Evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved in 9/11

Status
Not open for further replies.

mynym

Banned
Banned
I am sure you really don't want me going back to Evidence 101 but if I must, it would look like this: clear and convincing; credible and of high quality; consistent and collaborated. They can be in the form of empirical evidence; scientific evidence; expert witness reports; credible, consistent and collaborative sworn witness statements/affidavits etc.

So how was this standard applied in the case of Osama Bin Laden and the official conspiracy theory in your view? Was that clear and convincing standard met and so forth?

Again, I am sure you know a nod is nothing! The essence of conspiracy is to be in unison, nothing broken, no chink in the chain - if there's a chink, the conspiracy fails.

That's not exactly true. The essence of a compartmentalized conspiracy with a pyramid scheme is that the patsies and low level types (or "the base") take all the risks while those closer to the top (near the all seeing eye) take most of the profits. Imagine the structure of the scheme as a collateralized debt obligation, the low level or base "home owner" that doesn't even really own their own home in some ways is the patsy at risk of losing it all, the realtor is the handler at risk of losing little and the banker is like an upper level conspirator that can't fail as long as the "highly organized plot" holds (nod to George W... con... highly organized plot.... good one.).

Long and short of it, those closer to the top don't necessarily have to take risks. And sometimes the people that think they're "breathing together"/conspiring with others for profit figure that out the hard way, whether it's losing "their house" or a terrorist cell being wrapped up and people getting executed by the FBI after someone in it goes rogue and so forth. Given this view of a standard operating procedures for a highly organized or compartmentalized conspiracy, people could look at it this way... it's not as if the patsies isn't a douche bag or the homeowner isn't irresponsible. The curious thing about it, conspirators might be able to work less if they just worked honestly and openly. It seems to me that all the conspiring that goes on sometimes isn't worth the amount of labor that people put into it. Something along the lines of: "We want you to kill those people over there. Here is how much we're paying out of the profits we expect to make." Instead of: "They probably have WMDs in their underpants.. and they just attacked you collectively... so now you need to let us use you to attack them collectively... or somethin'."

The nod does not even meet the barest minimum threshold as 'hearsay evidence' under 'the balance of probabilities'

That's true. So even if Osama nodded to one of his henchmen and "conspirators"... it might not mean much and certainly wouldn't mean much in a court of law. But if you were looking at it as an overall picture outside of a court of law or just speculating, then trying to have a general sense of body language or imagining things about it and so forth might be interesting.

In any event, where is the "clear and convincing; credible and of high quality; consistent and collaborated" evidence that Osama organized 911 without any chinks in the conspiracy and so forth? He must have planned it for the day of the drills, yes?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
He ADMITTED it.

There is NO, that is ZERO evidence that explosives were used to bring down the towers, just like there is ZERO evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
He ADMITTED it.

There is NO, that is ZERO evidence that explosives were used to bring down the towers, just like there is ZERO evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon.

Cairenn, you really must stop buying into this Official Bullshit... I take it you mean OBL admitted it... well he did not... he denied it.

There were ever only fake admissions... no genuine ones. And yet you state he did and many Americans would put hand on heart and agree with you... it just shows how much they know... high on propaganda and warmongering and short on truth.
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
So how was this standard applied in the case of Osama Bin Laden and the official conspiracy theory in your view? Was that clear and convincing standard met and so forth?


That's true. So even if Osama nodded to one of his henchmen and "conspirators"... it might not mean much and certainly wouldn't mean much in a court of law. But if you were looking at it as an overall picture outside of a court of law or just speculating, then trying to have a general sense of body language or imagining things about it and so forth might be interesting.

In any event, where is the "clear and convincing; credible and of high quality; consistent and collaborated" evidence that Osama organized 911 without any chinks in the conspiracy and so forth? He must have planned it for the day of the drills, yes?



