Why do people insist everything is faked?

[Babe Ruth]

Truth is sometimes strange. It's sometimes hard for some people to accept , that is of course whatever the truth happens to be , at whatever time it may be . Not everyone accepts that truth of matter of whatever matter it may be .

I really can't determine whether or not anyone will ever know the real truth behind some of the things that have happened where conspiracy is concerned .

I think that there's real truth in saying that there's real cause for concern regarding a lot of things going on in the world. I really do wish that the borders of my country was secured , and I wish that no one can come here unless they come here in the lawful way .

As long as we're wishing, I wish that we had constitutional governance in this country.

[skyeagle409]

You are offended by men placing bets? Yikes!

Would you care to take a bet as to what crashed at Shanksville?

[Border Collie]

You are offended by men placing bets? Yikes!

You either have a comprehension problem or language difficulties. Try getting someone to explain it to you.

[Border Collie]

Greetings, Border.

Humbly, what you detail in your post is not my personal experience. For example, the 9/11 Truther's are called such for a reason. They are aware 9/11 is a cover-up.

Hi dude I did specifically exclude you from my comments. I don't agree that 9/11 was a cover up so the expression 9/11 Truthers does not have any reason. For me. But we can agree to differ politely, I would hope?

[regeneratia]

I have said this time and again.

When you have a government that lies to it's people at nearly every single turn, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that has experimented on it's own people, killed and poisoned and tortured it's own people, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that thinks their enemies are their own people, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that reduces your right at almost every turn, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that willingly does terrorist attacks on their own people, or at least factions of that government, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that actually creates terrorist organizations, how can you trust them?

When you have a media outlet that reproduces and publishes governmental lies at every turn, how can you trust them?

This is the very reason why mainstream media is going bankrupt, because they have printed lies and SOLD them to their readers. No one volunteers to be lied to. Few people are buying their lying papers anymore.

It is natural for people to make sense of events. It is natural for people to doubt those who repeatedly lie to them. Given the history of governments, or factions of that government, people remember just who and what they have done to The People. I say an event is fake until it is proved BY ME personally as otherwise, or is proved by someone I really trust, which is not my government or mainstream media.

Why do people continue to ask this question when the answer is so incredibly obvious?

Edited September 9, 2014 by regeneratia

[Frank Merton]

Sherlock Holmes had the maxim that whenever you have eliminated all the reasonable possibilities, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, has to be the truth.

This is unscientific and illogical. If something is highly unlikely it needs lots of its own evidence to be believable. Just eliminating other possibilities is not enough. There is always the "unknown" possibility -- something no one thought of.

The rational response, then, to situations where one has nothing available but unlikely things, is to say, "I don't know."

I post this because I see an awful lot of use of this fallacy by people who want to believe essentially unbelievable tales.

[regeneratia]

Sherlock Holmes had the maxim that whenever you have eliminated all the reasonable possibilities, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, has to be the truth.

This is unscientific and illogical. If something is highly unlikely it needs lots of its own evidence to be believable. Just eliminating other possibilities is not enough. There is always the "unknown" possibility -- something no one thought of.

The rational response, then, to situations where one has nothing available but unlikely things, is to say, "I don't know."

I post this because I see an awful lot of use of this fallacy by people who want to believe essentially unbelievable tales.

Sherlock holmes is a fictional character.

[Frank Merton]

Sherlock holmes is a fictional character.

Sheesh. Really???

[skyeagle409]

I have said this time and again.

When you have a government that lies to it's people at nearly every single turn, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that has experimented on it's own people, killed and poisoned and tortured it's own people, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that thinks their enemies are their own people, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that reduces your right at almost every turn, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that willingly does terrorist attacks on their own people, or at least factions of that government, how can you trust them?

When you have a media outlet that reproduces and publishes governmental lies at every turn, how can you trust them?

This is the very reason why mainstream media is going bankrupt, because they have printed lies and SOLD them to their readers. No one volunteers to be lied to. Few people are buying their lying papers anymore.

It is natural for people to make sense of events. It is natural for people to doubt those who repeatedly lie to them. Given the history of governments, or factions of that government, people remember just who and what they have done to The People. I say an event is fake until it is proved BY ME personally as otherwise, or is proved by someone I really trust, which is not my government or mainstream media.

Why do people continue to ask this question when the answer is so incredibly obvious?

In regards to 9/11, if you don't trust the government, why not ask the owner/operators of the aircraft that were lost during the terrorist attack?

If you don't trust the government, why have you been using references from websties that are known to lie and push disinformation on a regular basis?

[Babe Ruth]

Would you care to take a bet as to what crashed at Shanksville?

