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 -

Bin Laden was not buried at sea,


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

Popular opinion.

ex./ Collectivism

Let's try another approach. When the FAA and the NTSB receive conflicting eyewitness accounts, what means are used to determine who is right or wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try another approach. When the FAA and the NTSB receive conflicting eyewitness accounts, what means are used to determine who is right or wrong?

Just curious...

Are you attempting, yet again, to group me into debunked theories of no planes, missles, nukes...etc... when we're discussing dumping evidence into the ocean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious...

Are you attempting, yet again, to group me into debunked theories of no planes, missles, nukes...etc... when we're discussing dumping evidence into the ocean?

No, because it is just a matter of understanding what occurred shortly after bin Laden's death and what did not occur in the years after he was killed. There was a leadership change within al-Qaeda shortly after the death of bin Laden, which is a clue that bin Laden was no longer the main man in a leadership role. Why?

Now, let's place you in President Obama's shoes. You have just been told that it has now been confirmed that Osama bin Laden was killed, but would you risk reporting on national TV and to the whole world that bin Laden was killed and doing so not knowing for sure? What would happen to your reputation and your position in world history should bin Laden somehow show up alive the next day?

If you think that providing a large sum of money to al-Qaeda is going to force al-Qaeda to admit to the death of bin Laden while he is still alive, think again. In doing so, you are providing the rope to hang yourself because

al-Qaeda will not use your money to buy pork sandwiches, but instead, use your money to build bombs, buy more weapons and find ways to kill you and other Americans.

Case in point; Jennifer Matthews and the CIA befriended a terrorist they thought, they'd convinced he had switched sides. What happened next is that he killed several CIA agents along with Jennifer Matthews. That true story was depicted in the movie; "Zero Dark Thirty" and can be read here.

You either learn from history or you don't, and if you don't, prepare to pay the ultimate price. It was reported that bin Laden was buried at sea and we can place an aircraft carrier at the location where they said he was buried.

Knowing Muslim terrorist, you do not want to bury bin Laden's body on land, which would provide terrorist a rallying point. Secondly, there was no need to take bin Laden alive because that would have presented a serious problem for the United States. We gathered intelligence from his compound and didn't need him because he would have lied to intelligence agents and not be considered reliable anyway.

Thirdly, revealing photos of bin Laden in death would serve to inflame terrorist across the Middle East and In Africa who would then seek to take out their revenge in blood on innocent Americans.It sounds easy to think that taking bin Laden into custody would present no real problem to America, but not learning from history can create dire consequences to those who don't bother to learn from history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skyeagle, There is a hole in your story above this post.

Obama DID announce to the world that 'we got him' before he knew for sure. All he knew was a dna sample, in Afghanistan, confirming it was OBL was on it's way to the America.

I, like many, remember when the story broke late in the evening that 'Obama got him'.  I was glued to the television anticipating his live address that night.  When he finally addressed the nation and the world that night I remember thinking,"Holy sh!t... he was actually alive after all these years..... WOW!"  I then went to bed, like most North Americans,  anticipating the coming days, weeks where we could sift through the PROOF that the american military really got him.  I was in short, very excited.

And then I woke up early only to find...... disappointment. 

No body = no proof

The most wanted man in recent history thrown into the ocean.

Only a DNA sample remains as proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skyeagle, There is a hole in your story above this post.

Obama DID announce to the world that 'we got him' before he knew for sure. All he knew was a dna sample, in Afghanistan, confirming it was OBL was on it's way to the America.

I, like many, remember when the story broke late in the evening that 'Obama got him'. I was glued to the television anticipating his live address that night. When he finally addressed the nation and the world that night I remember thinking,"Holy sh!t... he was actually alive after all these years..... WOW!" I then went to bed, like most North Americans, anticipating the coming days, weeks where we could sift through the PROOF that the american military really got him. I was in short, very excited.

And then I woke up early only to find...... disappointment.

No body = no proof

The most wanted man in recent history thrown into the ocean.

Only a DNA sample remains as proof.

Only a DNA sample? Soldiers carry biometric kits now that can PID a person within seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll answer this, although I don't see what it has to do with being skeptical that bin Laden didn't have a covey of doctors. Or do you acknowledge there isn't anything particularly mysterious about that?

