Q24 Posted May 4, 2011 #626 Share Posted May 4, 2011 The question is not about what prevented them from taking action, the question is who was responsible. So far you have not presented evidence saying it was not Al Queda... Well you tell me who is responsible for the FBI not taking action - there's your answer. Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, what is Al Qaeda? Is Ali Mohammed Al Qaeda... or is he CIA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wookietim Posted May 4, 2011 #627 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Well you tell me who is responsible for the FBI not taking action - there's your answer. Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, what is Al Qaeda? Is Ali Mohammed Al Qaeda... or is he CIA? Actually, perhaps before asking more questions of me you could answer the original question : What evidence do you have that Bin Laden and Al Queda were not behind 9/11? What evidence can you present that directly contradicts the official explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted May 4, 2011 #628 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Not if the CIA were behind the video's Fluffy ment that BL could have made a recording and put it over an old video to hide his location so it would be his voice or maybe not. We need some independent in put on that one. That post of mine you quoted was not aimed at Fluffy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted May 4, 2011 #629 Share Posted May 4, 2011 That post of mine you quoted was not aimed at Fluffy... I know but it was still an answer to you inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted May 4, 2011 #630 Share Posted May 4, 2011 That proves at least one audio tape was fake. Yes..that's what I just said...... So why should we accept the rest? Unill.... proven to be fake.. and not take a wild guess?? And no bin Laden was not dead as it turns out, he's been locked-down in this compound in Pakistan. When you say locked-down in the compound...I take from that, you mean against his will?? IF so, have you any evidence of this to present?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted May 4, 2011 #631 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Actually, perhaps before asking more questions of me you could answer the original question : What evidence do you have that Bin Laden and Al Queda were not behind 9/11? What evidence can you present that directly contradicts the official explanation? Actually you are taking the official story and saying Bin Laden was behind 9/11. The burden of proof is on you to show evidence Bin Laden did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted May 4, 2011 #632 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I know but it was still an answer to you inquiry. Okie dokie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wookietim Posted May 4, 2011 #633 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Actually you are taking the official story and saying Bin Laden was behind 9/11. The burden of proof is on you to show evidence Bin Laden did it. Well, since Q24 was the one that has introduced the allegation that Bin Laden was not behind 9/11, the burden of proof is on him... So far he has failed quite spectacularly in that regard. I presented evidence that shows that both US and German intelligence has communications that support that Bin Laden and Al Queda was associated with 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted May 4, 2011 #634 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Actually, perhaps before asking more questions of me you could answer the original question : What evidence do you have that Bin Laden and Al Queda were not behind 9/11? What evidence can you present that directly contradicts the official explanation? Can we maybe not turn this thread into yet another "Who pulled off 9/11" thread? If we continue down that road, sooner or later this will just turn into yet another (with all due respect) Q24 vs. Flyingswan slugfest, and I think there's more than enough of those in the conspiracy section already.... Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted May 4, 2011 #635 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Actually, perhaps before asking more questions of me you could answer the original question : What evidence do you have that Bin Laden and Al Queda were not behind 9/11? What evidence can you present that directly contradicts the official explanation? Last time I checked, it was 'innocent until proven guilty' - it is not up to anyone to prove who was not behind the attack. As for contradicting the official explanation... the official narrative is that no one saw the event coming, it was a failure of imagination by law enforcement agencies, a sneak-attack which caught America off-guard... well I've just shown the FBI were fully aware of two of the hijackers and champing at the bit to go after them. Don't you think it strange that fifteen of the hijackers first became affiliated with bin Laden and/or first travelled to Afghanistan only during the same timeframe a CIA operation to infiltrate Al Qaeda had begun? What do you think of the role the Saudi government worker played in assisting the hijackers in the United States? Isn't it a coincidence that the hijackers went on to actually live with an FBI informat? What about the Israeli intelligence agents detained on the scene on 9/11? You cannot draw an informed conclusion without a good understanding of all this - this which is not even tip of the iceberg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wookietim Posted May 4, 2011 #636 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Can we maybe not turn this thread into yet another "Who pulled off 9/11" thread? If we continue down that road, sooner or later this will just turn into yet another (with all due respect) Q24 vs. Flyingswan slugfest, and I think there's more than enough of those in the conspiracy section already.... Cz True. I will ignore Q24 in this thread based on your recommendation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rastaman Posted May 4, 2011 Author #637 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Yes, Please (I am the thread creator) -- Ignore the 9/11 Conspiratores... 