Evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved in 9/11

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is approaching retirement age. I'm going to do a little housekeeping, moving things into appropriate threads.

I'd like to encourage people to start new threads wherever possible. Long rambling threads like this are just chatting. Rather a waste of time.
It has gotten a bit messy but in fairness a lot of that was in response to direct questions.

Just to finish off on the fake OBL tapes:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bin_laden_tape_a_fake_swiss_lab_says.htm

External Quote:
PARIS (AP) - The latest audiotape statement attributed to accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden is not authentic, a Swiss research institute said.
External Quote:

The Lausanne-based Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence said it is 95-per-cent certain the tape does not feature the voice of the long-absent terrorist leader.
The review of the tape was commissioned by France-2 television and its findings were presented by the institute's Professor Herve Boulard in a special TV report shown late Thursday.
He said the institute compared the voice on the tape, first aired two weeks ago on Al-Jazeera, an Arabic television network, with some 20 earlier recordings of bin laden.
U.S. experts maintain the tape will likely never be fully authenticated because its poor quality defies complete analysis by even the most sophisticated voice-print technology.
But U.S. experts who have heard it generally support the conclusion by U.S. law-enforcement officials that it probably is bin Laden speaking.
In the tape, the speaker refers to recent terrorist strikes U.S. officials believe are connected to bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. If fully verified, it would provide the first evidence in a year that bin Laden survived U.S. bombing in Afghanistan.
 
It has gotten a bit messy but in fairness a lot of that was in response to direct questions.

Just to finish off on the fake OBL tapes:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bin_laden_tape_a_fake_swiss_lab_says.htm

External Quote:
PARIS (AP) - The latest audiotape statement attributed to accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden is not authentic, a Swiss research institute said.
External Quote:

The Lausanne-based Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence said it is 95-per-cent certain the tape does not feature the voice of the long-absent terrorist leader.
The review of the tape was commissioned by France-2 television and its findings were presented by the institute's Professor Herve Boulard in a special TV report shown late Thursday.
He said the institute compared the voice on the tape, first aired two weeks ago on Al-Jazeera, an Arabic television network, with some 20 earlier recordings of bin laden.
U.S. experts maintain the tape will likely never be fully authenticated because its poor quality defies complete analysis by even the most sophisticated voice-print technology.
But U.S. experts who have heard it generally support the conclusion by U.S. law-enforcement officials that it probably is bin Laden speaking.
In the tape, the speaker refers to recent terrorist strikes U.S. officials believe are connected to bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. If fully verified, it would provide the first evidence in a year that bin Laden survived U.S. bombing in Afghanistan.

By the tape being fake you are referring to the 2001 tape again. The prison planet piece was written in 2002. For the 2004 tape being fake you cite a couple of web sites which state that he wasn't saying the things he usually says or that said things he wouldn't say. Not a very deep analysis and not very convincing evidence.
 
Yes, can your analysis of provable bunk in those tapes (which you seem adamant about) be detailed in the bin laden thread?
 
Yes and 'Popular', (with the government and debunkers), Mechanics still has this bunk on their site to date:

External Quote:
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
NB Perhaps someone could induce them to remove the bunk... (even if it means closing the site as there is nothing left afterwards) :)
http://rense.com/general63/brutalpurgeofPMstaff.htm

External Quote:
The Hidden Hand Of The CIA, 911 And Popular Mechanics
External Quote:


A brutal purge of the senior staff at Popular Mechanics preceded the publication of last month's scandalous propaganda piece about 9/11. Pulling the strings is the grand dame of Hearst Magazines and behind the scene is her obscure husband a veteran propaganda expert and former special assistant to the director of the C.I.A.

The magazine pushing the government's 9/11 propaganda, Popular Mechanics (PM), is published by the Hearst family. Its March cover story, Debunking 9/11 Lies, has been exposed by credible researchers to contain numerous distortions and flawed conclusions. American Free Press revealed that Benjamin Chertoff, the 25-year-old senior researcher who authored the 9/11 article, is related to Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The PM article illustrates how a propaganda method, used by dictatorships, is now being employed by the U.S. government: controlling mainstream media outlets to promote its version of 9/11.