Mysterious? No. But unusual for a man in his situation, and his age, to have one doctor? Yes, slightly unusual.

Gospel truth? Why?

To the best of my knowledge, he hasn't shown himself to be any more or any less trustworthy than anyone else in regards to telling the truth.

See, this is a problem. Much like a slightly blinkered tendency on the CT side of the argument to some very obvious, simple truths, there's a tendency on the OS side to cherry pick sources and believability. One minute Al Qaeda are thoroughly evil and implicitly untrustworthy, the next they are considered a valid source...

Why would anyone make that assumption? Who thinks of people as being either always honest or always deceitful? That's not how humans work.

Isn't it? You've never known people who ALWAYS tell the truth, with little regard for opinion or their self? Or a person who tells lies constantly for no reason? Most people are along that spectrum somewhere or other... Most aren't 50/50.

Considering that he was on the run and being hunted down internationally, it would have prudent for him not to have too many doctors. The information from his doctor came from himself during an interview.

He was being hunted internationally, but his 'right hand man' was available for a quick chat???

The conspiracy folks.

No, not really. The conspiracy folks saw nearly 20 reports of his death, from mostly reputable sources and thought there may be something to it. Perfectly understandable.

When there are unreliable sources or conflicting accounts, how does one determine the true facts? The FAA and NTSB are always faced with conflicting eyewitness testimony, but they use other means to make a final determination as to who is right and who is wrong.

What happens on this forum at least, when there's disputed evidence, is one hardcore group arbitrarily believe the government/official stance, and one hardcore group arbitrarily DISbelieve the government stance. I hope, most people are somewhere in the middle.

It would have been very difficult for a person on the run as he is being hunted down to undergo regular treatments and keeping himself invisible.

And during this time, his doctor was also busy being interviewed and dishing out soundbites...

If the United States released such videos and photos, the CT'ers would simply concoct another conspiracy theory and say the whole operation was nothing but a staged event using a dummy.

That's a complete non-argument.

"We won't release the proof 'cause people won't believe it anyway."

Imagine if someone tried to use that in court?

"We CAN prove the defendant is guilty of 9 murders... but you won't believe it, so we won't bother.."

Seems you left out Pakistan and al-Qaeda. Are they considered U.S. government agencies? After all, they have confirmed the death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of U. S special forces as well, which basically backs the report of President Obama.

Al Qaeda were setup and funded by the US government, so kinda, yeah.

Regardless, again officials from both Pakistan and Al Qaeda (as well as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others) have both confirmed, and denied all the stories at various times. You can't cherry pick agreement from unreliable sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mysterious? No. But unusual for a man in his situation, and his age, to have one doctor? Yes, slightly unusual.

How is it unusual for a man in his situation to have one doctor?

If pretty much the entire Western world is looking to put a bullet in your forehead, how unusual is it to want to limit the number of people who know where you live?

See, this is a problem. Much like a slightly blinkered tendency on the CT side of the argument to some very obvious, simple truths, there's a tendency on the OS side to cherry pick sources and believability. One minute Al Qaeda are thoroughly evil and implicitly untrustworthy, the next they are considered a valid source...

Again, who is saying that they are thoroughly evil and implicitly untrustworthy OR that they are a valid source?

No one. Why? Because that isn't how the world works. A person's affiliation isn't any sort of indicator as to whether they are lying or telling the truth. A better indicator is whether or not it would benefit a person to lie or not lie in a given situation.

Isn't it? You've never known people who ALWAYS tell the truth, with little regard for opinion or their self? Or a person who tells lies constantly for no reason? Most people are along that spectrum somewhere or other... Most aren't 50/50.

Angel, your statement above is kind of self-defeating. A person who is 100% would either always lie or always tell the truth. A person who is 50/50 would occasionally lie and occasionally tell the truth. Which is indeed where most people average. No, I do not know anyone (and I would be extremely skeptical to be introduced to) someone who is claimed to always tell the truth or always lie. People do not tell the truth or lie for the sheer sake of telling the truth or lying. They do so because of the level of convenience and comfort it brings them.

