9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

[Q24]

Simple! “PENTTBOM."

How does “PENTTBOM” answer the question?

[skyeagle409]

How does "PENTTBOM" answer the question?

If the hijackers were agents within the government, there would be no need for an investigation from within our intelligence services to ascertain who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. On the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.

Edited November 3, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

So 911 was just more game concocted by the government and used to invade Iraq with its massive oil reserves.

Actually, we first invaded Iraq in 1991, which was years before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, so we cannot use 9/11 as an excuse.

[skyeagle409]

And how did that source know bin Laden was killed by American commandos?

We have the admissions of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They would not have admitted that American special forces killed Bin Laden if not true. The statement, dated May 3, was the first by the terror network since Bin Laden was killed by U.S. commandos in a raid on his hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

To sum it all up; Obama got Osama

Edited November 3, 2011 by skyeagle409

[MID]

The US government has been pulling this crap for years. Blowinwwg up the Battlesip Maine got us into the war with Spain. Pearl Harbor got us in into world war II. The only person not surprised was Roosevelt. And LBJ used the phony Gulf of Tonkin attacks to get us into the Vietnam War.

So 911 was just more game concocted by the government and used to invade Iraq with its massive oil reserves.

Christ.

Does this guy ever stop with this blurb?

[Q24]

If the hijackers were agents within the government, there would be no need for an investigation from within our intelligence services to ascertain who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Why not?

Do you think “the government” is a single conscious entity?

We have the admissions of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

You have said that three times now without answering the questions asked.

Are you a bot?

How did the source know bin Laden was killed by American commandos? I suggest the source was going by the same media reports as everyone else. It reminds me of the 2004 videotape where bin Laden came out and said the operation cost $500,000 after the 9/11 Commission had reported that figure a few months before. Interesting timing that… it’s like he needed to be told how much his own operation cost.

Anyhow, I agree bin Laden was killed that day, I just rarely see how your links and repetition are relevant to the arguments put forward.

[skyeagle409]

Why not? Do you think "the government" is a single conscious entity?

No, but they would have known. Remember, the CIA supplied aid to the rebels in Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets and the CIA, among our other intelligence agencies, make an effort to determined, "who's, who" in terrorist organizations. After all, certain information about certain people is what led them to Bin Laden. Here's one example.

Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden

WASHINGTON — For years, the agonizing search for Osama bin Laden kept coming up empty. Then last July, Pakistanis working for the Central Intelligence Agency drove up behind a white Suzuki navigating the bustling streets near Peshawar, Pakistan, and wrote down the car's license plate.

The man in the car was Bin Laden's most trusted courier, and over the next month C.I.A. operatives would track him throughout central Pakistan. Ultimately, administration officials said, he led them to a sprawling compound at the end of a long dirt road and surrounded by tall security fences in a wealthy hamlet 35 miles from the Pakistani capital.

My link

And, another.

The Calm Before the Storm

During the spring and summer of 2001, President Bush had on several occasions asked his briefers whether any of the threats pointed to the United States. Reflecting on these questions, the CIA decided to write a briefing article summarizing its understanding of this danger. Two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious.

The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." It was the 36th PDB item briefed so far that year that related to Bin Ladin or al Qaeda, and the first devoted to the possibility of an attack in the United States. The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature.

President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.

My link

You have said that three times now without answering the questions asked.

But, did you get the message the first time?

How did the source know bin Laden was killed by American commandos?

American commandos left their calling card at the residence of Bin Laden where he was killed and that was one method they used.

WASHINGTON — Pakistan has returned to the United States wreckage of a U.S. helicopter destroyed during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, a Pentagon official told Reuters on Tuesday. The delivery of the wreckage meets a key U.S. demand of Pakistan in the wake the May 2 mission to kill the al Qaida leader who was the mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

I suggest the source was going by the same media reports as everyone else. It reminds me of the 2004 videotape where bin Laden came out and said the operation cost $500,000 after the 9/11 Commission had reported that figure a few months before. Interesting timing that… it's like he needed to be told how much his own operation cost.

Bin Laden had a habit of keepng informed through the American media and should have been of no surprise that he would parrot what was posted in the media.Also, valuable information was gather during the trial of Moussaoui.

Anyhow, I agree bin Laden was killed that day, I just rarely see how your links and repetition are relevant to the arguments put forward.

Of course he was killed that day and here is another source they used.

Bin Laden's daughter confirms her father shot dead by US Special Forces in Pakistan

Senior Pakistani security officials said Osama bin Laden's daughter had confirmed her father was captured alive and shot dead by the US Special Forces during the first few minutes of the operation carried out at the huge compound in Bilal Town, Abbottabad. 



My link

Now, take what I have posted above and add them to the admissions of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and remember that they too, have confirmed that American commandos killed Bin Laden.

All kind of sources confirming that American special forces killed Bin Laden, which brings into question as to why you continue to ask for sources.

Edited November 4, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

*SNIP*

On one hand you say,

Once again, there were no explosives planted nor used, and no evidence found to support planted explosives after more than 10 years.

