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

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken


joc

Recommended Posts

Osama bin Laden's family, Pakistan, and al-Qaeda are not part of the U.S. government and yet, they have confirmed the death of bin Laden

And none of those parties have recieved large payments from the US?

What about the Bin Laden's? Surely their millions invested in the US might be under threat if they were declared terrorists.

Can you really think of no ways these confirming parties could have been coerced or disadvantaged by not toeing the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And none of those parties have recieved large payments from the US? What about the Bin Laden's? Surely their millions invested in the US might be under threat if they were declared terrorists.

Al-Qaeda was never supported by the United States and even bin Laden's family disowned Osama since 1994.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter anyway does it? OBL is as dead as Ambassador Stevens....what does that matter...everyone knows he was killed because of a You Tube video...Obama said so...the CIA said so...The Secretary of State said so...

The Pakistani government said so, and militants in Pakistan and in Yemen said so, and so did the Taliban and bin Laden's family. Let's take another look at Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri organized an al-Qaeda congress on June 24, 1998. The 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings were a series of attacks that occurred on August 7, 1998, in which hundreds of people were killed in simultaneous truck bomb explosions at the United States embassies in the major East African cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya.

The attacks were linked to local members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, brought Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to the attention of the United States public for the first time, and resulted in the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation placing bin Laden on its Ten Most Wanted list.

And yet, conspiracist have said that the CIA was supporting Osama bin Laden, unknowing that the CIA was hunting down bin Laden at the time and they were unaware that terrorist had planned to fly an aircraft into CIA headquarters.

Al-Qaeda planning to destroy CIA headquarters and the CIA actively hunting down Osama bin Laden after bin Laden declared war on the United States, so the question is: How does that somehow translate into a cordial and friendly relationship between al-Qaeda and the CIA?

In December 1998, the Director of Central Intelligence Counterterrorist Center reported to President Bill Clinton that al-Qaeda was preparing for attacks in the United States of America, including the training of personnel to hijack aircraft.

Nothing there that implicates the United States government in the upcoming 911 attack. In other words, intelligence from around the world had indicated that al-Qaeda had plans to attack America with hijacked aircraft, which is exactly what happened on 9/11/2001.

At the end of 2000, Richard Clarke revealed that Islamic militants headed by bin Laden had planned a triple attack on January 3, 2000 which would have included bombings in Jordan of the Radisson SAS Hotel in Amman and tourists at Mount Nebo and a site on the Jordan River, the sinking of the destroyer USS The Sullivans in Yemen, as well as an attack on a target within the United States.

The plan was foiled by the arrest of the Jordanian terrorist cell, the sinking of the explosive-filled skiff intended to target the destroyer, and the arrest of Ahmed Ressam.

So once again, further evidence that al-Qaeda, not the U.S. government, was responsible for the 911 attack. Translation: No U.S. government 911 conspiracy.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of it all, the bin Ladens were close to the Bushes.. a link was found. all this insults my intelligence as a human being

Some of those Bush/bin Laden family links: -

  • From 1976, James R. Bath, friend and business associate of George Bush, served as an investor for Salem bin Laden, half brother of Osama bin Laden. During this time, Bath invested $50,000 in the Arbusto Energy (Oil) company of Bush. A former business associate of Bath has claimed this was the money of Salem bin Laden.

  • The bin Ladens had a $2million investment in the Carlyle Group, a tie which they severed a month after 9/11. On the morning of 9/11, Shafiq bin Laden, another half brother of Osama bin Laden, was at a Carlyle conference in Washington, attended the evening before by GHW Bush who served as senior advisor to the Carlyle Group from 1998-2003.

  • The Wall Street Journal reported in 2001: -

Former President Bush said through his chief of staff, Jean Becker, that he recalled only one meeting with the bin Laden family, which took place in November1998. Ms. Becker confirmed that there was a second meeting in January 2000, after being read the ex-president's subsequent thank-you note. "President Bush does not have a relationship with the bin Laden family," says Ms. Becker. "He's met them twice."

The information can be verified with a quick Google search.

I do not think this shows a particularly close relationship between the Bush’s and bin Laden’s, though it does indicate the families are big players on the world business/political stage and have been known to each other for decades.

In my opinion it is more revealing to look at the point in history where Al Qaeda came to the fore to understand how close the U.S./CIA were to Osama bin Laden. That’s not to say bin Laden was on the payroll, only that agents were always close to him and his group.

This made bin Laden’s selection as the next bogeyman an easy one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion it is more revealing to look at the point in history where Al Qaeda came to the fore to understand how close the U.S./CIA were to Osama bin Laden.

