911 inside job - for what?

[skyeagle409]

What I have questions about is your ability to think in an analytical fashion, your tendency to accept without question a story that simply cannot be true.

Well, let's take a look at this story.

Suicide-pilot plan uncovered six years ago in Philippines

A plan to use suicide pilots against US targets was uncovered as early as six years ago during the investigation that led to the arrest of the alleged mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a Philippine police official said yesterday.

Chief Superintendent Avelino Razon also said it was "too much coincidence" that Tuesday's attacks using commercial jets as flying bombs was close to the anniversary of the Sept. 5, 1996, conviction of Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah for a plot to bomb US airliners in 1995.

Murad was arrested in Manila in January 1995 after fire broke out in an apartment he shared with fellow Pakistani Yousef, the alleged mastermind of the 1993 bombing that killed six people and injured 1,000 others. Shah says he is Saudi Arabian with links to Afghanistan.

Razon, then commander for special operations of the Presidential Security Group providing security for the visit of Pope John Paul II that began days after Murad's arrest, said he was captured after he returned to his apartment to dispose of bomb-making materials. Yousef was captured in Pakistan. "When we interrogated Murad, he mentioned that he was a skilled pilot, trained in the US, in Afghanistan and also here in the Philippines, who was recruited to undertake a suicide mission," Razon said.

"He was committed to ... fly a plane and ram it into some targets," Razon said, adding that information from a laptop computer seized from Murad indicated one target was CIA headquarters. "There was mention of about a dozen" trained pilots to be recruited for such attacks.

"I didn't imagine that they would ram a 757 aircraft into the World Trade Center. I thought the suicide mission [would involve] a Cessna light aircraft loaded with several kilos of explosives, like a Japanese Kamikaze World War II pilot diving into a target," he said.

He said the investigation started with reports on threats to the pope that led to Murad and the discovery of an international terrorist cell in the Philippines that also "had plans to bomb US aircraft and the US CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.''

Yousef and his group allegedly planned to bomb 11 US commercial aircraft under "Project Bojinka." But Murad's arrest foiled the plan, Razon said.

http://taipeitimes.c...01/09/14/102905

Edited March 1, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Seems everyone else in the world knows that Osama bin Laden was guilty. In addition, I am very sure that you were unaware of this.

Now, for the rest of the story.

In addition:

That should leave no real mystery as to why the United States targeted Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Even though there were warnings coming in from all over the world, the US were never prepared for it...

Here is what Richard Clarke says...

Contrast December '99 with June and July and August 2001. In December '99 we get similar kinds of evidence that al-Qaida was planning a similar kind of attack. President Clinton asks the national security advisor to hold daily meetings with attorney-general, the CIA, FBI. They go back to their departments from the White House and shake the departments out to the field offices to find out everything they can find. It becomes the number one priority of those agencies.

Contrast that with June, July, August 2001 when the president is being briefed virtually every day in his morning intelligence briefing that something is about to happen, and he never chairs a meeting and he never asks Condi rice to chair a meeting about what we're doing about stopping the attacks. She didn't hold one meeting during all those three months.

I already know that the FBI think OBL is responsible, he is suspect No1, but they still never had enough evidence to indict him for 9/11.

[Q24]

You seem to be the minority, and therefore not representing the nations best interest IMHO.

Actually that puts you in the minority under the question, 'Was Al Qaeda behind the 9/11 attacks?'

The split is 46% in your favor and 54% in disagreement.

[Q24]

not wishing to detract from your discussion, but can you provide a reference for that?

U.S. Senate report: -

"On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.

The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld..

."

http://www.foreign.s...Bora_Report.pdf

[skyeagle409]

Even though there were warnings coming in from all over the world, the US were never prepared for it...

That is nothing new with the U.S. government. Look how the United States ignored warnings regarding the Shah of Iran, which lead to his overthrow and the attack on our embassy, the USS Cole, Pearl Harbor, and 911. Remember, the CIA and the FBI later admitted in public that they made mistakes in not stopping the 911 attacks.

The Philippine government was shocked that the United States did not take extensive security measures as needed. I left the Philippines in August 2001, and as I was going through security, I remarked about the lack of heavy security at U.S. airports in comparison to security at the airport in Manila. Three weeks later, my concern about U.S. airport security became valid when terrorist crashed four airliners during the 911 attacks.

Here is what Richard Clarke says...

I already know that the FBI think OBL is responsible, he is suspect No1, but they still never had enough evidence to indict him for 9/11.

Was Osama bin Laden indicted in the attack on the USS Cole? What action did the U.S. take against Osama bin Laden in that regard? In other words, what was he listed as.

[skyeagle409]

Actually that puts you in the minority under the question, 'Was Al Qaeda behind the 9/11 attacks?'

The split is 46% in your favor and 54% in disagreement.

You failed to understand that the overwhelming majority of people blame al-Qaeda, not the U.S. for the 911 attacks. Only 7% for the United States vs. 46% for al-Qaeda.

[skyeagle409]

U.S. Senate report: -

"On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.

The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld..

."

http://www.foreign.s...Bora_Report.pdf

You might want to do further checking and find out who General Tommy Franks is. What was the end-result for Osama bin Laden? Who killed Osama bin Laden?