He was being hunted internationally, but his 'right hand man' was available for a quick chat???

Of course. How do you think this sort of organization recruits people?

And during this time, his doctor was also busy being interviewed and dishing out soundbites...

Not exactly. He did a few, but mostly as a representative of Al Quaida. The big problem at the time was that no one wanted to be the number 2 man for the group. People in that position kept coming down with a severe case of missile to the face. Between 2006 and 2012, we killed 7 people in that position. Imaging your company if it changed CEOs every 9 months or so.

And, of course, there was a brand issue going on as well. It seems that the Muslim population was less than impressed with how quickly Al Quaida folded to a shadow of its former self (they had, apparently, lower standards than we did). Bin Laden was mapping out a strategy to recreate the image of his group in order to attract more support. You need to have someone out there speaking to people to do that.

I'm not sure how you think these groups run, but they really aren't all that different from major companies and corporations. They need to advertise, they need to have a spokesperson, and they need to keep secrets. Pretty much the only difference is that it isn't money that they are risking in the event of failure.

Edited by aquatus1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. It was a complete slap in the face to freedom in the west. The freedom to travel into the USA without being treated like a potential terrorist. The freedom to engage in social and business without the NSA snooping in on your privacy.

I, like many, remember when the story broke late in the evening that 'Obama got him'. I was glued to the television anticipating his live address that night. When he finally addressed the nation and the world that night I remember thinking,"Holy sh!t... he was actually alive after all these years..... WOW!" I then went to bed, like most North Americans, anticipating the coming days, weeks where we could sift through the PROOF that the american military really got him. I was in short, very excited.

And then I woke up early only to find...... disappointment.

Now all that is left is listening to the crack heads and meatballs who repeat the GOV BS like its the word of god or allah.

Unbelievable to say the least.

Unbelievable? Not really. Humans in general and americans in particular have been conditioned for at least a century to believe what their leaders say. It might be described as a natural phenomenon, and you yourself experienced it before you went to bed.

Humans are conditioned from the youngest ages to believe in myths. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and of course all the religious superstition from all corners of the earth.

Humans are easily deceived, and the TV has really demonstrated that clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skyeagle, There is a hole in your story above this post.

Obama DID announce to the world that 'we got him' before he knew for sure. All he knew was a dna sample, in Afghanistan, confirming it was OBL was on it's way to the America.

President Obama watched the raid as it unfolded and he knew because facial recognition technology was also used in conjunction with DNA evodemce. In other words, multiple confirmations that the body was that of Osama bin Laden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is our call in to Leon Penneta getting the okay for the raid. I'm the furthest left.

post-4074-0-85657400-1395243378_thumb.jp

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unbelievable? Not really. Humans in general and americans in particular have been conditioned for at least a century to believe what their leaders say. It might be described as a natural phenomenon, and you yourself experienced it before you went to bed.

Humans are conditioned from the youngest ages to believe in myths. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and of course all the religious superstition from all corners of the earth.

Humans are easily deceived, and the TV has really demonstrated that clearly.

Human's are also conditioned to use silverware, go to the bathroom in the proper location, use their manners, and look both ways before they cross the street. Do you not understand that conditioning is learning? Why does it seem like conditioning is the CTer word of the week? It's starting to get almost as annoying as "agenda" which has definitely wore out it's welcome on all forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was being hunted internationally, but his 'right hand man' was available for a quick chat???

How quick? As quick as calling on the telephone?

No, not really. The conspiracy folks saw nearly 20 reports of his death, from mostly reputable sources and thought there may be something to it. Perfectly understandable.

Considering that bin Laden released a number of audio and video tapes in the years afterward, that simply means the dearth report was false, so the question is, who was passing off those false reports that bin Laden died in

What happens on this forum at least, when there's disputed evidence, is one hardcore group arbitrarily believe the government/official stance, and one hardcore group arbitrarily DISbelieve the government stance. I hope, most people are somewhere in the middle.

That is where knowledge comes on the scene and makes an appearance. I have scene much in the way of false comments and such. For an example, there were those who've claimed that cell phones could not have been used in flight yet I produced two cell phone records where such calls were made at 5000 feet aboard United 93.