9/11 Conspiracies are fine, but it doesn't belong in this thread, take it to the conspiracy section. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted May 4, 2011 #638 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Yes, Please (I am the thread creator) -- Ignore the 9/11 Conspiratores... 9/11 Conspiracies are fine, but it doesn't belong in this thread, take it to the conspiracy section. Thank you. Fair enough However I have a feeling this thread may get moved there as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rastaman Posted May 4, 2011 Author #639 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Fair enough However I have a feeling this thread may get moved there as well. The thread has run its course anyway, 50 Pages... sheesh. So be it, if it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChloeB Posted May 4, 2011 #640 Share Posted May 4, 2011 When evidence was presented of a lie, then I took a look at it and went where the evidence led. The evidence in that case led to the conclusion that the administration was lying. But that is the thing - I go where the evidence leads. In this case, there is no evidence to lead to the conclusion of "Lie" and therefore to jump to that conclusion based on nothing is not logical nor is it sane. It is an example of pure paranoia rather than any logical or competent evaluation of the data presented. And don't you think if they were going to cook up this whole story that they killed him and it was fiction, that they would have said that he was armed when they shot him, that is they're making it all up anyway, why wouldn't they throw that in too? Them revealing that he wasn't just makes it more complicated so if they're lying, why would they take the easy way out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted May 4, 2011 #641 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Can we maybe not turn this thread into yet another "Who pulled off 9/11" thread? Fair enough - though this type of information is all relevant to understanding the recent event. How can anyone interpret events with half a story? Yes, Please (I am the thread creator) -- Ignore the 9/11 Conspiratores... 9/11 Conspiracies are fine, but it doesn't belong in this thread, take it to the conspiracy section. Thank you. I haven't spoken of any conspiracy but noted some facts surrounding bin Laden. What, am I supposed to look at the screen and drool... OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD... and that is it? I'll leave you to do that then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wookietim Posted May 4, 2011 #642 Share Posted May 4, 2011 And don't you think if they were going to cook up this whole story that they killed him and it was fiction, that they would have said that he was armed when they shot him, that is they're making it all up anyway, why wouldn't they throw that in too? Them revealing that he wasn't just makes it more complicated so if they're lying, why would they take the easy way out? If I were making it up, I'd be certain that I would have made up a photo of him that was gory but not gory enough not to be released to the media and shown it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rastaman Posted May 4, 2011 Author #643 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Ough, it HAS been hi-jacked by conspiracy theories. I can tell this wont end Ironically, Im on their side though. The translated video of Osama Bin Laden "admitting" he was behind 9/11 actually translates to something completely different. Not to mention, he was wearing a gold ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted May 4, 2011 #644 Share Posted May 4, 2011 2nd time having to address this... And no bin Laden was not dead as it turns out, he's been locked-down in this compound in Pakistan. When you say locked-down in the compound...I take from that, you mean against his will?? IF so, have you any evidence of this to present?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted May 4, 2011 #645 Share Posted May 4, 2011 What, am I supposed to look at the screen and drool... OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD... and that is it? I wouldn't care look see if you looked at the screen and broke wind...Osama is dead...fish food!