I mean, the "evidence" is pretty shoddy. We have his original denial, from a lengthy interview on September 29, 2001:

http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html

And we have the confession which magically appeared on November 9, 2011:

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.transcript.html

Why would such an intelligent man, the founder of Al-Qaeda, allow himself to be video-taped giving a confession? Why does the quality of this videotape differ from the others? Why wouldn't administrations officials admit how they found it, or who they found it from?

Quote from a former Pakistani senator:

Quote :

""It is hard to believe that a man who masterminds the September attacks with such secrecy and finesse could be that stupid and imprudent," he said. "I hate Osama and the Taliban because they inflicted incalculable damage on Muslims ... but it is hard to digest that he can be such a fool.""

Of course, I'm not implying that the government did it, just questioning whether or not Osama did.

If you want to be truly informed, you should investigate all sides of the story.

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

5/4/2011 11:58:09 PM

it's time for you to go

5/5/2011 12:03:47 AM

Why? Did you read any of what I posted, or any of the links?

5/5/2011 12:07:51 AM

jews, new world order, etc.

5/5/2011 12:09:52 AM

^
Also immediately dismissed my post without reading anything.

I don't understand why it's out of the question to examine the information we have been given, in-depth. This kind of analysis has uncovered government lies many times in the past, and will continue to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

5/5/2011 12:14:45 AM

No, I clicked on them and realized that I was already familair with all of them.

Just like I'm already familiar with all the stuff that you just found on wikipedia.

5/5/2011 12:17:55 AM

Care to explain why you dismissed my post then? I'm completely open to other educated opinions. Not here to preach. Just trying to foster discussion between group of (mostly) intelligent individuals.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 12:30 AM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 12:21:17 AM

His original denial is only hosted by 9/11 conspiracy sites. If it's authentic then it would negate all of the audio and video tapes that are claimed to be him since then. If someone is putting out fake tapes of him you'd think that he would at least try to clear his name. This would be the story of the decade and certainly any news reporter would be willing to break it. That is of course unless all major news sources (Al Jazeera included) are controlled by the conspirators and squashed all of his attempts to do so.

In regard to the confession tape, he was filmed in a private home as a guest. Quality is different because it was made with some Afghan's VHS camera, in addition the image was compressed when subtitles were added. He also claims responsibility for the attacks in the video released the week before the 2004 election, is that one fake too?

5/5/2011 12:40:50 AM

Quote :

"His original denial is only hosted by 9/11 conspiracy sites. If it's authentic then it would negate all of the audio and video tapes that are claimed to be him since then. If someone is putting out fake tapes of him you'd think that he would at least try to clear his name. This would be the story of the decade and certainly any news reporter would be willing to break it. That is of course unless all major news sources (Al Jazeera included) are controlled by the conspirators and squashed all of his attempts to do so. "

Well it is an actual video, so I don't think it's fair to deny it solely based on where it is hosted.

Here's another denial from CNN citing his denial:
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar

And here is Cheney in 2006 (after the 2004 video) saying "The evidence has never been forthcoming"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4646091253905495376

Quote :

" Tony Snow: "I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?" Dick Cheney: "That's correct. "We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming." —WhiteHouse.gov, The Tony Snow Show, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.htm "

Quote :

"In regard to the confession tape, he was filmed in a private home as a guest. Quality is different because it was made with some Afghan's VHS camera, in addition the image was compressed when subtitles were added."

Good points.

Quote :

"He also claims responsibility for the attacks in the video released the week before the 2004 election, is that one fake too?"

See above audio of Dick Cheney. Also, the timing of this video's release is pretty fishy, don't you think? One week before the election...it caused Bush's ratings to rise 6 points.

5/5/2011 1:03:19 AM

Quote :

"Well it is an actual video, so I don't think it's fair to deny it solely based on where it is hosted."

Do you have the video? I've only seen a transcript.

Quote :

"Also, the timing of this video's release is pretty fishy, don't you think? One week before the election...it caused Bush's ratings to rise 6 points."