Mynym, the trouble is the myriads of conspiracy theories proponents have provided zero evidence to support their claims. The official version of event reporters have provided supporting evidence. Who do you want me to be swayed by? The one who has provided credible evidence or the one that has provided nothing? I sincerely apologize that I omitted to mention preponderance of evidence and admittance of guilt - why do you think Osama Bin Laden had video evidence of the 9/11 attacks plot? Why allude to responsibility for something you did not commit? Or change your story a few times - inconsistencies. We had a sad case of a paedophile abducting a little girl in Wales, who was never found. The offender, who was the at the time the prime suspect, never confirmed to the investigators that he killed the little girl, but he stated that he might have or might not have but he was convicted. Osama Bin Laden gave the US and the world a lot more than that here and I really don't think there's much more we can add to that unless we just like to type our knuckles blue:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respon...tacks#Osama_bin_Laden_statements_after_9.2F11
In late October 2001, Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Allouni conducted an interview with Osama bin Laden which was videotaped. Al-Jazeera refused to broadcast it[63] and terminated its affiliation agreement with CNN[64] due to CNN's broadcasting of the interview on January 31, 2002.[65] In the interview, bin Laden addressed the September 11 attacks, saying
If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists ... We will work to continue this battle, God permitting, until victory or until we meet God before that occurs.[66]
In November 2001, US forces recovered a videotape from a bombed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed a man purported to be Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, bin Laden talks of planning the attacks. Translations from the tape include the following lines:
...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad [Atta] from the Egyptian family [meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group], was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.[67]
In late November 2002, a letter attributed to Osama bin Laden and translated by British Islamists surfaced, often called bin Laden's 'letter to America'. It states the motive behind the September 11 attacks as being: "because you attacked us and continue to attack us" and justifies the selection of a civilian target. Itemizing a list of perceived Western wrongdoings, the letter concludes that "the oppressed have a right to return the aggression" and hinted at further attacks. Also included are a list of demands, advice, and a statement of grievances against the American government and its people.[68]
On February 11, 2003, Al Jazeera broadcast an audio tape purportedly from bin Laden.[69]
Shortly before the US presidential election in 2004, in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the US, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."[70]
In an audio message that surfaced on the Internet in May 2006 the speaker, who is alleged to be Osama bin Laden, defends Zacarias Moussaoui, who was undergoing a trial for his participation in the September 11 attacks. The voice in the audio message says
"I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers—Allah have mercy upon them—with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission."[71]
Content from External Source
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Cairenn, you really must stop buying into this Official Bullshit... I take it you mean OBL admitted it... well he did not... he denied it.

There were ever only fake admissions... no genuine ones. And yet you state he did and many Americans would put hand on heart and agree with you... it just shows how much they know... high on propaganda and warmongering and short on truth.

Do you have any evidence that the video mentioned in this PBS report was fake?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
He ADMITTED it.

Prominent Arab mojahed holy warrior Usamah Bin-Ladin has said that he or his al-Qa’idah group has nothing to do with the 11 September suicidal attacks in Washington and New York. He said the US government should find the attackers within the country. In an exclusive interview with daily “Ummat”, he said these attacks could be the act of those who are part of the American system and are rebelling against it and working for some other system. Or, Usamah said, this could be the act of those who want to make the current century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. Or, the American Jews, who are opposed to President Bush ever since the Florida elections, might be the masterminds of this act. There is also a great possibility of the involvement of US intelligence agencies, which need billions of dollars worth of funds every year. He said there is a government within the government in the United States. Interview with Osama bin Laden. Denies his Involvement in 9/11



There is NO, that is ZERO evidence that explosives were used to bring down the towers, just like there is ZERO evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon.

Perhaps. Although, the curious thing about evidence is that people only see it when they're willing to look for it. Imagine that.

Another interesting thing about it is that in my experience, when one asks people who have ZERO interest in looking for evidence (because they're already overwhelmed based on a mythological consensus, etc.) what they would hypothetically accept as evidence or a reason to even begin looking for evidence about their favorite mythologies... they usually don't have much of an answer. Let alone a rigorously specified answer as to any possible falsifications/verifications of a hypothesis that they already consider to be overwhelmingly "verified" or even the epistemic equivalent of a relatively sound theory. (As they're usually easily overwhelmed with things, especially consensus or the idea of expertise.)

So in my experience, the answers of people with almost ZERO interest in looking for evidence sometimes begin to look like something along the lines of the material of satire: "If the experts, the technicians and the CIA handlers involved formed a consensus and came forward to leak an official report on journalists that was widely disseminated in the corporate media about exactly how they pulled off the covert operation... then I would think that they were involved. But in the meantime, there is ZERO evidence that they did... anything at all. In fact, they've never engaged in any covert operations because that would be like a conspiracy to do something and recognizing that would be antisemitic or a conspiracy theory... or somethin'."
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Do you have any evidence that the video mentioned in this PBS report was fake?

It's funny, when I went to try to look up that video it turns out that I know the neocon political operative that posted it. He's actually a good guy, too. Although, I guess in "conspiracy" circles some might imagine that he's sitting there thinking that he's some evil dude or a mastermind of evil. I guess they're imagining him thinking: "This will trick them!" No. That's not the way a conspiracy (or naturally breathing together with your tribe) seems to work. At least, that's what I'd imagine of it now. I'm not even sure that the tribal leaders know what the hell they're doing, usually. But there are still "conspiracies"... or maybe they really do think: "I'm being evil now. Oh, the pangs of conscience!" But, it's more likely that they think it's all justified and "right" in their minds.

In any event, most people on Youtube seem to hate the video that someone from the neocon tribe posted. No surprise there.