Then you admit

Why would anyone be looking for explosives?

The NIST Investigation came to the conclusive decision that no explosives were planted or used through the tried and tested method of...not looking for any. Great argument!

Where in your quote does Bin Laden admit responsibility for the attacks? The only person in there admitting attacks is the news report repeatedly mentioning 'Bin Laden admits he ordered the attacks' without providing a clear indication he did so.

*SNIP*

Edited November 4, 2011 by Lilly
removed ad hom remarks

[Q24]

No, but they would have known.

If a rogue element within the CIA recruits and infiltrates agents under an alias into Al Qaeda, how does the FBI or anyone else know if one of them happened to be Mohammed Atta? The whole point is to keep as few people in the know as possible (including those on your own side) to maintain the cover. You talk as though “the government” draw on one common knowledge pool.

“but they would have known” has no logic.

Now, take what I have posted above and add them to the admissions of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and remember that they too, have confirmed that American commandos killed Bin Laden.

All kind of sources confirming that American special forces killed Bin Laden, which brings into question as to why you continue to ask for sources.

I asked for sources because linking to an anonymous message attributed to ‘the Al Qaeda leadership’ which repeats information already widespread in the media wasn’t really proving your case to those who doubt bin Laden was killed. I mean, there have been numerous reports of his death over the years from Taliban, Pakistani, Saudi and other sources which turned out to be false.

This one in December 2001 went into detail about bin Laden’s body and the funeral: -

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

So you see, the latest message of his death from an equivalent source carried little weight on its own.

You repeat it like it’s gospel.

I wanted to see if you could come up with anything better.

[Q24]

The only person in there admitting attacks is the news report repeatedly mentioning 'Bin Laden admits he ordered the attacks'

It continues to astound me what is reported in the mainstream.

From skyeagle’s link: -

“he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks”

“Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks”

“he wanted to explain why he ordered the airline hijackings”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html

That is not what bin Laden said in any way, shape or form.

It’s a flat out lie.

And millions are led to believe it.

If this report were used in a trial then Fox News would be charged with perjury.

All is not well when the media forsakes journalism for propaganda - it is straight from the Nazi book of tricks that led to war!

[Scott G]

If a rogue element within the CIA recruits and infiltrates agents under an alias into Al Qaeda, how does the FBI or anyone else know if one of them happened to be Mohammed Atta? The whole point is to keep as few people in the know as possible (including those on your own side) to maintain the cover.

Very good point. And there's evidence to back up the notion that Atta and those who surrounded him had government support; I just found an excellent article on the subject. The article was based on information from a book:

http://www.democrati...ess=104x1433886

Edited November 4, 2011 by Scott G

[Wandering]

It continues to astound me what is reported in the mainstream.

From skyeagle’s link: -

“he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks”

“Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks”

“he wanted to explain why he ordered the airline hijackings”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html

That is not what bin Laden said in any way, shape or form.

It’s a flat out lie.

And millions are led to believe it.

If this report were used in a trial then Fox News would be charged with perjury.

All is not well when the media forsakes journalism for propaganda - it is straight from the Nazi book of tricks that led to war!

Very bad writing indeed. What's more disturbing is that some people take that as complete and utter evidence.

[Q24]

Very good point. And there's evidence to back up the notion that Atta and those who surrounded him had government support; I just found an excellent article on the subject. The article was based on information from a book:

http://www.democrati...ess=104x1433886

I’ve seen reports before that a close associate of Atta was a certain Wolfgang Bohringer in employment of the CIA, though had a hard time verifying any of the information. It’s not surprising I guess - what mainstream media would dare investigate and report on that?

The background of Atta and other hijackers alone is enough to show they were not quite the radicals/extremists that might be expected. In all, their profile fits those the CIA had set out to recruit and infiltrate close to bin Laden: Western agents “who could "blend" into the region's [Afghanistan’s] Muslim populations.” CIA director George Tenet said that by 9/11, “networks were in place in such numbers as to nearly cover Afghanistan”. There is no doubt that the hijackers could have been part of such a network…

This CIA plan beginning 1999 - all but a few of the hijackers first meeting with bin Laden… 1999>.

What's more disturbing is that some people take that as complete and utter evidence.

Why are you looking at skyeagle like that?

But seriously, it really is like something from “Nineteen Eighty-Four”.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Q24

[Lilly]

Keep the discussion civil and on topic. The next person to use inflammatory and/or rude remarks will not like the result.

[Little Fish]

All is not well when the media forsakes journalism for propaganda

look at the targets of the anthrax attacks to realise why all is not well in the media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

[Mike 215]

Let us review the facts. President Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 911 in order to gain control of the second largest oil reserves in the world. He used 911 as an excuse to to invade claiming that Saddam was behind 911.

There was never any evidence that Bin Laden ordered or was involved in 911. That is why a grand jury did not indict him for the attacks and the FBI most wanted posters did not include the 911 attacks. He was indicted for the embassy bombings in Africa and that is all.