Al Qaeda has tried to influence elections. See the Madrid bombing.

5/5/2011 1:12:59 AM

His original denials are well documented by mainstream sources. The confession is actually the suspicious part: http://youtube.com/watch?v=x0FVeqCX6z8

Just read the Wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_and_audio_recordings_of_Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-0

Honestly, this December 13th video seems fake. Writing with wrong hand? Wearing a metallic ring that would be prohibited by Islam? His beard is darker and he just looks slightly different. I'm not buying it, and this is the only place that he has actually confessed to 9-11.

5/5/2011 1:15:21 AM

dude often wore a gold ring on his right hand

5/5/2011 1:21:45 AM

^^
OBL does look different in that video, and I don't know of him admitting responsibility for the 9/11 attacks aside from that particular one.

\/

Quote :

"The tape... contains bin Laden's first public acknowledgment of al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the U.S., noting that he first thought about attacking the World Trade Center in 1982, after watching Israeli aircraft bomb Lebanon during the 1982 Invasion of Lebanon: 'While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women.'"

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 1:48 AM. Reason : /quote]

5/5/2011 1:31:34 AM

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

5/5/2011 1:34:31 AM

Quote :

"Do you have the video? I've only seen a transcript."

Sorry, I got mixed up. The first link I posted was a September 28 interview, which was published in the Ummat newspaper. Supposedly questions were sent to the Taliban and Osama responded, but its authenticity is disputed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummat_(newspaper)

The September 16 video, which the CNN article references, is not disputed.

What do you think about this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4646091253905495376

Nevermind, did more research and apparently it was in reference to a question about Saddam Hussein--he misspoke.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 1:48 AM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 1:39:50 AM

Quote :

"The September 16 video, which the CNN article references, is not disputed."

What video? CNN says that it was a statement issued to Al Jazeera.

5/5/2011 1:59:53 AM

^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_and_audio_recordings_of_Osama_bin_Laden#September_16.2C_2001

The statement was a video.

5/5/2011 7:20:19 AM

Quote :

"Tony Snow: "I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?" Dick Cheney: "That's correct. "We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming." —WhiteHouse.gov, The Tony Snow Show, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.htm "

Didn't they later admit that this intel was bad? And Cheney would have no reason to try to link the 9/11 terrorists with Iraq?

Also, it isn't disputed that he originally denied responsibility. I'm sure everyone under the sun that looked like the *might* have been involved immediately denied responsibility.

Unless you're suggesting all the videos of him taking responsibility, and training with 2 of the 9/11 terrorists are doctored the evidence suggests that he initially denied responsibility, but then upon seeing us go after Al-Qaeda anyway, admitted responsibility.

Quote :

"""It is hard to believe that a man who masterminds the September attacks with such secrecy and finesse could be that stupid and imprudent," he said. "I hate Osama and the Taliban because they inflicted incalculable damage on Muslims ... but it is hard to digest that he can be such a fool."""

Pakistan was hiding the fucker and they look like shitheads. I wonder why they would try to make us look bad?

5/5/2011 9:03:41 AM

Quote :

"Didn't they later admit that this intel was bad? And Cheney would have no reason to try to link the 9/11 terrorists with Iraq?"

Yeah, check my later posts. It was actually in reference to a question about Saddam Hussein, and he accidentally said Osama.

Quote :

"Unless you're suggesting all the videos of him taking responsibility, and training with 2 of the 9/11 terrorists are doctored the evidence suggests that he initially denied responsibility, but then upon seeing us go after Al-Qaeda anyway, admitted responsibility."

If one or two videos are disputed, it's not really a stretch to say they all are.

Quote :

"Pakistan was hiding the fucker and they look like shitheads. I wonder why they would try to make us look bad?"

It should be noted that the referenced senator was Iqbal Haider, under prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who was ousted before any of this happened. It doesn't really matter who said it, though--the point he makes is what matters.