Look at it for yourself:

See anything wrong with it? Imagine this... would there be any """"""evidence"""""" that it's authentic if one was almost totally unwilling to look for evidence of that sort?

In any event, it's too bad that CNN couldn't find Osama in one of his cave complexes again. He probably could have showed them where Al Qaeda could drive tanks in and out, if so. (I wonder what happened to Osama's fortresses too. Because when the guys from Vice actually went to his Osama's house (Because they wound up being investigative journalists by being willing to go out and report instead of corporate "anchors" reading teleprompters for money.) it sure didn't look like a fortress or a cave complex that people could drive tanks in and out of. In fact, the people living there didn't even seem to think it likely that Osama lived there. Maybe they were confused by his CIA legend. In any event, if you see something in the corporate media that looks suspiciously like a cartoon... whether it's Osama's cave complexes, WMD weapons labs or a Seal Team Six helicopter crash... that usually seems to be a bad sign. Just saying. Still waiting on a cartoon showing some WMDs in Assad's underpants to show up in the corporate media any day now... maybe Chertoff and Rapiscan Inc. could send the Syrians some scanners to keep them $afe from Assad's WMDs?)
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Mynym, the trouble is the myriads of conspiracy theories proponents have provided zero evidence to support their claims.

Curious. From my perspective for today you've provided almost zero evidence to support your claims. Yet perhaps none is necessary... given what was reported in the corporate media on the day of the attacks and so forth. Almost the entire conspiracy and everything involved in it was unveiled on the day of or shortly after the attacks from some perspectives, I'd imagine. Good thing they found those Korans in the car and that passport flew out of the plane. Or, I guess we'd have to imagine it being blown from the plane. What are the chances? Probably doesn't matter. Given that we already know what happened in general, the chances of everything else happening have to be 100% no matter how unlikely something may seem. Imagine that!

The official version of event reporters have provided supporting evidence.

It's actually hard to imagine most reporters doing anything else but supporting the official story by looking for and reporting on evidence that confirms it, isn't it?

Or maybe that's just me... and it's actually easy to imagine a lot of investigative reporting going on?

Who do you want me to be swayed by?

I don't want you to be swayed by anything. It makes no difference if you're "swayed" or perhaps manipulated in some way. I'm just interested in your perspective and the ways in which it may have been manufactured.

The one who has provided credible evidence or the one that has provided nothing?

What was the credible evidence, again? Because that one video that "US forces recovered" seems like it may be incredible... but I'm not sure if it's credible. In any case... I can imagine how it would seem credible to you. But I wonder, can you imagine how it might seem incredible to me?

I sincerely apologize that I omitted to mention preponderance of evidence and admittance of guilt

What do you make of an apparent denial of guilt from your perspective? Is it too incredible to consider?

Why allude to responsibility for something you did not commit?

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

But I've noticed that sometimes with Al Qaeda or "the base" or "the database" (same thing) and the way the base gets "processed" and shifted around by central intelligence agencies.... the people incorporated at a lower level usually really are "base." They're the drug dealers, the thugs and even a few true believers/fundamentalists that want to cut people's heads off, etc. Imagine "the base" this way, someone comes to a three dimensional global game of chess with some checkers... or not even checkers so much as some metaphoric tic tac toe pieces. So they deserve to lose or moved around like pawns in the minds of cerebral psychopaths? But if that is the case then sometimes the pawns might claim responsibility for "victories" that they were moved to make... until they too, have to go the way of the Dodo. Why claim responsibility? Because you are "the base" and would like to engage in terrorism if you actually had the means to do so. However, I'm not sure that Osama actually took responsibility. If only Rumsfeld had included that in his cartoons on Meet the Press then it would be settled... huh?

In any event, do you think it's a coincidence that the Bushes and the Bin Ladens are business partners? I suppose that according to coincidence theorists who never saw a "big picture" that they couldn't atomize into dots/"points" (Or a relatively rich tapestry of information that they couldn't tear into threads?) that even the old privateers, mercenaries and pirates of the "skull and bones" and the old "naval intelligence" networks didn't ultimately serve the interests of oligarchs and royals. I mean, I'm all for skepticism and sometimes it's important to try to pull tapestries apart to test them for strength. But sometimes what used to be healthy skepticism seems to turn into "denialism" about any bigger picture type stuff, especially when people feel like they're incorporated into a system or have put a lot of stock in it.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Do you have any evidence that the video mentioned in this PBS report was fake?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html

Do you have a link to the video? That would be helpful. Such a momentous video should be readily available for production from reliable sources should it not... if it were genuine?

However, since there are no confirmed communications with OBL since 2001, I should think it highly unlikely that a 2004 video is genuine.

What do you think?

Who do you think made it?

Why would they do that?