I have read false comments regarding the airframes of the 911 airliners and knew they were false because I was not only an airframe technician, I occupied a position was an airframe supervisor for the Air Force Reserves and upon my retirement, I became employed as an airframe supervisor/inspector under an Air Force contract for defense contractors. The claim was made that it was impossible for an airliner to exceed a certain speed and remain intact, which was in correct and I had to post some history as proof.

Apparently, they were unaware that there have been large subsonic aircraft that have exceeded the speed of sound and landed safely. In fact, during a test flight of the DC-8, the aircraft exceeded the speed of sound and we have had an Air Force C-141 exceed the speed of sound as well, so I knew that what they were posting was false. I read the claim that a modified pod was attached to United 175 in order to carry explosives, which didn't make any sense at all. Did they really think that United Airlines would have grounded its aircraft in order to it to be illegally modified to carry a thousand pounds or two, of explosives? I think not, but why would a pod be attached anyway when over 20,000 pounds of cargo can be carried in the cargo holds without modifying anything.

I also knew there was no way the aircraft could be switched and it would take me 30 minutes or less to uncover a switched aircraft and blow the whole operation. Each aircraft, whether of the same model or not, has its own unique signature which is comparable to that of a fingerprint. CT'ers didn't seem to know that and hence, concocted unfounded conspiracy theories because they didn't know any better.

On the pilot side of the house, I have 45 years as a pilot and knew that much of what they were posting was false, and yet, they decided to hatch unfounded conspiracy theories because they didn't understand what they were doing.

Al Qaeda were setup and funded by the US government, so kinda, yeah.

I wouldn't say that considering that Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaeda were on the CIA's hit list at the time. Add to the fact that CT'ers have claimed that the CIA funded al-Qaeda during the Afghanistan/Soviet war, but nothing could be further from the truth. Terrorist were receiving their aid from Pakistan, not the United States and even al-Qaeda scoffed at claims the CIA funded them. The CIA funded the Afghan mujahideen, not the Afghan Arabs, which was a group of foreigners. They were two different groups but the CT folks were totally unaware of the fact the Afghan Arabs was a different group not funded b the CIA, As a result, their lack of knowledge to support their unfounded conspiracy theories.

Regardless, again officials from both Pakistan and Al Qaeda (as well as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others) have both confirmed, and denied all the stories at various times. You can't cherry pick agreement from unreliable sources.

Let me put it in another way; knowledge allows a person to know when to "hold 'em, and when to throw 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are conditioned from the youngest ages to believe in myths. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and of course all the religious superstition from all corners of the earth.

Humans are easily deceived, and the TV has really demonstrated that clearly.

And, there are those who took a hoaxed mini-nuke story and thought that false story was true and did so without a shred of evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human's are also conditioned to use silverware, go to the bathroom in the proper location, use their manners, and look both ways before they cross the street. Do you not understand that conditioning is learning? Why does it seem like conditioning is the CTer word of the week? It's starting to get almost as annoying as "agenda" which has definitely wore out it's welcome on all forums.

I absolutely understand that conditioning is learning. Pavlov demonstrated that a very long time ago, and in so many regards, humans behave very much like dogs.

Sorry you find that "annoying" old chap, but I understand why. The truth can be unpleasant to contemplate when it threatens one's worldview.

But human behavior, obviously, goes beyond conditioned learning. Philip Zimbardo and many others have discovered and identified certain behavior that is apparently inherited and can manifest without conditioning, but with conditioning becomes even stronger. He called part of it The Lucifer Effect.

It seems that cognitive dissonance is also partly or entirely inherited somehow, a genetic component perhaps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely understand that conditioning is learning. Pavlov demonstrated that a very long time ago, and in so many regards, humans behave very much like dogs.

Sorry you find that "annoying" old chap, but I understand why. The truth can be unpleasant to contemplate when it threatens one's worldview.

But human behavior, obviously, goes beyond conditioned learning. Philip Zimbardo and many others have discovered and identified certain behavior that is apparently inherited and can manifest without conditioning, but with conditioning becomes even stronger. He called part of it The Lucifer Effect.

It seems that cognitive dissonance is also partly or entirely inherited somehow, a genetic component perhaps.

