Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Persia

9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

764 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

booNyzarC

There is all the evidence that should be expected of a demolition.

The full body of evidence is suggestive of a false flag attack.

Evidence of a damage/fire initiated collapse is conspicuous by its absence.

A simple terrorist attack relies on selective use of the full evidence.

From where I'm sitting you appear to have this completely backwards.

With respect, judging by our past discussions, you do not appear particularly well informed of the full body of evidence.

I can’t be too concerned about an opinion from such a position.

What portion of this full body of evidence do you assume that I'm uninformed about?

I wasn’t assuming, it is apparent from our past discussions: -

You don’t appear aware of the method and results of the NIST study.

I’m not convinced you have knowledge of the background material to formulate a plausible false flag theory.

You seem to think Screw Loose Change is a rational ‘debunking’ effort.

It’s those points which lead me to question how informed you are. Then I make a statement based on the facts and, without support, you claim I have it “completely backwards”.

You are still assuming, but let's take a look at your reasons.

You don’t appear aware of the method and results of the NIST study.

How so? NIST examined the evidence to produce a hypothesis regarding the initiation of collapse, produced computer models and physical scenarios to test that hypothesis, and concluded that the hypothesis was correct. Or do I have that wrong?

I’m not convinced you have knowledge of the background material to formulate a plausible false flag theory.

Whether you are convinced or not isn't really the point, and it is still an assumption on your part. The point is that I'm not the one proposing that 9/11 was a false flag operation. You are.

You seem to think Screw Loose Change is a rational ‘debunking’ effort.

I don't just think that it is, I know that it is. But then, I've taken the time to actually review it instead of turning it off less than 10 minutes in. :hmm: Does it have everything 100% right? Probably not, but it does correct many of the gross problems with Loose Change and exposes it for the deceptive propaganda that it is; which is the point.

And then you say this:

Then I make a statement based on the facts and, without support, you claim I have it “completely backwards”.

Did you miss the part where your statement was made without support? I'm guilty of a logical fallacy here. Oh well. I still think you have it completely backwards.

Let me pick one point I stated: -

A simple terrorist attack relies on selective use of the full evidence.

If this is backwards, where does the official investigation account for… (there’s any one of a hundred examples I could use here)… the PNAC background? Or intelligence agency connections to Al Qaeda? Or the Israeli tie-ins to 9/11? This is the type of evidence that must be repeatedly waived in order to maintain the illusion of a simple terrorist attack… 9/11 was clearly nothing of the sort if you look at the background and connected events.

Why should "the official investigation" account for unrelated things that you think are applicable?

For the sake of discussion, let's suppose that some of the "hundred examples" you "could use" might have some kind of relationship to the events in question. When you have the bulk of the mystery solved (who did it and how) one must wonder at which point you should stop spending resources on nailing down every minute little detail for the appeasement of possible future conspiracy theorists. No matter how much information is presented, someone is going to claim that there was a conspiracy.

Look at moon hoax believers. There is no rational reason to believe a conspiracy took place there when you consider that Apollo is one of the single best documented programs in human history, and yet there are people who believe it was faked.

I do wonder though, what would it take for you to accept that 9/11 wasn't a false flag operation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Were you aware that Bin Laden had finally admitted to his involvement in the 911 attacks?

Involvement… that could mean different things.

What did bin Laden say was the extent of his involvement?

Ah! That you cannot understand "we" is revealing.

But not surprising. It explains alot about you.

I understand “we”… but skyeagle is using it to incorrectly categorize.

How can a common citizen refer to themselves and Dick Cheney as “we” when it comes to global strategy?

It makes no sense - each are acting on completely different levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Involvement… that could mean different things.

What did bin Laden say was the extent of his involvement?

I

He was involved in the planning process.

220px-2001-12-13-frame-grab-DoD.jpg

A 2001 video of bin LadenIn the 2004 Osama bin Laden stated he had personally directed the nineteen hijackers. In the 18-minute tape, played on Al-Jazeera, four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence on the hijacking of the planes on September 11.

