did not admit that he was responsible for the 911 attacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I made my thoughts quite clear.........

I can't say why he or the right handed fat bin laden admited his responsibility because I do not know what was he responsible for exactly? Did he plan it? Did he pay for it? Did he give them blessings? Did he give them contacts? Was it his masterplan? DId he do all of this?

OBL says "While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women."

He is not admitting responsibility here exactly either, he is saying that in his mind, he thought that the US should be punished, so they can see what its like for us and stop them killing our people. That is not an admission!

If you know the difference between "I wanted someone killed" and "I killed someone" in that wanting someone dead or punished is not the same as that person actually doing it, then why are you suggesting that he admits responsibilty when he clearly doesn't..and yet you claim to know the difference...lol

Time for a recap.

Bin Laden: Yes, I did it

OSAMA BIN LADEN has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal. In a previously undisclosed video which has been circulating for 14 days among his supporters, he confesses that "history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents". In the footage, shot in the Afghan mountains at the end of October, a smiling bin Laden goes on to say that the World Trade Centre's twin towers were a "legitimate target" and the pilots who hijacked the planes were "blessed by Allah".

The killing of at least 4,537 people was justified, he claims, because they were "not civilians" but were working for the American system. Bin Laden also makes a direct personal threat against Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, for the first time, and warns nations such as Australia, Germany and Japan to stay out of the conflict.

http://www.telegraph...s-I-did-it.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pysche,

I did reply but I lost it as I have been extremely busy after having a period of twiddling my thumbs. Anyway....

Gidday Stundie

That happens to me a lot, rather frustrating. I use a magic mouse on my Mac, and there is some keyboard shortcut that backspaces. Annoying to be near the end of a post, it backspaces and I lose everything.

I do not think that OBL would care whether there was a paper trail leading back to him or not, seeing as he had already declared war against the west. So why would it matter to him? I think the reason is there isn't a paper trail, or evidence unearthed in Afghanistan or in any other raids showing evidence of his involvement is probably because he was not involved in the plotting or planning.

I just figure it is a clever ploy by Usama, he lies through his teeth in Interviews and is evasive. He claims to have the WMD's America went looking for, I really think he was setting the US to appear unjust by retaliation. I do not think it worked, but enough elements exist to create CT's. Here in Australia, Anthony Mundine, and Indigenous boxer who found Islam condoned the slaughter. Unfortunately he is still here and did not leave the country in shame for the one he prefers. Usama had many people tricked into thinking killing is justified. Many of his own did not, and still do not consider him even a terrorist, when he most certainly is. Public opinion can be a powerful tool. Government uses it, the only reason we have the useless Government in place here that we do is because some clown befriended thousands on faceboook to make them feel special, and then gave everyone a thousand dollars to spend, which would have been very useful in the devastating bush-fires a few months later. Smart politics to appear heroic instead of mad.

Not all muslim countries were celebrating. I seem to remember that the people of Iran held a huge vigil, I thought the only countries who celebrated were Iraq and Palestine.

Yes, but a few more countries I think Jerusalem was taking film away from reporters I have read to quell the flow of this display. I alos thought the Philippine's had a contingent that were quite happy about it too. Yes, it is not all Muslims, I realise that, but I do not feel they actively fight that which their own faith has produced. Rather than simply say "sorry for these misguided brothers" they need to take these harmful elements, like Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali and whoever put eight-year-old Ruqaya up to her "speech" really does not deserve to be part of a social community. That to me is child abuse. These men need to be seen as ousted by the Muslim community for the greater good of all people, but they are not, they are men in high positions within the Muslim community. They are not, at best we see an apologist. I think many people are getting tired of hearing "sorry about that".

As for Sharia, I do not care whether it stands against everything I stand for, if people want to pratice it, then they are free to do so providing they do not expect me to follow it or impose it on me.

Imagine no religion indeed!! :)

I just cannot agree, I think there needs to be guidelines for behaviour. Currently they can be circumvented as Scientology has proven, however, I think that is simply a wake up call lthat we wear kid gloves with religion, when relgion most certainly does not. Time to dish out a little of what we get. I feel the only far solution to a barbaric system such as Shari'ah is to downgrade it to cult status, when you can stone a family member to death for speaking to a non family member of the opposite sex, and have the justified by religious law, the step too far has been taken. In todays society, there is no place for such barbarism. That is contravening human rights, and that is where I think that toothless tiger the UN needs to step in. They wont, but I think they should

I'm sure the FBI is full of guys who are blunt and say what they see types. I think he started working for the FBI in the late 70's, so if it was his style, I think the powers that be would have dealt with him ages ago. I know that he upset a few people within the FBI and CIA etc etc but I think what alienated him was the knowledge he had on OBL and that he was obviously getting to close. He apparently made some comment to the effect that next time they bomb the towers, they would finish the job.

Bodine had a problem because O Neil was a player. Women detest players to my experience. He had 2 families. He was always slick, well presented, and not disheveled like the average employee working a million hours a week. He had it all, and that really got under some peoples skin. I think his knowledge was all that kept him around for as long as he did, he often burned the midnight oil making something come together. He was a hard worker, who got results, and reaped the benefits from doing double time. Yes, I heard that comment, and he did seem to be expecting it to happen, and regarding his knowledge and position, yes I agree the FBI did drop the ball. I do not challenge that, had Bodine and her cronies been a bit more honest and left personal feelings out of it, yes, 3,0000 people might be alive today. I do not know how she lives with that weight on her shoulders to be frank. Pickard too, he and Bodine obviously were in cahoots.

Iran was a nice place in the day of the Shah?? :blink:

You are joking aren't you? Because before the installation of the Shah, Iran had a democracy which was overthrown with the help of the UK and US governments. The Shah was famous for its secret police the SAVAK and torture dungeons and executions.

My understanding is that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi understood the value in a Western lifestyle, and promoted it. I have read, and seen pictures of even bikini billboards in the street during his reign. Which I heartily approve of. SAVAK was organised by the CIA as far as I know, and is still operating today under a different name. Didn't the Shah try to have the entire faction completely reorganised, but failed due to Khomeini beginning the overthrow? I thought it was disbanded just before the overthrow, and then repatriated with the Khomeini regime under a new name? SAVAK personel were personally trained by Major General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf of the CIA as far as I know. I think many long established countries have their own version of a "secret police" with seemingly unlimited power?

I know most peoples sentiment to OBL because he is possibly guilty of a multitude of different crimes. I do not think he would be freed, even in the unlikely situation that he was found not guilty.

Quite possible, I just see even a one in a millon chance with someone so hellbent on destruction as too steep.

As for Al-Megrahi, I think that they released him on passionate grounds rather than him appeal because the initial case I think was flimsy at best. I think most of the families from the UK people who died at Lockerbie thought it was a grave miscarriage of justice. I personally think releasing him rather than have an appeal which would have highlighted the poor case against him and begged the question of if it wasn't him, who was it?

I did not think it was "most" however, the Clintons did their damnedest to keep him in Jail, but failed. Barrack even called, and was turned down. These things can become beyond the control of the US, and if that was to happen, the world would not be a noce place to be with a vengeful Bin Laden on the loose. The justice system needs to make a stand, but across waters, justice is not always united.

I wouldn't call it an answer, it was a response but his response never addressed the question directly or indirectly. He ignored it and unless you think ignorance is an answer, then I can't see how you could say that.

I think he just sees it in a different light.

I'm not sure what to make of this to be honest. I do not think it is a moot point because critical thinking says that if you have no hard evidence of someones guilt, even if he is suspect No1, then you must look for someone else. I see critical thinking being thrown out the window because of the repeated mantra from government/media sources that OBL was behind 9/11, therefore guilty. I do not think he would taunt America knowing that if he was arrested and charged, he would walk away cause even if they could not convict him of 9/11, they would convict him of his other crimes. He knows that his capture would mean he would never be released. However, I'm sure they would find a way to shoehorn evidence or create a miltary trail like they are doing with KSM which would ensure a guilty verdict.

Well, as you say, nothing to lose, and there is people believing this killer. Which is a gain for him.

Well I would respect him more if he actually addressed issues which challenge what he believes. I know nothing about Skyeagle other than what he posts on this forum and I have no interest whether he is a pot washer or a nobel peace prize winning scientist as it makes no difference to the discussion. What matter is the integrity of the character replying in conversation to admit that when the evidence doesn't support what they believe, they change the belief, not to ignore it and repeat their belief again to the annoyance of the person they are debating. Respect is something that is earned and not given and until there is some honesty in his responses, they he will find little to no respect coming from me.

I disagree with lots of things that you are posting, but I think I am being respectful to you because you do not appear to be dishonest. So for that reason alone, I treat you differently to how I would treat Skyeagle, hence you are not getting the lols.

Well I have been in trouble a few times but it's not like I am here to cause trouble.

As I said, I love debate but if someone wants to play smart ass and to deliberately obfusticate the debate, fine by me. Both will be dealt with.

