911 inside job - for what?

[psyche101]

101 my friend you give me to much credit. I don`t post nearly as much as I us to. I don`t think my views have changed to much but as anybody views are changable. Imo the facts and the hear say so to speak tell a tail that has both if not three sides involved and OBL as a scape goat. I will not jump on a tail coat but for such a thing as 9-11 to happen with 4 plains and a 75% accuraccy from 19 morons seems improbable. i am willing to look at any aspect of that but will not buy into a government report that used trillions on a war and a few million on an investigation as to how and why. Im not a ct guy but I know what a dead rat smells like. I`m not like Boon as he often went with the popular midia as sky does.

I want an open investigation and that was never allowed. The lies as to to the wars are now transparent ad a joke I feel the people need an honest investigation. That will never happen though. So I guess we believe the govenment 100% as well as politicians or we just keep getting called Ct`folk when we want better answers

No mate, credit where it is due, you are awesome, we do not all have to agree all the time, it would not be much of a discussion if we did. However, the media is not my bag, I have a strong construction background and understand well how the buildings were constructed, and have no problem with discussing the engineering of an aircraft, I am no expert in that field, but I am a good reader and have a realistic grasp of engineering and construction principals. Built a few High Rises myself in my time, and I am sure I can find my way without resorting to media. I have seen too many young people follow the 911 CT's to nefarious ends recently, and I feel I need to roll my sleeves up, and take this new challenge on with all that I have to put behind it.

To me, what was claimed is not at all impossible considering the level of security and the overconfidence of America at the time, if overconfidence is the right word. I just read a thread where people are arguing that Dorner could hold the US hostage with like 6 marines, yet 19 people who trained for at least 2 years to carry out one specific mission could not? I am not sure about that. I do not feel the 6 marines could hold the US hostage, but I bet they could wipe out more the 911 did. Soliders also did not believe in Kamikaze Pilots, after all, who would be mental enough to smash your own plane into a target?

I am hoping to be here in a technical capacity, and offer what I can to dispel any untruth. Sometimes things do not make sense until one sees a bigger picture. I am wagering that be the case here with what I understand.

[psyche101]

Just to clear up for those who don’t click the link - it’s a spoof/comedy.

To be frank, I do believe the little whistling smiley might just have given that one away.

Excellent, your ‘reality’ is to link the same Fox News article and inaccurate headline four times. Why don’t you quote the part of the 2004 videotape where “Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11”? But you wont... because he doesn’t.

So we have one guy posting spoofs and another linking fallacious Fox News headlines, - OCTs really know their stuff.

I look forward to reading your posting as I chew through the thread. I am sure we will have much to say when I do. Not sure why a little obvious levity is reason for you to claim some sort of judgement over those who have a hard time considering your proposals. Not like the clip entered was supposed to be evidence of some sort is it? If it was, this thread could just close right now couldn't it?

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

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

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

[Q24]

To be frank, I do believe the little whistling smiley might just have given that one away.

I look forward to reading your posting as I chew through the thread. I am sure we will have much to say when I do. Not sure why a little obvious levity is reason for you to claim some sort of judgement over those who have a hard time considering your proposals. Not like the clip entered was supposed to be evidence of some sort is it? If it was, this thread could just close right now couldn't it?

I think little whistling smileys can be interpreted in different ways and it could easily be misconstrued at a cursory glance that redhen had provided a rebuttal to my prior post – I cleared up that he had not provided a rebuttal to my prior post.

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

Do they ever, and to sell headlines is only one part of it – you must know that politics are also at work.

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

This is not the case: -

“Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so...”

That is a lie, fed to millions.

When we look at the transcript here, there is no admittance that bin Laden “ordered” anything.

There is “praise” of the attackers.

There is a 20 year old “desire” to reciprocate attacks on America.

There is an attempt at “moral justification” for the action.

There is evidence of “foreknowledge”.

There is even evidence of “agreement” with Atta.

These descriptions are a far cry from the Fox News headline, “Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11” or that, “he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks”.

None of this is unusual – it follows the pattern of previous attacks and bin Laden statements.

Let me show you what a real bin Laden ‘confession’ looks like: -

“… I had sent 250

Mujahidin

. We got moral support from local Muslims. In one explosion one hundred Americans were killed, then 18 more were killed in fighting.”

~bin Laden, 1997

It appears bin Laden was not shy of admitting where he had ordered direct action. Here he admits responsibility for sending those 250 fighters to Somalia that resulted in over 100 American deaths.

Yet in the same interview, immediately prior to the above excerpt, he denied responsibility for the killing of five Americans in the Riyadh bombing. I see no reason for him to lie about these five after admitting to over one hundred. So the pattern is thus...

• When bin Laden gave a direct “order”, he openly claimed responsibility for the action.
  
• When bin Laden had a peripheral role (those descriptions noted above – moral justification, foreknowledge, etc), he denied responsibility.
  

In the case of 9/11, he denied responsibility (twice!) and credited Mohammed Atta for the operation (twice!). If the pattern above is followed, this suggests bin Laden did not “order” the operation, but rather had the peripheral role mentioned.

Therefore, both the transcript and precedent show the Fox News headline and editorial to be fallacious.

Now you might ask why all this is really important; so what if bin Laden is ‘only’ an accessory to the crime (a supporter), rather than the principal (the perpetrator)? It is important because it affects the whole focus of investigation, public perception and the reaction.

With realization of bin Laden’s true role (not accusations of the political and media witch hunt witnessed) it is seen there are thousands of disgruntled Jihadists out there just like him – he loses that bogeyman glamor; he is not particularly special anymore. And whilst the public rallied around the war, their focus on getting bin Laden, the real perpetrators, Mohammed Atta and the hijackers, are left by the wayside.

We need to forget this constant bin Laden, bin Laden, bin Laden propaganda, and instead understand who the hijackers were, where they came from, their motivations, their connections and who they were associated with. That is where we start to realise the more direct hand behind 9/11.