I would rather bet on what DID NOT crash at Shanksville.

BC

You are unable to elaborate on your previous post, or just unwilling?

[Babe Ruth]

I have said this time and again.

When you have a government that lies to it's people at nearly every single turn, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that has experimented on it's own people, killed and poisoned and tortured it's own people, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that thinks their enemies are their own people, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that reduces your right at almost every turn, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that willingly does terrorist attacks on their own people, or at least factions of that government, how can you trust them?

When you have a government that actually creates terrorist organizations, how can you trust them?

When you have a media outlet that reproduces and publishes governmental lies at every turn, how can you trust them?

This is the very reason why mainstream media is going bankrupt, because they have printed lies and SOLD them to their readers. No one volunteers to be lied to. Few people are buying their lying papers anymore.

It is natural for people to make sense of events. It is natural for people to doubt those who repeatedly lie to them. Given the history of governments, or factions of that government, people remember just who and what they have done to The People. I say an event is fake until it is proved BY ME personally as otherwise, or is proved by someone I really trust, which is not my government or mainstream media.

Why do people continue to ask this question when the answer is so incredibly obvious?

Some folks just consider it "scientific" or "rational" to believe the statements of known liars. It's part of cognitive dissonance IMO.

[skyeagle409]

I would rather bet on what DID NOT crash at Shanksville.

Which of course, will be your B-727, since over 90% of the wreckage recovered at Shanksville was a B-757.

Add to the fact that United 93 was tracked by radar to that crash site where radar contact was loss, and the location is where United Airlines announced the loss of United 93, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the aircraft that crashed at Shanksville was United 93.

To some it up, you were duped again.

[Babe Ruth]

No, it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to believe that a Boeing crashed there, it takes only a gullible soul with no curiosity at all.

[skyeagle409]

Some folks just consider it "scientific" or "rational" to believe the statements of known liars.

Considering that the evidence does not support false claims of CT'ers, what more is there to say?

[skyeagle409]

No, it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to believe that a Boeing crashed there, it takes only a gullible soul with no curiosity at all.

Consideing that tons of B-757 wreckage was recovered from the Shanksville crash site proves that you are not in the habit of telling the truth. And, we both know that.

.

Edited September 9, 2014 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

You are unable to elaborate on your previous post, or just unwilling?

Despite the government's past history, undeniable facts and evidence supports the government in this case (9/11). And, the same undeniable facts and evidence have been used to refute false claims of CT'ers.

Conspiracy websites have been proven they are guilty of lying and pushing disinformation on the grand scale.

[mister]

Some people are paranoid, some people are too naive. Smart and informed people lie somewhere in the middle.

Government cannot be trusted because people cannot be trusted. The government is made up of people.

But so many conspiracies are simply not possible. Regardless of how evil our world leaders may be, some things are just out of their control.

[Frank Merton]

Yes, "Mister," that about sums it up. I would add that government "conspiracies" and cover-ups tend to come to light. What's the old adage -- Tell another your secret and it isn't a secret any more. Too many people in government know about these things and there are too many reporters eager to win the Pulitzer that it take just one person who wants to disrupt policy or who is disgruntled or who wants their day of fame to reach for the phone and call a reporter they met at a cocktail party.

[+Link of Hyrule]

The trust issue is a very large part of the equation, and the big problem is that government is so often caught lying, even under oath in the halls of congress. Like it or not, and I'm certainly not happy about this, the government seems to fabricate stories and cover up other stories, much more than it gives a truthful accounting. So much is classified, and even in a fairly innocent case such as Reynolds v. US, way back in 1953, the classification is invoked to hide government malfeasance and dishonesty.

So it is that believing the statements of known liars is somehow considered to be rational, when the opposite of that is true.

If the government has nothing to hide, why is it hiding so much? Why does it lie to SCOTUS? Why does it lie to Congress?

Do you suppose it is lying to the people? We are in the court of public opinion here.

Assuming what you say is true (the claims that the government are always lying may in itself be a projection of ones own distrust) that's still a long way from saying the government hoaxed the moon landing, destroyed the twin towers, staged the Boston marathon bombing, faked the death of bin Laden (or killed him to stop him blabbing about his collusion with America), and many other things (Conspiracy buffs aren't known to restrict themselves to just one thing, most rarely accept anything except the idea that "the government did it, and here's why *insert point here*"). Believing a politician that they'll keep election promises is a far cry for blaming everything the government says as a lie.

[Babe Ruth]

Some people are paranoid, some people are too naive. Smart and informed people lie somewhere in the middle.