Well I will await for him to offer excellent conversation as I have not seen it yet and honestly do not think it will be forthcoming. Admittedly my only involvement in the forums is in the conspiracy threads, so maybe he has more to say outside of the conspiracy threads.

And if demanding that Sky answers a question gets me into bother, then so be it, I would rather be in hot water than allow a poster to ride roughshot over a post or point I have made because it's the easier option for them. If that gets me into trouble, then this forum is not on a level playing field or what I thought it was and not the place for open and honest debate.

Thanks for the kind words, although I think they are undeserved. I am certainly no ambassador to the CT as I'm often reffered to a truther/twoofer/toofer or other names given to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, even though I have never joined a truth group.

Well I think your quite the gentleman, and I respect that. Passions are very easy to heat in debates such as this, and I appreciate your calm demeanour, and very good debate. I wish I had better control of my own temper. I understand what you are saying, truly I do, but experience tells me that this approach will not work, and once one gets to know Sky, he is a pretty bang up bloke with some very interesting history to share, and he is in the company of some fine people. I honestly believe the debate might be far more amicable in person and over a beer. I hope to one day shout Sky a beer and shake his hand and say thanks for the debates, I learned a few things along the way. There was a time when I was saying what you are right now, and would never have thought myself to be in this position, but here I am, and with a good helping of respect.

I'm not here to win either, although I wouldn't blame you for thinking otherwise. I do not think Jones or Berger who I don't know much about are childish jerks. I think like a lot of people I speak to, they have concerns like I have that we are not being told the truth about what happened on 9/11.

With each post, I see you in a new and brighter light. I think we are after the same thing, but come from different starting points.

I do not claim to know what happened on 9/11, but what I object to is the notion that the US government couldn't have orchestrated and pulled this type of operation off or that they never allowed the terrorists the opportunity to commit the attacks. When I hear the objects to why the conspiracy is not true, I usually here arguments like......

  • It would take thousands of government people to pull this off, yet these same people believed that 19 people in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off.
  • The government wouldn't do this to its people, yet the government has happily killed other people and send their own to die for it's own purposes such as Vietnam. If they can kill other people, there is nothing stopping them from killing their own, especially when there is so much to gain from it.
  • Conspiracies are never true and are only held by the deluded. Even though there are plenty of conspiracies which turned out to be true. Here in the UK, we have the exposing of Jimmy Saville, an entertainer who for years worked endlessly for charities and young children being exposed as the worst pedophille the world has ever seen. David Icke exposed him years ago and if you had have asked a few people years ago if Saville was a pedophille, you would have been told you were off your rocker. Another recent conspiracy that has been exposed in the UK is that of the Hilsborough disaster, a footballing tragedy that claimed the lives of 96 people who were crushed. It has now been shown that evidence was tampered with and police statements changed so that the blame could be solely laid on the fans and not the police/government/Football Association.

That is more than fair enough, and to me, confirms the above line I just wrote. I agree, both sides can offer zealous information in order to win an argument. And the points you have raised are indeed worth questioning, however, it does not mean that the worst is indeed the case because some people are putting the cart before the horse. And you have to admit, Icke got lucky with that info, he has been harassing the royal family for a long time with his nutcase claims, and happened upon a victim, and with 450 of them out there, it was going to eventually happen. To be honest, with behavour like this I am not sure why nobody every suspected him. Being an Aussie, I know little of his public profile.

14_008.jpg

Given the choice, I would rather it be OBL behind 9/11 because psychologically, it is much more comforting to think it was the bogeyman than those who are suppose to protect us. I am not a terrorist sympathiser as some might say because I condem the terrorists whether it was OBL or the US government or both. I am no fan of Islam either or many other religions as I'm an atheist. I'm not anti american cause I have been to the US twice and it's a wonderful place, I met some wonderful people and I love some of the stuff the US outputs to the rest of the world in media and enterainment, although your beers and chocolate suck! I am not anti government cause I undestand the need for a central organisation to the things that society needs and relies on.

Haha, I do not know much about the chocolate, but yes, the beer is something like making love in a canoe from what I have tried.

I am agnostic myself, I see value in religion, but I see how much pain it causes too. It's a tough positon to be in. I just canot fathom a religion that outwardly says the worshippers should cut of the fingers and heads of those in opposing religions. I think that is a cult, not a religion. But it is my belief that the media have messed the story by injecting personal opinion, they are saying what many are thinking. And it is hard to blame them for that because they need to do that to put food on the table.

I find Oneils information comforting enough to realise the Bin Laden was guilty as a ringleader. Surviving diagrams of his investigation are powerfully convincing, if not hard evidence. I just do not see the US as responsible, and I do not think the possibilities prove they are realities, but their tantalising nature is bound to get many to consider them closer than the deserve. I agree, the US does not have a great record in this respect, but that too is global going right back to medieval times, and I have little faith in the CIA even knowing what they are doing, and embarrassment to the US justice system, and especially so considering the men who stare at goats. But that seems to indicate someone not clever enough to well cover their tracks. Whist it is true there are dark chapters in US history such as MKUltra, they also seem to have a track record for being caught out. That is not the case here, just endless and seemingly to me, baseless allegations.

Stundie said: (dang quote limits)

The only thing I am interested in is the truth, now some people think that we have been told the full picture of what happened on 9/11 or the nearest account of what happened, but there are many people like me who have questions and do not believe we are being told the truth. All I am doing is asking about certain events surrounding 9/11 to understand whether or not the commission told the people the truth and I have come to the conclusions based on the evidence I have evaluated that things don't add up and that it shows us that the government may have had a part in this, whether they orchestrated it or just turned a blind eye.

I noble pursuit, I can acknowledge such no problem, however, once answers are produced one would except them to be considered as likely at the very least, which you do. But I think it is being overanalysed, and human nature, particularly ego, is the most important component being overlooked. Everyone has an ego, I figure perhaps some people do not wish tho face theirs. As answers are realised, it seems to be that the claim of the US having a hand in the act is diminishing rapidly with regards to evidence, it's mere speculation based on maybe's. Which is why I have not visited these sections in the past too post. I find it difficult to speculate so freely with so many dead. I honestly find it distressing, but as mentioned, I have personal reasons for wanting to pursue this avenue of questions.

Stundie' said:

I understand that not everyone is going to hold the same opinion as me, even those who agree with mostly with what I say will not agree with everything I have to say and vice versa, but what I find is those who hold the official account as the truth will defend it, even when it is evidently wrong and even justify why things are wrong because being wrong is not an option and it is a better option than those crazy twoofer conspiracy claims.

I find myself on the side of those who claim there is a conspiracy for no other reason that the evidence shows it as a possibility. That doesn't mean there is definelty a conspiracy, but the evidence doesn't show the OCT to be a true account of what happened that day.

Sorry for going on and I hope this clears up a few things.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Actually, that is what I like about you Stundie. I have to admit, when I first poked my nose into this thread, I did not envision any conversation being so interesting, I'd like to say thanks for "going on". I like it when you do, you provide though provoking questions, and that makes a discussion all the more interesting. This is why I joined UM, to have interesting discussions with intelligent people. And you are most certainly that. Justifying one's position is the only path to true clarification, mate I urge you to keep doing what you are doing, but if I may ask you focus at me as opposed to Sky s I feel we can further this discussion, perhaps even reach an amicable solution that both parties feel is a fair description of the event. And I do not think one could ask for more in a discussion forum.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will happily debate with you psyche but I'm afraid I have to be off very soon. So I will respond when I have more time and we'll see where we get where ever the truth may take us.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Edited by Stundie
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, let me add another.

Then I repeat: -

It doesn’t matter how many false reports you can find that bin Laden ‘admitted responsibility for 9/11’, such a claim is not contained within nor can be logically or legally concluded from the actual transcript reported on, and therefore is misleading.

In other words, every time you state, “bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11”, it is a result of your conditioning by and acceptance of political media. It is propaganda and opinion. It is not based in reality of the evidence/bin Laden’s actual words.

skyeagle, one question: do you understand the above?

If you respond with anything resembling, “Yes I understand that bin Laden admitted responsibility for 9/11” with another linked media headline, then I’ll assume 1) that you have lost your mind or 2) that you are a troll. Ok, I already think both to be honest, but it’s always good to confirm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So back to the 3 questions you dodged?? lol

  • Why did he deny it at first?
  • Why do you think the FBI have no hard evidence of his involvement even after his admitted responsibility?
  • And what are your opinions on the timing of is supposed admission in reflection to the presidentials in 2004 which boosted Bush popularity as the goldstein bogeyman appeared on video confessing all sorts apparently?

He did deny it, then he did not ,then he did, he is a liar and a killer, he is not going to implicate himself when he want America to look bad for killing someone for something they can show they did not do. When he gave an interview to Hamid Mir, and had it aired on Al Jazeera, he contradicted himself, even in his own carefully controlled environment:

QUESTION: After American bombing of Afghanistan on October 7, you told Al-Jazeera TV that the September 11 attacks had been carried out by some Muslims. How did you know they were Muslims?