According to the tapes, bin Laden claimed he was inspired to destroy the World Trade Center after watching the destruction of towers in Lebanon by Israel during the 1982 Lebanon War.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

You don’t appear aware of the method and results of the NIST study.

How so? NIST examined the evidence to produce a hypothesis regarding the initiation of collapse, produced computer models and physical scenarios to test that hypothesis, and concluded that the hypothesis was correct. Or do I have that wrong?

NIST produced a hypothesis… they did not prove it was correct, or even possible in reality.

I’m not convinced you have knowledge of the background material to formulate a plausible false flag theory.

Whether you are convinced or not isn't really the point, and it is still an assumption on your part. The point is that I'm not the one proposing that 9/11 was a false flag operation. You are.

Ok, I assumed, based on what you had said.

You seem to think Screw Loose Change is a rational ‘debunking’ effort.

I don't just think that it is, I know that it is.

Then explain why Screw Loose Change said no one was to die as a result of Northwoods.

Did you miss the part where your statement was made without support?

I know I can back up what I’m saying if anyone asks; I always have support.

Why should "the official investigation" account for unrelated things that you think are applicable?

See what I mean about being selective of the full evidence - this is related, this is unrelated.

That is the only way the official story can work.

The false flag incorporates all evidence.

I do wonder though, what would it take for you to accept that 9/11 wasn't a false flag operation?

What would it take for you to accept that Operation Himmler was not a false flag operation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

He was involved in the planning process.

A 2001 video of bin LadenIn the 2004 Osama bin Laden stated he had personally directed the nineteen hijackers.

Osama bin Laden did not say that he personally directed the nineteen hijackers.

In both 2001 and 2004, he said that Atta was in charge of the operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

NIST produced a hypothesis… they did not prove it was correct, or even possible in reality.

In your opinion. Your opinion, I might add, doesn't appear to be supported by the overwhelmingly vast majority of professionals who are actually qualified to assess the validity of the NIST investigations.

Then explain why Screw Loose Change said no one was to die as a result of Northwoods.

That isn't what was said in Screw Loose Change. The quote you are looking for is "No one was to die in this fake terror plot." Which is completely accurate as it pertains to US citizens and 99% accurate as it pertains to Cubans. The only reference to killing that I see referenced in Northwoods is on page 12 "We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated)." This is just one of many possible steps that was suggested in the documents to initiate overt actions, and it isn't even a definitive statement that it would indeed kill anyone; just that it would sink a boat (real or simulated).

People would have definitely died as a result of it had the operation ever gone ahead; in the ensuing conflict that the operation would initiate. But the false flag operation itself wouldn't kill Americans. That is the point that Screw Loose Change is making here. 9/11 saw the death of nearly 3000 Americans. That is nothing like what is proposed in Northwoods.

Surely you can see this distinction?

See what I mean about being selective of the full evidence - this is related, this is unrelated.

That is the only way the official story can work.

The false flag incorporates all evidence.

The official story works with relevant evidence. Irrelevant evidence is just that; NOT relevant.

In order for a false flag theory to work, it requires the introduction of NON relevant evidence.

What would it take for you to accept that Operation Himmler was not a false flag operation?

We know Himmler was a false flag operation because the relevant evidence supports that conclusion. 9/11 doesn't compare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

In your opinion. Your opinion, I might add, doesn't appear to be supported by the overwhelmingly vast majority of professionals who are actually qualified to assess the validity of the NIST investigations.

It is nothing to do with opinion - I have explained this but you are unwilling to accept the study.

NIST produced a hypothetical collapse scenario, but did not prove it plausible within the extent of damage seen on 9/11.

I don’t care much for the silent majority who accept theory over confirmation.