The CIA wished it could have gotten much closer to Osama bin Laden, in fact, close enough to grab or kill him.

Report: Clinton Targeted Bin Laden

Capturing Osama bin Laden had been an objective of the United States government since the presidency of Bill Clinton. Shortly after the September 11 attacks it was revealed that President Clinton had signed a directive authorizing the CIA (and specifically their elite Special Activities Division) to apprehend bin Laden and bring him to the United States to stand trial after the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa; if taking bin Laden alive was deemed impossible, then deadly force was authorized.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain311490.shtml

And let's remember how the terrorist targeted the CIA.

The Bojinka Plot

Phase III, CIA plane crash plot

Abdul Hakim Murad confessed detailed Phase III in his interrogation by the Manila police after his capture.

Phase three would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.

That doesn't sound like the CIA and al-Qaeda were on friendly terms by any means.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet any evidence provided to you supporting that OBL died on the Abottabad raid is promptly dismissed by you as being lies.

Not one piece of evidence provided by you to support your claim? None? All you offered is your personal opinion on the legitimacy of sources provided. Your personal opinion is not evidence by the way.

What evidence do you have to support yours and the government's position?

A picture of all the big wigs at the Casa Blanca watching a TV show we can't see? Some pictures of Abbottabad with a staged helicopter tail section?

He's been dead for years and everybody knows it. If it was actually him, they would have captured him and returned him to the US, and everybody knows it.

Common Sense is most helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What evidence do you have to support yours and the government's position?

There's much evidence supporting the official story.

Some pictures of Abbottabad with a staged helicopter tail section?

61350588.jpg

stealth_helo.jpg

helicopter.jpg

As you can plainly see, there's much more to the wreckage than just the tail section and you knew very well the bin Laden operation was not a staged event.

He's been dead for years and everybody knows it.

Let's take another look.

Leaked Pakistan report details bin Laden's secret life

Osama bin Laden lived undetected in Pakistan for nine years before he was killed by U.S. forces, according to a leaked Pakistani government report that blasts the country's civilian and military leadership for "gross incompetence" over the bin Laden affair.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/

But, you said; "He's been dead for years and everybody knows it." It is very obvious why you cannot be taken seriously.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said: "Yet you dismiss the Pakistanis as liars without evidence or cause?" Not the same thing as 'no reason to lie'...

I don't have any evidence and have said so repeatedly. I don't believe the CIA ...I don't believe Obama...I don't believe his government...I don't believe the OBL tapes. I don't believe anything that has to do with much of what the government of the United States of America says.

It doesn't matter anyway does it? OBL is as dead as Ambassador Stevens....what does that matter...everyone knows he was killed because of a You Tube video...Obama said so...the CIA said so...The Secretary of State said so...

You have no evidence yet you continue to assert he didn't die in the Abbottabad raid?

Can you explain to me why you even bother posting on this thread if you plan on making claims with no evidence to back them up?

Are you here to troll?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What evidence do you have to support yours and the government's position?

A picture of all the big wigs at the Casa Blanca watching a TV show we can't see? Some pictures of Abbottabad with a staged helicopter tail section?

He's been dead for years and everybody knows it. If it was actually him, they would have captured him and returned him to the US, and everybody knows it.

Common Sense is most helpful.

Why would they return him to the US? Why parade his dead body down our streets?

Exactly what is the purpose? To satisfy you truthers?

Do you realize what implications may occur with our relations in the middle east by making OBL's body as a horse and donkey show?

It's common sense BR. Which you obviously lack considering you still think the chopper is staged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they return him to the US? Why parade his dead body down our streets?

Exactly what is the purpose? To satisfy you truthers?

BR said, “If it was actually him, they would have captured him and returned him to the US”. That does not involve parading, “his dead body down our streets”. The purpose of the capture would be to provide U.S. intelligence with a potential source of information on Al Qaeda beyond their dreams, and show we are better than terrorists by putting bin Laden on trial according to the laws of civilised society.

However, I would disagree with BR’s initial statement. BR, no U.S. President in their right mind would want bin Laden alive and able to provide testimony to his own circumstances and that of Al Qaeda – that has potential to bring the curtain down on the whole show. Therefore, your argument is not assured and does not provide reason to believe bin Laden was not killed in Abbottabad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they return him to the US? Why parade his dead body down our streets?

Exactly what is the purpose? To satisfy you truthers?

Do you realize what implications may occur with our relations in the middle east by making OBL's body as a horse and donkey show?

It's common sense BR. Which you obviously lack considering you still think the chopper is staged.

Why would they return him to the US? Because he was the Devil Incarnate, as portrayed by 2 administrations.