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted May 4, 2011 #646 Share Posted May 4, 2011 If I were making it up, I'd be certain that I would have made up a photo of him that was gory but not gory enough not to be released to the media and shown it... That or they don't have pictures, or the pic is so gory one couldn't recognize him anyway, or the pic's may look nothing like Osama. As was said the west can't offend anymore than we have. Show the pic's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChloeB Posted May 4, 2011 #647 Share Posted May 4, 2011 If I were making it up, I'd be certain that I would have made up a photo of him that was gory but not gory enough not to be released to the media and shown it... Right, exactly. If they're pulling a big scam, then they've done a lot of things that has only made it harder for them. And I'm kind of glad they didn't release the photo; it wouldn't have convinced anyone that it wasn't a fake anyway, and that visual image just to me would only incite his followers more. I was kind of worried if they were going to release it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted May 4, 2011 #648 Share Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) 2nd time having to address this... When you say locked-down in the compound...I take from that, you mean against his will?? IF so, have you any evidence of this to present?? Please see my post #461 on pg.31 of this thread. For some reason I cannot link directly to it so here: - Of more interest is where bin Laden was found... The target of the operation was the compound, which had at its centre a large three-storey building with 12ft high concrete high walls, barbed wire and CCTV cameras - and few windows. The compound - valued at about $1m (£600,000) - had two security gates but no phone or internet lines running into the building. Its occupants were so concerned about security that they were reported to burn their rubbish rather than leave it out for collection as other residents in the area did. ... The compound is in a residential district of Abbottabad's suburbs called Bilal Town, which is home to a number of retired military officers from the area. The compound is just 1km from the Pakistan Military Academy, an elite military training centre which is being described as Pakistan's equivalent to Britain's Sandhurst or the West Point academy in the US. Pakistan's army chief is a regular visitor to the academy, where he attends graduation parades, and it is likely the area would have had a constant and significant military presence and checkpoints. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13257330 The CIA concluded that the compound was "custom built to hide someone of significance". The media are assuming the compound was a 'safe house' right under Pakistan's nose. I would suggest that everything about the above description is ideal fit to that of a prison - read it again - don't you think? And further, that bin Laden was under effective 'house arrest'. This would also explain why bin Laden was not armed and a report that apparently the compound was excluded from the recent census in Pakistan. Take a look at this report only two days after 9/11: - AFGHANISTAN'S Taliban regime has confirmed that Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the attacks on America, is under house arrest. The terrorist leader and America's most wanted fugitive was reported by Pakistani newspapers to be under house arrest in Kandahar in the south west of Afghanistan. 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." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340388/Bin-Laden-under-house-arrest.html And then here on Oct. 4th, 2001: - A high-level delegation led by Qazi Hussain Ahmad, head of Pakistan's most important Islamic party, the Jamaat-i-Islami, met Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, in secret on Monday. Omar agreed that bin Laden should be taken to Pakistan, where he would be held under house arrest in Peshawar. ... The secret deal was agreed after a meeting in Islamabad on Saturday at which Mulla Abdus Salaam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, and Hamid Gul, former director of Pakistan's inter-service intelligence, and Qazi were present. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1358464/Pakistan-blocks-bin-Laden-trial.html Of course we know that in December 2001 bin Laden was then smuggled across the Tora Bora mountains. It appears, based on these reports, that bin Laden has been in custody ever since 9/11 and elements of the ISI have been aware of this. And where did it all begin? With bin Laden and the Mujahideen receiving U.S. funding through the same ISI back in the 1980s. As you can see, this appears to have been approved by the Taleban, Pakistani intelligence and, if you read the full articles linked, agreed to by bin Laden himself. Edited May 4, 2011 by Q24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted May 4, 2011 #649 Share Posted May 4, 2011 , or the pic is so gory one couldn't recognize him anyway, Yup...There was a news report. Americans didn't want a gory image of Bin Laddin because 1 - Image is gory, being shot through the eye and one in the back of the head - I'm betting it's not a pretty sight......and 2 - So that the other terrorists could not use it as a propaganda tool against America...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted May 4, 2011 #650 Share Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) Please see my post #461 on pg.31 of this thread. For some reason I cannot link directly to it so here: - As you can see, this appears to have been approved by the Taleban, Pakistani intelligence and, if you read the full articles linked, agreed to by bin Laden himself. Thanks just read all of that...and.... A purpose built compound to hide someone important but NO real evidence of him being under house arrest..not since the Americans are now admitting that, Bin Laddin was - unarmed BUT his wife however WAS armed <-- hardly call that house arrest IF you have access to weapons Regarding what was said at the bottom of your post in ref to the Taliban, coming to an agreement that Bin Laddin should be put under house arrest...it says NOTHING that he actually was Edited May 4, 2011 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now