BIN LADEN: The Americans themselves released a list of suspects of the September 11 attacks saying that the persons named were involved in the attacks. They were all Muslims, of whom 15 belonged to Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates and one from Egypt.

According to the information I have, they were also passengers. Fateha (funeral) was held for them in their homes. But America said they were hijackers.

This really is too much to swallow, We know he met Atta, as such there is no way he was oblivious to all of the information, which he says he got from the US, and then states his own sources of information. the guy is a lying creep.

QUESTION: In your statement of October 7, you expressed satisfaction over the September 11 attacks, although a large number of innocent people perished in them, hundreds among them were Muslims. Can you justify the killing of innocent men in the light of Islamic teachings?

BIN LADEN: This is a major point in jurisprudence. In my view, if an enemy occupies a Muslim territory and uses common people as a human shield then it is permitted to attack that enemy.

America and its allies are massacring us in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Iraq.

The Muslims have the right to attack America in reprisal.

The Islamic sharia (law) says Muslims should not live in the land of the infidel for long.

The September 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power.

The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to

Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians.

The American Congress endorses all government measures and this proves that the entire America is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims.

I ask the American people to force their government to give up the anti-Muslim policies. The American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. They must do the same today.

See he says above women and children were not targets? When interviewed and asked abut the Fatwa he issued, he said women and children are legitimate targets in Jihad. He could not lie straight in bed. Bush anyone can see was Usama's main target, and I have little doubt that Usama was releasing things strategically to undermine Bush's credibility. And it does seem to have worked. The human race has an element that needs a conspiracy, as we can see with the recent Russian meteor, and Usama played that card.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will happily debate with you psyche but I'm afraid I have to be off very soon. So I will respond when I have more time and we'll see where we get where ever the truth may take us.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Take your time mate. No probs at all, no rush. I appreciate your time, so anytime is good.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats s a ridiculous thing to say, I did not say Fox News was more accurate, I did not try to validate Fox news. When you say I try to defend Fox, you are lying, I said that no matter your source it has to be checked, has that speech been checked against the original to show it is accurate? The above states that I say all claims should be checked. Sometimes they cannot be, and in those cases I assume that you deny western sources, and run with Middle Eastern ones?

Ok, I’m pleased that you do not try to validate or defend the misleading Fox News report and false headline, “Bin Laden Claims responsibility for 9/11”. I was led to believe that your intent was the opposite, since your first post addressed to me (more on that below) asked what I do not find correct about the Fox News report in question.

The transcript provided by Al Jazeera is accurate – it is taken directly from the source videotape subtitles.

When claims cannot be checked through supporting/contradictory evidence, i.e. when media reports state that something happened and I cannot validate the claim, then I generally give benefit of the doubt. For the third time, whether we are dealing with Western or Middle Eastern media doesn’t come into it.

It is simply reality that in this particular case of the 2004 bin Laden videotape, Al Jazeera provided a more factual report, with less opinion (and certainly no false and sensationalist headline), than any Western media I have seen.

In fact, in your charge to knock over Fox News, what is written it is indeed factual, it is you I feel who is at fault. It says:

See where they say this is their opinion of what Bin Laden is trying to say? I will grant that the headline takes a leap, but the paragraph where the reporter believes Bin Laden makes an admission is also included for the reader to make their own minds up, as you and of course, I have done. They say "In what appears to be" they do not say "this concludes".

I have no issue with the sentence which you bolded. You know what I take issue with - the prior paragraph which reports the supposed admission of bin Laden, beginning, Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks...” (the statement we have been talking about). There is no indication that it is an opinion, rather it appears (misleadingly) as a statement of fact.

You can think what you want, no need to come here and dismiss the forum at the wave of a hand as being below you. As I pointed out, Stundie and I have had a valuable dialogue, and it addressed directly the main points we are going over here. Mainly the level of Bin Ladens involvement. You are obviously an intelligent person, such should be below you.

Please refer to previous response which you do not appear to have taken onboard.

I have said over the last ten pages that you chose to ignore that no direct evidence could be found.

So you admit: -

  • there is no evidence that bin Laden ‘ordered’ the 9/11 attack.
  • there is no evidence that bin Laden ‘funded’ the 9/11 attack.
  • you have no answer to the question: “What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the 9/11 attack?”
  • there is “no direct evidence” of bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attack.

Do you think perhaps, rather than continue this witch-hunt of bin Laden based on his peripheral role, exaggerated media headlines, a vast amount of rhetoric and, lack of evidence, that we should look for the direct hand behind the 9/11 attack?

This is where we could look at the hijackers and actual attacks in more detail, if you agree.

Digress is certainly right, quoting bin Laden? Heck, lets get Ted Bundy to prove himself innocent too.

Yes, as well as considered innocent until proven guilty, it is the right of the accused to defend themselves. That you appear to think otherwise on both counts is worrying and really shows the extent to which the political media driven witch-hunt has taken over. To pronounce bin Laden guilty of responsibility for the 9/11 attack on a whim (after admitting to lack of evidence above) and deny the accused a voice, that really is a method for the Dark Ages. Even more so when bin Laden’s earlier comment I quoted was corroborated by FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, i.e. it is seen in that case that bin Laden’s comments were correct.

Anyhow, you responded to the digression and missed out the point. There were certainly overlapping areas with the CIA/ISI and with Western intelligence all over and inside ‘Al Qaeda’ all the way to 9/11 – from there, hypothetically speaking to begin, the potential setup/entrapment of bin Laden would be easy. Can we agree?

You are the one hung up on Media pal. Not me. I want to speak to people who think Bin Laden is innocent. You seem to have some convoluted view that he did some bad things but it was set up by the US anyway, and that it's OK to fly planes into towers, because the US you claim gave weapons to someone who used them in the middle East, somehow making the US solely responsible and justifying 911,and all reported politically by Fox to cover the right backsides. I was never here to discuss media reports, nor long winded delusions I came for the title that says if 911 was an inside job, then for what? I am trying to be polite and follow the discussion, but I never came here to work out what headlines you deem accurate and appropriate. Do not think for a second that I did. That is your agenda. I am here to say planes did fly into the building, and that is was done by some crazy religious jerks who were happy to kill themselves to strike a blow to the west and collect their virgins in the afterlife. You know, the people who say these twisted asswipes are not responsible for the death they caused, people who say 911 is a hoax man. Those ignorant nitwits. The ones who think they have a reason for the US to instigate 911. Is that what you are getting at eventually, or do you wish to simply segregate media sources? I will accomodate the discussion but be aware, you are not what I am here for. That is not unwillingness, it is you forcing yourself upon someone. I simply keep up the conversation because you are an obviously intelligent person, and as such, I appreciate your discussion. I appreciate a good mind, even if I do not agree with it.

That’s an absolutely bizarre statement, taking into account that you first addressed me (not vice versa)on the subject of media, specifically requesting I demonstrate which elements of the Fox News article are incorrect. Here is your post: -

http://www.unexplain...25#entry4663333

It is also you who has provided the further false media claim below...

No, I do not have the transcript, that is why I posted you the closest possible source in English, this being an English speak forum. Not only hat, but I do not have the Daily Ummat newspaper delivered to my oor on the bottom of the globe, but I also do not speak the language. Do you? If you can translate then show me what it does say instead of trying to play this game, or do you have the same access to that story that I do? I told you I would leave the links to the sources, and I have done that, if you dispute it did you net tell me yourself in your last post that it is up to you to prove guilty What happened in this case? Did you prove me guilty? I gave you the source, you challenged it but provided nothing more than protest, you are that which you complain about!! You can say you have given me 2 chances to prove paper sources, however I have to say this is the second time I can label you as a hypocrite for not practising that which you preach.

Do you need the link again? I have been completely transparent, so here it is again - please show the original, which is in Arabic is it not? And an accurate translation with proof of your translation being accurate. Just to make sure we are doing things in a way that you claim to approve of.

It is apparent that you are not interested in the truth here at all. It appears that you only want to regurgitate and attribute to bin Laden false statements like, "Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida...”. If that were not the case then you would find the full transcript of the bin Laden interview with the Daily Ummat and confirm for yourself that he said no such thing. It isn’t hard to do, if you have ever heard of Google?

The link you provide is not a transcript, nor an accurate quoting of bin Ladens’ words. Here is the transcript as translated by the FBIS (hit Ctrl F and search “Ummat”). And for some level of corroboration, here is the transcript as translated by the BBC. These are both reasonably reliable sources.

Note that the false quote you linked to is simply not present in the text attributed to bin Laden.

Anyhow, if you feel our discussion on media has run its course, I’m content that my point has been made.

I think it is unfair to say I ignored that, I did not, I simply said I do not believe he was under house arrest, or the US would have shot him earlier.