That isn't what was said in Screw Loose Change. The quote you are looking for is "No one was to die in this fake terror plot." Which is completely accurate as it pertains to US citizens and 99% accurate as it pertains to Cubans. The only reference to killing that I see referenced in Northwoods is on page 12 "We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated)." This is just one of many possible steps that was suggested in the documents to initiate overt actions, and it isn't even a definitive statement that it would indeed kill anyone; just that it would sink a boat (real or simulated).

People would have definitely died as a result of it had the operation ever gone ahead; in the ensuing conflict that the operation would initiate. But the false flag operation itself wouldn't kill Americans. That is the point that Screw Loose Change is making here. 9/11 saw the death of nearly 3000 Americans. That is nothing like what is proposed in Northwoods.

Surely you can see this distinction?

Then Screw Loose Change should have said: -

“No one was to die in this fake terror plot… except Cubans who apparently don’t count… and any Americans who got caught up in the bombings (see page 9)… and however many thousand in the resultant war which also don‘t count because overt action based on a deceptive pretext is so very different.”

If this is what Screw Loose Change were really saying, then I don’t see there is a point.

The claim, “No one was to die in this fake terror plot” is extremely disingenuous. It is made with intent to mislead that, “Oh, no one was actually going to die!” Fact is, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were aware the plan would condemn thousands to death.

That it was in direct and/or resultant action of the lie is a pointless distinction.

The official story works with relevant evidence. Irrelevant evidence is just that; NOT relevant.

In order for a false flag theory to work, it requires the introduction of NON relevant evidence.

We know Himmler was a false flag operation because the relevant evidence supports that conclusion. 9/11 doesn't compare.

To the Germans, the relevant evidence was that Poles were found dead at Gleiwitz.

Perhaps, they would have done better to consider the motives of their own leader.

How is it determined what is relevant?

I’d beware those who would dictate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

It is nothing to do with opinion - I have explained this but you are unwilling to accept the study.

NIST produced a hypothetical collapse scenario, but did not prove it plausible within the extent of damage seen on 9/11.

I dont care much for the silent majority who accept theory over confirmation.

The study you linked to does not disprove the conclusions reached by NIST, it only suggests possibly flawed methodologies over minor details.

If it is any consolation, I don't think that NIST got everything 100% right either; but the overall conclusion for collapse is accurate and overwhelmingly supported by all of the available evidence that I've seen.

Whether you care for the silent majority or not is irrelevant. Their lack of support for the "truth movement" is far louder than the comparative handful of voices in support of conspiracy.

Then Screw Loose Change should have said: -

No one was to die in this fake terror plot… except Cubans who apparently dont count… and any Americans who got caught up in the bombings (see page 9)… and however many thousand in the resultant war which also dont count because overt action based on a deceptive pretext is so very different.

If this is what Screw Loose Change were really saying, then I dont see there is a point.

The claim, No one was to die in this fake terror plot is extremely disingenuous. It is made with intent to mislead that, Oh, no one was actually going to die! Fact is, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were aware the plan would condemn thousands to death.

That it was in direct and/or resultant action of the lie is a pointless distinction.

Do you even realize that your attachment to the Northwoods angle has completely clouded your rational judgment of this?

That isn't what Screw Loose Change is saying. There is no effort to mislead. That is a nonsensical thing you are saying, in an apparent fit, to avoid the core point that the proposal in Northwoods is absolutely nothing like what you suggest 911 to have been.

Any war will claim lives. That is a given. The important point that you are neglecting is that the false flag operation proposed in Operation Northwoods doesn't involve killing thousands of US citizens. That is all that Screw Loose Change is addressing in those opening points.

Was Operation Northwoods deplorable? Absolutely. I'm with you on that sentiment 100%. I'd say JFK was in agreement too when you consider that it wasn't implemented.

But it is a far cry different from what you are suggesting with 911 where thousands of US citizens were brutally murdered.

Take a step back and think about it.

To the Germans, the relevant evidence was that Poles were found dead at Gleiwitz.