Because he was the biggest political prize ever, as they supposedly chased him all around Tora Bora. Because his name was invoked by government agents all the time in the media, despite the fact that they never bothered to indict him.

The Abbottabad incident was contrived to change the subject in the media, away from Obama's numerous problems at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Abbottabad incident was contrived to change the subject in the media, away from Obama's numerous problems at the time.

How amusing that you would say such a thing considering that the bin Laden operation was a reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BR said, “If it was actually him, they would have captured him and returned him to the US”.

It would not have been prudent to capture bin Laden and bring him to the United States. That would have created too many problems, especially since there are thousands of dangerous terrorist looking to make a name for themselves and to bad things to try and force the United States to release him. Capturing and bringing bin Laden to America?! No a got idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Abbottabad incident was contrived to change the subject in the media, away from Obama's numerous problems at the time.

2011524514983580_20.jpg

Obituary: Osama bin Laden

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/05/20115251555423645.html

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

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/05/04/147782.html

Usama Bin Laden Killed in Firefight With U.S. Special Ops Team in Pakistan

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources/#ixzz2YrBop43j

Leaked Bin Laden report reveals Pakistan failures

Bin Laden was killed by US forces in north-west Pakistan in May 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23235847

In aftermath of scathing bin Laden report, Pakistan asks itself hard questions

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – The leak of a 336-page report investigating the security lapses that led to both Osama bin Laden’s extensive stay in Pakistan and the raid that killed him on May 1, 2011 shows that Pakistan has finally started asking itself some tough questions.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/09/19378780-in-aftermath-of-scathing-bin-laden-report-pakistan-asks-itself-hard-questions

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

What has been presented above, explains the video below.

Which resulted in a number of responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction:

It would not have been prudent to capture bin Laden and bring him to the United States. That would have created too many problems, especially since there are thousands of dangerous terrorist looking to make a name for themselves and would have done bad things to force the United States to release him. Capturing and bringing bin Laden to America?! Not a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no evidence yet you continue to assert he didn't die in the Abbottabad raid?

Can you explain to me why you even bother posting on this thread if you plan on making claims with no evidence to back them up?

Are you here to troll?

Bite me Raptor! I started this freaking thread and it wasn't about Osama...

Look, here is the deal...we are talking about an organization that THRIVES on deceit...an organization that puts agents in harms way INSIDE the very cave of the guys they want to kill...Spy stuff...Secret Stuff...Top Secret Stuff...Stuff nobody else knows and if you tell you'll die for telling stuff!

And yet...I am supposed to just roll over and lap up the 'truth' that they speil like it was gravy on toast!

There weren't any pictures...there wasn't a body that anyone SUBSTANTIAL...LIKE ME JACK...AND YOU JACK...AND EVERY MOTHER'S BROTHER'S NEPHEW...could look at and say...hmmm...well...there you go.

No...they buried him at sea...nobody real saw the body...nobody real saw any pictures and I don't really give a bloody GotSpam what Osama's daughter said or did or any of that nonsense.

I am not a sheep...go baa somewhere else! Grrrrrr...the wolves don't follow the herd...get it?

Edited by joc
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no way that evidence of explosives could have been removed illegally because the explosive evidence would have been evident all over ground zero. In other words, clean-up crews would have had a difficult time avoiding any explosive evidence.

Makes no difference what you or I or anyone else think.

It is hard evidence - there's nothing more important in any investigation.

They can't remove any of it, period. That is a crime.

To say the evidence wouldn't have mattered anyway, that is just your personal opinion.

That's not what you did, though.

You hold it up to excuse the crime of removing evidence!

You don't want or seek the truth. Clearly not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes no difference what you or I or anyone else think.

It is hard evidence - there's nothing more important in any investigation.

They can't remove any of it, period. That is a crime.

To say the evidence wouldn't have mattered anyway, that is just your personal opinion.

That's not what you did, though.

You hold it up to excuse the crime of removing evidence!

You don't want or seek the truth. Clearly not.

Actually, it does make a difference what we think...that is what all of this is about...what we think...and why...and what thoughts are found to be valid and what thoughts are found to be invalid. SkyEagle has done a remarkable job of PROVING beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were no explosives used at 911...that the Pancake effect was real...not just some conjecture of the Powers That Be. There were no explosives used at the Twin Towers. There were jet airplanes full of innocent Americans. That's been proven. That is reality. It does matter what you think. It does matter what I think. It does matter what the truth is...it is knowable...at least in the case of 911.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it does make a difference what we think...that is what all of this is about...what we think...and why...and what thoughts are found to be valid and what thoughts are found to be invalid. SkyEagle has done a remarkable job of PROVING beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were no explosives used at 911...that the Pancake effect was real...not just some conjecture of the Powers That Be. There were no explosives used at the Twin Towers. There were jet airplanes full of innocent Americans. That's been proven. That is reality. It does matter what you think. It does matter what I think. It does matter what the truth is...it is knowable...at least in the case of 911.