Ok, so I can provide multiple sources stating that bin Laden was to be put under house-arrest in Pakistan, multiple sources showing that he indeed travelled to Pakistan, was permitted free passage by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and was found under the physical conditions of house-arrest, multiple American security analysts who agree bin Laden was under house-arrest, but... you ‘simply do not believe it’. Well, what can I do against that level of denial? At least you are consistent - that does fit in with other views from the Dark Ages that you have expressed.

The further problem with your attempted logic above is the assumption that those responsible for the house-arrest actually wanted bin Laden shot or that those responsible equate to, “the U.S.” It’s a common failing of OCTs to overlook the individual factions involved. Of course, bin Laden was far more valuable as a propaganda tool to drive the Neocon ‘War on Terror’ whilst his spectre was alive.

I did notice you gave my link explaining Bin Ladens involvement of the formation of Al Qaeda the same treatment, however, in the interests of fairness, I'll just assume you have not had time to address it.

I addressed that in my post #1062. In response to that, you posted the false bin Laden quote allegedly sourced from the Daily Ummat, which is discussed above. There is nothing else to be said about bin Laden’s involvement in the formation of ‘the base’ – we all know that occurred during Operation Cyclone – whether ‘the base’ remained as any structured/coherent organisation with bin Laden at the helm is unproven.

I’ll stop here because there’s really nothing to say to the rest of your post – it’s just a lot of rhetoric, appeal to emotion, and regurgitation of the official story adorned with your own imagination: “some influential b******* managed to talk some lost souls into killing themselves”? Such is sheer speculation and in all probability, fantasy. There is no evidence base to anything much you are saying when it comes to 9/11. There is no indication that the hijackers were mindless, rather than in possession of their own motivations.

So tell me, what do you think of the fact that Ziad Jarrah had a comfortable Western life, wealthy upbringing, attend Christian schools, went on to be university educated, liked to drink (as in, beer), had a girlfriend, spoke about and had bought a new suit for attendance at a family wedding on 22nd Sep, and... was related to an Israeli intelligence informant?

Then one day, all of a sudden, inspiration strikes, “I’m going to be a suicide pilot for bin Laden’s Jihad!”

You think that’s your standard profile of a suicide terrorist?

Oh, there is Jarrah’s video will, which even Jarrah could not take seriously and he had to be coached to read the script: -

Oh give me a break.

As Peter Bergen states at 6:44 below, “a more unlikely suicide attacker you could hardly think possible”: -

[media=]

Did I mention that Jarrah was trained in close quarters combat by a former U.S. special forces soldier?

A further fact is that Atta (the real ringleader of the hijackers, unlike bin Laden) wanted Jarrah out of the operation, and it seems that someone within the CIA had Jarrah interviewed in 2001 in all appearance to determine his reliability for the operation.

This whole profile is intriguing and not at all to be expected of your random suicidal terrorist – the indication, by and large, is that Jarrah was a pawn who didn’t know what he was getting into.

What do you reckon, psyche? These circumstances surrounding Jarrah are all just a big oddity/coincidence, don't you think?

Edited by Q24
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bee

What I find interesting about the dancing Israelis is that they were set up and filming, as and before the planes struck the towers. That provides some measure of insight. :innocent:

Claim: CNN used old footage to fake images of 'Palestinians dancing in the street' after the terrorist attack on the USA.

Status: False.

LINK - Snopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I’m pleased that you do not try to validate or defend the misleading Fox News report and false headline, “Bin Laden Claims responsibility for 9/11”.

Other news agencies around the world not connected with FOX News also reported Osama bin Laden's admission that he was responsible for the 911 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRT_n1G1MqA[/media]

Did I mention that Jarrah was trained in close quarters combat by a former U.S. special forces soldier?

I don't think you realize just how damaging that video is to your claims. Apparently, U.S. special forces took out Osama bin Laden.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I’m pleased that you do not try to validate or defend the misleading Fox News report and false headline, “Bin Laden Claims responsibility for 9/11”. I was led to believe that your intent was the opposite, since your first post addressed to me (more on that below) asked what I do not find correct about the Fox News report in question.

I do not hink you read my first post in full. I think you skimmed it and took what you wanted from it. However, as you seem to be partial to 2 part questions and answers, I'll accomodate in greater detail, below.

The transcript provided by Al Jazeera is accurate – it is taken directly from the source videotape subtitles.

When claims cannot be checked through supporting/contradictory evidence, i.e. when media reports state that something happened and I cannot validate the claim, then I generally give benefit of the doubt. For the third time, whether we are dealing with Western or Middle Eastern media doesn’t come into it.

It is simply reality that in this particular case of the 2004 bin Laden videotape, Al Jazeera provided a more factual report, with less opinion (and certainly no false and sensationalist headline), than any Western media I have seen.

That's what your doing with Al Jazeera is it? Usama's own personal release network. In his control, under his watch. What the heck would happen to Al Jazeera if they posted something against Bin Ladens wishes hrrmm? Wouldn't be here now would they.

You are doing what you accuse Fox of doing, but they are just offering opinion based on the ambiguous messages by Bin Laden. Being Al Jazeera, and in Arabic makes it so much easier for you, so it is little wonder you hold that source in high regard.

Rather than media, what about existing facts? Like ONeils investigation wich shows all roads lead to Bin Laden? That is personal investigation, not tainted by popularity nor threat. I find it more accurate.

I have no issue with the sentence which you bolded. You know what I take issue with - the prior paragraph which reports the supposed admission of bin Laden, beginning, Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks...” (the statement we have been talking about). There is no indication that it is an opinion, rather it appears (misleadingly) as a statement of fact.

Then you need to read the context, Headlines often take a leap, and when you read closely the actual story is more mundane. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but a few weeks ago, there was an announcement that Curiosity on Mars was about to re-write the books. Massive information, but when push cam to shove, it was an indicator, nothing so grandiose as the headline made out. I do not know where you are at, but you seem to not have a complete understanding of how Western media works. Its not a science manual, its a field report.

Please refer to previous response which you do not appear to have taken onboard.

Taken on board? You mean I did not race out and link you to what I thought was relevant? Well I wont be doing that, if you are too lazy to click the last few pages over, but yet dismiss them, that is your problem. Stundie and I have discussed that which you are regurgitating, and to say the pages are a waste and not worth considering contradicts your own position about being thorough. I am not your personal link provider. As with my posts, you have skimmed a section and come to a personal conclusion. It seems to be how you roll to be frank.

So you admit: -

  • there is no evidence that bin Laden ‘ordered’ the 9/11 attack.
  • there is no evidence that bin Laden ‘funded’ the 9/11 attack.
  • you have no answer to the question: “What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the 9/11 attack?”
  • there is “no direct evidence” of bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attack.

Do you think perhaps, rather than continue this witch-hunt of bin Laden based on his peripheral role, exaggerated media headlines, a vast amount of rhetoric and, lack of evidence, that we should look for the direct hand behind the 9/11 attack?

The above all comes down to the last line doesn't it? Direct evidence, without it, a clever lawyer can use justice against one as opposed for one. Like OJ Simpson. He walks today, there is no direct evidence, not one person thinks he really is an innocent man. The evidence lies in the tral if FBI bungles that only happened because of personal choice, which is not a US plot, but some cow with her panties in a bunch and some scumbag who supported her. That link ought to be investigated IMHO, Bodine-Pickard.

This is where we could look at the hijackers and actual attacks in more detail, if you agree.

Sure, as long as we try to stay on topic. I suggested the same myself more than once to date I believe.

Yes, as well as considered innocent until proven guilty, it is the right of the accused to defend themselves. That you appear to think otherwise on both counts is worrying and really shows the extent to which the political media driven witch-hunt has taken over. To pronounce bin Laden guilty of responsibility for the 9/11 attack on a whim (after admitting to lack of evidence above) and deny the accused a voice, that really is a method for the Dark Ages. Even more so when bin Laden’s earlier comment I quoted was corroborated by FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, i.e. it is seen in that case that bin Laden’s comments were correct.

He is proven guilty, of 1993 and 1998, I siad already, this was a war on terror. Bin Laden was, and continues to be a main suspect in the 911 event. As such, he was a high profile target. That is not a witch hunt. That is bringing a murderer to justice. Have you seen pictures of the victims from these bombings? The Cole? Tanzania? In Tanzania he killed 240 innocents to kill 12 Americans. And you are trying to tell me that human scum is not lying through his teeth about 911? That is not emotion, which you keep trying to sway the debate upon, that is fact. People are dead by Bin Ladens hand and he said all American women and children are targets in Jihad. That shows he has no regard for life, truth, or pretty much anything other than his twisted religious ideals and that he has not place in any society on earth.

So what if Bin Ladens statement was corroborated by Edmonds, you keep saying do not run with half measures it remains still to be seen if Edmonds testimony is beneficial to any investigation, because as you have ignored, her claim is full of holes, and if not for the fact that some basic procedures had been overlooked by the FBI, it would likely have been dismissed by now! It was claimed that Edmonds performed poorly in her job, there is no reason to dismiss that claim, are you giving that information the benefit of the doubt?