Perhaps, they would have done better to consider the motives of their own leader.

How is it determined what is relevant?

To be specific, I was talking solely about Northwoods and Rebuilding America's Defenses when I said that. I should have been more clear and apologize for the ambiguity of my statement.

But other things do also apply to this relevance standard in my opinion. Watch Screw Loose Change in full and you might see some of them.

Id beware those who would dictate it.

As we all should be. As I am when conspiracy theorists suggest connections which appear contrived.

Edit: Two typos. I really do need to proof read better.

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Osama bin Laden did not say that he personally directed the nineteen hijackers.

In both 2001 and 2004, he said that Atta was in charge of the operation.

Bin Laden has already claimed responsibility. It's old news.

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

My link

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

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TERRORIST ATROCITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 – AN UPDATED ACCOUNT

INTRODUCTION

1. The clear conclusions reached by the government are:

  • Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaida, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001;...
  • My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

The study you linked to does not disprove the conclusions reached by NIST, it only suggests possibly flawed methodologies over minor details.

If it is any consolation, I don't think that NIST got everything 100% right either; but the overall conclusion for collapse is accurate and overwhelmingly supported by all of the available evidence that I've seen.

I linked the paper because, in that one section I referred to, it contained quotes from NIST and a brief reiteration of the point I was explaining. The method NIST used is not a problem so long as the results and base assumptions are understood.

The issue, which I’m still not sure you understand, is that extreme assumptions, not best match to the photographic record of damage, were used to initiate collapse in the NIST model. The best estimated assumptions, which were best match to the photographic record, did not initiate required collapse in the model.

NIST openly state the above, it is not an opinion.

That isn't what Screw Loose Change is saying. There is no effort to mislead. That is a nonsensical thing you are saying, in an apparent fit, to avoid the core point that the proposal in Northwoods is absolutely nothing like what you suggest 911 to have been.

This is a fit!!!

This is quite calm.

To say Northwoods (a U.S. false flag prextext for war) is, “absolutely nothing like” the 9/11 theories (a U.S. false flag prextext for war)… well, I think it best we leave that particular point where it is; one of us is obviously having severe comprehension difficulties.

Any war will claim lives. That is a given. The important point that you are neglecting is that the false flag operation proposed in Operation Northwoods doesn't involve killing thousands of US citizens. That is all that Screw Loose Change is addressing in those opening points.

Can you explain the difference between…

3,000 deaths in a false flag attack.

3,000 condemned to die in a war based on that pretext.

You appear to think there is a significant distinction.

Those politicians committed to death over 6,000 U.S. soldiers enacting regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention thousands more foreign troops and security contractors… and hundreds of thousands of civilians). What makes you think they would have any qualms sacrificing less than 3,000 U.S. citizens at the outset to make it happen?

You think 3,000 are important to pre-eminence of the United States?

This is what many people do not have the ability to understand - when the average citizen applies their own interests to those operating on a far grander scale, it doesn’t work - the individual is on a completely different level to those driving future shape of the globe.

As we all should be. As I am when conspiracy theorists suggest connections which appear contrived.

How is factual background information; the setting in which 9/11 occurred, contrived?

It is not sensible to be off-the-cuff selective in this way.

The type of media headline that skyeagle is promoting, now that’s contrived…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Bin Laden has already claimed responsibility. It's old news.

Please read the transcript of the bin Laden video and tell us precisely what bin Laden claimed responsibility for, in his own words, quote it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Please read the transcript of the bin Laden video and tell us precisely what bin Laden claimed responsibility for, in his own words, quote it.

I will do better than that. In Bin Laden's own words.