Government cannot be trusted because people cannot be trusted. The government is made up of people.

But so many conspiracies are simply not possible. Regardless of how evil our world leaders may be, some things are just out of their control.

Exactly right. The conspiracy theory that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked 4 airliners and flew them into 4 different places is simply not possible. All of the facts and evidence contradict that theory.

[Babe Ruth]

Assuming what you say is true (the claims that the government are always lying may in itself be a projection of ones own distrust) that's still a long way from saying the government hoaxed the moon landing, destroyed the twin towers, staged the Boston marathon bombing, faked the death of bin Laden (or killed him to stop him blabbing about his collusion with America), and many other things (Conspiracy buffs aren't known to restrict themselves to just one thing, most rarely accept anything except the idea that "the government did it, and here's why *insert point here*"). Believing a politician that they'll keep election promises is a far cry for blaming everything the government says as a lie.

If I may be selective, I happen to believe the moon landing was real, and I am neutral on the Boston Bombing, though it has problems.

As for the other events you mention, if the government had a compelling case I would believe it. That is, if the evidence and facts supported the story, instead of contradicted the story, I would have no problem believing it.

Briefly, the scene at Abbottabad strongly suggests deception. If nothing else, the tail section and tail rotor of the "crashed" helicopter we were shown there cannot be found on any operational helicopter in the entire world, much less US inventory. Further, for those with knowledge of helicopter aerodynamics, that tail rotor would not work.

And at WTC, the simple facts are that the damage observed could not possibly have been caused by burning office furnishings, yet that is the absurd story the government sticks to, 13 years later.

The proof is in the pudding my friend. It's their story, not mine.

[skyeagle409]

Briefly, the scene at Abbottabad strongly suggests deception. If nothing else, the tail section and tail rotor of the "crashed" helicopter we were shown there cannot be found on any operational helicopter in the entire world, much less US inventory.

A stealth helicopter would not look like any helicopter in the world. The F-117 didn't look like any aircraft in the world before it was revealed long after it was flying.

Further, for those with knowledge of helicopter aerodynamics, that tail rotor would not work.

The reason why you think so, is because you are not an expert, because real experts do not agree with what you have just said. Just how do you think the tail rotor got there in the first place?

And at WTC, the simple facts are that the damage observed could not possibly have been caused by burning office furnishings,

On the contrary, typical office fires generate temperatures high enough to weaken steel. After all, three steel frame buildings collapse solely due to fire in Thailand. BTW, fire investigators made that determination.

The Kader Toy Factory Fire

The Kader Toy Factory fire was a fire on 10 May 1993 at a factory in Thailand. Furthermore, the building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed when heated by the flames.

http://en.wikipedia....oy_Factory_fire

...

yet that is the absurd story the government sticks to, 13 years later.

After 13 years, there is not one shred of evidence of a 9/11 government conspiracy.

Edited September 10, 2014 by skyeagle409

[mister]

Yes, "Mister," that about sums it up. I would add that government "conspiracies" and cover-ups tend to come to light. What's the old adage -- Tell another your secret and it isn't a secret any more. Too many people in government know about these things and there are too many reporters eager to win the Pulitzer that it take just one person who wants to disrupt policy or who is disgruntled or who wants their day of fame to reach for the phone and call a reporter they met at a cocktail party.

Although I would add that sometimes these things can take a really long time to come out. We are still finding out stuff from the 60's.

[mister]

Exactly right. The conspiracy theory that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked 4 airliners and flew them into 4 different places is simply not possible. All of the facts and evidence contradict that theory.

I have questions about 9/11 myself. Specifically about prior knowledge and the lack of effort to stop the attacks.

But this idea that no planes crashed, or that the planes were remote controlled, and that the buildings went down by controlled demolition, and etc, is just not possible. If the 19 Arabs did not hijack these planes then how did they go down? What is your theory?

[skyeagle409]

Exactly right. The conspiracy theory that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked 4 airliners and flew them into 4 different places is simply not possible.

All of the facts and evidence contradict that theory.

Let's take a look.