Truth is all that matters in the end.

If evidence is removed, who can really know the truth?

Ask yourself who would want to remove evidence, and bury the truth,

Look at 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes no difference what you or I or anyone else think.

Evidence speaks louder than words, and since there is no evidence of explosives, what more is there to say? The proof can be determined here:

* No bomb explosions seen

* No bomb explosions heard

* No bomb explosions detected on seismic monitors (which should have told you that no bombs were used).

* No evidence of bombs recovered from ground zero.

With no evidence of bombs, you have no case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence speaks louder than words, and since there is no evidence of explosives, what more is there to say? The proof can be determined here:

* No bomb explosions seen

* No bomb explosions heard

* No bomb explosions detected on seismic monitors (which should have told you that no bombs were used).

* No evidence of bombs recovered from ground zero.

With no evidence of bombs, you have no case.

That's how to investigate all crimes, First, remove all the evidence of a crime, then conduct the investigation.

See any proof ? None.

So it wasn't a crime, right?

Nice try.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth is all that matters in the end.

If evidence is removed, who can really know the truth?

Ask yourself who would want to remove evidence, and bury the truth,

Look at 9/11.

The truth doesn't matter in the end or at the beginning. The truth just is. Belief is irrelevant with regards to the truth. The truth is not incumbent upon belief in order to be...it just is.

But there are ways of discerning truth...one way is to logically remove that which is provable to be...not truth.

No matter how strongly you may believe that the Towers were wired with explosives...doesn't change the truth.

The truth is that when a building is demolished by demolition there is absolutely no way to hide that fact. The NOISE of the explosions is remarkably loud...not...shhh, listen, did you hear that? shhh, explosions, listen....huh uh...Sky Eagle and others have shown over and over and over through countless videos and other factual elements that no explosions were used. If you take away the 'explosive' then the entire Conspiracy Theory pancakes to the ground itself!

Edited by joc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the "Atheist Experience" dealing with a 9-11 troother.

The similarity to a fanatic religionist is striking...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is that when a building is demolished by demolition there is absolutely no way to hide that fact. The NOISE of the explosions is remarkably loud...not...shhh, listen, did you hear that? shhh, explosions, listen....huh uh...Sky Eagle and others have shown over and over and over through countless videos and other factual elements that no explosions were used. If you take away the 'explosive' then the entire Conspiracy Theory pancakes to the ground itself!

You don’t seem aware of the explosive testimony or the method of demolition proposed.

The truth is that many explosions were reported leading up to the collapses. These were witnessed by firefighters, other responders, office occupants and media reporters, occurring not in the impact/fire zones but many floors lower, throughout the buildings.

This led trained firefighters to suspect bombs.

From FDNY veteran Lou Cacchioli on the 24th floor of WTC1: -

“we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb ... When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!”

To FDNY premiere building collapse expert, Ray Downey, following the WTC2 collapse: -

“I remember asking Ray Downey was it the jet fuel that blew up. He said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even ...
So his original thought was that he

thought it was a bomb up there as well.”

To media reporters: -

“There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run.”

There are a mountain of similar reports and the explosions were such that on the morning of 9/11, both the FDNY and NYPD worked to the theory that “secondary devices” were planted in the buildings: -

[media=]

[/media]

Following that explosive weakening of the buildings, it has long been proposed that thermite devices were used to finally initiate the collapses thus negating the ‘giveaway’ loud string of explosions that immediately precede conventional demolition. And once those collapses propagate, the noise level of the building destruction itself is enough to disguise further explosions used to complete the collapses.

So we see there are no grounds to deny the possible presence of explosives to weaken the structures prior to the collapses or to continue the collapse propagation. Explosions are only demonstrably absent immediately prior collapse initiation, but that is where it is proposed the quieter method of thermite devices were employed - the theory states that the demolition was intended to be covert and blamed on other factors, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don’t seem aware of the explosive testimony or the method of demolition proposed.

There were indeed explosions. But NOT Demotlition Explosions. As per my last post...SkyEagle has well documented what these 'explosions' were...and what I was saying and what others are saying about 'explosions' is that Demolition Explosions do not cause people to say, 'OMG it sounded like an explosion!"....Demolition Explosions cause people to just stand there with their mouths open...mumbling...omg...omg...omg..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.