These 'hijackers' were men, prior to 9/11, facilitated, assisted, protected, funded and housed by the intelligence services (you will gather much of that if you read through this thread). These were men, not lifelong Jihadists nor particularly religious, but well educated Westerners who recently and all at once turned up on bin Laden’s doorstep, and against previous experience of the Bojinka plot, pledged suicide for the cause. These are men whom the 9/11 Commission could not account for their motive. These are men who had family plans after 9/11 and strangely bought return tickets for their last flight. These are men who obtained their visas from the same avenue that the CIA used to construct their ‘Al Qaeda’ database during Operation Cyclone. These are men with a number of aliases, interestingly, prior to ever becoming ‘Jihadists’. These are men related to an Israeli intelligence informant and with reported friendship to a CIA asset. I could go on and expand in much detail, but I’m sure you catch my drift.

No, let’s not leave it to chance, I’ll spell it out. These ‘hijackers’ are men for all the world with the appearance/profile to be expected of intelligence agents. Those who guided the way of these agents required a “new Pearl Harbor” to propel their policy, in fact, they believed the very global pre-eminence of America depended on it. They were all over and inside ‘Al Qaeda’ ever since its inception. They knew the desire of bin Laden and failure of the Bojinka plot. They presented and enabled the 9/11 attack to bin Laden like a carrot on a stick, or the grandest case of entrapment if you like, and bin Laden took the bait, becoming enmeshed in their Neocon plot.

Oh I could go on and on, there are so many evidence points connected which back up everything that I’m saying, but I’ll leave it there to digest for now. If you are in doubt of the source for anything then please let me know. Or we could even just forget it altogether, because after all, Fox News said that bin Laden did it.

[bee]

.

woah...psyche101 joining the 9/11 'battle royal'.... ...never thought I'd see THAT

9/11 is always polarised between Official Account and Inside Job, but I have my own theory.

And that is.... that it wasn't an Inside Job...but there were 'things' that happened that day that were classified and covered up.

In a nut shell....the things that I think were covered up...

That Flights 93 and 77 were shot down...because with the hijackers at the controls they became 'enemy aircraft'...

That Flight 77 was taken by remote control over the Atlantic and shot down.

That there could have been some kind of truck-bomb or human suicide bomb that breeched the Pentagon defences...

and this was fired upon by small (ish) ground defence missiles.

That a mock up of flight 77 crash was put into place...to explain away what happened to it...

That the WTCs 1 + 2 were brought down by some kind of Directed Energy Weapon when the top of the South Tower

was about to topple over...this was done to limit the damage to the surrounding area. North Tower weakened by field

effects and this is why it was brought down.

That Building 7 was weakened by the field effects of the DEW and it, too, was brought down as safely

as possible with some kind of DEW.

anyway....good luck and let battle commence. Not with me because my theory always gets sidelined...and 9/11 is such

a head-banger that I only dip into it now and again...

.

[Babe Ruth]

No mate, credit where it is due, you are awesome, we do not all have to agree all the time, it would not be much of a discussion if we did. However, the media is not my bag, I have a strong construction background and understand well how the buildings were constructed, and have no problem with discussing the engineering of an aircraft, I am no expert in that field, but I am a good reader and have a realistic grasp of engineering and construction principals. Built a few High Rises myself in my time, and I am sure I can find my way without resorting to media. I have seen too many young people follow the 911 CT's to nefarious ends recently, and I feel I need to roll my sleeves up, and take this new challenge on with all that I have to put behind it.

To me, what was claimed is not at all impossible considering the level of security and the overconfidence of America at the time, if overconfidence is the right word. I just read a thread where people are arguing that Dorner could hold the US hostage with like 6 marines, yet 19 people who trained for at least 2 years to carry out one specific mission could not? I am not sure about that. I do not feel the 6 marines could hold the US hostage, but I bet they could wipe out more the 911 did. Soliders also did not believe in Kamikaze Pilots, after all, who would be mental enough to smash your own plane into a target?

I am hoping to be here in a technical capacity, and offer what I can to dispel any untruth. Sometimes things do not make sense until one sees a bigger picture. I am wagering that be the case here with what I understand.

How is it that pursuit of the truth, and the asking of questions, are considered to be nefarious ends?

[Q24]

That Flight 77 was taken by remote control over the Atlantic and shot down.

Oh bee, I’d like to say it’s nice to see you, but the above makes diddly-squat sense.

If the aircraft were under remote control in your scenario, an attempt would be made to land it rather than unnecessarily shoot it down. If destruction of the remote aircraft were necessary for some unforeseeable reason, then it wouldn’t need to be shot down... it’s under remote control... we nose dive it into the sea.

You really could do with some work on the basic logic and practicality of your suggestions.

And DEWs... oh dear

Back to the drawing board.

[skyeagle409]

If the aircraft were under remote control in your scenario, an attempt would be made to land it rather than unnecessarily shoot it down.

Whereas, the aircraft would leave a track to its destination, transponder or no transponder.

...If destruction of the remote aircraft were necessary for some unforeseeable reason, then it wouldn’t need to be shot down... it’s under remote control... we nose dive it into the sea.

And, that location can be determined using radar and satellite data, transponder or no transponder.

[Babe Ruth]

Well I'll say it--good to see you back Bee, no matter where you stand.

[bee]

Oh bee, I’d like to say it’s nice to see you, but the above makes diddly-squat sense.

If the aircraft were under remote control in your scenario, an attempt would be made to land it rather than unnecessarily shoot it down. If destruction of the remote aircraft were necessary for some unforeseeable reason, then it wouldn’t need to be shot down... it’s under remote control... we nose dive it into the sea.

You really could do with some work on the basic logic and practicality of your suggestions.

It's different for us looking back when all the details have been put under the microscope...

When events were unfolding no-one knew what the extent of it was...what might be coming next.

In the heat of the attack decisions had to be made and were made. They might not have wanted everyone to know

that it was possible to take commercial airliners under remote control...and like I said...with hijackers at the controls

those planes would have become enemy aircraft. Perhaps the military resources weren't available for a protracted

hostage situation when the country was on red alert. I suppose different rules apply when it's 'Red Alert'

And if it WAS a decision that could be questioned and criticised later then all the more reason to classify the info

and cover it up....