Anyhow, you responded to the digression and missed out the point. There were certainly overlapping areas with the CIA/ISI and with Western intelligence all over and inside ‘Al Qaeda’ all the way to 9/11 – from there, hypothetically speaking to begin, the potential setup/entrapment of bin Laden would be easy. Can we agree?

I responded to the digression because I had already adressed the Edmonds claim as I have above, and which I expect you to ignore again with some snarky retort claiming I did not adress your post, when in reality I have, but not provided the answer you seek.

No, I do not agree, the Edmonds claim has a long way to go as far as verification goes, and plenty of holes she needs to fill in her story, and quoting Bin Laden? Surely you jest. Do you expect me to actually take him at his word on this subject? Like I say, that would be like getting Manson or Bundy to decide their own punishments.

That’s an absolutely bizarre statement, taking into account that you first addressed me (not vice versa)on the subject of media, specifically requesting I demonstrate which elements of the Fox News article are incorrect. Here is your post: -

http://www.unexplain...25#entry4663333

It is also you who has provided the further false media claim below...

OK, back to the first line again. Strange how you like to stretch these thing out, but I have my suspicions as to why. I asked you if you felt the headline was a valid statement I did not insist the headline was true, I asked about the relationship between Lebanon and Palestine. You took a leap and decided I was speaking of the headline, when in fact, I asked your opinion fo the situation it states. Regardless, it is you who did not read the post initially, instead of just a link, lets have a look at what I said shall we?

Now I do not trust the media either, they c*** up what they hear, and they twist it, why? Because they have to sell headlines, I understand that, so should you, so lets have a look at that articles (did you follow the links? Same one isn't it) they reckon:

Quote

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States

Now that seems a good place to start. Do you feel this is not at all the case, and that Bin Laden did not feel the US had interfered? Because it seems to be a pretty common theme from what I hear. I do not care what the article says, but I would like to break it down to little pieces for accuracy. Is that an accurate stament? Did Lebanon and Palestine have a friendly relationship with the US before 911, or is this at least true? Lets determine the level of exaggeration in this article, and see if it is deserving of your mockery. As a news article I agree verification is required, so perhaps proving what elements are incorrect might be a good start I think, do you agree?

You also never seemed to have read this post, in where I say outright that I did not come to this thread to discuss news-headlines, but technical aspects. LINK

It is apparent that you are not interested in the truth here at all. It appears that you only want to regurgitate and attribute to bin Laden false statements like, "Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida...”. If that were not the case then you would find the full transcript of the bin Laden interview with the Daily Ummat and confirm for yourself that he said no such thing. It isn’t hard to do, if you have ever heard of Google?

Ohh get real. Are you being serious? The prose indicates the "my organisation" was taken out, removed, look at the bloody thing!!!

As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks nor I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Where does that say I stand behind the headline, or that it is true? I asked if we could break the headline apart, and examine the questions within it to determine what it actually represents and how accurate it's elements are. Next thing you are off talking about Murdoch ruling the world and political agendas. I said I do not care what the media says, I said I just want to know what claims are true, and those which are not, no matter the source.

Neither I had???????

Yeah, real impartial aren't you!!!!!! You go with the best sources when the information is ambiguous? Pardon me, but BS.

However, thank you for the link, I did look, but did not find it. Bookmarked for future references. Make fun of me for not being a professional Googler if you feel the need, I do not think that is what is relevant to this discussion to be frank.

The link you provide is not a transcript, nor an accurate quoting of bin Ladens’ words. Here is the transcript as translated by the FBIS (hit Ctrl F and search “Ummat”). And for some level of corroboration, here is the transcript as translated by the BBC. These are both reasonably reliable sources.

Note that the false quote you linked to is simply not present in the text attributed to bin Laden.

Anyhow, if you feel our discussion on media has run its course, I’m content that my point has been made.

Your point was made all along, you refuse to discuss anything other than that which you insist in discussing, see the above quoted post. You do not even see if others have another point, you just barrel along with what you want.

BBC is better, if this was the BBC maybe it is not, it ia another paper who is copying the BBC release. IN this version, the word Neither is completely omitted, unlike the source you claim is more accurate, even if the grammar indicates it has been doctored.

I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. -

So your source that you deem the most accurate strongly indicates alterations to the transcript in line with that which I had posted. Well done.

Ok, so I can provide multiple sources stating that bin Laden was to be put under house-arrest in Pakistan, multiple sources showing that he indeed travelled to Pakistan, was permitted free passage by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and was found under the physical conditions of house-arrest, multiple American security analysts who agree bin Laden was under house-arrest, but... you ‘simply do not believe it’. Well, what can I do against that level of denial? At least you are consistent - that does fit in with other views from the Dark Ages that you have expressed.

The further problem with your attempted logic above is the assumption that those responsible for the house-arrest actually wanted bin Laden shot or that those responsible equate to, “the U.S.” It’s a common failing of OCTs to overlook the individual factions involved. Of course, bin Laden was far more valuable as a propaganda tool to drive the Neocon ‘War on Terror’ whilst his spectre was alive.

You did not provide multiple sources that prove Bin Laden was in custody, you have presented some rumours that made it into headlines. That is all. The only denial I see is you refusing to consider the points I made about your links, which were:

Your link leads to this

Today a spokesman for the Taliban embassy in Pakistan confirmed the reports, initially made in Pakistani newspapers, and told United Press International: "We have placed him under control after the attacks."

Which then goes on to say:

The extremist Taliban regime, which is not recognised by any Western countries and has only three embassies worldwide, had earlier said it had "severed" communications between bin Laden and the outside world.

So the Taliban, a bunch of extremists who say what they want to get what they want, made a claim that Bin Laden was under arrest but they wont show us. I remember hearing that one at primary school, went something like "where's the cheese"

Of course, you provided more than one link though, so to be fair:

Under the proposal, Jamaat-i-Islami would have guarded bin Laden at a house in Peshawar that would have been equipped with a dialysis machine to treat his kidney condition.

Gee, how did the US manage to miss out on that Golden opportunity.

And yet this kidney condition? What does Bin Laden say about that?

In the course of the wide-ranging interview, Mr. Mir asked bin Laden about his kidneys: “A French newspaper has claimed that you have a kidney problem and have secretly gone to Dubai for treatment last year [2000]. Is that correct?”

Bin Laden responded: “My kidneys are all right. I did not go to Dubai last year. One British newspaper has published an imaginary interview with an Islamabad dateline with one of my sons in Saudi Arabia. All this is false.”

Well, so much for accuracy I suppose.

You presented rumour that was written in a newspaper, you are guilty exactly of what you are accusing Skyeagle, and myself of. Being loose with the facts.

Damn this quote limit

Q24 Said:

I addressed that in my post #1062. In response to that, you posted the false bin Laden quote allegedly sourced from the Daily Ummat, which is discussed above. There is nothing else to be said about bin Laden’s involvement in the formation of ‘the base’ – we all know that occurred during Operation Cyclone – whether ‘the base’ remained as any structured/coherent organisation with bin Laden at the helm is unproven.

I’ll stop here because there’s really nothing to say to the rest of your post – it’s just a lot of rhetoric, appeal to emotion, and regurgitation of the official story adorned with your own imagination: “some influential b******* managed to talk some lost souls into killing themselves”? Such is sheer speculation and in all probability, fantasy. There is no evidence base to anything much you are saying when it comes to 9/11. There is no indication that the hijackers were mindless, rather than in possession of their own motivations.

Well I guess there is not much more to say, because the above is not true, you did not respond to my post, you "addressed" the subject in the post, to which I offered a reply that rebuts your claims and proves there is indeed an organisation and that Bin Laden founded it. Just as Australian traitor David Hicks let out of the bag when he came back here.

And that reply can be found right here - LINK

In that post, you will find the following:

In some circles it has become fashionable to suggest that bin Laden has not been especially significant to the global jihadist movement, or that al Qaeda has always, in reality, been only a loose knit collection of like-minded Islamist militant groups, or even that al Qaeda is an organization that was fabricated by US law enforcement. The fullest exposition of this point of view was made in 2004 in the three-hour BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares," directed by Adam Curtis, which argued that "Beyond his small group, bin Laden had no formal organization, until the Americans invented one for him."

Curtis claims that al Qaeda was first "invented" in 2001 when US prosecutors put four men involved in the 1998 plot to blow up two US embassies in east Africa on trial in New York. During the trial they drew heavily on the testimony of former bin Laden aide Jamal al-Fadl, who Curtis explains spun a story about the Saudi militant that would make it easier for US prosecutors to target bin Laden using conspiracy laws that had previously put Mafia bosses behind bars. Curtis says: "The picture al-Fadl drew for the Americans of bin Laden was of an all-powerful figure at the head of a large terrorist network that had an organized network of control. He also said that bin Laden had given this network a name, al Qaeda. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term 'al Qaeda' to refer to the name of a group until after 11th September, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it."