WARNINGS THAT THE DANGER WOULD COME FROM THE AIR

BRITAIN, WARNING #1: Al-Qaeda is planning to use aircraft in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs"

the British intelligence agency, gives a secret report to liaison staff at the US embassy in London. The reports states that al-Qaeda has plans to use "commercial aircraft" in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs." [sunday Times, 6/9/02]

BRITAIN, WARNING #3: An Al-Qaeda attack will involve multiple hijackings

Early August 2001 : Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning (see July 16, 2001) was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is included in Bush's briefing on August 6. [sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

CAYMAN ISLANDS, WARNING #2: Three al-Qaeda agents are part of a plot "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines"

August 29, 2001: Three men from either Pakistan or Afghanistan living in the Cayman Islands are briefly arrested in June 2001 for discussing hijacking attacks in New York City (see June 4, 2001). On this day, a Cayman Islands radio station receives an unsigned letter claiming these same three men are agents of bin Laden. The anonymous author warns that they "are organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines." The letter is forwarded to a Cayman government official but no action is taken until after 9/11 and it isn't known when the US is informed. Many criminals and/or businesses use the Cayman Islands as a safe, no tax, no questions asked haven to keep their money. The author of the letter meets with the FBI shortly after 9/11, and claims his information was a "premonition of sorts." The three men are later arrested. Its unclear what has happened to them since their arrest. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01] FTW

EGYPT, WARNING #1: An undercover agent learns 20 al-Qaeda agents are in the US, four have received flight training

Late July 2001 CBS later has a brief mention in a long story on another topic: "Just days after Atta return to the US from Spain, Egyptian intelligence in Cairo says it received a report from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas. To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn't sound terribly alarming, but they [pass] on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. The request never [comes]." [CBS, 10/9/02] This appears to be one of several accurate Egyptian warnings based on informants (see June 13, 2001 and August 30, 2001). Could Egypt have known the names of some or all of the hijackers? Given FBI agent Ken Williams' memo about flight schools a short time before (see July 10, 2001), shouldn't the US have investigated this closely instead of completely ignoring it?

GERMANY: Terrorists will use airplanes as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols"

June 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain's MI6, and Israel's Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols, which stand out." A later article quotes unnamed German intelligence sources who state the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01, Fox News, 5/17/02] FTW

ITALY: Muslims warn of an attack on the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons

September 7, 2001: Father Jean-Marie Benjamin is told at a wedding in Todi, Italy of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He isn't told time or place specifics. He immediately passes what he knows to a judge and several politicians. He states: "Although I am friendly with many Muslims, I wondered why they were telling me, specifically. I felt it my duty to inform the Italian government." Benjamin has been called "one of the West's most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world." Two days after 9/11, he meets with the Italian Foreign Minister on this topic. He says he learned the attack on Britain failed at the last minute. [Zenit, 9/16/01] He has not revealed who told him this information, but could it have been a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan (see August 12, 2000 and January 24, 2001), which appears to have helped with the 9/11 attacks?

JORDAN: A major attack using aircraft is planned inside the US

Late summer 2001: Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message gets through it is passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message states that a major attack, code named The Big Wedding, is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. "When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations." Christian Science Monitor calls the story "confidently authenticated" even though Jordan has backed away from it. [international Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02] FTW

RUSSIA: Russian intelligence clearly warns the US several times that 25 or so terrorists, including suicide pilots, will attack the US, targeting "important buildings like the Pentagon"

August 2001 Russian President Putin warns the US that suicide pilots are training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also later states, "We had clearly warned them" on several occasions, but they "did not pay the necessary attention." [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] A Russian newspaper on September 12, 2001 claims that "Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened." Interestingly, the article claims that at least two of the terrorists were Muslim radicals from Uzbekistan. [izvestia, 9/12/01, (the story currently on the Izvestia web site has been edited to delete a key paragraph, the link is to a translation of the original article from From the Wilderness)] FTW

OTHER WARNINGS

AFGHANISTAN: Al-Qaeda is planning an imminent "huge attack" inside the US that will kill thousands

ARGENTINA: A major terrorist attack is planned against either the US, Argentina, or France

Late July 2001 Argentina's Jewish community receives warnings of a major terrorist attack against either the United States, Argentina or France from "a foreign intelligence source." The warning was then relayed to the Argentine security authorities. It was agreed to keep the warning secret in order to avoid panic while reinforcing security at Jewish sites in the country. Says a Jewish leader, "It was a concrete warning that an attack of major proportion would take place, and it came from a reliable intelligence source. And I understand the Americans were told about it." Argentina has a large Jewish community that has been bombed in the past, and has been an area of al-Qaeda activity. [Forward, 5/31/02]

BRITAIN, WARNING #2: Al-Qaeda is the "final stages" of a very serious attack on a Western country

July 16, 2001: British spy agencies send a report to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top officials warning that al-Qaeda is in "the final stages" of preparing a terrorist attack in the West. The prediction is "based on intelligence gleaned not just from MI6 and GCHQ but also from US agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency," which cooperate with the British. "The contents of the July 16 warning would have been passed to the Americans, Whitehall sources confirmed." The report states there is "an acute awareness" that the attack is "a very serious threat." [London Times, 6/14/02] This information could be from or in addition to a warning based on surveillance of al-Qaeda prisoner Khalid al-Fawwaz (see August 21, 2001). [Fox News, 5/17/02]