And DEWs... oh dear

Back to the drawing board.

Yes DEWs...don't play the innocent with me... ...and your support for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is (and has always been) noted....

lol....

Well I'll say it--good to see you back Bee, no matter where you stand.

cheers Babe...just popping in for a quick visit....

.

[skyeagle409]

his is not the case: -

“Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so...”

That is a lie, fed to millions.

Oops!! You overlooked this.

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

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

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...l#ixzz2KqrtR1ZD

[skyeagle409]

Hi, Bee, long time no see!

.

[skyeagle409]

Hi, Psyche! I haven't seen you since the last time I saw you.

[bee]

Hi, Bee, long time no see!

.

Hiya Sky......

.

[psyche101]

I think little whistling smileys can be interpreted in different ways and it could easily be misconstrued at a cursory glance that redhen had provided a rebuttal to my prior post – I cleared up that he had not provided a rebuttal to my prior post.

Perhaps for a brain dead moron. Could any one person possibly watch that and think for one second it is real? You can't help but chuckle as soon as AQ starts arcing up. Hell, I think if someone was dim enough to consider that true, then they would not even have the brain power to be questioning the incident to begin with.

In fact, they probably would not have the brain power to tie their shoes.

Do they ever, and to sell headlines is only one part of it – you must know that politics are also at work.

Polotics are for sale. Do they have some sort of hold over the snot nosed kid who just got out of college and is writing for a penny a word? Do they have control over the fringe garbage publication like Vanity Fair? This is where CT's like 911 come from. If you think the CIA has control over every paper in the world, then I simply do not believe you. Fox news is but one outlet, from what I see below, you seem to think Middle Eastern media are more reliable sources??? If that is not the case, why go to them?

No media source, in fact no source is sacred. As far as I am concerned every single one of them has no option but to prove what they say.

This is not the case: -

“Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so...”

Never was going to be if one thinks about it for even a fraction of a second. Jihad is not one mans war.

That is a lie, fed to millions.

Well, yes it is, most people are smart enough to realise that Jihad is more than Bin Laden, and that all those who have been brainwashed onto thinking slaughter and debauchery is a worthy reason to die all turn to the leaders. He is regarded as top shelf is he he not? Is the Pope responsible for the statement that the Vatican believes in ET? Nope. But if we find ET with Vatican telescopes we are going to run to the Pope with questions aren't we? But I bet he has probably not even ever visitied the Observatory. No it is not the same thing, I am trying to illustrate a hierarchy, because that is how Bin Laden fits in. If he was leading the operation, he would be in a billion pieces like those he sent to cripple America.

You can't expect some PFY to be on the ball with world polotics, and PFY's are the people who spit his crap out. Everyone has to make a living, and to be quite frank, pointing a finger at News sources is not going to resolve anything, and in no way does it absolve Jihad leaders.

When we look at the transcript here, there is no admittance that bin Laden “ordered” anything.

There is “praise” of the attackers.

There is a 20 year old “desire” to reciprocate attacks on America.

There is an attempt at “moral justification” for the action.

There is evidence of “foreknowledge”.

There is even evidence of “agreement” with Atta.

What I would expect from a group leader. He did not have the guts to strap a bomb to himself, he hid like a coward. He sent other people to do his work. We see this with too many dictators, heck, we see this in any war. In the same sense, you can also say Truman had nothing to do with Hiroshima, Tibbets dropped the bomb, but who was blamed for the action? The US. Did Truman ever say "I bombed Hiroshima"?

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

What is he saying there - we. Not me (Bin Laden), not Atta, not Mickey Mouse, the Jihad. Do you feel Bin Laden was not a part of the Jihad? Because that is the only way I see him absolved from responsibility. What I see is not proof of absolving Bin Laden, I see proof of word games.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

Again - we. We are in the 4th year. How is he not part of "we"?

These descriptions are a far cry from the Fox News headline, “Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11” or that, “he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks”.

None of this is unusual – it follows the pattern of previous attacks and bin Laden statements.

Hang on, previous attacks. He has no problem attacking America at any time, but he would not be part of 911? What?

Do you feel his past terrorist actions do not indicate a willingness to hurt America? Problem is his twisted values are not shared by the US. He though he was attacking a landmark that all people believed in and it would hurt everyone. It did, but not how his little mind works. People were horrified and outraged that another human being could act in such a sub human manner. The wealth, the damage, all second to the lives. He does not understand the Western value placed in life, that is obviously by the continuous sacrifices to bring the evil point to light.

Now Fox news also published the names of the cretins with box cutter's. We know Bin Laden was not on board we know any involvement he had was from some safe little dark corner, and how did he evade capture? He knew he would be targeted. He went into hiding. The headlines are not litteral, he no more was personally responsible than Truman was at Hiroshima, that in no way absolves his role, and his pride of the incident alone is enough to place him in the cross hairs as far as I am concerned. If you praise the death of innocents like that, you have no place in modern society. He got what he deserved, and he deserved to spend his final years in contant fear of the inevitable.

Let me show you what a real bin Laden ‘confession’ looks like: -

“… I had sent 250

Mujahidin

. We got moral support from local Muslims. In one explosion one hundred Americans were killed, then 18 more were killed in fighting.”

~bin Laden, 1997

It appears bin Laden was not shy of admitting where he had ordered direct action. Here he admits responsibility for sending those 250 fighters to Somalia that resulted in over 100 American deaths.

Yet in the same interview, immediately prior to the above excerpt, he denied responsibility for the killing of five Americans in the Riyadh bombing. I see no reason for him to lie about these five after admitting to over one hundred. So the pattern is thus...

• When bin Laden gave a direct “order”, he openly claimed responsibility for the action.
  
• When bin Laden had a peripheral role (those descriptions noted above – moral justification, foreknowledge, etc), he denied responsibility.
  

In the case of 9/11, he denied responsibility (twice!) and credited Mohammed Atta for the operation (twice!). If the pattern above is followed, this suggests bin Laden did not “order” the operation, but rather had the peripheral role mentioned.