What the hell are you going on about? That whole paragraph of mindless drivel to describe INSTINCT? Also, who are these "many others"...you tend to use such terms without ever saying who you are talking about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it unusual for a man in his situation to have one doctor?

Find a group of men in their fifties and ask how many doctors they've seen. Most will say several. Any complaint beyond the most basic will require some kind of specialist or some kind of consultant.

Again, who is saying that they are thoroughly evil and implicitly untrustworthy OR that they are a valid source?

No-one is saying both at the same time. Let me try to make what I'm saying a little clearer...

- In 2001, Bin Laden was reported dead by, for instance, the Pakistani government.

- That information has been leapt on by the CT movement DESPITE several conflicting comments from the same source.

- Bin Laden's admission to 9/11 has been similarly leapt on by supporters of the Official Story DESPITE multiple conflicting statements from members of Al Qaeda INCLUDING Bin Laden.

Both sides tend to cherry pick quotes from unreliable sources. Those sources that are obviously completely unreliable should just be stricken from the record, and not referenced by either side.

better indicator is whether or not it would benefit a person to lie or not lie in a given situation.

I disagree... Bu I suspect we're veering WAY off-topic. Benefit to the liar would only be a factor to a real opportunist, there are so many other relevant factors, that's not a great method to assuage someone's veracity.

A person who is 50/50 would occasionally lie and occasionally tell the truth. Which is indeed where most people average. No, I do not know anyone (and I would be extremely skeptical to be introduced to) someone who is claimed to always tell the truth or always lie. People do not tell the truth or lie for the sheer sake of telling the truth or lying. They do so because of the level of convenience and comfort it brings them.

I meant more literally... I don't know anyone who could claim to tell exactly one lie for each truth. I've met people who consistently lie about everything... Several in fact, and regardless of how obvious it is... I also know a few people that would genuinely feel guilty for even a slight untruth... Most people would be a mixture... 74/26, 80/20, 66/34.

Of course. How do you think this sort of organization recruits people?

Militant extremist groups rarely advertise. I assume they are approached rather than BEING The approacher...

I'm not sure how you think these groups run,

Emphasis mine.

How we 'think' they run is debatable. Hell, when 'al-qaeda' began to operate, or even if a group going by that name even existed before named that by the West is hotly debated to this day... An arbitrary title written on a book, chosen by people who didn't know what it meant and applied to a loose alliance of people halfway across the world just because we can't cope without the 'enemy' having a specific name. Given the sheer amount of information out there that we don't know, I'd hate to have to guess how they run their operation.

SkyEagle, I'm not gonna respond to repeated paragraphs on a variety of other subjects... They're not relevant to this discussion...

Let me put it in another way; knowledge allows a person to know when to "hold 'em, and when to throw 'em.

But, no single person can know EVERYTHING. Or even a FRACTION of everything. So sometimes people rely on the knowledge of others. If that knowledge comes form a reputable source then it's not people 'spreading false information', it's people being misinformed. Very different.

If pretty much the entire Western world is looking to put a bullet in your forehead, how unusual is it to want to limit the number of people who know where you live?

How quick? As quick as calling on the telephone?

Not exactly. He did a few, but mostly as a representative of Al Quaida.

So which is it??? Are Bin Laden and his doctor, his sworn number 2, hiding from the entire western world, scared of being blown to pieces or shot in the face?

Or are they on speed-dial ready for a round of questions about minor medical issues and that week's secret plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Find a group of men in their fifties and ask how many doctors they've seen. Most will say several. Any complaint beyond the most basic will require some kind of specialist or some kind of consultant.

Come one now, Angel. You keep dancing around the most glaring point here.

Like you said, "a man in his situation". That he was in his fifties was hardly the biggest threat to his health.

Look, there's no shame in acknowledging that it is perfectly reasonable for him to only have had one doctor. For the average 50 year old, yes, that would be unusual, but this is not the average 50 year old and he was not living a usual sort of life.

No-one is saying both at the same time. Let me try to make what I'm saying a little clearer...

- In 2001, Bin Laden was reported dead by, for instance, the Pakistani government.