5/5/2011 9:21:12 AM

Why would it be stupid for a terrorist to claim responsibility for their terrorists acts again? This point is lost on me.

5/5/2011 9:27:28 AM

I'm seriously embarrassed that I've responded to posts by adultswim and d357r0y3r. I had no idea this forum was that far gone.

5/5/2011 9:43:07 AM

^
Another person who didn't read anything and doesn't care to respond intelligently.

5/5/2011 9:46:55 AM

Didn't you hear? lazarus reads blogs and public news outlets for a living and then tells goons at DHS what they want to hear

Get ready to pheel his rage and the full force of the official US narrative

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 10:13:39 AM

You too?

5/5/2011 10:17:00 AM

I can't believe we're having this conversation once again, after 10 years

5/5/2011 10:21:24 AM

DIDN'T. READ. POST.

Another thing to consider: The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001. The first video of Osama's "confession" came out December. The government has shown ZERO evidence of Osama's involvement prior to that video. Even if he was responsible, we entered Afghanistan with absolutely no evidence, and after he denied responsibility. Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 10:32:37 AM

thread has been unlocked. for those of you who find this thread offensive to your TSB sensibilities, you may offer your opinion in message_topic.aspx?topic=612491. Otherwise, please leave this thread to those who wish to evaluate the subject on its merits

5/6/2011 12:00:40 AM

Al Qaeda was the target. Afghanistan was given the option to extradite Al-Qaeda's top men and they refused.

Before the invasion:

-He made unspecific threats of terrorist attacks against NYC and DC
-He signed a public fatwa, specifically calling for the killing of North Americans
-Evidence gathered from several foiled bombing plots in the years prior to 9-11 provided solid indication that Osama was instrumental in planning several attacks against US allies
-Confessions from arrested Bosnian Mujahedeen terrorists further tied bin laden with multiple terrorist attacks on US allies.
-He was indicted by a grand jury as the prime motivator of the USS Cole and US Embassy bombings, and deeply involved in the 1993 WTC attack. He was put on the US most wanted list.
-He was indicted by a grand jury for multiple bombings against US targets in Saudi Arabia and Kenya. Evidence included testimony by former Al-Qaeda members and audio transcripts.
-The hijackers were identified within hours, all persons with known ties to Al-Qaeda
-He praised the 9/11 attacks in a public statement
-In the days following the attack, the US, UK and German governments each intercepted telephone conversations and emails implicating OBL and persons with close ties to him.
-His family disowned him

After the invasion:

-There are two video confessions. The authenticity of the October 29, 2004 video has been verified repeatedly by multiple independent researchers.
-There are further audio recordings implicating him
-He praised the attacks again

5/6/2011 12:47:03 AM

Quote :

"-He signed a public fatwa, specifically calling for the killing of North Americans"

You're right, he did. This was in reference to "occupiers", though. Not civilians on American soil.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

"there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land"

"Today your brothers and sons, the sons of the two Holy Places, have started their Jihad in the cause of Allah, to expel the occupying enemy from of the country of the two Holy places. "

"the occupying American enemy is the principle and the main cause of the situation . Therefore efforts should be concentrated on destroying, fighting and killing the enemy until, by the Grace of Allah, it is completely defeated"

"It is now clear that those who claim that the blood of the American solders (the enemy occupying the land of the Muslims) should be protected are merely repeating what is imposed on them by the regime; fearing the aggression and interested in saving themselves. It is a duty now on every tribe in the Arab Peninsula to fight, Jihad, in the cause of Allah and to cleanse the land from those occupiers"

Quote :

"-He was indicted by a grand jury as the prime motivator of the USS Cole and US Embassy bombings, and deeply involved in the 1993 WTC attack. He was put on the US most wanted list."

Indictment is an accusation, not a conviction.

Quote :

"-The hijackers were identified within hours, all persons with known ties to Al-Qaeda"

You mean these hijackers?

http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

Quote :

"-His family disowned him"

Not sure how this is relevant or incriminatory.