[Q24]

Hi psyche. I’m going to take a few bits we’ve been around the block with which are perhaps now unproductive (descending off-topic or into pointless argument) and drop them into this post. The following is to tie up some loose ends and I’ll probably not respond on these points again. Please see the post after this one for hopefully more productive discussion which I will respond to.

That's what your doing with Al Jazeera is it? Usama's own personal release network. In his control, under his watch. What the heck would happen to Al Jazeera if they posted something against Bin Ladens wishes hrrmm? Wouldn't be here now would they.

You are doing what you accuse Fox of doing, but they are just offering opinion based on the ambiguous messages by Bin Laden. Being Al Jazeera, and in Arabic makes it so much easier for you, so it is little wonder you hold that source in high regard.

I am not ‘doing’ anything with Al Jazeera. Usama’s personal release network? You don’t seem to have a clue about Al Jazeera. I... it’s just... what are you talking about? You seem to be under the false impression that Al Jazeera is held to the bin Laden or ‘Al Qaeda’ network. Never mind, please just read up on Al Jazeera: -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera

Look, it’s very simple...

1. Bin Laden/‘Al Qaeda’ released a videotape to Al Jazeera.
   
2. The videotape contained English subtitles inserted by bin Laden/‘Al Qaeda’.
   
3. The subtitles are the message that bin Laden/‘Al Qaeda’ wanted to convey.
   
4. Al Jazeera reported the complete subtitles under the headline, “Full transcript of bin Ladin’s speech”.
   
5. Fox News reported only excerpts of the subtitles intersected with opinion under the headline, “Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11” (despite that no such claim is found in the transcript).
   

Then you go on some nonsensical/unfounded attack against Al Jazeera and myself. Perhaps it would be better to congratulate Al Jazeera for factual reporting in this case, accept that Fox News got it wrong and draw a line under it.

Then you need to read the context, Headlines often take a leap, and when you read closely the actual story is more mundane. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but a few weeks ago, there was an announcement that Curiosity on Mars was about to re-write the books. Massive information, but when push cam to shove, it was an indicator, nothing so grandiose as the headline made out. I do not know where you are at, but you seem to not have a complete understanding of how Western media works. Its not a science manual, its a field report.

Yes, that’s it!

The whole problem comes when people like skyeagle spam media headlines and editorial as ‘evidence’.

Taken on board? You mean I did not race out and link you to what I thought was relevant?

I mean, since you still say that I, “dismiss the forum at the wave of a hand”, that you have not taken onboard where I said, “It was mostly tongue in cheek, I actually read every page and there were some interesting points.”

OK, back to the first line again. Strange how you like to stretch these thing out, but I have my suspicions as to why. I asked you if you felt the headline was a valid statement I did not insist the headline was true, I asked about the relationship between Lebanon and Palestine. You took a leap and decided I was speaking of the headline, when in fact, I asked your opinion fo the situation it states. Regardless, it is you who did not read the post initially, instead of just a link, lets have a look at what I said shall we?

Actually, you quoted editorial from the report (not the headline) and ended by asking, “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?” I also later addressed bin Laden’s comment regarding Lebanon and Palestine. I addressed what you asked and more, and it’s here for all to see. You seemed quite content with my responses at the time, until you got caught out and went on your backtrack rant, “I was never here to discuss media reports...” here. Anyway, never mind, like I said, it’s free for all to see.

You presented rumour that was written in a newspaper, you are guilty exactly of what you are accusing Skyeagle, and myself of. Being loose with the facts.

It is fine to present what’s written in a newspaper until such reports contradict proven fact. Especially when that is pointed out and, ok not you, but skyeagle continues to spam the same report.

[skyeagle409]

It is fine to present what’s written in a newspaper until such reports contradict proven fact. .

Looking at it this way, 911 conspiracist jumped up and down and claimed that United 93 landed at Cleveland airport and not crashed near Shanksville and based on a flawed newspaper report but what happened when that newspaper report was found to be in error? After the smoke cleared, it was determined that 911 conspiracist misread the fine print and mistaken Delta 1989, a B-767, as United 93, a B-757, and mistaken NASA scientist at the airport as passengers of United 93.

Ever wondered why after more than 11 years, not one shred of evidence has surfaced that implicates the United States government in the 911 attacks? The fact the U.S. received many warnings from around the world that muslim terrorist were planning attacks on America should have told you why there is no evidence that implicates the United States.

[Q24]

Rather than media, what about existing facts? Like ONeils investigation wich shows all roads lead to Bin Laden? That is personal investigation, not tainted by popularity nor threat. I find it more accurate.

I think Stundie said it earlier – it appears that O’Neill may have known too much, his end coming after taking up a new job in the WTC just 19 days before 9/11 – unlucky, perhaps. However, O’Neill had established no direct order or action from bin Laden prior to 9/11.

The above all comes down to the last line doesn't it? Direct evidence, without it, a clever lawyer can use justice against one as opposed for one.

Yes, why not? I don’t think ‘justice’ should be predisposed for or against an individual. And lack of evidence is lack of evidence – we cannot draw a ‘guilty’ verdict on that basis. As your friend skyeagle says, “no evidence, no case!” haha. I think we are done on this line of discussion – you have admitted there is no evidence against bin Laden in regard to 9/11. Now we really need to look at those who were responsible for the attack.