CAYMAN ISLANDS, WARNING #1:

June 4, 2001: At some point in 2000, three men claiming to be Afghans but using Pakistani passports enter the Cayman Islands, possibly illegally. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01] In late 2000, Cayman and British investigators begin a yearlong probe of these men which lasts until 9/11. [Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] They are overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City. On this day, they are taken into custody, questioned and released some time later. This information is forwarded to US intelligence. [Fox News, 5/17/02] In late August, a letter to a Cayman radio station will allege these same men are agents of bin Laden "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines" (see August 29, 2001).

EGYPT, WARNING #2: Al-Qaeda is in the advanced stages of a "significant operation" probably within the US

August 30-September 4, 2001: According to Egyptian President Hasni Mubarak, Egyptian intelligence warns American officials that bin Laden's network is in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] He says he learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. US officials deny receiving any such warning from Egypt. [ABC News, 6/4/02]

FRANCE: An echo of Israel's warning of a major assault on the US

Late August 2001 : French intelligence gives a general terrorist warning to the US; apparently its contents echo an Israeli warning from earlier in the month (see Mid-August 2001). [Fox News, 5/17/02]

INDIA: Missed opportunity with White House attack warning

India gives the US general intelligence on possible terror attacks; details are not known. US government officials later confirm that Indian intelligence had information "that two Islamist radicals with ties to Osama bin Laden were discussing an attack on the White House," but apparently this particular information is not given to the US until two days after 9/11. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

ISRAEL, WARNING #1: 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists are inside the US and planning an imminent "major assault on the US" aimed at a "large scale target"

August 8-15, 2001: At some point between these dates, Israel warns the US that an al-Qaeda attack is imminent. [Fox News, 5/17/02] Two high ranking agents from the Mossad come to Washington and warn the FBI and CIA that from 50 to 200 terrorists have slipped into the US and are planning "a major assault on the United States." They say indications point to a "large scale target", and that Americans would be "very vulnerable." They add there could be Iraqi connections to the al-Qaeda attack. [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01] The Los Angeles Times later retracts the story after a CIA spokesman says, "There was no such warning. Allegations that there was are complete and utter nonsense." [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/01] In light of later revelations of a Mossad spy ring trailing numerous Muslim terrorists in the US, it is easy to see that Mossad would have known this info. Could this be later disinformation by the Mossad to spin the spy ring story and blame Iraq for 9/11, or it is another smoking gun showing extensive US foreknowledge?

ISRAEL, WARNING #2: Israel gives the US a list of 19 terrorists inside the US planning an imminent attack, the list names at least four of the hijackers, including Mohamed Atta

August 23, 2001: According to German newspapers, the Mossad gives the CIA a list of terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the 19 9/11 hijackers or if the number is a coincidence. However, four names on the list are known and are names of the 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Haaretz, 10/3/02] The Mossad appears to have learned about this through its "art student" spy ring (see for instance, March 5, 2002). Yet apparently this warning and list are not treated as particularly urgent by the CIA and also not passed on to the FBI. It's not clear if this warning influenced the adding of Alhazmi and Almihdhar to a terrorism watch list on this same day, and if so, why only those two. [Der Spiegel, 10/1/02] Israel has denied that there were any Mossad agents in the US. [Haaretz, 10/3/02] The US has denied knowing about Atta before 9/11, despite other media reports to the contrary (see January-May 2000).

MOROCCO: Al-Qaeda is planning large scale operations in New York City in the fall of 2001, possibly targeting the World Trade Center

August 2001 : The French magazine Maximale and the Moroccan newspaper al-Ittihad al-Ichtiraki later simultaneously report that a Moroccan agent named Hassan Dabou had penetrated al-Qaeda to the point of getting close to bin Laden by this time. Dabou claims he learns that bin Laden is "very disappointed" that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the WTC, and plans "large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001." Dabou is called to the US to report this information directly, and in so doing blows his cover, losing his ability to gather more intelligence. The International Herald Tribune later calls the story "not proved beyond a doubt" but intriguing, and asks the CIA to confirm or deny, which it has not done. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02] FTW

In other words, international warnings from around the world do not support your case that the 19 terrorist could not have carried out the 9/11 attack, especially when the bin Laden and al-Qaeda took credit for the 9/11 attack..

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

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

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

http://www.foxnews.c...ibility-for-11/

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

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

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