The actions of Michael Chertoff concerning the events of 9/11, the non-investigation that followed, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the propaganda being disseminated in PM, are strikingly similar to actions attributed to the Nazi ministers Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Gvring.

The Chertoffs appear to be very distantly related.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4220721?click=main_sr

External Quote:

Is PM staffer Benjamin Chertoff a cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security?



As we explain in our book, it appears that they could be distant relatives. The connection, if any exists, dates back to the 19th century, before either family immigrated to the U.S. They have never met, and never spoken to one another. Michael Chertoff has never spoken with any member of the Popular Mechanics staff, nor with any member of Benjamin Chertoff's family.

The speculation concerning the supposed Chertoff connection is a good example of how conspiracy theorists often latch on to shreds of information, but get the details wrong. Ben Chertoff ran PM's research and fact-checking department at the time of the original magazine article, and conducted some reporting for the story. He was not the "senior editor," "head writer," or any of the other incorrect titles lofted by theorists. (Ben was later promoted to online editor, and recently left the magazine to pursue work as a freelance writer and producer.)

Moreover, Michael Chertoff was not secretary of Homeland Security at the time PM researched the original story. He was sworn in on Feb. 15, 2005, more than a month after the piece went to the printers.

Conspiracy theorists often present the supposed connection between Benjamin and Michael Chertoff as ipso facto proof of some sort of collaboration. But why would that be? There are nearly 30 people on the editorial staff of PM. Virtually none of them knew each other--or Ben--before coming to work here. So far, no one has explained to us how they believe a relatively junior magazine staffer could convince dozens of his colleagues to become complicit in a cover-up of one of the worst attacks in U.S. history.
No brutal purge either.

External Quote:

Wasn't there a "brutal purge" of the PM staff just before the magazine began working on this project?



Sorry. Nothing so dramatic. After a nearly 20-year run at the helm, PM editor-in-chief Joe Oldham retired in June 2004. National Geographic Adventure executive editor James B. Meigs was hired to replace him. Meigs had a long history with PM, having previously written a column and feature articles for the magazine. Over the next few months, Meigs made a number of staff changes. Such changes are typical any time a new editor takes charge at a magazine--indeed, turnover is expected in any business when there is a change in leadership. Today, the staff at PM remains a mix of relatively new hires and long-time veterans. Several staffers have 20-plus years at the magazine.
 
I copy-pasted info relevant to this topic from wiki in response to a question in this thread, which I'll repeat here...
External Quote:


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."[SUP][56][/SUP]

Immediately after September 11, 2001 bin Laden praised the attacks,[SUP][57][/SUP] but denied responsibility for them.[SUP][58][/SUP]
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.[SUP][58][/SUP][SUP][59][/SUP]​
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."[SUP][60][/SUP] 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.[SUP][61][/SUP][SUP][62][/SUP]
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[SUP][63][/SUP] and terminated its affiliation agreement with CNN[SUP][64][/SUP] due to CNN's broadcasting of the interview on January 31, 2002.[SUP][65][/SUP] 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.[SUP][66][/SUP]​
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.[SUP][67][/SUP]​
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.[SUP][68][/SUP]
On February 11, 2003, Al Jazeera broadcast an audio tape purportedly from bin Laden.[SUP][69][/SUP]
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."[SUP][70][/SUP]
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."[SUP][71]

[/SUP]​
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.
External Quote:


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.[SUP][39][/SUP]​




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.
I have 'liked' this post because in general I think it reasonably fair right up to the last emboldened

I don't think anyone is suggesting that 'he was not actively fighting against the U.S' but the fake tapes and admissions are a ridiculous.

Debunkers like to say, 'He admitted it'... which is ludicrous because it goes against everything you 'say you stand for'.

So what is it about these tapes that make you debunkers happy that they are real?

Please set out a case as to their authenticity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still Don't see any evidence that all (or any of the 'accepted') tapes are fake.