- That information has been leapt on by the CT movement DESPITE several conflicting comments from the same source.

- Bin Laden's admission to 9/11 has been similarly leapt on by supporters of the Official Story DESPITE multiple conflicting statements from members of Al Qaeda INCLUDING Bin Laden.

Both sides tend to cherry pick quotes from unreliable sources. Those sources that are obviously completely unreliable should just be stricken from the record, and not referenced by either side.

Your definition of "completely unreliable" is lacking. You keep referring to their credibility as tied into their affiliation. That's just as bad as cherry-picking; it really is just a different form of bias.

No person and no group makes it a habit to either lie or tell the truth for the sheer sake of lying or telling the truth. They do so for the same two reasons everyone else lies or tells the truth: Either convenience or comfort.

I disagree... Bu I suspect we're veering WAY off-topic. Benefit to the liar would only be a factor to a real opportunist, there are so many other relevant factors, that's not a great method to assuage someone's veracity.

Benefit to the liar is for opportunists, and people trying to avoid consequences, and people trying to protect other people, and people who are simply trying to keep the peace, and a bunch of other reasons that have nothing to do with being opportunistic.

The one thing they all have in common, however, is that they lie because it is either more convenient or more comfortable for them to do so. In has little to do with morality.

I meant more literally... I don't know anyone who could claim to tell exactly one lie for each truth. I've met people who consistently lie about everything... Several in fact, and regardless of how obvious it is... I also know a few people that would genuinely feel guilty for even a slight untruth... Most people would be a mixture... 74/26, 80/20, 66/34.

Perhaps you should stop classifying them by symptoms and instead look to the situations they tend to display them in? But I do agree we are veering off-topic.

Militant extremist groups rarely advertise. I assume they are approached rather than BEING The approacher...

That...is very incorrect. I'm not even sure where to begin on that one.

Emphasis mine.

How we 'think' they run is debatable.

It's pretty straightforward. You type certain things, I type certain things, we both provide support, and eventually the thoughts are made clear.

Hell, when 'al-qaeda' began to operate, or even if a group going by that name even existed before named that by the West is hotly debated to this day... An arbitrary title written on a book, chosen by people who didn't know what it meant and applied to a loose alliance of people halfway across the world just because we can't cope without the 'enemy' having a specific name. Given the sheer amount of information out there that we don't know, I'd hate to have to guess how they run their operation.

It's a pretty standard cell organization. Not all that different to how a number of other organizations of a similar secretive nature are run. I would hate to have to guess at a few specific details, and hate even more trying to figure out who is responsible for what, but the organizational setup itself isn't a big mystery.

So which is it??? Are Bin Laden and his doctor, his sworn number 2, hiding from the entire western world, scared of being blown to pieces or shot in the face?

Yes. His former doctor, anyway, now the current head of Al Quaida.

Or are they on speed-dial ready for a round of questions about minor medical issues and that week's secret plan?

No. They do, however, plan interviews on occasion, in places and environments they control as much as possible. You can't drum up support if no one ever hears from you, and if all they ever do hear is news of your failures.

Edited by aquatus1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- In 2001, Bin Laden was reported dead by, for instance, the Pakistani government.

Considering that Osama bin Laden released a number of tapes since 2001, we can safely scratch off that obviously false report.

- That information has been leapt on by the CT movement DESPITE several conflicting comments from the same source.

Sometimes, they are too quick to jump on a story without doing a background check, and I can bring up Eddy Current's hoaxed video as an example.

- Bin Laden's admission to 9/11 has been similarly leapt on by supporters of the Official Story DESPITE multiple conflicting statements from members of Al Qaeda INCLUDING Bin Laden.

I have mentioned in the years before the 911 attack, a terrorist plot was revealed in the Philippines by the Philippine government where terrorist had planned to used airliners to kill thousands of people and one of the targets of an aerial attack was CIA headquarters.

One of the terrorist revealed in that plot was Ramzi Yousef, the terrorist who bombed WTC1 in 1993 and nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the terrorist who has admitted his involvement in the 911 attack, which implicated al-Qaeda, and who was head of al-Qaeda at that time? Osama bin Laden, who later admitted his involvement in the 911 attack.