And he is openly advocating 911 by your own link, and he keeps saying "we" admitting he is a part, and anyone can see an instrumental part, He is held in high esteem by those who train in order to try and change the world how they want it to be. And these gutless freaks send children to do their dirty work whilst they hide. Why was there dancing in the streets at this senseless killing in the middle east? Anthony moron Mundine here in Australia said he personally supported the vile action as well, damn shame he is still in the country, we would not miss him at all. Those actions were not media Hype, I heard Mundine speak myself, there are some twisted ideals from those who believe this was a just action, and to be perfectly straight I do not think a sensible person alive thinks that Bin Laden was Solely responsible, he is an inspiration and leader to his soldiers who fight for the wrong reasons, but ones he makes up himself.

This sounds like a confession to me:

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.

Nobody said he flew a plane. But he does not seem innocent to the situation making statements like that. He is outlining some sick twisted vendetta that he seems to feel personally responsible to fix. Seems pretty self incriminatory to me.

It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.

But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah.

Not hard to see he has some deep seated personal problem with Bush. And his father. It sounds more like he set up an assassination attempt for Bush, expecting him to rush to the scene and it failed. No evidence for such, I'm just saying what I hear in this. Seems pretty incriminating I feel.

Therefore, both the transcript and precedent show the Fox News headline and editorial to be fallacious.

Taken at face value yes, as an organisation no.

Now you might ask why all this is really important; so what if bin Laden is ‘only’ an accessory to the crime (a supporter), rather than the principal (the perpetrator)? It is important because it affects the whole focus of investigation, public perception and the reaction.

The perp was an ignorant fool who believed some religious garbage about hitting America where it will matter and followed orders. I wonder what he would think if he saw America today, with Bin Laden feeding the fishes? I wonder how he would feel about not making any impact to the US spirit and econnomy? Would he still have given his life knowing he did not dent the US spitrit, nor the econnomy and they have risen from these ashes, and his actions have only left him to be remembered as a cold blooded murderer? He is vaporised, what do we do? Put some air and ashes in a courtroom? I see Bin Laden as responsible for those deaths too. As far as I am concerned, he got of lightly for his actions. This i not a one on one, this is combined action that was to hit America where is hurts. Problem being the leaders were ignorant mongrels who could not see past their own ego's. Had they been able to do so, they just might have realised their values are not American values, and what they think was crippling was merely a disgraceful act. Misdirected ignorant fools in nothing more than a vile cult hellbent on chaos. That can never be "one man".

With realization of bin Laden’s true role (not accusations of the political and media witch hunt witnessed) it is seen there are thousands of disgruntled Jihadists out there just like him – he loses that bogeyman glamor; he is not particularly special anymore. And whilst the public rallied around the war, their focus on getting bin Laden, the real perpetrators, Mohammed Atta and the hijackers, are left by the wayside.

Gee, Saddam seems to have taken a back seat, you speak as though this was a vendetta against one man, It was not, It was a mission to take out a gutless ring leader who sends children to their deaths.

I actually never asked why is Bin Laden targeted, you seem to like to focus on the aspect. I asked you about the relationship between the US and Lebanon/Palestine. I did ask if you felt Bin Laden felt this way too, so perhaps your post is justified in that way, but you seem intent on absolving Bin Laden.

Can I ask you outright, do you feel Bin Laden has no involvement with 911 at all? Just a short answer will suffice, do you feel is is innocent and not part of this action at all?

We need to forget this constant bin Laden, bin Laden, bin Laden propaganda, and instead understand who the hijackers were, where they came from, their motivations, their connections and who they were associated with. That is where we start to realise the more direct hand behind 9/11.

These 'hijackers' were men, prior to 9/11, facilitated, assisted, protected, funded and housed by the intelligence services (you will gather much of that if you read through this thread). These were men, not lifelong Jihadists nor particularly religious, but well educated Westerners who recently and all at once turned up on bin Laden’s doorstep, and against previous experience of the Bojinka plot, pledged suicide for the cause. These are men whom the 9/11 Commission could not account for their motive. These are men who had family plans after 9/11 and strangely bought return tickets for their last flight. These are men who obtained their visas from the same avenue that the CIA used to construct their ‘Al Qaeda’ database during Operation Cyclone. These are men with a number of aliases, interestingly, prior to ever becoming ‘Jihadists’. These are men related to an Israeli intelligence informant and with reported friendship to a CIA asset. I could go on and expand in much detail, but I’m sure you catch my drift.

I catch the drift, but it seems like pretty muddy water to me.

There are many High-jackers, you seem to be rather broad brushing them? Below you mention the Bojinka plot? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not only guilty, but has a history of trying to carry out just such an operation. Surely you are not suggesting it was CIA who contracted Boston controllers? You would want to have solid evidence for such an accustation.

How many bombers are life long Jihadists? Any? This is the purpose of recruitment camps and cells is it not? David Hicks is a man from my own country who lost his mind and joined this senseless violation of human rights. A typical target, and angst teen who ran with the wrong crowd and managed to get on the wrong side of the law, and then hated the law because he got in trouble for breaking it. His wife had an affair on him, and he reacted badly by trying to kill the world, just like Dorner. Some people are not stable, and fight the wrong fight, it is not hard to convince such lost souls that death and destruction will bring them the peace they seek. Such confused young minds are easily influenced, and scum take advantage of youth. It is much harder to help them enter society as a useful and constructive individual.

No, let’s not leave it to chance, I’ll spell it out. These ‘hijackers’ are men for all the world with the appearance/profile to be expected of intelligence agents. Those who guided the way of these agents required a “new Pearl Harbor” to propel their policy, in fact, they believed the very global pre-eminence of America depended on it. They were all over and inside ‘Al Qaeda’ ever since its inception. They knew the desire of bin Laden and failure of the Bojinka plot. They presented and enabled the 9/11 attack to bin Laden like a carrot on a stick, or the grandest case of entrapment if you like, and bin Laden took the bait, becoming enmeshed in their Neocon plot.

How are their profiles those of Intelligence agents? Can you extrapolate, that is one heck of an unsupported statement to make. The above reads like your proof is your preference. Because they had education? That makes them prime candidates for what they had to do. You are not going to get some little girl, or some uneducated goat herder to fly a plane now are you?