Please be more clear, if you want me to accept that.
 
Well I think the claim they are fake is the one that requires evidence as it is the more complicated of the two scenarios (ie, extraordinary claims... etc).
It is reasonable to assume they are authentic, given the known context.
However, if you can present good evidence they are obviously faked, that would be great. Why are they ridiculous?
 
I have 'liked' this post because in general I think it reasonably fair right up to the last emboldened

I don't think anyone is suggesting that 'he was not actively fighting against the U.S' but the fake tapes and admissions are a ridiculous.

Debunkers like to say, 'He admitted it'... which is ludicrous because it goes against everything you 'say you stand for'.

So what is it about these tapes that make you debunkers happy that they are real?

Please set out a case as to their authenticity.

I'm here to remove bunk. The assertions that the 2004 tape was fake are bunk or based on bunk.
 
I'm here to remove bunk. The assertions that the 2004 tape was fake are bunk or based on bunk.
Well it is not good enough to say, 'I say it is bunk therefore it is bunk', otherwise that is bunk of itself.
It's like saying 'The NSA are not spying on your phone calls and emails because they say they are not'. That is bunk.

I suggest that you attempt to validate the tape as genuine... which I wish you good luck with as it is clearly fake along with a multitude of other fake tapes and quotations attributed to OBL, likely by the CIA disinfo/propaganda machine.





One of your co debunkers even has the audacity to claim it is bunk that the U.S supplied WMD's to Saddam... and this is supposed to be a debunking site!



 
Folks please tell us what is in You Tubes. It takes me at least 5 min to watch a cute puppy/kitten YT that is 2-3 min long. I refuse to spend a half hour trying to listen to what I feel is nonsense.

Please sum it up and if needed tell us where in the tape the important part is.
 
Well it is not good enough to say, 'I say it is bunk therefore it is bunk', otherwise that is bunk of itself.
It's like saying 'The NSA are not spying on your phone calls and emails because they say they are not'. That is bunk.

I suggest that you attempt to validate the tape as genuine... which I wish you good luck with as it is clearly fake along with a multitude of other fake tapes and quotations attributed to OBL, likely by the CIA disinfo/propaganda machine.





One of your co debunkers even has the audacity to claim it is bunk that the U.S supplied WMD's to Saddam... and this is supposed to be a debunking site!






Landru has already explained why there is not enough credible evidence to say the 2004 video is fake. You, however, seem to be content with saying "it is clearly fake" and then just expecting us to believe you after tossing a video at us with no explanation or hint at what to look for.

Oxy, break down the 2004 video. Show us how it is clearly fake. Maybe side by side comparisons of the guy in the video to Osama, etc.
 
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?
Plane suggests you have posted evidence as to it's authenticity. Is this supposed to be the evidence that it is genuine, because if it is, it doesn't prove anything other than a video of someone blurry, talking about dreams exists. As much as you may desperately want it to, your links do not prove it's authenticity. As a debunker you should be very aware of that.

I suggest this is blatent propaganda and does nothing for the reputation of this site.

So I ask again, please demonstrate that this patently false video is genuine.
 
Plane suggests you have posted evidence as to it's authenticity. Is this supposed to be the evidence that it is genuine, because if it is, it doesn't prove anything other than a video of someone blurry, talking about dreams exists. As much as you may desperately want it to, your links do not prove it's authenticity. As a debunker you should be very aware of that.

I suggest this is blatent propaganda and does nothing for the reputation of this site.

So I ask again, please demonstrate that this patently false video is genuine.

You say the video is patently false. Any evidence?

The list I provided, if you remember, was at your request since you couldn't find it on your own. I didn't suggest it was genuine just that there is no credible evidence to support that it is not. The 2004 video is generally accepted to be genuine which is in contrast to the 2001 video.
 
You say the video is patently false. Any evidence?

The list I provided, if you remember, was at your request since you couldn't find it on your own. I didn't suggest it was genuine just that there is no credible evidence to support that it is not. The 2004 video is generally accepted to be genuine which is in contrast to the 2001 video.