A number of international warnings were issued from a number of countries to the United States to the 911 attack and they were pointing their fingers at al-Qaeda, not the United States government. Add to the fact that al-Qaeda released these videos is a clue that al-Qaeda was responsible for the 911 attack.

Al-Qaeda released martyr videos for most of the 9/11 hijackers

The Al Jazeera satellite network shows an hour-long video about al-Qaeda containing footage given to it from al-Qaeda of some of the 9/11 hijackers, including a martyr video from hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari (see September 9, 2002 and September 9, 2002).

A martyr video from hijacker Ahmed Alhaznawi was shown in April 2002. But this new hour-long video contains images of each of the hijacker teams that hijacked Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 on September 11. These images show pictures of each hijacker in the team floating over a background.

994_martyr_videos_2050081722-8644.jpg

hijackermartyrvideos%20al%20jazeera_2050081722-40641.jpg

With those facts in hand, why are there CT'ers in the world claiming that bin Laden died in 2001 and that the the U.S. government carried out the 911 attack?

Both sides tend to cherry pick quotes from unreliable sources. Those sources that are obviously completely unreliable should just be stricken from the record, and not referenced by either side.

It is just a matter which side facts and evidence support, and it doesn't support the 911 Truther Movement by any means.

About Osama bin Laden's doctor.

Dr. Amer Aziz

Strongly sympathetic to radical Islam, Aziz had treated bin Laden for years. He reportedly admitted to visiting bin Laden after the September 11 attacks. Upon his release, he talked freely to Paul Haven of the Associated Press in November 2002. The doctor said he had given bin Laden a "complete physical" in 1999 and treated him for back injuries after bin Laden was thrown from a horse. "His kidneys were fine," the doctor told Mr. Haven.

He said "If you're on dialysis, you have a special look. I didn't see any of that," and added that bin Laden "was walking. He was healthy." Aziz was emphatic: "I did not see any evidence of kidney disease; I didn't see any evidence of dialysis."

Aziz later discussed the dialysis issue with the New York Times. "When I hear these reports, I laugh. I did not see any evidence." He has good reason to laugh -- legions of Westerners have bought the story that bin Laden is on dialysis, with no proof at all.

http://washingtontim...93215-2153r.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Obama watched the raid as it unfolded and he knew because facial recognition technology was also used in conjunction with DNA evodemce. In other words, multiple confirmations that the body was that of Osama bin Laden.

Just curious...

In your opinion where is the intelligence gathered from on Al Qaeda when it's called 'chatter'? From wire taps.. extremist websites?

I'm genuinely curious because there is a website commonly referred to on western media as an extremist website which is also in englj sh which I check on occasionally. The site just released information that the leader of the Chechen rebels has been officially martyred lately.

This extremist website also released information regarding the raid in Abbottobad. It used an interview from an ex-wife of OBL saying she witnessed the navy helicopter crash on take off with OBL body in it and everybody died. It states that this is the reason America did not parade the most wanted man in the world body for everybody to witness. Because it was obviously in no recognizable shape. Hence the reason for the immediate so-called burial at sea.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious...

In your opinion where is the intelligence gathered from on Al Qaeda when it's called 'chatter'? From wire taps.. extremist websites?

I'm genuinely curious because there is a website commonly referred to on western media as an extremist website which is also in englj sh which I check on occasionally. The site just released information that the leader of the Chechen rebels has been officially martyred lately.

This extremist website also released information regarding the raid in Abbottobad. It used an interview from an ex-wife of OBL saying she witnessed the navy helicopter crash on take off with OBL body in it and everybody died. It states that this is the reason America did not parade the most wanted man in the world body for everybody to witness. Because it was obviously in no recognizable shape. Hence the reason for the immediate so-called burial at sea.

Thoughts?

That sounds like a plausible story. This was in an interview with his ex-wife that was present?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like a plausible story. This was in an interview with his ex-wife that was present?

Her name is Amal Al-Sada, a native of Yemen... says the extremist website.

I'll provide the link to the website soon. Just want to hear Skyeagles opinion in the meantime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious...

In your opinion where is the intelligence gathered from on Al Qaeda when it's called 'chatter'? From wire taps.. extremist websites?