Why is it so very very rare?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I copy-pasted info relevant to this topic from wiki in response to a question in this thread, which I'll repeat here...


Prior to his death on May 2, 2011, the FBI listed bin Laden as one of the "10 Most Wanted" in connection with several incidents including the USS Cole bombing and the 1998 United States embassy bombings in East Africa. The FBI's "FBI Most Wanted Terrorists" poster does not specifically hang responsibility for 9/11 on bin Laden, instead it only states "Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."[56]

Immediately after September 11, 2001 bin Laden praised the attacks,[57] but denied responsibility for them.[58]
On September 16, 2001, an Al Jazeera news presenter read a message purportedly signed by Osama bin Laden, in which the following words were stated:
I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation.[58][59]
In an interview with Osama bin Laden, published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat Karachi on September 28, 2001, he stated: "I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act."[60] There was reportedly no way to prove the e-mail published in Pakistan came from bin Laden. The Taliban denied he had access to any communications.[61][62]
In late October 2001, Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Allouni conducted an interview with Osama bin Laden which was videotaped. Al-Jazeera refused to broadcast it[63] and terminated its affiliation agreement with CNN[64] due to CNN's broadcasting of the interview on January 31, 2002.[65] In the interview, bin Laden addressed the September 11 attacks, saying
If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists ... We will work to continue this battle, God permitting, until victory or until we meet God before that occurs.[66]
In November 2001, US forces recovered a videotape from a bombed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed a man purported to be Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, bin Laden talks of planning the attacks. Translations from the tape include the following lines:
...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad [Atta] from the Egyptian family [meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group], was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.[67]
In late November 2002, a letter attributed to Osama bin Laden and translated by British Islamists surfaced, often called bin Laden's 'letter to America'. It states the motive behind the September 11 attacks as being: "because you attacked us and continue to attack us" and justifies the selection of a civilian target. Itemizing a list of perceived Western wrongdoings, the letter concludes that "the oppressed have a right to return the aggression" and hinted at further attacks. Also included are a list of demands, advice, and a statement of grievances against the American government and its people.[68]
On February 11, 2003, Al Jazeera broadcast an audio tape purportedly from bin Laden.[69]
Shortly before the US presidential election in 2004, in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the US, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."[70]
In an audio message that surfaced on the Internet in May 2006 the speaker, who is alleged to be Osama bin Laden, defends Zacarias Moussaoui, who was undergoing a trial for his participation in the September 11 attacks. The voice in the audio message says
"I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers—Allah have mercy upon them—with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission."[71]

Content from External Source
The story seems to have changed to him just being a figure of ideological support to one of direct involvement in the planning, if the transcripts are to be believed.
But he was suspected of planning something for a while so he was an obvious suspect.


On August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Brief was titled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US. It warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives' access to the US to mount a terrorist strike: "FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack."


In an interview with journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai published in TIME Magazine, January 11, 1999, Osama bin Laden is quoted as saying:
The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the US and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal.[39]




Content from External Source
So he'd made explicit threats, had set-up and financed an organisation with the sole aim of waging attacks on America, denied involvement but approved of the general gist of the attack initially, and then later accepted responsibility for direct involvement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Do you have a link to the video? That would be helpful. Such a momentous video should be readily available for production from reliable sources should it not... if it were genuine?

However, since there are no confirmed communications with OBL since 2001, I should think it highly unlikely that a 2004 video is genuine.

What do you think?

Who do you think made it?

Why would they do that?

Why is it so very very rare?

10 seconds of diligent research and I found:

ABC news reporting on the video:

http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/oct-29-2004-osama-bin-laden-video-message-11700438

Wikipedia has an entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=652383n

CNN News:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/

NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/30/international/middleeast/30qaeda.html?_r=0

In some cases you get the video playing in the background and in some the transcript is reported. Doesn't seem very very rare to me. Again, do you have any evidence that the video reported and (in some cases shown) in many places is fake?
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
Curious. From my perspective for today you've provided almost zero evidence to support your claims.


I don't want you to be swayed by anything. It makes no difference if you're "swayed" or perhaps manipulated in some way. I'm just interested in your perspective and the ways in which it may have been manufactured.

I appreciate your position. However, my use of the word 'sway' is mainly judicial and has no connotation to manipulation but to the preponderance of evidence and the dispassionate review of it thereof. I think the fact that these are not my claims, but the official reported version of the event and the fact that the onus is not on me to provide any evidence seem completely lost on you. This is the official report and I believe what has been reported to be true based on the evidence provided, which evidence you disbelieve and claim is fake. However, you have provided no credible evidence to support your position. The man admitted responsibility, the West believe he did and so do I. That is my position. End of.


I think it might be helpful to you if you tool the time and read Landu's post below.