I need sources for these claims:

Quote :

"-He made unspecific threats of terrorist attacks against NYC and DC"

Quote :

"-Evidence gathered from several foiled bombing plots in the years prior to 9-11 provided solid indication that Osama was instrumental in planning several attacks against US allies"

Quote :

"-Confessions from arrested Bosnian Mujahedeen terrorists further tied bin laden with multiple terrorist attacks on US allies."

Quote :

"-In the days following the attack, the US, UK and German governments each intercepted telephone conversations and emails implicating OBL and persons with close ties to him."

Quote :

"-He praised the 9/11 attacks in a public statement"

5/6/2011 2:06:09 PM

Before responding to the OP, please read the following:

http://factspluslogic.com/articles/11/why-argue-the-911-conspiracy-theory

It gives a good set of guidelines on how you can argue with someone whose ideas you beleive are at complete odds with reality without completely shutting down the discussion. Actually, these "rules" serve as decent argument etiquette in general.

Part of the particular problem here is that there are valid points (rule 6) and arguments to be made regarding the overemphasis on Bin Ladin as the mastermind behind 9/11. KSM was actually far more important in the planning and logistics as well as personally providing the financing for the operation - hence there is some validity to the argument that the portrayal of UBL as the ringleader of that operation is not entirely consistent with intelligence before and after the attack.

Still, it is disingenuous to suggest that the evidence points to an organization independent of Al Qaeda or that UBL was not at least ostensibly and politically in charge of that organization. The operation itself was a tactical one financed and planned at that level primarily by KSM and his direct associates; it was however completely in line with the strategic level orders and directives set out by UBL - of which KSM was an adherent and whom KSM was working under.

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 2:33 PM. Reason : ]

5/6/2011 2:32:07 PM

^^You're done. You believe false information as long as it supports the conclusions you've already reached. Read the fucking update:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

Quote :

" A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI. The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy. We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report. We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names. In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time. We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers."

You don't need sources for shit, when you cite bullshit conspiracy sites as sources. You need your head examined.

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 3:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2011 3:22:20 PM

^
I will not believe false information. If anything I post is shown to be false, or dubious I will admit it. I'm not making any definitive claims. I have an interest in the truth, which means verifying the information I am given, regardless of what theory it supports. My hypothesis is that the official story is false. I operate on the principles of science. I will gladly admit that my hypothesis is incorrect if it is proven to be so. The purpose of this thread is not to prove that I'm right or you're wrong. I want to get my facts straight.

Quote :

"You don't need sources for shit, when you cite bullshit conspiracy sites as sources."

The "bullshit conspiracy site" I posted has sources. There are many other sources and stories, other than the one you disputed. I haven't actually read them all myself, yet. It's a lot of information to wade through.

Quote :

"We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers"

"The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

I would like to read more about this, if you can find anything. As it stands, an anonymous FBI statement is not convincing (much like you doubted anonymous official statements in the other thread). The fact that they did not bring up the issue of doubt in the inquiries is also not convincing. It just means they didn't discuss it.

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 3:46 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2011 3:46:09 PM

Quote :

"Why would such an intelligent man, the founder of Al-Qaeda, allow himself to be video-taped giving a confession?"

This is amazing. You're dubious that one individual could have made a mistake and release a big secret. That's "hard to digest." But the idea that hundreds or thousands of people could orchestrate a vast conspiracy to convince the world of Osama's guilt without any of them releasing the truth? That you're willing to entertain on the basis of essentially no evidence.

Quote :

"Why wouldn't administrations officials admit how they found it, or who they found it from?"

Yes, when you get a good intelligence source inside a terrorist organization the first thing you should do is announce his identity to the world. Otherwise, how would the terrorists be able to thank him for his loyalty?

5/6/2011 4:00:30 PM

Your hypothesis in this case was "these attackers?" indicating that you believe the terrorists officially identified by the FBI, the 9/11 commission, and countless others are actually alive and well. Which is horseshit.