He is proven guilty, of 1993 and 1998...

I think that is debatable. The same questions apply – guilty of what, exactly? Anyhow, we are discussing who was responsible for the 9/11 attack which occurred in 2001. You have already admitted there is no direct evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility.

No, I do not agree, the Edmonds claim has a long way to go as far as verification goes, and plenty of holes she needs to fill in her story, and quoting Bin Laden? Surely you jest. Do you expect me to actually take him at his word on this subject? Like I say, that would be like getting Manson or Bundy to decide their own punishments.

The fact there were overlapping areas between the CIA/ISI/‘Al Qaeda’ is not dependent on Sibel Edmonds’ testimony, whether you choose to disregard her expert testimony or not. You are ignoring the further corroborating evidence I set out: “Bin Laden’s ‘first trainer’, Ali Mohammed, was a CIA/‘Al Qaeda’ double-agent who operated with both groups up to 1998 for one example, and has now ‘disappeared’ in U.S. detention. Then you look at Jamal al Fadl, recruited to ‘Al Qaeda’ from Brooklyn in the U.S. in 1988, and who ended up being the star witness that helped define ‘Al Qaeda’ as a coherent ‘organisation’. We look at CIA infiltration of ‘Al Qaeda’ that was ongoing...”

Also I should add that you are very selective in where you choose to take bin Laden at his word or not.

Ohh get real. Are you being serious? The prose indicates the "my organisation" was taken out, removed, look at the bloody thing!!!

Neither I had???????

There is nothing wrong with the prose in context of the previous sentence.

“As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks...”

Ok, it sounds a little awkward but that is frequently the case in translating Urdu to English. All it is saying is, “I try my best to avoid telling a lie [and] neither I had any knowledge of these attacks...”.

But you think that both the FBIS and BBC conspired to edit “Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida” out of their transcripts? Why ever would they do that? And you think that ‘Ananova’ which you linked - the world’s first computer-simulated “cyberbabe” newscaster - got it right.

Ok, you just brightened my day

BBC is better, if this was the BBC maybe it is not, it ia another paper who is copying the BBC release. IN this version, the word Neither is completely omitted, unlike the source you claim is more accurate, even if the grammar indicates it has been doctored.

I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. -

So your source that you deem the most accurate strongly indicates alterations to the transcript in line with that which I had posted. Well done.

I did not say that one source - the FBIS or BBC - was better than the other. I linked both transcripts because they each corroborate that bin Laden did not say, “my organisation Al-Qaida”. And neither indicates such alteration to the transcript.

You did not provide multiple sources that prove Bin Laden was in custody, you have presented some rumours that made it into headlines. That is all. The only denial I see is you refusing to consider the points I made about your links, which were:

Which were, in summary: that you don’t accept anything Pakistani or Taliban sources say where it suits, that you ignore corroborating facts on the ground (that is, bin Laden’s travel to Pakistan permitted by the U.S. Secretary of Defence and the prison-like nature of his ‘hideout’) and likewise refuse to accept further corroborating conclusions of multiple U.S. security analysts.

You have presented rumour that Bin Laden was under house arrest as fact, when those rumours also indicate he had kidney disease which Bin Laden also denies. You gave me a source that is obviously doctored by Bin Laden's command, and which seems to prove my original claim was correct whereby Bin Laden calls Al Qaeda "his".

This is crazy. You were telling me that I shouldn’t quote bin Laden and that he can’t be trusted. Now you are discarding multiple media reports, along with supporting facts and security analyst corroboration, on the basis of bin Laden’s word contradicting one irrelevant fact in a report.

And, “a source that is obviously doctored by Bin Laden's command”? Oh? What’s that then? Are you talking about the Daily Ummat report again? You think the Daily Ummat and Al Jazeera are both in with bin Laden and ‘Al Qaeda’ now? Are you saying the Daily Ummat edited out “my organisation Al-Qaida”, the FBIS and BBC reported it, and Ananova somehow got hold of the ‘real’ transcript? Well... the conspiracy/paranoia deepens...

What follows are excerpts of a key document: The minutes of the first meeting about the establishment of al Qaeda on August 11, 1988. This document outlines the discussion between bin Laden, referred to as the "the Sheikh," and Abu Rida, or Mohamed Loay Bayazid, to discuss the formation of a "new military group," which would include "al Qaeda (the base)." Abu Rida refers to a disagreement with Abdullah Azzam, with whom bin Laden had founded the Mektab al Khidmat (Services Office).

with this LINK

That part you most certainly have not adressed.

Yes I did address it, for the second time, in my post #1062, where I wrote: -

“The documents refer to “the base” or “the military base”. It’s a generic term so much as Western politics and media would like it to be a name chosen and attached to bin Laden. We already know “the base” was the database of Mujahideen created and funded with help of the U.S. to combat the Soviets in Afghanistan (a U.S. Muslim recruited through the Brooklyn cell attended the initial meeting and would later be the prosecution star witness in their case against bin Laden in regard to the U.S. embassy bombings). There is no indication there was to be a unit that would go by the formal name “the base”. Again, that idea is a Western creation which bin Laden disavowed and only used long after 9/11 for benefit of a Western audience who had picked up on the term.”