Bin Laden's Own Words

The International Islamic Jihad Front for the jihad against the US and Israel has, by the grace of God, issued a crystal clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on Jihad aimed at liberating the holy sites. The nation of Mohammed has responded to this appeal. If instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans . . . is considered to be a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal. Our job is to instigate and, by the grace of God, we did that, and certain people responded to this instigation.”IIt is what we instigated for a while, in self-defence. And it was in revenge for our people killed in Palestine and Iraq. So if avenging the killing of our people is terrorism, let history be a witness that we are terrorists.”

“Bush and Blair . . . don’t understand any language but the language of force. Every time they kill us, we will kill them, so the balance of terror can be achieved

“The battle has been moved inside America, and we shall continue until we win this battle, or die in the cause and meet our maker.”

“The bad terror is what America and Israel are practising against our people, and what we are practising is the good terror that will stop them doing what they are doing.”

My link

Question is, Why are you attempting to protect Bin laden's responsibility for terrorist attacks against America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

I will do better than that. In Bin Laden's own words.

The only claim of personal responsibility quoted is in the first section of text: “instigation for jihad”. And that statement came in 1998. I’m not sure bin Laden was accepting responsibility for anything to do with 9/11 three years before the event had even taken place. It is the type of statement that numerous Muslim leaders have come out with.

So try again - what precisely has bin Laden claimed responsibility for in regard to 9/11?

Pssst skyeagle, you won’t find much use in the British dossier which states from the outset: -

“This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law.”

I’d go with the 2004 videotape. It is very easy to tie bin Laden to 9/11 using that transcript. Though legal evidence he was the mastermind or director… that you will find hard to come by.

Question is, Why are you attempting to protect Bin laden's responsibility for terrorist attacks against America?

I am protecting justice and the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Osama bin Laden would have been in court defending the charge 10 years ago if I had my way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

The only claim of personal responsibility quoted is in the first section of text: "instigation for jihad". And that statement came in 1998. I'm not sure bin Laden was accepting responsibility for anything to do with 9/11 three years before the event had even taken place. It is the type of statement that numerous Muslim leaders have come out with.

So try again - what precisely has bin Laden claimed responsibility for in regard to 9/11?

Pssst skyeagle, you won't find much use in the British dossier which states from the outset: -

"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law."

I'd go with the 2004 videotape. It is very easy to tie bin Laden to 9/11 using that transcript. Though legal evidence he was the mastermind or director… that you will find hard to come by.

I am protecting justice and the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Osama bin Laden would have been in court defending the charge 10 years ago if I had my way.

It was very clear that Bin Laden accepted responsibility.

Bin Laden Takes Responsibility for 9/11 Attacks in New Tape

He accused Mr. Bush of "misleading" the American people three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Al Jazeera Web site said, and added that "we decided to destroy towers in America" because "we want to regain the freedom of our nation."

The Associated Press said Mr. bin Laden also went on to say in the videotape: "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind."

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike 215

The fact is that Bin Laden was not wanted by the US for 911. He was not indicted by a grand jury for those attacks but was for the bombings of the African embassies As a result his official FBI wanted poster did not mention he was wanted for 911 just for the embassy bombings. Even the so called speech he made years later claiming some responsiblies did not convince the grand jury he was guilty.

Notice after his murder, there was no evidence among his videos or records that he had anything to do with 911.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

It was very clear that Bin Laden accepted responsibility.

That is interesting - I didn’t realise how brazenly deceptive The New York Times could be.

That quote, “we decided to destroy towers in America”……

It does not exist in any transcript of the 2004 bin Laden tape.

No wonder people are misled if this is what the media reports.

Seriously, do you not think to check the source material, skyeagle?

Full transcript of bin Ladin’s speech

To the rest of the quoted text, which is accurate - the introduction explains that bin Laden is describing the type of thoughts amongst Muslims which led to 9/11 and the ideas which entered his own mind back in 1982 as example. Prior to and after those quotes provided, bin Laden says, “we”. If you have read the FBIS “Compilation of Usama Bin Ladin Statements 1994-January 2004”, you will know that bin Laden saw himself as representative of all Muslims, and this is to who he refers by use of, “we”.