10 seconds of diligent research and I found:

ABC news reporting on the video:

http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/oct-29-2004-osama-bin-laden-video-message-11700438

Wikipedia has an entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=652383n

CNN News:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/

NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/30/international/middleeast/30qaeda.html?_r=0

In some cases you get the video playing in the background and in some the transcript is reported. Doesn't seem very very rare to me. Again, do you have any evidence that the video reported and (in some cases shown) in many places is fake?
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
Do you have a link to the video? That would be helpful. Such a momentous video should be readily available for production from reliable sources should it not... if it were genuine?

However, since there are no confirmed communications with OBL since 2001, I should think it highly unlikely that a 2004 video is genuine.

What do you think?

Who do you think made it?

Why would they do that?

Why is it so very very rare?



If they took time to make fake videos, rig the WTC with bombs and blow up their own citizens, why won't they just plant WMDs to round-off the story????
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Osama had been kicked out of his family years before. His family is a respected family. He went off on the extremist side.

American and European intelligence officials estimate that all the relatives of the family may number as many as 600. In 1994, the bin Laden family disowned Osama and the Saudi government revoked his passport.[2] The Saudi government also stripped Osama bin Laden of his citizenship,[2] for publicly speaking out against them regarding their permitting U.S. troops to be based in Saudi Arabia in preparation for the 1991 Gulf War.

The groupings of the family, based on the nationalities of the wives, include the most prominent "Saudi group", a "Syrian group", a "Lebanese group," and an "Egyptian group". The Egyptian group employs 40,000 people as that country's largest private foreign investor. Osama bin Laden was born the only son of Muhammed bin Laden's tenth wife, Alia[3] Hamida al-Attas, who was of Syrian origin,[4] making Osama a member of the Syrian group.
Content from External Source
It is a HUGE family, please don't imply that business relations between a family member and the Bushes, is any thing more than just business. Many folks have relatives that are criminals. If someone's half brother, is bank robber, that doesn't mean that they are a bank robber or that they would embezzle money from a bank if they worked for one.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
If they took time to make fake videos...

Even the corporate media has reported that they did take the time to make fake videos so there's no "if" about it, even from your apparent perspective.

...rig the WTC with bombs and blow up their own citizens, why won't they just plant WMDs to round-off the story????

From my perspective the pattern seems to be one of use and abuse of others as a means to ends like tools, then people and even nations may be discarded or discredited and so forth.

From your apparent perspective... why don't the global bankster/Zionist types and other psychopaths involved (wait, this may be my perspective again..) just print enough paper ponzi to care for the soldiers when they come home... to round off the stories of their heroism and so forth? After all... from your perspective, wouldn't they probably be interested in doing that because they'd care about their fellow Americans and the soldiers and be deeply patriotic "public servants" and so forth? (Of course... from my perspective where they're more likely to be moral degenerates or Skull and Bones privateer types linked to mercenaries and so forth, they might not necessarily be as interested in the health and welfare of all their fellow Americansas in that of their "gang.")

Ironically... worth noting, from some perspectives Saddam did have WMDs:
there is growing evidence from many sources to verify General Sada's claims. Of particular note are tapes of more than 3,000 hours of Saddam Hussein meeting with his war cabinet and millions of pages of documents that contain vital information about Saddam's WMD program and plans for transporting the WMDs out of the country in order to dupe the weapons inspectors....
American and world citizens must demand that these tapes and documents be immediately released, translated, and analyzed in their entirety. So many politicians and media "experts" have staked their careers on a lie: "No WMDs existed." It's time for the truth to come out and for the problem to be resolved. The world will not get a second chance.
Thanks, General Sada, for having the courage and integrity to write such an important, informative, and ultimately redemptive book. Review of Saddam's Secrets by
Georges Hormuz Sada


Rambling.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
10 seconds of diligent research and I found:

ABC news reporting on the video:

http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/oct-29-2004-osama-bin-laden-video-message-11700438

"It was inevitable in some people's minds that there would be some kind of a message from Bin Laden before the elections." --Peter Jennings

That was kind of funny. Too bad that Bush didn't get to kill Osama by shooting him in the left eye while basically looking through the eyes of Seal Team Six, huh? And it's too bad about that doctor being sentenced to 33 years in jail for treason too. I wonder if it was consecutive sentences because then it would have been 11, 11, 11. In some cases, treason is a matter of perspective... isn't it?

In any case, it was interesting to listen to Jennings talk about two Skull and Bones members that happened by happenstance to be Presidential candidates and speculate as to who might benefit from tapes released by an international network of privateers that USAma worked with when the USA was fighting the Russians. (Did he change his name or did the CIA change his legend? Because it probably wouldn't do to have "the base" getting any ideas about conspiracies.)