Quote :

"The "bullshit conspiracy site" I posted has sources"

Yeah, erroneous articles corrected days later and mentioned again by the publisher as incorrect years later after shithole websites like the one you referenced keep digging it up. Not all sources are created equal, bub. As long as it supports "9/11 was an inside job" it doesn't matter whether it's true, right?

Quote :

""The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.""

Since you like to read so much, why don't you start by the very next sentence:
Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers"

Also, in the link I provided there are these things called hyperlinks which highlight certain phrases like "full report", "executive summary and main findings", "a detailed guide to what's known about what happened on that day." From the very people that your source-laden site used as a reference regarding the topic.

We have conclusively identified every terrorist from 9/11, which planes they were on, and what they did on those planes. There is no controversy here.

Quote :

"I would like to read more about this, if you can find anything. As it stands, an anonymous FBI statement is not convincing (much like you doubted anonymous official statements in the other thread). The fact that they did not bring up the issue of doubt in the inquiries is also not convincing. It just means they didn't discuss it."

You're a tool. The page I gave you was the BBC telling you that the original page from the BBC your awesome site referenced was wrong. They weren't using the "anonymous" FBI statement as proof of anything. They were giving you the FBI's stance on the issue of doubt. There is none.

And it's not anonymous, the writer of the article simply didn't cite with whom they spoke. But according to the BBC that is the FBI's official statement on the matter. Unless you're going to suggest that the BBC got the statement wrong and is unreliable (but that would be a pain since the original page referenced by your awesome website came from where again?)

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM. Reason : the bbc]

5/6/2011 4:01:20 PM

I'm being extremely civil considering the attacks that are being made on my character. I'd appreciate it if we could have an honest discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

Quote :

"Yeah, erroneous articles corrected days later and mentioned again by the publisher as incorrect years later."

The only thing that was corrected in the one source you mentioned (and their are many other sources you've ignored) was the following:

Quote :

"In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time. We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers."

I quote my previous post:

Quote :

"As it stands, an anonymous FBI statement is not convincing (much like you doubted anonymous official statements in the other thread). The fact that they did not bring up the issue of doubt in the inquiries is also not convincing. It just means they didn't discuss it."

I meant I wanted more information about the FBI statement.

Also, the 9/11 commission has been heavily criticized:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

Quote :

"And it's not anonymous, the writer of the article simply didn't cite with whom they spoke. But according to the BBC that is the FBI's official statement on the matter."

When has the FBI ever made an anonymous official statement? Usually they give the name of the FBI administrator making the statement. Anyways, it's not important. All the FBI said was "We have the right people". If I'm curious whether or not the official story is the truth, why would accept a single statement like that as fact?

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2011 4:14:45 PM

Repost from Feedback Forum:

When have I ever been unreasonable in my arguments? People seem to think I'm coming to definite conclusions here, which I'm not. A lot of people in the world are convinced that there is something weird about the official 9/11 story, and I've just decided to investigate those claims in an un-biased manner rather than brush them off as I have in the past.

I'd like you all to keep that in mind before you call me a nutjob like GrumpyGOP did.

5/6/2011 4:22:13 PM

Quote :

"The only thing that was corrected in the one source you mentioned (and their are many other sources you've ignored) was the following:"

Quote :

"We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm) In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report."

Quote :

"I meant I wanted more information about the FBI statement."

You need more information that the FBI corroborates what is detailed by the 9/11 commision, every other real investigation into the issue, the current wikipedia site entry on 9/11? What else do you need to know?

Quote :

"All the FBI said was "We have the right people". If I'm curious whether or not the official story is the truth, why would accept a single statement like that as fact?"

I'm accepting it as fact, that 5 years after 9/11 the editors at BBC created an editorial to debunk the citation of an erroneous article they published. In this editorial, they claimed that the FBI stands by their original conclusion. That point isn't even arguable.