Nope. Seems to fit together to me.

That’s what I thought you would say.

Ziad Jarrah: -

• had a comfortable Western life.
  
• wealthy upbringing.
  
• attend Christian schools.
  
• was university educated.
  
• liked to drink (as in, beer).
  
• had a girlfriend.
  
• spoke about and had bought a new suit for attendance at a family wedding on 22nd Sep.
  
• was related to an Israeli intelligence informant.
  
• could not take his own ‘will’ seriously.
  
• was trained in close quarters combat by a former U.S. special forces soldier.
  

But no, nothing to see here, it all fits together.

Interesting that you use Peter Bergen as a source in your previous post but auto-disregard here when the same Peter Bergen states, “a more unlikely suicide attacker you could hardly think possible”. That quote can be found at the link below since you had difficulty with the original news report on YouTube: -

“Jarrah was sort of a Lebanese playboy who actually had a girlfriend. And she may have even secretly been his wife, somebody who was drinking occasionally. A more unlikely suicide attacker you could hardly think possible. Somebody who made American friends when he was in the United States.”

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/01/cnr.05.html

Does Jarrah have the profile of a Western agent? Nooo, never. At least, not so far as you would like to admit.

[Q24]

Wait now, that's not quite how it works, those latter numbered points of yours don't just erase the possibility of an inadvertent facilitation, at best you've just redistributed the probability to an unknown extent towards the possibility of an advertent facilitation. Your point 1 concerning a motive I think pretty obviously doesn't take an inadvertent assistance option off the table at all, you can find someone who benefits from almost everything that ever happens, and points 2 and 3 I thought you partially addressed potentially with the quote from W that I had just seen also, that he's tired of 'swatting flies'.

I think the first set of numbered points I mentioned certainly take an advertent facilitation option off the table in respect to the Challenger disaster and therefore it is not an accurate reflection of the 9/11 case.

I ultimately agree with your comment concerning point 1, though it does lead to a conclusion which sparks my incredulity to a degree: ‘They wanted it, they facilitated it... but it was all an accident.’ I think even in isolation of the details, wider evidence and circumstances, it’s certainly not a conclusion that I would buy into. And that is kind of a problem, I’m not taking point 1 in isolation – I have researched these individuals for other potential indiscretion or suspect ‘fortune’ that passed their way, and the occurrence is consistently too convenient by far - even the suggestion of an incredulous accident presents a huge anomaly in known precedent. So whilst I ultimately agree with you, and could not conclude guilt on that point 1 alone, for the reasons given I sure would not sway anywhere close to the conclusion you are suggesting.

I think the Bush quote you mention only serves to reinforce point 2 and does not counter point 3, that there was no sense/rationale in the decision (more on that below) other than to achieve the motive described.

Do you disagree that undercover work, especially at this level as well as more mainstream law enforcement, sometimes involves actions by undercover agents that indeed 'assist' criminals and possibly 'facilitate' their crimes?

When this occurs it is moving into the realm of enticement and entrapment which may not only provide a legal defence to the accused but also means that the undercover agents are equally/more responsible for the crime as the eventual perpetrator. I think whenever possible this should be avoided and actions such as allowing terrorists into the country, putting them in contact with flight schools and holding off the FBI go a step too far.

Do you agree that undercover/intelligence work can produce benefits that can't be obtained by continually chasing and busting asap the low-level soldiers?

Yes, in certain cases where the ‘low level soldiers’ do not pose a severe and imminent threat, i.e. drug networks, money launderers, gangs of armed robbers, even certain other criminal rings where the situation is stable and unlikely to rapidly escalate. Sure, it can make sense.

No, absolutely not in the case of large-scale terrorism. This is not at all difficult to work out. Here, it is the ‘low-level soldiers’ who pose a severe and imminent threat. Bin Laden was never going to carry out an attack personally and neither would other terrorists be deterred by his demise. It is entirely unreasonable to focus on capture of the moral supporters, or even mastermind if that is what you believe (i.e. bin Laden), to the exclusion of those who actually commit the terrorist attack. Especially when we go that step further and actually pave the way/make it easy for those who commit the terrorist attack. It’s clearly asking for trouble. Bush with his comment was therefore asking for trouble, and he got it, and he wanted it.

To top it off, when the administration did have the chance to take out bin Laden, under the Taliban offer and battle of Tora Bora for two examples, those opportunities were declined with bin Laden described as “irrelevant”. So if the administration was “tired of swatting flies” and neither was bin Laden a priority, then what was? It is clear: the war in Afghanistan, it always was.

If you agree with that at all, then there is a possible rationale to this 'facilitation', namely that W was tired of swatting flies, and thus the FBI was prevented from interrupting other agencies' undercover infiltration of these current/future terrorists because that is how the 'stop swatting flies' strategy was implemented. Note that the wisdom or effectiveness of this strategy is pretty much irrelevant, unless you are prepared to defend the pretty obvious falsehood that the government typically is efficient, effective, and intelligent when tackling problems, and combatting terrorism has got to be one of the most complex problems to address.