On October 29, 2004, at 21:00 UTC, al Jazeera broadcast excerpts allegedly from a videotape of Osama bin Laden addressing the people of the United States (in which he accepts responsibility for the September 11 attacks) condemns the Bush government's response to those attacks and presents those attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence motivated by his witnessing of the destruction in the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. News analysts speculated that the release of the video was timed to influence the 2004 presidential election in the US, which would take place four days later.

What a plan, huh? I guess from some perspectives Osama figured out that he wasn't deterring anything, otherwise there might have been more attacks in Israel and the USA by Al Qaeda. But there's only been the Boston boys and a few other instances. Shew!


My only quibble... shouldn't that read, CIA News? Not that their stories couldn't possibly be true. It's just, people might want truth in advertising and all that.

And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.

But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers.

Quite a story, huh? No word yet on how he knew to schedule the attacks to coincide with so many drills... I'm not sure that even Metabunk coincidence theorists are up to the task on that one. But anywayy, Osama's apparent theory about his own conspiracy: "We didn't even intend and conspire to destroy the towers. But then, we did!" Pretty amazing that this genius mastermind apparently knew that they would collapse from two planes hitting them after he began conspiring, too. I'd imagine that from the perspective of coincidence theorists he must have known that the jet fuel would burn hot enough and the planes would hit in the right place to cause a pancake effect and so on and so forth. Or was all that just luck? Amazing how he could incorporate that much luck into his conspiracy, if so.

Still, a little more explanation and technical detail might be nice from the CIA/CNN and Osama with respect to all of this, other than just: "So then once I conspired to make the two towers collapse with two planes and got lucky with 7.... we sent Atta in... but I forgot to tell him not to leave his Koran in the car... and then we partnered with Iraq to do some Anthrax attacks too... unless you can prove that we didn't... uh, or somethin'."

He also apparently mumbled something about Bush being corrupt but how did they get their men into the country?

Again, do you have any evidence that the video reported and (in some cases shown) in many places is fake?

Something being fake or involving the magic of perception, like treason, is often itself a matter of perspective.

So perhaps this would be simpler, what would evidence that the video is fake supposedly look like in your mind? Because it seems to me that people usually seem to be asking for the impossible, given that they haven't imagined what the evidence would actually look like.

In any event, if you want a different perspective to compare to your own perspective then ask for a different perspective because "evidence" and "proof" are often another matter.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
It is a HUGE family, please don't imply that business relations between a family member and the Bushes, is any thing more than just business.

Of course, generally it's all just business... similar to organized crime, I'd imagine.

I'm not sure what people are imagining but HUGE organized crime families are often still full of "relatively normal" people that love each other and others too... except when they may occasionally have to kill people for one reason or another or create wars that kill a lot of people and so forth. Imagine it this way... when they're not being incorporated into killing people, they're often pretty nice people.

I have a suggestion to make to imaginary crime families/mafias though, if you're in one of those types of families and one of your family members has mental disabilities then it would probably be best not to have him try to play the part of the president on the political stage. There again, I still tend to like W. and most Americans did. Dubya. So there is that.

Fortunately for the Bushes, they didn't even wind up with someone playing the part of a villain in the corporate media like the Bin Ladens did. Imagine that.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Mynym, It seems that you have chosen to discount all facts, in favor of your imaginary scenario. Time for you to join my ignore list. Your mind is made up.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Mynym, It seems that you have chosen to discount all facts, in favor of your imaginary scenario.

Not at all, there's a number of scenarios that I'm willing to consider given the facts. Also, if the facts where to change (Perhaps an Al Qaeda whistle blower* coming forward or leaking information on how they were able to schedule the attacks for the day of drills and so forth.) then I would imagine new scenarios about different factions and different conspirators.

Time for you to join my ignore list. Your mind is made up.

Your mind seems to be a work of projection, almost invariably. You should try to observe yourself based on thought experiments if possible. Writing could be a good tool to do it. Get emotional (I might be fearful enough to play the part if you'd like.)... then write something down and see if it reflects back at you. Ask yourself, what did I just write about myself when I was mad or fearful about things? Etc. I'd imagine that there's a reason that Orwell has his protagonist begin with writing to begin processing almost totally conditioned emotions and so forth. Even if it has to begin with mere scribbling, it's the beginning of "ruling"/measuring yourself... and so, civilization is born.

In any event, if you were capable of preventing your mind from projecting in simplistic ways then I might care about your opinions more. And that might be fun. You might be surprised at how fun it is. But... apparently your (rather simplistic) mind is made up about me, so suit yourself. There's nothing wrong with being simple minded. I, for one, know a lot of good, honest, caring people that are basically simple minded. I.e... there are more important things in life than intelligence and so forth. Good luck.