You mention Bin Ladens desire, which as far as I can tell is some twisted revenge vendetta for something he felt he was going to take responsibility for, and quote religion as the reason for slaughter. Your link above pretty much says just that. All it does not say is that Bin Laden had the guts to carry out these actions, and with his profile, the entire operation would most likely have failed.

If Bin Laden did not guide these men, then I do not see why he is so happy about the result. He should be annoyed that he was set up, but his did what he wanted, and was happy. He destroyed what he thought was the pillar of American life - wealth and business. Just another twisted piece of human garbage who thinks his idea of the world is everyone's idea of the world.

Oh I could go on and on, there are so many evidence points connected which back up everything that I’m saying, but I’ll leave it there to digest for now. If you are in doubt of the source for anything then please let me know. Or we could even just forget it altogether, because after all, Fox News said that bin Laden did it.

To be honest, you do not seem to be saying much more than you do not believe it, and that Bin Laden did not personally fly a plane into a building. Mate, that's nothing new as far as I am concerned, I do still have 30 pages to catch up on, and hope to not go over old material but I am not seeing any proof for America killing it's own people and blaming some people who already have some really twisted values, and who celebrated the action, and whom were happy to admit to it, even talking to air traffic controllers during the process and show no regret.

I see not one shred of evidence that absolves Bin Laden and his band of murderers from 911.

Edited February 15, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

.

woah...psyche101 joining the 9/11 'battle royal'.... ...never thought I'd see THAT

You know what, neither did I. It touches me deeply, even all the way across the other side of the world. I guess it was a matter of time I suppose.

9/11 is always polarised between Official Account and Inside Job, but I have my own theory.

And that is.... that it wasn't an Inside Job...but there were 'things' that happened that day that were classified and covered up.

Would you be Bee if you thought this was as straightforward as a bunch if sick twisted religious fundies attacking a misguided target.

In a nut shell....the things that I think were covered up...

Bee, you think everything is covered up. Except maybe lunch, because that is obviously a ploy to sell cling wrap.

That Flights 93 and 77 were shot down...because with the hijackers at the controls they became 'enemy aircraft'...

That Flight 77 was taken by remote control over the Atlantic and shot down.

That there could have been some kind of truck-bomb or human suicide bomb that breeched the Pentagon defences...

and this was fired upon by small (ish) ground defence missiles.

That a mock up of flight 77 crash was put into place...to explain away what happened to it...

That the WTCs 1 + 2 were brought down by some kind of Directed Energy Weapon when the top of the South Tower

was about to topple over...this was done to limit the damage to the surrounding area. North Tower weakened by field

effects and this is why it was brought down.

That Building 7 was weakened by the field effects of the DEW and it, too, was brought down as safely

as possible with some kind of DEW.

Zechariah Stichin would be proud.

Nothing was shot down. Some people allowed religion to do what it always does, cause conflict and affect lives.

anyway....good luck and let battle commence. Not with me because my theory always gets sidelined...and 9/11 is such

a head-banger that I only dip into it now and again...

.

I'll try to be as kind as I can, but it is not like the ET whackjobs that do not matter, this matters. Were not dealing with some brain dead hippy who canot understand how rocks can be stacked together, this is a religious war and affects lives, and ones across the globe I cannot promise to take of the gloves, as I said, this deeply saddens me, and personally I struggle with people trying to absolve murderous scum in order to feel good about denting their own government, fact of the matter is people are dead, many innocent people who should not be. I deal with people who were killed in 911 as well, from the Westfield Corporation. People rejoiced this, that strikes me that something is very wrong with the people who support this action at all. No matter who you want to blame, or how much of a fun game this seems to people, at the end of the day, nobody in their right mind would rejoice in slaughter. We ashould remember that foremost.

[psyche101]

Oh bee, I’d like to say it’s nice to see you, but the above makes diddly-squat sense.

Well, perhaps it is positive to note that on occasion, it seems we may still agree.

[psyche101]

How is it that pursuit of the truth, and the asking of questions, are considered to be nefarious ends?

What do you think? Have a look at the situation, who benefits from these CT's? Has one, ever benefited the nutty people who insist in propagating them to the world? How's the JFK investigation into "The Truth" going?

Here, in Australia, one man that will directly benefit from this twisted ideal is Feiz Mohammad. Why he is allowed into the country has always been something of a huge mystery for me. We are too tolerant of this dangerous mentality. I wont stand by see it fed any longer.

Mate, when I do something it is not half assed, I can tell you that my expose` goes well beyond this forum. This is merely another stupid support group that I wish to expose for exactly what it is. People died man, and those responsible were happy at mass death, is that not enough??

Have you seen the people who supported it at the time and why? Like Anthony Mundine Whom I mentioned, he should have been tossed out of Australia the day he made that stament. I suggest you have a look at an Aussie program called Jihad Sheila's too, this war is something we should have left behind 400 years ago. The people on that show say they did not even think about 911 victims, they just thought of the victims in Lebanon, and these bloody hypocrites are Aussies, who never st foot there, which tells me, that Bin Laden has brainwashed many to think his fight was theirs.

To say those rejoicing, and admitting to this atrocity are innocent is dead set unbelievable. Could not be much more cut and dried really. The only place we see any convoluted rehashed stories are from CT'ers. Everyone else in the world seems to "get it". From the moment of hijacking right through to building rubble.

[psyche101]

Hi, Psyche! I haven't seen you since the last time I saw you.

Gidday Mate!

I knew you would see me when you were looking at me.

It will be an honor to be on your six like allies should be mate. Never got the chance to thank you for the powerful debates you gave me in the past, I will always consider you the best I ever debated any subject with. As a combined force, I expect we can do much good. If anyone knows how good you can be, I do I reckon! I hope my technical experience can assist you in the good fight.

And it is an honor to be on the same side as one of the men who fought for the freedoms people like Bin Laden and his cronies would take from us in a heartbeat. I hear from D that you are hanging out with the Red Tails of late, mate my only wish is that I could buy you all a round. You have some excellent company there. I hope Cali is treating you well. Should you ever jump a plane down-under, you have a place to stay if you wish, and a cold one in the fridge with your name on it.