Quote :

"A lot of people in the world are convinced that there is something weird about the official 9/11 story, and I've just decided to investigate those claims in an un-biased manner rather than brush them off as I have in the past. "

A lot of people in the world believe in false things. That a claim exists does not mean it is automatically worth investigating.


[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2011 4:26:23 PM

Quote :

"As long as it supports "9/11 was an inside job" it doesn't matter whether it's true, right?"

Credulity always disguises itself as honest skepticism. The same people who refuse to buy the official story under any circumstances are the same people who are willing to believe just about anything else.

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ]

5/6/2011 4:43:27 PM

Quote :

"Credulity always disguises itself as honest skepticism. The same people who refuse to buy the official story are usually the same people who are willing to believe just about anything else."

Lazarus, you obviously have not read this thread, so do not make false assumptions.

5/6/2011 4:44:29 PM

I've read more of your ignorant babbling than I'd like to admit. There is a difference between being open-minded and being so uninformed about an issue that you're willing to accept all theories as potentially valid.

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 4:49 PM. Reason : ]

5/6/2011 4:45:44 PM

Right. I'm the one who's ignorant because I'm examining both sides.

Quote :

"I will not believe false information. If anything I post is shown to be false, or dubious I will admit it. I'm not making any definitive claims. I have an interest in the truth, which means verifying the information I am given, regardless of what theory it supports. My hypothesis is that the official story is false. I operate on the principles of science. I will gladly admit that my hypothesis is incorrect if it is proven to be so. The purpose of this thread is not to prove that I'm right or you're wrong. I want to get my facts straight."

Quote :

"When have I ever been unreasonable in my arguments? People seem to think I'm coming to definite conclusions here, which I'm not. A lot of people in the world are convinced that there is something weird about the official 9/11 story, and I've just decided to investigate those claims in an un-biased manner rather than brush them off as I have in the past. "

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 4:49 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2011 4:48:48 PM

Quote :

"There is a difference between being open-minded and being so uninformed about an issue that you're willing to accept all theories as potentially valid."

5/6/2011 4:50:00 PM

Then admit you were wrong about any of the identified hijackers still being alive and that your rebuttal to Lumex regarding their ties to Al-Qaeda was unfounded.

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2011 4:51:30 PM

That's why this thread is here. I completely admit that I'm inadequately informed. If anything I post has been refuted or is incorrect, PLEASE inform me. Don't just skim over shit and say I'm stupid for considering different arguments. That's ridiculous.

5/6/2011 4:53:13 PM

9/11 conspiracies are not reasonable inquiry. They're quackery of the highest order, rife with, as I have already illustrated, false information and deceit to support a fantasy that is not consistent with the evidence.

5/6/2011 5:00:59 PM

Quote :

"A lot of people in the world believe in false things. That a claim exists does not mean it is automatically worth investigating."

sure. but this thread's claim isn't about Elvis hiding out somewhere in Oklahoma, or gold mining aliens from Nibiru.

its about stuff that directly led us into a still no-end-in-sight war. an area our country doesn't have a sterling record in totally being honest about.

5/6/2011 5:02:22 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/

So let's see: on September 10th, 2011, the Bush admin decides that it's going to launch an offensive campaign in Afghanistan, aimed at extracting Bin Laden, and if that didn't work, they'd just topple the Taliban. They day after, the attacks happen. The same day:

Quote :

"At 2:40 p.m. in the afternoon of September 11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was issuing rapid orders to his aides to look for evidence of Iraqi involvement, according to notes taken by senior policy official Stephen Cambone. "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." — meaning Saddam Hussein — "at same time. Not only UBL" (Osama bin Laden), Cambone's notes quoted Rumsfeld as saying. "Need to move swiftly — Near term target needs — go massive — sweep it all up. Things related and not."[167][168]"

So, within hours of the attacks, Rumsfeld had made the decision that Osama bin Laden, and apparently Hussein, were the main suspects. According to Wikipedia:

Quote :