All of these assertions are nonsense. There is overwhelming evidence that al Qaeda was founded in 1988 by bin Laden and a small group of like-minded militants, and that the group would eventually mushroom into the secretive, disciplined, global organization dominated by bin Laden that implemented the 9/11 attacks. That evidence can be found in the documents in this chapter, which were recovered in Bosnia in 2002, and can also be found in the interviews throughout this book.

What follows are excerpts of a key document: The minutes of the first meeting about the establishment of al Qaeda on August 11, 1988. This document outlines the discussion between bin Laden, referred to as the "the Sheikh," and Abu Rida, or Mohamed Loay Bayazid, to discuss the formation of a "new military group," which would include "al Qaeda (the base)." Abu Rida refers to a disagreement with Abdullah Azzam, with whom bin Laden had founded the Mektab al Khidmat (Services Office).

with this LINK

That part you most certainly have not adressed.

You have refused to answer pertinient points, and keep going back to Fox News headlines, and even tried to say I was the one starting that discussion, but as we can see above, I never did, I asked you what aspects of the claim could be verified and what could not be, paper source notwithstanding. None of that is emotion, nor rhetoric but I find your very god at concealing your own rhetoric with bold claims. But that does not work on me. You have presented rumour that Bin Laden was under house arrest as fact, when those rumours also indicate he had kidney disease which Bin Laden also denies. You gave me a source that is obviously doctored by Bin Laden's command, and which seems to prove my original claim was correct whereby Bin Laden calls Al Qaeda "his". From where I am standing, your perspective looks pretty skewed.

Q24 Said

So tell me, what do you think of the fact that Ziad Jarrah had a comfortable Western life, wealthy upbringing, attend Christian schools, went on to be university educated, liked to drink (as in, beer), had a girlfriend, spoke about and had bought a new suit for attendance at a family wedding on 22nd Sep, and... was related to an Israeli intelligence informant?

Then one day, all of a sudden, inspiration strikes, “I’m going to be a suicide pilot for bin Laden’s Jihad!”

You think that’s your standard profile of a suicide terrorist?

Yep, seen it first hand here in Oz. That is the motivation I mentioned that brought me to this thread, and why I want to learn more about the sickos that think 911 was justified so I can spot them early and report them to federal police ASAP. Obviously nobody flew a plane into a building, but the inclination, and approval of that disgraceful act is there, and these people sit around talking like you do. That I'd like to see justified or punished. 911 cost too many lives to be bandied around so lightly. I do not want to see my children grow up with people like Bin Laden in the world, I cannot stop that, but I will do my level best to see every single one of them in my vicinity arrested and removed.

However, I see even more motivation with Jarrah, being Sunni by religion, living that lifestyle and when he was seven years old, Israel invaded southern Lebanon, a fact he referred to later in life. He also decided to travel to Chechnya to fight Russian soldiers.

Oh, there is Jarrah’s video will, which even Jarrah could not take seriously and he had to be coached to read the script: -

Oh give me a break.

As Peter Bergen states at 6:44 below, “a more unlikely suicide attacker you could hardly think possible”: -

May I reiterate that I ask all who debate to refrain from Youtube if at all possible. I prefer to read thanks where that can be done.

My signature might be something of a hint there. I'll try to view it on my phone later.

Q24 said:

Did I mention that Jarrah was trained in close quarters combat by a former U.S. special forces soldier?

A further fact is that Atta (the real ringleader of the hijackers, unlike bin Laden) wanted Jarrah out of the operation, and it seems that someone within the CIA had Jarrah interviewed in 2001 in all appearance to determine his reliability for the operation.

This whole profile is intriguing and not at all to be expected of your random suicidal terrorist – the indication, by and large, is that Jarrah was a pawn who didn’t know what he was getting into.

No, I take it you mean the instructor, Bert Rodriguez, but he did pay $500.00 for that privilege too. What does paying for fighting training have to do with anything? Bert told him:

"Find ways to blend in with your opponent and control him,"

when he walked into US-1 Fitness, a gymnasium.

Now, settling into a seat in first class, Jarrah had blended in. You can bet that no one on board would have guessed that back in the Florida apartment he'd left four days earlier, Jarrah had set up a full-size, cardboard replica -- three panels in all -- of the cockpit of the airplane they had just boarded.

Q24 said

What do you reckon, psyche? These circumstances surrounding Jarrah are all just a big oddity/coincidence, don't you think?

Nope. Seems to fit together to me.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psyche

I cannot control what posts you read or do not read, at which position you begin to read a given thread, or anything else about your perceptions. "Let you respond?" Puhleeze sir, I do not control your responses.

That is not what I said yet again BR. I said that if I have repeated anything, then expect it, I did say I had the entire thread to catch up on, but each time I visit I see to have a post to address so I have not managed to read the entire thread. If any points are revisited that have been answered, I have asked for people to point me at such information, such as Q has.

I love good debate and differing opinions, and would be happy if you would provide something like that.

Stundie and I seem to have quite dialogue happening, and rather amicable I must say. If Q24 seems to find my questions worthy of response, then I do not think you have a point here. I am yet to see you offer a single supporting argument, only protests that people should not challenge the CT.

My point was that the repetition of government claims does not constitute good debate. The government claims cannot be proved in accordance with any sort of scientific scrutiny, and 11 years later, evidence has emerged that utterly contradicts the official story.

I am not repeating headlines, in fact few links I have provided do go to news sources, I try to avoid them if at all possible, however, as Q24 is discussing the accuracy of headlines whilst dismissing that the articles state it is opinion, it is a bit hard to avoid.

Evidence does not contradict the official story, that is not what I have seen in the pages so far, and you have not proven anything like that you just keep saying it is so, which I find extremely unconvincing. Evidence please.

Give my government a moment's peace??? I give them several thousand dollars a year in taxes, and all they do is wage fraudulent wars 'round the globe and defecate upon constitutional government. What obligation do I have to give them a moment's peace?

You vote them in you have the right to ask them, not hide behind their backs and accuse them. But you have not contributed to the subject at all. You just Cheerlead Q24 so far. If you wish to make a treasonous statement, then you need to qualify it 110%. It will not be accepted on your say so.

None. On the contrary, because I took the same oath they do, I have an obligation to defend the US Constitution.

You seem to be the minority, and therefore not representing the nations best interest IMHO.

250px-911worldopinionpoll_Sep2008_pie.png

Just admit it, it is personal, and you have a chip on your shoulder. It does not matter what the subject, you have a problem with the Government, in here it is that they killed their own people, in the ET section they are hiding flying saucers from us, in Crypto they are hiding Bigfoot from us. You make no sense, and just display a very paranoid viewpoint. No matter what, with you it is the Governments fault. I am honestly amazed I have not seen you claiming the moon landings are a hoax. To be frank, it sounds rather like OCD.

And in case you are unaware of it, which seems to be the case, there is considerable evidence that the towers were taken down by controlled demolition. The group known as Architects & Engineers For 911 Truth has analyzed the evidence and presented a pretty persuasive case. You should consider reading it.

I am an engineer. Unlike Zoser, a real one. And I have built more buildings than you might care to imagine, including many High Rise buildings. And the 911 crap I have seen from the "truthers" is flawed and mostly fabricated. I am looking for such a thread specifically to address these erroneous claims.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problems with, and do not doubt your qualifications Psyche. No sir, not at all.

What I have questions about is your ability to think in an analytical fashion, your tendency to accept without question a story that simply cannot be true.

We can agree to disagree on anything you would like, but please do not hold up as true and acccurate a story already proved many times to be false and contrived. It is 11 years after the fact, and much more has been learned in that time, even though you might be completely unaware of it down there in Oz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can agree to disagree on anything you would like, but please do not hold up as true and acccurate a story already proved many times to be false and contrived. It is 11 years after the fact, and much more has been learned in that time, even though you might be completely unaware of it down there in Oz.

And, after more than 11 years, not one shred of evidence has surfaced implicating the U.S. government in the 911 attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Psyche :)

Gidday Stundie

That happens to me a lot, rather frustrating. I use a magic mouse on my Mac, and there is some keyboard shortcut that backspaces. Annoying to be near the end of a post, it backspaces and I lose everything.