Cheers.

Edited February 15, 2013 by psyche101

[acidhead]

What do you think? Have a look at the situation, who benefits from these CT's? Has one, ever benefited the nutty people who insist in propagating them to the world? How's the JFK investigation into "The Truth" going?

Here, in Australia, one man that will directly benefit from this twisted ideal is Feiz Mohammad. Why he is allowed into the country has always been something of a huge mystery for me. We are too tolerant of this dangerous mentality. I wont stand by see it fed any longer.

Mate, when I do something it is not half assed, I can tell you that my expose` goes well beyond this forum. This is merely another stupid support group that I wish to expose for exactly what it is. People died man, and those responsible were happy at mass death, is that not enough??

Have you seen the people who supported it at the time and why? Like Anthony Mundine Whom I mentioned, he should have been tossed out of Australia the day he made that stament. I suggest you have a look at an Aussie program called Jihad Sheila's too, this war is something we should have left behind 400 years ago. The people on that show say they did not even think about 911 victims, they just thought of the victims in Lebanon, and these bloody hypocrites are Aussies, who never st foot there, which tells me, that Bin Laden has brainwashed many to think his fight was theirs.

To say those rejoicing, and admitting to this atrocity are innocent is dead set unbelievable. Could not be much more cut and dried really. The only place we see any convoluted rehashed stories are from CT'ers. Everyone else in the world seems to "get it". From the moment of hijacking right through to building rubble.

Nothing wrong with asking questions bud.... even if you think you have heard it all before.

[skyeagle409]

Gidday Mate!

I knew you would see me when you were looking at me.

It will be an honor to be on your six like allies should be mate. Never got the chance to thank you for the powerful debates you gave me in the past, I will always consider you the best I ever debated any subject with. As a combined force, I expect we can do much good. If anyone knows how good you can be, I do I reckon! I hope my technical experience can assist you in the good fight.

And it is an honor to be on the same side as one of the men who fought for the freedoms people like Bin Laden and his cronies would take from us in a heartbeat. I hear from D that you are hanging out with the Red Tails of late, mate my only wish is that I could buy you all a round. You have some excellent company there. I hope Cali is treating you well. Should you ever jump a plane down-under, you have a place to stay if you wish, and a cold one in the fridge with your name on it.

Cheers.

Sounds good.

I have a friend in Cootmundra, N.S.W. that want to visit someday and I will keep you in mind.

[Stundie]

Perhaps it is worth discussing why the official explanation is not the best. For one, the way that bin Laden was made out to be the mastermind/director of the attack, far from being best explanation, is sheer propaganda. Evidence in bin Laden statements, precedent, events and the hijacker backgrounds, etc, indicate that bin Laden was an accessory to the crime at most. He had foreknowledge and appears to have granted moral support to the operation, but little else. Where did the funding and real direction come from? Why was bin Laden held up as the instigator?

A few facts to start off: -

Bin Laden denied responsibility for the attacks.

Bin Laden credited Atta for the attacks.

Bin Laden has never been found guilty by any legal case.

Bin Laden apparently had to be informed of how much the operation cost.

Bin Laden was informed of the day the attack would take place (i.e. he did not dictate it).

Bin Laden did not appear to know the time the attack would take place.

Bin Laden recordings have been analysed and found to be edited/unverified.

Bin Laden was a prisoner of the ISI after 2001.

There are plenty more details.

Of course this is all quite contradictory to the official claim.

What I can't get my head around is that Bin Laden never once refers to himself or his group as "Al-Qaeda" before 9/11.

He only mentions the name after it was given to him by the western government/media.

[Q24]

Perhaps for a brain dead moron. Could any one person possibly watch that and think for one second it is real? You can't help but chuckle as soon as AQ starts arcing up. Hell, I think if someone was dim enough to consider that true, then they would not even have the brain power to be questioning the incident to begin with.

In fact, they probably would not have the brain power to tie their shoes.

Yes I agree... if people watch the video. However, I think there are plenty of people who would not take time to click the link, accepting the link title - “9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous – Al Qaeda” – at face value and misconstrue the little whistling smiley to be indication that it rebutted my prior post. That is how I interpreted the post at first glance before watching the video. I’m happier now that it has been made clear there is no rebuttal to my post #814.

Polotics are for sale. Do they have some sort of hold over the snot nosed kid who just got out of college and is writing for a penny a word? Do they have control over the fringe garbage publication like Vanity Fair? This is where CT's like 911 come from. If you think the CIA has control over every paper in the world, then I simply do not believe you. Fox news is but one outlet, from what I see below, you seem to think Middle Eastern media are more reliable sources??? If that is not the case, why go to them?

No media source, in fact no source is sacred. As far as I am concerned every single one of them has no option but to prove what they say.

I agree that the grass roots and fringe media is free. I’m referring more to politics of the giant corporations. For example, it is no coincidence that every single one of Rupert Murdoch’s television, radio and newspaper media outlets across the globe, including Fox News, editorialised without exception in favour of the Iraq War. Murdoch himself has said, “I give instructions to my editors all round the world”. But no, of course I don’t think that, “the CIA has control over every paper in the world”, that is silly.

I don’t believe, generally speaking, there is much difference between the way that Western and Middle Eastern media operate; neither are immune to the politics of their respective regions. Neither do I think it straightforward to label one ‘more reliable’ than the other – it depends on the case. I do recall a study some time ago which reported that Al Jazeera broadcasts more factual news and less opinion pieces than Fox News. Whether this means the former is less biased or simply has not perfected propaganda to the extent of the latter I’m not sure.

The reason I linked the Al Jazeera news article in my post is because we are discussing a bin Laden video release. On this issue, not only are Al Jazeera the original broadcasting source of the videotape (undiluted news is always preferable), but I have discovered Middle Eastern media transcripts to be more accurate and complete on occasion than their Western counterparts.

Never was going to be if one thinks about it for even a fraction of a second. Jihad is not one mans war.