*But... where are all the Al Qaeda whistle blowers? Because in order to pull off an attack like that, there would have to be a lot of people involved in it. So there would be bound to be a lot of imaginary whistle blowers like Chomsky argued... right?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I was trying to imagine what the evidence would look like that any Osama videos might be fake. Maybe people admitting, "We made some fake Al Qaeda videos."? No, probably not. Perhaps an electrical outlet in the background that wasn't of the right type to be located in the country where a video was supposedly made? No, probably not.

I'm not saying any videos are faked per se. But how could theories be set up in such a way that they are open to verification/falsification and thus have bearing on the overall evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 911? I would note that the whole transcript for one of the videos seems a bit odd no matter what. Because however it was produced, its premise seems to be that Osama didn't know he was going to attack the towers... but then he did due to America's foreign policy... so he decided or planned to conspire to destroy the towers with planes. (????) Why would he think that he could plan to destroy them with planes, given that they had been designed with that in mind and so forth? And if he had gotten lucky with bringing his conspiracy to fruition then wouldn't a more likely script look like something like this: "I didn't even know that the towers would be destroyed... but they pancaked after we crashed planes into them... and then even Building 7 collapsed too. Praise Allah!" Instead of: "I didn't even know I was going to destroy the towers at first. But then I did plan to destroy them with planes, due to America's foreign policy... and stuff."
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I was trying to imagine what the evidence would look like that any Osama videos might be fake. Maybe people admitting, "We made some fake Al Qaeda videos."? No, probably not. Perhaps an electrical outlet in the background that wasn't of the right type to be located in the country where a video was supposedly made? No, probably not.

I'm not saying any videos are faked per se. But how could theories be set up in such a way that they are open to verification/falsification and thus have bearing on the overall evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 911? I would note that the whole transcript for one of the videos seems a bit odd no matter what. Because however it was produced, its premise seems to be that Osama didn't know he was going to attack the towers... but then he did due to America's foreign policy... so he decided or planned to conspire to destroy the towers with planes. (????) Why would he think that he could plan to destroy them with planes, given that they had been designed with that in mind and so forth? And if he had gotten lucky with bringing his conspiracy to fruition then wouldn't a more likely script look like something like this: "I didn't even know that the towers would be destroyed... but they pancaked after we crashed planes into them... and then even Building 7 collapsed too. Praise Allah!" Instead of: "I didn't even know I was going to destroy the towers at first. But then I did plan to destroy them with planes, due to America's foreign policy... and stuff."

Do you have any evidence that the video is fake?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
And maybe big foot roams in the Big Thicket of Texas.

I go by FACTS, not imagination. That is for fantasy books.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
If you study the history of Zionism, terrorism and corruption are basically standard operating procedure... from the Irgun to the USS Liberty to the joint operation of Iran Contra, to the joint operation of 911.

If you want to understand it (Not that it matters what you understand or don't understand.) then this fellow has laid much of it out fairly well into a theory with explanatory power:
Remember the Anthrax and the meeting of Iraqis with ? Those were the days.


So how come Osama admitted he did it and the Zionists did not? I would think if Zionists did it, they'd be pissed at Osama stealing their thunder.
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
So how come Osama admitted he did it and the Zionists did not? I would think if Zionists did it, they'd be pissed at Osama stealing their thunder.


He didn't admit to 911. He wasn't even on the FBI's list for 911, just for other bombings in the Middle East.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
He didn't admit to 911. He wasn't even on the FBI's list for 911, just for other bombings in the Middle East.
Yep there are a few debunkers on here who persistently reiterate that bunk. Like you say... if he had admitted it, would the FBI not include him on their list for it. :)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think Wili

I think Wikipedia sums that up quite well.
Can you specify... seems a lot of bunk on that page...

The NBC video camera people need to be shot for incompetence... looks like 1920's video

http://archive.org/details/nbc200109110912-0954

Anchor says what a beautiful sunny day it was.

But they do admit, well after the 2nd impact, that air defences have not been scrambled

Just before the Pentagon hit, (windows rattled and a small blast will walk down hallway to find out what happened), an 'insider' says... 'there are no warnings with this type of attack... that only happens in the movies'
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Thanks, seems 'reasonable' with the appropriate 'alleged's/purported etc in it

Links to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video
On October 29, 2004, at 21:00 UTC, al Jazeera broadcast excerpts allegedly from a videotape of Osama bin Laden addressing the people of the United States (in which he accepts responsibility for the September 11 attacks) condemns the Bush government's response to those attacks and presents those attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence motivated by his witnessing of the destruction in the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. News analysts speculated that the release of the video was timed to influence the 2004 presidential election in the US, which would take place four days later.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Yeah, initially he denied it, then he "reportedly" admitted it.
Yes, he denied it and then years later some faked bunk turned up which is why all sources call it 'alleged', 'reported', 'blah blah', anything to denote that it is fake.