So again, there is no acceptance of responsibility for 9/11, not even close.

I thought bin Laden had told all - that he was the mastermind?

Where is this confession??

The fact is, there is no such ‘confession’ - only that implied by the media.

If you were the prosecution skyeagle, bin Laden would be walking free.

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

That is interesting - I didn’t realise how brazenly deceptive The New York Times could be.

That quote, “we decided to destroy towers in America”……

It does not exist in any transcript of the 2004 bin Laden tape.

No wonder people are misled if this is what the media reports.

Seriously, do you not think to check the source material, skyeagle?

Full transcript of bin Ladin’s speech

To the rest of the quoted text, which is accurate - the introduction explains that bin Laden is describing the type of thoughts amongst Muslims which led to 9/11 and the ideas which entered his own mind back in 1982 as example. Prior to and after those quotes provided, bin Laden says, “we”. If you have read the FBIS “Compilation of Usama Bin Ladin Statements 1994-January 2004”, you will know that bin Laden saw himself as representative of all Muslims, and this is to who he refers by use of, “we”.

So again, there is no acceptance of responsibility for 9/11, not even close.

I thought bin Laden had told all - that he was the mastermind?

Where is this confession??

The fact is, there is no such ‘confession’ - only that implied by the media.

If you were the prosecution skyeagle, bin Laden would be walking free.

You are deluding yourself if you don't think that was a confession.

From your link:

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled
in
my
soul
, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And
as I looked
at those demolished towers in Lebanon,
it entered
my mind
that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America
in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

(Wait, didn't you say that part about "we decided to destroy towers in America" didn't exist in the transcript? Why is it pretty much in the transcript you provided then? Replace "decided to" with "should" and you have a match...)

and

This is the message
which I sought
to communicate to you
in word and deed, repeatedly,
for years before September 11th
.

and

If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the correct path that will lead America to the security that it was in before September 11th. This concerned the causes of the war.

As for it's results, they have been, by the grace of Allah, positive and enormous, and have, by all standards,
exceeded all expectations
.

I noted the above section to demonstrate that he is referring to expectations. How could one have expectations about an event that he had no knowledge of? Even if you (fallaciously) maintain that he wasn't the mastermind of the attack (I mean really, just look at the other two hi-lighted points above...) this portion certainly conveys enough knowledge of the event that he had expectations regarding the outcome.

Also of note, he repeatedly makes reference to "al-Qaida" in this confession. Haven't you claimed that "al-Qaida" isn't real in previous points? How do you reconcile that position in light of these statements from Bin Laden? It appears as though he thinks "al-Qaida" is real. In fact, it appears to me that he thinks he is the leader of this organization. It also appears to me that when he makes reference to "we" that he is talking specifically about "al-Qaida."

How can you not view your link as a confession? I don't see any other interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

You are deluding yourself if you don't think that was a confession.

The imperative question to keep in mind - a confession of what, exactly?

That bin Laden was the grand mastermind who plotted, funded and directed 9/11?

That is the story, isn’t it?

Not by reading of his actual words it is not.

It is necessary to clear one’s mind of any media bias to understand this…

From your link:

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled
in
my
soul
, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And
as I looked
at those demolished towers in Lebanon,
it entered
my mind
that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America
in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

The quoted section is bin Laden’s interpretation for the cause of the attacks and provides evidence that certain ideas entered his mind two decades before. I dare say a great many such ideas entered the minds of a great many Muslims before 9/11. Without making assumptions, this is all it can be deemed bin Laden is expanding upon.

To explain further why this is not a confession, here are some equivalent quotes: -

“We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth.”

“What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds.”

Threats against Americans… tower of steel… fire… strong blows to the United States…

The words of bin Laden forewarning of 9/11?

No, these were actually thoughts that came to the mind of Saddam Hussein prior to 2001.

Is it a confession that Hussein was the mastermind and director of 9/11?