There is a lot of evidence that they faked bin laden videos and pictures and audio.

You have provided zero evidence that it is genuine other than an unsubstantiated assertion that 'it is generally accepted as genuine'.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21530470/...was-bin-ladens-last-video-faked/#.UdXpw23iT9M

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

This is a genuine video of him, I think the differences speak for themselves.



More fake... reading from script... dyed beard etc



If you beleive any of these videos... wel what can I say?



Seems to have aged one heluvva lot in a year, (2010 to 2011) lol.

But what about this one... lots of people don't 'generally accept the video as genuine'



Of course there is also the allegations that bin laden worked for cia after 9/11



http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...nd-his-top-lieutenant-2-months-after-911.html



External Quote:

FBI Translator Alleges that Bin Laden and His Number 2 Worked as Part of Operation Gladio

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has been deemed credible by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General, several senators (free subscription required), and a coalition of prominent conservative and liberal groups.
The ACLU described Edmonds as:
The most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.​
And famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg says that Edmonds possesses information “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”.
So I say again, what is your evidence that it is genuine? Who are these people who 'accept it as genuine'?

Much of the public do not accept it as genuine.
 
External Quote:

We bring to the attention of our readers the following text of Osama bin Laden’s interview with Ummat, a Pakistani daily, published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. It was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001.
The authenticity of this interview, which is available in recognized electronic news archives, is confirmed.
Osama bin Laden categorically denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.
According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the US government has stated. But the Bush administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-osama-bin-laden-denies-his-involvement-in-9-11/24697
External Quote:

First of all, Bin Laden's initial reaction to 9/11 was not to take credit for the crime at all. In fact, he continually denied any involvement in 9/11 up until the 'confession' video was mysteriously presented. Almost no one in the U.S. has read Bin Laden's first statement in response to 9/11, which so conflicts the later 'confession'. Here it is, from September 17, 2001:
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."
We've been asked to accept without question his other statements of 'confession'. So how do we make sense of the above statement? Or how do we make sense of his second public statement in regards to 9/11, given on October 16, 2001:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September 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. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
These comments obviously do not prove that Bin Laden did not orchestrate 9/11. But they do raise a crucial question. Why would a man spend six weeks denying a crime, then suddenly flip-flop 180 degrees and happily start taking responsibility for the originally denied crime? Most people - including scientists, CIA analysts, FBI, and other independent investigators, etc. - who have a working familiarity with the 'confession' video, know the answer to this question. And that is that the man in the video making the 'confession' is almost certainly not Osama Bin Laden, and the tape is a fake.

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_19.htm

Of course there is also the Official Story of his death in 2011 which many people believe was a hoax by Obama and the evidence underpinning that is very strong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_death_conspiracy_theories
 
Of course there is also the Official Story of his death in 2011 which many people believe was a hoax by Obama and the evidence underpinning that is very strong.

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

Would you mind putting in a little more effort to your posts that relate directly to a dispute by quoting the passages that to you hold the best proof? It just makes things easier when it's all laid out in the thread. Link posting is good, selecting and quoting text and a link post is even better.

(edit... the 'burial at sea' decision was a shockingly bad one, why on earth would they do that given the amount of speculation they knew would arise? F**king idiots.)
 
you spelled "weak as" wrong - you got the "s" and "n" right, but there's no "t", "r", "o" or "g" in "weak as"
Thanks for that Mike... not quite sure what you are referring to but never mind. I thought it was bad policy to remark upon peoples typo's on this forum which is not the only reason I have never offered any correction on yours. :)

But if you are suggesting 'weak' evidence, perhaps you could elucidate further.
 
Would you mind putting in a little more effort to your posts that relate directly to a dispute by quoting the passages that to you hold the best proof? It just makes things easier when it's all laid out in the thread. Link posting is good, selecting and quoting text and a link post is even better.