I mean, not to be rude but, the debunker rationale is incomprehensible to me. It appears anything that is 'conspiratorial' is Pareidolia, faked, coincidence, etc etc and any old bunk such as a caricature videos (note the plural because there were a number, each entirely different and some cgi) of Osama claiming this or that, inc responsibility for 9/11, is paraded as proof positive.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if OBL had a hand in it but there is no proof and the video is bunk.

See below is merely one of many sites debunking the propaganda.

http://www.the-office.com/fakebinladen.htm
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Last edited by a moderator:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I believe it was well discussed in the 9 lives of OBL thread if I recall correctly.

Plus mynym batted it down on that occasion...whackamole of the day. Guess I must have taken an hour off duty...:)

Except he didn't provide any evidence just as you do not. The web page you linked to in the previous message claims the 2001 December video is fake. It doesn't address the 2004 video. Do you have any evidence that the 2004 was faked?
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
T
Yep there are a few debunkers on here who persistently reiterate that bunk. Like you say... if he had admitted it, would the FBI not include him on their list for it. :)
hen I guess the FBI 10 most wanted site is a bunker site.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Except he didn't provide any evidence just as you do not. The web page you linked to in the previous message claims the 2001 December video is fake. It doesn't address the 2004 video. Do you have any evidence that the 2004 was faked?
You mean apart from the obviousness of the fakery itself :)
How about these?

http://www.infowars.com/former-cia-officials-admit-to-faking-bin-laden-video/


That idea, along with faking Iraqi news bulletins, never came to fruition according to the former CIA officials, because agreement on the projects could not be reached between the Iraq Group and CIA’s Office of Technical Services.
However, the two sources reveal that the agency did previously concoct at least one fake Bin Laden video:
The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us darker-skinned employees,” he said.​
The former officials told Stein that the project was taken over by the military after it ground to a halt:
The reality, the former officials said, was that the agency really didn’t have enough money and expertise to carry out the projects.
“The military took them over,” said one. “They had assets in psy-war down at Ft. Bragg,” at the army’s special warfare center.​
This latest revelation bolsters evidence that the intelligence agencies, and perhaps more significantly, the military have been engaged in creating fake Bin Laden videos in the past
Content from External Source
or

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape2.html

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


A political decoy is a person employed to impersonate a politician, to draw attention away from the real person or to take risks on their behalf. This can also apply to military figures, or civilians impersonated for political/espionage purposes.
The political decoy is an individual who has been selected because of their strong physical resemblance to the person they are impersonating. This resemblance can be strengthened by plastic surgery. Often, such decoys are trained to speak and behave like their 'target'.

Perhaps the most famous political decoy, soldier M.E. Clifton James successfully impersonated General Bernard Montgomery ("Monty") for intelligence purposes during World War II.[6]
Even his wife had to be deceived and was both kept in the dark and sent back to Leicester. Once he was trained, his trip as "Monty" was to Gibraltar and from there to Algiers. "Monty's" presence succeeded in confusing the Germans in regard to the invasion plans.
James was later the subject of a biopic called I Was Monty's Double starring James himself in (of course) the double role as Monty and himself.
Content from External Source
There are many more instances cited.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
How is it obviously fake?
Because it is low quality, looks nothing like him, contradicts what he has previously stated, states what the government want you to believe at a time that is very beneficial to them in the upcoming election..... owls are flying around everywhere :)

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
And more on why the OBL tapes are most likely fake:

http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/surprise/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/osama-...e-9-11-attacks-where-is-the-evidence/?print=1


What does our own FBI say? Here is a surprising but little-known fact, because it has scarcely been reported in the mainstream media: The FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorist” webpage on “Usama bin Laden” does not list the 9/11 attacks as one of the crimes for which he is wanted. It does list bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi as terrorist acts for which he is wanted. But it makes no mention of 9/11.10 In 2006, Rex Tomb, then the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity, was asked why not. He replied: “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”11
After this story started flying around the Internet and was even covered by a TV station in Louisiana,12 Dan Eggen tried to downplay its significance in an August 2006 Washington Post article entitled “Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?”13 Complaining about “conspiracy theorists” who claimed that “the lack of a Sept. 11 reference [on the FBI's "Most Wanted" webpage for bin Laden] suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain,” Eggen quoted the explanation offered by a former US attorney, who said that the FBI could not appropriately “put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed.”
But that explanation, while true, simply pushes the issue back a step to this question: Why have such charges not been filed? Rex Tomb’s fuller statement, which Eggen failed to mention, had answered this question the previous June, saying:
The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.14

Content from External Source
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top