To put it more detailed, is this possible scenario unlikely, which of these steps do you think is the most suspicious:

1. Bush is tired of swatting flies, meaning go after the higher-level terrorists

2. Intelligence agencies, not cooperating, proceed with how they believe best to go after higher-level terrorists, which involves undercover work/not busting the low-level guys as soon as you can.

Obviously if this was the actual scenario it was a resounding failure and a terrible strategy, just by the results of it. But that does not remove any sense/rationale from the 'facilitation' as those words are defined by the environment in which they are occurring, since people, again especially government people, coming up with crappy and ineffective and risky strategies happens all the time.

As mentioned above, I don’t agree with what you are suggesting in this specific case. I think there is no sense/rationale to become “tired” of shutting down the severe and imminent terrorist threat; the low-level soldiers. Yes, I think we must give benefit of the doubt that the top-tier government has a basic level of intelligence – that is all required to conclude that the ‘stop swatting flies’ strategy could only end one way. I mean, what are you trying to say? The top-tier government is stupid, and there was a mistake, and there was an accident, and... oh, well look at that... it all fell into place as pre-stated in those Neocon strategy documents? Come on, get outa here. I know you don’t really believe that LG, you’re not that naive.

It is not senseless for lower-level agents to 'assist' the people who turned out to be the future hijackers if they are ordered to do so, and it may not be senseless that they were ordered to do so depending on what specific strategy was being pursued to get at higher-level terrorists.

Yes, this provides plausible deniability to those lower-level agents for their role in the attack. I’m not blaming everyone connected, at least, I’m not claiming they are a part of the false flag. Clarke states that 50 low-level agents of the CIA were aware of the Al Mihdhar threat in the country, but there is no necessity to believe they were knowingly part of an inside job, only following orders. The same with Bayoumi – was he doing this off his own back? Was he aware of who he was dealing with? I think probably not. All it would take to enact this false flag/inside job, is one high-level individual to set the wheels in motion; to give the order that you mention. I’m not even sure that Bush was mastermind of his ‘stop swatting flies’ strategy. Is it just that he received advice? But somewhere in the chain, someone with influence – prime suspects: Vice President Dick Cheney and head of the CIA bin Laden unit, Cofer Black – took an exceedingly and obviously negative decision which facilitated the attack. A competent investigation would have nailed all this, precisely down to where and why the order originated.

Just a quick note also before you do it again, my questioning of your points doesn't give you the license to then assume what my position is on these points or what my specific theory is. I've got no problem with you criticizing my argumentation style or lack thereof, accusing me of bias, noting my bad breath(ha), etc, those are all fair game and are to be taken as largely opinion-based. Don't get me wrong, those are just examples, I don't think you've been unfair or excessive on those types of attacks, but when you state your opinion of what my specific position or theory is merely from me challenging your points with questions, when your opinion is wrong it is also then to a large extent a strawman.

It is difficult when your questions most usually appear as challenges to my conclusions. You are asking me to believe your position is not that inherent in your question. Like when you ask, could facilitation of the terrorists all be an accident? It’s then natural to assume that you think it’s an accident. Judging by your protests when I do this, I’ll have to try to consider that you’re playing devil’s advocate or something.

Thanks also for the references on al-Bayoumi, again interesting stuff. Quick question, I didn't see or maybe read too quickly anything referring to his being 'connected' to the CIA. You referred to what Clarke said concerning him being a CIA handler and I looked back a couple posts and didn't see a reference to that, I may have missed it, again, jungle. Just so I'm clear, is that just an extrapolation, or is there direct evidence to link the two? Still reading up on him.

It depends what you mean by direct evidence. If you mean to the degree (which I think you do), ‘Is there a CIA badge with Bayoumi’s name on it?’ or ‘Is there evidence that Bayoumi carried out work with the CIA before?’, then no, there is not. To use your term, it is rather an extrapolation of the facts, though a well founded one it must be said.

I’m not sure I linked to Clarke’s quote previously, but referred to his comment: -

"If we assume that this Saudi intelligence officer was the handler for these two, then presumably he would have been reporting to the CIA office in Los Angeles. There was a strong relationship between the CIA director and the minister of intelligence of Saudi Arabia.

"

Yes Clarke uses words like, “assume” and “presumably” to cover himself, he even says that he cannot prove his theory. Despite that, these are Clarke’s well-educated conclusions, based on the facts at hand and his years of experience at the top level of government counter-terrorism, including during the lead-up and fallout of the 9/11 attack, and he has said he is unable to come up with a conceivable alternative theory.

I think that once you consider the facts I mentioned - the heavy CIA interest in Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi, prevention of the FBI to act against the terrorists, particularly the quick absolving of Bayoumi after his meeting and direct assistance to the terrorists - then you will understand Clarke’s conclusion and reasonably cannot help but agree. I certainly came to the same conclusion independent of Clarke. It was no ‘chance’ meeting and assistance that so led the hijackers to live with a U.S. informant – it appears Bayoumi was used to circumvent restrictions on CIA domestic operations, and of course because he would be more approachable to the terrorists coming from the same culture.

Taking all into account it’s as much direct evidence as could ever be expected that Bayoumi was working at behest of the CIA.

[Q24]

You failed to understand that the overwhelming majority of people blame al-Qaeda, not the U.S. for the 911 attacks. Only 7% for the United States vs. 46% for al-Qaeda.