Computers, who would have them hey?? lol Luckily it was only a post and not something more important..
I just figure it is a clever ploy by Usama, he lies through his teeth in Interviews and is evasive. He claims to have the WMD's America went looking for, I really think he was setting the US to appear unjust by retaliation. I do not think it worked, but enough elements exist to create CT's. Here in Australia, Anthony Mundine, and Indigenous boxer who found Islam condoned the slaughter. Unfortunately he is still here and did not leave the country in shame for the one he prefers. Usama had many people tricked into thinking killing is justified. Many of his own did not, and still do not consider him even a terrorist, when he most certainly is. Public opinion can be a powerful tool. Government uses it, the only reason we have the useless Government in place here that we do is because some clown befriended thousands on faceboook to make them feel special, and then gave everyone a thousand dollars to spend, which would have been very useful in the devastating bush-fires a few months later. Smart politics to appear heroic instead of mad.
I do not doubt OBL is a liar and I wouldn't trust him, but then again I wouldn't trust Bush to comb my hair either, even though I haven't got much...lol I can't comment on Anthony Mundine seeing as I don't lknow that much about him, I know he's suppose to be a pretty good boxer but I know nothing about his conversion to Islam. And of course, there are people who do not think that OBL is a terrorist because he is fighting for their causes, they will likely see the opposite and regard Bush as a terrorist and OBL as a freedom fighter. Personally, I think they are both terrorists. They both have the blood of innocent people on their hands.
Yes, but a few more countries I think Jerusalem was taking film away from reporters I have read to quell the flow of this display. I alos thought the Philippine's had a contingent that were quite happy about it too. Yes, it is not all Muslims, I realise that, but I do not feel they actively fight that which their own faith has produced. Rather than simply say "sorry for these misguided brothers" they need to take these harmful elements, like Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali and whoever put eight-year-old Ruqaya up to her "speech" really does not deserve to be part of a social community. That to me is child abuse. These men need to be seen as ousted by the Muslim community for the greater good of all people, but they are not, they are men in high positions within the Muslim community. They are not, at best we see an apologist. I think many people are getting tired of hearing "sorry about that".
I would have to disagree with you as I think you will find that Saudi Arabia banished OBL back in the 90's for his involvement with terrorism and Saudi's are no fans of any of the pupils of Sayyid Qutb. I also think these countries shouldn't have to apologise for the misguided brothers of Islam no more or less than the US for it's misguided service men who commit attrocites such as Haditha.

I've never heard of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali?? So I can't comment on him or this 8 year olds speech.

I just cannot agree, I think there needs to be guidelines for behaviour. Currently they can be circumvented as Scientology has proven, however, I think that is simply a wake up call lthat we wear kid gloves with religion, when relgion most certainly does not. Time to dish out a little of what we get. I feel the only far solution to a barbaric system such as Shari'ah is to downgrade it to cult status, when you can stone a family member to death for speaking to a non family member of the opposite sex, and have the justified by religious law, the step too far has been taken. In todays society, there is no place for such barbarism. That is contravening human rights, and that is where I think that toothless tiger the UN needs to step in. They wont, but I think they should
I'm in favour of freedoms and while I am no fan of stoning or even the US death penalty, I think if the people of that country think it is right to stone a family member for speaking to someone of the opposite sex, then it is their right to do so, even if they are foolish enough to believe it's gods law. While I do not condone such tragic behaviour, I do not believe that making the world conform to mine or the west view is good practice.

Just imagine for a second you downgraded Islam to a cult status (not that I think the UN could do that!) do you think they would take it lying down? There would be war on a grand scale and I'm not in the habit of creating a genocide just because people hold different views to me, even if I think they are barbaric and downright disgusting.

Bodine had a problem because O Neil was a player. Women detest players to my experience. He had 2 families. He was always slick, well presented, and not disheveled like the average employee working a million hours a week. He had it all, and that really got under some peoples skin. I think his knowledge was all that kept him around for as long as he did, he often burned the midnight oil making something come together. He was a hard worker, who got results, and reaped the benefits from doing double time. Yes, I heard that comment, and he did seem to be expecting it to happen, and regarding his knowledge and position, yes I agree the FBI did drop the ball. I do not challenge that, had Bodine and her cronies been a bit more honest and left personal feelings out of it, yes, 3,0000 people might be alive today. I do not know how she lives with that weight on her shoulders to be frank. Pickard too, he and Bodine obviously were in cahoots.
You appear to know more about him than I do but at least we agree the FBI dropped the ball.
My understanding is that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi understood the value in a Western lifestyle, and promoted it. I have read, and seen pictures of even bikini billboards in the street during his reign. Which I heartily approve of. SAVAK was organised by the CIA as far as I know, and is still operating today under a different name. Didn't the Shah try to have the entire faction completely reorganised, but failed due to Khomeini beginning the overthrow? I thought it was disbanded just before the overthrow, and then repatriated with the Khomeini regime under a new name? SAVAK personel were personally trained by Major General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf of the CIA as far as I know. I think many long established countries have their own version of a "secret police" with seemingly unlimited power?
I think the only reason he understood the value in a western life style was that he was a puppet dictator who was installed against the wishes of the people who already had a democratically elected government. I thought SAVAK was closed down and most of its members were hunted down. know that Iran doesn't have a great human rights record and I'm not a fan of them either, but after watching a documentary about Iran and their relationship with the west, I think it's fair to say they are a little paranoid, but have every right to be.

However I think this is a conversation for another thread on another day.

I did not think it was "most" however, the Clintons did their damnedest to keep him in Jail, but failed. Barrack even called, and was turned down. These things can become beyond the control of the US, and if that was to happen, the world would not be a noce place to be with a vengeful Bin Laden on the loose. The justice system needs to make a stand, but across waters, justice is not always united.
I think that the representative from the UK families thinks that he was Meghari was innocent and I seem to think there were others too. I know that those in the US were determined to keep him in jail because the courts had already found him guilty. In Scotland, they have compassionate grounds, so that if someone has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and have been given a short time to live, providing they are not a danger, the Scottish legal system allows for that person to be released. Some people are not a fan of it while others think it's very humane. However, I thnk this is another discussion for another day.
Well I think your quite the gentleman, and I respect that. Passions are very easy to heat in debates such as this, and I appreciate your calm demeanour, and very good debate. I wish I had better control of my own temper. I understand what you are saying, truly I do, but experience tells me that this approach will not work, and once one gets to know Sky, he is a pretty bang up bloke with some very interesting history to share, and he is in the company of some fine people. I honestly believe the debate might be far more amicable in person and over a beer. I hope to one day shout Sky a beer and shake his hand and say thanks for the debates, I learned a few things along the way. There was a time when I was saying what you are right now, and would never have thought myself to be in this position, but here I am, and with a good helping of respect.
Thanks for the compliments. Sky might well be a pretty bang bloke, he might even be in the company of fine people and I'm sure he might be a top bloke when you shove a beer in his hand. However on this forum, I do not see anything that would suggest that but I do not know him to make a judgement.

I might appear to be hard on Skyeagle and this might change in the future, as you say who knows, but as it stands, i have very little respect for his debating style and until I see an improvement in his debating style and some honesty, then he will get the respect he deserves, which is little to none.

With each post, I see you in a new and brighter light. I think we are after the same thing, but come from different starting points.
Well I hope so. I think the thing with most 9/11 conspiracists, is that most if not all of them believed in the official story, but came to question it when they examined or researched the subject. However, I'm sure there are those who still believed the official story, even if they don't agree with all the facts and data after they had researched it. There are extreme ends of the polar opposites, but chances are, the truth will lie somewhere in the middle.
That is more than fair enough, and to me, confirms the above line I just wrote. I agree, both sides can offer zealous information in order to win an argument. And the points you have raised are indeed worth questioning, however, it does not mean that the worst is indeed the case because some people are putting the cart before the horse. And you have to admit, Icke got lucky with that info, he has been harassing the royal family for a long time with his nutcase claims, and happened upon a victim, and with 450 of them out there, it was going to eventually happen. To be honest, with behavour like this I am not sure why nobody every suspected him. Being an Aussie, I know little of his public profile.

14_008.jpg

Well I wouldn't say Icke got lucky or guessed this about him, I think it's hard/nigh on impossible to guess something like that about someone and then it turns out to be correct without having some kind of knowledge about it. Even though Saville was a weird looking fella and eccentric and there were plenty of rumours, I think most people would have said you were nuts if like Icke, you claimed that Saville was a pedophile/necrophile. Not that I'm a fan of Icke either. Again, it's another subject for another day

I'll continue this in another post, possibly later on.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might appear to be hard on Skyeagle and this might change in the future, as you say who knows, but as it stands, i have very little respect for his debating style and until I see an improvement in his debating style and some honesty, then he will get the respect he deserves, which is little to none.

Why argue with the facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why argue with the facts?

I'm not arguing with the fact that the FBI stated they had no hard evidence of his involvement even after he is so called admission. You are the one arguing with facts? FBI ones at that.....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the CIA facilitated the 9/11 attack, that is fair to say.

I’m glad we are in agreement up to that point.

Indeed NASA management also facilitated the Challenger disaster. But here there is the third option you mention – it was inadvertent facilitation of the disaster. This answer exists because 1) there was no obvious motive/benefit to achieving the disaster, 2) there was no attempt to prevent engineers correcting the o-ring problem prior to launch (except time constraints of the launch itself) and 3) we know there were budget/time constraints involved in the decision to launch (i.e. factors which had nothing to do with achieving a disaster).

If the same points could be applied to CIA facilitation of the 9/11 hijackers then I would accept a third option in that case also. It doesn’t work because 1) there was an obvious/stated motive to achieving the attack, 2) there was a high level decision to prevent correction of the terrorist problem and 3) there was no sense/rationale (alternative to the stated motive) involved in the decision to facilitate the terrorists. In all, the answer is non-existent/impossible.