Of course not, no more than those equivalent thoughts from bin Laden.

(Wait, didn't you say that part about "we decided to destroy towers in America" didn't exist in the transcript? Why is it pretty much in the transcript you provided then? Replace "decided to" with "should" and you have a match...)

Because changing words to provide a “pretty much” correct transcript is completely… completely… unacceptable.

Ever more so when it changes the meaning of the message: -

“decided” indicates the decision to take action was made.

“should” indicates a simple thought with no decision.

It is a disgrace to media reporting.

The transcript was already in the videotape.

You tell me why The New York Times changed that word.

Why alter his words if the confession exits?

Just a typo?

No - it is because the media are out to frame bin Laden a certain way and “decided” was more persuasive than “should”.

I noted the above section to demonstrate that he is referring to expectations. How could one have expectations about an event that he had no knowledge of? Even if you (fallaciously) maintain that he wasn't the mastermind of the attack (I mean really, just look at the other two hi-lighted points above...) this portion certainly conveys enough knowledge of the event that he had expectations regarding the outcome.

Hold your horses.

Who said bin Laden had no foreknowledge of an attack?

The evidence (the actual evidence, not the media headlines) is that bin Laden met with the hijackers - he knew of them and that an attack was coming alright, no doubt about it. I now refer you back to my first question in this post.

A point to realise is… bin Laden did not go to the 9/11 terrorists… no, they went to him.

bin Laden did not to know precise timing of the attack.

bin Laden could not order anyone to commit suicide.

bin Laden refers to Atta as the commander.

You see what happened?

This group headed by Atta, who did not fit the profile of lifelong radical Islamists hell-bent on killing themselves and had lived in Europe most of their lives (one of whom was related to a Muslim who worked for Israeli intelligence no less)… it was their operation which they put to bin Laden. And sure, I can imagine bin Laden saying, “Allah [whatever]… go for it”.

It was a set-up specifically designed to implicate bin Laden.

The intelligence services knew how bin Laden worked; they were all over him. Have you seen the 2001 videotape? There is no indication bin Laden knew he was being filmed - again, it was an attempt to lead bin Laden to incriminate himself - and still no confession.

At most, bin Laden could be charged as an accessory to the crime… though even that is debatable as he did not realise full scope of the attack and those truly behind the operation which had been put before him.

Why do you think there was no attempt to put bin Laden on trial ten years ago? Why did they shoot him dead in an assassination mission? Why do you think the closed doors of Guantamo military trials are preferred for certain ‘Al Qaeda’ suspects? Because everything that I’m saying would have come spilling out in a public trial.

So bin Laden had foreknowledge of an event he never fully understood or took part in.

Some mastermind and director.

Thus lack of confession to such.

You may disregard all this if you already hold certain ingrained views. I would just point out, there is reason jurors are kept away from the media before and during a trial.

Also of note, he repeatedly makes reference to "al-Qaida" in this confession. Haven't you claimed that "al-Qaida" isn't real in previous points? How do you reconcile that position in light of these statements from Bin Laden? It appears as though he thinks "al-Qaida" is real. In fact, it appears to me that he thinks he is the leader of this organization. It also appears to me that when he makes reference to "we" that he is talking specifically about "al-Qaida."

Not that ‘Al Qaeda’ is unreal… more, an understanding of what it is, or is not. I should not make this comparison because people will interpret it wrong but… ‘Al Qaeda’ as an organization is as real or coherent as the 9/11 truth movement. There are different figureheads and groups, a collection of various ideologies, overlapping agreement… and disagreement, it is intangible, non-defined, anyone from a wide spectrum of beliefs could be declared a ‘member’ depending on interpretation.

I’m not just pulling this out of thin air - I have researched the whole issue and taken onboard expert opinion. I can provide quotes to support it if required, though I hope you would research the area for yourself - it can be difficult to explain the concepts to anyone who doesn’t want to understand.