Let's just say from wide range of intelligence gathering methods that are currently in use.

.

This extremist website also released information regarding the raid in Abbottobad. It used an interview from an ex-wife of OBL saying she witnessed the navy helicopter crash on take off with OBL body in it and everybody died.

Where the helicopter crash there was no way she could have made that determination, however, the crash occurred before bin Laden was killed and no one was killed in the crash.

A helicopter did crash during the raid but no one was killed. It happened before bin Laden was killed. We have seen helicopter wreckage flown into the base on Air Force transports that suffered similar fates, however, we simply ordered new parts against the damaged airframe and rebuild the helicopters just like new and I might add that the tail rotor from the stealth helicopter has been returned to the United States.

It states that this is the reason America did not parade the most wanted man in the world body for everybody to witness. Because it was obviously in no recognizable shape. Hence the reason for the immediate so-called burial at sea.

Revealing the condition of his body would no doubt promote extreme anger in the Middle East and you don't want to bury him on land because terrorist would use his burial plot as a shrine but what many people are unaware of is that U.S. defense officials had offered to give bin Laden's body to Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis turned down the U.S. offer.

It would have been a bad idea to return his body to the Middle East or bury him on land and taking him alive would have created far too many problems for America.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Bin Laden's Doctor

For the average 50 year old, yes, that would be unusual, but this is not the average 50 year old and he was not living a usual sort of life.

OK. Conceded (for now ;-) )

Your definition of "completely unreliable" is lacking. You keep referring to their credibility as tied into their affiliation. That's just as bad as cherry-picking; it really is just a different form of bias.

That's not what I mean, If a source (regardless of affiliation) makes 2 statements that are mutually exclusive, they cannot be completely honest. If a Source (again) does that repeatedly, then regardless of the reason for the lie/s then the source is next to worthless. I used those examples, jut as examples. Both the OS and CT side of the argument are often happy to quote an unreliable source ONLY when the quote suits them.

Perhaps you should stop classifying them by symptoms and instead look to the situations they tend to display them in? But I do agree we are veering off-topic.

Indeed, a fascinating subject, but not necessarily right here.

That...is very incorrect. I'm not even sure where to begin on that one.

I've never been a militant fundamentalist... The amount of unbiased, unaffiliated information available about militant fundamentalist groups is miniscule. I personally don't trust much of the 'insider' information about any secret organisation operating largely outside the law.

Sometimes, they are too quick to jump on a story without doing a background check,

Sometimes, supporters of the official story act similarly... For instance I've seen in Al-Qaeda's and Bin Laden's quotes admitting to 9/11 used several times by OS supporters on this forum, but none of them EVER mention their initial complete disavowal. Mutually exclusive stories, unreliable source.

Both sides do it.

With those facts in hand, why are there CT'ers in the world claiming that bin Laden died in 2001 and that the the U.S. government carried out the 911 attack?

1 - Not all 'CT-ers' believe the exact same story.

2 - People make claims about a death on 2001 because of numerous reports from credible sources.

3 - People question 9/11 because they believe the OS is inconsistent in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, supporters of the official story act similarly... For instance I've seen in Al-Qaeda's and Bin Laden's quotes admitting to 9/11 used several times by OS supporters on this forum, but none of them EVER mention their initial complete disavowal. Mutually exclusive stories, unreliable source.

It is just a matter of calling upon valid evidence to determine which side that evidence supports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 911 attack.

Bin Laden Son-In-Law Takes Stand in Terror Trial

Three months later, on the night of 9/11, he was summoned to a cave to meet with bin Laden, who asked him: "Did you learn what happened? We are the ones who did it."

"I want to deliver a message to the world. ... I want you to deliver the message," bin Laden said, according to Abu Ghaith.

http://www.nbcnews.c...or-trial-n56711

In addition, tie the admissions of responsibility from Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for the 911 attack with international warnings prior to the 911 terrorist attack that al-Qaeda would be involved in an attack upon the United States using aircraft as missiles.

Terrorist martyr videos, which were released by al-Qaeda after the 911 attack, completes a picture of those responsible for the 911 attack upon the United States.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
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.