(edit... the 'burial at sea' decision was a shockingly bad one, why on earth would they do that given the amount of speculation they knew would arise? F**king idiots.)
You should think yourself lucky that i don't just say 'something' and then insist it is a fact because I have said it. :)
 
It depends whether the typos change the meaning or not - when you type "strong evidence" then the evidence is actually "weak as ...(pick any mass produced American beer)" then clearly the meaning has changed.

The evidence of a cover up is weak because it is al based around the absence of a body - as Pete Tar says the decision to bury OBL at sea was idiotic - but if idiotic decisions proved conspiracies existed then there'd be nothing else in the world!
 
It depends whether the typos change the meaning or not - when you type "strong evidence" then the evidence is actually "weak as ...(pick any mass produced American beer)" then clearly the meaning has changed.

The evidence of a cover up is weak because it is al based around the absence of a body - as Pete Tar says the decision to bury OBL at sea was idiotic - but if idiotic decisions proved conspiracies existed then there'd be nothing else in the world!
Sorry Mike but that is bunk... there is much evidence that it was a hoax... multiple versions of events from the seal team members, bin laden begging for mercy, hiding behind wife etc... well that didn't look good in hindsight did it?

Changed to Bin laden going for a gun.... yeah

Fake Obama et al watching it live on tv monitors

Locals saying they knew the guy who lived there and it wasn't bin laden

There were loads of other stuff as well... the full hoax BS. But you want to 'debunk' all that... make us all believe in the government mantra lol.
 
Sorry Mike but that is bunk... there is much evidence that it was a hoax... multiple versions of events from the seal team members, bin laden begging for mercy, hiding behind wife etc... well that didn't look good in hindsight did it?

Changed to Bin laden going for a gun.... yeah

Fake Obama et al watching it live on tv monitors

Locals saying they knew the guy who lived there and it wasn't bin laden

There were loads of other stuff as well... the full hoax BS. But you want to 'debunk' all that... make us all believe in the government mantra lol.
Oh my god... just present the evidence for what you're claiming so we can evaluate it or at least know exactly what you're referring to for your opinion. Yes, we probably wont be convinced, but at least you'll have done your part.
You should think yourself lucky that i don't just say 'something' and then insist it is a fact because I have said it. :)
Well my luck ran out I guess.
 
Oh my god... just present the evidence for what you're claiming so we can evaluate it or at least know exactly what you're referring to for your opinion. Yes, we probably wont be convinced, but at least you'll have done your part.

Well my luck ran out I guess.
I have presented more than a sufficiency of evidence to back up my assertions... about time you debunkers did some work and present some evidence backing up your unsubstantiated claims.

I look forward to reading your considered dissertations.
 
Sorry Mike but that is bunk... there is much evidence that it was a hoax... multiple versions of events from the seal team members, bin laden begging for mercy, hiding behind wife etc... well that didn't look good in hindsight did it?

Changed to Bin laden going for a gun.... yeah

conflicting stores are not actually evidence that the killing was a hoax - they are evidence of conflicting stories - lots of eyewitness have conflicting stories about what they saw but the act still took place - sorry about that.

Fake Obama et al watching it live on tv monitors

Still not actually evidence of a hoax....

Locals saying they knew the guy who lived there and it wasn't bin laden

well it wasn't like he used his real name, and it also wasn't actually like he walked the streets either so how is it they knew him?

where is het actual evidence for any of this -

There were loads of other stuff as well... the full hoax BS. But you want to 'debunk' all that... make us all believe in the government mantra lol.

I'm happy to debunk it, if I can, when you present it. However so far you are confusing "saying something" with "evidence"

And you are also confusing "debunking" with "making someone believe something" - debunking is about removing bunk - nothing more or less - I don't care whether you believe eth "government mantra" or not - my interest is in ensuring that whatever bunk is out there, from any side, is identified .....and preferably removed from people's consideration although that's probably too hard to do.
 
I have presented more than a sufficiency of evidence to back up my assertions...

sorry - I must have missed it - can you point to het posts please, because all I see on this page is you "saying stuff"


about time you debunkers did some work and present some evidence backing up your unsubstantiated claims.

I look forward to reading your considered dissertations.