Wait now, that's not quite how it works, those latter numbered points of yours don't just erase the possibility of an inadvertent facilitation, at best you've just redistributed the probability to an unknown extent towards the possibility of an advertent facilitation. Your point 1 concerning a motive I think pretty obviously doesn't take an inadvertent assistance option off the table at all, you can find someone who benefits from almost everything that ever happens, and points 2 and 3 I thought you partially addressed potentially with the quote from W that I had just seen also, that he's tired of 'swatting flies'. Do you disagree that undercover work, especially at this level as well as more mainstream law enforcement, sometimes involves actions by undercover agents that indeed 'assist' criminals and possibly 'facilitate' their crimes? Do you agree that undercover/intelligence work can produce benefits that can't be obtained by continually chasing and busting asap the low-level soldiers? If you agree with that at all, then there is a possible rationale to this 'facilitation', namely that W was tired of swatting flies, and thus the FBI was prevented from interrupting other agencies' undercover infiltration of these current/future terrorists because that is how the 'stop swatting flies' strategy was implemented. Note that the wisdom or effectiveness of this strategy is pretty much irrelevant, unless you are prepared to defend the pretty obvious falsehood that the government typically is efficient, effective, and intelligent when tackling problems, and combatting terrorism has got to be one of the most complex problems to address.

To put it more detailed, is this possible scenario unlikely, which of these steps do you think is the most suspicious:

1. Bush is tired of swatting flies, meaning go after the higher-level terrorists

2. Intelligence agencies, not cooperating, proceed with how they believe best to go after higher-level terrorists, which involves undercover work/not busting the low-level guys as soon as you can.

Obviously if this was the actual scenario it was a resounding failure and a terrible strategy, just by the results of it. But that does not remove any sense/rationale from the 'facilitation' as those words are defined by the environment in which they are occurring, since people, again especially government people, coming up with crappy and ineffective and risky strategies happens all the time. It is not senseless for lower-level agents to 'assist' the people who turned out to be the future hijackers if they are ordered to do so, and it may not be senseless that they were ordered to do so depending on what specific strategy was being pursued to get at higher-level terrorists.

Just a quick note also before you do it again, my questioning of your points doesn't give you the license to then assume what my position is on these points or what my specific theory is. I've got no problem with you criticizing my argumentation style or lack thereof, accusing me of bias, noting my bad breath(ha), etc, those are all fair game and are to be taken as largely opinion-based. Don't get me wrong, those are just examples, I don't think you've been unfair or excessive on those types of attacks, but when you state your opinion of what my specific position or theory is merely from me challenging your points with questions, when your opinion is wrong it is also then to a large extent a strawman.

Thanks for the reference to the 9/11 Commission Report, just found out it was free online, and definitely some interesting stuff in the 'blinking red' chapter. I'd skimmed the Report quite a while ago but wasn't interested in plowing through 500+ pages, but I've been jumping around in the document and it's more interesting now that I have more background on it (from the crash course I've received since last summer here at UM). I'm planning on more closely skimming after I reread the chapter you pointed out. I had considered splitting this little discussion of 'CIA, FBI MIHOP conspiracy evidence', this thread has become more of a jungle it seems then most of the 9/11 threads, but I'll just keep it here for now.

Ten days after 9/11, Bayoumi is detained by British police for the above involvement. U.S. authorities are quick to release Bayoumi, apparently leaving British police in some bemusement: “Giving financial aid to terrorists is a very serious offence and there is no way they would have let him go scot-free.” The 9/11 Commission later interview Bayoumi, and despite his story being inconsistent, one of his network lying about contact with Bayoumi and knowing the man who collected the 9/11 hijackers from the airport stated he did so at Bayoumi’s request... the 9/11 Commission readily speculate that Bayoumi’s involvement may have been chance/coincidence, also noting what an “obliging and gregarious” soul he is. Bayoumi is now living back in Saudi Arabia without a care.

Why do you think that happened? Why did U.S. authorities and the 9/11 Commission let Bayoumi, who provided direct assistance to the 9/11 terrorists, off the hook so lightly? It is not simply ‘because he’s a Saudi’. No, bin Laden and majority of the hijackers were Saudi. Think about it. Who were following those terrorists, secretly filming them, breaking into their hotel room, knew they had U.S. visas and were holding off FBI intervention? All of this action shows the keen interest the CIA had. Then the terrorists arrive in the U.S., the CIA lose their track and this meeting with Bayoumi occurs by ‘chance’?? No. It is as Richard Clarke said – Bayoumi was the CIA handler/intermediary to the hijackers, and as such had to be distanced from that assistance he provided.

Thanks also for the references on al-Bayoumi, again interesting stuff. Quick question, I didn't see or maybe read too quickly anything referring to his being 'connected' to the CIA. You referred to what Clarke said concerning him being a CIA handler and I looked back a couple posts and didn't see a reference to that, I may have missed it, again, jungle. Just so I'm clear, is that just an extrapolation, or is there direct evidence to link the two? Still reading up on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
was permitted free passage by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
not wishing to detract from your discussion, but can you provide a reference for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing with the fact that the FBI stated they had no hard evidence of his involvement even after he is so called admission. You are the one arguing with facts? FBI ones at that.....lol

Seems everyone else in the world knows that Osama bin Laden was guilty. In addition, I am very sure that you were unaware of this.

Bin Laden: Europeans should end US help

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden called on Europeans to stop helping the United States in the war in Afghanistan, according to excerpts of a new audiotape broadcast Thursday on Al-Jazeera television. Bin Laden said it was unjust for the United States to have invaded Afghanistan for sheltering him after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, saying he was the "only one responsible" for the deadly assaults on New York and Washington.

"The events of Manhattan were retaliation against the American-Israeli alliance's aggression against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, and I am the only one responsible for it. The Afghan people and government knew nothing about it. America knows that," the al-Qaida leader said.

FBI Spokesman Richard Kolko in a 2007 statement

"As the FBI has said since 9/11, bin Laden was responsible for the attack," Kolko said in a statement. "In this latest tape, he again acknowledged his responsibility. This should help to clarify for all the conspiracy theorists, again — the 9/11 attack was done by bin Laden and al-Qaida."

http://classic-web.a.../bin_laden_tape

Now, for the rest of the story.

The proof they did not reveal

For several months after the 9/11 attacks, no one, nor any group, claimed responsibility for the attacks, so the primary responsibility fell solely upon the hijackers, all of whom were killed and all of whom left no message or any claim of responsibility behind at explaining why they had carried the attacks out. As the media covered the 9/11 attacks unfolding, many quickly speculated that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. On the day of the attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden, as did German intelligence agencies. This helped rule out other immediate suspects, such as Croatian nationalists, who had bombed Grand Central Terminal on September 11, 1976.

Authorities in the United States and Britain also obtained electronic intercepts, including telephone conversations and electronic bank transfers, which indicate that Mohammed Atef, a bin Laden deputy, was a key figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. Intercepts were also obtained that revealed conversations that took place days before September 11 between bin Laden and an associate in Pakistan. In those conversations, the two referred to "an incident that would take place in America on, or around, September 11" and they discussed potential repercussions. In another conversation with an associate in Afghanistan, bin Laden discussed the "scale and effects of a forthcoming operation." These conversations did not specifically mention the World Trade Center or Pentagon, or other specifics.

But one possibility emerged last week: an informed Whitehall source revealed that, among the proof collected, were intercepted exchanges between Bin Laden and his lieutenants, made shortly before September 11.

http://web.archive.o...sausa02012.html

In addition:

Arabic network claims taped 9/11 confessions

The Arabic television news network Al-Jazeera said Thursday it has taped confessions of two al Qaeda members claiming responsibility for the September 11 attacks on behalf of Osama bin Laden's terror group. Al-Jazeera said the men, both of whom are wanted by the U.S. government, spell out how they planned and executed the attacks. It said it would play their statements next week as part of a documentary it is airing.

"In the second part of this documentary, there will be the first direct confession as to how al Qaeda planned and executed September 11," Al-Jazeera journalist Yosri Fouda said in the first part of the documentary, which began airing Thursday.

The other terrorist on the Al-Jazeera tape was identified as Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, a Kuwaiti who is on the United States "most wanted" terrorist list. Mohammad is believed to have been one of the primary planners behind the September 11 attacks, authorities have said. Mohammad is the uncle of Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who is now serving time in a U.S. prison.

Mohammad was indicted in 1996 for plotting to bomb U.S. airliners flying from southeast Asia to the United States. Al-Jazeera said the interviews with the two men were conducted in Karachi, Pakistan. Sources familiar with the interviews told CNN that both men were interviewed this summer.

http://articles.cnn....ibh?_s=PM:WORLD

That should leave no real mystery as to why the United States targeted Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Edited by skyeagle409

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.