And before that particular videotape in 2004 bin Laden never used the term Al Qaeda, though frequently referred to the Mujahideen. It is notable he suddenly refers to “Al Qaeda” seven times in that one speech - it is one of numerous reasons I still reserve doubt about complete authenticity of the video and/or subtitles that accompanied it.

For certain it appears scripted for a Western audience, as analysts determined. If it is entirely genuine, it is possible bin Laden was appealing to a term he thought we would best understand. Previously, bin Laden said himself the term ‘Al Qaeda’ is only as the question is portrayed in the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

You have got to be kidding me.

Changing the transcript? Haven't you ever heard of differing interpretations? One person interprets one way, another interprets differently. Interpreting between languages is very difficult and often ends up in slight variations. Why do you think there are so many different versions of the Bible and Quaran out there?

Once again:

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

It doesn't get much more clear. The fact that you ignore such a blatant confession is mind boggling to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psychoticmike

You have got to be kidding me.

Changing the transcript? Haven't you ever heard of differing interpretations? One person interprets one way, another interprets differently. Interpreting between languages is very difficult and often ends up in slight variations. Why do you think there are so many different versions of the Bible and Quaran out there?

Once again:

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

It doesn't get much more clear. The fact that you ignore such a blatant confession is mind boggling to me.

a confession would be someone admitting that they DID a certain thing, not that they should do a certain thing. Did he mention which towers in that quote? no he didn't, thats not bin laden confessing that he orchestrated the attacks on 911.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

a confession would be someone admitting that they DID a certain thing, not that they should do a certain thing. Did he mention which towers in that quote? no he didn't, thats not bin laden confessing that he orchestrated the attacks on 911.

Yes it is a confession. Read the transcript in full from Q24's link. It is quite obvious that he is confessing specifically about the attacks, and warning of more.

If you still don't agree after reading the whole thing, I'll be happy to explain in more depth point by point about why and how this is a confession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

That is interesting - I didn’t realise how brazenly deceptive The New York Times could be.

That quote, “we decided to destroy towers in America”……

It does not exist in any transcript of the 2004 bin Laden tape.

From your link.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike 215

I hate to repeat myself, but there are people on this site who will accept the facts when they are right in front of their faces. THE FACTS ARE THAT THIS SO CALLED CONFESSION DID NOT IMPRESS THE GRAND JURY WHO REFUSED TO INDICT HIM FOR 911 AND THE FBI WHO REFUSED TO LIST HIM FOR BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR 911.

When the SEALS cleaned out his house after they murdered him, there was no evidence in the hundreds of videos and documents that he had anything to do with 911.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

You have got to be kidding me.

Afraid not.

Changing the transcript? Haven't you ever heard of differing interpretations? One person interprets one way, another interprets differently. Interpreting between languages is very difficult and often ends up in slight variations. Why do you think there are so many different versions of the Bible and Quaran out there?

Of course certain phrases in Arabic can be translated various ways in English.

However, those who made the 2004 videotape (‘Al Qaeda’ right?) had already inserted the subtitles before it was passed to the media - therefore, the English meaning that was intended to be conveyed was not left open to question.

Al Jazeera managed to quote it correctly, so did most U.S. outlets to be fair (even if the talking-heads put a spin on it).

What right did The New York Times have to flagrantly change the wording to suit?

I guess this is the type of propaganda we get fed all the time.

Once again:

There is no point repeating the text whilst failing to address the issues I have raised.

Have you been hanging around skyeagle a lot lately? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

a confession would be someone admitting that they DID a certain thing, not that they should do a certain thing. Did he mention which towers in that quote? no he didn't, thats not bin laden confessing that he orchestrated the attacks on 911.

Exactly, “should” is not “did” or “going to” and it is certainly not “decided”.

It is bin Laden explaining the causes which he believes led to 9/11, through the injustices Muslims felt.

It is not a claim of responsibility or ownership to the attack.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.