Jesus... you can't even get the absolute basics correct... the pie chart shows 15% for the U.S. govt.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Actually that puts you in the minority under the question, 'Was Al Qaeda behind the 9/11 attacks?'

The split is 46% in your favor and 54% in disagreement.

"Don't Know' does not equal 'disagreement', nice try though. If I say "don't know' to the question, 'do ghosts exist', that doesn't mean at all that I 'disagree' with either proposition that ghosts do or do not exist, I have to have a position on the question in order to agree or disagree (although, "no one can know", I agree would be in disagreement).

To properly wordsmith it we should state a minority of all people surveyed are of the opinion that Al Qaeda is behind the 9/11 attacks, a wordsmithing whose vacuousness becomes apparent as soon as you look at the actual pie chart. It's very easy to word it another way that is also accurate but gives the opposite impression: 'of people who have an opinion on who is responsible for 9/11, 61%, a majority, say Al Qaeda', 'the number of people who believe that Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11 is more than the number of people who believe some other entity is responsible combined', etc.

Fun with marketing, and I know you are just responding to another poster; I think you and I both agree that what the polls show really has very limited applicability to the question of what is true.

[Little Fish]

"only 46% of people believe aq were behind the attacks" is a more pertinent description, and this is in spite of a full repetitious media and government campaign trying to protect the official narrative.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Little Fish

[+Liquid Gardens]

"only 46% of people believe aq were behind the attacks" is a more pertinent description, and this is in spite of a full repetitious media and government campaign trying to protect the official narrative.

Actually it's the most slanted description in favor of CTs. The most pertinent description is the pie chart itself; we're all just demonstrating that those results can be spun easily into soundbites in either direction.

And 'protecting the official narrative' from what exactly? The challenges provided by the 29% of people who don't think it is AQ but can't even settle amongst themselves who actually is responsible? Sounds like the non-official narratives already have plenty of challenges from the other non-official narratives.

[DONTEATUS]

HEres a real idea of what it was a CT point of view they should adopt !

THis quite is from Mark Boslough he`s a Sandia National Lab`s physicist." When somebody is makeing a claim that something extraordiary happend,something out of the ordinary and with a very low probability,they have ambiguous evidenence,the default is that it didnt happen !"

[skyeagle409]

You failed to understand that the overwhelming majority of people blame al-Qaeda, not the U.S. for the 911 attacks. Only 7% for the United States vs. 46% for al-Qaeda.

Should have read:

Al-Qaeda 46%

United States 15%

[skyeagle409]

Jesus... you can't even get the absolute basics correct... the pie chart shows 15% for the U.S. govt.

That was a mistake on my part, however, I have made the correction, but 15% is still much lower than al-Qaeda's 46%. In other words, the United States is not even close. You can even add Israel and still, the United States cannot catch up to al-Qaeda. Even If you add, the United States, Israel, and 'others' together, there is still not enough to catch up to al-Qaeda.

In other words, al-Qaeda is far in the lead and the United States is way behind in the poll.

Edited March 2, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

As your friend skyeagle says, “no evidence, no case!” haha.

Well, it has been over 11 years, and yet, no evidence has surfaced implicating the United States in the 911 attacks. Governments around the world blame al-Qaeda, not the United States and they even warned the United States. Question is; who was the leader of al-Qaeda?

Answer: Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden was the founder of al Qaeda, the jihadist organization that claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the United States, along with numerous other mass-casualty attacks against civilian and military targets.

http://www.mofa.gov..../May/PR_150.htm

On November 8, 1990, the FBI raided the New Jersey home of El Sayyid Nosair, an associate of al-Qaeda operative Ali Mohamed. They discovered copious evidence of terrorist plots, including plans to blow up New York City skyscrapers. This marked the earliest discovery of al-Qaeda terrorist plans outside of Muslim countries.

Who was the leader of al-Qaeda?

Answer: Osama bin Laden.

Continue:

Nosair was eventually convicted in connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and later admitted guilt for the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City on November 5, 1990.

http://web.archive.o....jsp?caseid=332

From 2001 to 2011, bin Laden was a major target of the War on Terror, with a $25 million bounty by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

http://www.fbi.gov/w...usama-bin-laden

Question; Who later admitted to his responsibility for the 911 attacks?

Answer: Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

http://www.pbs.org/n...n_10-29-04.html

9/11 and Osama bin Laden’s insidious attacks

In stark contrast to such a public statement, when bin Laden was privately shown the video clips of the horrific attacks, he reportedly remarked that the acts of terror were “spectacular” and when he eventually came out of the closet and admitted complicity in the incident, he praised the hijackers as freedom fighters exhibiting “defiant spirits” in a fight against an evil oppressive empire. The reason for killing Americans was because of the “jihad” or religious war against the infidel and the suicide squad of 19 who carried out the lethal plans were acting in the name of freedom.

http://communities.w...idious-attacks/

Based on the evidence, authorities in the United States quickly asserted that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization were solely responsible for the attacks, and other suspects were ruled out. The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion.

Edited March 2, 2013 by skyeagle409

[No Censorship]

Let's say that the Establishment version was true beyond a shadow of a doubt and that members of Al Qaeda attacked us. That said, did anyone in the government have foreknowledge of the tragedy? If so, what was done and said in response to that information or intelligence? There might have been more sins of omission than sins of commission on the parts of a few individuals.