Well, yes it is, most people are smart enough to realise that Jihad is more than Bin Laden, and that all those who have been brainwashed onto thinking slaughter and debauchery is a worthy reason to die all turn to the leaders. He is regarded as top shelf is he he not? Is the Pope responsible for the statement that the Vatican believes in ET? Nope. But if we find ET with Vatican telescopes we are going to run to the Pope with questions aren't we? But I bet he has probably not even ever visitied the Observatory. No it is not the same thing, I am trying to illustrate a hierarchy, because that is how Bin Laden fits in. If he was leading the operation, he would be in a billion pieces like those he sent to cripple America.

You can't expect some PFY to be on the ball with world polotics, and PFY's are the people who spit his crap out. Everyone has to make a living, and to be quite frank, pointing a finger at News sources is not going to resolve anything, and in no way does it absolve Jihad leaders.

Ok that’s good, we agree that the Fox News editorial, that bin “ordered” the 9/11 attack, is unevidenced.

Your argument that follows is to hold bin Laden responsible as head of the organisation. Unfortunately the premise of that argument is way off base to begin... no formal organisation exists in the first place. Al Qaeda is not a political party, nor jurisdiction, nor of fixed structure. There is no official membership, prerequisite or initiation rite. Al Qaeda has no legally defined hierarchy or chain of command.

What Al Qaeda is, is an intangible entity, a Western term to describe a loose collection of ideologies held by various groups and individuals, none of which are answerable to one another. A lead figurehead of this collection was Osama bin Laden who, due to being the wealthiest and most influential of the Mujahideen, was sought out by those other factions for favour. Although all groups and individuals are placed under the collective Western term of Al Qaeda, they are not contained within any chain of command and can act independently. It is easy to understand how an attack can be carried out in the name of Al Qaeda, without ever receiving bin Laden’s approval. So who can speak and act on behalf of such a non-organisation? Anyone, it seems. This is ‘Al Qaeda’.

In the words of U.K. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, “Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working”

To summarize the above paragraphs: Al Qaeda is not comparable to government, the military, the CIA, a media corporation, or even the Vatican, etc. Al Qaeda is an umbrella, catch-all term, like “Communism” (and it’s a fine replacement for Communism that Al Qaeda has turned out to be too).

Allow me to expand further. Al Qaeda was originally the name given to the database of Mujahideen recruited by the United States to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during Operation Cyclone. This has been confirmed by former British foreign secretary, Robin Cook: “Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” The link between the CIA, bin Laden and Al Qaeda began there and is a whole topic in itself, for another time – suffice to say the connections run deep and remained right up to 9/11.

Osama bin Laden also essentially corroborated the above origin when asked of his association to Al Qaeda. His response was that he does not see the question as one of ‘Al Qaeda’ but that he is representative of all Muslim people. He said that ‘Al Qaeda’ is a Western portrayal that occurred without his intent. His words: “So the situation isn't like the West portrays it, that there is an "organization" with a specific name and so on. That particular name [Al Qaeda] is very old. It was born without any intention from us.” It wasn’t until the 2004 videotape that bin Laden began to associate with the name ‘Al Qaeda’, probably for the benefit and understanding of the Western audience that he addressed.

I’m not one to throw YouTube videos around but this short 10 minute video from the BBC is revealing and corroborates everything above. Please watch: -

In conclusion, bin Laden was not in a position to place an “order” and cannot be held responsible for the 9/11 hijackers, whose own actions and motivations must be looked at separately to unravel the direct hand behind the attack.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

What is he saying there - we. Not me (Bin Laden), not Atta, not Mickey Mouse, the Jihad. Do you feel Bin Laden was not a part of the Jihad? Because that is the only way I see him absolved from responsibility. What I see is not proof of absolving Bin Laden, I see proof of word games.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

Again - we. We are in the 4th year. How is he not part of "we"?

......

And he is openly advocating 911 by your own link, and he keeps saying "we" admitting he is a part, and anyone can see an instrumental part, He is held in high esteem by those who train in order to try and change the world how they want it to be. And these gutless freaks send children to do their dirty work whilst they hide. Why was there dancing in the streets at this senseless killing in the middle east? Anthony moron Mundine here in Australia said he personally supported the vile action as well, damn shame he is still in the country, we would not miss him at all. Those actions were not media Hype, I heard Mundine speak myself, there are some twisted ideals from those who believe this was a just action, and to be perfectly straight I do not think a sensible person alive thinks that Bin Laden was Solely responsible, he is an inspiration and leader to his soldiers who fight for the wrong reasons, but ones he makes up himself.

This sounds like a confession to me:

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.

Nobody said he flew a plane. But he does not seem innocent to the situation making statements like that. He is outlining some sick twisted vendetta that he seems to feel personally responsible to fix. Seems pretty self incriminatory to me.

It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.

But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah.

Not hard to see he has some deep seated personal problem with Bush. And his father. It sounds more like he set up an assassination attempt for Bush, expecting him to rush to the scene and it failed. No evidence for such, I'm just saying what I hear in this. Seems pretty incriminating I feel.

It is not clear who bin Laden refers to by “we”. Is it his closest counsels? Is is Al Qaeda? Is it the Mujahideen? Is it wider Jihadists? Is it all Muslims? Well, I just pointed out above how bin Laden saw himself as representative of all Muslims. It would be reasonable to deduce that when bin Laden states “we”, he is speaking not for himself personally, but for the Muslim people. It certainly fits the overall context.

About the sentence which you say, “sounds like a confession to me”, it is not. It is an attempt to explain how the idea came about – reciprocation for American and Israeli aggression. For sure, it was a desire of bin Laden, but that is not the same as directing or perpetrating the attack - thought-crime is not legally punishable.

This video is an excellent representation of the difference between desire and action, which can be applicable to the bin Laden statement and demonstrates what I am saying. You only need to watch the first 3 minutes. Please pay close attention: -

When you say, “sounds like a confession to me” you are a parallel to the prosecutor, who makes that mistake of thinking he has a “slam-dunk” confession when he does not at all.