WE haven't made any claims - debunking is not about making claims - it is about identifying bunk - yet again you show us you do not know what debunking it.
 
There is a lot of evidence that they faked bin laden videos and pictures and audio.

You have provided zero evidence that it is genuine other than an unsubstantiated assertion that 'it is generally accepted as genuine'.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21530470/...was-bin-ladens-last-video-faked/#.UdXpw23iT9M

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

snipped for space
[/ex]

So I say again, what is your evidence that it is genuine? Who are these people who 'accept it as genuine'?

Much of the public do not accept it as genuine.
The first link talks about the 2007 video and doesn't question the authenticity of the 2004 video. The second link doesn't make a serious (expert) examination of the video. What is your evidence it is not genuine?
 
External Quote:

We bring to the attention of our readers the following text of Osama bin Laden’s interview with Ummat, a Pakistani daily, published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. It was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001.
The authenticity of this interview, which is available in recognized electronic news archives, is confirmed.
Osama bin Laden categorically denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.
According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the US government has stated. But the Bush administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-osama-bin-laden-denies-his-involvement-in-9-11/24697
External Quote:

First of all, Bin Laden's initial reaction to 9/11 was not to take credit for the crime at all. In fact, he continually denied any involvement in 9/11 up until the 'confession' video was mysteriously presented. Almost no one in the U.S. has read Bin Laden's first statement in response to 9/11, which so conflicts the later 'confession'. Here it is, from September 17, 2001:
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."
We've been asked to accept without question his other statements of 'confession'. So how do we make sense of the above statement? Or how do we make sense of his second public statement in regards to 9/11, given on October 16, 2001:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September 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. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
These comments obviously do not prove that Bin Laden did not orchestrate 9/11. But they do raise a crucial question. Why would a man spend six weeks denying a crime, then suddenly flip-flop 180 degrees and happily start taking responsibility for the originally denied crime? Most people - including scientists, CIA analysts, FBI, and other independent investigators, etc. - who have a working familiarity with the 'confession' video, know the answer to this question. And that is that the man in the video making the 'confession' is almost certainly not Osama Bin Laden, and the tape is a fake.

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_19.htm

Of course there is also the Official Story of his death in 2011 which many people believe was a hoax by Obama and the evidence underpinning that is very strong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_death_conspiracy_theories
Here is my favorite theory.
External Quote:
That the announcement of bin Laden's death was timed to conflict with and take Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice off the air, to punish Trump for publicly questioning the authenticity of Barack Obama's birth certificate.[28]
 
Would you mind putting in a little more effort to your posts that relate directly to a dispute by quoting the passages that to you hold the best proof? It just makes things easier when it's all laid out in the thread. Link posting is good, selecting and quoting text and a link post is even better.

(edit... the 'burial at sea' decision was a shockingly bad one, why on earth would they do that given the amount of speculation they knew would arise? F**king idiots.)
Hey Pete, at the time, I was a bit puzzled by the handling if the corpse...but looking back on it, given the circumstances, I'm not really sure I can come
up with any other solution that wouldn't produce more worse consequences. In the big picture do I really care that "speculation would arise" ? Not really.
First, in the big picture, speculation is relatively harmless, and second: if we've learned nothing from the CT crowd, it;'s that they will just make up new wackadoodle claims no matter
how obvious the truth is. If the gov filmed every moment, in 1080p, of how they disposed of OBL, and aired it internationally, the CT crowd would still say "It's faked!"...as per their script.

For my money, since OBL would have massive incentive to show that he is still alive, and potent, re. his jihad against the United States,
every day since 5/2/11 that the world doesn't see a new video of him, alive, is an additional piece of evidence that what the U.S. gov said happened to him, actually happened to him.
 
Yeah true, that simple logic should be obvious enough to put the matter to rest.

I guess it seems a simple and obvious thing for the need to give closure to such an important figure to American minds in the form of a confirmed 'death mask', but there must have been some reasoning going on behind the scenes that they wanted to avoid claims of taunting and avoid inflaming a determined retaliation. I wonder if they discussed whether the public would believe them though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top