[Stundie]

That is nothing new with the U.S. government. Look how the United States ignored warnings regarding the Shah of Iran, which lead to his overthrow and the attack on our embassy, the USS Cole, Pearl Harbor, and 911. Remember, the CIA and the FBI later admitted in public that they made mistakes in not stopping the 911 attacks.

I would settle for mistakes or even incompetence but the fact is they didn't just ignore the warnings, they did nothing and even went as far as lying. Whether that was to cover up their incompetence or something more nefarious, is something which needs investigating.

The Philippine government was shocked that the United States did not take extensive security measures as needed. I left the Philippines in August 2001, and as I was going through security, I remarked about the lack of heavy security at U.S. airports in comparison to security at the airport in Manila. Three weeks later, my concern about U.S. airport security became valid when terrorist crashed four airliners during the 911 attacks.

Although this is an argument from personal incredulity, I can't comment on how the security compares with the Philippines as I've never been, so I don't doubt it and I'll have to take your word for it.

Was Osama bin Laden indicted in the attack on the USS Cole?

I do not think so, he might have boasted and I think they blamed AQ but not him. I could be wrong though it's been a while since I've seen his rap sheet.

What action did the U.S. take against Osama bin Laden in that regard?

Not regarding the USS Cole, but Clinton bomb Sudan but hit a pharmaceutical factory and at a AQ base in Afghanistan for OBL other offenses.

In other words, what was he listed as.

He is wanted in connection with the bombing of the United States Embassies and suspected in other terrorist offenses.

As I said, he might be suspect no1, but out of all of his offense, he is charged with heinous but less serious crimes than his master plan because they have evidence of his other crimes. The FBI had no hard evidence, even after his so called confession, shows us that critical thinking means that we should look elsewhere.

And I know you are going to hate me for this, but there is a lot more evidence showing that other people within government may have been involved, whether that was just ignoring the warnings and allowing them to happen or covering up something more nefarious like Neo-cons pulling strings and getting there Pearl Harbor.

[skyeagle409]

I would settle for mistakes or even incompetence but the fact is they didn't just ignore the warnings, they did nothing and even went as far as lying. Whether that was to cover up their incompetence or something more nefarious, is something which needs investigating.

The CIA and the FBI later admitted that they made mistakes, but the amazing thing about that is, they continued to make mistakes even after the 911 attacks, and one of those mistakes had resulted in the death of CIA agents in Afghanistan, including Jennifer Matthews.

Jennifer Matthews, CIA

.http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-28/local/35440620_1_cia-base-cia-officials-cia-operatives

As the old saying goes, if you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.

Although this is an argument from personal incredulity, I can't comment on how the security compares with the Philippines as I've never been, so I don't doubt it and I'll have to take your word for it.

You only have of compare airport security of the Philippines with that of the United States prior to the 911 attacks and security measures undertaken at U.S. airports after the 911 attacks, but by that time, it was too late.

U.S. Airport Security After the 911 Attacks

http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/Jun/security.asp

I do not think so, he might have boasted and I think they blamed AQ but not him. I could be wrong though it's been a while since I've seen his rap sheet.

Not regarding the USS Cole, but Clinton bomb Sudan but hit a pharmaceutical factory and at a AQ base in Afghanistan for OBL other offenses.

He is wanted in connection with the bombing of the United States Embassies and suspected in other terrorist offenses.

It doesn't take much to change from the manufacture of pharmaceuticals to chemical weapons. We learned that during our chemical weapons training. On another note:

Remarks of Attorney General John Ashcroft

Indictment for the Bombing of the U.S.S. Cole

Washington, D.C.

May 15, 2003

Both Badawi and Quso are alleged to be long-time al Qaeda associates who were trained in al Qaeda's terrorist camps in Afghanistan in the 1990's. As the indictment alleges, they were schooled in Osama Bin Laden's hate and vowed to attack and kill Americans wherever and whenever they can - especially American nationals on the Arabian Peninsula.

The indictment alleges that it was Bin Laden's pronouncements to kill Americans that motivated the defendants to conduct these terror operations.

The indictment also names as un-indicted co-conspirators several high-ranking members of al Qaeda, some of whom have already been charged in other terrorism indictments, such as the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa. Those un-indicted co-conspirators include:

• Osama Bin Laden, who the indictment alleges planned the Cole attack and later praised the suicide bombers;
  

http://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/speeches/2003/051503agremarksusscole.htm

As I said, he might be suspect no1, but out of all of his offense, he is charged with heinous but less serious crimes than his master plan because they have evidence of his other crimes. The FBI had no hard evidence, even after his so called confession, shows us that critical thinking means that we should look elsewhere.

Let's take a look at what many people were unaware of.

February-Early May 1995: Bojinka Second Wave Fully Revealed to Philippines Investigators; Information Given to US

As Colonel Mendoza, the Philippines investigator, continues to interrogate Operation Bojinka plotter Abdul Hakim Murad, details of a post-Bojinka “second wave” emerge. Author Peter Lance calls this phase “a virtual blueprint of the 9/11 attacks.” Murad reveals a plan to hijack commercial airliners at some point after the effect of Bojinka dies down. Murad himself had been training in the US for this plot. He names the ten or so buildings that would be targeted for attack:

CIA headquarters.