Ok, so there is no confession, no evidence of an order, we agree he did not fly the plane... so what did bin Laden do? Did he select the flights, choose the day, pick the time? No, none of that, we know from other of his statements. Did he seek out and recruit the hijackers? No, the hijackers went to bin Laden. Did he provide the funding? There is no evidence of that - the funding is a question that the 9/11 Commission bizarrely claimed to be of no practical significance. So what direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack? You won’t ever prove one, because there is none. Was bin Laden necessary at all? Exhibit A of the prosecution case: Fox news editorial, “Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks”. Ha.

We know Bin Laden was not on board we know any involvement he had was from some safe little dark corner, and how did he evade capture? He knew he would be targeted. He went into hiding.

Just a quick detour here: bin Laden did not evade capture, he was a prisoner in Pakistan. Please read down from the third quote box in post #91 and respond here if you wish: -

http://www.unexplain...90#entry4240550

I actually never asked why is Bin Laden targeted, you seem to like to focus on the aspect. I asked you about the relationship between the US and Lebanon/Palestine. I did ask if you felt Bin Laden felt this way too, so perhaps your post is justified in that way, but you seem intent on absolving Bin Laden.

Can I ask you outright, do you feel Bin Laden has no involvement with 911 at all? Just a short answer will suffice, do you feel is is innocent and not part of this action at all?

I did not respond to the first question because Bin Laden’s belief that Israel and the United States committed injustice against Lebanon and Palestine is not in doubt. It’s not an issue. Hey, I think that Israel and the United States committed injustice against Lebanon and Palestine, and they still do – it is a belief shared by many - but that does not make me responsible for 9/11.

I hope this and previous posts make clear what I think of bin Laden’s involvement with 9/11. It would be quite incorrect to claim that bin Laden had, “no involvement with 9/11 at all”. Along with bin Laden, a great many people were involved with 9/11. Perhaps we should look at some of those. But is bin Laden a main player? I’ll wait for you to answer my last question above: What direct order or action did bin Laden make which enabled the attack?

If I had to keep it short as you requested, then comparison to a cheerleader comes to mind.

There are many High-jackers, you seem to be rather broad brushing them? Below you mention the Bojinka plot? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not only guilty, but has a history of trying to carry out just such an operation. Surely you are not suggesting it was CIA who contracted Boston controllers? You would want to have solid evidence for such an accustation.

Yes sorry, I did paint all of the hijackers with the same brush to keep it simple. That does not change that the facts I mention, and which you don’t address, apply to the individual hijackers.

I’m not sure what you are referring to about “Boston controllers”.

How are their profiles those of Intelligence agents? Can you extrapolate, that is one heck of an unsupported statement to make. The above reads like your proof is your preference. Because they had education? That makes them prime candidates for what they had to do. You are not going to get some little girl, or some uneducated goat herder to fly a plane now are you?

Ha, “uneducated goat herder” is more the profile of most terrorists, including four of the 9/11 hijackers who I believe were genuine Jihadists. Where are the links to/profile of intelligence agents? Apart from the whole Westernised, university educated, not particularly religious, using aliases, suddenly travel to Afghanistan with the onset of a CIA infiltration program thing, certain hijackers were...

protected by the CIA.

associate of CIA asset.

living with a U.S. informant.

related to an Israeli informant.

funded by an MI6 asset.

assisted by Saudi government agents.

Much of the evidence is contained in the thread. I won’t go into it more just yet because this post is long enough.

I see not one shred of evidence that absolves Bin Laden and his band of murderers from 911.

In the civilised world, and in the legal system, there is a rule, “innocent until proven guilty” (in contrast to witch-hunts of the Dark Ages or er... Fox News... and a naive public whipped into a misguided frenzy dressed up as patriotism). With that in mind, we are not at a stage were bin Laden needs to be absolved of responsibility, and neither is that what I want to do – I simply say what I see, or don’t see. The initial accusation needs to be proven first. And that is where evidence is conspicuous by its absence. Of course, Fox News editorial does not count.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Q24

[redhen]

Yes I agree... if people watch the video. However, I think there are plenty of people who would not take time to click the link, accepting the link title - “9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous – Al Qaeda” – at face value and misconstrue the little whistling smiley to be indication that it rebutted my prior post. That is how I interpreted the post at first glance before watching the video. I’m happier now that it has been made clear there is no rebuttal to my post #814.

Wow, I know the People's Republic of China has been fooled several times by reprinting Onion "news" stories, but I thought UM readers would be more discerning. You see how easy it is to bamboozle gullible people with a slick video?

[Q24]

Wow, I know the People's Republic of China has been fooled several times by reprinting Onion "news" stories, but I thought UM readers would be more discerning. You see how easy it is to bamboozle gullible people with a slick video?

That’s the thing – there is no indication in the title before following the link that it is an Onion ‘news’ story. I was simply making it apparent for those who might be skimming the thread/not have time to click the link. It’s not a big deal, just a bit of clarification – I’m surprised it got a comment.

It sure is possible to bamboozle people with unclear link titles, as it is with the fallacious Fox News editorial and headlines which have been discussed where people don't bother to look into the detail – especially those predisposed to believe that alternative 9/11 theories are ridiculous. Well I’m not giving those people any excuse to hide behind misunderstanding or ignorance.

[Babe Ruth]

Psyche

You failed to explain just why seeking the truth, or asking politically incorrect questions, offers nefarious purposes. I do understand why one might want to dodge that question.

Your mention that the hijackers actually talked on some ATC frequencies, and therefore we know the story is true, made me fall off my stool in laughter!

I'm hoping you know what a handheld transceiver is, and that they are not too expensive and very useful if one flies? Somehow I doubt you are aware of the several stories here in the US over many years, in which pranksters make prank calls on these radios, both marine and aviation, in an effort to send the authorities off on rescue missions that are bogus?

Anyway, it has happened many times. The point is that your placing so much faith in ATC radio calls as being authentic is consistent with your believing the Official Conspiracy Theory. Any ruse the government puts by you, you accept. Whether impossible cell phone calls or easily faked ATC conversations, you take it all in like a sponge, indiscriminate belief in government stories. Some of those Blokes down under are as gullible as the bloody yanks up here!