"The investigators were quickly able to link the 19 men to the terrorist organization al Qaeda, by accessing their intelligence agency files. The New York Times reported on September 12 that: "Authorities said they had also identified accomplices in several cities who had helped plan and execute Tuesday’s attacks. Officials said they knew who these people were and important biographical details about many of them. They prepared biographies of each identified member of the hijack teams, and began tracing the recent movements of the men." FBI agents in Florida investigating the hijackers quickly "descended on flight schools, neighborhoods and restaurants in pursuit of leads." At one flight school, "students said investigators were there within hours of Tuesday’s attacks."[11] The Washington Post later reported that "In the hours after Tuesday’s bombings, investigators searched their files on [Satam] Al Suqami and [Ahmed] Alghamdi, noted the pair’s ties to [Nabil] al-Marabh and launched a hunt for him."[12] On September 27, 2001, the FBI released photos of the 19 hijackers, along with information about the possible nationalities and aliases of many.[13] On the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies also intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.[14] It was quickly asserted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, and other suspects were ruled out. Although he denied the attacks at first, Osama bin Laden has purportedly admitted full and sole responsibility for the attacks in a video tape.[15]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM#Linking_the_hijackers_to_al_Qaeda

For that #14 citation, there is no actual citation. It just says "CBS news" with no link.

Quote :

"9/11 conspiracies are not reasonable inquiry. They're quackery of the highest order, rife with, as I have already illustrated, false information and deceit to support a fantasy that is not consistent with the evidence."

Why are you so afraid of honest inquiry, in this instance? Who do you think you're defending?

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM. Reason : ]

5/6/2011 5:13:14 PM

Quote :

"Don't just skim over shit and say I'm stupid for considering different arguments. That's ridiculous."

You presented an argument in your first post that can only be called stupid. It was a collection of non-evidence, bad sources, and crazed logic. It was not evidence of open-mindedness; it was a display of conspiracy-minded mania more often associated with (why not?) poor, undereducated Pakistanis.

Essential to my worldview is the idea that human beings are deserving and capable of living with dignity. People like you make it harder for me to be persuasive on that point.

5/6/2011 5:16:04 PM

Quote :

"Then admit you were wrong about any of the identified hijackers still being alive and that your rebuttal to Lumex regarding their ties to Al-Qaeda was unfounded."

Again...I don't consider a single anonymous FBI statement to be adequate evidence, and I don't consider the 9/11 commission to be a valid resource, because it has been heavily criticized. Two of the commissioners themselves thought it was set up to fail. The fact that they didn't consider any doubts about the identities of the hijackers is irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote :

"The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail. In their book "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" describing their experience serving, Hamilton listed a number of reasons for reaching this conclusion, including: the late establishment of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed on its work; the insufficient funds (3 million dollars), initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested additional funds but received only a fraction of the funds requested and the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who opposed the establishment of the Commission; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; the deception of the Commission by various key government agencies, including the Department of Defense, NORAD and the FAA; and, the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

This is apparently how they discovered the identities of two of the hijackers:

Quote :

"Suqami's passport survived the crash and landed on the street below. The passport, soaked in jet fuel, was picked up from the street by a passerby who gave it to a New York City Police Department (NYPD) detective shortly before the South Tower collapsed."

It just fell down from the plane onto the street? Miraculous.

Quote :

"Investigators retrieved Mohamed Atta's luggage that was not loaded onto the flight. In Atta's luggage they found Omari's passport and driver's license, a videocassette for a Boeing 757 flight simulator, a folding knife, and pepper spray."

Why wasn't his luggage loaded? Why the hell was Omari's passport and driver's license in Atta's luggage? Why would he have this stuff to implicate himself if Osama planned to deny the attacks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11#Aftermath

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 5:20 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2011 5:19:42 PM

Quote :

"It just fell down from the plane onto the street? Miraculous."

Evidence that contradicts your theory is actually evidence that supports your theory. Yet another common theme among conspiracy-minded crackpots.

5/6/2011 5:29:04 PM