The Pentagon.

An unidentified nuclear power plant.

The Transamerica Tower in San Francisco.

The Sears Tower in Chicago.

The World Trade Center.

John Hancock Tower in Boston.

US Congress.

The White House.

February 22, 1998: Bin Laden Expands Religious Edict against US and Allies

Osama bin Laden issues a fatwa (religious edict), declaring it the religious duty of all Muslims “to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military… in any country in which it is possible.”

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_warnings

As you can see, the WTC buildings, Pentagon, and CIA headquarters were targeted by terrorist years before the 911 attacks.

[Q24]

"Don't Know' does not equal 'disagreement', nice try though. If I say "don't know' to the question, 'do ghosts exist', that doesn't mean at all that I 'disagree' with either proposition that ghosts do or do not exist, I have to have a position on the question in order to agree or disagree (although, "no one can know", I agree would be in disagreement).

The answer, “Don’t Know” certainly is disagreement with the answer, “Al Qaeda”. If you say, “Don’t Know” to the question, “Who was behind the 9/11 attacks?” then you do not conclude that Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks. What the survey indicates is that only an estimated 46% of the world population, a minority, conclude that Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks. The other 54% either disagree or are undecided, either of which demand that further investigation is required.

To properly wordsmith it we should state a minority of all people surveyed are of the opinion that Al Qaeda is behind the 9/11 attacks, a wordsmithing whose vacuousness becomes apparent as soon as you look at the actual pie chart. It's very easy to word it another way that is also accurate but gives the opposite impression: 'of people who have an opinion on who is responsible for 9/11, 61%, a majority, say Al Qaeda', 'the number of people who believe that Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11 is more than the number of people who believe some other entity is responsible combined', etc.

I don’t think we should simply disregard the large number of people whose opinions are undecided about 9/11. And even if we do, I think 61% of those remaining is terribly low agreement with the official story on such an important event.

Another point I’d like to highlight is the way that answers are grouped in the poll. Those who oppose the official story are presented individually, e.g. “US govt”, “Israel”, “Other”, which, for one, gives a fractured appearance. For two, as I hold all of those entities (plus ‘Al Qaeda’) responsible, it is not possible to fit my answer. Would that make me a, “Don’t Know” seeing as I cannot give a single answer? Whereas, for three, anyone who answered, “bin Laden”, “KSM”, “Islamic extremists” (which are in fact different areas of responsibility), are all grouped under “Al Qaeda”.

Still, point agreed that it is possible to ‘wordsmith’ opinion polls and figures in all sorts of ways. I just wouldn’t try holding one of these polls up as beneficial to the official story in any way. I’m certainly not perturbed by the polls, rather encouraged: -

http://en.wikipedia....1_opinion_polls

Fun with marketing, and I know you are just responding to another poster; I think you and I both agree that what the polls show really has very limited applicability to the question of what is true.

Yes, that is confirmed by the fact that in June 2007, 41% of Americans polled agreed that Saddam Hussein’s regime was directly involved in the planning, financing or carrying out of the 9/11 attacks – testament to the fine propaganda campaign of U.S. media and Bush administration.

Though, whilst perception might not be truth... it is personal reality.

[Stundie]

The CIA and the FBI later admitted that they made mistakes, but the amazing thing about that is, they continued to make mistakes even after the 911 attacks, and one of those mistakes had resulted in the death of CIA agents in Afghanistan, including Jennifer Matthews.

As the old saying goes, if you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.

You only have of compare airport security of the Philippines with that of the United States prior to the 911 attacks and security measures undertaken at U.S. airports after the 911 attacks, but by that time, it was too late.

It doesn't take much to change from the manufacture of pharmaceuticals to chemical weapons. We learned that during our chemical weapons training. On another note:

Let's take a look at what many people were unaware of.

As you can see, the WTC buildings, Pentagon, and CIA headquarters were targeted by terrorist years before the 911 attacks.

Funnily enough, I have nothing to disagree with you on here....I suppose where we part companies is that you think it was just a mistake, where as I think that some of the mistakes were intentional.

[skyeagle409]

Funnily enough, I have nothing to disagree with you on here....I suppose where we part companies is that you think it was just a mistake, where as I think that some of the mistakes were intentional.

I highlighted the mistakes of the CIA and of the FBI, and security measures taken at U.S. airports after 911. Why do you suppose such security measures were undertaken at U.S. airports after the 911 attacks?

As you can see in that list which was compiled by the terrorist before the 911 attacks, the WTC Center, Pentagon and CIA headquarters were tagged to be attacked by terrorist using aircraft. On 9/11/2001, the WTC buildings and the Pentagon were attacked by terrorist using aircraft and United 93 was taken down by passengers before terrorist could reached their target. Let's remember what one terrorist told Philippine officials before the 911 attacks.

Abdul Hakim Murad reveals a plan to hijack commercial airliners at some point after the effect of Bojinka dies down. Murad himself had been training in the US for this plot. He names the ten or so buildings that would be targeted for attack:

Edited March 4, 2013 by skyeagle409