We know that the entire story of the killing of Bin Laden was made up to help Obama in his polls. He died years before because he was a sick man on dialysis and they do not live that long. Notice that there was no dialysis machine in his house. The fact that no pictures were released of his body proves it was a fraud and then they tell us they dumped the body in the ocean. Of course there was never a problem showing Saddam's body or his sons' bodies or the late ruler of Libya's body. But we were told if they showed Bin Laden's body the entire Moslem world would rise up and destroy America.

*snip*

Edited November 4, 2011 by Saru
Removed flame

[Scott G]

Mike, I agree with you that 9/11 was an inside job, but using ad hominem attacks on those who believe in the official story regarding 9/11, aside from being against the policies of this site (for good reason I believe) is only going to inflame our relations with them. I think that treating them civilly is a much better way of persuading them to our point of view.

[Mr_Snstr]

I think whoever planned and carried out the attack is irrelevent at this point.

They said "They hate us for our freedom.".

So what did we do? We yelled at our freedom, yelled at our own rights. Regardless of who it was, they won. Terrorism won that day, because we were terrified to be free.

[Scott G]

I think whoever planned and carried out the attack is irrelevent at this point.

I wouldn't go so far as that. I would very much like to be sure of who planned it all out and have them held accountable. The main issue, however, is not whether it's relevant or not, but how much time should be put into figuring it out. We only have so much time in any given day. Seeing as how there's still an enormous debate as to -what- happened (did fires take down the WTC buildings, or were they taken down by explosives, for example), I think we should focus on that first.

They said "They hate us for our freedom.".

So what did we do? We yelled at our freedom, yelled at our own rights. Regardless of who it was, they won. Terrorism won that day, because we were terrified to be free.

I don't think the U.S. and other nations who clamped down on freedoms after 9/11 were terrified of being free. I think it's more that the people who orchestrated 9/11 wanted to restrict our freedoms and felt that 9/11 would help them accomplish this goal; in that, I definitely agree that they were quite successful.

[skyeagle409]

Very bad writing indeed. What's more disturbing is that some people take that as complete and utter evidence.

It was no secret that Bin Laden accepted responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, and he has admitted such responsibility for all to hear.

[skyeagle409]

*SNIP*

On one hand you say,

Of course I have said that there was no evidence that explosives were planted nor used.

Then you admit

Admit to what? Why would they look for explosives when it was evident that fires, which resulted from the aircraft impacts, were responsible for the downfall of both WTC buildings?

The NIST Investigation came to the conclusive decision that no explosives were planted or used through the tried and tested method of...not looking for any. Great argument!

As I have posted before, no evidence of planted explosives were found within the buildings. That should shut the door on claims that explosives were responsible for the downfall of the WTC buildings, and it was clear to me that explosives were not used for obvious reasons.

Both buildings were struck by aircraft and we are led to believe that people ran all the way up to the 77th floor and higher to plant explosives in buildings that were on fire and during the time when people were trying to escape the infernos in both buildings.

Edited November 4, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

It was no secret that Bin Laden accepted responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, and he has admitted such responsibility for all to hear.

What exactly do you think bin Laden admitted “responsibility” for?

I don’t need a link, please just answer the question if you can.

[Q24]

Both buildings were struck by aircraft and we are led to believe that people ran all the way up to the 77th floor and higher to plant explosives in buildings that were on fire and during the time when people were trying to escape the infernos in both buildings.

Who led you to believe that?

The claim is unanimously that explosive materials were placed prior 9/11.

[skyeagle409]

Let us review the facts. President Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 911 in order to gain control of the second largest oil reserves in the world.

I disagree. It was known that Saddam was a threat to oil in the Middle East and before the first Gulf War, we sent Saddam a warning with an off-shore naval exercise and Saddam ignored our exercise in the Persian Gulf. Had Saddam heeded our warnings, we would not have invaded Iraq in 1991. Iraq invaded Iran and bombed the oil rigs of the U.A.E. and threatened his neighbors if they failed to forgive Iraq's debts from loans that were handed to Iraq during its war with Iran.

Saddam had ambitions that went far beyond the borders of Kuwait, and in fact, Saddam's intent was to continue through Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and beyond and we were watching his troops movements via intelligence satellites. Only after we revealed satellite images where Saddam was amassing his troops, did Saudi Arabia allow the United States to station troops on its soil, and it was evident from the satellite photos that Saddam was preparing to invade Saudi Arabia, and the rest is history.

To sum it up, Saddam was a threat to the Middle East and action was taken in the nick of time to stop Saddam in his tracks, and many people were unaware that Saddam had plans to invade his neighbors in order to take over their oil. After all, one only has to look at Saddam's invasion of Iran and Kuwait, and his preparation for the invasion of Saudi Arabia..

Edited November 4, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

What exactly do you think bin Laden admitted "responsibility" for?

I don't need a link, please just answer the question if you can.

The 9/11 attacks. Please go back and provide the links for us all that Ihave posted in that regard.